Nikolov, A. Making a new basileus: the case of Symeon of Bulgaria (893-927) reconsidered. – In: Rome, Constantinople and Newly converted Europe. Archeological and Historical Evidence. Vol. I. Ed. by M. Salamon, M. Wołoszyn, A. Musin, P. Špehar. Kraków-Leipzig-Rzeszów-Warszawa, 2012, 101-108

Bulgarian Historical Review 51/1-2, 2023

Information on the relations between the Bulgarian Tsardom, crusaders, Byzantines and Serbs in Latin sources on the crusade of Frederick Barbarossa contain exclusive data relating to the political history and the structure of the state of Peter and Asen in 1189-1190. Due to the uniqueness of these data, their value is of great importance for revealing a number of events and details from this particularly interesting and eventful period. Most of the researchers so far, however, seem to have neglected some of the details hidden in these sources and often show through their writings that they have been subject to the inertia of the historiographical tradition. The present study may also have certain shortcomings or controversial elements, yet it is an attempt on the one hand to thoroughly and punctually study the information about the Bulgarian state in the main written sources tracking the Balkan part of Frederick I's crusade, and on the other hand to chronologize, locate and analyze historical events and geographic indicators according to the context. In conclusion, the following assumptions are made: most of the attackers of the pilgrims in the region called Bulgarian Forest were probably representatives of criminal contingent; it is highly unlikely that the Bulgarian ruler sent envoys to the Western emperor in Niš; Peter probably asked the Staufer monarch to bestow on him the crown of the emperor in Constantinople in order to provide significant military assistance to help the crusaders conquer the Byzantine capital. The rebellion in Philadelphia and the crusaders' campaign undoubtedly played a role in the development of the Bulgarian-Byzantine conflict, postponing military activity for several months. Despite the efforts at a diplomatic level, the Bulgarian rulers didn't manage to take advantage of the presence of the pilgrims on the Balkan Peninsula and to gain lasting positives for themselves.

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

The Good Christian Ruler in the First Millennium

1I ntroduction As in other medieval societies that converted to Christianity duringt he earlyM iddle Ages, the imageofthe good Christian ruler in the First Bulgarian Tsardom was closely linked to the process of Christianisation, which took place in the ninth and early tenth centuries. The main virtues of the Christian ruler weren aturallyd erivedf rom the Byzantine world, wherethe process of (re-)Christianisation started. While during the short period between 866 and 870W estern and mainlypapal influences playeda significant role, the main role model of the Christian ruler in Bulgaria was the Byzantine emperor.The Bulgarian ruler aimeda ti mitating and, as in the case of Symeon the Great (893-927), even surpassingt he imageo fh is great neighbour.¹ Despite dependence on the Constantinopolitan model in terms of Christian virtues, however, the imageo ft he good Christian ruler in Bulgaria developed in as pecific and particular wayt hats erveda sarole model for laterc enturies. Especiallya fter the decline and fall of the First Bulgarian Tsardom in 1018 and its renaissancea tt he end of the twelfth century,t he first Christian rulers weret aken as good examples of Christian rulership in order to create political continuity and stability.² The Christian ruler was, in fact,not much different from his pagan predecessor. The successfulr uler justified his rule through military victories,t hough the role of the Roman Emperorc hanged after the adoption of Christianityf rom emphasizing

"Vox Patrum" 84, 2022, pp. 105–122

This article focuses on the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I (893-927), who in the second half of his reign entered into a protracted military and ideological conflict with the Byzantine Empire. He wished not only to extend his dominions at the expense of his southern neighbour, but also to equal it in titulature, and it is possible – although scholars differ on this point – that his aspirations reached even further, namely Constantinople itself. Either way, Bulgaria under his reign posed a serious threat to Byzantium and was its main antagonist. The death of the Tsar in 927 and the conclusion of peace with the Empire by his son, Peter I (927–969), finally put an end to the conflict between both the states. The celebrations marking the conclusion of the agreement provided an opportunity to recapitulate. In a rhe- torical speech written for the occasion, Simeon’s actions and aspirations were severely criticised – through comparisons to figures from ancient literature and biblical texts, the Byzantine speaker discredited the attitude of this ruler. Comparisons to characters who aroused negative connotations in listeners and readers deprived Simeon of all the virtues belonging to a Christian ruler and, above all, of the cardinal ones by which he should, above all, legitimise himself.

[in:] The Bulgarian State in 927–969. The Epoch of Tsar Peter I, eds M.J. Leszka, K. Marinow, Łódź-Kraków 2018, pp. 435-456.

The paper compares the content and the structure of the three extant South Slavonic Synodika: Boril’s Synodikon as preserved in the so-called Palauzov copy of the 14th century (НБКМ № 289); Drinov’s Synodikon (НБКМ № 432), previously considered to be a 16th century copy of Boril’s Synodikon, and the recently published South Slavonic Synodikon from the 16th century, kept in the library of the Romanian Academy of Sciences (BAR MS. SL. 307). The comparison is supported by a table showing the rubrics and their order in the three Synodika. It demonstrates that while Boril’s Synodikon is based on a translation of Comnenian version of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, and while the South Slavonic Synodikon from Romania must be unequivocally attributed to the later Palaeologan version of the Greek text, the so-called Drinov copy represents a compilation of Boril’s Synodikon in its 14th version and the Palaeologan Synodikon. In fact, Drinov’s Synodikon contains all of the important interpolations and insertions of Boril’s Synodikon related to specifically Bulgarian circumstances and history, ranging from anti-Bogomilist anathemas to a list of Bulgarian rulers (comprising two historical accounts as well). Its initial part, however, follows the Palaelogan text preserved in BAR MS. SL. The unknown compiler obviously targeted a Bulgarian audience; in all likelihood, he was Bulgarian himself. Some textological features common to both Drinov’s and Palaelogan Synodikon suggest that the translated part of Drinov’s Synodikon and the Romanian Synodikon must have had a common antigraph. The latter fact allows us to conclude that the translation of the Palaeologan version of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy is an integral part of the tradition of the Bulgarian Synodikon; the presumed common antigraph was written in Bulgarian Tărnovo orthography, traces of which are found in Drinov’s text. As to the location of this translation, we can only speculate that it might have been completed in a monastic centre different than Tărnovo by the end of the 14th century. Keywords: Synodikon of Orthodoxy, Palaeologan and Comnenian versions of the Synodikon, Bulgarian translations and versions of the Synodikon.

2006

The present paper first highlights the historical background of the process of Christianization Bulgaria, and compares the two main sources of the missionary intentions: the epistle by Phontius and the Responsa Nicolai Papae I. ad Consulta Bulgarorum. An outline of the conflict between Pope Nicholas I and Patriarch Photios evolved on Bulgaria's ecclesiastical affiliation will help to understand how the papacy's attention turned towards the Slavonic mission, and, in this context, the position taken by Methodius towards the Pope, the Byzantine emperor and the Eastern Frankish ruler as well as the Archbishopric of Salzburg and its bishops. The Bulgarians assumed Christianity in the second half of the ninth century, during the reign of khan Boris I. The progress of the missionary work carried out among them faithfully reflects the current conflict between Rome and Byzantium. The Bulgarians, who had a relatively low population, came from a Turk ethnic group, had subjected the Slavonic people to their rule, and settled on the territory of the once Moesia, Scythia, Thracia and Macedonia during the rule of Krum (803-814) and Omurtag (814-831). 1 The proportion of the Christian population that survived the Bulgarian conquest cannot be determined. On the other hand, in order to reinforce his rule Krum already tried rely on the Slavs, who were more open to Christianity, against the Bulgarian boyars. This, however, led to the persecution of the Christians and fierce counter reaction during the reign of his son, Omurtag. Since the Bulgarians were afraid that the Christians would establish too close relations with the neighboring Byzantium having great power. As part of the persecution Christians living on several territories bordering on Byzantium were transferred to the northern parts of the Bulgar lands. Khan Boris (852-889) took further actions to support Christianity. His decision might have been motivated by the following reasons: Firstly, through the clergy loyal to the prince he would be able to influence the population, and the centralized ecclesiastical organization could be instrumental in driving back the Bulgarians; secondly, Christian religion seemed to provide a channel for merging the Slavs and the Bulgarians; thirdly, the Christian ruler's wide power made known to Boris both 2 Dopsch, H.: Slawenmission und päpstliche Politik-Zu den Hintergründen des Methodios-Konfliktes.

[in:] Стандарти на всекидневието през Средновековието и Новото време/ Standards of Everyday Life in the Middle Ages and in Modern Times, t. 3, ред. К. Мутафова, Н. Христова, И. Иванов, Г. Георгиева, Велико Търново 2014, pp. 271–283.

The year 927 brought a peace treaty between Byzantium and Bulgaria, which ended many years of military struggle between both the states. On this occasion, Theodore Daphnopates, a prominent representative of the intellectual elite of Constantinople of the first half of X century, delivered a speech praising the newly concluded agreement. By means of a variety of hints not only to ancient history and literature but also to the Bible, the speaker explained reasons which led the conflict between both the states, lamented sad consequences of numerous military operations conducted over the years of the past war, as well as elaborating on the importance of the newly established peace. Daphnopates wanted to convince those who heard his declamation that these were only the Byzantines who made up the new nation chosen by God and the new spiritual “House of Israel”. On the other hand, the Bulgarians were compared to a mere scion, which only recently had been grafted onto the stock of the vine tree of Jesse. The Byzantines were pictured as fathers and teachers in faith of the Bulgarians and the speaker wanted to imply that the latter would remain blessed by the Lord and their state would flourish only on condition that they remained faithful by the side of the empire and in unity with it. It is essential, however, that by means of the statement, the speaker included the Bulgarians into the hierarchic order established on Earth by God himself. On the other hand, he also pointed clearly that it was their fidelity to Byzantium that enabled them to enjoy the wise lead and firm protection of the empire. In orator’s opinion the peace concluded in 927 was a genuine miracle sent from God, which by no means should be disregarded, and any attempt to diminish its importance has to be condemned as a heavy sin. The speaker maintained that the survival of this peaceful coexistence was an important task to which both the involved parts were obliged to apply themselves seriously in the future. Since peace was always an eternal attribute of God himself, the establishment of this hopefully ever-lasting treaty, which was supposed to entirely eliminate war from the relations between the Byzantines and Bulgarians, was an actual act of imitation of the Lord’s activities, and by virtue of that achievement both the states moved closer to become similar to God.

Studia Ceranea, 7, 2017, 161–168.

In the first quarter of the 10 c. the first Slavic collection of homilies of John Chrysostom was compiled. It was called Zlatostruy, which means Chrysorrhoas or Golden Stream. In previous studies the Zlatostruy was noted mostly for its Preface, whereby the Bulgarian Tsar Symeon (893-927) is named initiator of the gathering the initial Corpus Chrysostomicum and author of its name. The importance of the Zlatostruy collection is supported not only by the Preface, which may be considered of more or less ideological value. It is substantiated by means of a comprehensive text-critical and comparative analysis that endeavors to reconstruct the history of the collection and reveal further detail about the textual history of the homilies from the Byzantine originals to the later Slavic copies. In this paper I shift the focus to those features that are related to the flourishing of the 10 c. Bulgarian literary tradition and the successful adoption of Byzantine literary models.