Bulgarian Ruler Research Articles

Между „заплаха“ и „герой“: княз Александър І Български и Германия

In 1879, when Alexander von Battenberg became ruler of Bulgaria as a compromise decision of the European powers in their search for balance, he faced a difficult situation. It took him a lot of strength to handle the different crises. When the long-term break with Russia occurred, he tried to achieve the cooperation of Germany. He had friends in Berlin, but he also had even more powerful enemies. The analysis of sources that have not yet been evaluated on the topic shows that Alexander I waited with hope for the change of the throne in Berlin. This is because the political plans of the Crown Prince’s family were also connected with Bulgaria and his career. A high-level political game began, which put Alexander at the centre of the politics of the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck for years, as well as of European relations. This power struggle, marked by intrigues and threats, was to end in the defeat of Alexander and his allies. The Bulgarian ruler was forced to abdicate, not so much because of his own mistakes, but as a result of the conflicts among the Great Powers and their efforts to maintain balance. The whole situation had negative consequences for Bismarck’s political course as well.

INFORMATION ABOUT TSAR IVAN ASEN II IN THE RUSSIAN CHRONOGRAPH

Ivan Asen II is the only Bulgarian ruler to whose reign a separate paragraph in the Russian Chronograph is dedicated. The information is taken from the First Prologue Life of St. John of Rila, the Prologue and Euthymius’ Life of St. Petka and others. He is presented as one of the most powerful Slavic rulers. Attention is drawn to the news that he ordered Theodore I Laskaris to be blinded. The name of the king is also found in two paragraphs on the history of Serbia, compiled on the basis of Theodosius' life of St. Sava. The information from the Chronograph is used in the Nikon Chronicle and in some Serbian collections.

МОНГОЛСКА ИНВАЗИЈА И СМРТ ИВАНА АСЕНА II: ЈЕДАН ЗАНЕМАРЕНИ ИЗВОР THE MONGOL INVASION AND DEATH OF JOHN ASEN II: A NEGLECTED SOURCE

This paper discusses a passage from the poem De triumphis ecclesiae by John of Garland, a medieval intellectual and professor in Paris, compiled in ca. 1252, and referring to the Mongol invasion and the death of the enygmatic “leader of Thrace”. In the text, it is concluded that the enigmatic person, mentioned by the author, is the Bulgarian ruler John Asen II (1218-1241). Along with the writings of Cistercite monk Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, chronicler Philippe Mouskes and Byzantine historian George Akropolites, the poem of John of Garland is the fourth source in which the death of the Bulgarian ruler is recorded. Besides, it is the only text in which the death of John Asen II is associated with the Mongol invasion.

"From the grandson of the Sun King to the chorbadzhia from Debar (The transformation of the Europeanizer Prince Ferdinand Saxe-Coburg-Gotha from a European aristocrat into a Bulgarian ruler)"

"From the grandson of the Sun King to the chorbadzhia from Debar (The transformation of the Europeanizer Prince Ferdinand Saxe-Coburg-Gotha from a European aristocrat into a Bulgarian ruler)"

Late Byzantium Reconsidered: The Arts of the Palaiologan Era in the Mediterranean

<i>Late Byzantium Reconsidered: The Arts of the Palaiologan Era in the Mediterranean</i>

Podpora tronu? Kwestia lojalności armii bułgarskiej podczas kryzysu państwa w latach 1885–1886

[The pillar of throne? The question of loyalty of the Bulgarian army during the state crisis in 1885–1886] In 1885, as a result of the unification of northern and southern Bulgaria without the consent of European powers, the political tensions in the Balkans successively increased. One of the consequences was the outbreak of Serbian‑Bulgarian war. The victory of Bulgarians paradoxically contributed to the deep crisis in the country and led to the abdication of Prince Alexander von Battenberg. A group of officers played an active role in these events. In August 1886 they carried out a coup d’état and the abdication of ruler. Soon a counter‑attack was organized, and the political power fell into the hands of politicians sympathizing with Prince Alexander. The dethroned ruler returned to the country. However, the persisting state of tensions and pressure from Russia forced the prince to abdicate again. The article presents the process of growing crisis of the Bulgarian state and the course of coup d’etat aimed at depriving the Bulgarian ruler of power, its consequences, as well as explaining the motives of conspirators.

On One Byzantine Rhetorical Gambit to Disavow Diplomatic Precedent (Const. Porph. Dai. 13.145–194 &amp; Liud. Relatio. 55)

Introduction. The article aims to compare two texts concerning byzantine diplomatic practices of the mid 10th century. The first one is described in the 13th chapter of the treatise “De Administrando Imperio”, in which its author Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus gave some pieces of advice to his son Romanus II Porphyrogenitus how to line up rhetorical manipulation during the negotiations with ambassadors of different ‘barbarian’ nations. The second one is the description of conversation, which took place on September 17, 968 between emperor Otto I the Great’s ambassador bishop Liudprand of Cremona and patrician Christopher. It is described in Liudprand’s “Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana”. Methods. The classical comparative method is used to examine the veracity of two independent texts of different character describing the similar diplomatic trick. The author compares a program-ideological and simultaneously a propaedeutic treatises with a semiofficial report of a foreign senior ambassador. Analysis. In the 13th chapter of the treatise “De Administrando Imperio” its author Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus advised his son Roman II in negotiations with the ambassadors of the “barbarian” nations not to except the precedent of giving in marriage the granddaughter of the Byzantine emperor Romanus I Lecapenus Maria-Irina to Bulgarian ruler Peter, since Romanus I Lecapenus was a man of poor education and incompetent in the ancient sacred customs of the Roman Empire. In “Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana” by bishop Liudprand of Cremona during the confiscation of “purple clothes”, which he had bought, he referred to the fact that during his last visit to Constantinople, emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus had allowed him to take out even more expensive clothes without any obstacles. Contrary to this example, he received a reply from patrician Christopher, that emperor Constantine was a weak man and cherished the friendship of barbarians and foreigners with gifts, and ruling emperor Nikephoros II Phokas was a strong and warlike man, he didn’t allow such liberties for foreigners. In both cases, the same counter-argument was used to disavow precedent – a criticism of the bygone emperor in comparison with the current sovereign. This suggests that it was a common rhetorical device for Byzantine diplomats. These two cases allow to clarify the sophisticated ideology of “Tradition” and its “Split” as a corner-stone political idea of Eastern Roman Empire. Results. As a result of comparing the texts “De Administrando Imperio” (952–959) and “Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitano” (969) it becomes clear that Byzantine politicians in the mid 10th century used for disavowing diplomatic precedents the criticism of their own emperor, who agreed to some concessions in the past. His personality was declared inappropriate to the high standards of a Roman ruler in comparison with the current emperor. Such rhetoric was surprising for the peoples who considered a series of their rulers as a genealogical aggregate of relatives responsible for their predecessors as for themselves. Byzantine politicians calmly recognized imperfections of their bygone emperors, what allowed them to ignore the strongest diplomatic argument of the early Middle Ages – a historical precedent.

The Mediation and the Role of Lawyers in the Procedure through the Prism of Bulgarian History

The possibility of resolving conflicts through alternative means is a favorable alternative for the parties, as it has deep roots in Bulgarian history, customs and law. If we turn to the history of Bulgarian law we will find that they are often used as an opportunity to resolve disputes of various kinds. Historically, Bulgarian rulers have personally participated in negotiations to resolve international conflicts – for example, Khan Krum proposed negotiations to avoid or end hostilities with Byzantium. The prince Boris I Michael also showed excellent negotiation skills when accepting Christianity as the state religion. During the Ottoman rule, such conciliatory functions were played by the bodies of the Bulgarian municipalities, the guild organizations and representatives of the spiritual authorities. After the Liberation, this tradition was the basis of the Elderly Judicial Councils, the amicable (conciliatory) courts, whose activity is based on the principles of voluntariness, reconciliation and reaching a mutually beneficial agreement.

Rex or Imperator? Kalojan’s Royal Title in the Correspondence with Innocent III

In the correspondence between Innocent III and Kalojan of Bulgaria (1197–1207), the title of the Bulgarian ruler is recorded both as rex and imperator. While the pope consistently employs the title rex, Kalojan refers to himself, in every occasion, with the title imperator. Some scholars have speculated that the use of this title was a deliberate political move: styling himself imperator, Kalojan was claiming a much greater political dignity than that of king of Bulgaria, putting himself on the same level as the emperor of Constantinople. On the other hand, while Innocent’s letters were obviously written in Latin, Kalojan’s letters were originally in Bulgarian, translated in Greek, and finally translated from Greek to Latin. Therefore, the use of the word imperator may be just an attempt at translating the term βασιλεύς, not in the sense of Emperor of the Romans but merely in that of autocrat, a ruler whose power was fully independent from any other external political authority. This recognition was of a fundamental importance for Kalojan, since the rulers of Bulgaria’s neighbouring states, the kingdom of Hungary, the Byzantine empire, and especially the Latin empire of Constantinople, were not willing to recognize his legitimacy as an independent sovereign.

Obraz cara bułgarskiego Samuela w źródłach bizantyńskich (XII w.)

Samuel, the ruler of Bulgaria from the turn of the tenth and eleventh centuries is without a doubt a significant figure in the history of his country, having left a clear mark on its relations with the Byzantine Empire. It was he who challenged the Byzantines, who occupied a considerable part of Bulgaria in 971. Over the course of several decades, he was first wrenching Bulgarian territories from the Byzantine hands and subsequently defended his possessions with great determination. It was only several years after his death (1014) that the Bulgarian state fell into Byzantine hands (1018), ushering an almost hundred and seventy yearperiod of its nonexistence – the time of Byzantine captivity.&#x0D; Information included in the 12th‑century Byzantine sources (Nicephor Bryennios, Anna Komnene, John Zonaras, Michael Glykas, The Life of Nikon Metanoeite”), analysed in the present article and relating to Samuel are focused on the two fundamental questions, specifically the circumstances in which he had taken the reins of power and the military activity he conducted against Byzantium. The portrayal of the Bulgarian ruler included therein was on the one hand influenced by the trend present in the Byzantine literature to diminish the successes of the Empire’s enemies by indicating their causes were to be found on the Byzantine side, and on the other by the fact that the Bulgarians became subjects of the Byzantine ruler. Some of them entered into the elite of the Byzantine society, sometimes through familial connections. In these circumstances, it was better to be related to Samuel the Basileus, rather than to Samuel the barbarian.

Asparuh and His People on the Lower Danube through the Eyes of Theophanes, or a Story that Was Not Meant to Happen

The Bulgarians’ settlement in the Lower Danube area constituted one of the most significant events in the history of the Balkan Peninsula in the Middle Ages. The Danube Bulgaria’s rise and its territorial expansion changed the political situation in this area. The Bulgarians became Byzantium’s chief opponents in the struggle for establishing ascendancy over the Balkan Peninsula. The analysis of Theophanes’ Chronography, which remains, in addition to the account by Patriarch Nicephorus, the main source of information about these events supports the conclusion that this Byzantine author took a very negative view of the effects of the arrival of these nomads in the former Byzantine territories. Although this account has been analysed in detail by a number of scholars, these authors have paid no attention to the key role of the tale of Khan Kubrat and the disobedience of his five sons who failed to remain faithful to his last wish. The significance of the personal experiences of Theophanes, who witnessed the Bulgarian expansion during the era of Khan Krum, is also omitted from today’s discussion of these issues. These experiences contributed to the way in which he viewed the migration of the ancestors of the distinguished Bulgarian ruler. The chronicler may thus be considered to have offered a very clear view of what the readers should think of the Bulgarians’ arrival in the Balkan territories.

Patrząc na przemoc. Postawa, odczucia i bezsilność człowieka wobec okropności wojny w świetle retoryki okresu średniobizantyńskiego

The second and third decade of the 10th century was marked by an armed conflict between the East Roman Empire and Bulgaria. A conflict, which nearly brought about the downfall of Byzantium, was caused by ambitious plans of Sy­meon I (893-927), the Bulgarian ruler who desired to impose his supremacy upon the empire and gain new territories on the Balkan Peninsula at its cost. Only his death let the Byzantines take a breath and conclude a peace treaty with his son and follower, Peter I (927-969). Theodore Daphnopates (890/900 - after 961), the alleged author of a rhetoric work On the Treaty with the Bulgarians, praising the freshly concluded peace (in 927), reminded the atrocities of war. He also built up the image of a suffering human who had become a witness to the violence inflic­ted to the soil, temples and villages, as well as and first of all to humans during war operations. And although that image was in many aspects a cliché of the Byzantine literature through multiplying the images of suffering, present in other similar works, it referred to the deeply inrooted pattern of such feelings, based on the experience of many generations of Byzantines themselves and of the human­kind in general. So, despite being a customary topos it reflected the possible or perhaps actual human experience of meeting with violence. In my presentation I will present and characterize the attitudes and emotions which accompanied the Byzantine author he had experienced (or at least said he had), being a witness and hearing the relations of atrocities of a fratricidal war.

Car bułgarski Piotr (927-969) w bizantyńskiej historiografii X-XII wieku

Byzantine historians tied Peter primarily with the establishment of the las­ting peace with the Empire in 927. In the sources that present the events from before the reign of the emperor Nikephor Phokas (963-969), when the relations between both states deteriorated, Peter is commonly portrayed as a peacemaker, a deeply religious man, accepting of the Byzantine way of understanding the role of the ruler in religious matters. However, Byzantine authors point out that Peter was able to successfully secure his position and ruthlessly deal with his enemies. The sources describing the events from the last years of his reign portray him as a prideful person, daring to stand up against the Byzantine basileÚj, and who gets rightfully and severely punished for his actions. It should be noted that most often the Byzantine authors did not describe their attitude towards Peter, and did not judge him directly. This results in the reader having to build the image of the Bulgarian ruler himself, based on how the sources describe the events concerning his reign.

Rola cara Piotra (927-969) w życiu bułgarskiego Kościoła. Kilka uwag

Tsar Peter was a ruler who was active in the sphere of church policy, and is pictured to have been a deep believer himself. He is credited with the fact of granting the title of patriarch to the Bulgarian archbishop, which most probably occurred under the framework of the agreement of 927 (?933/934). The act sym­bolically completed the process of acquiring full maturity and independence by the Church of Bulgaria. Peter, as the first Bulgarian ruler, had to face a serious problem of heresy. Be­ing fully aware of responsibility for orthodoxy of his subjects’ creed, he was de­termined enough to take precautions in order to stifle the development of the Bo­gomil heresy. However, his actual actions (except for his consulting the patriarch) and their results are impossible to pinpoint. On the other hand, it should be stressed that, during the rule of tsar Peter, the Bulgarian monasticism lived through a period of considerable development. The tsar contributed to that progress, though, unfortunately, details of the phenomenon are impossible to determine. Peter himself became a monk before his death, and subsequently his personal worship evolved around his involvement in the monas­tic movement.

Polityka cara Kałojana wobec Konstantynopola

-

The Synodikon of Orthodoxy in Medieval Bulgaria

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.

Iconography of Power of the Pagan Bulgarian Ruler: Images, Symbolism and Tradition

Abstract The ideas of ruler's power of the pagan Bulgarians and their expression are a question of debates concerning different fields of humanities such as history, archaeology, epigraphy, religious studies, and art history. The discussion proposed tends to seek the ideological basis of the ruler's power as seen through cosmogonic, religious and political notions preserved in written historical sources, traces of rites and beliefs in mythology and folklore and in the arts. Thus, the three levels of the ruler's ideology are considered: the written/verbal texts, ritual texts and visual texts in order to find out a set of iconographie formulae of expressing the power of the pagan Bulgarian ruler.

Pan Kubrat i jego pięciu synów. Teofanesa wizja przybycia Bułgarów na Półwysep Bałkański

The Bulgarians’ settlement in the Lower Danube area constituted one of the most significant events in the history of the Balkan Peninsula in the Middle Ages. The Danube Bulgaria’s rise and its territorial expansion changed the political situation in this area. The Bulgarians became Byzantium’s chief opponents in the struggle for establishing ascendancy over the Balkan Peninsula. The analysis of Theophanes’ Chronography, which remains, in addition to the account by Patriarch Nikephoros, the main source of information about these events supports the conclusion that this Byzantine author took a very negative view of the effects of the arrival of these nomads in the former Byzantine territories. Although this account has been analysed in detail by a number of scholars, these authors have paid no attention to the key role of the tale of Khan Kubrat and the disobedience of his five sons who failed to remain faithful to his last wish. The significance of the personal experiences of Theophanes, who witnessed the Bulgarian expansion during the era of Khan Krum, is also omitted from today’s discussion of these issues. These experiences contributed to the way in which he viewed the migration of the ancestors of the distinguished Bulgarian ruler. The chronicler may thus be considered to have offered a very clear view of what the readers should think of the Bulgarians’ arrival in the Balkan territories.

Iconography Power of the Pagan Bulgarian Ruler: Images, Symbolism and Iakovos Menelaou Byzantine Satire: The Background in the Timarion

The ideas of ruler's power of the pagan Bulgarians and their expression are a question of debates concerning different fields of humanities such as history, archaeology, epigraphy, religious studies, and art history. The discussion proposed tends to seek the ideological basis of the ruler's power as seen through cosmogonic, religious and political notions preserved in written historical sources, traces of rites and beliefs in mythology and folklore and in the arts. Thus, the three levels of the ruler''s ideology are considered : the written/verbal texts, ritual texts and visual texts in order to find out a set of iconographic formulae of expressing the power of the pagan Bulgarian ruler.

Rola carycy Marii-Ireny Lekapeny w recepcji elementów bizantyńskiego modelu władzy w pierwszym państwie bułgarskim

Maria Lekapene was the granddaughter of Byzantine Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos. In 927 she married Peter I of Bulgaria. Her marriage in Constantinople aimed to strengthen the newly signed Byzantine-Bulgarian peace treaty. Historians attributed to the Empress a significant impact on the political moves of her hus­band. The Empress was also to introduce a lot of elements of the Byzantine theory of power in Bulgaria and even to play the role of spy of Constantinople at the Preslav court. These views have not been corroborated in surviving source mate­rial. The Byzantine authors, who provided a lot of information about the wed­ding of Maria and Peter, did not write anything about the subsequent behavior of the Empress in her new homeland. The political activity of the wife of Peter is not mentioned in indigenous Bulgarian sources or foreign ones (e.g. Liutprand of Cremona). The thesis that Maria wielded real political power can be confirmed only in sigillographic materials. In 927-945 the Bulgarian ruler was always rep­resented on his own official seals accompanied by his wife. However it was not a reflection of her status as a real co-emperor. These seals were propagandic arti­facts which were made to commemorate the peace of 927. The seals could also be seen as a tool legitimizing the imperial title of Peter. It is hard to consider Mary as the initiator of the Byzantinization of the culture of tenth-century Bulgaria. In 927 Lekapene arrived at the court, which was already quite familiar with the Byzantine civilization. This does not exclude the possibility of her personal im­pact on the new court. However, most likely the impact did not go beyond the walls of the Emperor’s headquarters.