No More Learning

According to the exact statement in the Vita Cyrilli, Constantine died
on 14 February 869. Both Pannonian Legends and the Translatio state
that shortly before his death he assumed the name Cyril and the
monastic garb. In close agreement with one another, the Vita Cyrilli
and the Translatio relate that Methodius first wanted to carry the corpse
to a monastery in Constantinople in order to comply with his mother's
wish. This surely implies that it was now his own intention to go to
Constantinople and withdraw into a monastery. According to the Vita
Methodii, Constantine was afraid of this wish of Methodius and therefore
begged of him before his death to abandon it. When the Pope declined
to grant Methodius' petition, it was eventually agreed that Cyril should
be buried in state in the Basilica dedicated to St Clement.
According to all credible information, Constantine's literary activity
consisted first in the invention of a script for a certain definite Slavonic
tongue. He chose the Macedo-Bulgarian dialect, called locally Slovenian,
and the script had to be accurately fitted, as it were, to this tongue; he
had a wonderful ear for phonetics, and contrived to provide a letter for
each sound in the dialect. Of the two known Slavonic scripts, that
which is recognised as the invention of Constantine by the majority of
linguists and historians is the Glagolitic script, which was formed on
the model of the Greek minuscules of the ninth century in a manner
exhibiting originality and individuality. In all probability recourse was
also had to some Latin and Hebrew (or Samaritan) signs. That the South
Slavonic dialect was used as the basis of the script is clearly apparent
from the employment of a special sign for dz as opposed to z, and of
a single sign for the vowel ea or ä, which in the Pannonian-Moravian
group of dialects had developed into two separate sounds, e or 'e and ya.
There is one obvious objection. Why was the script based on a
South Slavonic dialect, while its use was intended for a totally different
area and tongue in North Slavonia ? But this objection may be answered
by the following considerations. In the first place, the Slavonic tongues
in the ninth century were more nearly related to one another than in the
nineteenth; secondly, it is quite possible that Constantine may have
discovered from the members of Rostislav's embassy that the South
Slavonic dialect he knew was easily intelligible to the Moravians; finally,
he may have convinced himself by the comparison of the language of
Byzantine literature with the spoken language of the Greek populace
that a distinction between the literary language and the dialects of the
people constituted no obstacle to success.
The next stage in Constantine's literary activity began before his
departure for Moravia. It was in the first instance limited to the trans-
lation of the lections from the Gospels and St Paul's Epistles, with the
C. MED. H. VOL. IV, CH. VII.
15


## p. 226 (#268) ############################################

226
Methodius in Pannonia
help of his collaborators; and in Moravia, if not earlier, translations were
added from the Greek of whatever was indispensable for divine service,
especially the Psalms, the pericopes of the Old Testament, and finally
a short prayer- and hymn-book. Attempts have already been made to
separate in point of language the portions due to Constantine's initiative
from the continuations supplied by Methodius and his pupils, but the
results are not satisfactory.
While it is a matter of comparative ease to write the life of Constan-
tine or Cyril, the subsequent course of his brother's life has given rise to
many controversies, chiefly because, for the purposes of his biography,
there is no parallel source by which to test the Pannonian Legend. It is
true that we are considerably assisted during this period by the state-
ments of the Papal Curia, but however important this historical source
may be, it does not afford sufficient indications of the later life of this
great man. A recent discovery, however, of papal documents has been
very helpful in establishing the credibility of the Legend. The persecu-
tion to which Methodius was exposed at the time when he was already
archbishop, and which is mentioned in the Legend without comment,
has now been strikingly confirmed by the newly discovered London Register
of papal letters. This important evidence for the credibility of the
Legend in connexion with the later life of Methodius prevents us from
being biased against it by the legendary padding in the form of miracles
and prophecies.
Whilst Methodius remained at Rome after the death of his brother,
Pope Hadrian, according to the Legend, received Kocel's request to send
Methodius to him as a teacher. The Pope complied, and addressed to
all three princes Rostislav, Svatopluk, and Kocel, a circular letter, the
original of which has not been preserved, though the Legend repro-
duces its contents at length. The genuineness of its contents has been
disputed ; but a forgery to support the Slavonic liturgy, which we know
to have been tolerated in Rome by the Pope, would probably be totally
different in character from this simple papal epistle, in which the facts
of Constantine's life are referred to, first, to recommend Methodius to
continue the work already begun by his brother, and then to authorise
the Slavonic Mass, with the express stipulation that the Gospel must
first be read in Latin. Why should one not believe the further narrative
of the Legend that Methodius first did yeoman's work with his pupils
as priest, preacher, and teacher in Pannonia, and only returned to Rome
afterwards at the request of Prince Kocel, accompanied by a deputation
of the nobility, to receive the bishop's mitre at the hands of the Pope
for the restored see of St Andronicus in Pannonia ?
It was only now that the dissatisfaction of Salzburg was aroused, for
Pannonia had been within its jurisdiction since the days of Charlemagne.
They did not confine themselves to polemics such as the Libellus de con-
versione Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, but Methodius was cited before


## p. 227 (#269) ############################################

His imprisonment and return to Moravia
227
an assembly of secular and ecclesiastical dignitaries, presided over by
Louis the German, among whom was probably Svatopluk also, and as
he boldly defended himself against the accusation of exercising episcopal
rights in another's diocese, he was sent to Swabia and kept there in
prison for a year and a half. .
We now know from the papal Register found in London that all this
is true, and that Methodius was actually treated worse than one would
imagine from the Legend. As Methodius obtained his freedom in the
year 873 by the energetic intervention of the new Pope, John VIII, this
violence to his person must have taken place in the years 871-873. Conse-
quently he did not long enjoy in peace the episcopal dignity conferred
upon
him by the Pope. According to the Legend, the powerful enemies
of Methodius, immediately after his expulsion from Pannonia, threatened
his former patron Kocel with their displeasure if he ever received him
back again. As a matter of fact, Kocel must have recognised the supre-
macy of the Salzburg Church as soon as Methodius had been removed,
for it is known that by 874 a church had been already consecrated in
Pettau by Archbishop Theotmar; whether Kocel was then alive we do
not know.
The papal legate, Bishop Paul of Ancona, who was entrusted with
the settlement of Methodius' case, was, on the one hand, to do his utmost
to take him to Moravia to Svatopluk, and, on the other, to return to
Rome with him, together with Hermanric, Bishop of Passau, who had
treated Methodius in a particularly harsh and cruel manner. Was
Methodius at this moment in Rome? According to the text of the
Legend it is quite possible, for it relates that the news of his liberation
created such a reaction in Moravia that the Latin-German priests were
driven out and a petition was addressed to the Pope to give them Methodius
as their archbishop. The Pope complied and sent Methodius to Moravia,
where he was received with enthusiasm by Svatopluk and all the Mora-
vians, and took over the ecclesiastical administration of the whole country.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this
sequence
of events.
In this period, which the Legend describes as the most flourishing in
the history of the Church, the baptism of the Bohemian Prince Bořivoi
may have taken place on the occasion of Methodius' stay with Svatopluk.
Curiously enough, the Legend narrates much less concerning the sub-
sequent activity of Methodius in Moravia than do papal documents. All
it says is that a party arose against him, and his removal was expected,
but the Moravian people assembled to listen to a letter from the Pope,
which placed them in mourning because it was supposed to be unfavourable
to Methodius. But suddenly their mourning was changed into great
joy; when the papal letter was opened it was found to vindicate the
orthodoxy of Methodius and to declare that all “Slovenian lands” were
delivered by God and the Apostolic See to his ecclesiastical authority.
This narrative is obscure, and it is particularly surprising that no
CU. VII.
15–2


## p. 228 (#270) ############################################

228
Methodius' victory at Rome
mention at all is made of the crux of the whole situation, the use of the
Slavonic language in the liturgy. Only the omission of the filioque clause
from the Nicene Creed is hinted at as the reason for the accusation of
unorthodoxy brought against him by the Latin party? Is it not possible
that this obscurity in the narrative of the Legend is intentional ? For we
know that in June or July of the year 879 Pope John cited Methodius
to Rome on account of the two-fold suspicion which had fallen upon
him, first, that he was unsound in dogma in preaching the faith, and,
secondly, that notwithstanding the express order of the Pope, com-
municated to him once before by Bishop Paul of Ancona, forbidding
him to sing Mass in the Slavonic language, he had continued to do
so. This is contained in the letter of the Pope addressed to Methodius.
In a simultaneous second letter addressed to Svatopluk, the Pope only
refers to the suspicion cast on Methodius' orthodoxy, no mention being
made of the language used in the liturgy. The archbishop obeyed the
papal summons, and succeeded not only in convincing the Pope of his
orthodoxy but also in obtaining his authority to use the Slavonic
language for divine service, which was solemnly expressed in a letter
to Svatopluk in July 880: “Litteras denique Sclaviniscas a Constan-
tino quondam philosopho reppertas, quibus Deo laudes debite resonent,
jure laudamus et in eadem lingua Christi domini nostri preconia et opera
enarrentur jubemus. ” Thus ran the principal passage in the letter, which
clearly refers to the Mass, as it goes on: “nec sane fidei vel doctrinae
aliquid obstat sive missas in eadem Sclavinica lingua canere sive sacrum
evangelium vel lectiones divinas novi et veteris Testamenti bene translatas
et interpretatas legere aut alia horarum officia omnia psallere. ” There
follows Hadrian's express reservation to the effect that“propter majorem
honorificentiam evangelium latine legatur et postmodum Sclavinica lingua
translatum in auribus populi, latina verba non intelligentis, adnuntietur. ”
The difficulties of Methodius were, however, by no means at an end.
Clearly he could look for no reliable support from Svatopluk, and in his
suffragan Wiching, Bishop of Nyitra, he had an uncompromising opponent
who sought by various means to undermine Methodius' reputation and
activity, both in Moravia with Svatopluk and in Rome with the Pope.
This is apparent from the Pope's letter of 23 March 881, in which he
consoled Methodius. The Legend here tells of a journey made by
Methodius after 881, as we may certainly date it, to the Emperor Basil I
at Constantinople. According to the Legend, the visit to Constantinople
originated with Basil. This may not be correct, but it is very difficult
to ascertain the true reasons which would tempt an aged man to a
long and fatiguing journey. It was certainly not a mere ordinary
visit. As it is related that the Emperor Basil had kept back a Slavonic
יי
1 No doubt Methodius, being a Greek, did not use the filioque clause. Possibly
there was at this time an attempt to Latinise the Slavonic liturgy, while preserving
its Slavonic tongue.


## p. 229 (#271) ############################################

Opposition of Svatopluk: death of Methodius
229
priest and a deacon, as well as certain Slavonic church books, it is
quite possible for Methodius' arrival in Constantinople to have some
connexion with the Slavonic liturgy, either in the interest of the Slavs
who were under the rule of Constantinople, or of the Bulgarians who
had again sided with Constantinople in ecclesiastical matters.
According to the Legend, Methodius also continued the literary work
begun by his brother, especially completing the translation of the Old
Testament, with the exception of the Book of the Maccabees. The
time given by the Legend for this undertaking (seven months) is, how-
ever, far too short, and modern philological investigation does not bear
out the statement that the translation was carried through at one time.
The report that he also translated a Nomokanon, by which is probably
meant the digest of the Canon Law of John Scholasticus, and provided
reading-matter of an edifying character by translating a Paterikon, appears
quite worthy of credence.
Little as we know of Methodius' daily life, or of the place where he
usually resided-only later sources mention Velehrad in Moravia_we
know no more of the place of his death, which is said to have happened
on 6 April 885. The Legend relates that his pupils buried him with
solemn rites in three languages-Latin, Greek, and Slavonic.
It is certain from the Legend that he designated Gorazd to succeed
him, as Gorazd was a Moravian, a fluent Latin speaker, and at the
same time orthodox. This is also confirmed by the Greek Vita Clementis,
which, however, mentions Svatopluk as an unquestioned opponent of
Methodius, at least in his last years, so that they could not reckon on
his approval of Gorazd's candidature. But at this time a change had
taken place on the pontifical throne. The new Pope, Stephen V (VI),
was induced, probably by very unfavourable news from Moravia about
Methodius, to send a bishop (Dominicus) and two priests (John and
Stephen) to the Slavs, i. e. to Moravia, with definite orders, one of which
was to forbid distinctly the Slavonic Mass (regardless of the concession
of John VIII in the year 880), the other requiring Gorazd, who had been
appointed by Methodius as his successor, to come to Rome under ten-
porary suspension of his episcopal powers. This was clearly due to
Svatopluk and Wiching.
The Slavonic liturgy could not withstand in Moravia the attack
of the Latin liturgy, which was supported by Church and State, but
the followers of Methodius carried it to the South Slavs, where it took
firm hold in Bulgaria, Serbia, and Croatia. After the separation of the
Churches, it gave strength to the Eastern Church. In Croatia, which
was Catholic, it has remained, but only under strong opposition, until
this day, in a few dioceses of Croatia, Istria, and Dalmatia. The chief
legacy of the two brothers-of which they had no idea themselves—fell
to Russia, in whose many libraries are preserved the richest treasures of
Slavonic ecclesiastical literature,
CH, VII.


## p. 230 (#272) ############################################

230
CHAPTER VIII.
THE RISE AND FALL OF THE FIRST BULGARIAN EMPIRE
(679–1018).
כי
LIKE the Serbs, but unlike the Albanians, the Bulgarians are not
autochthonous inhabitants of the Balkan country to which they have given
their name.
It was not till 6791 that this Finnish or Tartar race, after
numerous previous incursions into the Balkan provinces of the Byzantine
Empire, definitely abandoned the triangle formed by the Black Sea, the
Dnieper, and the Danube (the modern Bessarabia), and settled between the
Danube and the Balkans (the ancient Moesia). Thus, the first Bulgarian
state practically coincided with the Bulgarian principality created 1200
years later by the Treaty of Berlin. The Finnish or Tartar invaders found
this country already peopled with Slavs, immigrants like themselves but
of different customs and language. As time went on, the conquered, as
so often happens, absorbed the conquerors; the Bulgarians adopted the
Slav speech of the vanquished; the country received the name of the in-
vaders, and became known to all time as “Bulgaria. ” Still, after the
lapse of more than twelve centuries, the “ Bulgarians," as this amalgam
of races came to be called, possess qualities differing from those of their
purely Slav neighbours, and during the recent European war Bulgarian
political writers reminded the world that the Bulgarian people was not
of Slavonic origin.
The Patriarch Nicephorus has left the earliest account of this
Bulgarian invasion and settlement. He tells how the Bulgarians originally
lived on the shores of the Sea of Azov and on the banks of the river
Kuban; how their chief, Kovrat (identified with the “Kurt” of the earliest
list of Bulgarian rulers), left five sons, the third of whom, Asparuch
(or Isparich), migrated to Bessarabia. There he and his Bulgarians
might have remained, had not the Emperor Constantine IV Pogonatus
undertaken an expedition for the purpose of punishing them for their
raids into the borderlands of his dominions. The strength of the Bulgarian
position in a difficult country and an attack of gout obliged the Emperor
to retire to Mesembria. A panic seized the troops left behind to continue
the siege; the Bulgarians pursued them across the Danube as far as Varna.
Neither Greeks nor Slavs offered resistance; the Emperor had to make
peace and pay a tribute, in order to save Thrace from invasion.
1 Professor Bury believes that the migration occurred earlier, during the reign
of Constans II (641-668). The Chronological Cycle of the Bulgarians (B2. xix. 1910).
לל


## p. 231 (#273) ############################################

Early Greco-Bulgarian Wars
231
בל
The Bulgarians established their first capital in an entrenched camp
at Pliska, the modern Turkish village of Aboba to the north-east of
Shumla. Recent excavations have unearthed this previously unknown
portion of Bulgarian history, and have laid bare the great fortifications,
the inner stronghold, and the palace of the “Sublime Khan,” as the primi-
tive ruler was called. Unlike modern Bulgaria, early Bulgaria was an
aristocratic state, with two grades of nobility, the boljarin and the ugain,
but leading nobles of both orders bore the coveted title of bagatur
(“hero”). As in Albania to-day, the clan was the basis of the social
system. The official language of the primitive Bulgarian Chancery was
Greek, but not exactly the Greek of Byzantium-a native tribute to the
far more advanced culture of the Empire. The first two centuries of
Bulgarian history down to the introduction of Christianity are an almost
continuous series of campaigns against the Byzantine Empire, for which,
with scarcely an exception, our sources are exclusively Greek or Frankish.
Justinian II began these Greco-Bulgarian wars by refusing to pay the
tribute to Isparich, and narrowly escaped from a Bulgarian ambuscade.
Yet this same Emperor, after his deposition and banishment to the
Crimea, owed his restoration to the aid of Isparich's successor Tervel.
Escaping to Bulgaria, he promised his daughter to Tervel as the price of
his assistance, and bestowed upon his benefactor a royal robe and the
honorary title of “Caesar. ” Three years later, however, in 707, he so far
forgot the benefits received as to break the peace and again invade
Bulgaria, only to receive a severe defeat at Anchialus, whence he was
forced to flee by sea to Constantinople. Once more we find him appealing,
not in vain, for Tervel's assistance, and during the brief reigns of
Justinian II's three successors hostilities were spasmodic. But when Leo
the Isaurian bad firmly established himself on the throne, Tervel found
it useless to renew the part of king-maker and attempt to restore the
fallen Emperor, Anastasius II. Indeed, after Tervel's day and the reigns
of two shadowy rulers, the overthrow of the Bulgarian reigning dynasty
of Dulo (to which Kurt and his successors had belonged) by the usurper
Kormisosh of the clan of Ukil, led to civil war, which weakened the
hitherto flourishing Bulgarian state at the time when an energetic
Emperor, Constantine V Copronymus, sat upon the Byzantine throne.
In the intervals of his struggle with the monks, the Iconoclast
Emperor conducted seven campaigns against the Bulgarians, whom he
had alarmed by planting Syrian and Armenian colonists in Thrace. He
took vengeance for a Bulgarian raid to Constantinople by invading
Bulgaria, but on a second invasion suffered a severe defeat at Veregava
(now the Vrbitsa pass between Shumla and Yamboli). Another dynastic
revolution prevented the victors from reaping the fruits of their victory.
The usurper disappeared from history, but the old dynasty did not profit
by his removal from the scene. On the contrary, a general massacre of
the house of Dulo ensued, and a certain Telets of the clan of Ugain was
CH, VIII,


## p. 232 (#274) ############################################

232
Reverses of fortune
proclaimed Khan. Telets was, however, defeated by the Emperor near
Anchialus, and his disillusioned countrymen put him to death, and restored
the dynasty of Kormisosh in the person of his son-in-law Sabin. The
latter's attempt to make peace with the Emperor was followed, however,
by his deposition, and it was reserved for his successor, Bayan, to come to
terms with Byzantium, where Sabin had taken refuge. But Bayan had
a rival in his own country, Umar, Sabin's nominee, and to support him
the Emperor invaded Bulgaria, and defeated Bayan's brother and suc-
cessor Toktu in the woods near the Danube in 765. Both brothers were
slain, most of the country was plundered, and the villages laid in ashes.
Next year, however, the Greek Heet was almost destroyed by a storm in
the Black Sea, but the Emperor routed the Bulgarians at Lithosoria
during a further punitive expedition known as “ the noble war," because
no Christians fell. These sudden reverses of fortune are characteristic of
Bulgarian history. The next Bulgarian Khan, Telerig, warned by these
events of the existence of a Byzantine party in Bulgaria, obtained by a
ruse from the Emperor the names of the latter's adherents, whom he
put to death. Constantine was in an ecstasy of rage, but died in the
course of a fresh expedition against the barbarian who had outwitted
him. Telerig, however, was obliged to seek refuge with the next Em-
peror, Leo IV, who conferred upon him the rank of patrician and the
hand of an imperial princess, besides acting as his godfather when he
embraced Christianity. Telerig's successor, Kardam, after defeating
Constantine VI, wrote to him an insolent letter, threatening to march to
the Golden Gate of Constantinople unless the Emperor paid the promised
tribute. Constantine sarcastically replied that he would not trouble
an old man to undertake so long a journey, but that he would come
himself—with an army. The Bulgarian fled before him, and for ten
years there was peace between the Greeks and their already dangerous
rivals.
In the first decade of the ninth century the first striking figure in
Bulgarian history mounted the throne of Pliska. This was Krum-a name
still familiar to readers of Balkan polemics. Krum, whose realm at his
accession embraced Danubian Bulgaria and Wallachia, “Bulgaria beyond
the Danube," coveted Macedonia—the goal of so many Bulgarian
ambitions in all ages. He invaded the district watered by the Strymon,
defeated the Greek garrisons, and seized a large sum of money
intended as pay for the soldiers. More important still, in 809 he cap-
tured Sardica, the modern Sofia, then the northernmost outpost of the
Empire against Bulgaria, put the garrison to death, and destroyed the
fortifications. The Emperor Nicephorus I retaliated by spending Easter
in Krum's palace at Pliska, which he plundered; he foresaw Bulgarian
designs upon Macedonia and endeavoured to check the growth of the Slav
population there by compulsory colonisation from other provinces. He
then resolved to crush his enemy, and, after long preparation, marched


## p. 233 (#275) ############################################

Krum
233
against him in 811. Proudly rejecting Krum's offer of peace, he again
occupied Pliska, set his seal on the Bulgarian treasury, and loftily dis-
regarded the humble petition of Krum: “Lo, thou hast conquered; take
what pleaseth thee, and go in peace. ” Kruin, driven to desperation, closed
the Balkan passes in the enemy's rear, and the invaders found themselves
caught, as in a trap, in an enclosed valley, perhaps that still called “the
Greek Hollow” near Razboina. Nicephorus saw that there was no hope:
“Even if we become birds," he exclaimed, “none of us can escape! ” On
26 July the Greek army was annihilated; no prisoners were taken ; for
the first time since the death of Valens four centuries earlier an Emperor
had fallen in battle; and, to add to the disgrace, his head, after being
exposed on a lance, was lined with silver and used as a goblet, in which
the savage Bulgarian pledged his nobles at state banquets. Yet the
lexicographer Suidas? would have us believe that this primitive savage
was the author of a code of laws—one of which ordered the uprooting
of every vine in Bulgaria, to prevent drunkenness, while another bade
his subjects give to a beggar sufficient to prevent him ever feeling the
pinch of want again. To complete the disaster, Nicephorus' son, the
Emperor Stauracius, died of his wounds.
This was not Krum's only triumph over the Greeks. In 812 he cap-
tured Develtus and Mesembria, as the war party at Constantinople,
headed by Theodore of Studion, declined to renew an old Greco-Bulgarian
commercial treaty of some fifty years earlier, which had permitted
merchants duly provided with seals and passports to carry on trade in
either state, and under which the Bulgarian ruler was entitled to a gift
of clothing and 30 lbs. of red-dyed skins. The treaty also fixed the
Greco-Bulgarian frontier at the hills of Meleona, well to the south of
the Balkans, and stipulated for the extradition of deserters. When
the Emperor Michael I marched against him in 813, Krum inflicted a
severe defeat at Versinicia near Hadrianople, and the rare circumstance
of the Bulgarians defeating the trained hosts of Byzantium in the open
country led to the suspicion of treachery on the part of the general, Leo
the Armenian. At any rate, he profited by the disaster, for he supplanted
Michael on the throne, and thus the rude Bulgarian could boast that he
had slain one Roman Emperor and caused the death of another and the
dethronement of a third. He now burned to take the Imperial city; but
this was a task beyond his powers. His strange human sacrifices before
the Golden Gate, his public ablutions, and the homage of his harem,
did not compensate for lack of experience in so formidable a siege. He
then claimed to erect his lance over the Golden Gate, and, when that
insolent request was refused, demanded an annual tribute, a quantity of fine
raiment, and a certain number of picked damsels. The new Emperor,
Leo V, offered to discuss these last proposals, in order to set an ambush
for his enemy. Krum unsuspectingly accepted the offer, and narrowly
Suidas, ed. Gaisford, 1. 761-62; Cedrenus, 11. 41-42; B2. xvi. 254-57.
1
CH. VIII.


## p. 234 (#276) ############################################

234
Omurtag
escaped assassination, thanks, so a monkish chronicler expresses it, to the
sins of his would be assassins. The smoking suburbs of Byzantium were
the testimony of his revenge; the palaceof St Mamas perished in the flames;
the shores of the Hellespont and the interior of Thrace were devastated.
Exactly a thousand years later, another Bulgarian army reached Chatalja,
the last bulwark of Constantinople, and the Bulgarian siege of 813 was
exhumed as an historical precedent.
Hadrianople succumbed to hunger; its inhabitants and those of other
Thracian towns were carried off to “Bulgaria beyond the Danube,” among
them the future Emperor, Basil I. But, by one of those sudden changes
of fortune with which recent Bulgarian history has familiarised us, Leo
inflicted such a crushing defeat upon the Bulgarians near Mesembria,
that the spot where he had lain in wait was long pointed out as “ Leo's
hill. ” To avenge this disaster, Krum prepared for another siege of
Constantinople, and this time intended to appear with a complete siege
train before the walls. But, as in the case of the great Serbian Tsar,
Stephen Dušan, death cut short the Bulgarian's enterprise. On 14 April
814 Krum burst a blood vessel. After a brief period of civil war, Krum's son,
Omurtag, became “ Sublime Khan,” and concluded a thirty years' peace
with the Empire, of which a summary has been preserved. By this treaty
Thrace was partitioned between the Greeks and the Bulgarians, and the
frontier ran from Develtus to the fortress of Makroliváda, between Ha-
drianople and Philippopolis, whence it turned northward to the Balkans.
It was not a paper frontier such as diplomacy loves to trace on maps,
but consisted of a rampart and trench, known to Byzantine historians as
“ the Great Fence” and to the modern peasants, who still tell strange
stories of how it was made, as the Erkesiya, from a Turkish word meaning
a “cutting in the earth. ”ı
Thus guaranteed against a conflict with the Greeks, the Bulgarians
turned their attention westward, and for the first time came into touch
with the Frankish Empire, which had established its authority as far south
as Croatia. In 824 a Bulgarian embassy appeared at the court of Louis
the Pious, in order to regulate the Franco-Bulgarian frontiers, which
marched together near Belgrade. The Western Emperor, knowing nothing
about the Bulgarians and their geographical claims, sent an envoy of his
own to make inquiries on the spot, and, after keeping the Bulgarian
mission waiting at Aix-la-Chapelle, finally sent it back without any de-
finite reply. Omurtag, anxious to maintain his prestige over the Slavs
beyond the Danube, who had shewn signs of placing themselves under
the protection of his powerful neighbour, invaded Pannonia and set up
Bulgarian governors there. In fact, Syrmia and eastern Hungary remained
Bulgarian till the Magyar conquest.
A Greek inscription on a pillar of the church of the Forty Martyrs
at Trnovo commemorates the works of the Sublime Khan Omurtag"
1 Bury in EHR. (1910), xxv. 276–87.


## p. 235 (#277) ############################################

First Serbo-Bulgarian War
235
the “house of high renown" which he “built on the Danube," and the
sepulchre” which he “ made mid-way” between that and his “old
house” at Pliska. Of these two constructions the former has been identified
with the ruined fortress of Kadykei near Turtukai on the Danube (the
Bulgaro-Roumanian frontier according to the Treaty of Bucharest of
1913), the latter with a mound near the village of Mundzhilar. Another
Greek inscription, recently discovered at Chatalar, records a still more
important creation of this ruler~" a palace on the river Tutsa,” intended
to overawe the Greeks. This“ palace," founded, as the inscription informs
us, in 821–22, was none other than the future capital of Bulgaria, Great
Prêslav, or “the Glorious,” a little to the south-west of Shumla.
Despite
the prayer uttered in this inscription that “the divine ruler may press
down the Emperor with his foot,” Omurtag, so far from attacking the
Greek Empire, actually aided Michael II in 823 against the rebel Thomas,
who was besieging Constantinople. Thus Byzantium, besieged by one
Bulgarian ruler, was, ten years later, relieved by another. There is little
continuity of policy in the Balkans.
Omurtag, who was still alive in 827, was succeeded by his son
Presiam, or Malomir as he was called in the increasingly important
Slavonic idiom of Bulgaria'. His reign is important historically because
it was unfortunately marred by the first of the long series of Serbo-
Bulgarian wars, of which our own generation has seen three. Charac-
teristically it seems to have arisen out of the Bulgarian occupation of
western Macedonia. The Serbian prince, Vlastimir, during a three years
struggle, inflicted heavy losses on the Bulgarians. Presiam's nephew and
successor, the famous Boris, who began his long reign in 852, was again
defeated by Vlastimir's three sons, and his own son Vladimir with
twelve great nobles was captured. Boris had to sue for peace to save the
prisoners; he was no more fortunate in his quarrel with the Croats, and
he maintained towards the Greeks the pacific policy of Omurtag.
The name of Boris is indelibly connected with the conversion of the
Bulgarians to Christianity. Sporadic attempts at conversion had already
been made, and with sufficient success to provoke persecution by Omurtag,
whose eldest son is even said to have become a proselyte. But in the
time of Boris Christianity became the State religion. In the Near East
politics and religion are inextricably mingled, and it is probable that
political considerations may have helped to influence the Bulgarian ruler.
Boris, placed midway between the Western and the Eastern Empire, had
played an equivocal part between Louis the German and Rostislav of
Moravia, now supporting the German, now the Slav. The Moravian
prince pointed out to Byzantium the danger to the whole Balkan
peninsula of a Bulgaro-German alliance, especially if Boris, as his German
ally desired, adopted the Western faith. Michael III at once saw the
gravity of the situation; he made a hostile demonstration against Bulgaria,
1 Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire, Appendix X.
>
1
CH. VIII,


## p. 236 (#278) ############################################

236
Conversion of the Bulgarians
whose ruler submitted without a blow, agreed to accept the Orthodox
form of Christianity, thus becoming ecclesiastically dependent on the
Ecumenical Patriarch, and received, as a slight concession, a small rec-
tification of his frontier in the shape of an uninhabited district. Boris
was baptised in 864–65, the Emperor acted as his sponsor, and the convert
took his sponsor's name of Michael. Other less mundane reasons for his
conversion are given. It is said that, during a severe famine, he was
moved by the appeals of his sister (who had embraced Christianity during
her captivity in Constantinople) and by the arguments of a captive monk,
Theodore Koupharas, to become a Christian. Another story represents
him as terrified into acceptance of the faith by the realistic picture of the
Last Judgment painted for him by a Greek artist, Methodius. His
attempt, however, to force baptism upon his heathen subjects led to a
revolt of the nobles. He put down this insurrection with the utmost
severity; he executed 52 nobles with their wives and families, while sparing
the common folk. The celebrated Patriarch Photius sent a literary essay
to his “ well-beloved son on the heresies that beset, and the duties that
await, a model Christian prince, and missionaries—Greeks, Armenians,
and others—flooded Bulgaria. Perplexed by their different precepts and
alarmed at the reluctance of the Patriarch to appoint a bishop for
Bulgaria, Boris craftily sent an embassy to Pope Nicholas I, asking him
to send a bishop and priests, and propounding a list of 106 theological
and social questions, upon which he desired the Pope's authoritative
opinion. This singular catalogue of doubts included such diverse subjects
as the desirability of wearing drawers (which the Pope pronounced to be
immaterial), the expediency of the sovereign dining alone (which was
declared to be bad manners), the right way with pagans and apostates,
and the appointment of a Bulgarian Patriarch. Nicholas I sent Formosus,
afterwards Pope, and another bishop as his legates to Bulgaria with
replies to these questions, denouncing the practice of torturing prisoners
and other barbarous customs, but putting aside for the present the
awkward question of a Patriarch; Bulgaria was, however, to have a bishop,
and later on an archbishop. Photius in reply denounced the proceedings
of the Roman Church in Bulgaria, and the reluctance of the new Pope
Hadrian II to nominate as archbishop a person recommended by Boris
made the indignant Bulgarian abandon Rome for Byzantium, which
gladly sent him an archbishop and ten bishops. The Archbishop of
Bulgaria took the next place after the Patriarch at festivities; Boris' son,
the future Tsar Simeon, was sent to study Demosthenes and Aristotle
at Constantinople. One further step towards the popularisation of
Christianity in Bulgaria remained to be taken—the introduction of the
Slavonic liturgy and books of devotion. This was, towards the end of
· Boris' reign, the work of the disciples of Methodius, one of the two famous
“Slavonic Apostles," when they were driven from Moravia. Boris in 888
retired into a cloister, whence four years later he temporarily emerged to


## p. 237 (#279) ############################################

Simeon's love of learning
237
depose his elder son Vladimir, whose excesses had endangered the state.
After placing his younger son Simeon on the throne in 893, Boris lived
on till 907, and died in the odour of sanctity, the first of Bulgaria's
national saints.
With Simeon began again the struggle between Greeks and Bulgarians.
Two Greek merchants, who had obtained from the Emperor Leo VI the
monopoly of the Bulgarian trade, diverted it from Constantinople to
Salonica, and placed heavy duties upon the Bulgarian traders. The latter
complained to Simeon, and Simeon to the Emperor, but backstairs
influence at the palace prevented his complaints from being heard, and
forced him to resort to arms. He defeated the imperial forces, and sent
back the captives with their noses cut off. Leo summoned the Magyars
across the Danube to his aid; Simeon was defeated and his country
devastated up to the gates of Prêslav. But, when the Magyars withdrew,
he defeated a Greek army at Bulgaróphygos near Hadrianople and
ravaged the homes of the Magyars during their absence on a distant
expedition. An interval of peace ensued, during which the classically
educated ruler endeavoured to acclimatise Byzantine literature among his
recalcitrant subjects. Simeon collected and had translated 135 speeches
of Chrysostom; Constantine, a pupil of the “ Apostle” Methodius, trans-
lated another collection of homilies, and, at Simeon's command, four
orations of St Athanasius; John the Exarch dedicated to Simeon his
Shestodnev (or“Hexameron”), a compilation describing the creation from
Aristotle and the Fathers; a monk Grigori translated for him the chronicle
of John Malalas with additions; while several unknown writers drew up
an encyclopaedia of the contemporary knowledge of Byzantium. There
was nothing original in this literature; but, if it was not the natural
product of the Bulgarian spirit, it diffused a certain culture among the
few, and reflected credit upon the royal patron, whom his contemporaries
likened to the Ptolemies for his promotion of learning. Simeon had
learned also at Constantinople the love of magnificence as well as of
literature. If we may believe his contemporary, John the Exarch, his
residence at Great Prêslav, whither the capital had now been removed
from Pliska, was a marvel to behold, with its palaces and churches, its
paintings, its marble, copper, gold, and silver ornaments. In the palace
sat the sovereign “in a garment studded with pearls, a chain of coins
round his neck and bracelets on his wrists, girt about with a purple
girdle, and with a golden sword at his side. ” Of all this splendour, and
of a city which Nicetas in the thirteenth century described as “having
the largest circuit of any in the Balkans," a few scanty ruins remain.
Alexander, the successor of Leo VI, mortally offended Simeon by
rejecting his offer to renew the treaty concluded with his father. The
accession of the child Constantine Porphyrogenitus gave him his oppor-
tunity for revenge. In 913, a century after Krum, he appeared with an
army before Constantinople; next year he obtained Hadrianople by
CH. VIII.


## p. 238 (#280) ############################################

238
A Bulgarian Tsar and Patriarch
בל
treachery; and, on 20 August 917, he annihilated the Byzantine army at
Anchialus? , where half a century later the bones of the slain were still
visible. Bulgaria by this victory became for a brief period the dominant
power of the Balkan peninsula. Simeon's dominions stretched from the
Black to the Ionian Sea, except for a few Byzantine fortresses on the
Albanian coast; Niš and Belgrade were Bulgarian; but the Aegean
coast remained Greek. In 923 Simeon besieged Constantinople, and
Hadrianople again surrendered to the Bulgarians. The title of “Sublime
Khan” or even that of “Prince" seemed inadequate for the ruler of such
a vast realm; accordingly Simeon assumed the style of “ Tsar of the
Bulgarians and Greeks,” receiving his crown from Rome, while, as a
natural concomitant of the imperial dignity, the head of the Bulgarian
Church became - Patriarch of Prêslav," with his residence at Silistria.
Simeon's career closed in the midst of wars against the Serbs and
Croats, in the course of which he had laid Serbia waste but had been
defeated by the Croats. He died in 927, and, like most strong Balkan
rulers, was succeeded by a weak man. He had excluded his eldest son
Michael from the succession and confined him in a monastery; but his
second son, Tsar Peter, had the temperament of a pacifist. His first act
was to marry the grand-daughter of the Byzantine co-Emperor, Romanus I
Lecapenus, thus introducing for the first time a Greek Tsaritsa into the
Bulgarian court. He obtained by this marriage the recognition of his
imperial title and of the Bulgarian Patriarchate. But the war-party in
Bulgaria, headed by the Tsar's younger brother John, revolted against
what they considered a policy of concession to the Greeks; and, when
John was defeated, Simeon's eldest son emerged from his cell to lead a
fresh rebellion. Upon his death, a far more serious opponent arose in the
person of the noble, Shishman of Trnovo, and his sons. Shishman separated
Macedonia and Albania from old Bulgaria, and established a second
Bulgarian Empire in the western provinces. Torn asunder by these
rivalries, Bulgaria was also menaced by her neighbours, the Serbs, the
Patzinaks, and the Magyars, while the Bogomile heresy spread through
the land from the two parent Churches of the Bulgarians proper and of
the Macedonian or Thracian Dragovitchi. In Bulgaria, as in Bosnia, the
Bogomile tenets aroused vehement opposition, the leader of which was the
presbyter Cosmas. Apart from their beliefs, the Bogomiles, by the mere
fact of dividing the nation into two contending religious factions, weakened
its unity and prepared the way for the Turkish conquest. Even to-day
the name of the Babuni, as the Bulgarian Bogomiles were called, lingers
in the Babuna mountains near Prilep, the scene of fighting between the
Bulgarians and the Allies in the late war. Simultaneously with this im-
portant religious and social movement there arose a race of ascetic hermits,
of whom the chief, John of Rila, became the patron saint of Bulgaria.
1 Leo Diaconus, 124. Gibbon confused the site of this battle with the classic
river Achelous.


## p. 239 (#281) ############################################

The Bogomile heresy
239
Native of a village near Sofia and a simple herdsman, he lived for twenty
years now in the hollow of an oak, now in a cave of the Rila mountains,
an hour's climb above the famous monastery which bears his name. Here
the pious Tsar Peter visited him, and here he died in 946. His body was
removed by Peter to Sofia, but restored to Rila in 1469.
The last years of Peter's weak reign coincided with the great revival
of Byzantine military power upon the accession of Nicephorus II Phocas.
The Bulgarians had the tactlessness to demand from the conqueror of
Crete, just returned from his triumphs in Asia, “the customary tribute"
which Byzantium had paid to the strong Tsar Simeon. The victorious
Emperor-so the historian of his reign' informs us—"although not easily
moved to anger," was so greatly incensed at this impertinent demand
that he raised his voice and exclaimed that “the Greeks must, indeed, be
in a sorry plight, if, after defeating every enemy in arms, they were to
pay tribute like slaves to a race of Scythians, poor and filthy to boot. ”
Suiting the action to the word, he ordered the envoys to be beaten, and
bade them tell their master that the most mighty Emperor of the Romans
would forthwith visit his country and pay the tribute in person. When,
however, the soldierly Emperor had seen with his own eyes what a difficult
country Bulgaria was, he thought it imprudent to expose his own army
to the risks which had befallen his namesake and predecessor in the Balkan
passes. He therefore contented himself with taking a few frontier-forts,
and invited the Russians, on payment of a subvention, to invade Bulgaria
from the north and settle permanently there. Svyatoslav, the Russian
Prince, was only too delighted to undertake this task. He landed in 967
at the mouth of the Danube, drove the Bulgarians back into Silistria,
and took many of their towns. This Russian success made Nicephorus
reflect that a Russian Bulgaria might be more dangerous to Constantinople
than a weak native state—the same argument led to the Berlin treaty-
so he offered to help the Bulgarians to expel his Russian allies, and re-
quested that two Bulgarian princesses should be sent to Byzantium to be
affianced to the sons of the late Emperor Romanus, one of whom was
destined to be “the slayer of the Bulgarians. ” Peter sent the princesses
and his two sons as hostages, but his death, the assassination of Nicephorus,
and the withdrawal of the Russians in 969, menaced by the Patzinaks at
home, ended this episode. The biblically-named sons of Shishman-David,
Moses, Aaron, and Samuel—endeavoured to avail themselves of the absence
of the lawful heir, Boris II, to reunite eastern and western Bulgaria under
their dynasty, but the arrival of Boris frustrated their attempt. It was
reserved for the new Byzantine Emperor, John I Tzimisces, to end the
eastern Bulgarian Empire.
Svyatoslav had been so greatly charmed with the riches and fertility
of Bulgaria that he returned there, no longer as a Byzantine ally but
on his own account, preferring, as he said, to establish his throne on the
1 Leo Diaconus, 61-63, 77-80; Cedrenus, u. 372.
сн. .


## p. 240 (#282) ############################################

240
Fall of Eastern Bulgaria
לל
Danube rather than at Kiev. He captured the Bulgarian capital and
the Tsar, crossed the Balkans, took and impaled the inhabitants of
Philippopolis, and bade the Greek government either pay him compen-
sation or leave Europe. The warlike Armenian who sat on the Greek
throne invaded Bulgaria in 971, traversed the unguarded Balkan passes,
took Great Prêslav, and released Boris and his family from Russian
captivity, saying that he had “come to avenge the Bulgarians for what
they had suffered from the Russians. ” But when Silistria, the last Russian
stronghold, fell, and the Russians had evacuated Bulgaria, Tzimisces de-
posed Boris and the Bulgarian Patriarch, and annexed eastern Bulgaria
to the Byzantine Empire. Boris was compelled to divest himself of his
regalia, and received a Byzantine court title; his brother was made an
eunuch. Great Prêslav was rebaptized Ioannoupolis after its conqueror;
the eastern Bulgarian Empire was at an end. Western Bulgaria under
the sons of Shishman remained, however, independent for 47 years longer.
Of these four sons, the so-called Comitopouloi (or“Young Counts”), David
was killed by some wandering Wallachs, Moses was slain while besieging
Seres, and Aaron with most of his family was executed for his Greek
sympathies by his remaining brother Samuel, who thus became sole
Bulgarian Tsar. His realm, at the period of its greatest extent (before
the Greek campaigns of 1000-1002), included a considerable part of
Danubian Bulgaria, with the towns of Great Prêslav, Vidin, and Sofia,
and much of Serbia and Albania, but was essentially Macedonian, and
his capital, after a brief residence at Sofia, was moved to Moglena, Vodená,
and Prespa (where an island in the lake still preserves the name of his
“castle”), and finally to the lake of Ochrida, the swamps of which he
drained by 100 canals into the river Drin.
Upon the death of Tzimisces in 976, the Bulgarians rose; both
Boris II and his brother, Roman, escaped from Constantinople, but the
former was shot by a Bulgarian in mistake for a Greek, while the latter,
being harmless, received a post from Samuel, who overran Thrace, the
country round Salonica, and Thessaly, and carried off from Larissa to
his capital at Prespa the remains of St Achilleus, Bishop of Larissa in
the time of Constantine the Great. The ruined monastery of the island
of Ahil in the lake still preserves the memory of this translation. Samuel
even marched into continental Greece and threatened the Peloponnese,
but was recalled by the news that the young Emperor Basil II had in-
vaded Bulgaria. The first of his Bulgarian campaigns, that of 981, ended,
however, ingloriously for the future conqueror of the Bulgarians. Whilst
on his way to besiege Sofia, he was defeated at Shtiponye near Ikhtiman
and with difficulty escaped to Philippopolis. Fifteen years of peace be-
tween the hereditary enemies ensued, which Samuel employed in making
war upon John Vladimir, the saintly Serbian Prince of Dioclea, in
ravaging Dalmatia, and in occupying Durazzo. Bulgaria thus for a brief
space-for Durazzo was soon recovered by the Greeks--became an


## p. 241 (#283) ############################################

Samuel and Basil II
241
Adriatic power. The Serbian prince, carried captive to Prespa, won the
heart of Samuel's daughter Kosara, who begged her father to release him
and allow her to marry him. Samuel not only consented, but allowed
him to return and rule over his conquered land.
In 996 began the second war between Basil II and the Bulgarians.
Basil, free at last from the cares of the civil wars, had appointed Taronites
governor of Salonica for the special purpose of checking Samuel's raids.
The new governor, however, fell with his son into a Bulgarian ambush
and was killed ; whereupon Basil sent Nicephorus Uranus to take his
place. Meanwhile Samuel, elated at his success, had marched again
through the vale of Tempe as far as the Peloponnese, ravaging and
plundering as he went. But this time he was not to return unscathed.
On his way back Uranus waited for him on the bank of the swollen
Spercheus, and, crossing in the night, fell upon the sleeping Bulgarian
soldiers, who had believed it impossible to ford the river. Samuel and
his son, Gabriel Radomir Roman, were wounded and only escaped capture
by lying as if dead among the corpses which strewed the field, fleeing,
when it was dark, to the passes of Pindus. From that moment Samuel's
fortune turned. His next loss was that of Durazzo, betrayed to the
Greeks by his father-in-law, the chief man of the place, and by the captive
son of Taronites, who had obtained the affections of another of the
Tsar's susceptible daughters, and had been allowed to marry her and had
received a command at that important position. The Greeks everywhere
took the offensive. In 1000 they entered and again subdued Danubian
Bulgaria, taking Great and Little Prêslav and Pliska, which is now
mentioned after a long interval. Next year Basil cleared the Bulgarian
garrisons out of the south Macedonian towns of Berrhoea, Servia, and
Vodená, and out of the Thessalian castles, removing them to Voleros at
the mouth of the Maritza. To this campaign we owe the first description,
which enlivens the prose of Cedrenus', of the waterfall of Vodená— the
Tivoli of Macedonia. In 1002 Vidin and Skoplje fell, and Samuel, believing
that the Vardar could not be crossed, once again nearly became the prisoner
of the Greeks. Hostilities dragged on, and Basil for the next twelve years
annually invaded the western Bulgarian Empire, which was now reduced
to part of Macedonia, Albania, and the mountains round Sofia. But in
1014 the third and last Bulgarian war of the reign broke out. On 29 July
Nicephorus Xiphias turned the strong Bulgarian position of Kleidion
("the key") in the Struma valley, near the scene of King Constantine's
victories over the Bulgarians 900 years later. Samuel escaped, thanks to
his son's assistance, to Prilep, but Basil blinded the 15,000 Bulgarian
captives, leaving one man in every hundred with one eye, so that he might
guide his totally blinded comrades to tell the tale to the fugitive Tsar.
Samuel fainted at the ghastly sight and two days later expired.
The western Bulgarian Empire survived him only four years. His
II. 436, 447, 449–56.
1
C. MED. U, VOL. IV. CH. VIII.
16


## p. 242 (#284) ############################################

242
Fall of Western Bulgaria
son, Gabriel Roman, by a captive from Larissa succeeded him, but
excelled him in physique alone. Barely a year later Gabriel was murdered
by his cousin John Vladislav, Aaron's son, whose life he had begged his
father to
spare
when Aaron and the rest of his family were put to death.
The ungrateful wretch likewise assassinated his cousin's wife, blinded her
eldest son, and invited the Serbian Prince, John Vladimir, to be his
guest at Prespa and there had him beheaded. Having thus removed all
possible rivals in his own family, the new Tsar began to treat with Basil,
whose vassal he offered to become. Basil, mistrusting the murderer,
marched upon his capital of Ochrida, blinding all the Bulgarians whom
he took prisoners on the way. He captured Ochrida and was on his way
to relieve Durazzo, which was invested by the Bulgarians, when a sudden
defeat, inflicted upon a detachment of his army by the Bulgarian noble,
Ivats, caused him to retire on Salonica. The Bulgarians continued to
make a vigorous defence of their difficult country; Pernik successfully
resisted a siege of 88 days; the Tsar even endeavoured to make an
alliance with the Patzinaks from beyond the Danube against the
Greeks. But he fell by an unknown hand while besieging Durazzo in
1018. Bulgaria, left without a head, was divided into two parties--one,
headed by the widowed Tsaritsa Maria, the Patriarch David, and Bog-
dan, “the commander of the inner fortresses"; the other and weaker
party, led by the late Tsar’s son Fruyin, and the soldierly Ivats. Upon
the news of the Tsar's death, Basil marched into Bulgaria to complete
the subjection of the country. At Strumitsa the Patriarch met him with
a letter from the Tsaritsa, offering on certain conditions to surrender
Bulgaria. Bogdan was rewarded with a Byzantine title for his treachery,
and then the Emperor proceeded to Ochrida, where he confiscated the
rich treasury of the Tsars. In his camp outside there waited upon him
the Tsaritsa with her six daughters and three of her sons, a bastard son
of Samuel, and the five sons and two daughters of Gabriel Radomir
Roman. The conqueror received her kindly, as well as the notables who
made their submission. Her three other sons, however, of whom Fruyin
was the most prominent, had fled to Mt. Tomor near Berat, where they
endeavoured to maintain the independence of Bulgaria in the Albanian
highlands, while Ivats held out in his castle of Pronishta in the same
mountainous region. The young princes, however, were forced to sur-
render and compensated with court titles; the brave Ivats was treacher-
ously seized and blinded. The last two nobles who still held out then
surrendered. After nearly 40 years of fighting, Bulgaria was subdued.
The “Bulgar-slayer,” as Basil II is known in history, celebrated his
triumph in the noblest of all existing churches, the majestic Parthenon,
then Our Lady of Athens. On his march he gazed upon the bleaching
bones of the Bulgarians who had fallen by the Spercheus twenty-two years
before, and upon the walls erected in the pass of Thermopylae to repel
their invasions. The great cathedral he enriched with offerings out of
יל


## p. 243 (#285) ############################################

Bulgaria a Byzantine province
243
the Bulgarian treasury, and 900 years later the Athenians were reminded
of his triumph there. Thence he returned to Constantinople, where the
ex-Tsaritsa, Samuel's daughters, and the rest of the Bulgarians were led
through the Golden Gate before him.
BULGARIA A BYZANTINE PROVINCE (1018–1186).
Bulgaria remained for 168 years a Byzantine province. Her nobles
had lost their leaders, her princes and princesses had disappeared amidst
the pompous functionaries of the Byzantine Court. Only her Church
remained autonomous, but that only on condition that the Patriarchate,
which during the period of the western Bulgarian Empire had had its seat
successively at Vodená, Prespa, and finally at Ochrida, was reduced to the
rank of an Archbishopric. In 1020 Basil II issued three charters' con-
firming the rights of “the Archbishop of Bulgaria"—the additional title
of “Justiniana Prima” was added in 1157—whose residence continued
to be at Ochrida, whither it had been moved by Simeon. He expressly
maintained intact the rights and area of its jurisdiction as it had been
in the times of both Peter and Samuel, which therefore included 30
bishoprics and towns, such as Ochrida, Kastoria, Monastir, and Skoplje in
Macedonia; Sofia and Vidin in old Bulgaria; Belgrade, Niš, Prizren, and
Rasa in what is now Jugoslavia; Canina (above Avlona), Cheimarra,
Butrinto, and Joannina in South Albania and Northern Epirus; and Stagi
(the modern Kalabaka) in Thessaly. We may therefore safely assume that
in the palmy days of Peter and of Samuel these places were included
within their respective Empires. In 1020 these thirty bishoprics contained
685 ecclesiastics and 655 serfs. But after Basil II's reign the number of
the suffragans was reduced practically to what it had been in the time of
Samuel, and after the first archbishop no more Bulgarians were appointed
to the see of Ochrida during the Byzantine period. The head of the
autonomous Bulgarian Church was always a Greek and often a priest
from St Sophia itself, except on one occasion when a Jew was nominated,
and the list includes the distinguished theologian and letter-writer,
Theophylact of Euboea, who felt as an exile his separation from culture
in the wilds of Bulgaria, and John Camaterus, afterwards Ecumenical
Patriarch at the time of the Latin conquest of Constantinople. The
Bogomile heresy made great progress during this period, especially round
Philippopolis, despite its persecution by the Emperor Alexius I. For
the civil and military administration of Bulgaria a new (Bulgarian) theme
was created under a Pronoetes? and also a duchy of Paristrium, while
the neighbouring themes had their territory enlarged. The various
governors, holding office usually for only a year, made as much out of
their districts as possible in the customary Oriental fashion; but the
local communities retained a considerable measure of autonomy, and we
לל
1 BZ. 11. 40–72. 2 Cf. infra, Chapter xxiii, p. 733.
CH. VIII.
16-2


## p. 244 (#286) ############################################

244
Bulgarian rising of 1040
וי
are expressly told that Basil left the taxes as they had been in the time
of Samuel, payable in kind.
The Bulgarians did not, however, remain inactive during this long
period of Byzantine rule. A succession of weak rulers and court intrigues
followed the death of Basil “the Bulgar-slayer. ” The Bulgarian prince
Fruyin, and his mother the ex-Tsaritsa, were mixed up in these intrigues,
both imprisoned in monasteries, and the former blinded. In 1040 a more
serious movement arose. Simultaneous insurrections broke out among
the Serbs of what is now Montenegro and the Bulgarians, who found a
leader in a certain Peter Delyan, who gave himself out to be a son of the
Tsar Gabriel Radomir Roman. Greeted enthusiastically as Tsar, he had
the country at his feet, so lively was the memory of the old dynasty.
But a rival appeared in the person of the warlike Tikhomir, who was
acclaimed Tsar by the Slavs of Durazzo. Delyan invited his rival and
the Bulgarians that were with him to a meeting, at which he told them
that “one bush could not nourish two redbreasts," and bade them choose
between Tikhomir and the grandson of Samuel, promising to abide loyally
by their decision. Loud applause greeted his speech; the people stoned
Tikhomir and proclaimed Delyan their sole sovereign. He marched upon
Salonica, whence the Emperor Michael IV the Paphlagonian fled, while
his chamberlain, Ivats, perhaps a son of the Bulgarian patriot, went over
with his war chest to the insurgents.