Autocéphalies. L’exercice de l’indépendance dans les Églises slaves orientales
| , ,Fondations et pratiques originelles (IXe siècle – fin XVIe siècle)
The Bulgarian Church in the 9th-10th century
Résumé
The Christianisation of the Bulgarians in 864 made possible the restoration of church structures in the eastern and central parts of the Balkan Peninsula. However, the policy of the Bulgarian ruler Boris-Michael (852-889, d. 907) was such that the Patriarchate of Constantinople could not simply re-establish its direct control over the church dioceses in the newly converted country. Founded in 870, the Bulgarian archbishopric, which was granted autocephaly in accordance with the acts of the Fourth Council in Constantinople in 879-880, gradually became instrumental in promoting the religious and cultural policies of Boris-Michael and his son, Prince (Emperor from 913 onwards) Symeon (893-927), aimed at introducing the Slavonic liturgy and literature. In 927 Byzantium recognised the patriarchal dignity of the archbishop of Bulgaria. After the Byzantines’ capture of the capital, Preslav, and of the eastern Bulgarian lands in 971, it was the vagaries of the Byzantine-Bulgarian military conflict that determined the fortunes of the Bulgarian Church. It all came to an end with the destruction of the Bulgarian empire in 1018 and the establishment of the Bulgarian archbishopric of Ohrid, nominally independent from the patriarch of Constantinople.
Entrées d'index
Texte intégral
- 1 Will 1861, p. 206.
1In 1053 Dominic Marango III, patriarch of Grado and Aquileia, sent the patriarch of Antioch, Peter III, a letter in which, among other issues, he stressed that his Church had been founded by Saint Mark following an order from the Apostle Peter, and therefore the head of this Church was honored with a patriarchal title and with the right to sit on the right side of the «ecumenical pope» during the councils in Rome.1
- 2 Ibid., p. 208.
- 3 Ibid., p. 211.
- 4 Ibid., p. 211-212.
2In his answer, addressed to «the most holy archbishop of Aquileia or Grado»,2 Peter defended the traditional Byzantine concept of Pentarchy, according to which the right to bear patriarchal dignity belonged only to the episcopal sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.3 He compared those five seats to the five senses of the human body (by analogy with the Church as the single body of Christ), and rhetorically noted that a sixth patriarch could not be promoted, as the body has no sixth sense.4 Further on, he wrote:
- 5 Ibid., p. 212-213.
How many vast regions and countries around the world that are larger than your diocese, are managed and guided to veneration of God by metropolitans and archbishops. Consider how much bigger than your land is Bulgaria, how much larger are Babylon the Great and Romagyris, i.e. Chorosan, and the other eastern provinces, where archbishops and katholikoi are sent by us, and they ordain in these places metropolitans to whom are subject many bishops, however none of them was ever called a patriarch.5
- 6 Basil II, Περὶ τῆς ἀρχιεπισκοπῆς Βουλγαρίας, in RP V, p. 266-269. See also: Gelzer 1893, p. 42-46; (...)
3The reference to Bulgaria in this context could not escape our attention for at least two reasons. First of all, here Peter of Antioch obviously wanted to draw the attention of his correspondent to the ecclesiastical organization established by Basil II in the Bulgarian lands after their annexation to Byzantium in 1018 – the emperor acknowledged the existence and the privileges of an autocephalous archbishopric with a seat in Ohrid, whose heads were to bear the title «archbishop of all Bulgaria».6 Second, as we will see, Peter himself invalidated, at least partially, his own argument against the right of the archbishop of Grado to be named patriarch, because the same patriarchal title was actually borne during the best part of the 10th and at the beginning of the 11th century by the archbishops of Bulgaria before the destruction of the first Bulgarian empire.
- 7 Dölger 1940, p. 219-220, 226.
- 8 Sullivan 1966, p. 66-71; Obolensky 1971, p. 91-92.
4The idea of establishing a Bulgarian patriarchate was born in the spring of 866, when the Bulgarian prince, Boris-Michael, was faced with the question of how to pacify his country more quickly after the bloody suppression of a major revolt against the newly adopted Christian religion. The organizers of the rebellion claimed that Boris had given them «a bad law» and this was enough to win over to their side a considerable part of the Bulgarian population. Indeed, the fact that in 864 the prince converted to Christianity under direct diplomatic and military pressure from Byzantium, took the name of his «spiritual father»,7 Emperor Michael III, and allowed a large-scale influx of Greek priests and religious missionaries into Bulgaria, compromised Boris in the eyes of his own subjects, since for nearly two centuries they had considered the empire a principal enemy and rival.8
- 9 Gjuzelev 1969, 129-130; Tăpkova-Zaimova 1969, p. 292; Obolensky, 1971, 84-85, 114; Browning, 1975, (...)
5Here we should point out that, from the perspective of Byzantium, once the Bulgarians had received Christianity from the Church of Constantinople, they fell under the political supremacy of the Byzantine emperor.9 For example, according to the anonymous chronicle that forms the first section of the so-called Theophanes Continuatus, having converted to Christianity, Boris:
- 10 Theophanes Continuatus 1838, p. 165. 1-2.
Wrote to the empress […] and asked her for lands more directly, because, intrinsically connected through faith and inseparable friendship, they already represented one whole and not two [countries]. He promised also to obey and to observe an eternal and unbreakable peace.10
- 11 Ibid., p. 165. 9.
- 12 Symeon Magister et Logotheta 2006, p. 243.
6According to the same chronicle, once they had received the requested lands, the Bulgarians subjected themselves to an «unbreakable communion» with the empire.11 The adoption of Christianity in Bulgaria is described in a similar way in the chronicle of Symeon the Logothete: the Bulgarians «asked to become Christians and to submit to the emperor and to the Romans».12
- 13 Gjuzelev 1969, p. 183-184; Obolensky 1971, p. 86; Tăpkova-Zaimova 1987, p. 517; Komatina 2014, p. (...)
7The Byzantine claims to political supremacy over the newly converted Bulgarians rested on the obvious fact that the Bulgarian state was built on former imperial territories, and this would presuppose a straightforward restoration of the direct jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan patriarchate over the country. Therefore, it is hardly a coincidence that, in his long epistle to Boris-Michael from 865, Patriarch Photius refrained from expressing openly his views on such a vital question as whether Constantinople intended to build a separate Bulgarian Church structure headed by an archbishop or a metropolitan.13
- 14 Annales Bertiniani, in M.G.H., Scriptores, I, p. 473-474 (s. a. 866).
8Getting back to the events that followed the final suppression of the pagan revolt on March 29th, 866, we should consider that the triumph of Boris over his internal enemies was indisputable. The revenge of the prince was directed against the organizers and leaders of the rebellion (omnes primates eorum atque maiores) – fifty-two aristocratic families were completely wiped out, and the rest of the rebels (mediocres [...] seu minores) were spared and released.14 For Boris it was of utmost importance to convince his subjects that the Christian faith brought by Byzantine missionaries did not harm or diminish the authority and the power of the Bulgarian ruler, whose forefathers long before the Christianization of the country had (with the official consent of Constantinople) borne the Greek title of «prince by God» and wеre regarded not only as the embodiment of the sovereignty and independence of the state, but also as intermediaries between the people and the divine forces worshipped by the pagan Bulgarians.
- 15 Nicolaus I papa, Epistolae, in M.G.H. Epistolae, VI, p. 593.
9It was at that particular point in time that the Byzantine Church emissaries, sent to Boris by Patriarch Photius, be it because they were acting upon instructions from Constantinople, or due to excessive religious zeal, rather indelicately reminded the Bulgarian prince that he could no longer steer the course of events in his country single-handedly, by refusing to give remission of sins to the huge number of former rebels already pardoned by the state.15
- 16 Dvornik 1948, p. 113; Shepard 1995, p. 241; Podskalsky 2000, p. 54-56; Komatina 2014, p. 208-211.
10Boris’s response was quick and emphatic: on August 29th, 866, Pope Nicholas I received in Rome a Bulgarian embassy that submitted to him a long list of questions concerning diverse spheres of ecclesiastical and public life.16 Four of these questions, the content of which is known only from the respective answers, reveal Boris’s desire to build in his country a patriarchate, independent of the other major religious centers of the Christian world. Alongside questions such as «how many patriarchs there truly are» (no. 92), «which patriarch is second to that of Rome» (no. 93), «by whom a patriarch should be ordained» (no. 72), Nicholas was to comment on the issue of the establishment of an independent Bulgarian Church in his letter to Boris from November 13th, 866:
- 17 Nicolaus I papa, Epistolae, in M.G.H. Epistolae, VI, p. 592-593.
You ask if it is permitted for a patriarch to be ordained among you. We cannot say anything definitive on this issue before our legates, whom we send to you, have returned and reported to us what a multitude and unanimity of Christians there is among you. In the meantime, have a bishop and when Christianity has spread there with an increase in divine grace and bishops have been ordained in each church, then one among them should be elected, who should be called, if not patriarch, then certainly archbishop; to him all shall come and ask his advice in more serious matters, since the apostolic rules command and state this same thing: It is fitting that the bishops of each nation know who among them is considered first, whom they consider as their head.17
- 18 Zlatarski 1971, p. 128-143; Dujčev 1971, 249-251; Gjuzelev 1969, p. 222; Podskalsky 2000, p. 56; K (...)
11The further development of relations between Rome and Pliska between 866 and 869 demonstrated Boris’s willingness to see the establishment of an archbishopric in his country; nevertheless, he insisted on having the final say in choosing the archbishop, which was an indication of his firm intention to put the affairs of the future Bulgarian Church under the control of the state. This, however, was unacceptable to Nicholas I and Hadrian II (867-872); they refused to approve either of Boris’s nominees (Formosus of Porto and Deacon Marinus), which predetermined the rupture between Bulgaria and Rome.18
- 19 Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Historiae, in PL 128, col. 1393-1394 (§ 637).
- 20 Dvornik 1948, p. 152-154; Dvornik 1958, p. 33; Nikolova 1997, p. 38-40; Simeonova 1998, p. 248-270 (...)
12According to Anastasius the Librarian, on March 4th, 870, a meeting took place in Constantinople between Emperor Basil I, Patriarch Ignatius and the most prominent participants in the work of the recently held Eighth Ecumenical Council. The envoys of Prince Boris used this opportunity to raise officially the question of supreme Church jurisdiction over Bulgaria. Despite the protests of the papal legates, the representatives of the three eastern patriarchs decreed that the ecclesiastical dioceses within the confines of that country should belong to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.19 Soon the Roman mission in Bulgaria was replaced by a Byzantine archbishop, consecrated by Patriarch Ignatius, who ordained several bishops, while Boris received a special document attesting the canonicity of the decision of March 4th, 870, which in fact reflected the will of the emperor, Basil I.20
- 21 Dvornik 1948, 154-158; Gjuzelev 1969, 260-290; Simeonova 1998, p. 296-329; Božilov – Gjuzelev 1999 (...)
13Hadrian II died soon after these events, but his successor John VIII was committed to bringing the Bulgarians back under the jurisdiction of Rome.21 His efforts in that respect reached their climax in August 879, when a specially convened council in Rome approved a set of instructions (Commonitorium) for the papal legates who had to participate in the work of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. Chapter nine of this document runs as follows:
- 22 Pseudo-Synodus Photiana, in Mansi 1772, col. 488; Boojamra 1982, p. 9 (text), p. 13 (translation), (...)
We wish you to plead before the synod with the aforementioned Photius, the most holy patriarch, not to send the pallium to Bulgaria and not to ordain in the same eparchy, for if he does this, we will reprimand him according to the canons.22
- 23 Pseudo-Synodus Photiana, in Mansi 1772, col. 419. See also: Zlatarski 1971, 199-202; Boojamra 1982 (...)
- 24 Pseudo-Synodus Photiana, in Mansi 1772, col. 488; Boojamra 1982, p. 9; Komatina 2014, p. 326.
14During the council, on November 17th, 879, Photius granted John VIII’s aforementioned official request and declared that since his second accession to the patriarchal throne he had made no new ordinations in Bulgaria. On this occasion, however, the archbishop of Caesarea, Procopius, and the metropolitan of Ephesus, Gregory, insisted that the redrawing of ecclesiastical borders was a prerogative of the emperor, not of the council.23 Finally, on December 24th, 879, the council decided, in strict accordance with the respective chapter of the Commonitorium, that the patriarch would not intervene in Bulgarian ecclesiastical affairs: «From now on, the patriarch of Constantinople is not to ordain in Bulgaria, nor to send a pallium; even if they renounce this and come to his holiness, they are not to gain favor».24
- 25 Dvornik 1948, p. 210. The critical edition of the extant Byzantine Notitiae episcopatuum wholly ap (...)
- 26 Gjuzelev 1999, p. 102-103; Božilov – Gjuzelev 1999, p. 190-191; Podskalsky 2000, p. 68; Komatina 2 (...)
15In accordance with the decision of the council from that time onward Bulgaria ceased to be listed among the dioceses under the jurisdiction of the see of Constantinople.25 Over the following years neither Basil I, nor Boris took any steps towards imposing the control of the Papacy over Bulgaria. In fact, the Bulgarian archbishopric was given an autocephaly26 and became virtually independent from the sees of Constantinople and Rome. In the longer term, this created all preconditions for the replacement of the Greek clerics with priests and bishops of Bulgarian and Slavic origin and contributed to the further emancipation of the newly-converted country from the political influence of Byzantium.
- 27 Dvornik 1948, p. 215.
Bulgaria’s surrender by Constantinople, of which Rome could not take advantage, only stimulated […] Bulgaria’s dreams of independence, and from that time onward we can watch Boris acting as a sovereign, even in the country’s religious problems, asking leave from neither Rome nor Byzantium, and after the expulsion of the disciples of St Methodius from Moravia […] offering them sanctuary in his country and adopting the Slavonic liturgy, which pope Stephen V had banished from Moravia. Thus there gradually arose in Bulgaria а Slav national Church, which soon displaced the Greek element”.27
- 28 Petrus Siculus, Historia, in PG 104, col. 1239-1240. See also: Garsoïan 1967, p. 36, n. 52; Komati (...)
- 29 Jordanov 2016, p. 161-164.
16Information about the first Byzantine archbishops of Bulgaria is scarce and not entirely accurate, and thus does not permit us to draw a sufficiently detailed picture of their activities. The name of the first archbishop was Joseph; presumably, he was the same Bulgarian prelate to whom Peter of Sicily dedicated his work against the Paulicians in 872.28 A later archbishop, perhaps from the period around the Fourth Council of Constantinople, was George, whose lead seals are found not only in Bulgaria but also in Istanbul, Athens, and even in Hungary.29 Indeed, the iconography of the more common type of his seals is reminiscent of the seals of Boris from the period after he renounced his throne in 889.
- 30 Oikonomidès 1972, p. 137. 17.
17It is worth noting that, according to the Kletorologion of Philotheos (written in 899), during the official ceremonies in the imperial palace, the archbishop of Bulgaria was given a place right after the syncelli of the three eastern patriarchs and far above the metropolitans and the other archbishops.30
- 31 Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople 1973, p. 20-26 (no. 4), 80-88 (no. 11).
- 32 Discussion and bibliography: Fine 1983, p. 155-156; Podskalsky 2000, p. 70; Leszka 2013, p. 248-25 (...)
18Mention should also be made of two letters sent by Patriarch Nicholas I Mysticus in 912/913 and 918/919 to an unnamed archbishop of Bulgaria, which were written in a gracious and polite tone and do not sound like orders.31 The second of those letters is from the period of the most severe military conflict between the two countries, when, according to an outdated hypothesis of Vasil Zlatarski, Symeon I convened a council in his new capital, Preslav, which elected and ordained the first Bulgarian patriarch, who, in turn, crowned the Bulgarian prince emperor. Since this hypothesis is based solely on conjectures, there is no need to analyze it here in detail, even though it has gained some traction among contemporary Bulgarian historians.32
19And still, when was the Bulgarian patriarchate founded? If we take as a starting point the definition of Nicholas I in one of his answers from 866 (no. 92), a Bulgarian patriarchate simply could not exist:
- 33 Nicolaus I papa, Epistolae, in M.G.H. Epistolae, VI, p. 596-597.
In truth, those men should be considered patriarchs who achieve the apostolic see through the succession of bishops, i.e. those who rule over those Churches which the apostles are shown to have established, namely the Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Rome, because both princes of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul, established it by their preaching and sanctified it with their own blood which was shed for the love of Christ; Alexandria, because the evangelist Mark, who was the disciple and son by baptism of Peter, established it after being sent by Peter and dedicated it with his blood to the Lord Christ; and Antioch, because it was there that in a great assembly of the saints the faithful were first called Christians and because the blessed Peter governed it for some years before he came to Rome. The bishops of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, although they are called patriarchs, do not possess as much authority as the above [sees]. For, as regards the Church of Constantinople, none of the apostles founded it nor did the synod of Nicaea, which is more venerable and celebrated than all other synods, make any mention of it; rather its bishop was given the title of patriarch more through the favor of princes than by reason, since Constantinople was called «New Rome». As for the bishop of Jerusalem, although he is both called a patriarch and should be honored as such in accordance with ancient custom and the synod of Nicaea, with his proper dignity of metropolitan preserved, in [the acts of this] same great synod, he is in no way called the bishop of Jerusalem, but rather the bishop of Helia.33
- 34 Jordanov 2016, p. 73-78 (edition of 27 lead seals of this variety). See also: Jordanov 2011; Nenov (...)
- 35 In general about Symeon I see Božilov 1983; Shepard 1999; Nikolov 2006; Shepard 2011; Leszka 2013; (...)
20On the other hand, we should bear in mind the ambitious political claims of Symeon I, who in the autumn of 913 managed to sign together with Patriarch Nicholas I (as head of the imperial Regency) a treaty which gave the Bulgarian prince the right to use the title of «emperor», though these agreements were annulled several months later by the new Regency of the Empress Zoe. In the following years Symeon’s understanding of his own position in the Christian world evolved and after the triumph of his armies over the Byzantines near Anchialos on August 20, 917, he adopted and engraved on his seals the title «Symeon in Christ emperor of the Romans» (Συμεὼν ἐν Χριστῷ βασιλεὺς Ῥωμαίων).34 However, up until his death in May 927, all his attempts to take the imperial throne in Constantinople through force of arms remained futile and his negotiations with Nicholas Mysticus and Romanus I merely led to a cessation of active hostilities from the autumn of 924 onwards.35
- 36 Obolensky 1971, p. 115-117; Browning 1975, 66-69; Dujčev 1978, p. 217-295; Shepard 1995a; Gjuzelev (...)
- 37 Last edition of these seals: Jordanov 2016, p. 86-95. Discussion of the Greek legends: Shepard 199 (...)
21Only in October 927, after the accession of Symeon’s heir, Peter, Byzantium and Bulgaria signed a new peace treaty, sealed by the marriage between the new Bulgarian ruler and Maria, daughter of Emperor Christopher and granddaughter of the ruling emperor, Romanus.36 There is no doubt that under this treaty Byzantium recognized the imperial dignity of the Bulgarian ruler, a fact well attested not only in some written sources but also on the lead seals of Peter and Maria, which bear the legends: Πέτρος καὶ Μαρία βασιλεῖς τῶν Βουλγάρων and Πέτρος καὶ Μαρία αὐτοκράτορες ἐν Χριστῷ βασιλεῖς τῶν Βουλγάρων.37 However, a question that needs to be answered is whether this affected the status of the Bulgarian Church and if so, how.
22Let’s approach this question starting with an important historical source that was unknown to the earlier generations of scholars. In 1978 G. Prinzing published for the first time an anonymous Short notice about the archbishoprics of Prima and Secunda Justiniana, composed in the second half of the 12th century and preserved in a 13th-century copy in the manuscript Scor. gr. X.II.10, f. 377r. According to this rather contradictory account, the autocephalous status and the patriarchal privileges of Justiniana Prima (established in 535, destroyed by the Avars, and since the early 12th century speculatively associated with the archbishopric of Ohrid) were reaffirmed first by Emperor Basil I, and then by Romanus I in the context of his treaty with the Bulgarians in 927:
- 38 Prinzing, Entstehung, p. 277-278.
Once the imperial power was gradually separated from the Romans and was established in Constantinople, this first Church [Justiniana Prima] was honoured with patriarchal dignity […]. It should be known also that after it was legitimated by the famous emperor Justinian, this Church was autocephalous and possessed its own ordination and the privilege of worship not only thanks to Emperor Basil and the elder Romanus Lecapenus, when a treaty was signed with the Bulgarian emperor, Peter, but also because of older privileges.38
- 39 Gjuzelev 1999, p. 98-107; Božilov 2011, p. 46-47. It can be assumed that the emperor had given his (...)
23In other words, the anonymous author knew that Basil I granted autocephaly to the Bulgarian Church and his mention about Romanus in this context most probably envisages an act of patriarchal promotion for the archbishop of Bulgaria as an element of the peace treaty with Peter of Bulgaria.39
24The autocephaly of the archbishopric of Ohrid was associated with Romanus I by Michael of Deabolis (1115 or 1118) in one of his additions to the chronicle of John Skylitzes, although he does not refer explicitly to the treaty of 927:
- 40 Variant readings: the bishop, the archbishop.
- 41 Ioannes Scylitzes 1973, p. 365. English translation: Wortley 2010, p. 345.
The emperor [Basil II] again confirmed that the archbishopric40 of Bulgaria was autocephalous as it had been formerly under Romanos the Elder. This was because he drew the conclusion from the constitutions of Emperor Justinian that it was Justiniana Prima which that emperor claimed to be his fatherland and which then had Kastellion as its bishop.41
25There is one reference in the List of Bulgarian archbishops from the mid-12th century (also known as the Du Cange’s List) that deserves special attention. There, the 10th-century Bulgarian patriarch Damian is presented as a predecessor of the archbishops of Ohrid, and his activity is connected with Dristra (ancient Durostorum, now Silistra), not with the Bulgarian capital Preslav:
- 42 Božilov 2011, p. 102. See also: Gelzer, Patriarchat, p. 6; Ivanov 1931, p. 566; Tăpkova-Zaimova 20 (...)
Damian in Dorostolon, now Dristra. Under him Bulgaria was recognized as autocephalous. On the orders of the emperor, Romanus Lecapenus, he was proclaimed patriarch by the Imperial Senate, and was later degraded by John Tzimisces.42
26This passage is reminiscent of the reference to Dristra in the second charter of Basil II for the archbishopric of Ohrid from ca. 1020:
- 43 Gelzer 1893, p. 44-45; Beneševič 1911, p. 547; Ivanov 1931, p. 557.
During the reign of Peter in Bulgaria this shone with archiepiscopal dignity and then the archbishops moved from one place to another, one to Triaditsa, the other to Voden and Moglena, and after this we found the present archbishop in Ohrid.43
- 44 Litavrin 2002, p. 141-142; Božilov 2011, p. 48-50.
27Some modern historians uncritically accept these accounts from the List of Bulgarian archbishops and from the second charter of Basil II, and tend to view Damian as the first (and the last) patriarch of Bulgaria, who resided in Dristra and was ordained at the command of Romanus I in 927 or later (but not after the end of his rule in 944). However, it seems doubtful that Damian was the first patriarch, and his (presumably short) stay in Dristra, wrongly interpreted by the compiler of the list, can be explained by his escape from Preslav in 971 as John Tzimiskes’s troops were approaching the capital city of Bulgaria.44
- 45 Božilov – Totomanova – Biljarski 2010, p. 168.
28Such an interpretation of the text seems quite probable since it is corroborated by the list of four «patriarchs of Preslav» (Leontius, Demetrius, Sergius and Gregory), included into the Synodicon of the Bulgarian Church from the 13th-14th centuries.45
- 46 Angelov 1967, p. 112-115; Gjuzelev 1999, p. 104; Kostova 2000, p. 175. Some modern scholars tend t (...)
- 47 Jordanov 2016, p. 171-174.
29This list presumably might be expanded with the name of a certain «Archbishop John, who was the patriarch of the Bulgarian land», mentioned in a note by the anonymous Old Bulgarian translator of the Vita of St. Anthony the Great from the first half of the 10th century.46 It seems that with the same person might be associated a unique lead seal bearing the legend «Mother of God, help your slave John, archbishop of Bulgaria», found in 2010 somewhere between the villages of Vekilski and Pet mogili, approximately 40 kilometers north-east from Pliska.47
- 48 Popkonstantinov 1980, p. 56-65; Georgiev 1994, p. 112-116; Podskalsky 2000, p. 70.
- 49 Prinzing, Entstehung, p. 278.
30The status of Preslav as the seat of the Bulgarian Church between 927 and 971 is also reflected in the honorific title of «protothronos», used during the 13th and 14th centuries by the metropolitans of this town, who enjoyed the senior rank among the bishops under the jurisdiction of the patriarchs of Tărnovo.48 It is curious to note that in the 12th-century Short notice about the archbishoprics of Prima and Secunda Justiniana this title is associated with the autocephalous Bulgarian archbishops: according to the anonymous author, the bishop of Bulgaria was originally called πρίμας which in Greek means πρῶτος, and in Slavic or Bulgarian – πρεβόλεος (according to the author); equivalent to πρίμας were also the titles τῆς πρώτης καϑέδρας ἐπίσκοπος, or ὁ πρωτόϑρονος ὁ πάντων ὑπερέχων.49
- 50 Jordanov 2016, p. 174-181 (Legends: «God, help your servant» / «George, monk and Bulgarian syncell (...)
- 51 In the 10th century the syncellus was the closest intimate of the patriarch and his potential succ (...)
- 52 Jordanov 2016, p. 116-119.
31The title and the functions of the Bulgarian patriarchs after 927 also deserve some clarification, but as there are no surviving patriarchal documents or seals and as no Byzantine chronicles associate the patriarchal title with the church head of Bulgaria during this period, it is difficult to pronounce on this matter. Still, the eight lead-seals of a certain George, «monk and Bulgarian syncellus»50, most of which were found in the Outer Town of Preslav, give some reason to think that there existed a patriarchal office run according to Byzantine standards.51 In all likelihood, George was a syncellus of the patriarch of Bulgaria, and the Slavonic legends on both sides of the seals indicate an advanced «Bulgarisation» of the ecclesiastical institutions which should be associated with the second half of Emperor Peter’s reign, when legends in Slavonic started appearing on the ruler’s seals.52
- 53 This doesn’t necessarily mean that the title «patriarch of Bulgaria» was given personally only to (...)
- 54 Nikolova 1997, p. 44-45; Nikolova 2002, p. 65-89; Nikolova 2015, p. 172.
- 55 Oikonomidès 1972, p. 245. 17. See also Darrouzès 1970, p. 31-32.
32In the extant Byzantine sources from the period after 927, the head of the Bulgarian Church, with very rare exceptions, is referred to only with his traditional title of archbishop of Bulgaria, probably because the patriarchal title given to him by the Byzantine emperor most probably was seen in Constantinople – in the light of the traditional concept of the Pentarchy – only as honorary and devoid of actual significance.53 Effectively, this weakens the only seemingly serious argument54 against the view that Bulgarian archbishops acquired patriarchal dignity in 927; the fact that the Taktikon of Beneševič55 of ca. 934-944 mentions only an archbishop, and not a patriarch of Bulgaria, is indicative only of the contemptuous attitude of the Byzantine bureaucracy towards the church leader of a neighbouring and officially allied state, which until recently had been the worst enemy and rival of their empire.
33It should be emphasized that from a Bulgarian point of view the Byzantine endorsement of the patriarchal dignity of the Bulgarian archbishops, along with the recognition of the imperial dignity of Peter I and his successors, constituted a durable achievement, hard-earned at the cost of many sacrifices and legitimised once and for all with the signing of the treaty of 927. These views were echoed to a certain extent by Emperor Basil II, who preserved the autocephalous status of the archbishopric of Ohrid and of all Bulgaria as successor of the Bulgarian Church of the time of Peter and Samuel:
- 56 Gelzer 1893, p. 44; Beneševič 1911, p. 547; Ivanov 1931, p. 555-556.
We therefore decree that the present most holy archbishop shall possess and govern all the Bulgarian bishoprics, as well as all other towns that were under the power of Emperor Peter and Samuel and were also held by the archbishops of that time. Because it was not without blood, toil and hardship, but by long years of persistence and with God’s help that this country was granted in subordination to us by God, whose goodness clearly helped us, blending into one the divided parts and putting under one yoke the boundaries, without infringing in any way on the rules established well by those who reigned before us. Because, although we became the possessors of the land, we still preserved its rights intact, reaffirming them by our imperial decrees and sigillia. We also lay down that the present most holy archbishop of Bulgaria shall have a diocese as large as that under Emperor Peter, and that he shall possess and govern all bishoprics of Bulgaria.56
- 57 Prinzing, Autocephalous, p. 358, 366.
34In other words, as G. Prinzing recently put it, the Church in Samuel’s empire «was headed by a patriarch who took up the tradition of the Bulgarian patriarchate of Preslav and Dristra respectively», and the «ecclesiastical “Bulgaria” in the shape of the Byzantine archbishopric of Ohrid goes back essentially to the core regions of Samuel’s tsardom and continues the patriarchate’s tradition in Samuel’s Bulgarian empire».57
35The same idea of practically uninterrupted continuity – albeit in the light of the notional concept of some connection with the ancient Justiniana Prima – was expressed in 1143 by Nilos Doxopatres in his Taxis of the Patriarchal Thrones:
- 58 Finck 1902, p. 21. See also Ivanov 1931, p. 563-564.
Bulgaria is similar to Cyprus, independent and not subjected to any of the supreme thrones, but self-governed and ordained by its own bishops. At first it was not [called] Bulgaria; however, since later it was conquered by the Bulgarians, it received the name Bulgaria. It remained autocephalous even when, through the imperial power, by Еmperor Basil Porphyrogennetus, it was snatched from Bulgarian hands, and never joined the Church of Constantinople.58
- 59 Hageneder – Haidacher 1995, p. 234. 25-27
- 60 Božilov – Totomanova – Biljarski 2010, p. 156-157: «The great and pious emperor Asen, son of the o (...)
36After the restoration of the Bulgarian state in 1185-1186, one of the first tasks of the brothers Petar, Asen and Kalojan was to reinstate the imperial status of their country and to ensure patriarchal dignity for the archbishops of the new Bulgarian capital of Tărnovo in the spirit of a saying, ascribed in a letter to Pope Innocent III by Emperor Kalojan to John X Camaterus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Emperor Alexius III Angelus: «the patriarch and the emperor sent to me [saying]: Come to us, and we will crown you as an emperor and will install a patriarch for you, for there can be no empire without a patriarchate».59 After intensive negotiations between Emperor John III Doukas, Germanus II, Patriarch of Constantinople in exile, and Emperor John Asen II, in 1235 the archbishop Joachim of Tărnovo was proclaimed legitimate patriarch by a representative ecclesiastical council in Lampsacus. According to the historical narration included in the Synodicon of the Bulgarian Church, this was not the formation of a new institution, but a restoration of the old Bulgarian patriarchate.60
- 61 Podskalsky 2000, p. 68, n. 287.
37Finally, I will attempt to offer a brief answer to the question I posed earlier in this paper. The sources we analysed are insufficient to describe in any detail the state of the Bulgarian Church in the 10th century or the assumption of patriarchal dignity by its head. However, it is rather revealing that, to this day, discussions among researchers are still dominated by stereotypes that stem from the urge to describe logically and unequivocally an almost totally unfamiliar historical reality. Our analysis has deliberately steered clear of the canonical dimensions of the issue as it is apparent that such an approach would not have yielded a positive outcome. While I accept Gerhard Podskalsky’s warning that «there must be a clear distinction between canon law and brotherly love»61, I would be prepared to go even further. The situation of the Bulgarian Church and its primates in the 10th century proves that a newly Christianised country, sharing neither the culture nor the traditions of Rome and Byzantium, could strive to ensure, through both warfare and diplomacy, the greatest possible independence for its religious institution (which during the Middle Ages was regarded as an attribute of full state sovereignty), despite there being no better canonical justification for it than the emperor’s right to alter the boundaries of Church dioceses in accordance with the current political and administrative needs. In other words, the logic of life triumphed over the canons and this set an uneasy precedent.
Bibliographie
Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Historiae, in PL 128 = Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Historiae de vitis Romanorum pontificum continuatio, in PL 128, col. 9-1406.
Annales Bertiniani, in MGH, Scriptores, I = Annales Bertiniani, in MGH, Scriptores, I, Hanover, 1826, p. 423-515.
Angelov 1967 = B. Angelov [Б. Ангелов], Из старата българска, руска и сръбска литература, 2, Sofia, 1967.
Angelova – Prinzing 2002 = S. Angelova – G. Prinzing, Das mutmaßliche Grab des Patriarchen Damian: zu einem archäologischen Fund in Dristra/Silistra, in Средновековна християнска Европа. Изток и запад, Sofia, 2002, p. 726-730.
Basil II, Περὶ τῆς ἀρχιεπισκοπῆς Βουλγαρίας, in RP V, p. 266-269.
Beneševič 1911 = V. Beneševič [В. Бенешевич], Описание греческих рукописей монастыря св. Екатерины на Синае, I, Saint Petersburg, 1911.
Birnbaum 1990 = D. Birnbaum, A Slavic translation of the Ohrid chrysobull of 1273: the Greek text of the Ohrid chrysobull, in Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila Joszef Nominatae. Dissertationes slavicae. Sectio linguistica, 21, 1990, p. 267-284.
Boojamra 1982 = J. Boojamra, The Photian Synod of 879-80 and the Papal Commonitorium, in Byzantine Studies / Études byzantines, 9, 1982, p. 1-23.
Božilov 1983 = I. Božilov [И. Божилов], Цар Симеон Велики (893-927). Златният век на средновековна България, Sofia, 1983.
Božilov – Gjuzelev 1999 = I. Božilov, V. Gjuzelev [И. Божилов – В. Гюзелев], История на средновековна България VII – XIV век, Sofia, 1999.
Božilov – Totomanova – Biljarski 2010 = I. Božilov, A.-M. Totomanova, I. Biljarski [И. Божилов, А.-М. Тотоманова, И. Билярски] (ed.), Борилов синодик. Издание и превод, Sofia, 2010.
Božilov 2011 = I. Božilov [И. Божилов], Българската архиепископия XI-XII в. Списъкът на българските архиепископи, Sofia, 2011.
Browning 1975 = R. Browning, Byzantium and Bulgaria. A comparative study across the early medieval frontier, Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1975.
Constantinus Porphyrogenitus 1829 = Constantinus Porphyrogenitus imperator, De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, ed. I. Reiske, I, Bonn, 1829.
Darrouzès 1970 = J. Darrouzès, Recherches sur les ὀϕϕίκια de l’Église byzantine, Paris, 1970 (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien, 11).
Delekare 2014 = A. Delekare [Α. Δεληκάρη], Η Αρχιεπισκοπή Αχριδών κατά τον Μεσαίωνα. Ο ρόλος της ως ενωτικού παράγοντα στην πολιτική και εκκλησιαστική ιστορία των Σλάβων των Βαλκανίων και του Βυζαντίου, Thessaloniki, 2014 (Ελληνισμός και κόσμος των Σλάβων, 12).
Dölger 1940 = F. Dölger, Der Bulgarenherrscher als geistlicher Sohn des byzantinischen Kaisers, in Известия на Българското историческо дружество, XVI-XVII, 1940, p. 219-232.
Dujčev 1971 = I. Dujčev, Medioevo bizantino-slavo, III, Rome, 1971.
Dujčev 1978 = I. Dujčev, On the Treaty of 927 with the Bulgarians, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 32, 1978, p. 217-295.
Dvornik 1948 = F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism. History and legend, Cambridge, 1948.
Dvornik 1958 = F. Dvornik, The Patriarch Photius in the Light of Recent Research, in Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress, III, 2, Munich, 1958, p. 1-56.
Finck 1902 = F. Finck, Des Nilos Doxopatres Τάξις τῶν πατριαρχικῶν ϑρόνων (armenisch und griechisch), Marburg, 1902.
Fine 1983 = J. Fine, The Early Medieval Balkans. A critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century, Ann Arbor, 1983.
Garsoïan 1967 = N. Garsoïan, The Paulician Heresy. A study of the origin and development of Paulicianism in Armenia and the Eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire, The Hague-Paris, 1967.
Gelzer 1893 = H. Gelzer, Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistümerverzeichnisse der orientalischen Kirche. II, in BZ, 2, 1893, p. 22-72.
Georgiev 1994 = P. Georgiev [П. Георгиев], The title of «Protothron» in Bulgarian Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, in Études balkaniques, 30-2, 1994, p. 112-116.
Gjuzelev 1969 = V. Gjuzelev [В. Гюзелев], Княз Борис Първи. България през втората половина на IX век, Sofia, 1969.
Gjuzelev 1999 = V. Gjuzelev [В. Гюзелев], Бележки върху йерархическия статус на Българската църква и нейния върховен предстоятел през първия век от покръстването 865-971, in Религия и църква в България. Социални и културни измерения в православието и неговата специфика в българските земи, Sofia, 1999, p. 98-107.
Gjuzelev – Iliev – Nenov 2015 = V. Gjuzelev, I. Iliev, K. Nenov [В. Гюзелев, И. Илиев, К. Ненов] (ed.), Българският Златен век. Сборник в чест на цар Симеон Велики (893-927), Plovdiv, 2015.
Hageneder – Haidacher 1995 = O. Hageneder, A. Haidacher (ed.), Die Register Innocenz’ III, 6, Vienna, 1995 (Publikationen des Historischen Instituts beim Österreichischen Kulturinstitut in Rom, Abt. 2, Reihe 1,6).
Hannick 1993 = C. Hannick, Les nouvelles chrétientés du monde byzantin : Russes, Bulgares et Serbes, in G. Dagron, P. Riché, A. Vauchez (ed.), Histoire du christianisme des origines à nos jours. IV. Évêques, moines et empereurs, Paris, 1993, p. 909-943.
Ioannes Scylitzes 1973 = Ioannis Scylitzae, Synopsis historiarum, ed. I. Thurn, Berlin-New York, 1973 (CFHB, 6).
Ivanov 1931 = J. Ivanov [Й. Иванов], Български старини из Македония, Sofia, 1931.
Jordanov 2011 = I. Jordanov [И. Йорданов], Печати на Симеон, василевс на ромеите (? – 927), in Bulgaria Mediaevalis, 2, 2011, p. 87-97.
Jordanov 2015 = I. Jordanov [И. Йорданов], Печатите на цар Симеон І Велики, in Gjuzelev – Iliev – Nenov 2015, p. 77-113.
Jordanov 2016 = I. Jordanov, Corpus of the Medieval Bulgarian Seals, ed. P. Georgiev, Sofia, 2016 (Pliska-Preslav, 12).
Komatina 2014 = P. Komatina [П. Коматина], Црквена политика Византије од краја иконоборства до смрти цара Василија I, Belgrade, 2014.
Konstantinou e Tegou-Stergiadou 1988 = E. Konstantinou e Tegou-Stergiadou [E. Κωνσταντίνου ή Τέγου-Στεργιάδου], Τα σχετικά µε την Αρχιεπισκοπή Αχρίδας σιγίλλια του Βασιλείου Β΄. ∆ιδακτορική ∆ιατριβή, Thessaloniki, 1988.
Konstantinou e Tegou-Stergiadou 1990 = E. Konstantinou e Tegou-Stergiadou [E. Κωνσταντίνου ή Τέγου-Στεργιάδου], Ο χρυσόβουλος λόγος του Μιχαήλ Η΄ Παλαιολόγου του έτους 1272 και η εκκλησία Βουλγαρίας, in Βυζαντιακά, 10, 1990, p. 229-246.
Kostova 2000 = K. Kostova [К. Костова], Правопис и фонетика на преславските текстове. С приложение Житие на Антоний Велики, Veliko Tărnovo-Sofia, 2000.
Kostova 2011 = R. Kostova, Archaeology of monasticism: Three personal stories from tenth-century monasteries in Bulgaria, in V. Nikolov, K. Bacvarov, H. Popov (dir.), Interdisciplinäre Forschungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkanhalbinsel, Sofia, 2011, p. 491-508.
Leszka 2013 = M. Leszka, Symeon I Wielki a Bizancjum. Z dziejów stosunków bułgarsko-bizantyńskich w latach 893-927, Łódź, 2013 (Byzantina Lodzienzia, 15).
Litavrin 2002 = G. Litavrin [Г. Литаврин], Христианство в Болгарии в 927 – 1018 гг., in B. Florja [Б. Флоря] (ed.), Христианство в странах Восточной, Юго-Восточной и Центральной Европы на пороге второго тысячелетия, Moscow, 2002, p. 133-189.
Mansi 1772 = J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XVII A, Venice, 1772.
Meijer 1975 = J. Meijer, A successful Council of Union: A theological analysis of the Photian Synod of 879–880, Thessaloniki, 1975 (Ανάλεκτα Βλατάδων, 23).
Müller 2005 = A. Müller, Zur Datierung des Chrysobulls Michaels VIII. für Ochrid: nicht August 1272, sondern Juli 1273, in L. Hoffmann (ed.), Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, Wiesbaden, 2005, p. 427-432.
Nenov 2014 = K. Nenov, Early medieval Bulgarian seals from an auction, in Bulgaria Mediaevalis, 4-5, 2014, p. 23-37.
Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople 1973 = Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters, ed. R. Jenkins, L. Westerink, Washington, 1973 (CFHB, 6).
Nicolaus I papa, Epistolae, in MGH Epistolae, VI = Nicolaus I papa, Epistolae, in MGH Epistolae, VI, Berlin, 1925, p. 257-690.
Nikolov 2006 = A. Nikolov [А. Николов], Политическа мисъл в ранносредновековна България (средата на IX – края на X в.), Sofia, 2006.
Nikolov 2016 = A. Nikolov [А. Николов], Между Рим и Константинопол. Из антикатолическата литература в България и славянския православен свят (XI – XVII в.), Sofia, 2016.
Nikolov 2016a = A. Nikolov, Convocato omni regno: The Council of 893 and Its «Reflections» in Contemporary Historiography, in A. Kulik, C. MacRobert, S. Nikolova, M. Taube, C. Vakareliyska (ed.), The Bible in Slavic tradition, Leiden, 2016, p. 547-556 (Studia Judaeoslavica, 9).
Nikolov – Kanev 2018 = A. Nikolov, N. Kanev (ed.), Emperor Symeon’s Bulgaria in the History of Europe’s South-East: 1100 years from the Battle of Achelous, I, Sofia, 2018.
Nikolova 1997 = B. Nikolova [Б. Николова], Устройство и управление на Българската православна църква (IX– XIV в.), Sofia, 1997.
Nikolova 2002 = B. Nikolova [Б. Николова], Неравният път на признанието, Sofia, 2002.
Nikolova 2015 = B. Nikolova [Б. Николова], Колко е легитимна Българската патриаршия през ранното Средновековие, in Исторически преглед, 1-2, 2015, p. 164-186.
Obolensky 1971 = D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe, 500-1453, London, 1971.
Oikonomidès 1972 = N. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles, Paris, 1972.
Petrus Siculus, Historia, in PG 104 = Petrus Siculus, Historia utilis et refutatio atque eversio haereseos Manichaeorum qui et Pauliciani dicuntur, Bulgariae Archiepiscopi nuncupata, in PG 104, col. 1239-1304.
Pirivatrić 2018 = S. Pirivatrić [С. Пириватрић], Постанак Српског краљевства и аутокефалне цркве и византијска историографија, in Ниш и Византиjа, XVI, Niš, 2018, p. 21-30.
Podskalsky 2000 = G. Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur des Mittelalters in Bulgarien und Serbien: 865-1459, Munich, 2000.
Popkonstantinov 1980 = K. Popkonstantinov [К. Попконстантинов], Старобългарски ктиторски надпис от с. Троица, Шуменски окръг, in Археология, 4, 1980, p. 56-65.
Popkonstantinov – Kostova 2013 = K. Popkonstantinov – R. Kostova [К. Попконстантинов – Р. Костова], Манастирът на Георги Синкел Български в Преслав: Историята на една аристократична фамилия от х в., in Преслав, 7, Veliko Tărnovo, 2013, p. 44-63.
Schoenig 2016 = S. Schoenig, Bonds of wool: The pallium and papal power in the middle ages, Washington DC, 2016 (Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law, 15).
Shepard 1995 = J. Shepard, Slavs and Bulgars, in R. McKitterick (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History, II, Cambridge, 1995, p. 228-248.
Shepard 1995a = J. Shepard, A marriage too far? Maria Lekapena and Peter of Bulgaria, in A. Davids (ed.), The empress Theophano. Byzantium and the West at the turn of the first millennium, Cambridge, 1995, p. 121-149.
Shepard 1999 = J. Shepard, Bulgaria: the other Balkan ‘empire’, in T. Reuter (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History, III, Cambridge, 1999, p. 567-585.
Shepard 2011 = J. Shepard, Emergent elites and Byzantium in the Balkans and East-Central Europe, Farnham, 2011.
Slavova 2008 = T. Slavova [Т. Славова], Йоан Екзарх, in A. Miltenova [А. Милтенова] (ed.), История на българската средновековна литература, Sofia, 2008, p. 243-246.
Snegarov 1995 = I. Snegarov [И. Снегаров], История на Охридската архиепископия, 1-2, Sofia, 1995.
Sullivan 1966 = R. Sullivan, Khan Boris and the conversion of Bulgaria: A case study of the impact of christianity on a barbarian society, in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 3, 1966, p. 55-139.
Simeonova 1998 = L. Simeonova, Diplomacy of the Letter and the Cross. Photios, Bulgaria and the Papacy, 860s – 880s, Amsterdam, 1998.
Symeon Magister et Logotheta 2006 = Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, ed. S. Wahlgren, Berlin, 2006 (CFHB, 44.1).
Tăpkova-Zaimova 1969 = V. Tăpkova-Zaimova, L’idée byzantine de l’unité du monde et l’État Bulgare, in Actes du Ier Congrès international des études balkaniques et sud-est européennes, III, Sofia, 1969, p. 291-298.
Tăpkova-Zaimova 1987 = V. Tăpkova-Zaimova [В. Тъпкова-Заимова], Българската държавна идея в официалната и низовата книжнина, in Втори Международен конгрес по българистика. Доклади, 6, Sofia, 1987, p. 515-527.
Tăpkova-Zaimova 2000 = V. Tăpkova-Zaimova [В. Тъпкова-Заимова], Дюканжов списък, in Palaeobulgarica, 24-3, 2000, p. 21-49.
Tarnanides 1976 = I. Tarnanides [Ἰ. Ταρνανίδης], Ἡ διαμόρφωσις τοῦ αὐτοκεφάλου τῆς Βουλγαρικῆς Ἐκκλησίας (864-1235), Thessaloniki, 1976.
Théodore Daphnopatès 1978 = J. Darrouzès, L.G. Westerink (ed.), Théodore Daphnopatès, Correspondance, Paris, 1978.
Theophanes Continuatus 1838 = Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, in I. Bekker (ed.), Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus, Bonn, 1838 (CSHB, 45), p. 1-481.
Will 1861 = C. Will (ed.), Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant, Leipzig-Marburg, 1861.
Wortley 2010 = J. Wortley (tr.), John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, Cambridge, 2010.
Zlatarski 1971 = V. Zlatarski [В. Златарски], История на българската държава през средните векове, I, 2, Sofia, 1971.
Notes
1 Will 1861, p. 206.
2 Ibid., p. 208.
3 Ibid., p. 211.
4 Ibid., p. 211-212.
5 Ibid., p. 212-213.
6 Basil II, Περὶ τῆς ἀρχιεπισκοπῆς Βουλγαρίας, in RP V, p. 266-269. See also: Gelzer 1893, p. 42-46; Beneševič 1911, p. 542-544; Ivanov 1931, p. 551-562; Konstantinou e Tegou – Stergiadou 1988 (denies the authenticity of the sigillia); Birnbaum 1990; Konstantinou e Tegou-Stergiadou 1990, 229-246; Podskalsky 2000, p. 72 (detailed bibliography); Müller 2005, p. 427-432; Pirivatrić 2018, 28-29. About the history of the archbishopric of Bulgaria established by Basil II: Gelzer, Patriarchat; Snegarov 1995; Božilov 2011; Delekare 2014.
7 Dölger 1940, p. 219-220, 226.
8 Sullivan 1966, p. 66-71; Obolensky 1971, p. 91-92.
9 Gjuzelev 1969, 129-130; Tăpkova-Zaimova 1969, p. 292; Obolensky, 1971, 84-85, 114; Browning, 1975, p. 55; Shepard 1995, p. 240; Simeonova 1998, p. 179-180; Božilov – Gjuzelev 1999, p. 176; Komatina 2014, p. 197-203.
10 Theophanes Continuatus 1838, p. 165. 1-2.
11 Ibid., p. 165. 9.
12 Symeon Magister et Logotheta 2006, p. 243.
13 Gjuzelev 1969, p. 183-184; Obolensky 1971, p. 86; Tăpkova-Zaimova 1987, p. 517; Komatina 2014, p. 204-208.
14 Annales Bertiniani, in M.G.H., Scriptores, I, p. 473-474 (s. a. 866).
15 Nicolaus I papa, Epistolae, in M.G.H. Epistolae, VI, p. 593.
16 Dvornik 1948, p. 113; Shepard 1995, p. 241; Podskalsky 2000, p. 54-56; Komatina 2014, p. 208-211.
17 Nicolaus I papa, Epistolae, in M.G.H. Epistolae, VI, p. 592-593.
18 Zlatarski 1971, p. 128-143; Dujčev 1971, 249-251; Gjuzelev 1969, p. 222; Podskalsky 2000, p. 56; Komatina 2014, p. 236-237.
19 Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Historiae, in PL 128, col. 1393-1394 (§ 637).
20 Dvornik 1948, p. 152-154; Dvornik 1958, p. 33; Nikolova 1997, p. 38-40; Simeonova 1998, p. 248-270; Gjuzelev 1999, p. 99-101; Božilov – Gjuzelev 1999, p. 180-186; Podskalsky 2000, p. 57-58; Komatina 2014, p. 237-241. Some modern historians tend to think that in 870 the Church in Bulgaria gained the ambivalent status of an autocephalous archbishopric, owing its status directly to an imperial decision, but this thesis is not supported by the extant written sources. Discussion and bibliography: Shepard 1995, p. 243-244; Podskalsky 2000, 67-68; Komatina 2014, p. 242 (n. 83), 247.
21 Dvornik 1948, 154-158; Gjuzelev 1969, 260-290; Simeonova 1998, p. 296-329; Božilov – Gjuzelev 1999, p. 187-191; Komatina 2014, p. 252-260.
22 Pseudo-Synodus Photiana, in Mansi 1772, col. 488; Boojamra 1982, p. 9 (text), p. 13 (translation), p. 18-19 (discussion); Meijer 1975, p. 263; Komatina 2014, p. 324.
23 Pseudo-Synodus Photiana, in Mansi 1772, col. 419. See also: Zlatarski 1971, 199-202; Boojamra 1982, p. 19; Simeonova 1998, p. 319-322; Komatina 2014, p. 345.
24 Pseudo-Synodus Photiana, in Mansi 1772, col. 488; Boojamra 1982, p. 9; Komatina 2014, p. 326.
25 Dvornik 1948, p. 210. The critical edition of the extant Byzantine Notitiae episcopatuum wholly approves the statement of F. Dvornik since there one can’t find any mention of Bulgaria dating before 1018: Darrouzès, Notitiae, p. 93 (see also the indices s. v. Βουλγαρία, Boulgaria).
26 Gjuzelev 1999, p. 102-103; Božilov – Gjuzelev 1999, p. 190-191; Podskalsky 2000, p. 68; Komatina 2014, p. 242, n. 83; Schoenig 2016, p. 82, n. 33.
27 Dvornik 1948, p. 215.
28 Petrus Siculus, Historia, in PG 104, col. 1239-1240. See also: Garsoïan 1967, p. 36, n. 52; Komatina 2014, p. 242.
29 Jordanov 2016, p. 161-164.
30 Oikonomidès 1972, p. 137. 17.
31 Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople 1973, p. 20-26 (no. 4), 80-88 (no. 11).
32 Discussion and bibliography: Fine 1983, p. 155-156; Podskalsky 2000, p. 70; Leszka 2013, p. 248-250; Nikolov 2016a, p. 553. See also Christian Hannick’s chapter in the present volume.
33 Nicolaus I papa, Epistolae, in M.G.H. Epistolae, VI, p. 596-597.
34 Jordanov 2016, p. 73-78 (edition of 27 lead seals of this variety). See also: Jordanov 2011; Nenov 2014, p. 27-28; Jordanov 2015.
35 In general about Symeon I see Božilov 1983; Shepard 1999; Nikolov 2006; Shepard 2011; Leszka 2013; Gjuzelev – Iliev – Nenov, 2015; Nikolov – Kanev 2018.
36 Obolensky 1971, p. 115-117; Browning 1975, 66-69; Dujčev 1978, p. 217-295; Shepard 1995a; Gjuzelev 1999, p. 103-106; Shepard 1999, p. 579-580; Božilov – Gjuzelev 1999, p. 271-277.
37 Last edition of these seals: Jordanov 2016, p. 86-95. Discussion of the Greek legends: Shepard 1995a.
38 Prinzing, Entstehung, p. 277-278.
39 Gjuzelev 1999, p. 98-107; Božilov 2011, p. 46-47. It can be assumed that the emperor had given his consent to the archbishop of Bulgaria to use the patriarchal title within his diocese, without necessarily reflecting it in the Byzantine diplomatic protocol. Such was the attitude of Romanus I to the emperor’s title of Symeon I, directly articulated in a letter to the Bulgarian ruler: «We wrote not that you should not call yourself emperor, but because you are styling yourself an emperor of the Romans, since in your homeland you can do what you want»: Théodore Daphnopatès 1978, p. 73. It is noteworthy that, according to De cerimoniis, during the solemn receptions of official Bulgarian envoys to the emperor around the middle of the 10th century, the Byzantine logothetes asked about the health of the «ruler by God of Bulgaria» (ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἄρχων Βουλγαρίας), and the title «emperor of Bulgaria» (ὁ βασιλεὺς Βουλγαρίας) was used only in the letters of the emperors to the same ruler: Constantinus Porphyrogenitus 1829, p. 681-682, 690.
40 Variant readings: the bishop, the archbishop.
41 Ioannes Scylitzes 1973, p. 365. English translation: Wortley 2010, p. 345.
42 Božilov 2011, p. 102. See also: Gelzer, Patriarchat, p. 6; Ivanov 1931, p. 566; Tăpkova-Zaimova 2000, p. 39-41. During archaeological work in the early mediaeval basilica of Silistra, a grave of a high clergyman who might be identified with Damian was found: Angelova – Prinzing 2002, p. 726-730.
43 Gelzer 1893, p. 44-45; Beneševič 1911, p. 547; Ivanov 1931, p. 557.
44 Litavrin 2002, p. 141-142; Božilov 2011, p. 48-50.
45 Božilov – Totomanova – Biljarski 2010, p. 168.
46 Angelov 1967, p. 112-115; Gjuzelev 1999, p. 104; Kostova 2000, p. 175. Some modern scholars tend to identify this patriarch with John Exarch, the most productive and talented Old Bulgarian writer and translator during the reign of Symeon I: Slavova 2008, p. 244.
47 Jordanov 2016, p. 171-174.
48 Popkonstantinov 1980, p. 56-65; Georgiev 1994, p. 112-116; Podskalsky 2000, p. 70.
49 Prinzing, Entstehung, p. 278.
50 Jordanov 2016, p. 174-181 (Legends: «God, help your servant» / «George, monk and Bulgarian syncellus»).
51 In the 10th century the syncellus was the closest intimate of the patriarch and his potential successor. In Byzantium this position was given by the emperor: Constantinus Porphyrogenitus 1829, p. 530-532; Darrouzès 1970, p. 17-19, 35. We do not have any details about the status of the syncellus in Bulgaria during the same time, but archaeological evidence suggests that it was given to representatives of the higher aristocracy – five of the seals of syncellus George were found in the church in the Outer Town of Preslav, where were buried the mother of the same George (whose name is unknown) and Mostich, one of the senior Bulgarian dignitaries during the rule of Simeon I and Peter, who eventually became a monk. About the complex archaeological context of these seals see Kostova 2011, p. 491-508; Popkonstantinov – Kostova 2013, p. 44-63.
52 Jordanov 2016, p. 116-119.
53 This doesn’t necessarily mean that the title «patriarch of Bulgaria» was given personally only to Damian and that it didn’t mark the appearance of a new patriarchal institution as some modern scholars tend to claim: Tarnanides 1976, p. 82; Hannick 1993, p. 928.
54 Nikolova 1997, p. 44-45; Nikolova 2002, p. 65-89; Nikolova 2015, p. 172.
55 Oikonomidès 1972, p. 245. 17. See also Darrouzès 1970, p. 31-32.
56 Gelzer 1893, p. 44; Beneševič 1911, p. 547; Ivanov 1931, p. 555-556.
57 Prinzing, Autocephalous, p. 358, 366.
58 Finck 1902, p. 21. See also Ivanov 1931, p. 563-564.
59 Hageneder – Haidacher 1995, p. 234. 25-27
60 Božilov – Totomanova – Biljarski 2010, p. 156-157: «The great and pious emperor Asen, son of the old emperor Asen, who loved God very much, glorified and enlightened the Bulgarian empire more than all the other Bulgarian emperors before him by building monasteries and decorating all the holy and divine churches with gold and pearls and gems and giving them numerous gifts and granting them complete freedom. And all priestly orders – bishops, priests and deacons he honoured with great honours. And quite eagerly he set about restoring the Patriarchate of the Bulgarian empire». See also: Nikolov 2016, 136-138 (commentary), 282-284 (edition).
61 Podskalsky 2000, p. 68, n. 287.
Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.