Tsar Samuel in the Ideological Concept of the Ohrid Archbishopric
Tradition and Invention (11th-17 century)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60053/GSU.IF.1.105.49-63Keywords:
Tsar Samuel, Ohrid Archbishopric, Basil II’s three imperial charters (sigillia)Abstract
The paper treats the issue on the reconstruction of the image of Tsar Samuel from the perspective of the Ohrid Archbishopric. The snapshots from the sources starting from Basil II’s sigillia and other official acts, reveals that the representation of Samuel was largely shaped in accordance with the ideological concept of the Ohrid Archbishopric. Depending on the political constellation and the momentary aims of the ideological propaganda, Samuel was either recognized as the fundamental ruler and inseparable part of the traditions of the Ohrid Archbishopric, or was completely excluded within the constructed theories about the origin оf the Archbishopric. The leading people in the Ohrid Archbishopric constantly modified and constructed the ecclesiastical traditions for the purpose of reinforcing the position and the status of the Archbishopric, in which the Christian saints were also exploited. This tendency also found reflection in the alteration of the original legend about Vladimir and Kosara, that served Archbishopric’s pretensions for obtaining the leading role among the Orthodox Christians in the Balkans. Hence, from the reading of the official works composed for or from the Ohrid Archbishopric we can notice the tendency for adapting, constructing and manipulating the traditions emerging from Samuel’s political and ideological program, that involved the cults and legends originating in Prespa and Ohrid, wherefrom we receive opposed and distorted images of Samuel. Their deconstruction is the main goal of this paper.
References
The authenticity of the sigillia, has been problematized by Stjepan Antoljak, “Ohridskata Arhiepiskopija vo vreme na vladeenjeto na carevite Samuil i Vasilij II,” Istorija 6, 1 (1970), 35 – 49; Antoljak, “Dali se avtentični onie tri ispravi na carot Vasilij II izdadeni vo korist na Ohridskata Arhiepiskopija,” in Srednovekovna Makedonija, vol. I, 698 – 708. See more recently, Evanthia Konstantinou Stergiadou, “Die Echtheit der Sigilla von Basilius II fur das Erzbistum Achrida,” Byzantiaka 17 (1997), 265 – 284; Konstantinou Stergiadou, “Die Sigilla von Basileios II. für das Erzbistum von Achrida und ihre Beziehung mit den Bistumern von Berroia und Servia,” Orthodoxes Forum 12 (1998), 5 – 20. Vasilka Tăpkova Zaimova, “The Du Cange Cataloque,” in State and Church: Studies in Medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium, ed. Vasil Giuzelev and Kiril Petkov (Sofia: American Research Center, 2011), 219 remarks that the sigillia should be treated with caution. See also, Tăpkova-Zaimova, “Entre Ochrid et Tirnovo: problemes d’Eglise apres 971,” in Byzantio kai Boulgaroi, 1018 – 1185, ed. Katarina Nikolaou, Kostas Tsiknakis (Athens 2008), 33 – 34.
Heinrich Gelzer, “Ungedruckte and wenig bekannte Bistumerverzeichnisse der orientalischen Kirche,” BZ 2 (1893), 42; Йордан Иванов, Български старини из Македония (София: Държавна печатница, 1931 (фототипно издание София: Българска академия на наукитe, Наука и изкуство, 1970), 550.
Gelzer, “Ungedruckte,” 44; Иванов, Български старини, 555: “All those kleroikoi are to be exempt from oikomodion and other eporoi for they were free at the time of Samuel”. English translation from Vasilka Tăpkova-Zaimova, Bulgarians by Birth. The Comitopuls, Em- peror Samuel, and their Successors According to Historical Sources and the Historiographic Tradition (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018), 47.
For the historiographic debates about the character of the Samuel’s State, see Mitko B. Panov, Historiographic Debates about Samuel Cometopoulos and His State (10th – 11th Century) (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2019).
Ioannes Scylitzes, Synopsis historiarum, rec. Ioannes Thurn, CFHB, Series Berolinensis, V (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1973), 344; John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811 – 1057, Translation and Notes by John Wortley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 344 – 345.
Skylitzes, Synopsis, ed. Thurn, 344; tr. Wortley, 344 – 345.
Leonis diaconi Caloensis historiae libri decem, ed. Charles B. Hase (Bonn: Weber, 1828), 9. 12 (p. 158 – 159); The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century, Introduction, translation, and annotations by Alice-Mary Talbot and Denis F. Sullivan, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 41 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2005), 293 – 294.
H. Gelzer, Der Patriarchat von Achrida. Geschichte und Urkunden, Abhandlungen der philol.-histor. Classe der Kœnigl. Sachs. Gesellschaft der Wissensch 20/5 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1902), 38 – 39; Paul Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan frontier: a political study of the Northern Balkans, 900 – 1204 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 57 – 58; Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, ca. 500 – 1250, Cambridge Medieval Textbooks, 39 (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 240; Srđan Pirivatrić, Samuilova država. Obim i karakter (Beograd: Vizantološki institut Srbske akademije nauka i umetnosti, 1997), 38.
Gelzer, “Ungedruckte,” 44; Иванов, Български старини, 555 – 556. English translation from Tăpkova-Zaimova, Bulgarians by Birth, 48.
Gelzer, “Ungedruckte,” 44; Иванов, Български старини, 555 – 556. English translation from Tăpkova-Zaimova, Bulgarians by Birth, 48.
Сърджан Пириватрич, “За Самуил след Самуил (Представа за цар Самуил и приемниците му във византийските извори от XI – XII в.),” PBg, 27/1 (2003), 94 – 99.
Gelzer, “Ungedruckte,” 43 – 44; Иванов, Български старини, 560 – 561.
Pirivatrić, Samuilova država, 154.
Иванов, Български старини, 564 – 568. Translated excerpts in English, Tăpkova- Zaimova, “The Du Cange Catalogue,” 209 – 235.
Scholars differ on the destiny of the Bulgarian patriarchate after Tzimiskes’ conquest of Bulgaria in 971. The dominant opinion among scholars is that the traditions of the Bulgarian church were preserved on the basis of the unprecedented consecutive movement of the expelled Bulgarian patriarchs from Dristra that finally settled in Ohrid. On this view see recently Иван Божилов, Българската архиепископия XI – XII век. Списъкът на българските архиепис- копи (София: Гутенберг, 2011), 50 – 57, who assert that the Bulgarian church maintained its independence after 971. Pirivatric, Samuilova država, 148 – 160 argue that after 971 the Bulgarian Patriarch in Samuel’s state simply took the tradition of the Bulgarian patriarchate of Preslav and Dristra. Pirivatric’s view was accepted by Günter Prinzing, “The autocephalous Byzantine ecclesiastical province of Bulgaria/Ohrid. How independent were its archbishops?,” Bulgaria Medievalis 3 (2002), 358 – 359 who argues that “ if Samuel elevated the first hierarch of the church in his empire to patriarch, without having obtained the consent of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, then the reference to tradition probably lay in the fact that he, as tsar, had followed Romanos’ I procedure in doing so”. See also, Bojana Krsmanović, “O odnosu upravne i crkovne organizacije na području Ohridske arhiepiskopije,” in Vizantijski svet na Balkanu, vol. 1, ed. Bojana Krmanović, Ljubomir Maksimović, Radivoje Radić (Beograd: Vizantološki institut Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti, 2012), 33 – 35. For the alternative view that the church organization created within Samuel’s State based in Prespa and Ohrid was completely independent from the Bulgarian church traditions and was recognized as such by the Roman Papacy, see Стјепан Антољак, “Охридската архиепископија во време на владеењето на царевите Самуил и Василиј II,” Историја 6, 1 (1970), 35 – 49; Антољак, Средновековна Македонија, vol. I (Скопје: Мисла, 1985), 507 – 517. The same opinion is maintained by Бранко Панов, Средновековна Македонија, vol. III (Скопје: Мисла, 1985), 726; Б. Панов, Македонија низ историјата. Проучувања на македонската историја и култура (Скопје: Менора, 1999), 79. See also, Јован Белчовски, Охридската архиепископија од основање- то до паѓањето на Македонија под турска власт (Скопје: Култура, 1997), 77 – 89. Most recently Angeliki Delikari, “Die Situation im Nord-West Makedonien während der Regierung des Basileos II., die sogennante Kirche des Zaren Samuel und die Gründung des Erzbistums von Ohrid,” in Европейският югоизток през втората половина на X – началото на XI век: история и култура: международна конференция, София, 6 – 8 октомври, 2014, ed. Васил Гюзелев, Георги Н. Николов (София: Българска академия на наукитe, 2015), 236 – 243, observes that Samuel maintained the existing church organization in Macedonia, which was during his reign most probably under the jurisdiction of the Roman church. She argues that the Archbishopric of Ohrid was established by Basil II in 1018 while the title Archbishop of Bulgaria, actually “corresponded to the name of the Byzantine theme of Bulgaria and had no connection with the Bulgarian church itself”. Hence, her conclusion that Ohrid Archbishopric was neither a continuator of the Bulgarian church, nor it continued the Church of the ephemeral Samuel’s state (Delikari, H Arhiepiskopi Ahridon kata ton Mesaiona (Thessaloniki: University studio press, 2014), 75 – 103. What can be deduced from the sources with certainty is that Tzimiskes officially abolished the Bulgarian patriarchate in 971 and that the subsequent accounts of the Byzantine authors refer only to the Church within Samuel’s state having a status of an Archbishopric.
Skylitzes, Synopsis, ed. Thurn, 352; tr. Wortley, 333 – 334 (Vodena and Moglena); Skylitzes, Synopsis, ed. Thurn, 353; tr. Wortley, 335 (Ohrid).
Skylitzes, Synopsis, ed. Thurn, 354; tr. Wortley, 335 – 336.
Skylitzes, Synopsis, ed. Thurn, 355; tr. Wortley, 336.
Skylitzes, Synopsis, ed. Thurn, 357; tr. Wortley, 338.
On the term “Bulgaria” as an imposed terminological construct as regards to Samuel’s State, see M. B. Panov, The Blinded State, 28 – 100.
Theophylaktos of Ohrid, Letters, ep. 6, ed. Gauter, 147 – 149. See also, B. Panov, Teo- filakt Ohrid kako izvor za istorijata na makedonskiot narod (Skopje: Kultura, 1971); Pirivatrić, Samuilova država, 210.
Skylitzes, Synopsis, ed. Thurn, 365; tr. Wortley, 345.
This explains the criticism of Theophylaktos of Ohrid for the interference of the Constantinopolitan patriarch in Macedonia, arguing “What rights has the patriarch in the land of Bulgaria, he who has no authority to ordain anyone here, nor any other privilege in this land, which had acquired an autocephalous archbishop?” (Theopylact of Ohrid, ep. 82, ed. Gautier, 437). See, Curta, The Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 286 – 287.
On the theory of Justiniana Prima and its ideological connection with Archishopric of Ohrid, see: Božidar Prokić, “Postanak Ohridskog Patrijarhata,” Glas srpske kraljevske akademije 90 (1912), 175 – 267. Günter Prinzing, “Entstehung und Rezeption der Justiniana-Prima-Theorie im Mittelalter,” Byzantinobulgarica 5 (1978), 269 – 287; Prinzing, “A Quasi Patriarch in the State of Epiros: The autocephalous archbishop of ‘Bulgaria’ (Ohrid) Demetrios Chomatenos,” ZRVI 41 (2004), 165 – 182; Prinzing, “The autocephalous Byzantine ecclesiastical province of Bulgaria/Ohrid,” 353 – 383. Ruth Macrides, “Bad Historian or Good Lawyer: Demetrios Chomatenos and Novel 131,” DOP 46 (1992), 187 – 196. Eleonora Naxidou, “An Aspect of Medieval History of Archbishop of Ohrid: Its Connection with Justinijana Prima,” Byzantinoslavica 64 (2006), 153 – 167; Илия Г. Илиев, “Димитър, по Божия милост архи- епископ на Първа Юстиниана и на цяла България,” Исторически преглед 1 – 2 (2004), 3 – 39; И. Г. Илиев, Охридският архиепископ Димитър Хоматиан и българите (София: Анубис, 2010), 15 – 22.
Gelzer, Der Patriarchat, 9.
Иванов, Български старини, 564 – 568. Translated exerpts in English, Tăpkova-Zaimova, “The Du Cange Catalogue,” In State and Church: Studies in Medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium, ed. Vasil Giuzelev and Kiril Petkov (Sofia: American Research Center, 2011), 209 – 235.
Митко Б. Панов, “Светиклиментовите традиции во Македонија низ призмата на Византија,” in Светикликментовите традиции во Македонија (Скопје: НУБ, 2009), 61 – 79.
Since the original chrysobull has not survived, as was the case with Basil’s sigillia, we are reconstructing it from later Greek copies and its Slavic translation from 15th century. The introduction of Michael VIII is reprinted in Codex diplomaticus arpadianus continuantus. ed. Gusztáv Wenzel, Monumenta Hungáriáé Histórica VIII. Diplomataria XIII (Pest: Eggenberger Ferdinánd Akademiai, 1870), 431 – 434. See, also Afanasii Selishtsev, “Zavet pervoi Iustiniani,” Makedonski pregled 9/2 (1934), 9 – 16; David J. Birnbaum, “A Slavic Translation of the Ohrid Chrysobull of 1273,” Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila József Nominatae. Dissertationes Slavicae, Sectio Lingüistica 21 (1990), 267 – 284. On the dating of the Chrusobull with arguments for the year 1273, see Andreas E. Müller, “Zur Datierung des Chrysobulls Michaels VIII für Ochrid: nicht August 1272, sondern 1273,” in Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie. Beitrage zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, ed. Lars M. Hoffmann (Wiesbaden, 2005), 427 – 432.
Paul Stephenson, The Legend of Basil the Bulgar-slayer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). For the opposing view that Basil II was considered as the “Bulgar- Slayer” in the collective imagination of the “Bulgarian” population immediately following the battle of Kleidion, see Angel Nikolov, “On Basil II’s cognomen ‘The Bulgar-Slayer,” in Evropeiskiiat Iugoistok prez vtorata polovina na X – nachaloto na XI vek: Istoriia i kultura, Mezhdunarodna konferentsiia Sofia, 6 – 8 Oktomvri, 2014, ed. Vasil Giuzelev, Georgi N. Nikolov (Sofia: Bălgarska Akademiia na naukite, 2015), 578 – 584; A. Nikolov, “Okolo prozvishteto na Vasilii II ‘Bălgaroubiets’,” in Hiliada godini ot bitkata pri Belasitsa i ot smărtta na tsar Samuil (1014 – 2014), dokladi ot Mezhdunarodnata nauchna konferentsiia provedena v grad Petrich, 9 oktomvri 2014, ed. Vasil Giuzelev, Georgi N. Nikolov (Sofia: Gutenberg, 2015), 84 – 91; A. Nikolov, Mezhdu Rim i Konstantinopol. Iz antikatolicheskata literatura v Bălgariia i slavianskiia pravoslaven svet, XI – XVII v. (Sofia: Fondatsiia Bălgarsko istorichsesko nasledstvo, 2016), 116 – 120.
For the analysis of the representation of Samuel in late Byzantine sources and the tendency for falsification of the alleged involvement of the Papacy in the crowning of Peter and possibly of Samuel, see M. B. Panov, The Blinded State, 101 – 146.
Cvetan Grozdanov, Portretite na svetitelite od Makedonija od IX do XVIII vek (Skopje: Republički zavod za zaštita na spomenicite na kultura, 1983), 145 – 159; Grozdanov, “Kultot na car Samoil kon Ahil Lariski i negoviot odraz vo likovnata umetnost,” Likovna umetnost 8 – 9 (1983), 71 – 84; Grozdanov, “Ahil Lariski vo vizantiskiot i postvizantiskiot živopis,” Zbornik Srednovekovna umetnost 3 (2001), 7 – 30. Тatjana Subotin-Golubović, “Kult svetog Ahilija Lariskog,” ZRVI, 26 (1987), 21 – 33; Sašo Cvetkovski, Portretite na Sveti Jovan Vladimir vo umetnosta na Balkanot od XVII do XX vek (Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite, 2016).
Akolouthia tou agiou endoxou basileos kai megalomartyros Ioannou tou Vladimirou kai thaumatourgou. Tipotheisa men proton dapani tou timiotatou Kiriou Ioannou Papa tou ek tis poleos Neokastrou (Venice: Elenikou tipografeiou tou Agiou Georgiou, 1690), 8 – 45. Stojan Novaković, Prvi osnovi slovenske književnosti među balkanskim slovenima : Legenda o Vladimiru i Kosari (Beograd: Srpska kraljevska akademija, 1893), 253 – 270.
The Service of St. Vladimir narrates that both Kosara and his brother “were heretics and supported the roots of the poisonous heresy of the Bogomils and Massalians“ (Akolouthia, 23).
See, M. B. Panov, The Blinded State, 154 – 161 for more detail about the Samuel’s image reflected in Akolouthia.
Moskopolski zbornik: Prološki žitija na svetcite, tr. Hristo Meloski (Skopje: Doger, 1996). For the visual expression of thе ideological concept of Ohrid Archbishopric, see Grozdanov, Portreti na svetitelite od Makedonija, 199 – 228.
Theresius von Seckendorff, Versuch einer Lebensbeschreibung des Feldmarschalls Grafen von Seckendorff: meist aus ungedruckten Nachrichten bearbeitet, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1792), 106 – 107.
Hristofor Žefarović, Stematografija ili Izobraženije oružij Illiričeskih (Vienna: Toma Mesmer, 1741).
M. B. Panov, The Blinded State, 255 – 280.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Митко Б. Панов
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Annual of Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski" - Faculty of History (GSU-IF).
