Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:29:04 EDT
From: <PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Two quizzes on Macedonia (was:Ioannis Scylitzes on Tsar Samuil)


Luben Boyanov (lb@cs.man.ac.uk) writes in article 6383@m1.cs.man.
ac.uk :

> In article <92280.000046PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu> PXP111@psuvm.psu.
> edu writes:
                  <Irrelevant stuff deleted>
>>  If I may elaborate here:  Strictly speaking Ioannis Scylitzes
>>  does not refer to a Bulgarian,  but to a  son  of a Byzantine
>>  military commander (i.e. "komes") that had wealth in Bulgaria
>>  <B.347 and B.435>.
>
>  Hm, what I have in hand is rather different and seems to indi-
>  cate that you don't quote in a fair way,  or the quotes I have
>  are...From the same reference (the one above) - pp 312-3, 346:

Me, not in fair way?  Let us check the quotes better:
> " ...Because David, Moses, Aaron and Samuil, sons of one of the
> most powerful comites of Bulgaria, were spreading unrest
        \                 \
       "wealthier"       IN Bulgaria
       equally or
       more probable.              (directly from the Greek text)

> through the Bulgarian State ..."
     \          \
    among    Bulgarians            (directly from the Greek text)

The readers can convince themselves with the original text:
"... Dabid gar kai Mwsns kai Aarwv kai Samounl, evos ovtas paides
twv mega dyva8evtwv ev Boulgaria komntwv, pros apostasiav apeidov
kai ta Boulgarwv aveseiov." ("p" substitutes the symbol of 3.14!)
                <Notice the spelling "Mwsns", author will use the
                 standard greek name elsewhere.>

> and more by the same author:  pp. 434-5
> " Immediately after the death of Emperor Ioannes the Bulgarians
>  rose in revolt  and  four brothers were chosen to govern them:
>  David, Moses, Aaron and Samuil, sons of one of the allpowerful
                                                    /
                                                "a very wealty"
                                                also acceptable.

> comites of the Bulgarians and for this reason named Kometopouli
            \              \
       (living/staying) AMONG/CLOSE TO the Bulgarians
       "para Boulgarois" in the original text

Actually here is the excerpt:
"... Twv de Boulgarwv ama tn teleytn tou basilews Iwavvou aposta-
tnsavtwv,  arxeiv aytwv proxeirizovtai  tessares adelfoi,  Dabid,
Mwysns, Aarwv kai Samounl, evos twv para Boulgarois komntos ovtas
paidas (Nikolaou ovomazomevou, mntros Pipsimns) kai dia touto ko-
mntopwloi katovomazomevoi."
            <Note that "Komnto-pwloi" = Greek for "Komes's kids">

> So - there is no confusion on the matter?

I'm afraid there is. My translation is far more accurate and even
the G.Ostogorsky seems to agree with the "Byzantine military com-
mand" I mentioned.
After describing the Byzantine politics in page 301 he writes:
"After the death of John Tzimisces, a revolt broke out in the Ma-
cedonia region, led by the four Cometopuli, the sons of the comes
Nicholas, a provincial governor in Macedonia."
(Bulgaria had been under Byzantine domination. see page 269 etc.)
               < G.Ostrogorsly: " History of the Byzantine State
               trans. Joan Hussey, Rutgers University Press,1969>

>  One can hardly imagine if Samuil was from other origin,  this
>  not to be stated explicitly in those writings. Isn't it so?

Boy! It seems that all the historians should seek knowledge near
Luben... How can you apppear so much informed on A.Evans and ig-
nore basic stuff: there is nothing definite known about the ear-
ly history of the Cometopouloi. N.Blagoev's story supporting the
Bulgar descend is without foundation.

Do you think I'd pose a quiz about Macedonian if it was easy?
Can a quiz on Macedonia be easy?


>>  Stephanos of Taron (Asolic) plainly says that the four Kome-
>>  topouloi  ("Komsajagk")  were Armenians from the district of
>>  Derjan.  (Translation of Gelzer and Burckhardt, 1907).
>
> On what does he bases his saying -  the year of that quote was
> 1907?

He was a contemporary historian for goodness sake!

>>  Scylitzes  simply  adds that the Tsar of Bulgaria in question
>>  preferred to have a lot of Armenians even in Ahris   (B.474)
>> as well as all his relatives...
>
>  What Samuil might have preferred  doesn't mean  that he was an
>  Armenian.

I did not say so.  It merely complements Asolic.

>  I've read somewhere  that it was the Bulgarian noblemen Sisman
>  who was the grandfather of Samuil (or sort of  -can't remember
>  exactly, but do remember the name -  Sisman).

If you open a copy of the  "Bratjata David, Moisej, Aaron i Samu-
el", Godisnik na Sofijsk.Univ., Jurid.fak.37,14 (1941-42)  or the
"Teorijata za Zapadno bulgarsko carstvo"  you'll remember the na-
me at once!   If only historians could nail down a source suppor-
ting the above !!!

> No history book I've seen refers to Samuil as anything else but
> Bulgarian.

Then you haven't read a lot. Samuil became a Tzar of Bulgaria but
the blood lines and information about his family is highly conte-
sted. I would not waste more time to prove the impossible that he
was Bulgarian and not Armenian!
I did not pick the quiz without reason. It is a really hard one!

(Many Byzantine officials of that era  stationed in Macedonia and
Thrace and North Epirus were Armenians, even emperor Ioannes Tzi-
miskes was said to be,  and I'll obviously not argue over emperor
Leon V Armenios).

                               _ _ _

>>>>  Were the Patriarchic Bulgarophones of the 1890's Greeks or
>>>>  Bulgarians?
             <successive arguments deleted>
>  Finally, it is also well known that in ethnic mixed area like
>  Macedonia, there WERE Greeks speaking Bulgarian.

In this case I declare the first "quiz" solved, to L.Boyanov.

>  Then read Brailsford's book:  "Macedonia its races and their
>  future". I bet you will find exceptionally interesting events.

No need to bet!  I was the one who recommended the book to you...

                                                        A.Romanos