From: lb@cs.man.ac.uk (Luben Boyanov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.bulgaria,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Ioannis Scylitzes on Tsar Samuil (was: Re: Quizzes on Macedonia)
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:45:19 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.greek
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.


In article <92280.000046PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu> PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>Temperamental  Luben Boyanov (lb@cs.man.ac.uk)  responds to my
>posting <92267. 033821 PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu> in message <6237@
>m1.cs.man.ac.uk> dealing with two of my quizzes on Macedonia:
>
>>> Was Tsar Samuel an Armenian, a Bulgarian or Polish?  (Sourses
>>> please.)
>>
>>  Probably the most valuable and accurate references to who was
>>  Tzar Samuel (and that he was refered to as Bulgarian, and not
>>  Polish, or whatever is there)  are by eminent Byzantium chro-
>>  nicles as Cedrin Scylitzes [1] and Michael Psellos [2].
>>
>>  [1] Georgii Cedreni, "Compendium historiarum", ed. Bonn,  II
>>  original in Greek.
>>  [2] Michael Psellos, " Chronographie ou histoire d'un siecle
>>  de Byzance (976-1077) ", Paris, 1926-28, original in Greek.
>
>In contrast to  some  modern  theories concerning a non-existent
>nation in the 980's in the territory of Macedonia, only a Bulga-
>rian or an Armenian identity may be founded for the famous oppo-
>nent of the Byzantine Emperor Basileios II Macedon.

I don't know about the Armenians but don't doubt it. However it's beyond any
question what national identities existed in Macedonia not only during 980
but also for the period until WWI. However, the process of creating 'new
national entity' and alienating the Bulgarian population in Macedonia - the
only Slav population in the region, described by travelers and historians
until the end of the last century - dates far earlier than Tito. One more
fact will emmerge for those who look in older books on that subject. Namely
that the theory for 'Macedonism' sprung from Serbia, but for the sake of
the same truth, if there is anybody to be 'blamed' for that - it's not the
Serbians (they were the tools and they were 'forced' to do it) but the greedy
Austro-Hungarian Empire, which deprived Serbia from the lands which were
populated with ethnic Serbs - i.e. Bosnia, Herzegovina and Croatia.

>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 indicate 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:

"The Tsar of the Bulgarians, Peter, waw opposed by his brother Ivan
together with other Bulgarian nobelmen. ...

Michail, the other brother of Peter, also dreamed of ceizing power in
Bulgaria. He captured a strong fortress and spread unrest through the
Bulgarian state and many Bulgarians joined him. ...

...Because David, Moses, Aaron and Samuil, sons of one of the most powerful
comites of Bulgaria, were spreading unrest through the Bulgarian State ..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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 all-powerful comites of the Bulgarians and
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for this reason named Kometopouli..."

So - there is no confusion on the matter? One can hardly imagine if Samuil
was from other origin, this not to be stated explicitly in those writings.
Isn't it so?

>Stephanos of Taron (Asolic) plainly says that the four Kometopou-
 
On what does he bases his saying - the year of that quote was 1907? 

>Scylitzes simply adds that the Tsar of Bulgaria in question  pre-
>ferred 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. It
is well known that many Royal courts preferred 'foreigners'.  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).

>The "Polish version" is more or less a strange identity I "threw"
>for fun 

No history book I've seen refers to Samuil as anything else but Bulgarian.
Authors express doubt that Asen and Petar (the founders of the second
Bulgarian kingdom) were Vallachs but there is no proof for it - it's just a
theory and scholars admit that there is no hard proof (just remembered that
there was almost a moment when one netter expressed his 'solid' knowledge,
which was backed with nothing). However, I've seen no doubt that Samuil was
something else but Bulgarian, Ohrid - Bulgarian capital and for a long
time a centre of the BULGARIAN culture (and BULGARIAN church).

>>>  Were the Patriarchic Bulgarophones  of the 1890's  Greeks  or
>>>  Bulgarians?
>>
>> " One of the most comic results of this competitive ethnography
>> was a map published some years ago under Athenian auspices  and
>> circulated in this country. According to this Macedonia was for
>> practical purposes divided into two elements-the Greeks and the
>> "Bulgarophone Greeks" - as if some Celtic enthusiast should di-
>> vide Britain between the Welsh and the "Anglophone Welsh!" [3].
>>             [3] "The Times", October 1st, 1903, Arthur J. Evans

>"Analogies from different eras are not necessarily successful in
>history."       <Dr.Eugene Borza (Lecture on Historical Methods,
>                 5 days ago), Pennsylvania State University.>

Sir Arthur Evans doesn't make analogy from different eras, but for the
present of his time !!! Furthermore, his contribution to Worlds' archeology
is hardly disputed and finally even the quoted sentence 'admits' that some
analogies can be very successful.

>Luben's excerpt, fancy though it may be, doesn't explain the per-
>sistent resistance of a  bulgarophone population  (called "Greco-
>mans" by the Bulgarians), as the two captains Gonos and Kotas ag-
>ainst the activities of the Bulgarian Committee from August 1902.

It doesn't intend to. It exposes a policy of assimilation, because of which
Paissi wrote his "History", and which policy caused more conversion of
Bulgarians to other nationality than the 500 years old Turkish dominance in
the region. On the other hand, I never argued that there were some ethnic
Bulgarians who though of themselves as Greek, and I think from this point
these people were Greek. So - if you want to put this point forward - I
agree. I do know for certain that Greek culture attracted (initially - in a
peaceful and civilized way) many Bulgarians during the 18th-19th century
and I see nothing wrong in that.

>To the best of my knowledge and despite the language differentia-
>tion both leaders and their men claimed that they were Greeks and

So - they were. But so many others were not. Giving an example with 2
individuals and their actions is hardly interesting. It's important what
the majority of the population in the region leaned to and not single
cases. It's also important what the ethnic maps of those regions were at
the end of the 19th century - and even such maps before 1870 !!! As for
some interesting quotations, I can refer you to Rev. Tozer from the
"Highlands of Turkey" (The researches in the ~ including visits to Mounts
Ida, Athos, Olympus, and Pelion, to the Mirdite Albanians, and other remote
tribes), Rev. Henry Fanshawe Tozer, in 2 vol, London, 1869, whre in pages
181-182 you can read what real situations existed BEFORE the establishment
of the Bulgarian Exarchiat.

>I have some evidence that contemporary Bulgarians believed in the

It's dangerous to generalize what 'contemporary Bulgarians' belived and to
select 'evidence' for this. I can present many quotes on subject, which can
be used as an 'evidence' that some nations looked (and were) more barbaric
than the so-called 'barbarian' nationalities. Finally, it is also well
known that in ethnic mixed area like Macedonia, there WERE Greeks speaking
Bulgarian. Just like there were a lot of Bulgarians speaking Greek. In
order one wants to be more precise, he must:

1) Examine 'allowed' religions until the mid-19th centuries the the
   consequences of that.
2) What happened when 'other' religions were allowed and WHY.
3) What was the popular trend of the local population and WHY.
4) What were the figures provided by different travelers for how big were
   the different national groups (or races) on the Balkans.

>                   That is what I found. :-(   :-)

No need for a ":-(". Try (if you want to gather more info on the matter) as
a beginning Rev. Tozer's book. Then read Brailsford's book: "Macedonia its
races and their future". I bet you will find exceptionally interesting
events. Oh, yes - you can try (as well) the entire article from which I
quoted that sentence.

And one more thing - many books were written at that time. If authors knew
something and were positively biased towards 1 nation, it's not hard to
guess which this nation was (the other nations were 'barbaric').


>                                                       A. Romanos

Regards


Luben
Xref: sparky soc.culture.greek:9520 soc.culture.bulgaria:1485 soc.culture.yugoslavia:9033