Once Again about the Iconography of Bulgarian Rulers
Prince Boris (Knyaz Boris) and King Simeon (Tsar Simeon)—9th–10th Century
Axinia Džurova

Emperor’s triple function as King, Priest and ProphetA

s is well known, Eusebius of Caesarea (III–IV century) was thescholar to lay the theological foundations of the doctrine of the
Empire and the Christian Emperor, i.e. the idea of the ‘divine monarchy’as a prerequisite of the unity of an empire. It was not by chance that he
was also known as the first political theologian of Christianity (Farina,
1966, 257; 2003, 197–304). Cardinal notion of his political theology isthat the empire and the Christian emperor are εκν (image)—mimesis(imitation) of the Kingdom of the Father in Heaven and His Word, i.e. theLord created the Empire on earth as the image of His Empire in heaven.
In fact, in this context, the Church and the Empire cannot but be
concurrent due to the fact that they are both the ‘image’ of the same
divine Christian community. Together they form the Christian commu­
nity, i.e. the Christian Empire which can have only one leader—the
Christian Emperor. However, the reason that determines the priority ofthe power of the Emperor over the Church, rather than identify the
church with the empire, is that the emperor is the Viceroy of the Lord, theViceroy of the Word—Christ on earth, i.e. being the Viceroy of the Wordof Christ, he is above the Church and, respectively, above the Empire as awhole. It is not by chance that the Christian Community on earth isrepresented as the Kingdom of God identical with the Empire and theCity of God is identical with the Church. The Emperor exercises theaggregate powers due to his triple function of King, Priest and Prophet.
And he is vested with these powers because he is the Viceroy of God, ofthe Word—Christ, being a king priest and a prophet. This close relation
between the Sate and the Church (often defined as a symphony between
the two powers) is most strongly manifest in the period when the two
powers have the same objectives, what we observe in Bulgaria in the endof the 9th century and the beginning of the 10th century. A brilliant
example of this unity of the objectives of the two powers is the BulgarianRoyal iconography regarding—Prince (Knyaz) Boris and Tsar Simeon.
157

158

once again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

Images of Two Rulers in Russian Copies
The images of the two Bulgarian rulers are not among those most often
found in the manuscripts which have reached our days and thoserelating to the ecclesiastical elite up to the 15th century are virtually
non-existent, or we know nothing of them. Royal iconography inAncient Bulgarian art, which is generally in direct relation to the
Byzantine tradition (Grabar, 1936, 166–296; Guzelev, 1968), became
widely spread in the period of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom (1185–1396). From this period come the most preserved portraits of Bulgariankings famous—in the Manasses Chronicle of 1344/45 and the London
Gospel of 1356 (Velmans, 1968, 93–148). The case in point is theintroductory miniature of King Ivan Alexander with the Chronicler
Constantine Manasses and the portrait with his sons in the end of theChronicle, as well as the miniature of the royal family in the London
Gospel. These miniatures have been the subject of scientific researchand discussed at length for almost two centuries and they are also of amuch later time than the period in which we try to study the cult of thesovereign as compared to the cult of the religious leader.
So, the earliest preserved portraits of Bulgarian, respectively Slavonickings come from IX–X century. They are found only in the preserved toour days later Russian copies (XI–XII century) produced after the modelof Bulgarian manuscripts. The word goes about the image of Knyaz
Boris-Michail in the so called Didactic Gospel (Homiliary) (Moscow,
GIM, Syn. 262) and of Tsar Simeon in the Miscellany of Hippolytus(Moscow, GIM, Chudov. 12) (Ivanova-Mavrodinova, 1968, 80–120;
idem, 1976, 111–114; Popova, 1975, 28, ill. 9).
In the so called Didactic Gospel of XI–XII century (Syn. 262)
according to the latest dating of its production (Uhanova, 2009, 117–
156) Knyaz Boris is portrayed in full length and in a frontal pose against
a gold background in a semicircular decorated arch supported via twocolumns. In his right hand he has a cross and his left hand is on his chestwith open palm addressed to the public. He wears a crown on his headwith a nimbus around it. The tunic and the cloak are of interwoven withgold brocade, trimmed with pearls. The crown is of the type worn at thetime by Byzantine kings, i.e. the so-called ‘stemma’ with soft bottom
and a precious stone in the middle. The cloak is purple. On both sides ofhis head we can read ‘St. Boris.’ The miniature is published in a
Miscellany remarkable for the exquisitely simple graphic illumination—
the initials are of double contour and tinted in purple colour. There is no
headpiece on leaf 2 of the manuscript and it does not contain otheronce again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

Fig. 1

159

Miniature of Knyaz Boris in the so called Didactic Gospel (Homilary)

miniatures, which is an argument in favour of the theory that theminiatures of the Bulgarian sovereign come from the Old Bulgarianmodel to be inserted in the Russian Miscellany produced later. Its
iconography is related to his greatest merit, which is the conversion of
the Bulgarian people, i.e. he ruled in the period when Bulgaria became apart of the great Christian family of Europe.
In the Miscellany of Hippolytus (Chud. 12) the miniature of Tsar
Simeon has been badly damaged. The son of Knyaz Boris, Tsar Simeon,is portrayed in a bi-level conical arch in full length and in frontal posewith a model of a single dome church of gold in his left hand. The
cloak, the shoes and the crown are of red colour and the nimbus is ofgold. The face is beardless. According to the opinion of a number of
researchers (e.g. see Ivanova-Mavrodinova, 1976, 114) this is the modelof the Round Church (the so-called Golden Church)—one of theemblematic buildings in the capital city of the First Bulgarian Kingdom—Preslav donated by Tsar Simeon. The decorative design of the Tsar
Simeon’s garment resembles the white-clay tiles of the floor and wall
ornamentation preserved in Preslav (which is one of the arguments

160

once again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

Fig. 2 The miniature of Tsar Simeon in the Miscellany of Hippolytus andgraphic restoration

supporting the theory that the miniature portrays Tsar Simeon), as wellas similar motifs observed in the garments of Byzantine Emperors, verymuch like oriental fabrics (Ivanova-Mavrodinova, 1976, 111).

Golden Age of Bulgarian Culture under Boris and Simeon
What are the two Bulgarian monarchs famous for, as it is in their time
and through their efforts that the first model of the Slavonic Christianstate was created and the relation ‘religious-secular power’ codified
inspired by the relations between the sovereign and the church leader ofthe Byzantine Empire?
Khan and Knyaz Boris (unknown–May 2, 907) ruled over the
Bulgarian State from 852 to 889. In his time the Bulgarian people wereconverted to Christianity (864) and the Bulgarian Independent(Autocephalic) Church was established, the Ancient Bulgarian language
and alphabet were adopted in religious services, and the first Slavonic
Bulgarian literary centers were set-up (КМЕ, А–З, I, 1985, 222–233).
This was also the time of intensive construction of Christian churches.
For instance, in a Bulgarian apocryphal chronicle of IX century we read:“Boris has engirdled the entire territory of Bulgaria under his rule withseven cathedral churches.” This was also the King to receive in his

once again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

Fig. 3161

Flooring from the Tuzlalaka Monastery in Preslav

capital city the disciples of Cyril and Methodius—Clement, Naum andAngelarii—after their unsuccessful attempt at conversion of the
Slavonic population and banishment from Great Moravia (after 885)
which marked the beginning of their cultural mission in Bulgaria thus
salvaging the Slavonic alphabet created by Cyril and Methodius.
Another group of disciples of Cyril and Methodius and a number ofclergymen, led by Constantine of Preslav, arrived in Pliska (the first
capital of the First Bulgarian State) via Constantinople. The rule ofKnyaz Boris was also remarkable for the creation of two literary centers:in the area of Kutmichevitsa with center Ohrid in Southeastern Bulgaria
and in the capital city of Pliska. In the course of seven years Clement
trained successfully 3500 students and launched intensive enlightening
initiatives. Relying on the strong support of Knyaz Boris, he built the St.
Panteleimon Monastery and one more church which was later turned
into archbishop’s residence. It is also known that in Pliska, and later in
Preslav, the activities of Naum and his disciples, as well as of thedisciples of Clement, who became the first bishop in Bulgarian language(893) laid the foundations of the Golden Age of Bulgarian literature. In
889 Boris abdicated the throne and retired into the monastery close to
the great basilica. Then his son Vladimir Rasate came to the throne andhe made an attempt at reinstitution of paganism. This necessitated therestoration of Knyaz Boris to the throne in 893 and it resulted in thecomplete establishment of Christianity in Bulgaria as the religion of the162

once again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

state. In the same year, at the Preslav Synod (Convention), attended byrepresentatives of the secular aristocracy, the high clergy and the people,
his son Simeon, who renounced the monastic vows he had been
dedicated to and had been preparing for ever since his studies inConstantinople, was proclaimed Knyaz of all Bulgarians. Then thecapital city was moved to Great Preslav and Knyaz Boris retired to themonastery again.
Tsar Simeon (appr. 863–864—27.05.927) was Knyaz of the
Bulgarians from 893 to 913, and Tsar of the Bulgarians from 913 to 927(КМЕ, П–С, III, 2003, 591–600). According to Bishop Liutprand of
Cremona, at a very early age Simeon studied “the art of rhetoric and thesyllogisms of Aristotle in Constantinople.” He is supposed to havestudied at the School of Magnaura where, in the second half of the 9th
century Arethas of Caesarea had started his work and future Emperor
Constantine Porphyrogennetos had been educated. This is the environ­ment where the Macedonian Renaissance and encyclopedic education
originate from. It is again from Liutprand that we learn that Simeon
gave up his studies later and dedicated himself, as people say, to his
monastic asceticism. This information is accepted to be evidence of theintention of Knyaz Boris to entrust Simeon with the spiritual life of thecountry (Bojilov, 1983, 36). That is to say that we observe conscious
and well grounded policies of the royal family to gain control over boththe secular and the spiritual power via development of the relevant
human resources—in this case Simeon, son of the Knyaz.
As is well known, however, the monastic seclusion of Simeon was
short lived. It is supposed that with the arrival of the disciples of Ciryl
and Methodius after 885 he took active part in their literary activities
and moving the capital city from Pliska to Preslav is associated with his
aspiration that it should become for the Bulgarians what Constantinople
was for the Byzantines. In this way a circle of highly educated persons
was formed around young Simeon, including scholars and authors like
Clement and Naum of Ohrid, Constantine of Preslav, John the Exarch,
Chernorizets Hrabar, Presbyter Grigorii, Tudor Doxov.
And it was only too natural having in mind the high education
Simeon had received in Constantinople and his strive to imitate theelitist culture created in the Byzantine capital at the time. For instance,
Old Bulgarian literature reveals evidence of the unique potential not justof the translators, but of the authors of original texts as well.
The ambitions of Simeon, materialized in the new Christian capital
city of Preslav which he paralleled with the highest levels of the culturalparadigms of the time, i.e. with Constantinople and Jerusalem, devel­

once again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

163

oped an exquisite phenomenon called ‘Golden Age’ by earlier research­ers. Texts were translated for the needs of the sovereign and the court
elite which were of quality tantamount to the best Byzantine specimen(Džurova, Velinova, 2011, 83–105).
The high level of the works translated in this period is an evidence ofthe excellent knowledge of Greek language and the theological literatureon the part of the first generation of Old Bulgarian literary men and not
all works they were familiar with were obligatorily translated into
Bulgaria. The intensity of the literary process in Preslav was amazing,
because in the course of only several decades the main genres of
Byzantine liturgical and theological literature were translated and they
lastingly added didactic-catechetical aspect to the Slavonic literature asa whole.
Evidence of this are not only the liturgical texts, but also major
theological encyclopedias, such as the Hexameron, historiographicalworks, works of the Church fathers, rhetorical and hagiographicalliterature, works of monks (the Ladder of Divine Ascent, Sermon of
Abba Dorotheus, Patericon, Parenesis of Ephrem the Syrian, etc.). The
design of the Cyrillic manuscripts from the former king’s library, known
only by their Russian copies, corroborates the theory that the highConstantinople standards of decoration and miniature production were
followed, rather than the provincial specimen typical of the Glagolitic
codices. The manuscripts which were translated and illuminated for theneeds of the court, e.g. the Ostromir Gospel (1056–1057) and the
Mstislav Gospel (1113–1117), the Lectionary of Svetoslav (Simeon) of
1073 are parallel to the best works of manuscript decoration produced in
the Byzantine capital city in the end of IX and X century, especially tothose decorated in coloured Byzantine style (Džurova, 2002).
The intensive temple construction in Preslav of basilica and crossvault churches was crowned by the so-called Round Church built at a
distance of 10m from the palace of the Tsar. It is a rotunda with arectangular narthex and a square atrium decorated with rich plastic andceramic elements, the resemblance of which with the church structuresin Constantinople is indisputable and they have been subject ofnumerous studies. The ceramics decorating the floors and the walls of
the churches and the residential buildings impress with the richornamental repertory, compared not only to manuscript decoration, butalso to the decoration of enamel items, fabrics and church plate(Akrabova-Jandova, 1976, 62–80; Totev, 1988).
This uplift, unprecedented in the ages to come according to genre
opulence and illumination of the Slavonic manuscripts translated from164

once again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

Fig. 4 The ceramic iconostasis from Preslav

Greek, was most naturally the result of the role played by the two
Bulgarian sovereigns, i.e. Knyaz Boris and Tsar Simeon who designed
and established the first model of the Christian Bulgarian, respectively
Slavonic, state. And it is for this that this period is indicative of the factthat when the interests of the two powers, i.e. state and religious, concur,
royal iconography is developed.

Cross & Model of Church in their Hands
In the so called Didactic Gospel (Homilary) Knyaz Boris is depictedwith the attributes of Christianity—the cross, on a background framedby an arch crowned with a cross. The decoration of the columns literally
copies the capital of the preserved ceramic iconostasis of X century in
Preslav. The same is also valid about the design used for the columns
and the frieze of the arch above Knyaz Boris and the arches of thealready mentioned ceramic iconostasis (Bulgaria in the Byzantine
World, 2011, 20, ill. 48). A perfect example of this similarity is the
specified already resemblance between the ornamentation on Tsar
Simeon’s dalmatic in the Miscellany of Hippolytus, especially thelikeness of the rosettes with the flooring from Preslav. It is not bychance that the Tsar is depicted, following the pattern of Byzantine
iconography, with the model of a church in his hand, i.e. the Golden
Church, commissioned by him.
We find evidence of the unity of the policies of the two monarchs, i.e.
the fact that Knyaz Boris was perceived as an enlightened prince and his
activities aimed at consolidation of the Christian faith were continued byhis son Simeon, in the following note by Monk Tudor Doxov: “These
pious books, called Athanasii, were translated into Slavonic language
from Greek on the orders of our Knyaz Simeon by the Bishop
Constantine, disciple of Methodius, Archbishop of Moravia in the year
6414 (= 906) indiction 10 since the creation of the world. On thecommission of the same Knyaz they were copied by Tudor Doxov at theonce again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

Fig. 5165

Facing ceramic tiles from Preslav

mouth of the River Ticha in the year 6415 (= 907), where he had built
the new Holy Golden Church. In the same year on May 2, Saturday
evening the father of the Knyaz, this humble servant of God who had
lived with the true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, passed away…”
The attempts of recent years to associate the portraits of the Bulgarianmonarchs in the so called Didactic Gospel (Homilary) and the Miscel­lany of Hippolytus with the images of Russian princes Boris and Gleb
(Uhanova, 2009, 117–156) are not in line not only with the existing until
now opinion and arguments stated by specialists in the field (Filimonov,
1875, 51–53; Svirin, 1950, 20, 24; Lazarev, 1953, 476–478; Šcepkina,
Protasieva, 1958, 15; Golyšenko, 1959, 394, 407, 412–415; IvanovaMavrodinova, 1968, 108–110; Vzdornov, 1980, 16–17; Džurova, 1981,
26; Guzelev, 1985, 228; Protasieva, 1980, 10; Popova, 1983, 23;Maslenicyn, 1998, 92–93; Gorskij-Nevostruev, 1859, 409; Sreznevskij,
1867, 47–48), but also with the fact that the texts, where theseminiatures have been preserved, are themselves indisputable evidence of
Old Bulgarian practices and models. In this connection it is significant
to study in what books these miniatures were portrayed?
The so called Didactic Gospel (Homilary) (Syn. 262) is a collection
containing Sunday lectures (sermons). The manuscript was compiled in
the end of IX century by Constantine of Preslav, disciple of Methodius.
The second manuscript, the so-called Miscellany of Hippolytus (Chudov12), contains Sermons of Bishop Hippolytus “On Christ and the
Antichrist” and “Commentary on the prophet Daniel” (IvanovaMavrodinova, 1976, 116, 117), i.e. the miniatures of the Bulgarian kings
could not be related to the texts they were incorporated in. Their
presence there could only be explained with the persons who had
commissioned the publication, i.e. Knyaz Boris of Bulgaria and Tsar
Simeon of Bulgaria and, later, by the Kiev Princes in XI–XII century

166

once again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers(Uhanova, 2009, 135–136).
According to the earliest description of the miniature, provided byFilimonov, it becomes clear that the background, on which Tsar Simeon
is portrayed, was blue and the church model was golden, i.e. thisdescription is in line with the quotation above, which mentions that
Simeon had built the ‘new golden church’ at the mouth of the River
Ticha in Preslav. An Old Bulgarian writer, John the Exarch, contem­
porary of Simeon, also offers information about an image of Simeon,
portrayed in colour on a wall, which is supposed to be his portrait in theGolden Church, where blue and green dices of mosaic flooring havebeen found—the colours are also observed in the mosaic flooring of thechurches in Preslav (Ivanova-Mavrodinova, 1976, 118–119).
If we remember the preserved to this day originals and Russian copiesof the mentioned already Old Bulgarian manuscripts of the First
Bulgarian Kingdom, it becomes clear that these two manuscripts withthe portraits of the monarchs compose together a unique “Christianphilosophical collection” which conforms with the eruditeness of thealumnus of the School of Magnaura—Tsar Simeon, who strived tocreate, most probably at his personal choice, a rich body of Christianliterature for the needs of his court. It is a different matter that thismodel in a period of Proselytism did not meet the daily liturgical needs,
which required to create a pragmatic liturgical body of works at a lower
level to cater for the needs of daily church services (Džurova-Velinova,
2011, 83–105).
The portrayed images of the Bulgarian monarchs are in line with thehigh standard of performance of the rest of the miniatures of the period,
such as the images in frontal pose from the Svetoslav Gospel Lectionaryof 1073 and the lavish illumination in colourful Byzantine style of theOstromir and Mstislav Gospel of XI–XII century.
What do the attributes in the hands of the Bulgarian monarch sym­
bolize? The church in the left hand of Simeon in the Miscellany of
Hippolytus illustrates what was a practice when depicting Byzantine
emperors, i.e. the act of founding and commissioning the building of achurch, in this case the Round Church, and the cross in the right hand of
Tsar Boris is not just a symbol of martyrdom, but also a proof that hewas the enlightener-knyaz, the one who had integrated his people withthe great Christian family as well as a symbol of the victory of themonarch.
The nimbus crowning both Bulgarian kings is not a rare technique ofthe Byzantine, respectively the Slavonic, iconography. It had been usedever since the time of Emperor Constantine the Great, i.e. since IVonce again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

167

century and it is observed not only with saints, but also with members of
the royal family when still alive. The use of nimbuses in this case also
expresses the perception of their holiness.
To the arguments supporting that the images of the kings are precisely
the portraits of the first Bulgarian Christian sovereigns—Knyaz Borisand Tsar Simeon, I would like to add also a not sufficiently known
material from Greek manuscripts dated from the end of IX century—thebeginning of X century. The rosettes of the dalmatic of Tsar Simeon in
the Miscellany of Hippolytus (Chudov 12) are also found in the ceramicornaments of Preslav. As early as 50 years ago (1945), archeologicalfinds were discovered of the flooring of a church in Preslav. The tiles
found there were of the octofoliate type framed via a circle and they are
identical with the motifs adorning the tunic of Tsar Simeon.
Similar designs are not rare in some Greek manuscripts of X century,
i.e. of the time when the Old Bulgarian works were produced: Bodl.
Barocci 181 (f. 4), first half of X century; Bodl. Auct. T. 3. 2., middle of
X century, (f. 2) (Hutter, 1982, ill. 10–11); GIM, Synod. Gr. 134 (Vlad.
164) (ff. 2, 108v), end of X century (Fonkič, Poljakov, 1993, 64); Add.
11300 (f. 84) and Laur. Plut. IV. 29 (f. 122v); Paris gr. 139 (Weitzmann,
1996, 38, 43, X, 47); Korçë 92 middle of X century—the headpiece onleaf 130 of the Gospel of Mark (Džurova, 2011, ill. 81) and Cod. Ath.
Gr. 210, first half of X Century (Chatzinicolaou-Paschou, 1997, fig. 52).
The rosettes of almond-tree leaves are also observed in a number of
Greek manuscripts of X century, for instance again the Four Gospels of
Korcha 92 (f. 210) in the headpiece to the Gospel of Luke, as well as in
the ceramics of Preslav (Džurova, 2011, I, 99–111; II, ill. 83;
Mavrodinov, 1959, fig. 294–296; idem, 1976, ill. 137, 140).
The cinnabar ornament on golden background of the dalmatic ofKnyaz Boris (Synod.262) in the so called Didactic Gospel (Homilary)resembles the ornament type and the style characteristics of themanuscripts performed in the so-called ‘lace’ style, or Laubsägestil,which emerged in X century and which was relatively short lived
compared to the colourful (floral) style emblematic of Byzantine, which
was also formed in X century, but had a longer life. In fact, what has tobe emphasized here, is the fact that we have not come across proper
Laubsägestil yet in any of the Slavonic manuscripts known to us in theway we know it from the Greek manuscripts of X century. However, thefact that it is observed in the dalmatic of Knyaz Boris most probably
means that a series of loops in the chain of the illuminated earliest
Slavonic books—the Old Bulgarian manuscripts—have been irretrieva­
bly lost.

168

once again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

And the fact that it is found in the garment of Knyaz Boris imitating
the portraits of Byzantine emperors of X–XI century (see Cod. Ath. Gr.
413 and Coislin 79 of 1080 г. f., where Emperor Nikephoros III
Botaneiates was portrayed with John Chrysostom and Archangel
Michael on 2v) is evidence of the practices to follow the Byzantine
models of the day, which were available in the court of the Bulgarianmonarchs (Chatzinicolaou-Paschou, 1997, fig. 88, 391; Lazarev, 1986,
ill. 237–238).
The ornament, filling in the columns and the arch where the figure of
the king is positioned is used in Greek manuscripts in the end of IX
century and the first decades of X century, for instance in the Four
Gospels of Korcha 93 and of Messina, F. V. 18 (Džurova, 2011, I, 99–
111; II, 123–131; Iacobini-Perria, 1998). The same is also valid of
dotting the contours of the garment, the nimbus, and the arches. This is
one of the favourate motifs of the end of IX and of X century.

Era of the idea of “Divine State”
Thus in the end of IX century and the first decades of X century, whenthe model of the Christian state was formed in Bulgaria, the efforts ofthe first rulers, i.e. Prince Boris and Tsar Simeon, were aimed at thedevelopment of a highly educated state and clerical elite similar to theelite of Constantinople. The series of preserved original Ancient
Bulgarian manuscripts, or the manuscripts that existed and now werestore on the grounds of Russian copies of XI–XII century, attest to a
conscientiously translated into Ancient Bulgarian philosophical anddogmatic complex, which, in addition to liturgical books, also included
eschatological and interpretative works, liturgical and dogmatic rules, aswell as works containing annalistic information. This is a collection ofliterary works, which testifies to a highly educated monarch and wellread monks. This was the time when the objectives of the sovereign ofthe state and of the head of the church were focused on the creation andthe establishment of the Christian identity of a newly converted nationand this required the production of manuscripts for daily liturgicalneeds, as well as manuscripts to meet the needs of high-ranking state
officials and servants of God, who created the first written model of
Slavonic culture following the Byzantine tradition and this model would
become a paradigm to be followed by the rest of the Slavonic people.
Unfortunately, this synchronization of the policies of the state and theclergy could hardly be repeated in the ages to come due to a number ofhistoric events, such as the Byzantine Rule (1018–1185), the crusades;once again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

169

the rule of the Latin Empire (1204–1261); and later of the Turkish
Empire (1393–1878). These circumstances modified the relations
between the state and the church due to dynamic priorities: by the end of
XIV century—of the state, and after XIV century—of the church which,due to the absence of a state system, had to play the role of ‘guardian of
the national identity and faith’ in the course of five centuries. But inthese early days of formation of the Christian model of state thecommon objectives also predetermined the synchronization, thesymphony between the two powers at least in the first decades (in theend of IX and the first half of X century). For this reason the sovereign
was portrayed both as an enlightener with a cross in his right hand as thecommissioner of churches and with a nimbus, i.e. as a divine man in theway we find his image in the so called Didactic Gospel (Homilary) andthe Miscellany of Hippolytus and which would serve as a model of
portraying the sovereigns of other Slavonic states—in this case theiconography of St. Boris and Gleb.
The cultural and literary activities of Simeon were combined with
political ambitions for the crown of a tsar and the scepter of a patriarch
entirely according to the ideology of Byzantine emperors and the mainprinciple of this ideology—imperium and sacerdocium, i.e. imperium
sine patriarcha non staret—there is no kingdom without a patriarch. In
913 the enthronization of the first Bulgarian patriarch took place
simultaneously with the enthronization of Knyaz Simeon as Tsar of the
Bulgarians.
The reign of Tsar Simeon in the first decades of X century wasmarked by remarkable literary and cultural upsurge which contributed tothe integration of the Slavonic world with the Byzantine civilization via
adapting it to the Bulgarian context. It was not by chance that Tsar
Simeon was portrayed as the founder of the Golden Church in the
Miscellany of Hippolytus, prototype of which was the Golden Temple ofSolomon. He was depicted as a state and religious leader of the newly
converted Bulgarian people, as the Viceroy of God, of the Word—
Christ, totally in the spirit of the Byzantine political theology, created as
early as in III–IV century by Eusebius of Caesarea and Emperor
Constantine the Great. And this is so, because in these decades of thehistory of the Bulgarian state in the end of IX century and the beginningof X century the idea of the divine state prevails over everything else.
And the two preserved miniatures of Knyaz Boris and Tsar Simeon are
an explicit illustration of this fact.

170

once again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akrabova-Jandova, 1976 = Ив. Акрабова-Жандова, Преславската рисувана
трапезна керамика, in: Преслав, Сборник II, София, 1976, 62–80.
Bojilov, 1983 = Ив. Божилов, Цар Симеон Велики (893–927). Златният век наБългария, София, 1983.
Bulgaria, 2011 = Bulgaria in the Byzantine World, Sofia, 2011.
Chatzinicolaou—Paschou, 1997 = A. Marava-Chatzinicolaou, C. Toufexi-Paschou,
Catalogue of the Illuminated Byzantine Manuscripts of the National Library of
Greece, III, 9th–12th Century, Athens, 1997.
Džurova, 1981 = A. Джурова, 1000 години българска ръкописна книга, София, 1981.
Džurova, 2002 = A. Džurova, Byzantinische Miniaturen. Schätze der Buchmalerei vom
4. bis 19. Jahrhundert. Mit einem Vorwort zur deutschen Übersetzung von Peter
Schreiner. Schnell + Stеiner, Regensburg, 2002.
Džurova, 2011 = A. Džurova, Manuscrits grecs enluminés des Archives Nationales deTirana (VIe–XIVe siècles). Études choisies, I–II, Scriptorium Balcanicum, Sofia,
2011.
Džurova, 2011 = A. Džurova, Le Rayonnement de Byzance. Les manuscrits grecs
enluminés des Balkans (VIe–XVIIIe siècle). Catalogue d’exposition (XXIIe Congrèsd’études Byzantines) Sofia, 22–27 août 2011, Sofia, 2011 (avec la collaboration de
Paul Canart).
Džurova-Velinova, 2011 = A. Džurova, V. Velinova, Byzantine Literature and Codex in
the Reflection of the Slavic Tradition. Once more on the Relations Model—Recipient—in: Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Sofia,
22–27 August 2011). Volume I, Plenary Papers, Sofia, 2011, 83–105.
Farina, 1966 = R. Farina, L’Impero e l’imperatore christiano in Eusebio di Cesarea,
Zurich, 1966.
Farina, 2003 = R. Farina, La “petas” del servo di Dio Constantino Imperatore: santità eculto di Constantino Imperatore nella “Vita di Constantino” di Eusebio di Cesarea,
in: Poteri religiosi e istituzioni: il culto di San Constantino tra Oriente e Occidente,
Torino, 2003, 297–304.
Filimonov, 1875 = Г. Д. Филимонов, Иконные портреты русских царей, in: Вестник
Общества древнерусского искусства при Московском Публичном музее, 1875,
6/10, 51–53.
Fonki č-Poljakov, 1993 = Б. Л. Фонкич, Ф. Б. Поляков, Греческие рукописи
Московской Синодальной библиотеки, Москва, 1993.
Golyšenko, 1959 = В. С. Голышенко, К вопросу об изображениии князя вЧудовской рукописи XII–XIII вв.—Проблемы источниковедения, VII, Москва,1963, 45–64.
Gorskij-Nevostruev, 1859 = А. В. Горский, К. И. Невоструев, Описание славянских
укописей Московской Синодальной библиотеки. Отд. 2. 2., Москва, 1859.
Grabar, 1936 = A. Grabar, L’Empereur dans l’art byzantin, in: Recherches sur l’art
officiel de l’Empire d’Orient, Paris, 1936, 166–196.
Guzelev, 1968 = В. Гюзелев, Княз Борис I, София, 1968.
Guzelev, 1985 = В. Гюзелев, Борис I, in: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия, т. 1,
София, 1985, 222–233.
Hutter, 1982 = I. Hutter, Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturhandschriften, II, Oxford,
1982.
Iacobini-Perria, 1998 = A. Iacobini, L. Perria, Il Vangelo di Dionisio. Un manoscritto

once again about the iconography of bulgarian rulers

171

bizantino da Costantinopoli a Messina (Milion. SRAB, 4), Árgos 1998.
Ivanova-Mavrodinova, 1968 = В. Иванова-Мавродинова, За украсата на ръкописитеот Преславската книжовна школа, in: Преслав, Сборник I, София, 1968, 80–120.
Ivanova-Mavrodinova, 1976 = В. Иванова-Мавродинова, Украса на ръкописите, in:Преслав, Сборник II, София, 1976, 62–80.
KME, 1985, 2003 = Кирило-методиева енциклопедия, А–З, I, София, 1985; П–С, III,София, 2003.
Lazarev, 1953 = В. Н. Лазарев, Живопись Владимиро-Суздальской Руси, in:История русского искусства, т. 1, Москва, 1953.
Lazarev, 1986 = В. Н. Лазарев, История византийской живописи, I–II, Москва, 1986.
Maslenicyn, 1998 = С. И. Масленицын, Живопись Владимиро-Суздальской Руси,1157–1238 годы, Москва, 1998.
Mavrodinov, 1959 = Н. Мавродинов, Старобългарското изкуство. Изкуството наПървото българско царство, София, 1959.
Perria-Iacobini, 1995 = L. Perria, A. Iacobini, Il Vangelo di Dionisio. Il codice F.V.18 di
Messina, l’Athos Stavronikita 43 e la produzione libraria costantinopolitana delprimo periodo Macedone, in: RSBN, 31 (1994) [1995], 81–163.
Popova, 1975 = O. Popova, Les miniatures russes du XIe au XV siècle, Léningrad, 1975.
Popova, 1983 = О. С. Попова, Русская книжная миниатюра XI–XV вв.—Древнерусское искусство. Русь и страны византийского мира, XII в. СПб., 2002,
344–364.
Sreznevskij, 1867 = И. И. Срезневский, Древнее изображение Всеволода-Гавриила,in: Сведения и заметки о малоизвестных и неизвестных памятниках XIV в. СПб.,1867, вып. СХХ.
Šcepkina –Protasieva, 1958 = М. В. Щепкина, Т. Н. Протасьева. Сокровища древней
письменности и старой печати. Обзор рукописей русских, славянских,греческих, а также книг старой печати Государственного Исторического музея,Моксва, 1958.
Svirin, 1950 = А. Н. Свирин, Древнерусская миниатюра, Москва, 1950.
Totev, 1988 = Т. Тотев, Преславската керамична школа, София, 1988.
Uhanova, 2009 = Е. Уханова, Древнейшие изображения князя Бориса. К истории
библиотеки Владимира Мономаха, in : Collectanea Borisoglebica, выпуск I, Paris,
2009, 117–156.
Velmans, 1968 = T. Velmans, Le Portrait dans l’art des Paléologues, in : Art et société à
Byzance sous les Paléologues, in: Actes du Colloque organisé par l’Association
Internationale des Études Byzantines à Venise, en septembre 1968. Venise, 1968, 93–148.
Vzdornov, 1980 = Г. И. Вздорнов, Искусство книги в Древней Руси. Рукописная
книга Северо-Восточной Руси XII—начала XV в., Москва, 1980.
Weitzmann, 1996 = K. Weitzmann, Die byzantinische Buchmalerei des 9. und 10.
Jahrhunderts, Berlin, 1935 (reprint. Addenda und Appendix, Wien, 1996).