« PrethodnaNastavi »
ing the pass of Veregruva, by which komun armies had been wont to descend upon Pliska, as well as the adjacent pass of Verbits. We do not know how the new town which the King orected in front of the mountain defiles was called in his own tongue, but the Slave called it l’reslav, " the glorious," a name which seemis originally to have been applied to all the palaces of the Bulgarian kings." It is not probable that Omurtug intended to transfer his principal residence from the plain to the hills," but his new foundation was destined, ns Crent l'roslav, to become within a hundred yells the capital of Bulgarin.
The foundation of the city is recorded on a large limestone column which was dug out of the earth a few years ago at Chatalar, about four miles from the ruins of Preslav. "The sublime Khan Omurtag is divine ruler in the land where he wils born. Abiding in tho I'lnin* of l’liska, he made a palaco (aula) on the Tulsit and displayed his power to the Greeks and Slavs. And lie constructed with skill a bridge over the Tutsa. And he set up in his fortress“ four columns, and Tetween the columns he set two bronze lions.? May God grant that the divine ruler may press down the Emperor with his foot so long as the Tutsa tlows, that he may procure where the texts give cionadev (sc. ις τις Ιλσκας τον κα(μ)πον, Doubt. Constantino V.) ris Boulgaplav ws ToŮ less náutos designatos not tho wholo Tsinas, but ono MS, has 'l'ouvšas. In Teolor of Aboba, but the fortified Anna Comnena (7. 3) it is called enclosure of Pliska. Bursiva. See Abobu, 5:17.
.] την δύναμιν του [is) Preslav corresponds to ravonuos,
Γραικούς και Σκλάβους. Uspenski the adjective applied to the house on
supplies ewige. But Omurtay lived at the Danube and to Pliska in tlie
peace with thu Greeks. I would supply Tyrnovo inscription (tov dvo VKO TOV
<delee (281) or some equivalont, and
restore is = eis (Uspenski (ri). Favomuov, a genitive plural wrongly taken for olkov Tov r. by Jireerk ; sco
6 μετ[ήνεγκεν) και έστησεν] εις αυτό Bury, App. 10 to Gibbon, vi.). The
τ[ο κάστρον (Useiski). κάστρον, 1 palare on the Danube is also called
think, is riglit, but uernvegkev very
doubtful. υπέρφημος (λ.). C. το αρχαιότατον υπέρσφημον and [πέρ] άπασαν φήμην in
? I read kai(udo la (T@]y otúlww. The
four colunins marked a space in tho an inscription of Malimir (Abobri, 233). This worl, like preslur, evidently
centre of which were the two lions, or translated a Bulgarian appellative.
else two columns were on either side
of a gateway and the lions between ? Uspenski thinks that the use of them. Uspenski restores kai [eis er la aith in the inscription implies the ("and placed two lions on one of the "transference of the capital" (Abuba, columns"), un arrangement which 5:17). But why should not the khan
sounds too inartistic to be crediblu. have two ailai!
και με τον πύ[ δα) αυτού τον βασιλέα : Sve sibuba, 516 57., for the inscrip κά[μψειν έως τρί ]x[m] η Τούτζα. I tion and the circumstance of its real' xáuyor (the future is required); ciscovery. Chatalar is close to the Usinski gives κάμπτειν, καταβαλείν railway station of Preslav-Krumovo. might also be thought of.
5 και [. ..
many captives for the Bulgarians,' and that subduing his foes he may, in joy and happiness, live for a hundred years. The
inay date of the foundution was the Bulgariun year shegor alem, or the fifteenth indiction of the Greeks” (A.D. 821-822). In this aluable record of the foundation of Preslav, we may note with interest the hostile reference to the Roman Emperor as the chief and permanent enemy of Bulgaria, although at this time Bulgaria and the Empire were at peace.
It was probably al standing formulu which had originally been adopted in the reign of some former king, when the two powers were at war.
It has been already reluted how Omurtay intervened in the civil war between Michael and Thomas, how lie defeated the rebel on the field of Keduktos, and returned laden with spoils (A.D. 823). This wiis his only expedition into Romun territory; the Thirty Yeurs' l'ence was preserved inviolato throughout his reign. The date of his death is uncertain."
$ 6. The Reigns of Malamir und Boris Omurtuy was succeeded by his youngest son Presiam, though one at least of his elder sons was still living. Presiam is generally known as Maluinir, a Slavonic name which he assumed, perhaps toward the end of his reign. The adoption of this name is a landmark in the gradual process of the assertion of Slavonic influence in the Bulgarian realm. We may surmise that it corresponds to a political situation in which the Khan was driven to rely on the support of his Slavonic subjects against the Bulgarian nobles.
We have soine oflicial records of the sublimo Khan Malamir," though not so many or so important as the records
1 και [δ]όσ[η αιχμαλώτους πολλούς eldest son and survived Omurtag, acBovagá[p]es. I translate this extremely cording to the story told by Theophy, uncertain restoration of Uspenski, only lactus, op. cit. 192. Seo below, p. 382. substituting doorv, 1.c. duoerv, for his + We know that Malamir was ruler δώση.
of Bulgaria in the reign of Theophilus : Later than A.D. 827. See above, from Simeon (Cont. Cicory. 818). The p. 305. Zluturski dutes the reign a3 wrs. Slur. 101 calls him Vlailimir, 814-831/2 (sco Ibobu, 230).
it had so the Cod. Par. 854 and Vatic, 3 The ovidence, as I holil, points to 1807 ; tho porinted tests of t'unt. the islentity of Presiam with Nalamir : licory., Leo (ir., and Theod. Mol. sco Appendix X. Eurayotis, also have Baldiuep. The orror may havo called Bolvos (is this Bulgarian Buinn arisen from confusion with a later or Slavonic warrior''?), Wils the Khan Tiadimir, who succeeded Boris,
of his father. We have a memorial column of Tsepa, a boilad ind king's liegeman who died of illness. From another stone we learn that Isbules, the kuukhan, who was one of the kiny's old boiluds, built an aqueduct for Malamir at his own expense. This aqueduct was probably to supply one of the royal palaces. Malamir celebrated the occasion by giving a
feast to the Bulgarians, and bestowing many gifts upon the · boilads and bagains.”
There was some risk that the treaty with the Empire might be denounced during the reign of Theophilus.
The Thracian and Macedonian captives who had been transported by Krum to regions beyond the Danubes formed it plan to return to their homes. This colony of exiles, who are said to have numbered 12,000 not counting females, were permitted to choose one of their own number as a governor, and Kordyles, who exercised this function, contrived to make his way secretly to Constantinople and persuaded Theophilus to send ships to rescue the exiles and bring thein home. This act was evidently a violation of the Thirty Years' Peace, and at the same moment the Bulgarian ruler was engaged in a and Zlatarski suggests that the return of the captives in this chronicle narrative was derived by Simeon is confused, but has no legendary from a hagiographical work (where details and is evidently based upon such a confusion would not be sur. genuine facts. One clilliculty lies in prising). But it may be suggested the position of Koruyles.
lle is ihat Simeon or luis source wrote described as στρατηλάτης εν Μακεδονία, Malinép; the form of u in tenth-cent. and he left his son “to govern tho MSS. was liable to confusion with B, Macedonians beyond the Danube" and if the world was real Balımép the instoud of himsoli. Then, after their Surther corruption was almost isovit. failure to escape across Bulgaria, the abili. In any case the identitication captives, who are throughout called is certain. Simeon states that "iho Macedonian," muke kondylos “ Baldimer" was grauison of Krum, and Tzantzes their learlors. It seems and Malamir was Umurtig'n son. In clear that lliero in it confusion loot weer the inscriptions his name is written Marcelonin uni tho " Mocooninu" Malaunp and Malamip.
Zlatarski settlement in Bulgaria, um that (who distinguishers l'risiam from M.) Korilyles was not stratégoy of Maco. thinks that M. reigned from 831/2 10 clonia, but governor of the Macedonian 83305/7 ; "|". Appendix .X.
(xiles. This is confirmed ly the state. Abobu, 191.
mment that Kordylus had to itse a devico
(μετά μηχανής τινός) to reacli Theo ? 16. 230-2:31. áváßputov is the worid philus; if he had been strat. of which I follow Zlatarski and Uspenski Álaccdonia, this would be inexplicable. in interpreting "aqueduct. The in
We can infer the interesting fact that scription concludes with the prayer the captives were established as a thai “the divine ruler way livo a colony with a governor of their own, hundred years along witla isbulis the
and that as a large number of these kaukhan.
were Macedonians, the region which 3 Simeon (Cor. Geory. 818 ; vcrs. they inhabited
known Slov. 101-102). The arcount of the Macaroni.
hostile action against the Empire by advancing to Thessalonica. It can hardly be au accident that the date to which our evidence for their transaction points (c. A.D. 836) coincides with the termination of the second decad of the Peace, and if it was a condition that the Treaty should be renewed at the end of each decad, it was a natural moment for either ruler to choose for attempting to compass an end to which the other would not agree.
We cannot determine precisely the order of events, or understand the particular circumstances in which the captives effected their escape. We are told that the whole population began to cross over a river,' in order to reach the place where the Imperial ships awaited them. The Bulgarian Count of the district ? crossed over to their side to prevent them, and being defeated with great loss, sought the help of the Magyars, who were now masters of the north coast of the Euxine is far as the Bulgarian frontier. Meanwhile the Greeks crossed, and were about to embark when a host of Magyars appeared and coinmanded them to surrender all their property. The Greeks defied the predatory foe, defeated them in two engagements, and sailed to Constantinople, where they were welcomed by the Emperor and dismissed to their various homes.
We have no evidence as to the object of the expedition to Thessalonica, but it has been conjectured that the Macedonian Slavs, infected by rebellious movements of the Slave in Greece,' were in a disturbed state, and that the Bulgarian monarch scized the opportunity to annex to his own kingdom ly peaceful means these subjects of the Empire. In support of this guess it may be pointed out that not many years later his power seems to have extended as far west ils Ohrida, and thore is no record of il conquest of these regions by arnis. And it movement in this lirection might also explain the war
Sarepûr, Simcon (Leo Gr. 232). Tho yenr of his birth is fixed to 1.1). Thu chronicler probably mount tho. 812/3, as ho was boru in the roign of Danube (the only river mentioned in Michael I. (Cont. C'eury. 817) and was the narrative), and if this is right, the in swaddling.clothes when his parents captives crossed from the left to the were carriod off from Hadrianople in right bank.
A.1). 813 (Cont. Th. 210). He was ? Perhaps the oflicer who was called 25 years old when the captives re. the Count of Durostorum (Apotpov). turned (Cont. Georg. 819). This gives Cp. Usponski, Staroboly. wulp. 230. A.D), 837/8 as the
escale. • The approximuto dite can bo • Zlatarski, op. cit. 38. inferred from datit us to the age of • See below, p. 379. Basil I., who wils one of the captives, C1.Zlatarski, 10, and below, p. 381.
which broke out between Bulgaria und Servia in the last years of Theophilus.
About this time the Servians, who had hitherto lived in a loose group of independent tribes, acknowledging the nominal lordship of the Emperor, were united under the rule of Vlastimir into the semblance of a state. If it is true that the extension of Bulgarian authority over the Slavs to the south of Servia was eflected at this epoch, we can understand the union of the Servian tribes is due to the instinct of selfdefence Hitherto they had always lived as good neighbours of the Bulgarians, but the annexation of western Macedonia changed the political situation. Vlastimir's policy of consolidating Servia may have been a suflicient motive with Malamir to lose time in crushing a power which might become a forinidable rival, and he determined to subjugate it. But it is not unlikely that the Emperor also played it hand in
Disabled from interfering actively by the necessities of the war against the Moslems, he may have reverted to diplomacy and stirred up the Servians, who were nominally his clients, to avert a peril which menaced themselves, by driving the Bulgarians from western Macedonia. The prospect of common action between the Empire and the Servians would explain satisfactorily Mirlamir's aggression against Servia. The war lasted three years, and ended in failure and disaster for the Bulgarians.
These speculations concerning the political situation in the Balkan peninsula in the last years of Theophilus depend on the hypothesis, which cannot be proved, that the Bulgarians hall succeedel in annexing the Slavonic tribes to the west of Thessalonica. In any case, whatever may have occurred, the Thirty Years' Peace had been confirmed, and remained inviolate till its due termination in A.D. 815-846. It was not renewed, and soon afterwards a Bulgarian army under the general
il Isbules seems to have in vauded Macedonia and operated in the regions of the Strymon and the Nestos ; " while the Imperial
For these conjecturos, sev Jireček, stantine, De aimn. imp. 154; he calls Archiv für sluvische Philologic, xxi. the Bulgarian ruler Il peoráu, the only 609 89. ; Zlatarski, op. cit. 40 849: evidence we have for tho %. supposes that Theophilus offered Vlastimir's date is given by Schaturik the servians an acknowledgment of is A.J). 836-813 (ii. 250). their complete independence.
3 1 udopt Zlatarski's interpretib: The source for the war is Con: tion (19 sy.) of the Villoison inscrip