from which he again drew at more length on a second revision (represented by the other Mss.). It is therefore the second revision which we must compare with the work of the Abbot Peter in order to determine whether the Abbot Peter is the original source. De Boor does not decide this; but calls attention to two passages which might seem to show that the Abbot used the second revision of George the Monk, and one passage which rather points to the independence of the Abbot. On the whole, the second alternative seems more probable. The present state of the question may be summed up as follows: The (1) original sketch of the Paulician heresy, its origin and history-whereon all our extant accounts ultimately depend-is lost. This original work was used by (2) George the Monk (in the 9th century) for his chronicle; (a) in Coislin. 305 we have a shorter extract, (b) in the other Mss. (and Muralt's text) we have a fuller extract. (3) The tract of the Abbot Peter was either taken from the second edition of George the Monk, or was independently extracted from the original work; but it was not the original work itself. (4) It is not quite certain whether the treatise of Photius was derived from the derivative work of the Abbot Peter (0 Ter-Mkrttschian; and this is also the opinion of Ehrhard, in Krumbacher's Byz Litt. p. 76; but Friedrich argues against this view, op. cit. p. 85-6); perhaps it is more likely that Photius also used the original work. (5) The position of Peter Sikeliotes is quite uncertain (see below). (6) The interpolation in the Madrid Ms. of George the Monk (see above) was added not later than the 10th century, in which period the Ms. was written. Then come (7) Euthymius Zigabenus in the Panoplia, c. 1100 A.D., and (8) Pseudo-Photius. The unsolved problem touching Peter Sikeliotes would have no historical importance, except for his statements about his own mission to Tephrice, and the intention of the Paulicians of the east to send missionaries to Bulgaria, and the dedication of his work to an Archbishop of Bulgaria. He says that he himself was sent to Tephrice by Michael III. for the ransom of captives. But the title of the treatise is curious: Πέτρου Σικελιώτου ἱστορία προσωποποιηθεῖσα ὡς πρὸς τὸν ̓Αρχιεπίσκοπον Βουλγαρίας. The word προσωποποιηθεῖσα suggests that the historical setting of the treatise is fictitious. In denying the historical value of this evidence as to the propagation of Paulicianism in Bulgaria at such an early date, Ter-Mkrttschian (p. 13 sqq.) and Friedrich (p. 101-2) are agreed. According to the life of St. Clement of Bulgaria (ed. Miklosich, p. 34) the heresy did not enter the country till after Clement's death in A.D. 916 (Friedrich, 10.). Ter-Mkrttschian endeavours to prove that the Paulicians were simply Marcionites. Friedrich argues against this view, on the ground of some statements in the text which he published from the Madrid Ms., where the creator of the visible world is identified with the devil. But these statements may have been interpolated in the tenth century from a Bogomil source. On the Armenian Paulicians and cognate sects, see Döllinger's Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters; Ter-Mkrttschian's work, already cited; and Conybeare's Key of Truth (see below). The basis of Döllinger's study was the treatise "Against the Paulicians" of the Armenian Patriarch John Orniensis (published in his works, 1834, ed. Archer). Cp. Conybeare, op. cit. infra, App. is. Ter-Mkrttschian has rendered new evidence accessible. In his History of the Bulgarians, Jireček gives the result of the investigatis of Rački and other Slavonic scholars into the original doctrines of the Bogumil (1) They rejected the Old Testament, the Fathers, and ecclesiastical tradition They accepted the New Testament, and laid weight on a number of old apocry phal works. (2) They held two principles, equal in age and power: one good (a triune being God); the other bad (Satan), who created the visible world caused the Fall, governed the world during the period of the Old Testament. (3) The body of Christ the Redeemer was only an apparent, not a real body for everything corporeal is the work of Satan); Mary was an angel. The sacraments are corporeal, and therefore Satanic, symbols. (4) They rejected the use = Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 176 sqq. crucifixes and icons, and regarded churches as the abodes of evil spirits. (5) Only adults were received into their church; the ceremony consisted of fasting and prayer-not baptism, for water is created by Satan. (6) They had no hierarchy; but an executive, consisting of a senior or bishop, and two grades of Apostles. (7) Besides the ordinary Christians there was a special order of the Perfect or the Good, who renounced all earthly possessions, marriage, and the use of animal food. These chosen few dressed in black, lived like hermits, and were not allowed to speak to an unbeliever except for the purpose of converting him. (8) No Bogomil was allowed to drink wine. (9) The Bulgarian Bogomils prayed four times every day and four times every night; the Greek seven times every day, five times every night. They prayed whenever they crossed a bridge or entered a village. They had no holy days. (10) They had a death-bed ceremony (called in the west la convenensa). Whoever died without the advantage of this ceremony went to hell, the ultimate abode of all unbelievers. They did not believe in a purgatory. We cannot, however, feel certain that this is a fair presentation of the Bogomil doctrines. It is unfortunate that none of their books of ritual, &c., are known to exist. As early as the tenth century a schism arose in the Bogomil church. A view was promulgated that Satan was not coeval with God, but only a later creation, a fallen angel. This view prevailed in the Bulgarian church, but the Dragoviči clung to the old dualism. The modified doctrine was adopted for the most part by the Bogomils of the west (Albigenses, &c.) except at Toulouse and Albano on Lake Garda (Jireček, op. cit. p. 213). The kinship of the Bogomil doctrines to the Paulician is obvious. But it has not been proved that they are historically derived from the Paulician; though there are historical reasons for supposing Paulician influence. Since the above was written, F. C. Conybeare published (1898) the Armenian text and an English translation of the book of the Paulicians of Thonrak in Armenia. This book is entitled the Key of Truth and seems to have been drawn up by the beginning of the ninth century. This liturgy considerably modifies our views touching the nature of Paulicianism, which appears to have had nothing to do with Marcionism, but to have been a revival of the old doctrine of Adoptionism according to which Jesus was a man and nothing more until in his thirtieth year he was baptized by John and the Spirit of God came down and entered into him; then and thereby he became the Son of God. Of this Adoptionist view we have two ancient monuments, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Archelaus. The doctrine survived in Spain until the 8th and 9th centuries; and this fact suggests the conjecture that it also lingered on in southern France, so that the heresy of the Cathars and Albigenses would not have been a mere imported Bogomilism, but an ancient local survival. Conybeare thinks that it lived on from early times in the Balkan peninsula, "where it was probably the basis of Bogomilism". There can be no doubt that Conybeare's discovery brings us nearer to the true nature of Paulicianism. In this book the Paulicians speak for themselves, and free themselves from the charges of Manichaeism and dualism which have been always brought against them. Conybeare thinks that Paulician, the Armenian form of Paulian, is derived from Paul of Samosata, whose followers were known to the Greeks of the 4th century as Pauliani. Gregory Magistros (who in the 11th century was commissioned by the Emperor Constantine IX. to drive the Paulicians or Thonraki out of Imperial Armenia) states that the Paulicians "got their poison from Paul of Samosata," the last great representative of the Adoptionist doctrine. Conybeare suggests that, the aim of the Imperial government having been to drive the Adoptionist Church outside the Empire, the Paulians "took refuge in Mesopotamia and later in the Mohammedan dominions generally, where they were tolerated and where their own type of belief, as we see from the Acts of Archelaus, Conybeare publishes a translation of Letters of Gregory which bear on Paulicianism, in Appendix iii. had never ceased to be accounted orthodox. They were thus lost sight of almost for centuries by the Greek theologians of Constantinople and other great centres. When at last they again made themselves felt as the extreme left wing of the iconoclasts-the great party of revolt against the revived Greek paganism of the eighth century-it was the orthodox or Grecised Armenians that, as it were, introduced them afresh to the notice of the Greeks " (Introduction, p. cvi.). 7. THE SLAVS IN THE PELOPONNESUS-(P. 73) All unprejudiced investigators now admit the cogency of the evidence which shows that by the middle of the eighth century there was a very large Slavome element in the population of the Peloponnesus.1 The Slavonic settlements began in the latter half of the sixth century, and in the middle of the eighth century the depopulation caused by the great plague invited the intrusion of large masses. The general complexion of the peninsula was so Slavonic that it was called Sclavonia. The only question to be determined is, how were these strangers distributed, and what parts of the Peloponnesus were Slavized? For answering these questions, the names of places are our chief evidence. Here, as in the Slavonic districts which became part of Germany, the Slavs ultimately gave op their own language and exerted hardly any sensible influence on the language which they adopted; but they introduced new local names which survived. It was just the reverse, as has been well remarked by Philippson, in the case of the Albanese settlers, who in the fourteenth century brought a new ethnical element into the Peloponnesus. The Albanians preserved their own language, but the old local names were not altered. Now we find Slavonic names scattered about in all parts of the Peloponnesus; but they are comparatively few on the Eastern side, in Argolis and Eastern Laconia. They are numerous in Arcadia and Achaia, in Elis, Messenia and Western Laconia. But the existence of Slavonic settlements does not prove that the old Hellenic inhabitants were abolished in these districts. In fact we can only say that a large part of Elis, the slopes of Taygetus, and a district in the south of Laconia, were exclusively given over to the Slavs. Between Megalopolis and Sparta there was an important town, which has completely disappeared, called Veligosti; and this region was probably a centre of Slavonic settlers. See the impartial investigation of A. Philippson, Zur Ethnographie des Peloponnes, in Petermann's Mittheilungen, vol. 36, p. 1 sqq. and 33 sqq., 1890. The conversion and Hellenization of the Slavs went on together from the ninth century, and, with the exception of the settlements in Taygetus and the Arcadian mountains, were completed by the twelfth century. At the time of the conquest of the Peloponnesus by Villehardouin, four ethnical elements are distinguished by Philippson: (1) Remains of the old Hellenes, mixed with Slars, in Maina and Tzakonia (Kynuria), (2) Byzantine Greeks (i.e., Byzantinized Hellenes and settlers from other parts of the Empire) in the towns. (3) Greek-speaking Slavo-Greeks (sprung from unions of Slavs and Greeks). (4) Almost pure Sisv in Arcadia and Taygetus. The 2nd and 3rd classes tend to coalesce and ultimately become indistinguishable (except in physiognomy). The old Greek element lived on purest perhaps in the district of north-eastern Laconia. The inhabitants came to be called Tzakones and the district Tzakoms; and they developed a remarkable dialect of their own. They were long supposed to be Slavs. See A. Thumb, Die ethnographische Stellung der Zakonen (Indogerm. Forschungen, iv. 195 sqq., 1894). Fallmerayer, in harmony with his Slavonic theory, proposed to derive the name Morea from the Slavonic more, sea. This etymology defied the linguisti 1 The thesis of Fallmerayer, who denied that there were any descendants of th ancient Hellenes in Greece, was refuted by Hopf (and Hertzberg and others); but a Hopf's arguments are not convincing. Fallmerayer's brilliant book stimulated the investigation of the subject (Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea im Mittelalter, 2 vols. 1830-6). laws of Slavonic word-formation. Other unacceptable derivations have been suggested, but we have at last got back to the old mulberry, but in a new sense. & Mopéas is formed from uopéa, "mulberry tree," with the meaning "plantation or region of mulberry trees" (= μopewv). We find the name first applied to Elis, whence it spread to the whole Peloponnesus; and it is a memorial of the extensive cultivation of mulberries for the manufacture of silk. This explanation is due to the learned and scientific Greek philologist, G. N. Hatzidakês (Byz. Zeitsch., 2, p. 283 sqq. and 5, p. 341 sqq.). 8. EARLY HISTORY OF THE BULGARIANS (P. 136 sqq.) Bulgaria and Russia are Slavonic countries, Bulgarian and Russian are Slavonic languages; but it is an important historical fact that the true Bulgarians and the true Russians, who created these Slavonic states, were not Slavs themselves and did not speak Slavonic tongues. The Russian invader was a Teuton (Scandinavian); he belonged, at all events, to the same Indo-European family as the Slavs whom he conquered. But the Bulgarian invader was a Tartar, of wholly different ethnic affinities from the people whom he subdued. It both cases the conqueror was assimilated, gradually forgot his own tongue, and learned the language of his subjects; in both cases he gave the name of his own race to the state which he founded. And both cases point to the same truth touching the Slavs their strong power of assimilation, and their lack of the political instinct and force which are necessary for creating and organizing a political union. Both Bulgaria and Russia were made by strangers. (1) We first met Bulgarians in the fifth century, after the break-up of the Empire of Attila. We then saw them settled somewhere north of the Danubeit is best to say roughly between the Danube and the Dnieper-and sometimes appearing south of the Danube. (2) We saw them next, a century later, as subjects of the Avar empire. We saw also (above, vol. 4, App. 15) that they were closely connected with the Utigurs and Kotrigurs. (3) The next important event in the history of the Bulgarians is the break-up of the Avar empire. In this break-up they themselves assisted. In the reign of Heraclius, the Bulgarian king Kur't revolts against the chagan of the Avars and makes an alliance with Heraclius, towards the close of that emperor's reign (c. 635-6). At this time the Bulgarians (Onogundurs) and their fellows the Utigurs seem to have been united under a common king; Kur't is designated as lord of the Utigurs. (4) Soon afterwards under Kur't's second successor Esperikh, the Bulgarians crossed the Danube and made a settlement on the right bank near the mouth, at Oglos, marked by earth fortifications at S. Nikolitsel (near the ancient Noviodunum). This town was probably that which is mentioned in later times under the name of Little Preslav. The date of this movement to the south of the Danube appears from a native document (the Regnal List, see next Appendix) to be A.D. 659-60 (not as was usually supposed from a confused notice in Theophanes, c. A.D. 679). The Bulgarians on the Danube had kinsfolk far to the east, who in the tenth century lived between the Volga and the Kama. They are generally known as the Bulgarians of the Volga, also as the Outer Bulgarians; their country was distinguished as Black Bulgaria from White Bulgaria on the Danube. The city of these Bulgarians was destroyed by Timour, but their name is still preserved in the village of Bolgary in the province of Kasan. Towards the end of the ninth century the Mohammadan religion began to take root among the Bulgarians of the Volga, and the conversion was completed in the year A.D. 922. We have a good account of their country and their customs from the Arabic traveller Ibn Fozlan." 1 Nicephorus, p. 24, ed. de Boor. Nicephorus calls him Kuvrat "lord of the Unogundurs"; he is clearly the same as Kuvrat (or Koßparos) lord of the "Huns and Bulgarians" mentioned below, p. 36; the Krovat of Theophanes and the Kur't of the old Bulgarian list (see next Appendix). 2 Constantine Porph., De Adm. Imp. c. 12, uavpn Bovλyapía. Cp. Beλoxpwẞaría (white Croatia), Maupoßraxía, &c. See C. M. Frahn, Aelteste Nachrichten über die Wolga-Bulgharen, in Memoirs of the Academy of St. Petersburg (series vi.), i. p. 550 (1832). Cp. Roesler, Romänische Studien, p. 242 897. The Outer Bulgarians are to be distinguished from the Inner Bulgarians, who are identical with the Utigurs, in the neighbourhood of the Lake of Azov. Roesler, Hunfalvy and others have sustained that the Bulgarians were not of Turkish, but of Finnish race. But they have not proved their case.* For the customs of the Danubian Bulgarians which point to their Tartar origin, see the Responses of Pope Nicholas (in the ninth century) to the matter on which they consulted him.5 [For the Inner and Outer Bulgarians, cp. F. Westberg, Beiträge zur Klärung orientalischer Quellen über Osteuropa, i. and ii., in Izviestiia imp. Akad. Nauk. xi. 4, Nov. and Dec. 1899; and K analizu vostochnikh istochnikov o vostochnoi Evrope, 2 parts, in Zhurnal min. nar. prosvieshcheniia (N.S.) xiii. and xiv., 1908.] 9. LIST OF ANCIENT BULGARIAN PRINCES (P. 139) A curious fragment of an old list of Bulgarian princes from the earliest times up to A.D. 765, was edited by A. Popov in 1866 (Obzor Chronographov russki redaktsii, i. 25, 866). It is reproduced by Jireček (Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 127). The list is drawn up in the language of the Slavs of Bulgaria, but contains noSlavonic words, belonging to the tongue of the Bulgarian conquerors. Various st tempts were made to explain the Bulgarian words (by Hilferding, Kunik, Radi, Kuun), but none of them was satisfactory. A Greek inscription discovered some year ago at Chatalar, near the ancient Preslav, in Bulgaria, supplied a clue. The inscrip tion records the foundation of Preslav by Omurtag, and dates it to the 15th indetion of the Greeks and the year σiyopaλeu of the Bulgarians. The only 18th indiction in Omurtag's reign was A.D. 821-2. Now σiyopaλeu is identical with šegor alem in our document. With this clue, the Bulgarian numerals in the Lust can be interpreted, and the List (which has evidently suffered considerable corription) can be largely revised and reconstructed, as I have shown in my article: The Chronological Cycle of the Bulgarians, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, xix. 127 sqq1910. I believe I have demonstrated that the Bulgarians reckoned by a chronological cycle of 60 lunar years, of which the era was the year of the crossing of the Danube by Esperikh (A.D. 659-60, see last Appendix). Šegor alem is, for instance, year 58 of this cycle (alem 50, šegor 8). The other numerals are: 1 vereni, 2 dvoni, 3 tokh, 4 somor, 5 dilom, 6 dokhs, 9 tek (?), 10 ekhtem, 20 al'tom, 30 tvirem, 40 vechem, 60 tutom. == = The translation of the document according to my revised text is as follows:- [A.D. 450-554.] [A.D. 554-567.] [A.D. 567-579.] [A.D. 579-637.] [A.D. 637-640.] [A.D. 659.] [A.D. 640-660.] [A.D. 660-687.] "Irnik lived 100 years and 8; he belonged to the race of "Gostun ruled as viceroy [for 13 years; he belonged to the "Kur't reigned for 60 years; he was of the race of Dulo; but "Bezmer 3 years; he was of the race of Dulo; and his year "These 5 princes (k'nez) held the principality on the other 'Esperikh, prince 21 years; he was of the race of Dulo; his year was vereni alem. ['Aoжapoνx.] "(Anon.) reigned for 28 years; he was of the race of Dulo; and his year was dvanš echtem. 4 For the Turkish side see Vámbéry, A magyarok eredete, cap. iv. p. 48 sqq. 5 They will be found in any collection of Acta Conciliorum, e.g. in Mansi, vol. xv. p. 401 899. |