Constructing Legends and Traditions in the Medieval Balkans

Chapter 3 Basil versus Samuel: Constructing Legends and Traditions in the Medieval Balkans

Byzantine authors of the 11th century began to narrate the events related to Samuel’s State and the battle of Kleidion, after the anti-Byzantine rebellions arose in the Balkans in the 1040’s and 1070’s. This was the time when traditions related to Samuel were invoked by the leaders of the rebellions which inevi- tably provoked both military action and literary response from the Byzantine elite.1 At the beginning of 12th century, the Continuator of Skylitzes, who was probably Skylitzes himself, continuing his narrative to include the period up to 1079, made a brief reference to the conquest of Samuel’s State while introduc- ing the Balkan rebellions:

When the emperor Basil brought Bulgaria into subjection he was not will- ing whatsoever to bring in new measures or to disturb the existing state of affairs. He wanted matters to remain on the same footing and to be administered in the way Samuel who was their ruler had ordained: that each possessing a yoke of oxen should give to the public purse a measure of grain, the same amount of millet and a jar of wine.2

One gets the impression that the Continuator of Skylitzes in referring to traditions and customs of Samuel’s subjects, did not apply an ethnic term, but used the conventional administrative-ecclesiastical designation “Bulgaria”. We are not in a position to perceive how the leaders of the rebellions identified them- selves, nor how they recognized their ancestors and perceived the state that they were striving to re-establish. The same applies to the people that revolted under their leadership against Byzantium. What we have from the sources is solely the projected terminology and interpretation of the Byzantines and their acknowledgement that the leaders invoked traditions from the imperial dynasty which had ruled Samuel’s State.

1 Recently, Holmes, Basil II and the Governance of Empire, 233 suggested that since the end of 11th century there was a tendency among the Byzantine authors to promote aristocrat- ic support for Balkan’s campaigns of Alexius I Komnenos. Stephenson, Legend of Basil the Bulgar-slayer, 71 argue that the trend of linking the Komnenos dynasty with Basil II resulted in staging the initial process of reviving the reputation of Basil II. 2 Skylitzes Continuatus, ed. Tsolakes, 162.

Nikephoros Bryennios, who was writing his History in the early twelfth century, used the ethnonym “Slavs” to designate the rebels under the leadership of George Vojteh in 1072/3 who were pursuing the agenda of re-establishing Samuel’s State in Macedonia. He stated that the “Slavic people (Σθλαβίνων ἔθνους) threw off the Roman yoke and laid waste the territory of the Bulgarians taking plunder and leaving scorched earth”, and apart sacking Skopje and Niš attacked all the towns between Sirmium and Vidin.3 This account clearly shows that the term “Bulgarians” did not have ethnic meaning, but was used to designate the Byzantine land which was attacked by the rebels. Correspondingly, he praised his grandfather Bryennios who as “dux of all the land of the Bulgarians”, succeeded in “softening the Slavic people so that they are once again under the yoke of the Romans, and they gladly accept that he is commanding Bulgaria”.4 The term “land of Bulgarians” was evidently used by Bryennios to distinguish the administrative territory under Byzantine possession, not to designate the ethnic identity of the people that inhabited it. Nikephoros Bryennios refrained from making a comparison of the con- temporary Balkan rebellions with the Basil II’s wars with Samuel. He did, however, mention Samuel, but in reference to Ekatherina, the wife of the emperor Isaak I Komnenos (1057–1059), claiming that she was the daughter of the “Bulgarian emperor Samuel” (βασιλέως Βουλγάρων Σαμουὴλ).5 Elsewhere, he referred to the links with Samuel deriving from Maria, the wife of Andronikos Doukas, who was the son of the caesar John Doukas and Eirene Pegonitissa. He noted that Andronikos’ wife was related with the “Bulgarian emperor Samuel on her father’s side, being the daughter of his son Trajan”.6 It becomes clear that Bryennnios sought to demonstrate the links between the Byzantine imperial family and the descendants of Samuel’s dynasty. However, this claim was most probably inaccurate, having in mind the scholarly consensus that Ekatherina was the daughter of John Vladislav, while the wife of Andronikos Doukas, Maria was the daughter of Vladislav’s son Trajan. Furthermore, Eirene Doukaina, the daughter from the marriage of Maria and Andronikos Doukas, became the wife of Alexius I. Regardless of Bryennnios’ historical correctness

3 Nicеphore Bryennios histoire, ed. and tr. Paul Gautier, CFHB 9 (Bruxelles: Byzantion, 1979), 3.1 (pp. 210–211). It is interesting that this passage was interpreted by Gautier in his notes to the edition of the text in ethnic terms, as rebellion of the “Bulgarians in Western Macedonia” (Bryennios, ed. Gautier, 210, n. 1). Tăpkova Zaimova in her commentary identified the Slavs mentioned in the text as “Bulgarians from Macedonia” (Tăpkova Zaimova, Bălgari rodom, 113). 4 Bryennios 3.3, ed. Gautier, 213. 5 Bryennios 1.2, ed. Gautier, 77. 6 Bryennios 3.6, ed. Gautier, 219.