The Spread of the Slaves.- Part IV. the Bulgarians Author(S): H

The Spread of the Slaves.- Part IV. The Bulgarians Author(s): H. H. Howorth Source: The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 11 (1882), pp. 219-267 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2841751 . Accessed: 16/06/2014 04:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheSpr7ead of theSlaves. 219

This table also brings to light some points of difference betweenthe two groups in the index of height,in the orbital index,and especiallyin the nasal index. In referenceto the last feature,however, it may be remarkedthat thereis a con- siderablerange of variationwithin the series of Chinese skulls, and while the tendencyundoubtedly is towards the narrow formof nose,and thereare some which agree closelywith our skull A, both in the nasal index and in the prominenceof the nasal bones,there are, among the eighteen,four which are to a greateror less extent platyrhine; and of these,one, No. 691 may be particularlymentioned, since it has a nasal index of 58 7, thus equalling our little groupof B, D, and E (the skull shows altogethera great resemblanceto D and E), and this is associatedwith an extreimelylow orbitalindex, viz., 75. Thus a platyrhineform of skull with a microsemeorbital index is not unknown,at least in individual cases, in an undoubtedlyMongolian family,but the question whetherthis is the prevailingcondition amongst the inhabitantsof the Naga Hills mustremain to be settledby furtherobservations. The measuirementsin the appendedtable have been made in the mannerrecommended by ProfessorFlower, to whose kind assistanceI am mainlyindebted for the opportunityof making this communication. A full explanation of the terms and methodsemployed, in so far as they differfrom the French " Instructions,"is containedin ProfessorFlower's memoir already cited,"On the CranialCharacters of the Natives of the Fiji Islands."

THE SPREAD of the SLAVES.-PART IV.

THE BULGARIANS.

BY H. H. HOWORTH,Esq., F.S.A.. M.A.I.

THE termBulgaria has a twofoldconnotation which it is very necessarythat we shouldkeep constantlyin view. There is a politicalBulgaria, and an ethnographicalBulgaria. These twoare essentiallydifferent in boundariesand otherwise. The former includes all the countrywhich was subject to the Bulgarian Crownin the days of its greatestprosperity, the latter includes the area peopled by Bulgarians properlyso called. The boundaries which separate them are not always easy to fix, forwe mustremember that, although the Bulgarians are a mixed race of Slaves and Turco-Ugrians,yet that in their language and othermore readilydiscriminated characteristics they have

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 220 H. H. HOWORTH.-The Spreadof the Slaves. retained but few traces of the latter elementin their com- position,which has been absorbed by their formerone. So thatsuperficially the Slaves of Macedonia or Rumelia and the Bulgarians of Bulgaria proper northof the Balkans are now very nearly related indeed. So nearly related, that if the question of nationalityis to governthe solution of political problems,it seems pedantic to separate them when we are treatingthe problem,not as one of ethnology,but as one of politics. This, however,is complicatedby anotherdifficulty. It is comparativelyeasy to draw a line which shall separate the Slaves of Macedonia and Thrace from the litoral population which,whatever its mixedorigin, is chieflyGreek or Turkishin language. It is similarlynot difficultto definethe correspond- ing boundarybetween the MacedonianSlaves and theAlbanians. Northof the Balkans, the problemis a more difficultone. If we accept the position, that whatever was subject to the Bulgarian Crown in the days of the Tzar Sirneon,is to be included withinthe limits of Bulgaria,we must detach from Servia a very considerablearea, and carry our boundary at least as farwest as the Ibar and the Morava,and not merelyto the Timokas is generallysupposed. But lettingthis pass as one of the difficultieswhich prevent the recreationof the Bulgaria of Michael Boris and of Simeon in its integrity,and whichhas to be solved by a compromiseinvolving a sacrificeon the part of Bulgaria, it will not be unprofitableto try and definethe limits of thispolitical Bulgariatowards the west and south. Acceptingthe test of language,and the postulatethat prettynearly all Slaves southof the Balkans were (as I believe they were) subject to the Tzar Simeon,we may accept the boundaryline as fixedby the treatyof Saint Stephanoas giving a veryfair representation of the facts. This line no doubterrs on the side of includingtoo little,for there can be verylittle doubt that, as we shall show in the next paper, even in Thessaly in the centuriespreceding the 12th, there was a largeeleiment of Slavic origin,which has been absorbedby the more civilised Greeks. This boundary,however, represents very fairly the limitsof what we may style Political Bulgaria. It has been admirablydrawn in map Ila ofPetermann's " Mittheilungen" for 1878. By Article 6 of the treatyof St. Stepharno,the bouii- daries of the proposedBulgaria, commencingwith the north- eastern cornerof the rectifiedfrontier of Servia followedthe eastern boundaryof the Kaza Wrania districtas far as the rangeof Karatagh,then bending south-westwards, ran along the eastern boundaryof the Kazas of Kumanovo, Kotshani,and Kalkandelen as far as the mountainKorab, and thence along

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheBulgarians. 221 the riverWeleshchitza until its junctionwith the Black Drin. Then turning southwardsfollowing the Drin, and along, the westernverge of the Kaza Okhrid towardsMount Linas, then followingthe western limits of the Kazas of Gortchaand Starovo, as faras the mountainGrammos. Thence it passed by the Lake of Kastoria. The frontierthen joined the river Moglenitza, and followingits course south of Yanitsa to its outfall into the IEgean, past the mouth of the river Wardar to Galliko,past the villagesof Parga and Saraikoi. Thence throughthe centre of the lake Beshikgol,and on again to the sea, thus cuttingoff the peninsulaof Salonica,then along the coast past the mouths of the Strumaand the Karasu as faras Burugol. Then turning to the north-westto the mountainChaltepe, crossing the range of Rhodopeto the mountainKrushovo, past the Kara Balkan, the peaks Eshek-Kulatshi,Chepeliu, Karakolas, and Ishiklarto the river Arta. Thence past the town of Chirmen,leaving Adrianople on the south,past the villages of Sugutliu,Kara- hamza,Arnautkoi, Akardshhi and Yenidshe to the river Teke- deressi,following the courseof the Tekederessiand the Chorlu- deressias faras Luleburgasand thencepast the riverSudshak- dere to the village of Sergen,whence the line went in a straight line to Hakim-tabiassiwhere it reachedthe Euxine. Such was the boundaryof Bulgariatowards Turkey, as fixed by the treatyof St. Stephano. East and northof this limit, with the exceptionof some sporadic colonies of Ylakhs and gipseys, and of a certain partial elemenltof Turkish and Circassian blood, the populationis tolerablyhomogeneous in language,religion, and manners. I say tolerablyhomogeneous, meaningsufficiently so to satisfypolitical exigencies. Ethnologically the population here referredto is not so homogeneous. As is well known,European Turkeywas during the sixth centuryoverrun by various Slavic tribeswho settled therein great numbers,and extendedtheir colonisation, in fact, as faras the Morea. This migrationof Slaves will occupyus in the next paper of this series. Sufficeit to say herethat its result was that Mcesia and Thrace became virtually Slave countries,as theyso largelyare still. This earliermigration, as I shall show in the nextpaper, took place chieflyunder the leadershipof Huns and Avars. It was when Mcesia was in this way settled by Slaves, and while the empire (especially its possessions on the Adriatic),was being devastated by the Avars that the EmperorHeraclius inviteda bodyof Slaves led by Bulgarians,who wverecalled Khrobati(vidle infra.),to attackthe latter,and allowedthem to settlein Croatia. Shortlyafter, the Sabiri,another Hunnic race closelyallied to the Bulgars,also settled southof the D)anubeunlder the auspices of

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 222 H. H. HOwoRTH.-The Spread of theSlaves. the Emperor,and as I believe secured all the countrysouth- east of the Croats, and as far as the Euxine, so that the districtsnorth of the Balkans became virtuallydivided between the Croats in the west and the Sabiri or Serbians in tlle east. This was about the years 630-640. About fortyyears later the Bulgarian Huns, driven forwardby the Khazars, migratedin large numbersacross the Danube, conquered the greaterportion of the area alreadysubject to the Sabiri,pushed the dominions of the latter back beyond the Morava, and founded the communitywhich is now known as Bulgaria. The invaders were a caste of conquerorsand became the proprietorsof the land and the rulers of the new community, while the peasantryremained Slavic. This we shall show presently. The Bulgaria thus originally constitutedwas boundedon the east by the Euxine,on the southby the Balkans, and on the west by the Morava, and this may be describedas ethnographicBulgaria. It was by no meanshomogeneous, as we shall show. The Bulgarian elementproper, i.e., the Hunnic element,prevailed chieflyin the Dobruja, and became weakertowards the Balkans and the Morava. It is with this settlementof the Bulgarians south of the Danube that our story properlybegins. The variousraids of Huns, Avars,and also of Bulgarssouth of the Danube, which took place beforethis settlement,and werefor the most part merelytemporary, we shall describein a future paper. When about the years457-461 the Avars firstappear in the Byzantine historians,we findthem describedas having driven forwardthe Saraguri, Urogi and Unnugari, and as having expelledthe Sabiri fromtheir former quarters. Thesetribes then settled in various parts of the old Hunnic land fronmthe Carpathiansto the Caucasus, the Sabiri chieflysettling north of the lattermountains. A hundredyears later the Sarselt,the Unnugari,and Sabiri were again attacked by the Avars, who were then being pushed forwardby the Turks, and who now migratedwestwards as far as Painnonia,taking with them no doubt large contingentsof these tribes,and thenceforward formany years it would seem thatthe Avars dominatedover not only Pannonia, but also over the various Hunnic tribes of southernRussia, includingthe Sabiri and the Unnugari. In a paper of the serieson the westerlydrifting, of Nomades, I have already discussed the nationalityof the Bulgars, and shownthat theybelonged to the Hunnic race,and were,in fact, Huils under anothernamne. Since writing,that paper I have met with somuefresh informiation which enab]es mleto specify moredefiniitelyr the actual afflinitiesof the race. I suggestedinl

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TC>e Bulgarians. 223 the formermemoir, that the Cheremissesare_probably t.he descendants of the Bulgars,who foundedthe famous state of Great Bulgaria on the Middle Volga. This view I must now modify. In lookingover the pages of Nestor,the Russian annalist,I find that he speaks of the Cheremissesand of the Bulgarianlsas separate peoples living at the same tinie. The Prince of the Cheremisses,in fact,assisting the Russians in their attack on Bulgaria (Nestorsub. ann. 1184, Ed. Paris,ii, 150). Putting aside the Cheremisses,the only race oln the Volga whichhas claims to representthe ancientBulgars is that of the Chuvashes,and the latest Russian researches,especially those of M. Kunik, in his notes to Al Bekhri,make it verynearly certain that the Chuvashes in fact descend fromthe ancient Bulgars. The Chuvashesnow speak a corruptTurkish dialect, but all inquirerswho have examined the question of their ethnologyclosely are agreed that this Turkishelement is com- parativelyof recentorigin, due probablyto theirhaving been so long in close contact with, and subject to, the Tartars. In physique, in manners,and customs, and in other respects the Chuvashes are Ugrians, and tracesof their Ugrian origin survive,in fact,in theirlanguage. They represent,as I believe, most purely,except in their presentTurkish speech, the Huns and Bulgars of the fifthand six century. Let us now turnto our immediatesubject; we have seen how the variousHuinnic tribes were conqueredby the Avars in the middleof the sixth century. It would seem that,although the Avars exerciseda certainsuzerainty over them,they preserved a separate organisation,and even claimed to elect a supreme Khan sometimes,and we read in the pages of the Frank chroniclerFredegar how, in the year 630, there arose a great commotionin Pannonia about the election of a king as to whetherhe should be an Avar or a Bulgarian. The rival parties foughttogether, and the Bulgarians were beaten,and 9,000 of theImwho had been expelled fromPannonia withtheir wives and children,went to Dagobert, the Frank king, and asked him to grantthem a settlementwithin the Frank borders. Dagobertordered winter quarters to be assignedthem in Bavaria, whichwas accordinglydone. When theywere scatteredabout in quartersin this way, 1)agobert,by the advice of the Franks, orderedthe Bavarians that theyshould set upon and kill their guests; they accordinglydid so, and none of the Bulgarians escaped,except Alticeus, or Alticcus,who with 700 men,women, and children,escaped to the March of the Winidi or Wends. He lived with Walluk, the chiefof the Wends,for many years (Fredegar,c. 72; Zeuss, 716, 717). It is very probable, as Zeuss suggested,that this Alticeus is the Alzec, chief of the

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 224 H. H. HoWORTH.-The Spread of theSlaves.

Bulgarians mentionedby Paulus Diaconus, who tells us that a Bulgarianchief named Alzec, forsome unknowncause, left his people, and went to Italy with ali his army,to King Grilnoald, promisingto serve him and to settle in his country. He directed him to go to his son, Romoald,at Beneventum,whom he orderedto find him a place to settlein. Romoald gladly receivedhim, and gave him the districtsof Sepianum,Bovianum, and Iserniam,in the mountainseast of Naples (which at that time were unoccupied), with other lands. Paul adds that althoughin his day these colonistsspoke Latin, yet they had not forgottentheir mothertongue (P. D., v. 29; Zeuss, 717). Grimoaldreigned from 661 till 670. Let us revertagain to the statementof Fredegar. I have verylittle doubt that the outbreakhe mentionsis the same describedby Nicephorus,who in his notice of the reign of Heraclius,tells us that Kubrat,the cousin of Organa (? Urkhan) the rulerof the Hunnogunduri,iebelled againstthe Khakan of the Avars,drove out the peoplewhom he had receivedfrom him, and afterwardssent an embassyto make peace with Heracius, which lasted during their joint lives. Heraclius made him presentsand gave him the title of Patrician(Stritter, ii, 501). The explanationof theapparent contradiction between Fredegar and NicephorusI take to be this. When Kubratrebelled against the Avars, he became the rulerof the varioushordes of Huns proper,extending from Pannonia to the Don, includingpossibly Transylvaniaand Wallachia,but the Avarssucceeded in ejecting his supportersfrom Pannonia, which togetherwith Illyria and the land west of the Morava, thenceforwardbecame the Avar countryproper. It was a frequentcustom withthe Hunnic hordes to take theirnames fromsome notedleader, and it is thereforeexceed- ingly probable that on their greatoutbreak the followersof Kubrat shouldhave called themselvesKubrati, that is, Croats. I have argued in a previous paper of this series that the Croats or Khrobati of Croatia were so called froma leader named Kubrat or Khrubat. I would add here an additionto what I have there said, viz., that the native name of the Croats,given variouslyas Hr-wati,Horwati, cannot surelybe a derivativeof Khrebet,a mountainchain, as oftenurged, but is clearly the same as the well known man's name Horvath, familiarto the readers of Hungarian historyand no doubt the equivalent of the Khrubat or Kubrat of the Byzanltinewriters, whichname is givenby themnot onlyto the stemfather of the Bulgarian kings,but to one of the five brotherswho led the Croatmigration. I have also shown in previouspapers of this series, that the

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-The Butlarians. 225

Croats were led by a caste of IHunnic race. These facts are very curious,and make it a priori not improbablethat they may have taken their names f'romKubrat, the leader of the Bulgarianrevolt himself,and were in facthis subjects. Now on turninato the firsttime that we findmention of the Croats, whichunfortunately is containedin the writingsof Constantine Porphyrogenitus,who wrote in the tenthcentury, and therefore threeceilturies after the event,we read that Heraclius, being much distressedby theway in whichthe Avars weredevastating Dalmatia,made overturesto some princesof the Krobati, offering themif theydrove out theAvars fromthat district to allow theni to settlethere. They accordinglymarched under fivebrothers, one of whomwas called Kubrat,conquered the Avars in Illyria, and occupied the country. These Khrobatican surely be no othersthan the subjectsof Kubrat the Patrician. It is exceed- inglyprobable that at this time Mzesia was practicallylost to the empire. We must rememberthat Kubrat,who doubtless dominated over Wallachia and its borders,was at deadly issue withthe Avars,as we have seen,but was, on the otherhand, on friendlyterms with Heraclius. The latter would, therefore, naturally appeal to him forhelp, and there does not seein to be anothersolution available, for we must rememberthat the Avars were then mastersof Pannonia. I showedin the last paper the great improbabilitythat the Croats, who were in alliance with Heraclius, should have gone to him fromthe Carpathians. They were doubtless close neighboursof the empire when invited to attack the Avars, and in order to succeedagainst such a powerfulrace as the latter, musthave been a strongnation, and not a merehandful of people fleeing fromthe Carpathians,nor does the narrativeof the Byzanitine author in fact demand this. He merelysays the Croats who settledin Croatiacame fromthe same stock,i.e., belonged to the same race as the Croatsof White Croatia. The view here urged is confirmedin other ways; the five brotherswho led the Croatsseem to answerto the fivesons of Kubrat,to whom we shall referpresently. Again,when the, latterdivided their father's heritage, one of themis said to have settledwith his people in Pannonia. This exactlyaccords with the traditionabout the Croats, which tells us that when they had occupiedDalmatia, one sectionof themseparated from the rest,and movedinto Pannonia. This sectionfounded a separate principalitythere which I described in the paper on the Croats. Let us now prosecutethis clue somewhatfurther. We have seenhowinall directionswhere we have tracedthem, the southern Slaves wereled bya caste ofHunnic race. The case ofthe Serbs

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 226 H. H. HOWORTH.-7IieSpread of theSlaves. I treatedas somewhatdoubtful, when writing about them, but 1 am now convinced that theyformed no exceptionat'all, and were as much as the othersouth-western Slaves led bv Hunnic leaders. The name Serb has been a crux to every inquirer into Slavic ethnography. It occursin the formSerbi, Sorabi. Severi,&c. Now it is very strangethat one of the threemain divisions of the Huns, as we have seen was called Sabiri, aiid these Sabiri occur frequentlyin the historyof the beginningof the seventh century. Like the other Huns they were conquered by the Avars in the year 558, and afterwardsby the Bulgars. What is moreinteresting is to findthe Sabiri named as the allies of Heracliusin his wars with the Persians. It is not strange,therefore, they should have turnedto him again at the time of the great upheaval in the Avarian empire,which we have mentioned,and thus it came about that shortlyafter the Croatshad expelled the Avars fromDalmatia, the Sabiri or Serbs also went and asked Heraclius for quarters. He settled themeventually, as I have shown,in Maesia,to the east of the Croats. As I now believe,their original settlementprobably included the greaterpart of Bulgaria,as well as Serbia proper, and when the Bulgars finallysettled south of the I)anube in 678, we are expresslytold that they subdued the Seberei or Seberenses,who occupied the countryfrom the Balkan Pass, (called that of the Beregabi),eastward as faras the marshes,i.e., the marshesof the Dobruja, and westwardand southwardas faras Avaria (Stritter,ii, 508, 509). It is curious that Scha- farik,who actuallyidentifies these Seberenseswith the H-unnic Sabiri (op. cit.i, 332), does notseem to have seen that theywere most probably of precisely the same stock as the leaders of the Serbianswho foundedthe Servian state. We findanother colony of them north of the Danube, called Severani, who occupieda districtthen known as the SeverinianBanat, situated in the south-western corner of Wallachia. These Severanians, Schafarik,for some unknownreason, says mustbe clearlydistin- guished fromthe Hunnic Seberensesmentioned by Theophanes in 678 (op. cit.ii, 204). I confessI know of no reasonwhy. Having conquieredthe Seberensesthe Bulgariansapparently held themin a moreor less subordinateposition, and we find a husbandman or hind still called Sabira or Sebr by the Bul- garians. The word has passed fromthem apparentlyto the neighbouringSlaves. In thelaw book ofthe Serbians,dating as farback as thereign of Stephen Dushan, in 1349, we finda rustic or peasant styledSebr, and the same class is still called Sebar, Sibor, Cipor,&c., in Serbia and Dalmatia (Schafarik,i, 332). To sum up, therefore,the resultsof our reasoning,we hold that when the civil strifetook place in Pannonia in the beginningof

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-7he Balgarians. 227 ths seventhcentury, when the Avars assertedtheir supremacy, the other Huns were driven out. One section,as we have seen,took refugewith Dagobert; another,the White Croats,in Lusatia; a tlhird,consisting of the Sabiri, and the associated tribes of the Obodriti,&c., followed the Elbe, and settled in Sorabia,&c., as faras the NorthSea, in the way we explained in previouspapers. Meanwhile, other sections of the race retiredelsewhere; the Bulgariansre-asserted themselves in the steppes of Besserabia,and also planted themselvesunder the name of Croats in Dalmatia; while the Sabiri occupied Central and EasternMcesia. In all these cases save that of the Bulgariansproper the tribeswho werescattered were Slaves while theirleaders only were of Hunnic blood. Let us now revertornce more to Kubrat. Thereis a noticeof a Hun under the name of Kuber which, althoughobscure, is very interesting.This is containedin the account of the miraclesof St. Demetrius by an anonymous authorconitained in the 4th volume forOctober of the "Acta Sanctorum,"and of which the date is uncertain. This notice, perhaps on account of its difficulty,has been passed over by Schafarik,Jiresek, and others. It reportsthat about the middle of the seventhcentury, the Slaves havilngmade an attackon the empireand been beaten,appealed foraid to the Khakan of the Avars, offeringhim rich presents and also to make over to him certain districtsamong themselveswhere his people mightsettle. This invitationthe Khakan respondedto with alacrityand set out with the variousbarbarous nations subject to him,together with all theSlaves and Bulgarians,and marched towards Thessalonica where several miracles were performed muchto the terrorof the invaders,who withdrew(op. cit. 166- 170). The Avars had wasted a greatpart of Thrace,&c., and repaired to Sirmium on the Danube with their booty and prisoners. Therewe aretold the Avars,Bulgars, and otherraces miixedtogether and interbredwith their captivesand increased very largely in numibers,adopting Roman manners. We are furthertold the Avar Khakan set overthe newnation thus created a chiefnamed Kuber, who apparentlyhad his capitalat Sirmium. Presently,says the chronicler,like the Israelites in Egypt, the subjectsof the latter began to be rebelliouisagainst the A-var Khakan. Thereupon the latter attacked them, but having been beaten in several fightshe withdrewnorthwards, whereupon Kuber with his people crossedthe Danube, within the Roman borders,and settled down in the plain of Karamesios, and many of his people who were Christians,and who as above reportedhad been carried off as captives, left Kuber and returnedonce more to their homes in various parts of VOL. XII. R

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 228 H. H. HOWORTH.-TheSpread of theSlaves.

Thrace (id. 179, 180). This was naturallyvery distastefulto Kuber and his followers,who thus saw theirpower gradually becoming dissipated. The migrationcontinued, however, and Kuber and his chiefsthereupon determined upon a plot. They chose the one among,them who was shrewdestand could speak Greek and Latin, Slave and Bulgarian,who was instructedto go to Thessalonicaand make his submission; thento geta party round him,create a strifein the cityand capture it, so that Kuber and his people mightsettle there and thence harrythe neighbouringnations, the islands,and the nmainlandof Greece. The worthythus chosen was named Maurus, who was of Roman origin. The Emperorreceived his submissiongraciously, and presentedhim withthe Consularinsignia. He also obtained that the fugitiveswho had withdrawntheir allegiance from Kuber,and who he professedbelonged to him,were made over to hiai, and he was made their chief. Many who knew his antecedentsdid not hide theirdiscontent, whereupon he decapitated thosewhom he suspected,and sold theirwives and children into slavery. He duly appointed centurionsand other commanders,and sooII had secureda body of people readyto do his bidding who commencedmaking broils inside the city, and also caused severalfires. The opportunearrival of a considerable force,and the treacheryof the son of Maurus, who disclosed the plot whichhis fatherand Kuber had made to the Emperor, prevented the hatching of any further mischief. Maurus was deprivedof his command,blut given a minoroffice near the city (id. 184). Of Kuber we read nothingmore in this curiouswork, and it would seem that he withdrewnortlhwards. Such is the noticewhich evidentlyas the editorsof the " Acta Sanctorum"argue most forcibly,doubtless refers to Kubrat and his dealingswith the Empire,and it points to his having been well knownsouth of the Danube. We will now pass on again. The historyof the beginningof the Bulgarian royal house is containedin two documents:one a native saga whichwas apparentlyoriginally written in Greek letters,and afterwards translatedinto Slavic, and which occursin an earlySlave MS. This documentprofesses to give a list of Bulgarianchiefs from the earliesttime to the year 765. It is writtenfor the most part in Slavic,but has a numberof barbarouswords intercalated whichhave been withgood reasonappropriated to the Ugrianor proper Bulgarians. The list beginswith two princeswho are bothassigned patriarchal ages, and areboth said to have belonged to the familyof Dulo. The nameI would suggestis a corruptioil of Attila,and the Duloids answerto the Attilidesmentioned by Jornandes. The firstnamned of the house is Avitokhol,said to have reigned 300 years. He is assuredlyno other t1han

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HowoRTH.-The Buidarian3. 229

Attila himself. Then followsa usurperIrnik, who is said to have reignedfor 150 years,who is in my view the Irnik or Hernakh,son of Attila,who is expresslysaid to have settledin the Lesser Scythia,i.e., the Dobruja. (Jornandesde Reb. Get. 5.) After Irnik there follows a usurper named Gostun, whose name is Slavic,who belongedto familyYermi, and whose reign lasted two years. This surely points to a break in the continuityof Hunnic historywhich we knew took place on the disappearance of Hernakhand his brothers.Gostun was followedby twoDuloids, Kurt,who reigned 60 years-and whohas been identified,I think improbably,with the Kubrat of theByzantine authors by Jiresek -and Besmer,whTo reigned three, under whom we are told the Bulgarssettled on the Danube. Thenfollowed Isperikh (Jiresek, 127, note). This storyis valuable lnotmerely for preserving an independentlist of names,but also as makingit probablethat in the nativelegends the royal house,of Bulgaria belonged to the familyof Attila. The othertradition which in myview is of hardlyany value is preservedby the chorographerTheophanes. He tells us that Khrobat,the king of the Bulgarians,left five sons, and bade them cling togetheragainst theirenemies and not move far fromtheir country. On his death theydivided the kingdom among them,the eldest Batbaias or Batbaian (Nicephoruscalls himnBasian), carefulof his fathersmandate, " occupies his pater- nal hearth even to this day." The second,Kotragus, having crossed the Tanais or Don, settledopposite the countryof his brother. The fourth and fifthhaving recrossedthe Danube, the formerwent to Avarian Pannoiniaand became sublect to the Khakan of the Avars. The other one, however,went to Ravenna, and became subject to the Chlristians. The third brother,called AsparuLikh,having crossed the Dnieper aind the Dniester, settled on a river called Onklos. (Stritter,ii, 504, 505.) Jiresekhas remarkedthat this passage upon which nearly all the subsequent accounts of the foundationof the Bulgarianpolity have been based is vitiatedby a patentaina- chronism,since it makes the Bulgarsfirst reach the Danube in the seventhcentury, whereas we know (as we shall amply show in the next paper) that theyhad been therelong before; but this,in my view,is a verysmall objectionto whatis in fact a mere congeriesof incongruoustraditions. The eldest son Batbaian,we are told,ruled his father'sold country" to thisday." That is Theophanes,who wrote late in the eighth century,makes himself a contemporaryof a son of Kubrat who was certainlyan activeleader in 630. Great Bul- gariansno doubtexisted on theVolga in the timeof Theophanes, .D 2

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 230 H. H. HoWORTH.-The Spreadof the Slares.

and he had no doubtheard of it, but its king who was livingin his timecould nothave been theson of Kubrat. Again,the referenceto Kotrag,who lived near his brother,is doubtlessfounded on a confusionwith Kotrag,the founderof the horde of the Kotraguriwho did live westof the Don, but had lived therelong beforethis date. Again,the fourthand fifthsons are said to have recrossed the Danube, one initoPannonia, where he settled, while the otherwent to Italy. The recrossingof the Danube intoPannonia could only be effectedfrom south to north,and involvesthe position that the Bulgars were already south of the Danube. This clause can onlyrefer to the section of the Khrobati or Croats who did cross the Danube and settlein Pannonia, and were the only Bulgarians known to ine who did so, but this was soon afterKubrat's own outbreak,and long beforehis death. The section which went to Italy under a fourthson is assuredlyno other than the band of the Bul- garianswhich migrated thither under Alzek, but he again could hardlyhave been a son of Kubrat. At everystage, therefore, the story of Theophanesbreaks to pieces. The knowledgehe had of these northernparts may be gauged fromthe factthat he makes theTanais or Don, whichhe bringsfrom the Caucasus, a tributaryof the Atal or Volga, and makes thesetwo rivers give birthto the Kuphis or Kuban, in whichthe Xystus,a Bul- garian fish,was baught,and where he says Old (i.e., Great) Bulgaria and the region of the Kotrragiwho were tbributaries of the Bulgarianswere. When Kurt died we kDoWnot, And fromthe genealogical tAbleabove quiotedhe was doubtlesssuc3ceeded by Besmerwho was in turn succeeded by Isperikh or Aspatukh,a naameof apparentlyPersian origin. He is mentionedboth in the native list and by Theophanes,who assignsto himthe crossingof the Danube,when the Bulgarsfinally settled in Moesia. This migra- tion was, I believe, induLcedby the invasion of the Khazars, as suggestedby Theophaneshimself. This invasionapparently firsttook place duringthe reignof Constantine the Second(642- 668), and during the next few years the Khazars apparently subduedthe various Hunnic tribesof SouthernRussia, and I believe their campaigns caused the migrationof Isperikhand his people to the southof the Danube. It was undePAsparukh or Isperikh,as the famousgloss calls him,that the Bulgariansfirst settled south of the Danube. His people had previouslylived in the districtnorth of that river called Oglos by Nicephorus, which, as Schafarik pointed out, answers to the old Slave Agl or Ongl, Polish Wegiel or Wengiel,Latin Angulus,and doubtlessreferred to the corner enclosedby the Black Sea, the Danube,and thePruth known as

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HoWORTii.-lte Bulgarians. 231

Budzak,i.e., corner (Schafarik, ii, 163, note 2; JiresekGesch. von Bulgaren,129). Theophanescalls it Onlclus,and says it, was a river. Thence theymade raids across the Danube, aind about the year 678 the Emperor ConstantinePogonatos collected a large forcefrom the differentparts of Thrace and prepareda naval and militaryexpedition to punish them. He sent his ships to the mouthsof the Danube, while his soldiers made their way to Oglos. The Bulgarians,afraid of his preparations, retiredto theirfortresses, where the Imperial troops dared not assail them on account of the neighbouringmarshes. The Emperorwas meanwhileattacked with gout and left with his familyon five fast ships to go to the batlhs of Mesembria, orderinghis generalsto tryand bringoni an engagementor to keepthe enemyblockaded till his return. The soldiersfancied thathe had fled,nor could the officers,who presentedthe poilnts of their swords,restrain them, and after a short delay they began to retire. They were attacked in their retreat by the Bulgarians and apparentlylost many men. The Bul- garians then crossedthe river and 44vanced as far as Varna and subdued the countrybetween the Black Sea and the river (thatis the districtof the Dobruja) and subduedthe seventribes of Sla-viniwho lived there. They also made tributarythe Seberenses,who lived between the marshes of the Dobruja and the Balkan pass of Beregaba and westward,and the seven tribeswho lived towards the south and west-,as far as Avaria, i.e.,the countrywhich had been subduedby the Avars (Stritter, ii, 508, 509), that is probably westwardas faras the Serbian Morava and Belgrade (Schafarik,ii, 164, 165), and of whichwe have made mentionin the fornmerpaper on the Serbians. The Dobruja and the watershedof Kamsiva, or Kamchek,as Jiresek says,were till the tenth ceniturythe focus and kernel of the Bulgarian kiingdom.Preslaf, on the Great Kamsiya,was the capital, and Drster (the moderniSilistria) the fortressof the kingdom. It is strangethat it is in this very districtthat to this day the Turksand Tartarshave their principalseats. All the expeditionsof the Byzantine troops against the Bulgarians in the eighthand ninth centurieswere not westwardsby way of Philippopolistowards Sophia or Tirnova,but in the directionof the mouths of the Danube and the district of Varna (op. cit. 131). It is a curious fate,therefore, which has overtaken the Dobruja that it should have been detached fromBulgaria and joined Lo Roumaniain the new arrangementof the Euro- pean map. We mustremember, howe-ver, that this area was one in whichmany race revolutionistook place afterwards,and that Tartarsand Turks now formits mainpopulation. But to revert- to the Bulgariansproper. They were clearlyonly a conquerinig

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 232 H. H. HOWORTH.-TheSpread of theSlaves.

caste of foreignerssupplying the upperranks of the social struc- ture and givingtheir name to the countrywhile the greatbulk of the populationreinained what it had been before,Slavic. It was a case, as has been pointedotut, similar to the settlementof theFranlks in Gaul,of theNorsemen in Norinandy,the Lombards in Lombardy,and theRomans, or Romaioi,in the old land of the Hellenes. In all cases it was a conqueringand superiorcaste comingin and changing,the nameand invigoratingthe bloodof a race previouslyoccupying the land. Sigebertwho copied the so- called "Historia Miscella," which was probablycomposed by Paulus Diaconus, dates the defeat of Constantinein the year 680 and calls the Bulgarianking Bathaia (Pertz,vi, 326). Thence- forwardMcesia was lost to the Byzantine empire,and its fair townsand fieldsbecame the preyof the Nomades fromithe east. The EmperorConstantine Pogonatos agreed to pay themtribute or black mail under the guise of an annual pension,in order to protecthis frontiersfrom attack, and Thrace south of the Balkans was reorganizedas a thema and was placed under the jurisdictionof a proetor(Stritter, ii, 509). Well mightthe chro- niclerbewail thatthe formermistress of theeast anidwest should be constrainedto pay tributeto this uncleanrace. Constantine'ssoni Justinian the Seconld,Rhinotmetos, proposed to break offthis hatefulyoke and to subdue the Bulgariansand Slavini. He ordered the mnountedlegions to pass over into Thrace,which had been invaded by the Bulgarians,whom he defeated. He also invadedthe countryoccupied by the Slaves, who wereprobably miore or less subjectto the Bulgars,and went as faras Thessalonica. He plantedsome of themas tributaries in the mountainswest of the Strymon,and transporteda great niumberof others into Asia, where they were settled in the districtsof Opsicium anid Abydos. On his returnfrom this campaign he was waylaid in the defilesof Mount Rhodope,and lost manyof his men,and olnlyreached home again with difficulty (id. -10). This campaign,according to the Byzantinewriters, took place in 686-7. Sigebertdatebs it in 689 (Pertz,vi, 327). Accordingto the royalcatalogue alreadymentioned, Isperikh reignedfor 60 years,i.e. fromabout 640-700 (Jiresek,140), and was succeededby Tervel,who is called Terbelesby the Greeks and Therbellisby Sigebert,and who also belongedto the famiiily of Dulo. In 702 Justinian,who had been driven away froirm Constantinople,and exiledto the Crimea,had madehis way to the courtof the ruler of the Khazars,and had marriedhis sister Theodora(Sigebert says he fledto Caian,ruler of theAvars), but havingbeen warned that his brother-in-lawintended to hand him over to his enemiesat Byzantium,he set sail in a small ship anidreached the mnoutliof theDanube. He thendespatched

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOwoR'TH.-The Bialyariaus. 233 a iessenger to Tervel,asking him to assist him in reconquering his throne,and promisingto reward him in a lordlyfashion, and also to give him his daughter'shand in marriage. Tervel agreedto help him, and he set out forConstantinople with a large forceof Bulgarialnsand Slaves, which numberedabout 15,000. He dulyapproached the city,to whichhe gailnedaccess by the assistanceof his friends,and again occupiedthe throne. He rewardedhis ally the Bulgarianking, with rich presents,and also ceded to him the districtof Zagoria (i.e., in Slave, the mountain country) the ancient Debeltos, situated between Shumla and the Black Sea towardsBurghaz. Schafarik says the districtwas not comnpletelyunited to Bulgaria till the year 861; Nicephorusand Kedrenus botl pointedlyrefer to it as now called Zagoria (Lebeain,xii, 60-64; Stritter,ii, 511-514; Schafarik,ii, 171). Justinianwas not a very faithfulally, and in 705 he went with a fleetand army to Anchialus. The Bulgariansmeanwhile retired to theirfast- nesses; thereuponthe Romans, having scatteredthemselves over the surroundingcountry for the purposeof foraging,were suddenlyattacked and lost a great number of prisoners,horses, and waggons. The Emperorand the rest of themregained the fortress,whence, after making an ignomniniousdisplay of bravado on the walls,he suddenlytook his departurein the nightand returnedto his capital (Stritter,514, 515). In 708, whenJusti- nian was beingpressed by his rivalPhilippicus, he again appealed to the Bulgarianking, who sent him 3,000 soldiers. This dis- soluteprince was deposed in 711 without a blow,whereupon Philippicus allowed the Bulgarians to returnhome again (id. 515, 516). Suidas reportsthat Tervel,in measuringout the tributedue to him,used to place his shieldon the ground,and drew the money into it with his whip; he also planted his speai in the ground,and insistedupon pieces of silk beingpiled up aroundit to a considerableheight, and exacted as a reward forhis soldiersthat their right hands shouldbe filledwith gold, and theirleft ones withsilver (id. 516; Lebeau, xii, 64). In the year 712, during the reign of Philippicus, the Bulgarians advancedto the Gulf of Ceras. So quick was their march,that it was only known at Constantinoplewhen the suburbof Syques was seen to be in flames. A rich citizenwas beingmarried there, and a mass of plate and otherobjects prepared for a sumptuousfeast was captured by the invaders. They made a horribleslaughter of the guests,and advanced as far as the Golden Gate of Byzantium,overran Thrace, and returnedwith a crowd of prisonersand of domesticanimals, and reached theirhomes in safety(Stritter, op. cit., 516, 517; Lebeau, xii, 86).

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 234 H. H. HOWORTH.-The Spread of theSlaves.

Theodosiusthe Third was a feeble creature. He had been suddenlyraised to the purplefrom the position of a smalltax- gatherer,and had an ephemeralreign of a fewmonths. In 716 A.D. Theophanestells us he made an unfortunatepeace with the Bulgarians, to whom he abandoned a part of Thrace; the Imperialfrontier was fixedat a place called Meleona,identified by Schafarikwith Menalion in the Balkans,and an annualtribute of rich stuffs,and of skinsdyed red (i.e.,no doubtof the famous Bulgarianleather)-the precursorsof ourRussia leather-to the value of 30 poundsof gold,was to-bepaid. It was agreedthat fugitiveswho had takenrefuge in eithercountry should be given up, and that merchantswith proper credentials should have free right of traffielking(Stritter, 517, 518). Theophanes who who tells us these facts,calls the Bulgarian kingKomersios, but this is apparentlyan anachronism. He did ilot probably reigntill later. Theodosiuswas succeeded by Leo the Isaurian, who won a speedyfame by repellingthe attackwhich the Saracensin 717, made upon Constantinople.After a vigoroussiege prosecuted withtheir usual ardourand withimmense resources the Saracens were foiled and had to withdraw. As theymarched towards his ships, which were at anchor below Constantinople,they were attacked by the Bulgarians,who more out of fearthat they might have these martialfreebooters for neighbours,than out of any love forthe iRomans,attacked theim and caused them a loss of 22,000 men (Stritter,op. cit. 518; Lebeau, xii, 123). This is dated by Sigebertin 718. He says the Saracenslost 30,000 men (Pertz, vi, 329). Meanwhile Anastasius,who had been on the throne,and been compelledto retire and become a priest,began to aspire once more to reign, and inter alia opened communicationswith Sisinius,the Imperial envoy at the Court of Tervel, to secure the assistance of the latter Tervel,we are told,furnished his friendwith 5,000 pounds of gold to defraythe cost of his enterprise,while the latteropened secret negotiationsWith several officialsat the Court. The Bulgarians had arrived at Heraclea, the ancient Perinthus, where they collected a number of boats, on which to move upon Constantinople.Leo having heard of all this,threatened the Bulgarians with his vengeance,and at the same time offeredthem a largesum ofmoney, whereupon they treacherously surrenderedAnastasius and the Archbishopof Thessalonica, who were duly decapitated(Stritter, op. cit., 519, 520; Lebeau, xii, 127). We do not again read of the Bulgarians in the Byzantine annals till the year 755; but in the indigenouslist of kings previouslyquoted, we rea(lthat Tervelreigrned 21 years,i.e., till

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheBulgarians. 235

720. He was followedby anotherchief of the familyof Dulo, whose name has unfortunatelybeen erased, and he by another Duloid, named Sevar,who reignedfive years, that is, till 753. This authoritymakes him be succeeded by Kormisos,who belongedto anotherstock, namely, that ofUkil orVokil, and who was probablya usurper(Jiresek, 127 and 140). He is mentioned by theByzantine writers who call himKormesios. Theophanes, whoapparently antedates him, calls him Komersios (Stritter,ii, 517, note 24). I may say that Sigebert,under the year 727, has thephrase " CormisusBulgaribus dominatur " (Pertz,vi, 330). In 755 the famousIconoclast Emperor, Constantine the Fifth, Copronynios,whose energyagainst the enemies of the empire was as remarkable as his fanatical hatred of monks and images, foundedsome new towns in Thrace,and peopledthem with Syrianand Armeniancolonists. While thesetowns were beingbuilt, the Bulgarians appeared and demandedtribute, which being refusedthem, they proceeded to devastate Thrace, and advancedas faras thefamous long walls. The Emperoroffered thembattle, defeated them, and pursuingtheir army killed many ofthem. He thenprepared alarge naval and land forcewith wbich to punishthem. With a fleet of 500 ships he approachedthe Danube, and thenharried the land of the Bulgarians and made manycaptives. He gained a freshvictory over them near the fort of the Markellians,situated on the Bulgarian frontier, and theywere constrainedto sue for peace, and to offertheir childrenas hostages(Stritter, ii, 520,521; Lebeau, xii, 231,232). In 759 the Emperoragain advanced againstthe Bulgarians who had molestedthe empire in alliance with the Macedonian Slavini and approachedBeregaba, one of the Easternpasses of the Balkans,probably either Nadir Derbend or the mule track fromMesembria to Varna by way of Emineh(Jiresek, 141), but the Bulgarianswaylaid his people in the passes,many of them, includingsome prominentofficials, were killed,and theirarmy made a somewhatignominious retreat (id. 521). Accordingto the catalogue of Bulgariankings above cited, KormisosrEeigned 17 years. This Jiresekwould correct,with some probability,to seven,and make him reign from753-760 (op. cit. 140). Kormisos,as we have seen, was an usurper,and did not belongto the old royal stockof Dulo, and we now read thata greatinternal convulsion took place amongthe Bulgarians. They extirpatedthe old royal house (i.e., that of Dulo), and elected a prince named Teletzis or Teleutzas, an arrogantand conceitedyoung man, who was 30 years old, to the throne (Stritter,ii, 522). He is mentionedin the catalogue of Princes, and is therecalled Telec,and is statedto have beenof the family of Ugain (Jiresek,127 and 142).

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 236 H. H. HowORLTH.-1he Spread of theSlaves.

In consequenceof this revolutiona greatcrowd of Slavini,to the numberof 208,000,left their country, and wereallowed by the Emperorto settleon theriver Artanas in Bythinia(Stritter, ii, 522; Schafarik,ii, 172). Telec havingcollected a large force invaded the bordersof the Enmpire,whereupon the Emperor Constantinedespatched an armamentof 800 boats,each carrying 12 horses, to the Lower Danube. He himselfmarched to Anchialus,whiere Telec wentto meet himiat the head of his Bulgarians,aiid with 20,000 Slavinianauxiliaries. The latter was defeatedin a battlefought on the 30th of June,and lasting fromeight in the morningtill sunlset,anid many, both Bulgarians and Slavini,were killed, and several of their clhiefswere made prisoners. The captiveswere takento Byzantiumand executed outside tlle walls in batches by the several factionsof the Circus,and in the triumphwhich followed we are toldthat inter alia twogold basinswhich the Bulgariankings had had made in Sicily, anld each weighing 800 pounds,were exhibitedamong the spoils (Stritter,523, 524 ; Lebeau, xii, 244). We now come upon a period of revolutionand discord in Bulgaria. Tlje Bulgarians,in consequence of theirdisastrous defeat,rose in revolt against Telec, wh-omthey killed with several of his chief mnen.They then raised Sabinus, whom Theophanes calls a relative of Kormisos, and Schafarikand Jiresek,I knownot on whatauthority, his sonin-law (Stritter, ii, 524; Schafarik,ii, 172; Jiresek,142) to thethroue. But he having immediatelysent envoysto arrangea peace, was chargedwith a desireto put the kingdomunder subjection to the Emperor,and a tumultuousassembly having met, where he was miuchassailed, he deemedit prudentto fly,and wentto Mesembria,and thence to the Emperorwith his intimatefriends. Their wives and childrenhid away forfear of the insurgents,and were at length rescued by some officerssent by Constantine(Stritter, 524). Sabinus was apparentlynot a nativeBulgarian, since he bore a Romnanname, and his authoritywas doubtless very transient. He is not mnentionedin the indigenouslist of kings. The Bulgarians now put a new chief named Pagalnus or Pagarus,as he is called in a glossto Anastasius(both probablya corruptionof Bayan, Jiresek,142) in his place. This tookplace in 762. Two years later Paganus sent envoysto demand peace fromi the Emperor,and then went in person with his boilades and chieftainsto thelatter's presence. He foundhim seated on his thronewith Sabinusseated beside him. The Emperorapparently detained Paganus and his grandees,upbraided them foirtheir conduct to Sabinus, and thenmade a hollowpeace with them. He furtivelysent smoe of his people into Bulgalia, who seized

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTm.-The Bulgarians. 2)37 upon a chief of the Slavini, who accordingto one reading of Theophanes,was named Seberus, while anothermakes him a leader of the SeberianSlavini who had committedmuch ravage in Thrace. They also seized an apostateChristian, a leader of the mountainbrigands, called Skamari,and having cut offhis hands and feet,made him over to the doctors,who opened his bodywhile he was still living and mnadea public demonstration of anatomyon the moleof St. Thomas,after which he was thrown into the fire(Stritter, 526; Lebeau, xii, 250, 251). Shortlyafter this the Emperoragain invaded Bulgaria,the outpoststo which were bare of defenders,because of the recentlymade peace, and went as far as Tuntzas,or Tzikas, i.e.,the river Tytscha,laid the countrywaste, and thenreturned in a panic withouteffecting anything(id. 526; Schafarik,ii, 172). The next year Constantineagain invaded Bulgaria,where the people had driven out Umar or Omar,the nomineeof Sabinus, and had put Toktu,the brotherof Bayan, in his place. This Omaris the last of the Bulgarian rulers named in the native list so often mentioned. His name is clearly not Ugrian, and pointsto the influenceof Moliammedanismhaving already been potent among the Bulaarians. Omar, accordingto the list, was of the fainily of Ukil. It makes hinmimmediately succeed Telec. On the approach of the Emperor, as I have mentioned,the Bulgariansfled to the woods about the LowerDanube. Never- thelessa large number of them were killed, including Toktu and his brotherBayan, who,if the same personias Paganus,had apparentlyreturned again to his own coulntry. Anotherof their leaders,whom theycalled Campaganus(he is identifiedwith Paganus by St. Martin(Lebeau, xii, 252, note2), fled towards Varna, and had virtuallyescaped when he was put to death by his slaves. The Bulgarians seem, in fact,to have been badly crushed, and the Romans wasted the greaterpart of their territory(Stritter, 526, 527). In 766 Con- stantine advanced again to the bordersof the Buloarians,and determinedto assail their stronghold,called Embolos (i.e.,the outlet) of the Beriganians. For this purposehe prepareda vast flotilia of 2,600 ships, anid ordered them to relndezvousat Mesembriaand Ankhialus. This fleetand the immensearmy whichwas its complemenitgreatlv terrified the Bulgarians,and theywere preparedto treat fortermis, when a terriblestorm intervened,destroyed the fleet,and a vast numberof his people; whereuponthe Emnpeirorreturnied to Constantinople(id. 527, 528) This was a great blow to the empire,and we read how in 768 the Slaves of Macedonia and Thessalv made a piratical raid on the islands of the Acean and it cost 2,500 robes to ransoml

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 238 H. H. HOWORTH.-The Spread of theSlaves.

theinhabitants of Imbros,Samothrace, and Tenedos,whom they carriedoff (Jiresek, 142). In 774 the Emperor Constantinethe Fifth venturedupon anothercampaign againstthe Bulgarians. He sent his cavalry to occupythe passes and went to Varna with 2,000 transports. Theophanestells us he proposedto go himselfto the mouthof the Danube againstthe Russian boats,which he calls " Khelan- dia." These Russians were no doubt Scandinaviansand were apparentlyallied with the Bulgarians. It is the firsttime they are mentioned in history. The Emperor when he reached Varna became frightened,and was forreturning. On the other hand,the BuLlgarians,frightened at his arrival,sent Boilas and Tzigatus (Anastasius says, Boilan Tzigates (?), i.e.,the Boila Tzigates)to treatfor peace. A treatywas accordinglymade, and its conditionswritten down, and each ruler promisedto respect the other's border. Thereupon the Emperor, who was by no means anxious for fighting,returned home again (Stritter,528, 529). A fewmonths later, however, we read that the Bulgarianssent an armyof 12,000 Tnen,uncter their boilades, who made an attackupon Berzetia (Jiresekglosses this as Brs- jaken land (?)) which was apparentlyan independentcountry, and to captuLreprisoners. The Emperorthereupon collected a large force,and in ordernot to seem as if he was breakingthe peace, he professedit was directed ggainstthe Avars,who were then verytroublesome. He fell upon Bulgaria by way of Lithosoria (?) with 80,000 men, and won a potent victory,and returnedwith a large booty. This treacherous campaign was nevertheless dignifiedwith the name of a noble war,silnce lno Roman soldiers or towns suffered. It was clearlya victorywon throughthe Byzantinevirtue of craftover the too trustingBulgarians, and the factis so acknowledgedby Theophanesand the morecandid chroniclers. Knowing that his conducthad involved savage reprisals,the Emperorin 774-5 prepared a freshfleet, which was again broken to pieces by the weather,near Mesembria. The Bulgarialnsnow paid back the treacherousEmperor in his own coin. Teleric their ruler (be is so called by Zonaras, Theophanes calls him Tzerig, and Kedrenus Eleric) wrote the Emnperora letter, in which he professedthat he wished to desert his own country,and go and live with himn. In the meanwhile,for his own safety,he wished the Emperorto iftoiri him of tholseamong the Bulgarians who were his (Cotistantiine's)friends and partizans,in order that he inight conferwith them. The Emperoringenuously sent such list,anid thesefrienids of the enmpirewere speedilyput to death,much to the chagrinof Constantine(Stritter, 530, 351; Lebeau, xii,309,

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheBulgarians. 239 note 3). It was probably to avenge this wrongthat, in 775, he set out on anotherBulgarian campaigni,but he died on the way (id. 531). Constantinewas succeeded by Leo the Khazar, in the first year of whosereign Teleric fled to Constantinople,where he was well received,married the cousin of Leo's wifeIrene, and was given the title of a patrician. He was baptized, the Emperor himself acting as his sponsor, aild was rewardedwith rich presents(id. 531-2). In 789 the Bulgarians again assailed the empire. Philetus,Duke of Thrace,was surprisedby themand perishedwith the greaterpart of his army(Lebeau, xii, 352). In the springof 791 the young Emperor Constantinethe Sixth foughtagainst the Bulgarians,who were led by their king Kardam, at Provaton the riverSt. Georgein Thrace,the moderaPravadi in the Balkans, between Shumla and Varna (id. 532, 533; Schafarik,ii, 173; Lebeau, xii,357, note). Aftera shghtskirmish both sides seem to have been panic stricken,and returnedhomewards. The followingyear he again went to Bulgaria, anldbuilt the town called the fortressof Markellians in the Balkans. MeanwbileKardam with his people occupied thepasses; and theEmperor was led away by his youthfulardour and the advice of his councillors,one of whom,Pancratius, who is describedas an astronomeror astrologer,foretold that he would win a victory. He was, on the contrary,terribly defeated,and lost a great nunmberof men, including several great dignitariesof state, among whomwere Lakhanodracon, the best general and most wicked man in the Empire, anid Pancratiushimself, while the baggage and sumptercattle, and the Imperial equippage fell a prey to the victors (id. 533; Lebeau, xii, 359.) It would seem the ByzantineEmpire, in additionto its other humiliations,had to pay tributeto the Bulgarians. Forfourteenyears the annals aresilentabout Bulgaria,when we are told therecame a minatorymessage fromthe aged Kardam threateningthat, unless the Emperorwould agreeto pay him tribute, he would advance to the Golden Gate of Constain- tinople,and would overrtunThrace. The Emperor thereupoi sent himsome dung foldedin a cloth,and said, " The tributeyou demnandI send you. As you are an old man I do not wish to fatigueyou, I will come and meet you at the fortressof the Markellians;perhapsyou will meetme there,and God shalljudgie betweenus." He thereuponcollected a large force,and proceeded to attackKardam and his Bulgariansin theforest of Abro- leba, forseventeen days; afterwhich the Bulgarians grew weary ofthe struggleand returnedhome again (Stritter,ii, 534; Lebeau, xii, 369). We (lo not read of the Bulgarians ag,ainitill 807,

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 240 H. H. HOWORTH.-T7he Spread of theSlaves.

when Nicephorus proposed to march against them,,but was detainedat home in consequenceof a conspiracy. In the year 809 the Bulgarianswaylaid the Imperialmilitary chestnear the riverStrymon, and capturedover 100,000pounds of gold, and a large numberof the soldiers with their com- manderwere killed. A generalmnuster then took place of the " taxati proceres"from the neighbouringdistricts, whereupon the Bulgarians withdrew (Stritter,ii, 535). The same year beforeEaster, Krum,the Bulgarian ruler,invaded the Roman borders,captured Sardica (i.e., the modern Sophia) and killed 6,000 soldiers,besides many of the citizens. The Emperor Nicephoruswould thereuponhave marchedagainst them, but his councillorswere afraid,anid began to disperse. On his speaking harshly to them, some deserted,including a famous Arab mechanician,named Enthymius,and he had to returnwithout doing anything. Two years later Nicephorus again set out with his son Stauracius,and witha large armyfrom Thrace and otherparts, among whom were a large number of poor people armedwith slingsand poles.who were attractedby the hopes of pay. When thisarmy reached the fortof the MarkelliansKrum grewfrightened and sued for peace, but the Emperor,who is described as a second Ahab by the chroniclerTheophanes, insisted upon tryinghis fortunein the dangerouscountry of Bulgaria. Before he enteredit, however,he was desertedby one,of his favouriteslaves who fled to tlhe enemy,taking with him100 poundsof goldand the Imperialrobes, a desertionwhich was deemedof sinister omen; we are toldthe Emperor constantly repeatedto himself" I know not whetherI am compelled by God or the Devil, but an irresistibleforce seems to urge me on." At firstthe Imperialists were successful,and behavedwith great cruelty; the Emperor ordered even the childrento be slaughtered,and busied himselfonly with lookina afterthe plun- der. Kirum'spalace, whichZonaras says was called his aula by the Bulgarians,was burnt,and theEmperor put his seal upon his effectsand punishedseveral soldiers who committedrapine there by cuttingoff their hands and ears. Krum beggedhim to spare his people,and offeredto accept any termshe shoulddictate; but this being refused,he assembled and harangued his men,and blockedup the exit and ingress to the place where the Im- perialistswere encampedwith woodenfences like a wall. The Bulgarians worked so hard that in two days the Imperialists were caged in an iron grasp. When Nicephorus learnt what had been done he despaired of escape. Aftersome days the Bulgarians made a night attack upon the camp and caused a terribleslaughter. Nicephorushimself and his chiefmen were killed and beheaded. Among the latter were Aetius, Peter,

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheBulgarian.s. 241

Sisinius,Tryphyles, and Theodosius,all patricians. Salibaras, called the Prefect,also a,patrician; Romanusthe patrician,and Duke of the East, the Duke of Thrace,and manyprotospatharii, spatharii,commanders of the army,men of the bedchamber, provincialofficers and a vast crowd of people, so that the noblestand greatestamong the Christiansperished on thatday, besidesa vast numberof arms and treasure. The chronicler naturallyadopts very lugubrious phrases in describing the disaster. He adds that Krum carried offthe Imperial head as a trophy,hung it on a tree,and showedit in triumphto his variouspeoples, and thenin the fashionso prevalentamong the Turcomanraces, when the flesh had decayedoff it, he covered the skull withsilver, and convertedit into a drinkingcup, to be used w'nenhe joined in the feastswith the zdravicasor boljars of the Slavini. Stauraciusescaped badlywounded to Adrianople, and died six monthslater; othersalso foundrefuLge in theforests and marshes(Stritter, op. cit.536-541; Lebeau, xii,446-449), but altogetherthe disaster was appalling,and gave rise to one of Gibbon'ssonorous phrases, in which he says thatthe advantage of the death of Nicephorusoverbalanced, in the public opinion, the destructionof a Roman army(op. cit.vi, 88). The next year Krum overran Thrace and Macedonia. He capturedDebeltos, not far fromthe Black Sea, and carriedoff its citizensand bishop. The chroniclersays he transported them into " another country,"by which expressionSchafarik understandsHungary, but which doubtless means Wallachia. Meanwhilethe EmperorMichael, who had marchedagainst him, had to try and conciliate his own rebellious soldiers with presentsand otherwise,and the invadershad it their own way accordingly. Ankhialus and Berrhoeawere deserted,as were Niceea, Philippopolis,Probatir (i.e., Pravati), Philippi, and Amphipolis,then called Strymon(Stritter, op. cit.542, 543). Krum, who was master of a portionof Thrace and Mace- donia, now made overtures through his envoy Dragomir (Dargameros) to renew the pact formerlymade betweenTheo- dosius and the Bulgariansin the year 716, with the additional conditions that the Greek merchants should in entering Bulgariamake a declarationof the goodsthey had withthem for customspurposes, and in defaulthave themconfiscated, and that the Emperor should undertaketo restorenot only Bulgarian fugitives,but also such Roinan prisonersas had succeeded in breakingtheir bonds and escaping (Stritter,op. cit. 543). In case his terms were refused,he threatenedto attack Mesem- bria,the modern Misivria,on the Gxulfof Burghas,which he proceededto beleaguer. His siege artillerywas superintended by an Arab skilled in such machines,who had beeinbaptise(I

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 242 H. H. HoWORTH.-The,SSpread of theSlaves. under the name of Euthymius,and had been stationed at Adrianople; but not gettingthe rewardshe expectedfrom the Greeks,and having,in fact,suffered punishment at theirhands, he desertedto the Bulgarians,as I have mentioned,and taught themthe secretsof his craft. They were not long in capturing the city, and secured much booty of gold and silver there, including36 brazen tubes to shoot Greekfire through, with a quantityof thatterrible ammunition (id. 544-548). Michael was now anxious to make peace, and sent forthe chiefecclesiastical dignitariesto consultwith him. The question of surrenderingthe refugeeswas the chief difficulty.The Bulgarian laws were verysevere, and manyto escape them had fledto Constantinopleand been baptized,and had attracteda numberof others in theirwake, so that the Bulgarianking began to fearthat his kingdommight be depopu- lated. On the otherhand, the Bulgariansheld in captivityeven a larger numberof Greek prisoners. This weighed with the Emperor'and otherswho, with Hobson's choicebefore them of givingup certainBulgarians to condignpunishment or of leaving a numberof Greeks to sufferdeath, chose, we read,like,people in a shipwreck,to side withthose dearest to themi,a conclusion whichwould also secure peace. Two of the principal church dignitariesraised their voice againstthis course. They declared it would be infamousto surrenderrefugees who had trusted themselveswith them, and who in becomingChristians had in fact ceased to be refugees. Constantinoplehad become not merelytheir home but theirsanctuary, and as to theirown com- patriotsthey ought to releasethem with the swordand not at the expense of theirvictims (Stritter,544, 545; Lebeau, xii, 465,466). MeanwhileKrum, having captured Mesembria, proceeded to lay waste Thrace. His coursewas only stayedby the outbreakof a terribleepidemic, which destroyed two-thirds of his army,and comipelledhim to retire. The Emperordetermined to take advantage of his weakness. He collectedhis forces,chiefly Cappadociansand Armenians,who were, however, scandalized by the interferencein militaryaffairs of the EmpressProcopia. It was decidedthat the army shouldnot move beyondthe Roman frontier,and soonits exactionsupon thecitizens was foundto be even mnoreharassing than a hostile invasion. In June Kruin crossedthe frontier and advancedto Bersinikia. Some small skir- mishestook'place in which the Greeks generallywon. Mean- while the-extreme heat severelytaxed the Bulgarians,and the Emperorwas for trustiligto the weather ratherthan his arms. His prudencearoused murmursamong his men,incited by Leo the Armienian,who had his own game to play, and a battle was determinedupon. In this strugglethe Imperialistsseem at

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheButlgiarians. 243

firstto have been successftul,but according to the chroniclersthe tide of victorywas turned by the defectionof Leo, who with- drewwith his menat a criticalmoment, wheni a panicensued. At firstthe Bulgarians, thinking the retreat a ruse,refused to follow, but presently,seeing the Greeksscattered, they fell upon them furiously,and having slaughtereda great numbersecured a crowdof prisonersand a greatquantity of trophies. Michael retiredto Constantinople,and soon after resigned the throneto Leo who was raisedto it by the soldiery(Stritter, 548-553). Krum, leaving his brotherto attack Adrianople, advancedhimself towards Constantinople and made a perambu- lationabout the cityfrom Blakhernas to the Golden Gate. In a meadowoutside, we are told,he wentthrough some demoniacal sorceriesand sacrificedmen and cattle (Simeon Logothetaet auct. incertusStritter, 554). One author mentionsespecially dogs as being sacrificed. Krum then went down *to the seashore where he dipped his feet in the water and washed them,and then sprinkledthe army and made his progress to his tent between two rows of his concubinies,who nmean- while sang songs in his praise. The strengthof the walls and of the defendingarmy soon showed hiin that it would not be feasible to take the city. He accordinglywas ready to listeli to terms,and was apparentlywilling to withdrawif secured the paymentof an annual subsidy,and a presentof rich garmentsand a number of maidens. He also demanded permissionto thrusthis spear inltothe Golden Gate of the city. Leo suggesteda conference,and that Krum, attended by some of his people unarmed,should again repair to the strand while he (Leo) would, in company with some of his people, draw near in a ship, and they could arrangeterms at a colloquy. Meaniwhilethe f4ithlessEmperor ordered three of his men to plant themselvesin ambush,and havinggiven them the watchwordordered them on a given signal to fire their arrowson the unsuspectingBulgarian chief. The latter duly set out to keep his appoii:tinent,accompanied by three comrpanions,namnely, Constantine called Patzes, who had somne timebefore fled to the Bulgarians,and imarriedKrum's sister, Coonstantine'sson, and his Log,otheta or finance minister. The Bulgarianking dismounted,whereupon the signalwas duly given,the tllree men in ambush sprang out. Krum got on his horse,and althoughwounded fled and reachedhis people in safety. His comiipanions,however, were captured,and the Logothetawas put to death (id. 554-556). Naturally enraged at this act of wanton treachery,Krum proceeded to wreak his vengeance with no light hand. He wasted the districtwith fire and sword,burnt the beautiful VOL. XII. S

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 244 H. H. HOWORTH.-TheSpread ofthe Slaves.

clhurchesoutside the citygate, whichhad been built by Irene, Nicephorus, and Michael, with the moniasteriesand palaces. Thenpassing on to the suburbof Saint Thomas,he destroyedthe palaces and sacred structuresthere, burninig the buildingsand breakingthe columns,and destroyedthe circuswith its marble statues,its brazen lion, &c., killing all whom he miet,even the cattle. Thencehis people made their way to the strand and set fireto all the fleet,and captureda vast booty,and burnta largeportion of the town inside the Golden Gate as far as the Rigias,which falls into the Propontiswest of Selymbria. They overthrewthe famous bridge at the river-Athyras,now called the Karasu, and wasted the town, ravaged Selymbria(now called Selivria),Daoilis, and the environlsof Heraclea. They laid waste Rhaedestas,low Itodosto, on the Sea of Marmora,plundered the ouitskirtsof Panios,and thenentered the Ganian mnountains. From this districtthey carried off a greatnuinber of prisoners, ancdcollected a vast troopof cattle,women, and boys,whom they sent offinto Bulgaria. Theythen advanced into the Chersonese to Hexamilios,Abydos, and Ebros,and overthrewall the towns greatand small fromthere to Adrianople(id. 556, 557). They then beleaguredAdrianople itself,whose citizens, pressed by famine,consented to surrenderthe towln. The ravage must lhavebeen terrible.Krum was at lengthavenged, and withdrew witha greatbody of captives,who were transportedto " Bulgaria beyond the Danube," a phrase which has been interpretedby Schafarikas meaningHungary as faras Pesth,Erlau, Marmarosh, &c., and the Theiss (op. cit. ii, 174 and 201, 202), but I believe the phrasemeans merelyWallachia, which was a part of the Bulgariankingdom, and I am stronalyinclined to believethat the Vlaklhs of this districtand of Transylvaniaare largely,though not altogether,the descendlantsof the Macedonianstransported by Kruml-and his successor. Amnongthose transported were all the citizensof Adrianople, including,Manuel the bishop,also the parents of Basil, who was afterwardsEmperor, and Basil himselfthen a bov. These emig,rants,we are told, were closely attachedto the Christian faithland convertedmany of the Bulgarians,among whom there wereat this time nioClhristianis (icl. 557, 558,note). Elated byhlis formervictoly Krum, it would seem, repeated his attack the next year and proceededas beforeto larry the inhabitanitsanid cattle; thereuponthe EimiperorLeo once mloresent hostages to treat for peace. This being,scornfully rejected, he marched witlhhis troopstowards Mesembria and intrenchedhimiiself near there. The Bulgarianiswere not longpin comingr,but meanwhile he secretedhiis people on a mountain,afterwards called Leo's Hill, whenieeafter nigThtfall lie f'ellon the ulnsuspectinginvaders,

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-lthe Bmtlgarians. 245 who were panic stricken,many of them were killed, while Krum himself escaped with difficulty. The Emperor then to have miadea raidinto Bulgaria,where he made many seems captives. The men were slaughtered,the women carriedoff as s]aves,while the childreniin arms were barbarouslybroken against the stones,and Leo returned home in triumph (id. 558-560). This was a fortunateissue forthe Greeks,who were no doubt in a veryserious difficulty, and we are notsurprised to findthat thisvery year, i.e., in 814, envoyswent to Louis, the Emperorof the Franks,to solicit his aid againstthe Bulgariansand other barbarians(Ann. Lauriss,Pertz, i, 122). Apparentlyduring the succeeding,winter, which was a verymild one, Krum at the head of 30,000 men,who are said to have been encasedin iron, advancedas faras Arcadiopolis,which they captured, aind then made a regular" baranta" afterthe fashionof the Turkomais, drivingoff 5)0,000 people captive,who were doubtless transported acrossthe Danube, anldsent to join theirrelatives in Wallachia and Transylvania. These captives were transportedwith all their property,including their cattle-yokes,their domestic furniture,clothes, tools, and herdsof oxen and sheep. It was, in fact,the transportationof a whole people for the purposeof colonization. The Roumansof our day are in everyprobability the descendants of the Thracian peasants carriedoff by the Bulgarians,a transportationwhich began in the sixth century, but was largelythe workof Krum. lrum madestill another camnpaign against the empire. We are told that he collected a vast army of Avars,and of different kinds of Slavini, with an elaborate siege apparatus, 5,000 carts anid 10,000 sumpter beasts, and marched towardsthe Imperialcity. Leo havingheard of thesepreparations, ordered a levy and elnlargedthe defencesof his capital,causing a new ditchand rampartto be made on the side of Blakhernas. The impendingstruggle, however, was avertedby the death ofKrum, whichoccurred on the 13th of April,and was accompaniedby bleediligat the mouth,ears, and nose. It was reportedthat some marinerscoasting along the Bulgarianshore heard a voice fromheaven announcing,his death, which was 11o doubt most gratefulnews to the Greeks. Schafarikand Jiresekdate the event in the year 811-I know not on what authority,and in fact this date is hardly compatiblewith the events that are reportedas having occurredbetween the time of ]iis great defeat and his death,an-d it would seem thathe did not die at least beforethe year 816. Krum was a most importantfigure in Bulgarianhistory, aiid his prowesswas feltnot onlyin the soutlhbut also in the north s 2

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 246 H. H. HOWORTm.-TlheSp.read of thweSlaves.

of his kingadom.The victoriesof Charlemagnehad brokenthe power of the Avars and made it easy forKrum to extend his attacks in the directionof Pannonia, and he overthrewthe powerof the Avars to its veryfoundation. The Bulgarians,we are told,were much pleased withthe dress of the Avars,which theyadopted in lieu of their own, Krum questionedhis Avar prisonersas to why their sovereignand they had been so grievouslyoverthrowni. They replied that fa]se witness and mutualslanders had been the cause of theirmisfortunes as they had of otherpowerful States. The wise and prudenthad been displacedfrom the governmentby the intriguesof thepowerful; injusticeand venalityhad affectedthe admninistrationof justice, drunkennesshad prevailed greatlyamong them,while others had been corruptedby bribes,and that all of them had become merchantsand had taken to cheatingone another. Thence,they said, their overthrow. AccordinglyKrum called togetherthe Bulgars,and creatednew laws for them,punishing with death thosewho should accuse othersfalsely. He forbadethe use of iintoxicatingdrinks, and ordered-the vines to be torn up by the roots. Avaricewas condemned,and hospitalityand generosity inculcated,&c. (id. 562, 563). The extentto whichthe Bulgarians dominatedat this timein Pannonia has been much exaggerated. It would seem fromthe few factswe possess that the power of the Avars had now been thoroughlycrushed, and that their old countrywas now divided between the Franks and the Bulgarians, who were conterminous with one another. Schafarik,Dummler, and others,make the Theiss the western boundary of the Bulgarian kingdom,and include in it all the countryto the east of that river; but from the negotia- tionsthat took place shortlyafter this with the Franks about a definiteboundary it is notprobable that the limit was of such a definitenature as the river Theiss. It seems,on the contrary, to me, that there intervened between the Bulgarian and Frankishborders a piece of more or less independentterritory stillsuibject to Avar princes,who were dependenton theFranks. Eginhardttells us that in 818, while the Frank Emperorwas staying at Heristal,envoys went to him from the Obodriti as well as fromBornas, the rulerof the Goduscaniand Timociani, who had lately separatedfrom the Bulgariansand placed themselves under the authorityof the Franks (Eginhardt Annales, Pertz,i, 205). These Slavic tribes,as I showedin the formerpaper, occupied the lower Theiss, the Timok,and the Lower Morava,and it is niore than probable that the 13ulgarianfrontier was now actually pushed to the latter river while the Serbs beyond were doubtlessalso dependenton the greatKrum.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H HOWORTH.-ThteBulgcrians. 247 Accordingto one tradition,Krum was succeededby a chief named Tsokos; anotherauthority makes him be succeededby IDukum,which may be a formof the same name,and he again by Dicengor Ditzeng (Lebeau,xiii, 10, note,and theprologue and nenologiumof the EmperorBasil cited by Jiresek,op. cit. 146). Tsokos is said to have put to death Manuel, Archbishopof Adrianople,with some companionswhom he firsttried to make apostasize. Accordingto Golubinskithree other bishops and 374 personswere thus put to death (Jiresek,140). Kedrenus tells us distinctlythat Kruni was succeeded by Krytegon,who was muchmore cruel than himself;and he assigns to him the executionof the Bishop Manuel (Stritter,563). We now meet withanother Bulgarian king,called Ombritag, by Theophylactus,Mortagon by Kedreniis,and the continuatorof Constantine,and Omortagby the Frank annalists,and in an inscriptionto which I shall presentlyrefer. The tremendous victorywon by the Emperorapparently exhausted the Bulga- rians verymaterially, and we are told that Omortag,not being able to contend successfullyagainst the efipire,determined to send home the otherprisoners, aulong whomwere Basil and his parents(id.). Roeslerwould arguethat-all the people tran,-- portedby Kruin returnedagain on thisoccasion, but thisis quite incredible, as we have seen the latter transported,a whole nation with all its impedimelita,while the returnedprisoners were doubtlesssome of the grandeeswho had special ties with the empire. Omortagat this time made a pact with the EmperorLeo by whichhe agreedto a thirtyyears truce, a trucewhich really lasted forthirty years. Leo sworeby theBulgarian gods, while Onlortag swore by the God of the Christians. On the accession of Michael,and the rebellionof his general,Thomas, who laid siege to Constantinople,Omortag wrote to the Emperoroffering him his assistance. This the latterrefused. Nevertheless,the Bul- garian king,who was probablyanxious for some booty,and pleaded the obligationshe was under by virtue of the recent treaty,prepared an army,entered the Romanborders, and pitched his camp at Kedoctus, probablythe Aqueduct near Heraclea. Therehe foughta savagebattle with Thomas, whom he defeated, and returnedhome laden with captivesand booty; this was in the year 822 (Stritter,564-6). Two yearslater we findOmortag sending envoys to the Frank Emperor,who sent back one called Machelin with them as his representative.About the same timeenvoys also wentfrom the ObodritiPradecenti, who lived east of the lower Theiss, to complainof the constantharrying they were subjectto on the partof the Bulgarians. The followingyear fresh envoys went from

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 248 H. H. HOWORTH.-The Bulgarians.

Omortagto settlethe disputedfrontier between the two empires. They wereapparently detained in Bavaria for some time,and onlyadmitted to an audiencea fewmonths later. This embassy was repeatedagain in 826, but it was apparentlyineffective, for in 827 a Bulgarianfleet went up the Drave, and devastatedthe countryof the PannonianSlaves, then dependenton the empire, with fireand sword. The Frank officialswere driven out and replaced by Bulgarian governors(Eginhardt Annales, Pertz,i, 212-216). In 828 the Bulgariansdevastated Upper Pannonia, and as Baldric,Duke of Friauli, had proved himiselfunfit to cope withthe invaders,he was deprivedof his province,which was dividedinto fourcounties (id. 217). Enhardus,the Fuldensianannalist, tells us furtherthat Louis the Youngerwas in 828 sentagainst the Bulgarians. In 829 the latteragain sent a fleetalong the Drave and burntseveral towns withinthe Imperialborders (Pertz, id. i, 359, 360). The Frank annalistsdo not give the details of the Bulgarian encroachmentupon Pannonia as we would wish, but froma number of facts Schafarik and others have concluded that Syrmialying between the Save and the Drave,Eastern Hungarv fromPesth and theMatra mountainsto thesources of theTheiss, togetherwith the districtbetween the Serbiaii Morava and the Timok,remained subject to the Bulgarians untilthe irrup- tion of the Magyars (op. cit. ii, 176). This I hold with Hunfalvyto be quite improbable. The Bulgarian attacks on Pannonia were mere raids, and I have little doubtthat their permanentpossessions north of the Danube were limited to Wallachia. I shall have more to say about this in the next paper of this series. We do notknow when Omortagdied. In 1858 Mr. C. Daskalof foundin the Lavra of the 40 niartyrsat Tirnova,which has been alteredinto a mosque,a rude inscriptionin Greek letters on a redmarble pillar which looksvery ancient, and as if it had been in the water a long tirme. This inscriptionrecords the buildingof tILreehouses or palacesby Omortagnear the Danube. Thereis no date or religioussymbol on the pillar,which Jiresek supposeswas once placed on a grave mound on the Danube, doubtless the burialplace of the chieftain(op. cit. 148, 149). The inscriptionis otherwiseinteresting as it gives us the correct formof his name. At thispoint we reach a veryconfused period in Bulgarian history,-Jiresekhas passed it by withoutcomment and Scha- farikthrows little light on it. The fact is that we are limited to a passage of Georgethe Monk,which was copied by Leo the Grammarian,and whichis sinlgularlyinconsequent and contra- dictory. He tells us that during(ythe reiginof the Emperor

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-T7heBulgarians. 249 Theophilus (i.e., 829-842), the commanderof the army in Macedoniawas called Cordyles. He, it seems,had been one of theMacedonians transported by Krum, and when he found his way home again had lefthis son in commandof the Macedo- nians northof the Danube, i.e.,of the Vlakhs. He now proposed to the Emperorthat he should send a fleetwhich might transportthese exiles home again. About thistime Leo the Grammariansays that Baldimer,i.e. Vladimir,the grandsonof Krum and fatherof Simeon,was the rulerof Bulgaria. The fatherof Simeonwas the Tzar Boris or Bogoris who was thereforethe same person as the Baldimerof this account. Boris is said by ConstantinePorphyrogenitus to have beeii the son of Presia,and the probabilityis that Presia was in fact the successorof Krum. Of him we only know that,according to Constantinie,he foughtfor three yearsagainst Vlastimir,or Vladimir,the ruler of the Serbians,without any result (Stritter,ii, 154). Let us now turnto the statementof Georgethe Monk. He tells us that when Cordylesmade the propositionabove named, Baldimer (or Boris) was absent at Thessalonica,and the captives took advantage of the oppor- tunityto set out with theirgoods. Baldimer now returned, crossedthe Danube and attackedtlhem. Driven to despairthey put Tzantzes and Cordylesat their head,resisted and killed some of the Bulgariansand capturedothers. Unable to recross the riverthey appealed to the Hungarians,here called Ouggroi, and who are now mentioneddefinitely for the firsttime. Mean- while the Imperialflotilla arrived. At this juncturethe Mace- donians noticed a vast body of Hungarianiscoming towards them and threateningthem. They offeredto allow them to embarkif they would abandon their propertyto them. As theyrefused to do this,a struggleensued, and the Hungarians wereput to flight. They then embarkedand arrived safelyin Macedonia (Stritter,ii, 566, 567; Lebeau, xiii, 183, 184). Here, again,we have a mere handfulof people. It is incrediblethat any flotillaat the commandof the Greek Emperorshould have transportedmore than a mere fractionof the crowdswho were carriedaway by Krum. Thereis one word in the statementof Leo whichhas caused somedifficulty. He refersto the Bulgarian king in one passage as Komes. Now it is curious that in the inscriptionof Mortagon alreadyreferred to he is styled Giom Mortagon. Can this be the Bulgarianformn of the titleKhan ? In 843, when the throneof Byzantiumwas occupied by the Emperor Michael the Third.under the tutelage of his mother Theodora,we findBoris threateningto invade the empire; but on receivinga martial replyfrom the empresshe agreed to renewthe pactwhich his predecessorshad made. Theodoranow

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 250 H. II. HowORIH.-l'Ie Sppreadof the,Slaves. sent to redeem a monk called Theodorewho was surnamed Kuphar,and who had been made captive,while Boris similarly sent to ask forthe returnof his sisterwho had been captured by the Greekslong before, and was thenliving in thepalace. She, it seems,had becomemore or less a Christian,and nowsought to influenceher br other, who had heard somethingof the faithfrom themonk Theodore (Stritter, ii, 568, 569). This religiousprose- lytismwas not altogetheran effectivepeacemaker, for we read of the Bulgarians making a raid upon Macedonia in 852 in which they sufferedseverely (id. 569, 570). But this was a solitarybreak in a reallylong truce. The next year Boriswas at issue with the Franks. He had sent embassies to Louis the Germanlin 845 and 852, probablyto complain about an invasion of his borders. These were followed in 853 by a hostile mioveinent,in wvhichhis people, who were in alliance withthe Slavic subjectsof Rastislaf,then the ruler of Moravia and Slovakia,were defeated(Ruodolphus Fuldensis Pertz, i, 364- 367 ; and Prud. Trec.id. 448). Boris had anotherwar on his hands againistthe Serbians,in which he tried to revengehis father'sdefeat by Vlastimir,and attackedthe latter's sons Muntimir,Stroemir, and Goinik,but he was defeated,and his own sonVlastimnir or Vladimir was captured,together with twelve war engines. This disasterinduced him to come to terms. He was then in the Serbian land, and as he fearedsome ambush on his way home,he was escortedas far as Rasa, i.e., Novi-Bazar,which was on his frontier,by Borena and Stephen, the sons of Muntimir,who were rewardedby rich presents,and in turn gave him two maidens,two falcons,two dogs, and 90 skins,as was the fashion of makinig peace among the Bulgarians. Presentlycivil strifearose between the three Serbian Princes, and Muntimir,having won the day, sent his two brothers captive into Bulgaria,retaining as hostage Peter, the son of Goinik, who soon afterescaped to Croatia(Stritter, ii, 155 and 575, 576). Stroimirmarried a Bulgarianwife. Duringthe reign of Muntimirin Serbia, manyof hIs people were convertedby missionariessent by the Emperor Basil, and we are told that both the Serbs and Croatsnow acknowledgedtheir dependance on the empire(Stritter, ii, 92). ConistantinePorphyrogenitus mentions that Boris had a struggle withthe Croats,in whichhe was not verysuccessful, and agreed to a peace (Stritter,ii, 600). We now reach a lnotableevent in Bulgarianhistory, namely, theconversion of its kingto Christianity.This took place, according to Schafarik,who has exam-inedthe chronologyof these eventswith some pains,in the year 861 (op. cit. 181, niote2).

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheBulgarians. 251

From the Byzantine writerswe learn that Bulgaria, being afflictedby famineand pestilence,the EmperorMichael marched againstit, whereuponBoris, probably for political reasons, determinedto becomea Christian. Peace was accordinglyarranged with the Emperoron the termsthat Boris was baptized and received the name of Michael, no doubt afterthe Emperor, while the Greeks made over to him what their annalist describesas the steriledistrict, from the pass of Sidera (i.e., Demirkapuor Vratniknear Sliven),as far as the coast town of Debeltus, called Zagora, in Slavic, and whichwas situatednear Burghas(Jiresek, op. cit. 153, 154). A curiousSaga whichhas been dissectedby Golubinskimakes out that Boris was convertedby a painternamed Methodios, who painteda pictureof the Last Judgmentso realistically,that the King was frightenedand was led to changehis faith,but the mistakehas reallyarisen, as this authorhas shown,from a confusionof a painternamed Methodios with Methodios the Apostleof the Slaves (id. 154). The latterwas not improbablythe chiefinstrument in spread- ing Christianityin Bulgaria at this time, and Schafarikargues fromthe Moravianlegends of Cyrillosand Methodios,the life of the BulgarianClement, anid the testimronyof Diokleatos,that he in factpreached the Gospel in Bulgariabefore he wentto Moravia in 862 or 863 (op.cit. ii, 181, note 2), thus confirmingthe statementof the Byzantine author. The pact between Boris and Rastislaf of Moravia did not last long, for in 863, while we findthe latterassisting Carloiuan, the son of Louis the German, who was the Governor of Carinthia,in a rebellion against his father,we are at thesame timetold that Louis was assistedby the Bulgarians (Ruod. Fuld. Pertz,i, 374). Carloman having sub- mitted,Louis and Boris wentagainst Rastislaf, with whom they made a treatyof peace at Tulln, on the Danube, whiol heldgood duringthe rest of the century(Jiresek, 151). The Franks and Bulgarians,however, had a quarrel of theirown, and Hincmar tells us Louis marchedagainst the BulgarianKhan who had promisedto becomea Christian(Pertz, i, 465). In 866 envoys went to Louis at Ratisbon fromthe Bulgarians,among whom, accordingto theBertinian annals, was the son of the Bulgarian King, and reportedthat theirKhakan had become a Christian, and askingthat teachers might be sent(Annals of Fulda, i, 379). Anotherlnotice says thatthe King had been baptisedthe year before. Louis accordinglysent ErmanricArchbishop of Passau, with priestsand deaconsto spread the faith in Bulgaria; but when theyarrived theyfound the groundalready occupied by evangelistsfrom Rome, who were baptizingand preachingevery- where. Theytherefore returned home again (id. 380).

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 252 H. H. HOWORTH.-YTh1Spvread of tlheSlaves.

The conitradictionin dates, &c., betweenthe Frankish and Byzantineauthors at this timeis, perhaps,due to the confusion that then reigniedin the relig,iousworld in these parts. As Jiresek says, Bulgaria was looked uponi by all creeds as ani Eldorado wlherespoil could be secured,and Boris, who was probably a Clhristianfrom policy, swayed backwards and for- wards in his loyaltyto the creedsof Rome aindByzantium. He also had a strugglewith his ownl bolyars,who did not wish to be converted.A rebellionin factbroke out, and 52 of thestiffnecked were killed, and a death blow giveento heathenism. Among those anxious for convertsin Bulgaria were Jews, who had large colonies at Thessalonica,in the Krimea, and among the Khazars. There were also Monophysites,and especially Paulicians, who were introducedinto Thrace by Syrian and Armenian co]oloistsfrom Syria. Peter Siculus, who went as a Byzantine envoyin 868 to the ArmenianTefrica, was told by the Pauliciansthere that theyhad the intentionof sendinigsome oftheir number to tryand reconvertthe newlyconverted Bulgais fromthe Greekfaith to their own. Peterdedicated a workhe wroteagainst the Manicheans, whichis still extant,to Joseplh, the firstArchbishop of Bulgaria. Meanwhilestrange positions were occupiedby the orthodox; one body of Bulgariansset up as theirleader a layman who had baptisedthem. Some of the Greek Popes or Priests forbadebathing on Wednesdays and Fridays, others the eatingof fleshof animalswhich had been killed by eunuchs, &c. (Jiresek, 155, 156). But the great feud was between the Latin and Greek creeds. Boris was appareiitlyafraid that Greekbishops in Bulgaria might be the precursorsof Greekdomination there, and we accordilnglyfinld him,in 866, appealingto the Pope, and as we have seen,to the FrankEmperor, for missionaries. His envoysto thePope tooka documentembodying 106 requests,some of whichwere naive enough,for instance, whether in futurethey would be permitted to weartrowsers (femoralia). Thev also especiallypressed for the appointmentof a patriarchof theirown, an embarrassingrequest which the Pope cleverlyevaded by saying he firstproposed to send sonie Bishops to make inquires (Jiresek, 156). Pope Nicholas accordinglysent the BishopsPaul and Formosus,with a companyof priests. Whereuponthe Popes ofthe Greekrite were driven out (Jiresek,op. cit. 156), but a differenceshortly after arose. Nicholas havingdied, his successorHadrian II claimed the right to appoint the Bulgarian Archbishop. The latter nominatedSylvester to the post,while Boris claimed it either for Formosus, or for the deacon Marinus. Meanwhile a revolutiontook place at Constantinople,by which Basil, who was a Slave by birth,and as we have seen had been a prisoner

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheBulgarians. 253

among the Bulgarians, mountedthe throne. In conijunction with the Patriarch Photius, he began a strugglewith Rome whichspeedily developed into the Great Schism,as it is called. A Council was summonedat Constantinople,to which Boris who was at issue with the Pope, sent as his representatives Peter,Zerbulas, Zundikas and Twentarus(Schafarik, ii, 183). This Council,which is referredto sometimesas the 8thGeneral Council, was attended by Lecates fromthe Pope. It met in the year 869; one of its niostimportant acts was thedeposition of Phlotius, anid it widened the breach with Rome. An importantsubject of debate was the question as to which patriarchthe BulgarianiChurch was subject to. Before the invasionof the Bulgars,their country had formeda part of the Eastern Empire,but in ecclesiasticalaffairs had been ruled by the Archbishopof Thessalonica,who was the deputy of the Bisliop of Rome. The Greeks argued that Bulgaria ought to followthe fortunesof the Empire,and that Rome in submnitting to the Frank Kings could not carryover the allegianceof the Bulgarians. The Council eventuallydecided in favourof the supremacyof Constantinople,and the Papal Legates returned homewardsmuch chagrined; theywere waylaid and plundered en routeby theSlave piratesof the Adriatic.The bishopsenit to Bulgariaby the Pope also returnedhome again. The resultof the Council was in fact to definitelyattach Bulgaria to the Eastern Church(Lebeau, xiii, 267, &c.). The ArchbishopTheophylactus was sent with a followingof priestsinto Bulgaria,several sees were founded,while a number of bishops apparentlyhad no dioceses, and are referredto as " Episcopi regionarii." The Archbishopof Bulgaria was treated withspecial honour at Byzantium,and assigned the seat niext the patriarch. And Boris' son Simeonwas sent to the Imperial capital,where, according to Liutprand,he studied the worksof l)emosthenesand Aristotle,and acquiredthe soubriquetof " the Semi-Greek,"and the Pope wrote and wroughtin vain to try and bringback Boris and his people to their old allegianceto himself(Schafarik, op. cit. ii, 183, 184; Jiresek,157, 158). In 871 the famousSviatopolk mounted the throneof Moravia. He laid a heavy band on all his neighbours,and in 882 we find him fightingwith a united body of Franks and Bulgarians. The resultof his severalwars was to make him masterof Wes- ternPannonia and to make his bordersconterminous with those of Bulgaria(Schafarik, op. cit. ii, 405; Jiresek,159). It Wasunder his patronagethat Methodios the Slave evangelistworked. The latterdied in April 885. On his death his variousscholars were dispersed and malnyof themsought shelter in Bulgaria where theywere gladly welcomnedby Boris, and renewed theirgood

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 254 H. H. HOWORTH.-TheSpread of theSlaves.

work at his court. Amiongthese fugitivesthere was lianaed Gorazd,Klemens, Laurentios, Naum, Sava, Ailgelar,&c. (Jiresek, 160). We now meet with another contradictionbetween the easternand westernwriters. One accountsays thatBoris retired to a cloisterand handedover the governmentto his son Vladimir, who reignedfor four years, when his ill-doingcaused his father to come out acain fromhis retirement. He thereupondeposed Vladiinir,had him beheaded, and gave the governmenitto his younger soil Simeon. This is reported in the legend of St. Clement,and in some epitomeswritten in Cyrilliancharac- ters(Schafarik, ii, 185, note 2). Sigebertalso mentiolisthis, and suggeststhat the young prince wished to reintroducepagan- ism (Pertz. vi, 241). The Byzantineauthors kiiow nothingof Vladimir, and they mentionSimeoni as rulingin 888; on the other hand, the Fulda annals distinctlyrefer to an embassy sent to Vladimir by Arnulf to renew the alliance against Sviatopolk and to prevent the Moraviansfrom obtaining salt fromBulgaria. (Fulda aninalssub an. 892; Jiresek,160.) Having put Simeon on the throne,Boris once more returnedto his cloister. He died olnthe 2nd of May, 907, and we mustnow turn to the historyof his famous SO11 the greatTzar Simeon,whose reign is the golden period of Bulgarian history. With his accessionthe peace betweenByzantium and Bulgariawhich had lasted so long came to an end. The cause of this strifewas that a euinuchnamed Musicus,in the service of one of the principal officialsnamiied Zautzas, who had united with two Greeks named Stauracios an(dCosmas, obtained the monopolv of exclusivetrading with the Bulgarians,which trafficfor their conveniencewas transferredfrom its ancient seat at Constanti- nople to Thessalonica. There,remiioved from supervision, they grievouslyoppressed the Bulgarian traders. Simeon having complainedof this to the Emperor Leo the Wise, and obtained lnoredress, prepared for war (Stritter,ii, 576, 577; Lebeau, xiii, 340). The Romanarmies were set in motionunder Procopius, surnamed-Crinites, but were speedilydefeated in a battlewhich was foughtill Macedonia. Theirleaders were killed, while a number of Khazars, wlhohad gone to the Emperor'shelp, having beeii captured,had theirnoses cut off,and were then corntemptuously sent to Constantinople. The Enmperorthereupon despatched the patricianNiketas Sclerus to the moutlisof the Danube to arrangean alliance withthe Turks,(i.e., the Magyars,whom the Byzantinescall Turks). He succeededin arrang,ingterms with Arpadand Kosan, or Kersan,the Magyarleaders (id. 578). The Emperor now sent a fleet and the domestic legion to assail Bulgaria. This was in the thirdyear of his reigln(i.e., in 888 and 889), anidwe are merelytold that theypenetrated as far

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HoWORTII.-TheBulgarians. 2 55

as Bulgaria. The expeditionwas apparentlynot verysuccessful, and Leo sent an officialto arrange about peace. Simeoin imprisonedthis envoyand prepared to resist. Meanwhilethe Hungarianallies of the Greeksinvaded Bulgaria and succeeded in retiringbehind the Danube again withtheir booty. Simeoi went to the rescue. He had fixed some chains to preventthe Greekvessels fromdrawing near and assisting,but these chains were brokenand the Greekspassed through. The battlewhich followedwas a fierceone. Simeon was badly defeated and manyof his people were killed. This was near Silistria; the captivesmade by the Hungarianswere redeemedby the Greeks, theirallies, probablypreferring to be paid for their servicesin gold ratherthan slaves. Simeon took refugeat Mundraga(?) whilethe enemyravaged the land as far as Preslaf,when they again retired. At this time we are told the Turks (i.e., the Magyars)were commandedby Liuntina,the son of Arpad (Strit- ter,ii, 578, 579). Roesler identifiesthis name as a corruption of Lewenta,which oftelnoccurs in later history. (Romanische Studien,160, niote1). Siineonnow made advances forpeace to the Emperor,who thereuponwithdrew his armies and fleet. Having securedthis end,he followed the retiringHungarians and inflicteddefeat upon them(id. 580, 581). The Fulda annals whichmention this, call the HungariansAvars, and datethe cani- paign in 895-6 (Pertz,i, 412). They forcedeasy termsupon the Emperor,in whichthe lattersurrendered the captives he had made. Leo, as Lebeau says,in this war,gained the questionable gloryof ransomingthe Bulgarianprisoners from the Hungarianis and handing them back again to Simneonwithout ransomn(op. cit.xiii, 346). NicephorusPhocas, the famousImperial general, havingdied some time after,namely, in the year 891, Simeon siezed theopportunity and speedily foundan excuse forwar, on a chargethat the Emperorhad retainedsome of the prisoners, and he sent a demandfor their restoration. He invaded Thrace and foughta bloodybattle with the Greeksat Bulgarophygos, olOtfar fromAdrianople, in which the latter suffereda disas- trousdefeat (Stritter, 580, 581). This terriblebattle, in which the Greekarmy was practically annihilated,was foughtin the year 892. Having made peace with the Greeks, Simeon determined to cruishthe Hungarians,who, we are told,were at this time absent on a warlike expeditioln,meaning, doubtless, the attack theymade on Sviatopulk, in conjunctionwith Aruulfin 892. Having made a league with the Pechenegs,they droveaway the few Hungarianswho had beenileft behind to guard theirhouses, and harriedtheir wives and families. The Hungarianshaving returnedand foundtheir houses wasted,migrated into Pannonia.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 256 H. H. HOWORTH.-T/Ie Spread of theSlaves.

Afterthe battleof Bulgarophygosthere was peace betweenthe Bulgariansand the empire during the remainingyears of the reignof Leo, who died in 911. Durinlg this peaceful interval Simeon performedthe part of a patronof literature. It was a fertileepoch in its way. Bishop Constantine,Pope Gregory, John the Exarch,and the Monk Khrabr were busy, but the Slave historianscomplain that culture then meant Byzantine culture,and that we have no relics of poetryor othernationial literatuireat this epoch. From Bulg,ariathis Byzantineculture passed to Russia and Servia respectively(Jiresek, 164, 165). Bu]garian Christianitywas at this time infectedwith various heresies, Arians and Manichees appear to have existed largely(id. 165). Simeon'scapital was Great Preslaf,the Roman Marcianopolis,four hours' journey west of Sumen. There still remain its ruiinsabout the village of Preslava, called Eski Stambulby the Turks,and now comprisingbut 200 Bulgarian and 100 Turkishhouses. John the Exarch speaks in glowing terms of the Bulgariancapital and of its palace and churches, and contraststhe stoneand diverselycoloured wood of whichits buildingswere made,the pictures,the decorationsin marble, copper,gold, and silver with the poor straw huts of his own country. He describes Simeonhimself as sittingin his pearl- bedecked garments,with a chain made out of coinls (grivna cetava) about his neck, with armlets on his arms, a purple girdle about his waist, and a golden sword by hiis side, and around him his bolyars decked with golden chains, girdles, and armlets (id. 165, 166). But the glory of Preslaf has long ago departed. Even when the Turkish geograpber Haji Khalfa wrote,who died in 1i658,there were only ruinis to be described near Sumen, besides a great wall which is comparedin its circuitwith that of Constantinople(id.) On the death of the EmperorLeo, Simeon sent enivoysto his brotherand successor,Alexander, to offerhim his continued friendship. These envoys havinigbeen received witlh scant courtesy,Simeoni prepared for war, whenthe death of Alexander postponedit. All this occurredin 912 (Stritter,op. cit. 582). Alexander was succeeded by hiis neplhew Constantine Por- phyrogenitus,then a boyof sevenyears old. Simeon,whose prideo was doubtlessgalled by the treatnmeiithis envoys had received, contilluedhis preparations. He marclhedwith a large armvto the gates of Constanitinople,where frightened by the fortifica- tions and the war machinies uponl tlhem, anld by the show of resistance, he withdrew to Hebdomos. Negotiationisfor peace were now commenced. The young Enmperor'stutor s havinga repaired to Blaklhernas, where Sim-leon's solls were invitedto sup witlhConstantine, the Greek patriarchNicholas

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.--Tle Bulgarians. 257 was introducedto the Bulgarian King, put his stole over his head, and blessed him. Terms of peace were not,however, arranged,and the Bulgarians returned home without securingthem (id. 583, 584). This year,Peter, the son of the Venetian Doge, Participatiusthe Seventh,on his returnfrom Constantinople,where he had been well received,was arrested oii the frontierof Croatia by Michel, Duke of Slavonia,who plunderedhim and handed him over to the Bulgarian King, fromwhomn his fatherhad to ransom him (MuratoriAnnal. v, 270, 271; Lebeau, xiii, 403). Constantine was a minor, and the Empire was governedby his motherZoe. This was a good opportunity,and Simeon again marched southwards, iinvadedThrace, and besiegedAdrianople, which was surrendered to him by its governor,the ArmenianPancrutukas, who had been bribed. The city was recoveredby Zoe fromthe Bul- garians,in the same manner(Stritter, op. cit. 584, 585). The Greeks now found a new ally. One JohnBogas undertookto securethe alliance of the Pechenegs,who had recentlydriven out the Hungarians,if he was made a Patrician. He set out witha numberof giftsand returnedsuccessful, taking with him hostages and a promise that the Pechenegs would cross the riverwhen the empirewas assailed by the Bulgarians(Stritter, op. cit.ii, 584). Having boughtpeace fromthe Saracens by the payment of a considerabletribute, the Empress removedthe ti'oops whichwere in theEast to Europe,determined to crutshthe Bulgarians,and distributedlargess freely among them. The army was officeredby some of the mostdistinguished Greek officials, fandbefore it set ouitit was assembledin a plain at the gates of the city,when the soldierson theirknees swore beforethe Arch- priestof the palace, who he]d a portionof the true crossin his lhands,that they would conquer or die. The army advanced into Bulgaria,and encounteredthe enenmyat the riverAche]ous, inearMesembria. At firstthe Bulgarialnswere defeated,but in the pursuit one of the Greek generals having dismountedto quench his thirst,and his horse having escaped, his people 'wJhosaw it riderless,were paniie stricken. The Bulgarians turned upon them, and utterly defeated theni with great slaughter. Thereseems to have been considerablejealousy among the Greekcommanders. The AdmiralRomanus Lacapenos had been orderedto the Danube to transportthe Pechenegs across the river,but lie refusedto co-operate,and the Pechenegs returned homein disgust; therewas a suspicionthat he and Leon Phocas, the geineralof the land army,wvere striving as rivals for the Imperial throneitself (Stritter,op. cit. 586-588; Lebeau, xiii, 411, 412). Leon Ducas, withthe debrisof his army,inow fell back on Constantinople,and was followedby the Bulgarialns. Another

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 258 II. H. HOWORTH.-The Spread of thbeSlaves. fighttook place at Catasyrtes,in whichthe Greeks fought bravely, and the resultof which was that Simeonretired with his people frombefore the capital (Stritter,ii, 589). These strugglestook place in 917. The resultwas altogethera veryserious olle forthe empire,as we shall show presently. Simeonappropriated the greaterpart of Macedonia,leaving to the Greeks little more than the sea- board,while the latter had the misfortunleto see the throneof Byzantiummade the plaything,of two rivals,Leon Phocas and hiomanusLakapenos. For a while Simeon turned his steps elsewhere. We have seen how Muntimirbecame the ruler of Serbia. He apparentlydied about 890, leaving three sons, Pribislaf,Bran, and Stephen. Pribislafsucceeded him,but was drivenaway in the course of a year by his cousin Peter, the son of Goinik, whomwe have named above. It was while the caTnpaignon the Akhilous was in progressthat the Prefectof Dyrrakhiumn,Leo Rhabdukhus,went to Pagania to concertsome measureswith Peter,who was then the ruler of the Serbians. Probablythis meantan alliance againstthe Bulgarians. Moved by envy,Michael, Prince of the Zachlumi (i.e., Michael Wyschcwit, who reignedfrom 912-926 in Zachlumia or Herzegovina) in- formedSimeon thatthe RomanlEmperor had sent to arrangean alliance between Peter and the Hungarians,who were jointly to invade his borders. Furious at this news, Simeonsent anl army under Theodore Sigritzesand Marmaeen,which seized Peter and carriedhim off. Michael put Paul, the son of Bran, on the throne of Serbia (Stritter,op. cit. 600, 601), and he doubtlessbecame moreor less a dependentof the Bulzarians. In 921 we againfind Simeon making a raid upon the Imperial borders,and the next year apparentlythe Bulgariansadvanced under a leader named Khagan (i.e, the Khakan), by whom ,Simeonis probablymeant, and anotherchief named Mienik,and reached Manglaba. The Emperorsent a large army,together witha naval contingentunder Alexis and Muzelaeus,against him. The Greeks encamped near the sea, and were surprisedby the enemy,who suddenlyappeared on thesurrounding heights when theythought they were faraway. The Imperial generalswere panic stricken,and fled,and a terriblerout ensued,almost the whole army being either killed, drowned,or captured. Thil Bulgarians set fire to the Palace of the Fountains,a beautifuil courntryhouse of the Emperors',and havino pillaoed the district up to the walls of the city,retired with a great booty(Stritter, op. cit. 590-2; Lebeau, xiii, 426, 427). The followingJune they again returned,and pillagedand destroyedthe palace of Theodora the wife of Theophiluis,outside the city walls. The Emperornowsummonedhis principalofficers to a arandfeast,when

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-The Bulyarians. 259 underthe influenceof wine and excitementthey promised great things. One of them,Sactices, wh-o commanded the nightguards, rashlyset out with only his companyat dlaybreak. He sur- prisedthe enemny'scamp while the Bulgarians were scattered abroadpillaging, and killed the guards whom he found there; but the rest of them were speedilysummoned, and slaughtered his band. He escaped, but was mortallywounded, and was buriedin the churchof St. Sepulchre. Simeonnow again withdrew,but he had planned a more crushing campaign. He enteredinto an alliance withFatlum, the Khalif of the Arabs of Kairvan (in Tunis) by which he undertookto attackConstan- tinopleby laDd, while the Saracens assailed it by sea. The two were to divide the booty,and Simeon was to retainithe city. The envoysof the Khalif were returningwith those of Bulgaria to ratifythe treaty,when theywere seized in Calabria, and taken before the Emperor,who lhavingimprisoned the Bul- garian envoys, released those of the iKhalif,saying it was thus Romanus revenged himself on the enemies whom he esteemed. This superficialchivalry had the desired effectof conciliating,the Khalif, and of causing him to renounce his alliance with the Bulgarians(Lebeau, op. cit. 430, 431; Jiresek, 168, 169). Some time after--the year is uncertain,Jiresek dates it in 923,Lebeau in 925, and Stritterin 927-Simeon is foulndlaying siege to Adrianople,where the patricianLeo commandedwvho had inotfailed to molest the Bulgarian borders. He bravely defendedthe town until fainine pressed upon it,wheni the citizens surrenderedit withtheir commiander to the enemy. Simeonput him to deathafter subjecting him to torture,and havingleft a garrisonthere withdrew. This garrisollfled on the approachof a Greek armywhich had marchedto the rescue (Stritter,593, 594; Lebeau, 432). The lnextyear (924, 6, or 8) Simeolnagain marchedthrough Thrace and Macedonia ravagingthe couintry and destroyingeven thetrees in his way. Having arrivedbefore the gate of Blakhernas he demanded a conferenceto settle matterswith the empire. Rormanussent the patriarchNicholas and othergrandees to the Bulgariancamp, but Simeon insisted on a tete-a-tetewith the Emperorhimself, whose equity and prudencehe declaredhe knew well. Ptomanuswas veryalixious tor peace. He had the imperial galley rowed into a shallow creek, and having enclosed a space rouindit with palisades, offeredto meethis opponentthere. The latter,or ratherprobably sonle of his wild subjects whom he doubless foundit very difficultto cointrol,set fireto a famouschurch dedicatedto the Virg-in.Meanwhile Romanus repaired to the Churchof our Lady of Blakhernaswhere he gave himselfuip to prayer,and removing VOL. X1I. T

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 260 H. H. HOWORTH.-TheSpread of theSlaves. a fainous mantle which was reputedto have belonlgedto the Virgin, he put it on as a cuirass under his imperialrobes and then repaired to the rendezvous. ThitherSimeon also went, with an immense cavalcade, their arms glisteningwith gold and silver,and singingthe praise of their ruler,the spectacle being watched by a great crowd on the walls of the capital itself. The Emperorawaited the arrivalof Simeon, whose people inspectedthe vessel to preventa surprise. Romlanusis said to have spokenhis frienda homilyon the evils of blood-shedding, which is reportedat somnelength by the chroniclers,and to have told him thatif his motive was bootythat he would wil- linglypay a considerableblack mail to securepeace (Stritter,op. cit.ii, 595-598; Lebeau,xiii, 433-436). Peace was at lengthagreed upon,and Simeonreceived some lordly presents from the Emrperor. As the termswere being settled two eagles are said to have approachedone anotherin the air and then to lhaveparted company,one goingtowards the cityand the otherstowards Thrace. This was accepted as an omen that the peace would not he lasting. It, however,lasted longer than the augurs probably suspected. Simiieonturnied his arms elsewhere. I have described how Paul, the son of Bran, acquired the throne of Serbiaas his prote'ge.To check-matethis the Emperor Romanus, who claimedsuzerain rights over Serbia,and who had given an asylumto the son of Pribislaf named Zacharias, sent him to tryand secure the throne,but he was capturedand sent in chainsto the Bulgarians(Stritter, op. cit. 601). Threeyears later Paul, having proved unfaithfulto his Bulgarian patron,sent Zacharias,who drove Paul away and occuipiedthe principality. Once onl the thronehe sided with his formerprotector the Emperor,and drewupon himselfthe vengeance of Simeon,who sentan armyunder Marmaes and TheodoreSigritzes. They were defeated,and theirheads and weapolnswere sent as trophiesto the Roman Emperor. This happened beforethe IRomansand Bulgarianshad made peace. To revengethe mishap Simeon collected a fresharmamiient and sent it, under Cuienus,Hemnek, and Etzboklia. Zachlariasnow deemed it prudentto retire to Croatia,while theBulgarians assembled the Zupans and ordered themnto come togetherand do homageto Zeeslab,whom Simeon had appointedtheir ruler. Theywere then seized anidcarried off in chains to Bulgaria. The Bulgariansentered their land and laid it waste. Theycarried off all the inhabitantssave those who foundrefuge in Croatia,and thecountry for several years was leftvacant. Simeonnow sentan armyunder Aloaobotur against the Croatians,by whom,however, it was defeated,and apparently annihilated(id. 602). This blow seenmsto have been too much forthe great Tzar, for lie died on the 27th of M\av,927. His death

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheBulgarians. 261 was a mostserious blow to the SouthernSlaves. If he had lived, or if he had been succeeded by princes of the samne,miartial character,it is very probable that a great Slave state reaching fromthe Adriatic to the Black Sea, which would have been a barrier to the Turks, might havTebeen formedsouth of the Danube. As it was, the empirehe virtuallyconquered broke to pieces and becamiedisintegrated. The Tzar Simeon was the Alexanderof Bulgarianhistory. We do not propose to carry the storyfurther. We will now bring togethersuch facts as we can collect about the separate sectionsof Bulgarian Slaves. As we have seeni,the Bulgarians on enteringMeesia conquered the countryas far as the frontierof the Avars,which Schafarik explains as the junctioniof tlle Save, Theiss,and Danube, and thenceconcludes, with reason, that amongthe Slavic tribesthey conqueredand incorporatedwere the so-calledEastern Obodriti, the Branitshani,Kuchani, Timociani, and probablyalso the Se- verani.Hinemar tells us that in 866 (probablyit oughtto be 861) on the occasionof Michael Boris becominga Christian,ten gaus rebelledagainst him. These gaus Schafariksuggests occupied Bulgariaproper from the Timok to the sea. Of their names we can only recovertwo or three,which occur in the Frank annals,and whichwere situated in the north-westof Bulgaria, namely,the eastern section of the Obodriti,the Guduscani or Kuchani, and the Timociani. I have already described the EasternObodriti in a previouspaper of thisseries, and wouldhere only add that theyare mentionedby the oftenquoted Bavarian geographer,who calls them Osterabtrezi,and who tells they possessed more than one hundred towns (Schafarik,ii, 208, note 3), provingwhat a powerfulstock they were. Some of the townsin thedistrict still preserve traces of theirearly names, as Bacs called Pagatzi by Kinnamnosin 1163; Zemlin,at the junctionof the Save and Danube called Zeugminby Kirilnanios, and Zeugnimonby Niketas Khoiiiatas,Sombor, etc. The Gudu- scani or Kuchani and the Timocianiwe have also considered in the formerpaper. The so-called Buloarian Morava has for its feedingstreams the Wrana, the Toplitza,the Taren,and the Tempeshka; the Serbian Morava is fed by the Ibar. The countrybetween the Ibar and the eastern branch of the Morava,and the districtwatered by the whole river afterthe junction of the two head streams,the Serbian and Bulgarian Morava,which is nowentirely occupied by Serbs,belonged until the ninthand tenthcentury to the Bulgarians,and onlybecame Serbianin the twelfthcentury when the great Zupall Stephen Nemaniaconquered it and securedthe important towns of Prish- tina,Nish, &c. (Schafarik,ii, 212). The dialect is still somewhat sophisticatedthere. It is probable,says Sehafarik,that the part T 2

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 262 H. H. HOWORTH.-T/te Spreadof the Slacves.

of this districtbounded by the Timok,the Danube, and the Morava was secured by the Bulgarians on their conquest of Mcesia in 678,while the rest of the districtbetween the Serbian and Bulgarian Morava,and beyond the Morava to the Drina, was onlyadded to Bulaaria by Michael Boris. Dardania (i.e.,the districton the Binch Morava) belongedto Builgariain 869 (op. cit. 212). The whole districtas far as the Drave was called Moravia,or rather,to distinguishit fromMoravia in Northern Hungary,Lower Moravia. At the synodheld at Constantinople in 878, an archbishop signed hiimselfAtyao8iv Mwooa/3w), tog,etherwith two otherBulgarian bishops, Gabriel of Okhrida, and Simeoinof Debeltus. He was probablythe Agathonsenit as an envoyto the Franiksby the EmperorBasil in 873. The Bavarian geographer,after describingBohemia and Marharii (i.e., the Northern Moravia), goes on to speak as follows "\Tulgarii regio est immensa et populus multus, habent civitatesV., eo quod multitudomiagna ex eis sit et non sit eis opus civitates habere. Est populus quem vocant Marehanos" (i.e., no doubt the southernor Nether Moravia); " ipsi habentcivitates xxx." Then followthe Osterabtorezi. In Serbianwritings of thethirteenth and fourteenthcentury, Nether Moraviaoccurs frequently, as in the lifeof St. Simeon,written by St. Sawa in 1208, whereit is called Pomoravya. In 1382' it is styledMoravye (Schafarik,ii, 214). At the sourcesof the 13inch Morava is a town Morava,called Morowisdosby Kinnamos,in 1018, in the followingpassage cited by Stritter: " venieruntet legati Bulgaroruin e Pelagonia (Polog) et Morobisto (now, Morava) et Lipenio (now Liplyan) ad imperatoremet urbes ei dedunt" (Stritter,ii, 641). In 1342 we read of a " loco Moravo ab indigenis nuncupato,"as far as which the Serbian King Dushan conductedhis sisterIfelena (id. 861, Schafarik,ii, 215). Kedreinus,speaking of the Bulgariail,Peter Delan, in 1040, says, " Usque ad Morabumet Belegradospervenit, qua sunt castella Paninoniaead Istrum" (Stritter,ii, 650.) St. Sawa foundeda new bishopric in Moravia in 1224. This see was probably situatedon the riverMorawiza, where the monastery of Morawce, in the moderniRudiish, is still to be fouind. Several distinct districtsare mentionedin this southern Moravia, inter alios Nischawa (1153), called Nikawa by Kinnanios, conniotingno doubt the countryround Nisch, and Dendra mentionedalso by Kinnianiosin 1156, doubtless the Slavic Dubrava, which is mentionedas a gau in 1381 (SChafarik,ii, 215). Of the towns in the districtthe most importantis Belgrade,the Singidunumof the ancients,where in 885, accordingto the life of St. Clement,lived the Bulgarian chief Boritakan (id.). Khram, a strongholdon the Danube,

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-TheBulgarians. 263 mentionedin 1123 by Niketas Khoniata,now Ram. Rawanitza, mentioinedin 1096, 1172, and 1189, and called Rabnel by Ausbert,Arnold, &c., and said to be situated"in Silva Bulgarica." Smolinyec,a place near Branitshevo,called Smeles in 1154, by Kinnamos. Zuetshan,called Sfentzanionby Anna Comnena in 1081, and Swetzanion and Sfeiamon by Khalcokondylas. It was on the bordersof Bulgaria and Serbia. Liplyan,very probablythe ancient Ulpiana, called Lipenion in 1018, by Kedrenos,Lipainion by Theophanesand Anna Comnena,and Liplyanby St. Sawa, underwhich name it still exists. Prishtina called Prisdianain 1073,by Skylitzesand Theophylactus. It is curiousthat no rnameof any gau in Bulgariaproper is known. The well known Dobruja or Dobritch,on the rightbank of theDanube, at its outfallis firstmentioned by Khalkokondylas, in 1444. It originatedfrom its possessor Dobrici, who lived about 1388 (Schafarik,ii, 216), but we are told a place called Dobritsh, in the BulgarianiMoravia, is menitionedin the chronicle of ArchbishopDaniel in 1330. Of the Bulgarian riverswe findthe Tytschamost frequently named in the chronicles. It is called the Tunza by Theophanesin 764, the Tumtzaby Kedrenos,and the Tytscha in the MS. of the Monk Tudor at Dok. It is probablyto be identifiedwith the Ditzina, named by Constantine,in 949, the Bitzinaof Anna Comnena,Under these various names it seems likely that the Dewna, which falls into the sea below Varna, is meant. The mostimportant Bulgarian towns were Preslaf called Pre- sthlawa,Preshlawon, Persthlawa, Tersthlawa, Parasthlawa, by the Byzantinewriters; Pereyaslawiz,by Nestor and Praslafin a deed of the Tzar Assan in 1186. It was the ancientMar- kianopolis,and is niow in ruins. It was, the capital of the Bulgarian kings until the subjection of Bulgaria in 971. Shumen,the Turkish Shumla, is identifiedby Schafarikwith the so-called Aula Crumi, or Palace of Krum (mentioned in 802-815), aud with the Buleuterionand Symeonis vertex of Anna Coinena. Provat,near Prislaf,is mentionedin 1186 by George Akropolit. Pleskof,called Pliskova, Pliskuva by the Byzantineauthors, Leo the Deacon, Kedrenos,and Zonaras,in the year 971, was situated near Preslaf, but its site is ilot known. Varna, so well known to us, is mentionedas early as 678 by the Byzantine authors (" Warna urbs, Odesso vicina," says Theophanes.) Ditschin on the Danube is probablythe lDinia or Dinogetia,of Leo theDeacon. Kiyewez, also oil the Panube, niamedby Nestor (967-971), is now inknown. Dristor, IPerstor,Destor, galled pDrestwinby the Russian annalists,Darstero by Gundulit, and Dristra,in

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 264 H. H. HOWORTH.-The Spread of theSlaves.

889, by Leo the Grammarian,the ancient Dorostolas, is called Silistria by the Turks. iRakhowa(Bulgarian Rakhuawa, Reachuwa, Reachaiwitza, Oryechowa,Oryekhowitza) is the name of two towns, one on the Danube, the other near Tirnovo,mentioned, in 1306, by Pachymeres. B'dyn, B'din, called Bydinum by Theophylactos in 1071, Bidiiii by Kedrenos,B'dyn in a deed of the Tzar Assan of the year 1186, and B'din by ArchbishopDaniel, is the well known Widin, perhaps also the Widez, Widizof of the Russian annals. Lowez is mentionedin 1049 by the Byzantinesunder the name Lowitzon.Demnitzikos, mentioned as situatedon the Danube in 1148, by Kinnamos,is not now known. Tirnofor Tirnovo, mentionedas earlyas 1185 by the Byzantineauthors, was the capital of Bulgaria fromthe year 1180. Sredez,called Serdika by Theophanes in 809, Triaditza by Leo the Deacon and others in 987, Stralitzia by Ausbert and William of Tyre, is the modern Sophia called Sardika, and Serdika by the ancients. Boron,mentionied by Kedrenosin 1015,was probably on the Boyan near Sredez (Schafarik,ii, 217, 218). Having examinedthe topographyof the Bulgarianland, we will now concludewith a noticeof the idiosyncraciesof theBul- garians,which are traceableto theirpartially non-Aryan descent. Our storybegan withthe conquest of the Slaves of Moesia, who, like theirbrothers elsewhere, were a settledrace of agricul- turists,by the warlike and nomadic Bulgars, who were of Huninic descent. The Slaves, apparently,have a singular facilityfor amalgamating with their neighbours, and swallowing them up. Thus we find the Bulgars speedily adopting the customsand the languageof the conqueredSlaves, and becoming Slaves, in fact,in all but two importantparticulars, one was their name. They retained their old denominationand continued to be styled Bl'gare, in the singular Bl'garin, by the Serbs Bugare, and by the Russians Bolgare. The otherfeature in whichthey remained somewhatapart fromthe other Slaves was in their physique. In a number of photo- graphsof the upperstrata of Bulgariansociety, some time ago shownime by my good friend,Mr. ArthurEvans, of Ragusa, the Ugrian or Turanian typeof featurewas verymarked. It was this class which probablywas alone of Ugrian descent, the lowerstrata of thepopulation remaining largely Slavic. The amalgamationof Ugriansand Slaves to formthe presentBul- garian nation took place gradually. Maniyof the early chiefs bore namesclearly of an Asiatic type, as Kubratus or Khro- batus, Batbaias,Kotragus, Alticeus, Alzeko,Kuber or Kuwer, Asparukh or Isperuk (perhapsa Persian name),Terbelis, Kor- mesius or Komersius,Treletzes, Sabinus, Paganus, or Bayanus

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions H. H. HOWORTH.-NT7eBulgarians. 265

Umnarus,Toktus, Tzericus, Kardamus, Krumus, Mortagon Presia, Boris, Almius (compare the Hungarian Bors and Almus), Ahmed, Talib, Mumnin,Boilas Tzigatus, Marmaes, Kninus, Izboklia, Alogobotur,Konartikinus, Bulias Tarkalnus,Kaluter- kanus, Krakras, Elemagus, Kaukanus, Boritakan, Echatzis, IDobetas,Billa, Boksu, Heten, Organa, &c. (Schafarik,ii, 166, 167). Exainine,again, the names of several districts occupied by the Bulgariansof theDanube, as Bular,Kutminziwi, Kotokiumn, &c. (id.), and some words in use among them,as Ropat, a prayerhouse (compare the Arabic Ribat or Robat) Boilades, iiobles (compare the Avar Beled), Aul, the throne or seat of the prince (compare the Kirghizaul, meaningthe same thing, in Magyar ol = stabulum) welermit,silk, &c. (Schafarik,ii, 167). We will now collectsuch otherEastern characteristics as chroniclershave preserved. The Bulgarians were essenitiallya warlike race. Their frontierswere protectedby many fortifiedforts, and no one, whethera freeman or a slave, dared to leave the countryunder penalty of a severe punishment,and if any one escaped, the frontierguards paid the penaltywith their lives. Accordingto the reportsof the Arabs, their land was surrouindedwith a thornhedge, with wooden gates. The severalvillages, however, were not so surrounded. As a standard theyused a horse's tail, like the Turkish bunsuk, and the Mongol tugh or tuk. They oinlyfotiuht on 'ucky days. Before settingout a trusty officerwas sentroulnd to inspectthe armsand horses,and where they were found defective,the owners were punished with death. Beforetheir battles they performed certain incantations, &c. (" incantatiolneset ioca et carminaet nonnullaauguria"). Those who fled frombattle, or were disobedientto orders, were cruelly punished. Accordingto the report of the Arab Mfasudi,the Bulgarians used neithergold norsilver money, but cattleand sheep weretheir units of value in trading. In times of peace theywere accutstomedto sell Slave boys and girls as slaves at Constantinople. The anicientBulgarian politywas foundedon an aristocraticbasis. The chief was styled Khan, and was assistedby a council of six nobles, who were styled Boilades or Boliades,whence some, says Jiresek, derived the Slav title of Bolyarsor Bolerin(nobles). This titleis used amoang the Russians and Bulgars,and has passed fromthem to the Rtumansand Albanians. Accordingtto the courtetiquette the Byzantine envoysfirst inquired afterthe health of the Khan, his wife,and childreln. Thenlafter that of the Bulias Tarkhan, of the Konartikin,and of the six great Bolyars,then afterthe othernobles, and lastly afterthat of the whole people. Of the noble familieswe have recordedthe names of fourin the fragr-

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 266 H. H. HoWORTH.-TlheSpread of theSlaves. ment already quoted, namely,those of Yermi, Ugain, Ukil or Vokel, Dulo. Many of the nobles'names end in bul, whence the old Slave bul (boliar) is perhapsderived. MVohammedanisni,which had made considerableprogress in Great Bulgaria on the Volga, had also planted itself in the Danubian Bulgaria. In a documentof Pope Nicholas dated in 866, he speaks of Mohammedanbooks in use among the Bulgars(" libriprofani, quos a Saracenisvos abstulisseac apud vos habere perhibetis"). The Pope orderedthem to be burnt. Mohammedansin Bulgaria are also mentionedin a Bulgarian Nomocanon of the thirteenthcentury, in whichMohammed is called Bochmnit. The Bulgarian language subsistedfor a considerableperiod apart fromthe Slavic; thus in the lifeof Saint Demetrius, written in the eighthcentury, we read that the Bulgarianking sought amono his councillorsfor men who could speak Greek and Slavic (Schafarik,op. cit. ii, 168; Jiresek,134, 135), while among the writersof the eighthcentury Bulgarian and Slavic divisionsof troopsare clearlydiscriminated (Jiresek, 133-135.) The ritesperformed before his battles by Krum have their counterpartsin the laterhistory of the Mongols. We are told how he " more gentis sacrificioinstructo (profano et vere daemoniaco) homines ac pecora plura immolavit, tinctis- que ad maris litus pedibus ac aqua lotus, lustratoque exercitu,faustis suorum vocibus omnibusque exceptus, per mediumpellicum gregem iis venerationisergo procumbentibus ac laudantibusprocessit" (Stritter, ii, 554). The earlyBullgarians were polygamists,at least someof them had two wives. As a dowrythey gave their wives gold and silver, cattleand horses,&c. The princespossessed harenms. In regard to theircostume we learn thatmen and women both worewide trousers,and womenas amongthe Mohammedansveiled their faces. The men shaved the head smoothand wrappedit in a turban(" ligaturalintei, quam in capitegestatis ") whichwas not removedduring worship. Accordingto Suidas the dressof the Bulgrarianswas like that ofthe Avars (id. 132). They ate flesh, but only of such animalsas theydeemed clean, and fromwhich blood had flowedwhen they were killed. When anyone was ill theyhad recourseto superstitiouscures; ribbonswere hungfrom his neck,or small stoneswere administered as medicine. The bodies of theirchiefs, according to thereport of the Arabs,were burnt or buried in tumuli,in which their wives and servants were also enclosedand suffocated.Their justice was of a very crudetype. If a manwas caughtcommiting robbery and refused to confess,the judge beat him on the head with a club or ran ironinto his legs,as long as he remainedobdurate. The steal-

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions List of Presents. 267

inigof cattleand slaves was severelypunished, and executions werevery frequent. Nobles who rebelled not only lost their lives and property,but their children and dependents were similarlypunished. The etiquetteof the courthad an Asiatic character. The princetook his mealsout of a separatedish, not even his wifeshared it. The grandeesate at some distancefrom the prince,sitting on stools or kneelingon the ground. They used theirenemies' skulls as drinkingcups. The left was the side of honour. On the conclusionof a contractthe oath was sworn over a bare sword while dogs were meanwhilecut in pieces,a practisestill well knownin Siberia. We have now completedour surveyof the Bulgarians and shownhow close akin theyare to theSerbs and Croats,all having an aristocracyor upper class of Ugrian descentwhich is closely connectedin blood withthe Hungarians. In the next paper of this serieswe shall deal with the Slaves of Macedonia, Greece, and SouthernHungary.

MAY 24TH, 1881.

Major-GeneralA. PITT RIVERS,F.R.S., President,in theChaai.

The Minutesof the last meetingwere read and confirmed. The followinglist of presentswas read,and the thanksof the meetingvoted to the respectivedonors

FoR THE LIBRARY.

From Lieut.-Colonel R. G. WOODTHORPE,R.E.-Report of the Explorationof theAngami Naga Country. By Dr. R. Brown. - Roughnotes on the AngamiNagas and theirLanguage. By CaptainJohn Butler, B.S.C. From J. W. POWELL, Esq.-Abstract of Transactionsof the AnthropologicalSociety of Washington, D.C. From the GERMAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY.-ArChivfur Anthro. pologic. Band. XIII, 3. From the SPANISH ANTHROPOLOGICAL SocIETY.-AntropolQgico, No. 5. From the BERrLIN ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY.-Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie,1881, Hefte 1, 2. Fromthe SocIETY.-Proceedingsof the AsiaticSociety of Bengal, March,1881.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:08:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions