bobcev, bulgaria sub tarul simeon i .pdf

7/27/2019 Bobcev, Bulgaria Sub Tarul Simeon I .PDF

1/14

Maney Publishing

Bulgaria under Tsar SimeonAuthor(s): Stephen S. BobevSource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 7, No. 21 (Mar., 1929), pp. 621-633Published by: Maney Publishing on behalf of Modern Humanities Research Association andUniversity College London, School of Slavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4202337

Accessed: 25/02/2009 16:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies,Modern Humanities Research

Association,Maney Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheSlavonic and East European Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4202337?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uclhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uclhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4202337?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/14

BULGARIA UNDER TSAR SIMEON.BY the end of the 7th century the Balkan Bulgars possessedsettled political and social institutions and a well-developedjuridical system.

At the head of a hordeof twenty to thirty thousand, Asparukhor Isperikh, one of the sons of Kubrat, had first appearedalongthe shores of Lake Azov and the Black Sea, had then advancedtowards Onglos-perhaps also the island of Pevki at the mouthof the Danube-and, according to some authorities, had evenpenetrated into a corner of Bessarabia (Budzhak). He thencrossedthe Danube and launchedan attack against the ByzantineEmperor, Constantine IV. He gained a victory, and in 679made a formal agreement with Byzantium by which the latteracknowledged the authority of the Bulgars over the districtsoccupied by him and his following.The newcomers from the steppes proceeded to consolidatethe Slavonic tribes which had arrived more than two centuriesbeforefrom their Carpathianhome and werethen living, scatteredand disunited, in Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia. This theywere easily able to do as it is likely that among them were notonly Bulgarians,but also Slavs, Finns and otherprimitivepeopleswho had been welded together under the administrative andmilitary hegemony of their sovereign lord.The first Bulgar Empire extended approximately from themouth of the Danube to Timok in the west and the Balkans inthe south. After a halt in Preslavec, Pliska-Abobawas selectedfor permanent residence and subsequently became the capital.This.was the territory inhabited earlier by the oldest peoplesof the Peninsula, the Thracians and Illyrians, and invaded byvarious barbarians,including Goths, Huns and Avars. The stillearlier conquests and colonisation of the Romans had also leftlasting traces and an advanced material culture (roads,caravan-serais, temples, baths, mines, fortresses, etc.).The Slavonic element forms the backbone of the Bulgariannation. Although split up into numerous small divisions andclans under their several princelings and chieftains, the Slavsof all parts of the Peninsula were already leading a settled and

621


3/14

622 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW.uniform life and had engaged in agriculture and stock-rearing,before the advent of Asparukh. They had democratic nstitutionsof their own, and in time of war when there was need of defendingthemselves against attack, they elected their leaders, captainsand princes. Although they had a common language, customsand civilisation, yet they were politically divided, as we knowfrom the testimony of such Byzantine chronicles as Prokopios(d. 562). The Slavs of Moesia welcomed the discipline andmilitary organisation of Asparukh's force and did not hesitateto affordhim their entire co-operationin his efforts to establishand consolidate a single, strong empire. The aim both of theSlavs and of the newcomers was to press southwards againstByzantium; it was this common interest which led to the con-clusion of an alliance, or pact, as Theophanes calls it.The Bulgars-the unifiersof the Slav tribes, to use Drinov'sterm-can hardly all have been of Turanianor Hun origin. Itis most likely that Asparukh's forces contained also Slavs, andthe Slavs were naturally instrumental in creating an easy under-standing between the foreigners and the natives-thus playinga part similarto that of the VarangianRussians or the GermanicFranks. They did not attempt to impose their constitutional,social or legal customs on the more numerousSlavs of the Penin-sula, but concentrated their energy on empire-building. Theprocess of assimilation by the Slavs now began to take place,and it is likely that they had assumed the name of the Bulgarsand adoptedtheirtype of administrative andpolitical organisationwithin a century.Krum (802-8I4) carried on the vigorous policy of his prede-cessors, Asparukh, Tervel (70I-7I8) and Telerik (768-777). Heconsolidated their conquests in Thrace and Macedonia, unitedDacia and Moesia, occupied Sredecand, in general, made a greatstep forward in the political unificationof the SouthernBalkans.His policy was skilfully and successfully continued by Omortag(8I4-832), who subdued a number of outlying tribes.In their early preparatory period the royal power was in thehands of a khan or prince. Neither the central administrationshared by advisers with Turanianor Asiatic titles (tarkhan,kav-gan, kopan, bogatur, vagain, kolovrus, etc.), nor the new districtadministration, in which old Slav titles were preserved (vojvodaor duke, zupan or clan chief, vladelec or ruler, 'elnik or elder,knjazor prince),altered the democraticorderand the customarylaw code which regulated the behaviour of the diverse Slav tribes.The khanwas not an absolute monarch. His authority was limited


4/14

BULGARIA UNDER TSAR SIMEON. 623by the council of bolyars or nobles, of whom we hear from theByzantine chronicles. In the provinces, especially the villages,the rulings of the local councils and gatherings continued toholdgoodin matters affectingthe social and nationallife. Generalcouncils were also summoned. There were no special castesor strata, though a gradual and natural division into bolyars,traders, field-workers,stock-raisers,etc., arose, and it was verylikely in this period that, in imitation of Byzantine custom,paroikoi, otroks and technical workers made their appearanceas definite classes. But there were no slaves, as we are authori-tatively informed by the Byzantine chronicles. All militaryand civil offices were open, though they were generally givento those in close touch with the ruler or to the dukes and othersoldiers who had distinguished themselves in war.There was no written law, but legal precedent was strictlyobserved and executed. From remote times, the Slavs had livedin clan-like families or zadrugas. A collection of such zadrugasand houses formed a pupa or clan. In times of danger resortwas had to a grad or fort, chosen for its natural strategicaladvantages, constructed in an inaccessible, marshy place andfenced about with dikes and ramparts, and strengthened withwattles. As the zadrugawas controlledby its chief, so was theclan by a clan chief. The division of labour was decided at thecouncils,which were attended by all the members of the families.Justice was executed in the house court and village courts andby the clan chief. The prince was the chief judge. Thelaw of revenge and reprisals was the chief characteristicofjustice.In course of time this order of things changed. The Slavtribes gradually became a political whole, and Byzantine in-fluencesbegan to make themselves felt. In Krum's time a legis-lature, heralded by a national council, grew up, as we are toldby the chroniclerSuidas. Wemust assumethat even in heathentimes there existed, side by side with the law of revenge, a justiceadministeredby the princesand a system of fines and impositionsfor wrong-doing. The home hearth continued to remain thecentre of social life. In addition to the bolyars, the townsmenand the villagers, there were also some independent persons,ratays or farmhands,whosepositionwasparallelto andinfluencedby the correspondingclass of the Byzantine paroikoi or Romarncolonists.


5/14

624 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW.THE REIGN OF SIMEON.

Simeon (893-937) was the heir of his father Boris (852-89),under whom Bulgaria was officially converted to Christianity.The conversionof the Court of Preslav marks a new epoch. Thepreparatory political period is already over, and unificationnowmakes great advances through the all-powerful influence of acommon religion and the new Byzantine culture. Of the twocivilisations,the Westernor Romanand the EasternorByzantine,the latter gains the day among the Bulgarian Slavs, and theinfluence is perceptible in every branch of social life. Thedevelopment of writing both in Preslav (which replaced Pliska-Aboba as the capital) and in distant Ohrid (the western centreof culture) enhanced the Bulgarian power not only in the eyesof Byzantium, but of all the then known world. After Boris,Simeon continued to extend the Empire, which now embracedMoesia, Thrace, Macedonia, part of Albania and Bessarabia anda section of Dacia. Simeon, who had been educated at Con-stantinople and was thoroughly familiar with Byzantium'sposition, perfectly understoodthe role which Bulgaria could andshould play in the Balkans and the Near East; he aimed atestablishing himself in Constantinople, occupying the Imperialthrone and welding together all the Balkan countries under hisown sceptre. He proclaimed himself " Tsar of the Bulgariansand Greeks," thus claiming equality with an Eastern flaiatA8vgand a Roman Imperator.Under Boris, and still more under Simeon, the independenceof the Bulgarian Church began to be established, and a newclass arose-the clergy, whose higher ranks were on a par withthe privileged bolyars. A new legal authority came into promi-nence, the ecclesiastical court, whose influenceon the lay courtsmade,itself felt, even if it did not greatly affect the customarylaw of the masses.

Bulgaria's relations with the neighbouringpeoples were nottoo peaceful. She warred against Byzantium, joined issue inthe north with the Avars, Finns, Magyars and Pechenegs, andhad military encounterswith the Serbsand Croats,whoseterritorylay to the north-west. The Bulgarian ruler made peacefultreaties and agreementswith Byzantium, with Slavonic Moraviaand Pannonia, and with the German rulers.Simeonraised the prestige of the country,helped the develop-ment of literature and persistently aimed at the realisationof aprogrammewhich had the fourfollowingpoints: (I) the improve-


6/14

BULGARIA UNDER TSAR SIMEON. 625ment of national education; (2) the independenceandnationalisa-tion of the Church; (3) the unification and centralisation ofthe Empire; and (4) the attainment for himself of the titleof Emperor (Tsar),and for the head of the Churchthat of Patri-arch. All his contemporariesand modern historians rate veryhighly the services and personal qualities of this Emperor, whosereign is called " The Golden Age of Bulgarian history."

THE BULGARIAN EMPIRE: TERRITORY AND BOUNDARIES.The territory between the Black Sea and the Timok, the

Danube and the Balkan range, formed the nucleus of the firstBulgarian Enmpire. It was not, however, particularly stablegeographically,and until the preliminary period was over therewere many movements and shiftings; the boundaries wereextended or contracted in accordance with the gains or lossesof the particularrulers, and there were Slavonic elements in thePeninsula which were never subject to Bulgarian rule.Under Terval and Telerik, and still more under Krum, theboundariesreached the TransylvanianCarpathians n the north,Erkesia in the south-the sLdya'b7adqpo;or great dyke, whichextended from the Gulf of Burgas to the River Tundza-andto parts of Macedoniain the west.Under Simeon, the Empire was greaterthan it has ever beensince. In the north it extended to " beyond the River Danube"(flov4aeia ExetOEv roV5ltorrov norcQtov), including the modernEastern Hungary, Transylvania and Roumania; in the westto the River Tisza (Theiss), in the north to the salt-mines ofMaramures,and in the east to the South Bug and Sereth rivers.A large part of Thrace, the Macedonianseaside districts not farfrom the walls of Salonica,northernThessaly, Epirus and almostthe whole of the Albanian littoral, except Durazzo, belonged toBulgaria. The Serb lands to the mouth of the Save, Rasa, NoviPazar, Pristina and Lipljan on Kosovo Polje, Nis, Branicevo,PoLarevacand Belgrade were within Bulgarian territory.The Arabian writer Al Masudi, who visited Constantinoplein the first half of the gth century, says that the BulgarianEmpire was thirty days' marches long and ten broad. Hisevidence is confirmed later by William of Tyre, who said thatBulgariaextended from Constantinopleto the Danube, and fromthere to the Adriatic.TheEmpireis generallytermed the "Bulgarland." ThenameBulgaria is very rare in both native and foreign records. Itfirst occurs in translations from the Greek. The form used ins s


7/14

626 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW.Byzantium is Bovlyaeta,in French Bulgarieand in Arabic Bord-jania, Native records speak of " among the Bulgarians"(Blgari), .e., the land inhabitedby Bulgarians. BesidesBulgaria,the name Zagoria, Zagoreor Zagorawas widely used for the areabetween the Danube and the Balkan range, the Black Sea andthe Timok, i.e., the nucleus of the Empire. The ordinarytermin Bulgarianliteraryworksis the BulgarianEmpire,a term whichis undoubtedly due to the assumption of the name of Emperorby Simeon and his successors. " Bulgarian Empire " occurs inthe chrysobuloi or Golden Bulls.The name " state " (drzava) riginallysignifiedprivate posses-sion or property, the district ruled over, a sense which it stillbears here and there in the vernacular, and which occurs insome old Bulls. This name, in the literal sense holdingand inthe figurative power, was subsequently applied to the wholecountry governed by the prince or ruler. It occursin the Bullsof Orehov and Rilo.

INTERNAL ORGANISATION.In the earlierperiod,when the Bulgarian State was founded,it had been divided into territorial units, with tribal or placenames. These units had general names: clans (zupa), districts(oblast),villages (selo), to which must also be added dukedoms(voevodstvo),s many of the clans, being administeredby dukes,i.e., military leaders, took the name and passed it on to other

divisions. These were purely Slav designations and they neverfell out of use. Some of them, for instance dukedom,were eventaken over into the administrative terminology of the Turks.Thus many of the Turkishsandjakskept the old name in the formvojvodaluk,and their rulers continued to bear the old Bulgarianname of dukes. Onesuch duke therewas even in Constantinople,and to-day in Galata there is a police district called the Voyvo-daluk and a quarter Voyvoda-Yokoshu. The institution ofdukedomsoccurredin other Slav countries-Russia, Poland andBohemia. No Turanianname for territorialunits is found in theliterary records and the chronicles. Byzantine influence after-wards introduced the Greekterm chora,which is to be met within all the Bulls, e.g., in the treaty made between Jovan Asen II.and Dubrovnik (Ragusa).The central point of the zupa or clan was generally foundin some fortified village ground, the grad. This word must beunderstoodto mean a citadel or fort (castrum, astellum). In thebeginning there were few natural forts. During the period of


8/14

BULGARIA UNDER TSAR SIMEON. 627settlement, fortresseswere built on some ancient-most commonlyRoman-site. Fenced round and strengthened, such a gradserved as a place of refugein case of attack from outside. Roundit spread a trg or market-place, and, in Christiantimes, some-times also a church. These two additions served to strengthenthe grad and created a new area, the podgrador suburb,in whichwas carriedon a primitive sort of barter-the beginningsof tradeand commerce. The grad was inhabited by the clan chief, theruler, called later a kepihalia r katepan(a metathesis of the wordcaptain).By Simeon's time there weremany such grads,and since theywere no longer mere forts but inhabited centres, the word hadacquiredits present sense of city (civitas, ville, Stadt). We maymentionthe following: the Preslavec of Asparukh,on the Danubebetween Macin and Tulica,Pliskov or Pliska-Aboba,Preslav thecapital, Dorostol (Silistra),Serdika (Sofia), Boruj (Stara-Zagora),Vilin, Pristina, Lipljan, Belgrade, Ohrid (Ochrida), Anchial,Mesemvria, Varna (Odesus), Constanza(Kjustendza), Karbona(now Valcik), Plovdiv (Philippopolis), Skopye (Vtskiib), etc.The cities were inhabited by free people: townsfolk, artificers,farmers and stockbreeders.The villages (selo)were chiefly noteworthy for their not beingfenced round and fortified. The dwellersin them also were free.In both city and village was a market-place, the chief square.The inhabitants lived in cottages and houses, which naturallyhad broad yards or areas, later called by the Turkish name ofarsa. In these yards the richer farmers built pretty cottages fortheir agricultural requirements.The katunsor hamletsdiffered fromthe villages in being morescattered and largely inhabited by shepherds and cattle-raisers.Both terms,selo and katun,occur in the Bulls. The villages wereself-governing,and the inhabitants held a commonresponsibilityfor all crimes committed within their borders,and had authorityover the lands, generally grazing grounds,used by their flocks.There were villages belonging to the nobles and the monas-teries. They were prosperousand the raising of horned cattleand horses was greatly practised. Horses wereobjectsof particu-lar care, being needed for the mounted soldiers and liable to bemoved to any area where there was war. The stealing of horseswas heavily penalised and their neglect in time of war wascriminal.

Development in agriculture kept pace with stock-breedingand, as time went on, became the chief occupationof the people.


9/14

628 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW.ETHNICAL COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION.

The nucleuswas formedby the Slavonicelementwhichrapidlyassimilated the proto-Bulgars. It is an untenable theory thatthe proto-Bulgarscontinued to lead a separatelife, with a distinctlanguage and ethnical character,for centuries, or,as some wouldhave it, up to the conversion to Christianity. The use in theadministrationof such titles as khan, kavkhanand tarkhanis amere survival of Asiatic terminology. Some of them arereplacedfrom the 8th century onwardsby Slav, and later by Byzantine,terms.In support of our contention we would refer to the learnedand unbiassedCzechhistorian,ProfessorLubor Niederle of Prague,authorof Slav Antiquities(SlovanskeStarozitnosti) nd universallyrecognised as the greatest specialist on Slav ethnography andhistory. Niederle says that the Bulgarians of Asparukh foundin the Eastern part of the Peninsula Slavs who ". . , accueil-lirent les Bulgares comme des auxilliaries contre Byzance, etconclurentavec Asparuchune convention sur la base de laquelleil organisa tout le territoire. . . . L'ancienne organisationslave subsista; les princes slaves se trouverent seulement sousla suprematie du Khakan bulgare. L'assimilation des deuxelements ainsi associesne tarda pas 'ase produire. Ce ne furentpas les Slaves qui la subirent,mais les Bulgares. Les souverainsbulgares prirent bientot des noms slaves et abandonnerentleurlangue maternelle pour la slave; leurs boiars, leur peuple firentde meme. . . . C'est ainsi que se constitua dans l'ancienneMesie un nouvel etat, dirige par les Bulgares turco-tatars, maisethniquement slave, et cela des l'origine, de par la majorite deses sujets. Le caractereslave s'en affermissaitet s'approfondis-sait 'amesureque cet etat s'accroissait et s'attachait de nouvellestribus slaves. . . . Cependant les Slaves . . . prenaient con-science peu 'a peu de leur communaute et leur unite, et ils lemanifesterenten acceptantla denominationcommunede Bulgares.C'est de la sorte que les elementsquicomposent a nation bulgarese sont rapprocheset fondus,tout d'abordsur le terrainpolitique,mais bientot aussi dans le domaine linguistique et culturel. Onne saurait donc parler d'une denationalisation,par turquisation,de ces Slaves de l'est de la peninsule; la part de sang etrangerqui s'est melee 'a eur sang slave, et cela seulement dans la Mesieorientale, est trop faible pour les avoirprofondement ransformes.Les Bulgares sont demeures des Slaves dans la meme mesureque leurs voisins serbes ou que les Russes."


10/14

BULGARIA UNDER TSAR SIMEON. 629Thus, Asparukh's hordemet with the same fate as the Varan-gians who merged with the Russian tribes or the Franks who

assimilated the Gauls. This was inevitable, and it is certainthat hardly any traces of the Turanian element remained.Besides the Bulgarian Slavs, the Empire contained Greeks,who dwelt in the maritimecities; Vlachs; Albanians,the descen-dants of the Illyrians, called by themselves Shqipetars (falconsor eagles), by the Slavs Arbanasi, and by the Greeks Arvaniti,whence the TurkishArnaut; some scattered Kumans, probablythe ancestors of the Gagauzes; and Armenians.The Slav character was too democraticto allow of the exist-ence of any class similar to the Roman serfs. The bulk of thepopulation consisted, as we have seen, of bolyars, farmers,stock-breeders,traders and paroikoi; and there was no such rigid classor caste as existed, for example, in Poland, where the szlachtaor nobility was a highly privileged and hereditary order.After the conversion to Christianity the clergy occupied aposition analogous to that of the nobles, and these two formedthe privileged classes. The word bolyar is derived either frombolij or from boj. If from the former, the meaning is better, ffrom the latter, warrior. In either case there is a suggestion ofwealth : the " better man " was better off or richer, and thewarrior was influential and rich, thanks to gifts of land receivedfor his bravery in battle. Anyone who renderedvaluable servicewas eligible to become a bolyar, and in consequencea village orclan chief.The bolyars were divided into greaterand lesserbolyars, thoseof without and those of within. The greater bolyars belongedto the " Bolyar Council," which was similar to the BoyarskayaDuma of the Russian princes. This Council is called by LeoDiakonos and Anna Comnena the Bovlev-rnetov xCovZxvOwvorflov)evr2?etovroV lv,ieovog, and by some later writers a " syn-clit" or senate. When ceremoniouslyushered into the presenceof the Byzantine Emperor, the greaterbolyarswere addressedbythe Great Logothet, or Byzantine Ministerof Foreign Affairs, inthe followingwords: " How fares it with the six great bolyars,and how fares it with the other bolyars (foAatd'eg),those ofwithout and those of within ? "The lesser bolyars held less important and less permanentpositions in the administration. According to some historiansthe " Bolyars of within" were recruited from the clans relatedto Asparukh and his successors. Like the greater bolyars, theyhad high titles and were entrusted with important commands


11/14

630 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW.by the Khan himself. The " Bolyars of without " probablylived far from the Courtand capital and held officesin the semi-autonomousprovinces. They enjoyed some sort of independenceand theirnobility was hereditary. They are the rulersmentionedin the imperial Bulls as " rulers in the Empire," as distinct from" rulers of the Empire." The Byzantine chronicles call themComitesor counts. Whatever the exact facts are, it is clear thatthese " Bolyars of without " were bound to provide the Princeor Emperorwith military detachments in case of foreignattack.They often led their troops in person. Not only did they takepart in the Bolyar Councilof Twelve whichaccompanied he ruler,but they were also prominent in the national councils.The social and economic position of the bolyars varied, forwhile someof themheld big fiefs,others lived very modestly,if notin considerablepoverty. The descriptionby John the Exarch,a contemporaryof Simeon, of the luxury of the bolyars sittingon both sides of the Sovereignand wearinggolden chains, beltsand sleeves, refers to the members of the Council of Bolyars.The higher clergy were socially the equals of the bolyars andin many respects enjoyed greater influence. They were closelyattached to the Sovereign, took part in the councils,engaged inspecial missions, drew up the legal codes and enjoyed the favourof their ruler. Boris and Simeon especially favoured the clergyand treated with particular consideration Bishop Clement ofOchrid, Bishop Constantine and others.

The free class embraced the citizens, the traders, the priestsand the villagers-who formedthe bulk of the population. Thecitizens inhabited the towns and were concernedwith commerceand trade, but werenot ignorantof agricultureand stock-raising.The traders,who lived in the towns, engagedmainly in commerce,which developed very early in Bulgaria, as we know from thefact that in the treaty which Tervel made with Byzantium therewere special clauses relating to trade; and Simeon waged warwith the Greeksin defenceof commercial nterests. Bulgariawasthe meeting-place of the trade of East and West, and the Bul-garian tradershad their offices in a specialquarter of Byzantium,where they enjoyed considerableprivileges, though under strictsupervision. Simeon declared war in 894-95 against Leo VI.,who had allowed himself to be persuaded by Greek customsofficials to transfer the trade in Bulgarian merchandise fromConstantinople to Salonica. This change interfered with thepassage of Bulgarian ships from Burgas, Varna and the mouthof the Danube, and the customs officials were free to commit all


12/14

BULGARIA UNDER TSAR SIMEON. 63Ikinds of abuses in Salonica, in view of its remoteness from thecapital.

The treaties concluded with Dubrovnik by Asen II. andby MichaelAsen (I253) showto what an extent trade was fosteredby the Bulgarian princes. The treaties prove that Bulgarianmerchants were entitled to enter and dwell in Dubrovnik, wereexempted from all dues on gates, bridges, roads and fords, andwere authorisedto export gold, silver and other goods. Mentionis made of Bulgarian traders in the Golden Bulls; thus, in theBull of Rilo, it was laid down that no kumerk(toll) should berequired when the merchants engaged in trade throughout theEmpire. Commercewas especially active in the maritime townsof Thrace and the Black Sea, where the Greekstaught the Bul-garians a more perfect form of exchange operations. All thetrade of the West (Germany,Moravia)and of Russia with Asiaand Africa passed through Bulgaria.The rights and duties of the priests were identical with thoseof other citizens. The office of priesthooddescended from fatherto son-a tradition that was maintained throughout the Turkishsuzerainty and which still exists, but there was no suggestionof a close hereditary institution or caste. It was rather thecustom for the most suitable young person in a priest's familyto be educated for the office. The priests lived in the towns andvillages, where they collected their dues and taxes, undisturbedby the village chief. A bishop was even authorised to denouncea bolyar for abuses towards a priest.All the villagers were free, like the townsfolk. They arecalled epoikoi in the Byzantine chronicles. The villagers whodwelt in the free parishesreceived special attention underByzan-tine law and were subject to special orders, as we know fromthe Nuyog Peoeyixog. They were not bound to render anyforced labour (angaria) on behalf of their overlord, but paidregular dues into the State treasury and carried out such dutiesto the State as were obligatory on every free citizen. Undersome of the Emperors the economic position of the villagers wasno better than that of the paroikoi, and many of them thereforewere glad to exchange their private ownership, which cost themmuch money and care, for the comparative independence of lifein a monastery or on a large estate. There is evidence of thisin contemporarychronicles,both native and foreign. It is notsurprising in the circumstances, that there were villagers whoemigrated into the Byzantine dominions, to which, moreover,they were attractedby promises of an easierlife. The Byzantine


13/14

632 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW.chronicles,however,undoubtedly exaggerate the number of emi-grants in Simeon's time, ascribing as the reason the oppressivecharacter of his rule.Those who were economically free consisted of the paroikoi,the otroks,the dwellers on lands owned by the nobility and themonastic orders, and the technical classes.There was no slavery in ancient Bulgaria. When we sayslavery (robstvo)we understand that status bereft of rights whichdebased a man to the level of an animal or a chattel, as wasthe case with the slave in ancient Greece and Rome. Suchslavery, as an order established by law or an institution of cus-tomary law, did not exist in Bulgaria. There are no literarymonuments or Bulls mentioning slavery. On the other hand,it is true that the illegal buying and selling of poorchildrenandindigentpersons, broughtinto Bulgariaby foreigners romabroadwith a view to speculation,was effected even in Bulgaria. Thereis historical evidence that slavery did not exist in Bulgaria.Thus, for example, the Emperor Mauricesays in his Strategikathat slavery was unknown among the Balkan Slavs. Freedomwasloved and all prisonersof war wereset free. This is confirmedby Leo the Philosopher (836-9ii). That prisoners of war werenot madeslaves, but werereleasedafterbeingransomedorhavingserved their term, is proved by the Z.S.L. (Article i9). It istrue that in the original sources and in general literature, aswell as in popular speech, the expression rob or rab, robinjaorrabinja is to be met with, but this expression denotes eitherservant, labourer,mechanic or prisonerof war. Foreign sourceswhich speak of Bulgarian servi and servoi rustici mean paroikoi.The paroikoi-in ancient Bulgaria-in Serbia meropsi-werethe Roman colonists, who had passed on to Bulgarian soil viaByzantium (caeotxog, pl. naeowxot,coloni). This institutionhas in its origin nothing in common with slavery, though somehold it to be evolved from the latter. The difference,both informandfact, betweenslavesandparoikoi s enormous. Theslavewas a subject without rights, a chattel, res; he had no rightsof property, and in generalhad no political or civil rights, whilethe paroikos, like the otrokand the artisan, enjoyed and wasentitled to full rights of citizenship. The slave was at the abso-lute disposition of his master, who had unlimited rights overhim and might sell him, give him away or kill him (jus vitcenecisque); the paroikos was only economically dependent; hewas bound to the land of his lord and could not be banishedor parted from it. Anyone, even his own overlord, was liable


14/14

BULGARIA UNDER TSAR SIMEON. 633to punishment for the murder of a paroikos. The paroikoshadhis own blood price (Wehrgeld). The slave could not be a witness,go to justice or be a soldier, neither could he be a paterfamilias;the paroikos had all these rights.Certain Serbian legal historians have held that the otrokwas a kind of serf. A circumstantial and comparative study ofthe status of otroksas defined in Tsar Dusan's Code and the evi-dence supplied by Byzantine historians-including Justinian'sLaws '-justify the conclusion that the otrok can in no way,any more than the paroikos, be compared with a slave in theancient Greek or Roman sense of the term. Such eminentscholars of the institutions of the ancient Southern Slavs asZiegel, K. Jirecek, Majkov, Krstic, Danicic, have studied thisquestion and are not of the opinion that they resemble slaves.Jirecek says that no difference between paroikos and otrok canbe established. Stojan Novakovic states, with some reserva-tions, that in actual practice the exact status of the otrokisunknown. He was not in any case at the full disposal of hislord.In Serbian sources the artisans are called masters-majstoror mastor. They are mentioned in Bulgaria in the Golden Bullsof Oreh,wherethey are classed together with or after the paroikoiand otroks. There are no positive data as to the status of thesedependents, or how their dependent status came about. Yet ifwe compare Dusan's Codewith certainfacts to be foundin Byzan-tine sources, it appears that they were rated higher than theparoikoi on the estates of nobles or monasteries, and that -theywere under the control either of private owners or State officials,in order to prevent them from deriving unfair advantage fromtheir technical knowledge, misuse of which some of them mighteasily have made, especially goldsmiths, smiths, wainwrights,weavers, potters, etc. In all other respects, artisans should beclassed as free men, together with merchants and other citizens.

STEPHEN S. BOBCEV.

1 According to these regulations, the otrok ould be ransomed orobtainhis freedom by working out his term of three years of service for hispatron.

bobcev, bulgaria sub tarul simeon i .pdf

Documents