The Bulgar title KANA

S

YBI

G

I:

reconstructing the notions of

divine kingship in Bulgaria,

AD 822±836

Tsvetelin Stepanov

This paper deals with the notions of divine kingship, formulated in the

Bulgar title KANASYBIGI. The author considers that SYBIGI is the

second part of the title and that it can be translated as `(ruler) from

God', from the Indo-European *su- and baga-, i.e. *su-baga, connected

with notions such as `shining', `glimmering' etc., which were signs of the

supreme celestial god.

The Bulgars used the Byzantine formula ` ho ek Theou archon' as a

translation of their original title KANASYBIGI, thus emphasizing the

idea of God's approval of the sovereign. This was a typical strategy for the

kings in early medieval Europe, both Christians and pagans. Probably

the use of KANASYBIGI (AD 822±36) has to be connected with the

processes of centralization of power in Bulgaria during the first three

decades of the ninth century and with the influence of the two mightiest

states of that time in Europe, Byzantium and the Frankish Empire, and

most of all with the Bulgar aims to equal and oppose the Rhomaioi

(Byzantines) and their political ideology.

Soon after the death of Kubrat (AD 605±65) the ruler of Magna Bulgaria

(situated north of The Caucasus and near Azov and the Black Sea coast),

the Khazars succeeded in conquering the lands of the eldest son of

Kubrat, Bat'Bayan, and in compelling the other sons to leave their home

territories followed by all their subjects.

1

One of the brothers, Asparukh

(d. c. AD 700), the leader of the Bulgar royal horde called unnogunduri,

* A shorter variant of this paper, entitled `KANASYBIGI, titlata na prabulgarskija vladetel

(Razmishlenija vurhu idejata za vurhovnata vlast v predhristijanska Bulgaria)', was published in

Palaeobulgarica 3 (1997), pp. 54±9.

1

Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia, Fontes graeci historiae Bulgaricae 3 (hereafter Fontes

graeci) (1960), pp. 261±3, Nicephorus the Patriarch, Breviarium, ibid, pp. 294±5.

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1) 1±19 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001, 108 Cowley Road,

Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

settled for a while in the Danube delta.

2

He defeated the Byzantine

armies led by the emperor Constantine IV in 680, thus establishing

Danubian Bulgaria.

3

Asparukh and his successor Tervel (AD 700±21)

laid the foundations of the Bulgar state north of Haemus. In AD 705

Tervel was even honoured with the title of caesar, the second in rank in

Byzantium after basileus, because of the help he rendered Justinian II in

his successful attempt to recapture the throne in Constantinople.

4

The

act of receiving such a high title from the Byzantine basileus confirmed

the treaty of AD 681 between the Bulgars of Asparukh and the

Byzantines and raised the Bulgar ruler's prestige. The title of caesar,

given to Tervel, clearly had a personal character, for we do not have any

information that such a title was used by his successors. Probably it was

the Bulgar aristocracy who soon became aware that although this title

stood very high in the Byzantine ranking hierarchy, it actually showed

the Bulgar ruler's inferior position with respect to the Byzantine

emperor. It is most likely that after the rule of Tervel the Bulgars

returned to their original ruler's title. Although we do not know this

title's written form before the 820s, there is a scholarly consensus that

`khan' was the title used by the Bulgars of that time.

In 1929 Tsvetan Radoslavov pointed out that the Byzantines used

titles such as archon, kyrios, archegos and hegemon to denote the Bulgar

ruler's title.

5

These could be translated as `lord', `leader', `ruler' or

`chief '.

6

At the same time, the Western chronicles usually referred to the

Bulgar rulers before the middle of the ninth century as rex Bulgarorum,

7

and thus as independent rulers.

8

But in the epistolary practice of the

Byzantine chancellery, the title of archon started gradually to lose its

multiple meanings and came to mean only `barbarian' ruler.

9

It was no

2

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, Fontes graeci 5 (1964), p. 193; Istorija Armenii

Moiseia Horenskago (Moscow, 1858), p. 81; P. Kokovtsov, Evreisko-khazarskaja perepiska v X v.

(Leningrad, 1932), pp. 91±2; B. Zahoder, Kaspiiskii svod svedenii o Vostochnoi Evrope 2 vols

(Moscow, 1962), I, 130; ibid., (Moscow, 1967), II, 47, 53±4, 58.

3

Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia, pp. 261±4; Nicephorus the Patriarch, Breviarium,

pp. 295±6.

4

Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia, pp. 266±7; G. Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski

vladetel (Titulatura i insignii) 2nd edn (Sofia, 1995), pp. 117±18; J. Shepard, `Slavs and Bulgars',

in R. McKitterick (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History II (Cambridge, 1995),

II, 228±48 at p. 231; G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals 2 vols, (Basel, 1972), I, pt. 3,

1441, No. 2672; J. Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton, 1989), p. 301.

5

T. Radoslavov, `Titlite na bulgarskite vladeteli', Izvestija na Bulgarskija Archeologicheski Institut

5 (1928±9), pp. 159±86, at p. 162.

6

Cf. Nicephorus the Patriarch, Breviarium, pp. 298±9; Theophanes the Confessor, Chrono-

graphia, pp. 272, 274±7.

7

For instance, this title was typical of Tervel, Krum and Omurtag. See Chronicon Universale,

Fontes latini historiae Bulgaricae 2 (hereafter Fontes latini) (1960), p. 16 (s.a. 741); Einhard, Vita

Karoli Magni, Fontes latini 2 (1960), pp. 34, 36±7; Ekkehardus, Chronicon Universale, Fontes

latini 3 (1965), pp. 34±5.

8

Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel, p. 116.

9

Bakalov, ibid., pp. 115±16.

2

Tsvetelin Stepanov

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

doubt the use of the title of archon in this restricted sense that reflected

the situation, status and position of the Bulgar state and its ruler

between the end of the seventh and eighth centuries. This early state

consisted of two main components: Bulgars and Slavs; the latter paid

tribute, being under the supreme rule of the Bulgar khan.

10

Indeed, the

Bulgar state followed the model of the early states of nomadic and semi-

nomadic character, quite typical for the steppe and forest-steppe regions

of Eurasia during late antiquity and the early Middle Ages.

11

After AD 681 the main authorities of central power were in the hands

of the Bulgar aristocracy and the khan, but in some peripheral regions of

the state the archontes of the Slavs administered their tribes semi-

autonomously. The archontes were indeed something like allies and not

authorities of the central government. The political decentralization of

the Bulgar state in the period up to the ninth century, sometimes found

its expression even in the terminological diversity of ethnonyms used

by different Byzantine authors to designate their northern neighbours.

Thus, the term Boulgaria is a designation of all the state's territory,

but there were other terms such as Sclaviniai and ethnoi, which the

Byzantines used to denote different Slavonic tribes who lived in the

territories of the Bulgar state and had, at least up to the beginning of

ninth century, semi-independent status.

12

The lack of centralization of power among the Bulgars during the

eighth century is also visible in the changes of the ruling clans that

frequently occurred in the third quarter of the century in Bulgaria.

These divisions were met with evident satisfaction by the Byzantine

emperor Constantine V, who conducted nine unsuccessful military

campaigns against the Bulgars. A part of the Bulgar elite, obviously those

who were against the stabilization of the monocratic position of the

ruler, was active in the crisis during this period. The predominance of

the Bulgar nobility was not overcome until the end of the eighth

century; this was achieved thanks to the energetic and successful policy

of Krum (AD 803±14). Krum laid the foundations of the centralization

and modernization of the Bulgar state.

13

After his death in AD 814,

10

See the well-known phrase in Theophanes the Confessor that the Slavs were `hipo pakton

ontas', i.e. under tribute to the Bulgar ruler ± Chronographia, p. 264. See also G. Ostrogorsky,

History of the Byzantine State (Padstow, 1984), p. 126 and n. 3; I. Bozilov, `Razhdaneto na

srednovekovna Bulgaria', in idem, Sedem etjuda po srednovekovna istorija (So®a, 1995), pp. 38±41.

11

For the early state, see the articles written by A. Khazanov, H. Claessen and P. Skalnik and

L. Krader and published in H. Claessen and P. Skalnik (eds), The Early State (The Hague-Paris-

New York, 1978); see also S. Pletneva, Kochevniki Srednevekov'ia (Moscow, 1982), pp. 27, 49,

109; A. Bartha, `The Typology of Nomadic Empires', in Settimane 35 (1988), pp. 151±74.

12

D. Angelov, `Vuznikvane i utvarzhdavane na bulgarskata narodnost', Istoricheski pregled 2

(1971), p. 41; Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel, pp. 110±11.

13

Bakalov, Srednovekovniiat bulgarski vladetel, p. 111. For more details see I. Venedikov, Voennoto

i administrativnoto ustroistvo na Bulgaria prez IX i X vek (So®a, 1979); T. Stepanov, Vlast i

avtoritet v rannosrednovekovna Bulgaria (VII-sredata na IX vek) (So®a, 1999).

The Bulgar title KANAS

S

YBIG

G

I

3

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

Omurtag (AD 814±31) and Malamir (AD 831±36), his successors, con-

tinued Krum's efforts in the same direction. Throughout their rule, the

Bulgar state expanded its territories to a considerable extent, thus acquir-

ing signi®cant new resources in terms of people, warriors and economic

activity.

14

This gave the Bulgar khan and his nobles a chance to start to

equal Byzantium and even to confront Byzantine political ideology, a

tendency which was demonstrated by a change in the title used by the

Bulgar ruler, who was now called

kanasubigi

/kanasybigi. The title

kanasybigi ®rst appears in the 820s and it clearly originated in the Bulgar

state. In my view it deserves special attention.

The compound word KANA

S

YBI

G

I (-BI

G

H,-BH

G

H,-BY

G

H,

-BI

G

I), followed by the names of the Bulgar rulers Omurtag and

Malamir, is well known and its meaning has been an object of analyses

and interpretations by different scholars for a long time. Nevertheless

there is no common opinion about the possible separation of the differ-

ent elements of the compound, nor about its reading and translation.

The title is still open to a variety of interpretations, none of which has

gained universal acceptance.

15

It seems to the present author that this problem could be solved if

considered from a somewhat different angle, i.e. from the point of view

of the divine origin of power and its verbal de®nition. The following

pages represent an attempt at such an interpretation on the basis of

the relation between language and mentality that is seen in the title

KANA

S

YBI

G

I/subhaÂga: `language' here refers to a special verbal for-

mula and `mentality' to notions of luck, good faith and favourable

destiny, glory and wealth.

16

14

For the territories of the Bulgar state from the beginning of the ninth century see P. Koledarov,

Politicheska geographija na srednovekovnata bulgarska durzhava 2 vols (So®a, 1979), I, 32±42 and

maps 5 and 6.

15

V. BesÏevliev, `Purvobulgarski nadpisi. Dobavki i opravki', Godishnik na So®jskija Universitet ±

Istoriko-philologicheski facultet 32 (1936) idem, Purvobulgarite. Bit i kultura (So®a, 1981), pp. 42±3;

idem, Purvobulgarski nadpisi (Vtoro preraboteno i dopulneno izdanie) (So®a, 1992), pp. 72±4;

Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel (So®a, 1985), pp. 88±90; P. Dobrev, Prabulgarite.

Proizhod, ezik, kultura (Nov prochit) (So®a, 1991), pp. 187±90; idem, Svetut na bulgarite (So®a,

1994), pp. 100±3; idem, Istorija na bulgarskata durzhavnost (So®a, 1995), pp. 143±5; K. Menges,

`A Note on the Compound Titles in the Proto-Bulgarian Inscriptions', Byzantion 28 (1958),

pp. 1±48, p. 442. G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 2 vols 2nd edn (Berlin, 1958), II, 148±9;

O. Pritsak, Die bulgarische FuÈrstenliste und die Sprache der Protobulgaren (Wiesbaden, 1955),

p. 40; W. Pohl, Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567±822 n. Chr. (Munich, 1988),

p. 304 and nn. 142±4; P. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Wiesbaden,

1992), p. 249. One can ®nd in these works the outdated opinions and translations of

W. Tomaschek, J. Marquart, etc.

16

This mentality can also be studied through its relationship to the rich golden funerals of the

Bulgars which probably re¯ect similar ideas to those of the `barbarian' kings in western Europe.

Obviously, gold is a `royal metal' because it shines, glows and is a sign of wealth, good fortune,

good luck, etc. All these qualities de®ne a very special position of gold in the ideas and thinking

of the rulers and eÂlite of the early Middle Ages. I intend to study the problem of the speci®c

chain language ± mentality ± golden objects among the Bulgars in a separate paper.

4

Tsvetelin Stepanov

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

Bakalov, in his study of this title, maintained Tomaschek's view of its

meaning and interpretation, that is as a two-part compound: KANA

S

and YBI

G

I, where yvigi is derived from the Cuman-Turkic oÈweghuÈ,

oÈwghuÈ, `great', `digni®ed', `glorious', thus a `great qan' (ho khaganos

[Greek], Magnus Keanus [Latin]).

17

Menges, Pritsak and BesÏevliev, on the other hand, divided the com-

pound in KANA and

S

YBI

G

I (kana and sybigi ), arguing that

S

YBI

G

I

could be derived from suÈ-beg-i, i.e. `lord (or commander) of the army'.

18

They used Old Turkic and especially the language of the Orkhon

inscriptions to translate it, where suÈ, `army', and baÈg, given in its

possessive form begi/baÈgi, can be found. They claimed

subigi

(sybigi )

had been constructed in the same way as suÈbasÏi, which is found in the

Orkhon inscriptions and which has an almost identical meaning.

19

But

basÏ in the Turkic languages means `head', from which we have suÈbasÏi, a

`chieftain', `commander', and, in my view, it is quite distant ± as a form

± from the Bulgar-BI

G

I (-BI

G

H,-BH

G

H,-BY

G

H) in KANA

S

YBI

G

I

(kanasybigi ). So, we must explain here the transformation from `s' (in

basÏ) to `g' (in -

bigi

/-bygi ). Is it possible to conclude that such a trans-

formation really took place in Old Turkic between the eighth and ninth

centuries?

A sort of scholarly consensus exists that the ®rst part of the com-

pound, KANA-, was a designation of the Turkic title qan/

wan

,

20

although BesÏevliev wrote that `the form KANA instead of the expected

*kan is not clear',

21

and that `The form[s] KANA instead of

kan

_

cannot be satisfactorily interpreted from the point of view of the

Turkic languages'.

22

It is quite obvious that on the stone inscriptions,

left by the Bulgar rulers during the so-called heathen period, it was

always written

kana, kane, kanna

(cf.

kanasubigi

= khanasubygi,

kana

b

o

ila k

olo

br

o

B

= khana boila kolobros,

bagat

o

ur kana

= bagatur

17

Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel (So®a, 1985), pp. 88±90.

18

Menges, `A Note'; O. Pritsak ± in a private letter of 16 January 1958 to V. BesÏevliev; BesÏevliev,

Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 73; cf. O. Pritsak, `The Initial Formula KANASYBHGH in the

Proto-Bulgarian Inscriptions', Studia Slavica Medievalia et Humanistica Riccardi Piccio dicata 2

(Rome, 1986), pp. 595±601 (not available to me).

19

BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 73±4; for the Orkhon inscriptions see T. Tekin, A

Grammar of Orkhon Turkic (Bloomington, 1968); G. Aidarov, Jazik Orhonskih pamiyatnikov

drevnetjurkskoi pis'mennosti VIII veka (Alma Ata, 1971).

20

B. Simeonov, `Titul'naia praktika v hanskoi Bolgarii: proishozhdenie, struktura i znachenie

prabolgarskih titulov v period mezhdu VII i X vekami', Linguistique balcanique 2 (1981),

pp. 23±46; G. Bakalov, `Za niyakoi osobenosti na bulgarskata hanska titulatura', Vekove 2

(1981), pp. 67±74; BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 73; Golden, An Introduction, p. 249. Cf.

also the word `ceann' in Scotland (probably from the Celtic legacy), `master', `commander',

Gaelic-English and English-Gaelic Dictionary, ed. N. MacAlpine and J. Mackenzi (Glasgow,

1975), p. 68.

21

BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarite, p. 27.

22

Idem, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 62.

The Bulgar title KANAS

S

YBIG

G

I

5

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

khana, etc.).

23

It is therefore clear that the Bulgar ruler's title was not

qan or

wan

(khan), or

kanaB

(khanas), but, most probably, KANA.

24

Recently Dobrev has put forward a proposal that sybigi should be

translated as `starry, astral', `anointed by stars, enthroned by stars',

deriving the meaning from the basic ancient notion of sub, i.e. star, and

the in¯exional suf®x -igi, typical of the indication of possessive relations

in the Bulgar language.

25

He thus abandoned the different etymology of

kanasbigi

for which he had argued in an earlier book.

26

After mentioning so many different opinions on the meaning of

KANA

S

YBI

G

I, let us sum up the basic historical background, which

could help us to understand the essence and etymology of the original

Bulgar title. First, the title is used only for the period between the years

AD 822 and 836, a period of increasing territorial enlargement of

Bulgaria, of the centralization of power in the hands of the ruler and the

raising of his authority. Therefore, we might expect all these facts to ®nd

an expression in the title, and more precisely that the title might demon-

strate the divine origin and nature of supreme power in Bulgaria: this is

a well-established practice in Eurasia, among both the Indo-Europeans

and the Turkic-speaking peoples.

Second, the full title of Omurtag and Malamir, known from the stone

inscriptions, is `KANA

S

YBI

G

I

r fk Y[ou drwon'

(kanasybigi ho ek

Theou archon).

27

This title is also inscribed on two gold medallions

dating back to Omurtag's time where the ruler is depicted as a Byzan-

tine emperor. With a stemma on his head, holding a crosier (shaped

as a cross) in his right hand and most probably an akakia in his left

hand; he is wearing a chlamys, fastened with a ®bula on his right

shoulder. The image of Omurtag is rather schematic, but nonetheless

shows similarities with the images on gold coins of Constantine V (AD

741±75), Nicephoros I (AD 802±11), Michael I (AD 811±13), Leo V (AD

813±20) and Michael II (AD 820±9).

28

In the atmosphere of raised self-

con®dence under Omurtag, the Christian insignia on the medallions

should most probably be regarded as attributes of political power, rather

than from the point of view of its religious meaning.

29

Coins and

23

Ibid., pp. 62, 73. Cf. also latin canna taban (= canna tarcan), used for a Bulgarian high-ranking

envoy, sent to the Council in Constantinople, AD 869±70.

24

Cf. Dobrev, Prabulgarite, pp. 188±90; idem, Istorija, pp. 143±5.

25

Dobrev, Istorija, pp. 143±5.

26

P. Dobrev, Svetut na prabulgarite (So®a, 1994), pp. 100±3: kanas yvigi = `messenger of YVI/IVI';

according to P. Dobrev, YVI/IVI was the supreme god of the Bulgars, thus being the one who

nominated the ruler.

27

Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel, pp. 88±9.

28

Y. Yurukova and V. Penchev, Bulgarski srednovekovni moneti i pechati (So®a, 1990), p. 22, Ph. I,

3; I. Yordanov, `Ednostranni zlatni moneti-medalioni s imeto na han Omurtag', Numismatica 4

(1976), pp. 18±34; C. Morrison, Catalogue des monnaies Byzantines de la BibliotheÂque Nationale II

(Paris, 1970), Pl. LXX, 01±06, LXXI, 01±02.

29

Yurukova and Penchev, Bulgarski srednovekovni moneti, p. 23.

6

Tsvetelin Stepanov

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

medallions must have been the easiest, and surely the most wide-spread

means of creating the image of a ruler in `barbarian' Europe. They were

a sign of power, independence and prestige, and often put forward

political ideas.

30

The two gold one-sided medallions of Omurtag have a

diameter of 20 and 22 mm respectively, while the weight of the only

surviving medallion of Omurtag is 2.74 grams (one is now lost).

31

They

bear the following inscription: CANE

S

YBI

G

I OMORTA

G

.

32

Of

special interest here is the mixture of Greek and Latin letters in the name

and the title of the ruler. Such a practice was typical of Byzantium but

not of the stone inscriptions of Omurtag and Malamir, which feature

the original Bulgar title. It is quite possible that those medallions date

back to AD 824±7, when the Bulgars had closer contacts with western

Europe and with the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious. Such a practice

of minting medallions and special coins with donative purposes aimed at

imitatio imperii was well known in western Europe during the early

Middle Ages. One of the most familiar examples is perhaps that of the

Ostrogothic ruler Theoderic.

33

It is thus clear that the Bulgars used the Byzantine formula

p fk Y[ou

drwon

(ho ek Theou archon) just to emphasize the idea of their god's

sanction of the ruler. The presence of this Byzantine formula in the

of®cial title of the Bulgar ruler as late as the beginning of the tenth

century (it is documented in the of®cial correspondence between the

Byzantine Emperor and the Bulgarian king) is a clear sign of the increase

not only in the prestige of the Bulgarian rulers, but also in that of the

Bulgarian state and its monarchical institution. Any centralization of

power, especially in so-called pre-modern times, calls for an adequate

textual and/or symbolic ®xation. In our case it was done by translating

the Bulgar title

kanasubigi

as the Byzantine formula

p fk Y[ou drwon

,

i.e. by the direct translation of the compound word

kanasubigi

(kanasybigi) = `Ruler from (by) God/Heaven'.

It is not acceptable to suppose, as BesÏevliev did, that the appearance

of the title kanasybigi in Bulgaria was connected with some `unknown

internal reasons, which had compelled the Bulgarian ruler to declare

himself a commander of the whole army', thus concentrating military

30

Cf. M. Archibald, M. Brown and L. Webster, `Heirs of Rome: the Shaping of Britain

AD 400±900', in L. Webster and M. Brown (eds), The Transformation of the Roman World

AD 400±900 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1997), pp. 208±48, esp. pp. 209±11, 219.

31

Yordanov, `Ednostranni', p. 21.

32

Yordanov, `Ednostranni', p. 22; BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 249, no. 86. Probably these

medallions were given during feasts as gifts to the most honoured guests.

33

E. Chrysos, `The Empire in East and West', in Webster and Brown (eds), The Transformation,

p. 9, ®g. 3. False gold coins, which followed the original Byzantine minting model, were also

struck by the Avars, especially after AD 626 (J. Kovachevich, Avarski kaganat [Beograd, 1977],

p. 151, ®g. 86).

The Bulgar title KANAS

S

YBIG

G

I

7

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

authority in his own hands.

34

Even if there was such a process of the

removal of power from the

kau wanoB

/kauhanos (in my opinion, it is

not easy to derive this from the narrative sources), we can hardly expect

its formal expression through the title of the ruler: every king in the

Middle Ages tried to assert the legitimacy of his power, and usually by

emphasizing the sanction of God (by words, symbolism and rituals). It

is difficult to accept that the Bulgarian king was an exception here. The

history of the `barbarian' kingdoms manifests several attempts at this

kind of legitimation, usually via imitatio imperii, especially among the

kings of the Vandals, the Ostrogoths and Visigoths and the Franks.

Hence such strategies of the Bulgar rulers Omurtag and Malamir,

generally speaking, were not unfamiliar or surprising. Of course, the

Bulgars, unlike the Vandals or Goths, did not use

r YEpB

(ho Theos) for

designation of the Christian God but for their own supreme celestial

god. It is important to note here that this kind of conduct was quite

typical of other `barbarian' kings in western Europe in the period

between the fifth and the seventh centuries and it was done in order to

contest the authority of the Roman (Byzantine) empire! Most

significantly, the ruler considered heavenly authority to be the source

of his own. Let us mention here just two examples: `God Himself had

conceded his dominions to him', claimed Huniric, king of the Vandals;

he held them `by divine favour'. Jordanes (Getica 169) wrote about

Geiseric that `a divinitate, ut fertur, accepta auctoritate'. We have in

these words, as a basis, the same notion that the ruler was such by God's

fiat.

35

Omurtag's and Malamir's actions are thus a characteristic feature of

`barbarian' thinking: the acquisition of independence and prestige by all

these rulers in the early Middle Ages passed through a necessary

formulation which expressed the heavenly origin of power. The

difference between Bulgaria and the kingdoms in western Europe was

mostly chronological: Bulgarian culture in the beginning of ninth

century was still essentially oral; so a certain time-lag existed in the

adoption of similar verbal formulas. This chronological gap does not,

however, imply the absence of such formulas in the early medieval

Bulgarian state.

34

BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, p. 74. It is not absolutely clear yet whether there is any

connection between the introduction of the title KANASYBIGI and the so-called dual kingship

(DoppelkoÈnigtum), typical of the Avars, Khazars and Magyars. According to the sources, the

Bulgar kauwanoB contrary to baÈg/pew among the Khazars or the majordomo in the Frankish

state failed to take the power from the hands of the supreme ruler and to turn him into a repre-

sentative ®gure without real participation in state affairs. For the dual kingship see: P. Golden,

Khazar Studies 2 vols (Budapest, 1980), I, 192±6; idem, An Introduction, p. 240; Pohl, Die

Awaren, pp. 293±300.

35

The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350±c.1450, ed. J.H. Burns (Cambridge,

1988), p. 127 and n. 10.

8

Tsvetelin Stepanov

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

But let us go back again to the etymological analysis of

KANA

S

YBI

G

I and especially to

subigi

(sybigi). It seems unacceptable

to divide it into suÈ-baÈg-i = suÈbasÏi, `commander of the army, general',

because it appears more sensible to connect this army nomenclature with

another rank in the Turkic army, the so-called bihabasÏi, `commander of

the vanguard'.

36

Obviously suÈbasÏi and bihabasÏi were army commanders

(the ®rst of the whole army, the latter of a detachment of 1,000 warriors)

and they were neither closely nor necessarily associated with the supreme

ruler's person, whose authority was sanctioned by Heaven. The whole

question of the formulation of the ruler's title could, in fact, be under-

stood in terms of notions about the origin of power and the ruler's

(chieftain's) personality, which were widespread in pre-Christian Europe,

especially among Germans, Scandinavians and Celts. To them `glory',

`luck' and the destiny of the chieftain were apprehended as an immanent

characteristic of his personality, as a worldly `charisma'.

37

The concepts of fate, luck and happiness played an important part in

the consciousness of the early medieval elites and helped to de®ne their

attitude towards reality, their behaviour and ethos.

38

These notions also

speak about something else, at least as far as Bulgarian society from the

early decades of the ninth century is concerned: the concept of an

obligatory connection between the sovereign's personal fate and his

impersonal and blind `glory' and `fate' still existed. Indeed it is import-

ant to make a distinction here: the difference between the early medieval

Christian kingdoms and Bulgaria lies in the fact that the former

inherited the notions of `good fate' and `good destiny' from their pagan

past. Nevertheless, under the in¯uence of the Christian religion and

doctrine, they later accepted the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ as the

basis of their ideology of power. This is the way to understand the nom-

inations `crowned by God' ± a deo coronatus, `with God's blessing' or

`thanks to God' ± gratia dei, all characteristic of early medieval Europe.

At the same time, among the Bulgars, the idea of the ruler's impersonal

fate or glory, connected with the light and glow of heaven, was still

current. But it is worth stressing that in both cases the reference is to the

sacral sphere and that this principally concerns the origins of power.

Perhaps exactly this meaning is expressed in the original Bulgar title,

36

I. Shervashidze, `Fragment drevnetjurkskoi leksiki. Titulatura', Voprosi jazikoznanija 3 (1990),

p. 83.

37

S. Averintsev, `Vizantija i Rus': dva tipa duhovnosti', Novii mir 7 (1988), p. 219; A. Gurevich,

Srednevekovii mir: kul'tura bezmolvstvuyushego bol'shinstva (Moscow, 1990), p. 93 ± `everyone of

the konungs had his own ``fate'', ``luck'' and ``good destiny'', but together with it he was also the

heir of the fate/destiny of all his predecessors', A. Gurevich, `Neskromnoe obayanie vlasti',

Odissei (1995), pp. 67±75, esp. pp. 71±3; K. Jolly, `Anglo-Saxon Charms in the Context of a Chris-

tian World View', Journal of Medieval History 11 (1985), pp, 279±99; H. Wolfram, `Origo et religio.

Ethnic Traditions and Literature in early Medieval Texts', EME 1 (1994), p. 30, nn. 40 and 41.

38

Gurevich, Srednevekovii mir, p. 97; idem, `Neskromnoe', pp. 67±75.

The Bulgar title KANAS

S

YBIG

G

I

9

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

seen in the segment -bigi (in

subigi

/sybigi): there, it is most likely that

we should identify a reference to the god of heaven, Tangra, far distant

and manifesting signs of calmness and inertia.

39

The concepts of heavenly power are closely connected with the old

Iranian concept of hvarena/hvarnah/farnah, i.e. farn, meaning essentially

`royal glory' and signifying its heavenly archetype, e.g. light and shining.

Hvarena/hvarnah is most often presented as a halo around the sovereign's

head in Iran. Similar haloes can be seen among the bodhisattvas (which

means `creatures striving for enlightenment') and in some images of

horse-mounted gods in Tibet.

40

The meaning `glory' (

dpxa

/doxa) in the

Judaic-Christian world was understood from the very beginning as some

kind of intermediary between the transcendental God, light and shining.

Later, in the writings of Gregory Palamas and of other hesychasts, `glory'

was most closely connected to the light which shone about Christ at His

Trans®guration on Mount Tabor.

41

It seems that the tie with hvarnah

here is totally admissable. During the period of `Avesta',

42

apart from

`glory' this term meant `magni®cence', `gleam', `shine', `charisma'. The

Osetian farn leads to such meanings as `abundance' and `luck'; the mid-

Persian hvarnah meant `royal glory', `royal magni®cence' and other such

analogues in the Sogdian and Schytian languages. In the Iranian mytho-

poetic tradition this is the essence of god, carrying in itself the concept of

good luck, riches, power and mightiness. It is also the personi®cation of

state power. `Glory' was presented symbolically very often as fate and

good luck. According to the `Avesta' (Yasht, X, 105) exactly such hvarena

was characteristic for the Aryas, for the priests and Zoroaster.

43

The

person who possessed `glory' was called `master of good fate' and he was

believed to be invincible. The notion of the shining farn, mostly found

in the ruler, had its image in the royal nimbus in Iran. Probably it was

39

For these aspects of the heavenly god in Central Asia, among the Aryas, the Iranians, the ancient

Greeks and other peoples in Eurasia see M. Eliade, Traktat po istorija na religiite (So®a, 1995),

pp. 61±136, esp. 63, 83±9, 93, 135.

40

The term `bodhisattva' originates from Sanskrit. Etymologically, bodhisattva is a term com-

pounded out of bodhi, i.e. `enlightenment [of the Buddha]', and sattva, denoting `living being'.

Thus `bodhisattva' refers either to a person who is seeking `bodhi' or a `bodhi being'. For more

details see The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. Eliade (New York and London, 1987), II,

265±9.

41

V. Bichkov, Russkaja srednevekovaja estetika XI±XVIII veka (Moscow, 1992), p. 52; idem, Mi®

narodov mira 2 vols, ed. S. Tokarev, 2nd edn (Moscow, 1988), II, 557±8.

42

The sacred book of ancient Iran, The Avesta, is based on oral tradition. The codi®cation dates to

the Sasanians (AD 224±651). Indeed this is a collection of the sacred books of the Zoroastrian-

ism. Most of the scholars think that the different parts of Avesta ®rst appeared somewhere in

Middle Asia or in the neighbouring lands, i.e. northwestern Afghanistan or northeastern Iran,

during the ®rst half of the ®rst millennium BC. For details see The Encyclopedia ed. Eliade, II,

16±17; J. Duchesne-Guillemin, La religion de l'Iran ancien (Paris, 1962).

43

The section Yasht of the Avesta is a collection of hymns to various divinities. Especially

noteworthy are those dedicated to Mithra (X), to Vrthragna (XIV), to Hvarena (XIX). See The

Encyclopedia, ed. Eliade, II, 16.

10

Tsvetelin Stepanov

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

adopted directly from there into Byzantium and later into Bulgaria,

Serbia and Russia.

44

The Iranian hvarena/hvarnah has had a great effect

upon the formation of similar terms and notions among other peoples

(cf. Old Turkic `qut' or Old Slav `slava').

45

The semantics of the elements, comprising the different names of the

rulers was also characteristic for the Iranian world: hvarena was often

used in combination with other forms in the sovereigns' onomastic

tradition. Thus, for example, hvarena and `baga/baga' ± meant `fate',

`god'; hvarena and arta ± `truth'; hvarena and `xsÏayra' ± `ruler's power',

etc. The idea of `glory' among the ancient Aryas comes out of their

doctrine concerning light and ®re. The Iranians used to think hvarena

was linked with the idea about light, shining in the form of a circle,

being the source of might, glorious power and good fate. It adorned the

ruler, chosen by Ahura Mazda so as to present the personi®cation of

divine heavenly ®re and light. All of the heroes were also `supplied' with

hvarena being most often shown as a new Vrthragna, and the sovereigns,

on their part, were believed to be the heirs of these heroes. They were

usually presented as the killers of wild beasts or deadly dragons, that is as

new Vrthragnas but on a slightly lower level.

46

The same idea can be seen

on the Madara relief, the only rock relief in Europe, presenting the

Bulgar ruler, the (cultural) hero or the supreme sky god Tangra as a

killer of a lion.

47

It is not clear who the ruler was who commissioned this

large relief carving (2.6 metres high and 3.1 metres wide) high up on a

cliff face at Madara, to the south of the ®rst capital of Bulgaria, Pliska.

The ruler is depicted on horseback, trampling down a lion which he has

speared, and followed by a dog. He was, in the role of triumphant

huntsman, appropriating a royal motif.

48

The development of the ancient

Iranian idea of hvarena can probably be traced in the later golden haloes

above the rulers' heads in Byzantium, Bulgaria and Serbia, which are just

like the haloes of the saints.

It seems that here we come into contact with the concept of pagan

sacrality, a phenomenon which some historians question in relation to

many early medieval peoples in Europe, but which can be more certainly

44

F. Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. Origins and Background 2 vols

(Washington, DC, 1966), I, 84±101, 114, 124±9;The Encyclopedia, ed. Eliade, X, 446±7.

45

On qut see P. Golden, An Introduction, p. 240; S. Skobelev, `Ponjatie `kut' i ego prinadlezhnosti

u tjurkov Sibiri i Srednei Asii', Etnogra®cheskoe obozrenie 6 (1997), pp. 84±92.

46

See Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy, I, 89±90, 94±6.

47

The literature on the subject is considerable. See Madarskijat konnik (So®a, 1956);

O. Minaeva, Madarskijat konnik (So®a, 1990); eadem, From Paganism to Christianity: Formation

of Medieval Bulgarian Art (681±972) (Frankfurt am Main, 1996), pp. 47±72; R. Rashev,

`Madarskijat konnik ± stari i novi vuprosi', Istoricheski pregled, 3±4 (1998), pp. 192±204;

T. Stepanov, Vlast i avtoritet, pp. 150±5.

48

BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 97-116 and photos 1-40; Shepard, `Slavs and Bulgars',

p. 231. Cf. Rashev, `Madarskijat konnik'.

The Bulgar title KANAS

S

YBIG

G

I

11

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

attributed to the Bulgars. Maybe this explains the separation of

Imperium from Sacerdotium in the image of the heathen ruler of

Bulgaria and the merging of both the rational martial function and the

irrational, characteristic of the religious, sacral sphere. According to

traditional thinking, the ruler existed at the same time in both spheres.

But happiness and good fortune could easily depart from the chieftain/

ruler at any moment, and usually this was accepted as a denial of the

divine mercy of the chieftain; most often it ended with his ritual

killing.

49

The killing of the ruler, or the so-called `killing of the divine

king', was not strange or characteristic only of the Bulgars;

50

it was prac-

tised by many peoples in pre-modern times.

51

As for the Bulgars, there is

evidence of such a practice from the second half of the eighth and the

beginning of the ninth century, and it clearly shows that this practice

in Bulgar society had always been connected with the sovereign's person-

ality ± a man, chosen by gods and acting as a `destroyer of chaos'.

52

Usually the killing of the ruler was done bloodlessly, by strangling

with a rope. Thus Theophanes the Confessor wrote that the Bulgars

killed their masters from the ruling clan Vokil and enthroned Telets

(AD 761±763), of the Ugain clan. Soon after that Telets was defeated by

the Byzantine emperor Constantine V near Anchialo, on the western

coast of the Black Sea, and because of this failure was killed by the

Bulgars.

53

According to the `Synaxar' of the Church of Constantinople,

some time before Omurtag's accession to the throne and soon after

the death of Krum in AD 814, it was Ditseugos (d. 814) who ruled over

the Bulgars, but when he lost his eyesight, he was also killed by them.

54

49

Gurevich, `Neskromnoe', pp. 67±75.

50

BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarite, pp. 68±9; J. Frazer, The Golden Bough. A Study in Magic and Religion

(London, 1924), ch. XXIV, `The Killing of the Divine King'. For the sacral kingship see:

L. Makarius, `Du ``roi magique'' au ``roi divin''', Annales. E.S.C. 25 (1970), No. 3, pp. 668±98;

idem, The Sacral Kingship. Contributions to the VIIIth International Congress of the History of

Religions (Leiden, 1959).

51

The Khazar tradition of the killing of the divine king is almost an emblematic example for this

practice. See more in Zahoder, Kaspiiskij svod, p. 218; A. Novosel'tsev, Khazarskoe gosudarstvo

i ego rol' v istorii Vostochnoi Evropi i Kavkaza (Moscow, 1990), p. 142; P. Golden, `The Khazars',

in D. Sinor (ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (Cambridge, 1990), p. 264;

D. Dunlop, The History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton, 1954), p. 208; for the same practice

among the Turks and Mongols see R. Grousset, L'empire des steppes (Paris, 1939), p. 272. As for

the early Germanic kingship, the references to priest (sacral) kingship among the pagan German

tribes are now contested by some scholars ± see here J. Nelson, `Royal Saints and Early Medieval

Kingship', in eadem, Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (London and Ronceverte,

1986), pp. 69±74; R.A. Markus, `The Latin Fathers', in J.H. Burns (ed.), The Cambridge History

of Medieval Political Thought c. 350±c. 1450 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 92±122.

52

See V. Zlatarski, Istorija na bulgarskata durzhava prez srednite vekove (So®a, 1970), I, pt. 1,

281±2, 284±310.

53

Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia, Fontes graeci 3 (1960), pp. 270±71; Nicephorus the

Patriarch, Breviarium, in Fontes graeci 3, pp. 303±4.

54

H. Kodov, Opis na slavijanskite rukopisi v bibliotekata na Bulgarskata Akademija na Naukite

(So®a, 1969), p. 141; Synaxarium Constantinopolitani, Fontes graeci 5 (1964), p. 288; Menologium

Basilii, Fontes graeci 6 (1965), p. 55.

12

Tsvetelin Stepanov

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

Therefore, an alternative approach to the translation of

S

YBI

G

I is to

use the Indo-European languages, even Sanskrit, though it was not

spoken by the Bulgars during our period. In Sanskrit sub

A

ga (or

subhaÂga) could be translated by `shining', `lucky', `blessed', `fortunate',

etc. (cf. b

A

ga, `happiness', `bliss', `good destiny').

55

Pokorny derives the

Old Slavic *s

B

-bog

B

directly from sub

A

ga.

56

It is more acceptable to

see in

S

YBI

G

I Indo-European *su- and baga-, which give, in Iranian

*su-baga-.

57

The word baga in many Iranian dialects was an appellative,

a near synonym of ahura. In the (later) Avesta it was applied to Mithra,

who was thought to be the most intelligent among bagas, to the Moon-

god and to Ahura Mazda.

58

Thus kanasybigi can be translated as a `ruler

shining, bright, good, fortunate', supposing that its basic meaning was

`by God/Heaven blessed', emphasizing the idea of the divine origin and

essence of the Bulgar ruler's authority. This idea found its realization in

a particular verbal formula in the Bulgar title KANASYBI

G

I. Thus this

will bring us near to the intuitions of so many peoples with polytheistic

beliefs, especially in Asia and Europe, about the core of the supreme sky

deity. Using such notions as `sky', `shining', `shimmering', `glimmering',

`good', `kind', etc., these peoples expressed the idea of divinity, closely

connected with the sky (heaven) or God; they used to accept it as a

sovereign and

kosmokrator

(kosmokrator).

59

During the early Middle Ages the person of the ruler was closely

linked with one special institution ± that of the so-called `fed people'. In

55

F. Bopp, Glossarium comparativum linguae Sanscritae 3rd edn (Berolini, 1866), I, 268, 422;

F. Adrados, VeÂdico y Sanscrito clasico (Gramatica, textos anotados y vocabulario etymologico)

(Madrid, 1953), p. 196; W. Morgenroth, Lehrbuch des Sanskrit: Grammatik, Lektionen, Glossar

(Leipzig, 1989), pp. 351, 354. Cf. also subhagah putra, meaning in Sanskrit `son of Sky/Heaven'

(for the whole text and its translation from Sanskrit see K. Krasukhin, `Aktsentologija v

predistorii indoevripejskih jazikov', Voprosi jazikoznaniia 6 [1998], p. 17). Indeed, the ®rst

meaning of the heavenly gods for a variety of peoples (Sumerians, Proto-Uralic tribes, and

Altaic peoples, i.e. nowadays Ostiaks, Voguls, etc., Vedic Aryas, ancient Germani, etc.) was

most often connected to the heavenly epiphany referring to `light', `shiny', `heaven', `high',

`sacred', `golden' and other similar qualities characteristic of the heavenly gods, known for their

`inertness', their structuring of the world, their sovereignty and fertility. All of them (in one

form or another) reveal through their names the meaning `light' (day) ± `sacred', thus disclosing

the organic tie to the shining sky. For more information see Eliade, Traktat, pp. 83±8, 95, 100.

56

J. Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches WoÈrterbuch 2 vols (Bern and Munich, I, 1959),

1037±8.

57

For the same opinion (but without further explanation) see I. Dobrev, `Tzar i vjara v

srednovekovna Bulgaria', in Bog i tsar v bulgarskata istorija (Plovdiv, 1996), p. 12, n. 2. In the

Scandinavian king-sagas `good luck' and `good fortune' are qualities particular to the konungr/

chieftain; every one of the kings has his own personal `fate' and `luck' but, at the same time, he

was also heir to the `good fate' of all his predecessors (A. Gurevich, Srednevekovij mir: kul'tura

bezmolvstvujushego bol'shinstva [Moscow, 1990], pp. 93±4, 97, 105±6, 109; idem, `Srednevekovij

geroicheskij epos germanskih narodov', in Beovul'f. Starshaja Edda. Pesn' o Nibelungah

[Moscow, 1975], pp. 13±14, 19).

58

J. Duchesne-Guillemin, `The religion of ancient Iran', in C.J. Bleeker and G. Widengren (eds),

Historia Religionum. Handbook for the History of Religions 2 vols (Leiden, 1969), I, 335.

59

For more details see Eliade, Traktat, pp. 61±3. (= M. Eliade, Traite d'histoire des religions [Paris,

1949], pp. 81±9.)

The Bulgar title KANAS

S

YBIG

G

I

13

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

pre-Christian Bulgaria the existence of a special group of `fed people' is

well attested, being called

p yrept

o

B anyrop

o

B

(ho threptos anthropos)

and (this is very important) it became popular there precisely during the

reigns of Omurtag and Malamir. More than ten inscriptions, dating

back to the period AD 815±36 and found in present-day Bulgaria,

mentioned that some of the aristocrats were amongst these `fed people'

of the Bulgar ruler.

60

They correspond (even on a linguistic level) with

the so-called `nutriti' in the Frankish state

61

and with the well known

kormil'stvo among the early medieval Rus'.

62

These communities of

`co-eating' are reminiscent of the male unions of the MaÈnnerbund-

type (or the so-called comitatus-type), typical of the Aryas and later of

the Germans and Scandinavians as well as of the Iranian- and Turkic-

speaking peoples of Eurasia, with characteristic dedication and initiation

rituals.

63

They are also connected with the above mentioned idea of

`good fate' and `destiny' of the king. According to the pagan tradition of

these secret male unions, the warriors, the `fed men', could get in touch

with this `good fortune' of their leader when they had contact with him

± serving him, receiving presents from him (for luck and success were

both in his possession) and/or his own blessing.

64

The fact that the

practice of making memorial inscriptions was especially prevalent under

these two rulers can hardly be a coincidence. This commemoration

re¯ects the special relationship of the `fed people' with the ruler, which

was demonstrated chie¯y gifts received by them at feasts in return for

their special service.

65

After the death of Malamir, the Bulgar title was abandoned and the

chancellery of the Bulgarian rulers used only the Byzantine formula

p fk

Y[ou drwon

(ho ek Theou archon). To answer the question of why this

was is dif®cult, because of the lack of information in the sources. For the

same reason we cannot say anything de®nite about the reason for its

appearance precisely during the reign of Omurtag. It could be suggested

as a hypothesis only that this original Bulgar title was linked in some

way to the anti-Christian policy of Omurtag and Malamir, abandoned

60

BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 75±7, nos. 58±69.

61

Histoire de la vie priveÂe 5 vols, ed. P. ArieÁs and G. Duby (Paris, 1985), I, 410±12.

62

V. Balushok, `Initsiatsii drevnerusskih druzhinnikov', Etnogra®cheskoe obozrenie 1 (1995),

pp. 35±45.

63

See S. Wikander, Der arische MaÈnnerbund. Studien zur indo-iranischen Sprach- und

Religionsgeschichte (Lund, 1938). Especially for the Bulgar society see Minaeva, From Paganism,

pp. 17±20. For the same practice among the steppe empires see O. Pritsak, The Origin of Rus'

(Cambridge, Mass., 1981), I, 19±29.

64

Gurevich, Srednevekovii mir, p. 94. See also O. Minaeva, `Cup Rites and Iconography in Pagan

Bulgarian Culture', Izkustvo 33±4 (1996), pp. 2±6.

65

The feast given by Malamir, at which the two Bulgar military estates of that time, the so-called

boila'deB (boilades) and bagajneB (bagaines), received special presents from the ruler, is

mentioned in an inscription, No. 58; Gurevich (`Neskromnoe', p. 70) points out the relation

`feasts ± gifts ± wealth/luck/destiny/fate'.

14

Tsvetelin Stepanov

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

by their heirs Persian/Pressian (AD 836±52) and Boris (AD 852±89), and

with the processes of centralization. But we can suggest also that the use

of the Byzantine formula

p fk Y[ou drwon

(cf. the Byzantine formula

p fk Y[ou basil[uB

/ho ek Theou basileus, transformed later into

en

Xristw tw Y[w pistqB basileuB kaj aWtokrator tXn' Pomaion

/

en Christo to Theo pistos basileus kai autokrator ton Romaion) in Bulgaria

in the ®rst half of the ninth century, was a re¯ex of political rivalry and

of the desire to imitate Byzantium by an appropriation of a certain part

of the title of the emperor.

66

Of course, we must discern here the

political and not the religious meaning of the expression `ruler by God'.

After the assistance in putting down the rebellion of Thomas the Slav

rendered to Michael II by Omurtag, the Bulgar ruler must have felt

strong and authoritative enough to usurp that extremely important part

of the title of the Byzantine emperor.

67

The overall policy of Omurtag can be characterised by the building of

palaces at Pliska, modernization and centralization of the state and the

minting of special gold medallions. Attempts were made to settle relations

with the Byzantines and the Franks and to make a clear de®nition of the

borders with these two most powerful states through special peace treaties.

Numerous stone inscriptions were made in order to glorify the ruler and

explicit mention was made of him in one of the inscriptions at Madara

Rider. All these really are the elements of an imitatio imperii programme.

68

Thus, for instance, almost immediately after the accession of Omurtag to

the throne, in AD 815 or 816, a thirty year peace treaty was concluded

between Bulgaria and Byzantium. It marked the frontiers between the

states in Thrace and patched up some differences between the Bulgars and

the Byzantines. Its contents were summarized in Greek on an inscribed

column at the Bulgar capital Pliska.

69

The policy of Omurtag toward the Franks and Louis the Pious was

the same. The Bulgar ruler wanted to have similarly strictly delineated

frontiers with the Frankish Empire.

70

Thus relations with the empire,

66

Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel, pp. 38, 40.

67

Ostrogorsky, History, p. 205. The high prestige of Omurtag was recognized by Byzantium

as well. He was the only ruler of heathen Bulgaria referred to as basileuB by a Byzantine

author. This obvious deviation from the usual Byzantine practice was most probably due to

the great services rendered by Omurtag in putting down the rebellion of Thomas the Slav

(Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, [Fontes graeci 5 So®a, 1964], p. 114 ± `Mortagon r

to'n Boulga'ron basileiB [Mortagon ho ton Boulgaron basileus]'; Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat

bulgarski vladetel, p. 116).

68

For the stone inscriptions from Omurtag's time see BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, nos. 1, 6,

41, 43, 55, 57, 59±68.

69

Ibid., pp. 164±75; W. Treadgold, `The Bulgars' Treaty with the Byzantines in 816', Rivista di

Studi Bizantini e Slavi 4 (1984), pp. 213±20; Shepard, `Slavs and Bulgars', pp. 236±7.

70

BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, no. 60, mentions that Negavon, zera tarkan and threptos

anthropos of Omurtag, went to the army camp in Pannonia and got drowned in the river Tisza

(Theiss).

The Bulgar title KANAS

S

YBIG

G

I

15

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

starting from AD 824, became a priority in Bulgaria's external policy for

almost six years. The reason for this was the breaking away of some

Slavonic tribes (Branichevtsi, Timochani and Abodriti), who sent

representatives to Louis the Pious with a request that they should

become his subjects.

71

Omurtag did not want to lose the territories of the

above-mentioned tribes and started negotiations with the Franks. Thus

for the first time, in AD 824, a special mission was sent from Bulgaria to

the Frankish emperor, aimed at a peaceful settlement of relations

between the Bulgars and the Franks. Louis the Pious sent to Bulgaria the

Bavarian Machelm, whose task was to find out the reasons for such an

`extraordinary and previously unknown mission'. During the spring of

AD 825 there followed new Bulgar emissaries to Bavaria who later, in

May 825, arrived at Aachen, where they explained the Bulgar ruler's aim

± to set a clear delineation of the frontiers between the Bulgars and the

Franks. The emissaries were sent back to Bulgaria. What followed was a

new Bulgar mission in AD 826 that brought a letter with a request for an

immediate establishment of the boundaries. The emperor met

Omurtag's emissary but sent him away without an answer. At the

beginning of June 826, the counts Baldricus and Geroldus, who were in

Pannonia and therefore near the Bulgars, declared that they had not

received information about the Bulgars' movement against Frankish

territory. Obviously the emperor did not want any changes of the status

quo, since the situation was totally in favour of the Western empire after

the breaking away of the Slavs.Therefore, Omurtag, who was interested

in taking back the Slavonic tribes, launched a military campaign against

the Slavs' lands in Pannonia in AD 827. The Slavonic princes were

defeated and Omurtag appointed Bulgars as governors of these tribes.

72

In AD 829 the Bulgar army moved along the river Danube in boats and

set some Frankish villages in Pannonia on fire.

73

Soon after AD 815 Omurtag started to rebuild the palaces at Pliska

which had been burnt down in AD 811, during the unsuccessful cam-

paign of Nicephorus I against Krum. It is clear that in the second and

third decades of the ninth century the Bulgar state had suf®cient

resources and the right conditions for Omurtag to launch a large-scale

programme of building palaces; it was probably carried out by Bulgar

as well as by Byzantine architects and masters.

74

This programme is

71

Einhard, Annales, Fontes latini 2 pp. 34±5; Vita Hludovici imperatoris, (1960), Fontes latini 2

(1960), pp. 50±1; A. Dancheva-Vasileva, `Zapadnoevropeiskata politika na srednovekovna

Bulgaria prez IX±XI v.', Starini 1 (1999), p. 70.

72

Einhard, Annales, pp. 36±9; Pohl, Die Awaren, p. 327; Dancheva-Vasileva, `Zapadnoevro-

peiskata politika', pp. 70±1.

73

Annales Fuldenses, Fontes latini 2 (1960), p. 43.

74

Rashev, `Madarskijat konnik', p. 203; BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, nos. 56 and 57.

16

Tsvetelin Stepanov

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

marked by eclecticism, and it was actually a mixture of elements

characteristic of Armenia, of Middle Asia, as well as of the Byzantine

Pontic towns. The heaviness and solidity of the palaces and temples,

built with large blocks of stone, characterized Omurtag's edifices. This

type of edifice was probably consistent with the taste of Omurtag and

with that of the Bulgar nobility, though it also reflected the Bulgar

ruler's desire to imitate Byzantium, the leading power in culture, and in

particular in architecture, of that time.

75

Why did the Bulgar ruler not use the appropriate title of khagan

despite having had the formal right to do so after the successful raids of

Krum in AD 803±805 against the Avars?

76

The title of khagan/qagan was

the supreme one among the nomads, namely in the steppe empires of

the Turks, Khazars and Avars, and it is thought to be equal to `emperor/

basileus' or sÏahin-sÏah. Its origin is obscure.

77

Perhaps in the political

thinking of the Bulgar elite in the 820s and 830s emphasizing the divine

origin of power in Bulgaria was regarded as a priority as it already had

borders with the two most powerful empires of the early Middle Ages,

those of Byzantium and the Franks.

78

According to the political ideology

of the two empires (and especially that of Byzantium), the power was

given `by God'; the Byzantine

basileWB

/basileus and the Frankish

emperor were at the top of the rulers' hierarchy. Declaring that his

power came ek Theou, Omurtag actually emphasized his complete

independence from the two Christian empires and especially from his

main rival, Byzantium. Perhaps he regarded himself as a legitimate heir

to the `steppe empire' after the eastern territories of the Avar kaghanate

had become part of Bulgaria.

75

S. Bojadzhiev, `Po vuprosa za priemstvenostta v architekturata na Purvata Bulgarska durzhava',

in Architekturata na Purvata i Vtorata Bulgarska durzhava (So®a, 1975), pp. 32±79;

S. Vaklinov, Formirane na starobulgarskata kultura VI±XI vek (So®a, 1977), pp. 95, 109;

M. Vaklinova, `Dvortsite v srednovekovna Bulgaria', in Bulgaria 1300. Institutsii i durzhavna

traditsija 2 (So®a, 1982), pp. 258±60; T. Stepanov, Vlast i avtoritet, pp. 126±9, 148±9.

76

A. Adler, Suidae Lexicon (Lipsiae, 1928), I, 483±4 ± s.v. Boulgaroi. According to P. Golden

(An Introduction, p. 248), the Bulgars in Pannonia under Krum (AD 803±14) `had ®nished off

the remnants of Avar power in eastern Pannonia, but, blocked by the Franks, turned south and

between 803±7 were brought into union with their Balkan kinsmen. A confrontation with

Byzantium was inevitable'. See also Pohl, Die Awaren, pp. 322, 327; R. Browning, Byzantium

and Bulgaria. A Comparative Study Across the Early Medieval Frontier (Berkeley and Los Angeles,

1975), p. 49; Kovachevich, Avarski kaganat, pp. 98±9.

77

For different views on its origin see G. Doerfer, TuÈrkische und mongolische Elemente im

Neupersischen 3 vols (Wiesbaden, 1967), III, 141±79; G. Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of

Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish (Oxford, 1972), p. 611; E. Pulleyblank, `The Consonantal

System of Old Chinese', Asia Major 9, pt. 2 (1962), pp. 260±2.

78

V. Gjuselev, `Bulgarisch-fraÈnkische Beziehungen in der ersten HaÈlfte des IX. Jhs.', Byzantino-

bulgarica 2 (1966), pp. 15±39; B. Primov, `Vizantija, Frankskata imperija i Bulgaria', Istoricheski

pregled 3±4 (1981), pp. 203±13; V. Ronin, `The Franks on the Balkans in the Early Ninth

Century', Etudes balkaniques 1 (1985), pp. 39±57.

The Bulgar title KANAS

S

YBIG

G

I

17

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

Thus Omurtag and Malamir, with practically no change in their reli-

gion, usurped one substantial part of the Byzantine title, as an

opposition to the imperial ecumenism and `imperialism'.

79

Therefore,

the borrowing of

p fk Y[ou

/ho ek Theou can be interpreted as a result

of the in¯uence of the political ideology of Byzantium on the Bulgars:

their rulers advanced the Bulgarian doctrine of sovereignty, opposing it

to the imperial doctrine of Byzantine supremacy. The heathen Bulgar

king Omurtag developed the idea of a title kanasybigi which was not

formally equal to the Byzantine one, but which, importantly, was not

dependent upon it either.

80

His son Malamir followed the same policy

towards Byzantium. The concept demanded the explicit stressing of the

divine origin of their authority in the ruler's title.

81

Can the lack of the title kanasybigi in the inscriptions after AD 836

be a sign of the fact that the Bulgarians had abandoned the idea of the

divine origin of power? It may be more realistic to suppose that the

Bulgar ruler and the elite placed more importance on recognition by

Byzantium. Since the Bulgar doctrine was aimed against the Byzantines,

the de®nition

fk Y[ou drwou

/ek Theou archon remained in the inscrip-

tions after the death of Malamir as an emblem of Bulgar political

ideology. Under his successor Persian/Pressian (AD 836±852) an addi-

tion of

tou polon Boulgaron

/ton polon Boulgaron was made, clearly

repeating the

ton 'Pomaion

/ton Romaion in the title of the Byzantine

emperor.

82

It looks as though the Bulgars took into account the fact

that at that time Greek was an internationally recognized language of

79

H. Ahrweiler, L'ideÂologie politique de l'Empire byzantin (Paris, 1975).

80

V. TaÆpkova-Zaimova, `L'ideÂe byzantin de l'unite du monde et l'eÂtat bulgare', in Actes du I-er

congreÂs international des eÂtudes balkaniques et sud-est europeÂennes ed. V. TaÆpkova-Zaimova, 7 vols

(So®a, 1969), III, 291±3; R. Rashev, `Bog i vladetel predi pokrustvaneto', in Bog i tsar, 43±4.

81

Cf. the same idea in the stone inscription from Balshi, dedicated to the Bulgarian ruler Boris-

Michael (AD 852±89), from AD 866 (probably concerning the adoption of Christianity in

Bulgaria): ` BorZB o metonomasYeiB MiwaZl sun to ek Y(eo)u dedomeno auto eYnei'

`Boris ho metonomastheis Michail sin to ek Th(eo)u dedomeno auto ethnei' (in: BesÏevliev,

Purvobulgarski nadpisi, No. 15). Cf. Browning, Byzantium and Bulgaria, p. 143: `The use of

yeps in inscriptions of Khan Krum is not an acknowledgement of Christian belief, but

imitation of Byzantine forms of expression, perhaps due rather to the Greek redactor of the

text than to the Bulgarian ruler'. In my view, such a statement is not relevant for the time of

Omurtag and Malamir.

82

BesÏevliev, Purvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 140±51 (No. 14). V. BesÏevliev thought that the phrase

touB polouB BoulgariB epewonta (tous polous Boulgaris epehonta) in the stone inscription

from the reign of Omurtag had the same meaning. It is important to stress the use here of

`many' by the ruler Pressian/Persian: this is typologically identical to the late antique and early

medieval view, that the might and prestige of a given king depended not only on the territories

ruled by him, but also on the warriors (the people) who followed the king. This notion was

especially characteristic of Pax Nomadica during late antiquity and early Middle Ages. Recently

G. Nikolov (`Ton polon Boulgaron', Problemi na prabulgarskata istorija i kultura 3 vols

[Shumen, 1997], III, 67±75) has put forward the idea that the phrase ton polon Boulgaron

(ton polon Boulgaron) was connected with the Danubian Bulgars; thus they distinguished

themselves from the heirs of Kuber's Bulgars, settled near Salonica in the 680's.

18

Tsvetelin Stepanov

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

diplomacy, and deliberately abandoned the original title of

kanasubigi

/

kanasybigi as being more obscure to foreigners; the new title was obvi-

ously an adequate substitute for the Bulgar claims for an independent

power, given `from/by God'*.

83

St Kliment Ohridski University, Bulgaria

83

Recently J. Shepard `Byzantine Relations With the Outside World in the Ninth Century: an

Introduction', in L. Brubaker (ed.), Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive? (Aldershot,

1998), p. 172, wrote that the aspirations of Omurtag and his successors `for autonomous

legitimacy were also expressed by the use of the phrase ``prince from God'''.

The Bulgar title KANAS

S

YBIG

G

I

19

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001

Early Medieval Europe 2001 10 (1)