Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Byzantine ideology
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The Bulgarians’ settlement in the Lower Danube area constituted one of the most significant events in the history of the Balkan Peninsula in the Middle Ages. The Danube Bulgaria’s rise and its territorial expansion changed the political situation in this area. The Bulgarians became Byzantium’s chief opponents in the struggle for establishing ascendancy over the Balkan Peninsula. The analysis of Theophanes’ Chronography, which remains, in addition to the account by Patriarch Nicephorus, the main source of information about these events supports the conclusion that this Byzantine author took a very negative view of the effects of the arrival of these nomads in the former Byzantine territories. Although this account has been analysed in detail by a number of scholars, these authors have paid no attention to the key role of the tale of Khan Kubrat and the disobedience of his five sons who failed to remain faithful to his last wish. The significance of the personal experiences of Theophanes, who witnessed the Bulgarian expansion during the era of Khan Krum, is also omitted from today’s discussion of these issues. These experiences contributed to the way in which he viewed the migration of the ancestors of the distinguished Bulgarian ruler. The chronicler may thus be considered to have offered a very clear view of what the readers should think of the Bulgarians’ arrival in the Balkan territories.
EN
The Bulgarians’ settlement in the Lower Danube area constituted one of the most significant events in the history of the Balkan Peninsula in the Middle Ages. The Danube Bulgaria’s rise and its territorial expansion changed the political situation in this area. The Bulgarians became Byzantium’s chief opponents in the struggle for establishing ascendancy over the Balkan Peninsula. The analysis of Theophanes’ Chronography, which remains, in addition to the account by Patriarch Nikephoros, the main source of information about these events supports the conclusion that this Byzantine author took a very negative view of the effects of the arrival of these nomads in the former Byzantine territories. Although this account has been analysed in detail by a number of scholars, these authors have paid no attention to the key role of the tale of Khan Kubrat and the disobedience of his five sons who failed to remain faithful to his last wish. The significance of the personal experiences of Theophanes, who witnessed the Bulgarian expansion during the era of Khan Krum, is also omitted from today’s discussion of these issues. These experiences contributed to the way in which he viewed the migration of the ancestors of the distinguished Bulgarian ruler. The chronicler may thus be considered to have offered a very clear view of what the readers should think of the Bulgarians’ arrival in the Balkan territories.
Vox Patrum
|
2022
|
vol. 84
105-122
PL
Artykuł koncentruje się na postaci cara bułgarskiego Symeona I Wielkiego (893-927), który w drugiej połowie swojego panowania wszedł w długotrwały konflikt militarny i ideologiczny z cesarstwem bizantyńskim. Pragnął bowiem nie tylko poszerzyć swoje włości kosztem południowego sąsiada, lecz i zrównać się z nim w tytulaturze, niewykluczone zaś, jakkolwiek w tej materii zdania uczonych są rozbieżne, iż jego aspiracje sięgały jeszcze dalej, a mianowicie samego Konstantynopola. Tak czy owak, Bułgaria czasów jego panowania stanowiła poważne zagrożenie dla Bizancjum i jego głównego antagonistę. Śmierć cara w 927 i zawarcie pokoju z cesarstwem przez jego syna, Piotra I (927-969), ostatecznie położyła kres konfliktowi pomiędzy oboma krajami. Uroczystości związane z zawarciem porozumienia stały się okazją do podsumowań. W napisanej z tej okazji mowie retorycznej działania i aspiracje Symeona zostały poddane surowej krytyce – poprzez porównania do postaci z literatury antycznej i tekstów biblijnych bizantyński mówca zdyskredytował postawę tego władcy. Porównanie do tych z nich, którzy wzbudzali u słuchaczy i czytelników negatywne konotacje pozbawiło Symeona wszelkich cnót przynależnych chrześcijańskiemu władcy, a nade wszystko tych kardynalnych, którymi przede wszystkim powinien się legitymizować.
EN
This article focuses on the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I the Great (893-927), who in the second half of his reign entered into a protracted military and ideological conflict with the Byzantine Empire. He wished not only to extend his dominions at the expense of his southern neighbour, but also to equal him in titular power, and it is possible - although scholars differ on this point - that his aspirations reached even further, namely Constantinople itself. Either way, Bulgaria under his reign posed a serious threat to Byzantium and its main antagonist. The death of the Tsar in 927 and the conclusion of peace with the Empire by his son, Peter I (927-969), finally put an end to the conflict between both the states. The celebrations marking the conclusion of the agreement provided an opportunity to take stock. In a rhetorical speech written for the occasion, Simeon's actions and aspirations were severely criticised – through comparisons to figures from ancient literature and biblical texts, the Byzantine speaker discredited the attitude of this ruler. Comparisons to those of them who aroused negative connotations in listeners and readers deprived Simeon of all the virtues belonging to a Christian ruler and, above all, of the cardinal ones by which he should, above all, legitimise himself.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.