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

Refine search results

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Byzantine-Bulgarian relations
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Maria Lekapene was the granddaughter of Byzantine Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos. In 927 she married Peter I of Bulgaria. Her marriage in Constantinople aimed to strengthen the newly signed Byzantine-Bulgarian peace treaty. Historians attributed to the Empress a significant impact on the political moves of her hus­band. The Empress was also to introduce a lot of elements of the Byzantine theory of power in Bulgaria and even to play the role of spy of Constantinople at the Preslav court. These views have not been corroborated in surviving source mate­rial. The Byzantine authors, who provided a lot of information about the wed­ding of Maria and Peter, did not write anything about the subsequent behavior of the Empress in her new homeland. The political activity of the wife of Peter is not mentioned in indigenous Bulgarian sources or foreign ones (e.g. Liutprand of Cremona). The thesis that Maria wielded real political power can be confirmed only in sigillographic materials. In 927-945 the Bulgarian ruler was always rep­resented on his own official seals accompanied by his wife. However it was not a reflection of her status as a real co-emperor. These seals were propagandic arti­facts which were made to commemorate the peace of 927. The seals could also be seen as a tool legitimizing the imperial title of Peter. It is hard to consider Mary as the initiator of the Byzantinization of the culture of tenth-century Bulgaria. In 927 Lekapene arrived at the court, which was already quite familiar with the Byzantine civilization. This does not exclude the possibility of her personal im­pact on the new court. However, most likely the impact did not go beyond the walls of the Emperor’s headquarters.
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.