No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2016
This article surveys the reputation of the emperor Basil II as the Bulgar-slayer from the twentieth to the eleventh century. Basil featured in a number of historical and literary works at the time of the ‘Macedonian Struggle’ (1904-8). In the nineteenth century Basil was considered a key historical figure by those seeking to establish hellenic continuity: he had a particular connection with both Athens and Constantinople, the two poles of hellenism. Basil was largely ignored during the Tourkokratia, but for four centuries before 1453 he was considered an exemplary ruler. Stories of Basil’s martial prowess, particularly against the Bulgarians, circulated widely after his death in 1025. However, he was not called Voulgaroktonos until Byzantine struggles with Bulgaria recommenced, more than 150 years later.
1. Vasiliev, A.A., Histoire de l’empire byzantin, 2 vols. (Paris 1932) I, 397,Google Scholar originally published in Russian in 1917; Diehl, C., Histoire de l’empire byzantin (Paris 1919) 90-1, 106-8Google Scholar; Runciman, S., Byzantine Civilisation (London 1933) 48-9Google Scholar; Iorga, N., Histoire de la vie byzantine. Empire et civilisation, II. L’empire moyen de civilisation hellénique (Bucharest 1934) 201 Google Scholar; Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State, 2nd English ed. (Oxford 1968) 298-9Google Scholar, 315, originally published in German in 1940; Brehier, L., Le monde byzantin, I. Vie et mort de Byzance (Paris 1948) 212-13Google Scholar, 238.
2. Vasiliev, Histoire de l’empire byzantin, 423; Diehl, Histoire de l’empire byzantin, 104; Runciman, Byzantine Civilisation, 49; Iorga, , Histoire de la vie byzantine, II, 200 Google Scholar; Ostrogorsky, Byzantine State, 310.
3. Schlumberger, G., L’épopée byzantine à la fin du dixième siècle, II. Basile U le tueur des Bulgares (Paris 1900)Google Scholar.
4. In fact, the first notable dissenting voice was that of Toynbee, A., The Place of Mediaeval and Modern Greece in History. Inaugural lecture of the Koraes Chair of Modern Greek and Byzantine Language, Literature and History (London 1919) 22-3Google Scholar, who maintained that Basil’s campaigns overstretched the empire. For a recent, and far fuller analysis in the same vein, see Angold, M., The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: a political history, 2nd ed. (London 1997) 24-34Google Scholar, on Basil’s tainted legacy. A forceful endorsement of Basil’s civilian successors was offered by Lemerle, P., Cinq études sur le XIe siècle byzantin (Paris 1977) 249-312Google Scholar, who questioned the correlation between military expansion and the notion of apogee. Similar sentiments are implicit in the analysis by Ducellier, A., Byzance et le monde orthodoxe (Paris 1986) 140-50Google Scholar, esp. 148: ‘A la mort de Basile II il semblait que l’Empire eût atteint le sommet de sa puissance militaire et politique’ (my italics). Most recently see the critical comments by Treadgold, W., A History of Byzantine State and Society (Stanford 1997) 513-33Google Scholar.
5. Norwich, J.J., Byzantium: the Apogee (Harmondworth 1991) 266 Google Scholar, where decline is said to have begun the day after Basil died (cf. Runciman, Byzantine Civilisation, 49, for a very similar phrase). Lord Norwich freely admits in the preface to his Penguin paperback that his works are not intended as serious historical scholarship.
6. A fresh account of Basil’s reign has been provided in an unpublished doctoral thesis by Holmes, Catherine, Basil II and the Government of Empire (976-1025), DPhil (Oxford 1999)Google Scholar. I have published my thoughts on Basil’s Bulgarian campaigns in Stephenson, P., Byzantium ’s Balkan Frontier: a political study of the northern Balkans, 900-1204 (Cambridge 2000) 58-79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7. Byzantium came to play a role in Ottoman Turkish thought only after 1870, probably as a reaction to Greek claims. See Ursinus, M., ‘From Süleyman Pasha to Mehmet Fuat Köprülü: Roman and Byzantine history in late Ottoman historiography’, BMGS 12 (1988) 305-14Google Scholar.
9. C. Mango, ‘Byzantinism and Romantic Hellenism’, 37.
10. Clogg, R., ‘Aspects of the Movement for Greek Independence’, in Clogg, R., ed., The Struggle for Greek Independence. Essays to mark the 150th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence (London 1973) 1-40Google Scholar, at 28. Cf.Zakythmos, D.A., The Making of Modern Greece from Byzantium to Independence (Oxford 1976) 157-67Google Scholar, 163: ‘Clearly the principle governing Rhigas’s state is to be a racial and religious tolerance which will lead to such a degree of joint solidarity that “the Bulgar must feel himself roused when the Greek suffers and the Greek in his turn must feel for the Bulgar” ‘.
11. Pace the convincing arguments advanced by Magdalino, P., ‘Hellenism and Nationalism in Byzantium’, in his Tradition and Transformation in Medieval Byzantium (Aldershot 1991) no. XIV, 1-9Google Scholar; reprinted, with same pagination, in Burke, J. & Gauntlett, S., eds., Neohellenism (Australian National University: Humanities Research Monograph 5. Melbourne 1992)Google Scholar.
12. This is true both in Greece and elsewhere. For example, in Athens, between November 1993 and May 1994, a series of lectures, now a published series of pamphlets, addressed ‘Byzantine Reality and Neohellenic Interpretations’ (Vyzantini pragmatikotita kai neoellinikes ermineies). Elsewhere, see, for example, Alexiou, M., ‘Writing against silence: antithesis and ekphrasis in the prose fiction of Georgios Vizyenos’, DOP 47 (1993) 263-86Google Scholar, which was initially presented at a colloquium entitled ‘The Familiar Stranger: Byzantium in Modern Greece’, held at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1991. Similar themes were explored at a colloquium held at King’s College, London, in May 1996: Ricks, D. & Magdalino, P., eds., Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity (Aldershot 1998)Google Scholar.
13. Paparrigopoulos, K., Istoria tou elliniki ethnous [i proti morfi: 1853], ed. Dimaras, K. Th. (Athens 1970)Google Scholar; Istoria tou elliniki ethnous, 5 vols. (Athens 1860-74; 2nd ed. 1885-7).
14. P. Kitromilides, ‘On the intellectual content of Greek nationalism: Paparrigopoulos, Byzantium and the Great Idea’, in Ricks & Magdalino, eds., Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity, 25-33, 28.
15. Mango, ‘Byzantinism and Romantic Hellenism’, 42. Cf. Magdalino, ‘Hellenism and Nationalism’, 13-15, for the rediscovery of Athens, and hellenism, in twelfth-century Byzantium.
16. Paparrigopoulos, Istoria tou elliniki ethnous , 105-6.
17. Finlay, G., A History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time, B.C. 146 to A.D. 1864, 2nd ed., ed. Tozer, H.F. (Oxford 1877)Google Scholar. Volume two, the first on the Byzantine empire, was posthumously reissued as Finlay, G., History of the Byzantine empire from DCCXVI to MLVII (London 1906)Google Scholar. This title is slightly misleading since, according to Hussey, J.M., ‘George Finlay in perspective — a centenary reappraisal’, The Annual of the British School at Athens 70 (1975) 135-44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 140: ‘to assess [Finlay] fairly, particularly on the Byzantine period, it must be remembered that he was writing about what he calls “the fortunes of the Greek nation”. This led him to omit much that would now be included in any “Byzantine” history.’ I am less convinced that Finlay saw a substantial difference between Byzantium and medieval Greece.
18. Finlay, History of Greece, II, 368.
19. Finlay, History of Greece, II, 383, no. 2.
20. Finlay, History of Greece, II, 383.
22. Palamas, K., The King’s Flute, tr. Stefaniades, T.P. & Katsimbalis, G.C. (The Kostes Palamas Institute 4. Athens 1982)Google Scholar.
23. John Géomètres, MPG, 106, 950-1; noted by Magdalino, ‘Hellenism and Nationalism’, 13, n. 71.
25. Accessible outlines of this period are contained in Clogg, R., A Concise History of Greece (Cambridge 1992) 47-99Google Scholar; Crampton, R.J., A Concise History of Bulgaria (Cambridge 1997) 120-48Google Scholar. Cf.Gounaris, B., ‘Reassessing ninety years of Greek historiography on the “Struggle for Macedonia 1904-1908”’, in Mackridge, P. & Yannakakis, E., eds., Ourselves and Others: the development of Greek Macedonian cultural identity since 1912 (Oxford 1997) 25-37Google Scholar.
26. These, amongst others, are noted by Laordas, V., I Pinelopi Delta kai i Makedonia (Thessaloniki 1958) 35 Google Scholar.
27. Palamas, The King’s Flute, 14.
28. Delta, P., Ton kairo tou Voulgaroktonou (Athens 1911)Google Scholar. The letters exchanged by Delta, and Schlumberger, have been published: Lettres de deux amis. Une correspondance entre Pénélope S. Delta et Gustave Schlumberger, suivie de quelques lettres de Gabriel Millet, ed. Lefcoparidis, X. (Athens 1962)Google Scholar. See now M. Spanaki, ‘Byzantium and the novel in the twentieth century: from Penelope Delta to Maro Douka’, in Ricks & Magdalino, eds., Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity, 119-30; Tinnefeid, F., ‘Die Zeit Basileios II. in neugriechischen Romanen und Dramen des 20. Jahrhunderts’, in: Byzantinische Stoffe und Motive in der europäische Literatur des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. Konstantinou, E. (Frankfurt am Main 1998) 317-36Google Scholar.
29. Thibaut, P.J., ‘L’Hebdomon de Constantinople. Nouvel examen topographique’, Echos d’Orient 21 (1922) 31-44Google Scholar. However, the sarcophagus was subsequently discovered to date from the 5th century A.D.: Makridy, Th. [Makrides] & Ebersolt, J., ‘Monuments funéraires de Constantinople’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 46 (1922) 363-93Google Scholar; Ebersolt, J., Mission archéologique de Constantinople 1920 (Paris 1921) 1-27Google Scholar. In a later article, Makrides, Th. K., ‘To Vyzantinon Hebdomon kai i par’affi Moni’, Thrakika 12 (1939) 35-80Google Scholar, attributed to Basil a second sarcophagus, of white marble, which in 1939 was a water fountain in a small square in Bakirkoy (Makrikeuy); that is, in the western portion of what had been the Hebdomon Palace. See also, Demangel, J., Contribution à la topographie de l’Hebdomon (Paris 1945) 1-2Google Scholar, 53-4.
30. See, for example, his letter to Delta dated 7 April 1913: Lettres de deux amis, ed. Lefcoparidis, 53-5, no. 17.
32. Toynbee, Mediaeval and Modern Greece, 14 (see above, n. 4).
33. Toynbee, Mediaeval and Modern Greece, 22-3.
34. Toynbee, Mediaeval and Modern Greece, 11. Toynbee was well aware that several such maps had been produced in the preceding years. The most thorough examples are contained in Cvijić, J.;, La péninsule balkanique. Géographie humaine (Paris 1918)Google Scholar.
35. Toynbee, Mediaeval and Modem Greece, 12. For Basil’s ‘statesmanlike’ behaviour see now Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, 69-70, 76-9.
36. Clogg, R., Politics and the Academy. Arnold Toynbee and the Koraes Chair (London 1986)Google Scholar. Toynbee rapidly revised his findings for publication as The Western Question in Greece and Turkey. A study in the contact of civilisations (London 1922). Given the clear discrepancy between Toynbee’s and Miller’s sentiments at this time it is interesting to note that Miller had been the first-choice candidate for the Koraes Chair.
37. C. Mango, ‘The Phanariots and the Byzantine tradition’, in Clogg, ed., The Struggle for Greek Independence, 41-66, 50. Mango’s view may be contrasted with that held by his predecessor in Oxford’s Bywater and Sotheby Chair of Medieval and Modern Greek Language and Literature: Trypanis, C.A., ‘Greek literature since the Fall of Constantinople in 1453’, in C., & Jelavich, B., eds., The Balkans in Transition. Essays on the development of Balkan life and politics since the eighteenth century (Berkeley 1963) 227-57Google Scholar. For a less rosy, but generally positive view see the essays in Yiannis, J., ed., The Byzantine Tradition after the Fall of Constantinople (Charlottesville & Oxford 1991)Google Scholar.
39. Iorga, N., Byzance après Byzance (Bucharest 1935; repr. 1971) 167 Google Scholar, refers to a certain Lupu, the prince of Moldavia, who in April 1634 took the name Basil, after the emperor Basil ‘The Lawmaker’. This was surely Basil I, but in the index he is identified as ‘Basile II (empereur de Byzance)’. It is unclear whether this mistake should be attributed to Lupu, Iorga, or Iorga’s indexer (Liliane Iorga-Pippidi, his daughter).
40. Mango, C., ‘The legend of Leo the Wise’, ZRVI 6 (1960) 59-93Google Scholar, 78; reprinted in his Byzantium and its Image, no. XVI.
41. Mango, ‘Leo the Wise’, 78.
42. Mango, ‘Leo the Wise’, 90-2. See now Tougher, S., ‘The Wisdom of Leo the Wise’, in Magdalino, P., ed., New Constantines: the rhythm of imperial renewal in Byzantium, 4th to 13th centuries (Aldershot 1994) 171-9Google Scholar, for a defence of Leo’s wisdom.
43. Mercati, S.G., ‘Sull’epitafio di Basilio II Bulgaroctonos’, in his Collecteana Byzantina, 2 vols. (Bari 1970) II, 226-31Google Scholar.
44. Michel Psellos Chronographie, ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976-1077), ed. Renauld, E., 2 vols. (Paris 1926-8) I, 76 Google Scholar.
47. Yahya of Antioch (III, 217) based on the partial French translation provided by Cheynet, J.C., Pouvoir et Contestation à Byzance (963-1210) (Paris 1990) 387-8Google Scholar.
48. I synecheia tis chronographias tou loannou Skylitze, ed. Tsolakis, E.T. (Hetaireia Makedonikon Spoudon 105. Thessaloniki 1968) 162 Google Scholar.
49. See Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, 62-79. Additional allusions to events in the Balkans during Basil’s reign, but before 1001, are contained in the verse of John Geometres (see above, n. 23).
50. Sullivan, D.F., The Life of St. Nikon. Text, translation and commentary (Brookline, Mass. 1987) 140-3Google Scholar, 148-51.
51. Michel Psellos Chronographie, II, 130.
53. Ioannis Scylitzes Synopsis Historiarum, ed. Thum, J. (CFHB 5. Berlin & New York 1973) 348-9Google Scholar [henceforth Skylitzes].
54. For modern scepticism see, for example, Ostrogorsky, Byzantine State, 310, n. 1; and more recently, Whittow, M., The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600-1025 (London 1996) 388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, see Litavrin, G.G., ed., Sovety i Rasskazy Kekavmena. Sochinenie Vizantiiskogo polkovodtsa Xl veka (Moscow 1972) 152 Google Scholar, where the approximate figure (14,000 men) is independently confirmed by Skylitzes’ contemporary, Kekaumenos.
55. It is also clear that many aristocrats might otherwise have felt disinclined to campaign at length in western lands when their estates in the east had been overrun, or were threatened by the Seljuk Turks. These ideas were presented in an unpublished seminar paper by Catherine Holmes, and appear in her Oxford doctoral thesis (see above, n. 6). This builds on research which has identified in Skylitzes’ account of this period traces of secular biographies of Nikephoros Phokas, Eustathios Daphnomeles and Katakalon Kekaumenos: Roueché, C., ‘Byzantine writers and readers: storytelling in the eleventh century’, in Beaton, R., ed., The Greek Novel A.D. 1-1985 (London 1988) 123-33Google Scholar, 127-8; Shepard, J., ‘A suspected source of Scylitzes’ Synopsis Historien: the great Catacalon Cecaumenus’, BMGS 16 (1992) 171-81Google Scholar.
56. Ioannis Tzetzae historiae, ed. Leone, P.M. (Naples 1968) 185 Google Scholar. Cf. loannis Zonarae epitome historiarum, eds. Pinder, M. & Biittner-Wobst, T., 3 vols. (CSHB. Bonn 1841-97) III, 563-4Google Scholar; Constantini Manasses Breviarum Chronicum, ed. Lampsidis, O. (CFHB 36. Athens 1996) 317-20Google Scholar.
57. Letopis’ Popa Dukljanina, ed. Šišić, F (Belgrade & Zagreb 1928) 336-41Google Scholar. On the text see Steindorff, L., ‘Die Synode auf der Planities Dalmae. Reichseinteilung und Kirchenorganisation im Bild der Chronik des Priesters von Diocleia’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 93 (1985), 279–324 Google Scholar.
58. Skylitzes, 357.
59. LPD, 344.
60. Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur in byzantinischen Reich (Munich 1959) 609-28Google Scholar; Krumbacher, K., Geschichte des byzantinischen Literatur von Justinien bis zum Ende des oströmischen Reiches (527-1453), 2 vols. (Munich 1897) I, 79-82Google Scholar; Michel, A., Humbert und Kerullarios, 2 vols. (Paderborn 1924-30) I, 20-3Google Scholar.
61. Mai, A., ed., Novae Patrium Bibliothecae, 10 vols. (Rome 1853-1905) 6/2, 446-8Google Scholar, 448; MPG 120, 712-19, 717D: ‘But under Sergios, who was patriarch under the Bulgar-slayer, it is said that there arose a schism, for what reason I do not know, but the dispute was apparently over some sees.’ Cf. Krumbacher, Geschichte des byzantinischen Literatur, I, 81, n. 7, for other editions of the text; and Dvornik, F., The Photian Schism, history and legend (Cambridge 1948) 394 Google Scholar, for a partial English translation.
62. Grumel, V., Les regestes des actes du patriachat de Constantinople, I. Les actes des patriarches, II-III: Les regestes de 717 à 1206 , 2nd ed., ed. Darrouzès, J. (Paris 1989 no. 858 Google Scholar; Darrouzès, J., ed., Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine (Paris 1966) 26 Google Scholar, n. 5; Darrouzès, J., Recherches sur les Offikia de l’église byzantine (Paris 1970) 66 Google Scholar, n. 2, 184, n. 4.
63. Nicétas Stéthatos, opuscules et lettres, ed. Darrouzès, J. (Paris 1961) 15-17Google Scholar, 228-91. Stethatos also wrote to a Nicetas, didaskalos and deacon of Hagia Sophia, whom Darrouzès has identified as the nephew of the chartophylax.
64. Laurent, V., Le corpus de sceaux de l’empire byzantine, V. L’église (Paris 1965) 74-5Google Scholar, no. 93 (chartophylax), 150 -1, no. 220 (protosynkellos).
65. Grumel, Regestes, ed. Darrouzès, no. 907; Laurent, Sceaux, 75, attributes the seal to this Niketas.
66. Théophylacte d’Achrida, II, Lettres , ed. Gautier, P. (CFHB 16/2. Thessaloniki 1986) 93-4Google Scholar, 438-9, no. 83. Gautier suggests a scribal error, and that this was not, in fact, sent to Niketas, but to Nikephoros chartophylax, recipient of four other letters from Theophylact. However, see now M. Mullett, Theophylact of Ohrid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop (Birmingham Byzantine & Ottoman Monographs 2. Birmingham 1997) 326, 356. Darrouzès, Nicétas Stéthatos, 20, no. 3, also states that a third Niketas held the office of chartophylax after 1090, but provides no further information.
67. Grumel, Regestes, ed. Darrouzès, nos. 1002-3.
68. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 619; Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, I, 20-3. These both seem to rely on Leib, B., Deux inédits byzantins sur les azymes au début du Xlle siècle (Orientalia Christiana 9. Paris 1924) 17-18Google Scholar, 53. However, Leib’s attribution was based on a second text written by Nicetas of Nicaea, on azymes. Others are less certain that both texts were written by the same author. See, for example, Runciman, S., The Eastern Schism. A study of the papacy and the eastern Churches during the Xlth and Xllth centuries (Oxford 1955) 33 Google Scholar.
69. Pace Runciman, Eastern Schism, 33. Cf. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 621-2.
70. Hergenröther, I., Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel. Sein Leben, seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma, 3 vols. (Regensberg 1867-9) III, 869-75Google Scholar, esp. 873-4, n. 127, which is Hergenröther’s transcription of the relevant paragraph from the three recensions of the text he consulted. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, I, 26-7, refers to a fourth recension in the Synodal Library which was unknown to Hergenröther, which is almost identical to the first Vatican text.
71. Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, I, 20.
72. Hergenröther, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, III, 248, 870-1; Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, I, 30.
73. Mai, Novae Patrium Bibliothecae, 6/2, 448; MPG 719B: ‘…peri ton Latinon aitiamaton’. Tia Kolbaba drew this to my attention.
74. Grumel, Regestes, ed. Darrouzès, 330.
75. Hergenröther, J., ed., Monumenta Graeca ad Photium ejusque historiom pertinentia (Regensberg 1869; reprinted 1969) 171-81Google Scholar, from Cod. Marc. Gr. 575, fol. 380 seq., and Cod. Mon. Gr. 28, fol. 290 seq. I am grateful to Ruth Macrides for bringing this text to my attention.
76. Hergenröther, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, III, 728, n. 110, judged to be incorrect in Grumel, Regestes, ed. Darrouzès, 329. For an overview of religious polemic of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, see Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 663-89; Krumbacher, Geschichte des byzantinischen Literatur, 93-5, 113-15. Tia Kolbaba has indicated to me that the work in question almost certainly was composed after 1276. The author refers to ‘some people’ who claim that Photios started the schism when he wrote against the Franks in Bulgaria. This claim was made for the first time around the time of the Second Council of Lyon. I am very grateful to Dr. Kolbaba for her help in this matter, and in general for sharing with me her expertise on theological texts of this period.
77. Georgii Acropolitae Opera, ed. Heisenberg, A. (Leipzig 1903) I, 18.19-20Google Scholar; 23.16-19.
78. Nicetae Choniatae historiae, 373-4. This was written 1195-1203, and therefore pre-dates the second use of the epithet Voulgaroktonos by Michael Choniates in 1204.
79. Michail Akominatou tou Choniatou ta sozomena, ed. Lampros, S., 2 vols. (Athens 1880) II, 354 Google Scholar. This is noted by Loukaki, M., O Vasileios B’ Voulgaroktonos kai i Pinelopi Delta (Athens 1996) 46 Google Scholar. I am grateful to Peter Mackridge for his kindness in buying me a copy of this useful pamphlet, which appeared in the series Vyzantini pragmatikotita kai neoellinikes ermineies, referred to above (n. 12).
81. Mango, C., ‘The conciliar edict of 1166’, DOP 17 (1963) 317-30Google Scholar, 324; Magdalino, Empire of Manuel Komnenos, 88, 287-8, 461-2.
82. Buck, CD. & Petersen, W., A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives (Chicago 1944) 282-3Google Scholar, lists 102 compound adjectives with the nasal termination ‘-ktonos’ (and 71 more with ‘-phonos’), many of which were used by more than one author. The list includes seven examples used in the twelfth century by John Tzetzes and Theodore Balsamon. A further notable, but unfortunately anonymous, Byzantine example is Kritoktonos. I am grateful to Adrian Hollis for providing me with this reference.
83. Plutarchi Moralia, ed. & tr. Babbitt, F.C. et al., 15 vols. (Cambridge, Mass. 1927-69)IV, 514 Google Scholar.
85. Georges Pachymérès. Relations historiques, ed. Failler, A., trans. Laurent, V., 4 vols. (CFHB 24. Paris 1984) I, 174-7Google Scholar; Loukaki, Vasileios Voulgaroktonos, 47.
86. Mercati, ‘Suli’epitafio’, 230-1.
87. Georgii Acropolitae Annales, 20, 26. Cf. Ephraem Aenii historia chronica, ed. Lampsides, O. (CFHB 27. Athens 1990) 109 Google Scholar; Nicephori Gregorae Byzantina historia, ed. Schopen, L., 3 vols. (CSHB. Bonn 1829-55) I, 27 Google Scholar. Cf.Panagiotis, N.M., ‘Fragments of a lost eleventh century historical work’, in ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝ. Studies in Honour of Robert Browning, eds. Constantinides, C. et al. (Venice 1996) 321-57Google Scholar. An interesting comparison is offered by the juxtaposition of two twelfth-century texts and one of the fourteenth century. All, it is argued, draw on the same lost eleventh-century history. Only the latest text adds Voulgaroktonos.
88. Schöpflin, G., ‘The functions of myth and a taxonomy of myths’, in Hosking, G. & Schöpflin, G., eds., Myths and Nationhood (London 1997) 19-35Google Scholar.
90. See, for example: Real Macedonia [http://www.real.macedonia.gr]: ‘A web site dedicated to Macedonia — an answer to the forgers.’ See also, Makedonia. A brief history of Macedonia [http://www.abest.com/~angelos/history/html]: ‘This is an objective history of Macedonia, the readers that find themselves in disagreement are urged to locate relevant literature and double check what is posted in this page. After all the truth always hurts.’
91. Maro Douka, interview in Diavazo, 358, cited in translation by Spanaki, ‘Byzantium and the novel’, 124-5.
92. Arveler, E. [Ahrweiler, H.], Elliniki synecheia. Poiimata istorias (Athens 1998) 22-3Google Scholar, 28-9.
93. Interview in To Vinta, 6 December 1998. I am grateful to Despina Christodoulou for drawing this to my attention.
94. Antoljak, S., Samuel and his State (Skopje 1985)Google Scholar; Tashkovski, D., The Macedonian Nation (Skopje 1976) 28-56Google Scholar. For a critical slant: Troebst, S., ‘IMRO+100=FYROM? The politics of Macedonian historiography’, in Pettifer, J., ed., The New Macedonian Question (London 1999) 60-78CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A recent Yugoslavian perspective: Pirivatrić, S., Samuilova Država. Obim i Karakter (Belgrade 1997)Google Scholar.
96. I am grateful to Despina Christodoulou for her comments on the first draft of this paper, and for drawing my attention to a number of works in Greek which I would otherwise have missed. I must also thank the British Academy and Keble College, Oxford, for supporting my research, and the numerous scholars, cited in previous notes, who provided insights and references.
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
No CrossRef data available.