Zgodovinski Z | Ljubljana | 77 | 2023 | št. 3-4 (168) | str. 239–491 HISTORICAL REVIEW Vid Žepi , Ius publicum in iure privato. Javnopravne prvine v rimskem zasebnem pravu • Dušan Mlacovi , Kartuzija Bistra in Koper v 14. stoletju • Ádám Novák, Seals of John and Ladislaus Hunyadi as the Counts of Bistri a (Beszterce) from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia • Anja Dular, Frankfurtski knjižni sejmi in naši kraji • Robert Devetak, Razvoj slovenske prisotnosti v goriškem javnem prostoru pred prvo svetovno vojno • Nade Proeva, On rulers’ titles and the names of Balkan peoples from the Middle Ages to modern times – Bulgari (Bulgarians), Bulgarini/Bulgar is (Bulgarinians/Bulgar i ns) • Biljana Vankovska, Historical Science in Chains: The Impact of the Bilateral Agreement Between Skopje and Sofia on Freedom of Academic Work asopis ZČ | Ljubljana | 77 | 2023 | št. 3-4 (168) | str. 239–491 HISTORICAL REVIEW Izdaja ZVEZA ZGODOVINSKIH DRUŠTEV SLOVENIJE Ljubljana Zgodovinski časopis ISSN 0350-5774 UDK 949.712(05) UDC Zgodovinski HISTORICAL REVIEW časopis GLASILO ZVEZE ZGODOVINSKIH DRUŠTEV SLOVENIJE Mednarodni uredniški odbor: dr. Kornelija Ajlec (SI), dr. Tina Bahovec (SI), dr. Bojan Balkovec (SI) (tehnični urednik), dr. Rajko Bratož (SI), dr. Ernst Bruckmüller (AT), dr. Liliana Ferrari (IT), dr. Ivo Goldstein (HR), dr. Žarko Lazarević (SI), dr. Dušan Mlacović (SI) (namestnik odgovornega urednika), dr. Božo Repe (SI), dr. Franc Rozman (SI), Janez Stergar (SI), dr. Imre Szilágyi (H), dr. Peter Štih (SI) (odgovorni urednik), dr. Marta Verginella (SI), dr. Peter Vodopivec (SI), dr. Marija Wakounig (AT) Za vsebino prispevkov so odgovorni avtorji, prav tako morajo poskrbeti za avtorske pravice za objavljeno slikovno in drugo gradivo, v kolikor je to potrebno. Ponatis člankov in slik je mogoč samo z dovoljenjem uredništva in navedbo vira. Redakcija tega zvezka je bila zaključena 10. oktober 2023. Oblikovanje in oprema: Vesna Vidmar Sedež uredništva in uprave: Oddelek za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija, tel.: (01) 241-1200, e-pošta: info@zgodovinskicasopis.si; http://www.zgodovinskicasopis.si Letna naročnina: za leto/letnik 2023: za nečlane in zavode 32 €, za društvene člane 24 €, za društvene člane – upokojence 18 €, za društvene člane – študente 12 €. Cena tega zvezka v prosti prodaji je 16 € (z vključenim DDV). Naročnina za tujino znaša za ustanove 45 €, za posameznike 35 € in za študente 25 €. Plačuje se na transakcijski račun: SI 56020 1 000 12083935 Zveza Zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija Nova Ljubljanska banka, d.d., Trg Republike 2, 1520 Ljubljana LJBASI2X Sofi nancirajo: Publikacija izhaja s fi nančno pomočjo Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost RS Prelom: ABO grafi ka d.o.o. – zanjo Igor Kogelnik Tisk: ABO grafi ka d.o.o., Ljubljana, december 2023 Naklada: 500 izvodov Zgodovinski časopis je evidentiran v naslednjih mednarodnih podatkovnih bazah: Scopus, European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH), Historical Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, ABC CLIO, America: History and Life, Bibliography of the History of Art, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies. http://www.zgodovinskicasopis.si info@zgodovinskicasopis.si BULLETIN OF THE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION OF SLOVENIA (HAS) International Editorial Board: Kornelija Ajlec, PhD, (SI), Tina Bahovec, PhD, (SI), Bojan Balkovec, PhD, (SI) (Tehnical Editor), Rajko Bratož, PhD, (SI), Ernst Bruckmüller, PhD, (AT), Liliana Ferrari, PhD, (IT), Ivo Goldstein, PhD, (HR), Žarko Lazarević, PhD, (SI), Dušan Mlacović, PhD, (SI) (Deputy Editor-in-Charge), Božo Repe, PhD, (SI), Franc Rozman, PhD, (SI), Janez Stergar (SI), Imre Szilágyi, PhD, (H), Peter Štih, PhD, (SI) (Editor-in-Chief), Marta Verginella, PhD, (SI), Peter Vodopivec, PhD, (SI), Marija Wakounig, PhD, (AT) The authors are responsible for the contents of their articles, they must also secure copyrights for the published photographs and fi gures when necessary. Reprints of articles, photographs, and graphic material are only allowed with explicit permission of the editorial offi ce and must be cited as sources. The editing of this issue was completed on October 10, 2023. Design: Vesna Vidmar Headquarters and Mailing Address: Oddelek za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, phone: +386 1 241-1200, e-mail: info@zgodovinskicasopis.si; http://www.zgodovinskicasopis.si Annual Subscription Fee (for 2023): non-members and institutions 32 €, HAS members 24 €, retired HAS members 18 €, student HAS members 12 €. Price: 16 € (VAT included). Subscription Fee: foreign institutions 45 €, individual subscription 35 €, student subscription 25 € Transaction Account Number: SI 56020 1 000 12083935 Zveza Zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Nova Ljubljanska banka, d.d., Trg Republike 2, 1520 Ljubljana LJBASI2X Co-Financed by: Slovenian Research Agency Printed by: ABO grafi ka d.o.o., Ljubljana, December 2023 Print Run: 500 copies Historical Review is included in the following international databases: Scopus, European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH), Historical Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, ABC CLIO, America: History and Life, Bibliography of the History of Art, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies. http://www.zgodovinskicasopis.si info@zgodovinskicasopis.si ISSN 0350-5774 UDK 949.712(05) UDC Zgodovinski HISTORICAL REVIEW časopis KAZALO – CONTENTS Razprave – Studies Vid Žepič, Ius publicum in iure privato. Javnopravne prvine v rimskem zasebnem pravu ..........................246–296 Ius publicum in iure privato. Public Elements in Roman Private Law Dušan Mlacović, Kartuzija Bistra in Koper v 14. stoletju .......................298–346 The Bistra Carthusian Monastery and Koper in the 14th Century Ádám Novák, Seals of John and Ladislaus Hunyadi as the Counts of Bistrița (Beszterce) from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia ............................................................348–358 Pečata Ivana in Ladislava Hunyadija, grofov Bistriških (romun. Bistrița) v Arhivu Republike Slovenije Anja Dular, Frankfurtski knjižni sejmi in naši kraji ................................360–378 Frankfurt Book Fair and Slovene Territory Robert Devetak, Razvoj slovenske prisotnosti v goriškem javnem prostoru pred prvo svetovno vojno ....................................380–404 The Development of the Slovenian Presence in Gorizia's Public Space before the First World War Nade Proeva, On rulers' titles and the names of Balkan peoples from the Middle Ages to modern times – Bulgari (Bulgarians), Bulgarini/Bulgarеis (Bulgarinians/Bulgarеiаns) ..........................406–433 O vladarskih nazivih in imenih balkanskih ljudstev od srednjega veka do današnjega časa Biljana Vankovska, Historical Science in Chains: The Impact of the Bilateral Agreement Between Skopje and Sofi a on Freedom of Academic Work ...................................................434–456 Zgodovinska znanost v verigah: Vpliv dvostranskega sporazuma med Skopjem in Sofi jo na svobodo akademskega dela V spomin – In memoriam Janez Marolt (Milan Lovenjak) ................................................................458–459 Kongresi in simpoziji – Congresses, Symposia 40. zborovanje Zveze zgodovinskih društev Slovenije (Aljaž Sekne, Barbara Šatej, Oskar Opassi) ..................................462–467 Ocene in poročila – Reviews and Reports Klaas Van Gelder (ur.), More than Mere Spectacle: Coronations and Inaugurations in the Habsburg Monarchy during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Filip Draženović) ................................470–472 Mateja Čoh Kladnik, Koširjevi in Matjaževa vojska v Sevnici (Petra Gabrovec) ............................................................................473–475 Aleksander Lorenčič: Od sanj o ‘drugi Švici’ v kapitalizem brez človeškega obraza. Pot gospodarske osamosvojitve in tranzicija slovenskega gospodarstva (Žiga Smolič) .......................476–479 Dejan Pacek (ur.), Ljubljanski nadškof in metropolit dr. Jožef Pogačnik (Aleš Gabrič) ..................................................................................480–483 * * * Navodila avtorjem prispevkov za Zgodovinski časopis ...........................484–487 Instructions for Authors Letno kazalo Zgodovinskega časopisa 77, 2023 ......................................488–491 Annual Content of Zgodovinski časopis – Historical Review 77, 2023 Razprave N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...406 Nade Proeva On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples from the Middle Ages to Modern Times Bulgari (Bulgarians), Bulgarini/Bulgarеis (Bulgarinians/Bulgarеiаns) PROEVA, Nade, PhD, full professor, emerita, Faculty of Philosophy, University Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Nade Proeva, MK – 1000 Skopje ul F. Ruzvelt, 36, 1/6, nproeva@gmail.com, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5579- 263X On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples from the Middle Ages to Modern Times Zgodovinski časopis (Historical Review), Ljubljana 77/2023 (168), No. 3–4, pp. 406- 433, 109 notes Language: En. (Sn., En., Sn) This paper deals with a neglected issue in hi- storiography: the manner of naming people in the medieval multi-ethnic states on the example of Bulgari (Bulgarian), Bulgarini/ Bulgareis (Bulgarinians / Bulgareians, as well as with the practice of claiming rulers’ titles in the Middle Ages and with the name of Macedonians in medieval sources. The misinterpretation of legal state names (Bulgarian, Byzantine, Ottoman) as the race-related, ethnic designations of the Balkan peoples that were used until the creation of the modern nation-state is pointed out, as well the lack of studies on this issue. Key words: Bulgari – Bulgarians; Bulgarini/ Bulgarеis – Bulgarinians/Bulgareians; Buga- ria proprie dicta, Macedonia/Macedonians; Samuel. PROEVA, Nade, red. prof., emerita, Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet Sv. Kiril i Metodij, Nade Proeva, MK – 1000 Skopje ul F. Ruzvelt, 36, 1/6, nproeva@gmail.com, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5579- 263X O vladarskih nazivih in imenih balkanskih ljudstev od srednjega veka do današnjega časa Zgodovinski časopis, Ljubljana 77/2023 (168), št. 3–4, str. 406-433, cit. 109 1.01 izvirni znanstveni članek: jezik En. (Sn., En., Sn.) Prispevek obravnava vprašanje bistvenega po- mena, ki je v zgodovinskih raziskavah prejkone zapostavljeno: poimenovanje pripadnikov raz- ličnih etničnih skupin v srednjeveških veče- tničnih državah na primeru Bulgari (Bolgari), Bulgarini/Bulgareis Bolgarinci Bolgarejci, pa tudi način in obliko prisvajanja vladarskih nazivov v srednjem veku in z imenom Make- doncev v srednjeveških virih. Izpostavljena je napačna razlaga državnih imen (bolgarsko, bizantinsko, otomansko) kot rasnih, etničnih oznak balkanskih ljudstev, ki so se uporabljala do nastanka modernega naroda, ter pomanjkanje študij o tem vprašanju. Ključne besede: Bulgari – Bolgari; Bulgarini/ Bulgarеis – Bolgarinci/ Bolgarejci/; Makedo- nija/Makedonci; Samuel. In written sources from the Middle Ages, the entire population of the central part of the Balkan Peninsula from Mount Pindus in the south to the Sava and the Danube in the north, from the Black Sea to the east, to Durres and Ohrid to the west, is referred to by the terms Bulgaria and Bulgarians, including – for a very long time – Macedonia itself. And instead of explaining the meaning and reasons for using these terms for Macedonia and the Macedonian Slavs at the time, until recently Macedonian historians either kept silent, or, when referring to Macedonia, replaced them with the name Macedonians/Macedonian State, which has been rightly assessed as a correction, i.e., an alteration of historical sources. On the other hand, from the Bulgarian point of view modern-day Macedonians are Bulgarians.1 So the Bulgarian historians interpret this designation exclusively as ethnic, equating the name of the Bulgarian state/states with the present-day Bulgarian state and with the modern, national meaning of the name Bulgarians, which is unacceptable for the Middle Ages. The fact is that in the Middle Ages there were no established nations that could be identifi ed with contemporary nations, as nations are modern constructions. Of course, both approaches are wrong, and it is necessary to clarify what this designation means and to defi ne what ”Bulgarians” meant in distinct contexts and in different historical periods.2 Namely, it is undeniable that it had different meanings, depending on the historical circumstances, context and time to which it referred. The lack of analysis on this issue favors the claims of the Macedonians’ neighbors, who without any critical distinction accept the manner of naming the people in the Middle Ages, aiming to prove that today there is neither a Macedonian nation nor an indigenous Macedonian language. Namely, no other Balkan nation has been so vehemently and fi ercely denied and challenged by its neighbors, and still is, with the tacit support of European powers. The Bulgarian view is that mo- dern-day Macedonians are Bulgarians because in medieval sources the population of Macedonia is often, although not always, referred to as Bulgarians. Macedonia This article is a revised form of the fi rst chapter of my book published in Macedonian with summaries in English and French, Проева, Триптих, pp. 11 – 22. 1 But one could just as well say that Bulgarians are Macedonians! 2 An explanation of the meaning of the designation Bulgarians was fi rst given in 2000 in my preface to the Macedonian translation of the travelogue on the Aegean part of Macedo- nia, published in 1859 by Delacoulonche, Mémoire sur le berceau macédonien, Делакулонш, Лулката на македонската државност, pp. 8 – 16; then in my book Триптих за, pp. 11 – 22. This paper is much larger in volume and more elaborate than the two previous ones. Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) | 406–433 407 N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...408 was absorbed by the Bulgarian state in the second half of the 9th century, and in time the name of Macedonia and the ethnic names of its many Slavic tribes were disregarded and omitted. This designation remained in the sources longer than other designations because Macedonia was alternately under Byzantine and Bulgarian rule, its powerful neighbors. First of all, it should be clarifi ed that there are, in fact, several stages of the medieval states or rather several medieval states named Bulgarian, after the con- stituents of the ethnolinguistic group Bulghars, Bolghars, Bolgari whose language was Ugro-Turkmen. In the second half of the 7th century one part of this Turkic semi-nomadic group, referred to in scholarly literature as the Proto-Bulgarians,3 settled in the plain between the lower course of the Danube and the Balkan moun- tain range (the ancient Roman province of Moesia Inferior), where they formed a state with its center at Pliska, designated kaghanate according to the reigning title khan. This Danube kaghanate (681–864) then spread far to the south and the west and grew into a tzardom with a dominant Slavic population, in which the so-cal- led proto-Bulgarian element shrank, and become a principality with its center in Preslav. After Christianization, and the proclamation of the Bulgarian Patriarchate (in 944),4 the offi cial language of this second phase (864–971), or better said of the fi rst Bulgarian state of Byzantine-Christian model and from then tzardom, became Byzantine Greek. Unlike the initial kaghanate, a pagan state, this one was Christian and arranged according to the Byzantine model, as a tzardom,5 with the recognized title βασιλεύς (earliest in 927), but was destroyed by the Byzantines in 971. At the time of its greatest expansion, this Byzantino-Christian state of Bul- garian name stretched from the Black Sea in the east, through the central part of the Balkan Peninsula, to the central part of the Adriatic coast. The last basileus of this state was Boris II (969–971), who was captured and taken to Constantinople by the Byzantine emperor Joannes I Tzimiskes (969–976), who in 971 formally deposed him, depriving him of the title, stripped him of his insignia as symbols of sovereign right (regalia), placing them in the Church of St. Sophia,6 out of gra- titude for the victory. At the same time, he abolished the Bulgarian Patriarchate, which was at the time based in Dorostol, and annexed Bulgaria. The next state, the so-called Samuel’s (976–1018),7 was created in Macedonia by completely 3 For the fi rst Bulgarians and the different Bulgarian states, their creation and model see Стојков, Царство, етницитет, наследства, pp. 113 – 137; and pp. 119 – 122 on the proto- Bulgarian. 4 On the Christianization of the Bulgarians and the creation of a Bulgarian Church, see Коматина, Црквена политика Византије, рр. 196 – 220; 236 – 260, 344 – 252 . 5 Since the state model is different, it might be more correct to consider it separately from the kaghanate –- the fi rst state of the Bulgarian name. 6 Scylitzae, Synopsis historiarum,310. 7 When Macedonia was part of the Bulgarian state, Samuel was a Bulgarian bolyar. Bolyar (bolяr) is a Turkmen(ian) designation adapted to Slavic languages (Byzantine Greek oi boliádes) for members of the local nobility, the upper class of feudal states, the highest rank immediately after the prince. Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 409 new rulers – Comеtopoulеs, the four sons of the komes Nikola 8 who had nothing to do with the previous, extinct Bulgarian dynasty,9 which created new political and religious centers – political in Prespa: Prespa... ubi et curia imperatoris (sc. Samuel) erat, imperatoris curiam (sc venit) in loco qui Prespa dicitur,10 and then in Ohrid, the latter also being the seat of the archbishopric. The last medieval state (1185–1396), created again in Bulgaria proprie dicta by the Assenid dynasty11 with its center in Trnovo, was destroyed by the Ottomans under whose rule it was until 1878, but remaining under Ottoman sovereignty until 1908 as an autonomous principality. In Bulgarian historiography these states are treated as a continuation of the fi rst, initial one, although there is a discrepancy between them not only in terms of dynasties (from khan Krum 681 to Boris, II i.e., from 864–971, Samueliаns 971/76–1018, to the Assenid appeared in 1185), but also territorial, as seen from the capitals: Pliska/Preslav – Bulgaria proprie dicta; Prespa/Ohrid – Macedonia (971/76–1018), Trnovo – Bulgaria proprie dicta, and an even greater chronological gap (from 1018 to 1185 and during the Ottoman rule 1396–1878, i.e., 1908), with a view to proving the continuity of the medieval states with the modern Bulgarian state both in the state-legal and in ethnic terms. After the 9th century (when with the spread of Bulgarian state of Byzantine- -Christian model to the west and south, Serbia, Macedonia,12 Thessaly, and Alba- nia came under the rule of Bulgarian Tsar Boris / Michael, 852 – 889), the term Bulgarians began to be used for all the Slavic and non-Slavic population, as well as for that in the Macedonian sclavinies (sclaviniae),13 according to the practice of employing the name of the state for the peoples therein. Thus, even after the defeat and abolition of the Bulgarian state by the Byzantine Empire, Byzantine and post-Byzantine historians, through inertia continued to use the term Bulgarians as a general designation for these diverse peoples in all these regions. After the death of the Bulgarian Tsar Petar and the capture and dethroning of his successor (Tsar Boris II, 969–971) by the Byzantine emperor Joannes Tzi- miskes (969–976), Samuel, one of the four Comitopouloi, who started an uprising (apostatesantōn)14 in Macedonia, took advantage of the situation, cut it of from the previous Bulgarian and Byzantine authority and created his own state with its cen- ter in Prespa and Ohrid (Macedonia), and not in Bulgaria proprie dicta, nor in the 8 Nikola was one of the most powerful comets in Bulgaria: ενός τῶν μέγα δυνηθέντων ἐν Βουλγαρία κομήτων; ενός τῶν παρά Βουλγἀροiς μέγα δυνηθέντος κόμητος. Cometopules, Kometopouloï (Κομητόπουλοι), from κομιτοπούλος, son of komes (κόμης, komēs) – governor of the administrative unit – kometates. 9 Boris was killed, his brother Roman castrated, and therefore unfi t to be the sovereign. 10 Gesta regum slavorum presbiteri Diocleatis, 333, 338. 11 The Assenid dynasty, probably of Vlach origin according to Nicetas Choniates and Frankish historians. 12 The exact year is not known, but in 886, Ohrid and Devol were already under Bulgarian authority. 13 Sclaviniaе are small independent tribal principalities. See Stoykov, Some observation, рp. 33–58. 14 Characterised as a rebellion/apostasy (ἀποστασία) by the Byzantine writers. N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...410 former capital, Preslav, as before. That it is not a question of the restoration of the abolished Bulgarian state, by some supposedly western Bulgarian tribe, as some, mostly Bulgarian historians claim, can be supported by few facts. The fi rst is that the north-eastern parts of the former Bulgarian state (those between the Danube and the Balkan Mountains) were annexed by Samuil to his state as many as ten years after his coming to power, i.e., after the battle against Byzantine ruler Basil II (at Serdica, 986).15 The second and even more important is the fact that after his defeat (in 1014) by the Byzantine emperor Basil II Macedonia was not included in the theme16 of the “Danube cities”, which concerned the earliest, real, Bulgarian state (Bulgaria proprie dicta), but in a new, separate theme referred to as “Bulgarian” with its center in Skopje.17 This shows that after Peter’s death the state disintegrated into at least two parts: the earliest Bulgarian part (Bulgaria proprie dicta) and Sclavinia. That it was not a question of renewing the previous Bulgarian state can also be seen from the creation of a new ecclesiastical organization. According to the ideological premise, the formation of a new state consisted in having its own religious seat (a cathedral) with the relics of some famous saint. In this case, these wеre the relics of Saint Achilles, of which Samuel took possession during the conquest of Larissa in 985 and placed in the new sumptuous basilica on the small island of Mala Prespa, called St. Achilles to this day.18 If the Bulgarian state had been restored by reloca- ting the state, as well as the religious center to the west, the relics would have been transferred from the former church headquarters in Dorostol/Preslav, where Samuel very probably proclaimed himself Tsar, after the battle of Serdica.19 But no source mentions the transfer of relics from there, although the Bulgarian Church was abo- lished after the defeat in 971, and its hierarchs left Dorostol, the former church hea- dquarters, moving, i.e.,”fl eeing” westwards to areas outside the Byzantine rule and under Samuel’s authority.20 As for the name of the church of Samuel, it is necessary to refer to the Byzantine monk, Neilos Doxapatris, who in 1142/33 compiled for the Sicilian king Roger II (1095–1154) a list of patriarchates, Notitia Episcopatuum, in which he wrote that this Patriarchate was an autocephalous archbishopric with more 15 In that battle, Samuel seized the royal tent and treasure but there is no information whether (ca. 997) he was crowned with the imperial insignia and whether this crown was found among the crowns of pearls seized in the Ohrid treasury after his defeat by Basil II and the capture of Ohrid in 1018 (Skylitzes, 358. 14–359. 16; cf. Cedrenus, II, 468: στέματα έκ μαργὰρων καὶ χρυσουφεῖς ἐσθῆτας), see Византиски извори, p. 15. 16 θέμα, théma, θέματα, pl. thémata, were the districts of the Byzantine Empire, which replaced the previous provincial system of the Roman Empire. Despite signifi cant changes to the original thematic system, the term remained in use as a provincial and fi nancial constituency until the very end of the Empire. 17 This theme covered the core of Samuel’s state from Voden in the south, Ohrid in the west, to Serdika in the east and Sirmium in the north. 18 From 1913 the island belongs to the Republic of Greece. The names of the episcopal sees written on the preserved walls of the half-ruined church obviously refer to the Ohrid Arch- bishopric; see А. Grabar, Deux témoignages archéologiques 1964, р. 163. 19 Стојков, Крунисувањето на Самуил, рр. 73–92, overview of the different opinions on the date and place of the coronation, рр. 74–76. 20 As in the city of Voden, Moglen etc., see Ферлуга, Византиjски извори, III, p. 64. Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 411 than 30 dioceses, including Ohrid, and that it was called Bulgarian after it had been ruled by the Bulgarians21 – this is obviously the period of the Assend dynasty because before that there had been no Archdiocese of Ohrid – it was founded by Samuel. This indicates that the Ochrid archbishopric, i.e., Samuel’s Church, was different from the Bulgarian patriarchate. And the question that arises is: How can we speak of the same medieval Bulgarian state if we have two autocephalous churches with two church seats and two state capitals more than 1,000 km apart? That Samuel did not act as a restorer of the previous Bulgarian state can be seen from his titles which refl ected the new situation – namely, in addition to the title of Czar (Caesar), he borrowed the title of samodržec (autocrator) from the Byzantine titulation. It should also be noted that in Byzantine sources Samuel is not referred to as Tsar like the previous Bulgarian rulers Peter and Boris II, which means that he and his state were not considered as a continuation of the previous ruling dynasty and state. This fact explicitly shows that the two countries (the previous Bulgarian state and that of Samuel bearing the Bulgarian name according to the well-known state-political practice in the Middle Ages) had different destinies and histories.22 Samuel took on the imperial title of the Byzantine basileis, probably between 986 and 989, just as the Bulgarian ruler Simeon I (893–927) had done previously.23 From the objection to the appropriation of this title in the letters of the Byzantine emperor Romanus I, of 925 and 926, we see that Simeon had made himself empe- ror (basileus) of the Bulgarians and Romans (the seals feature the title Basileus of the Romans) and that his title was not recognized.24 After having established his own state, Samuel also proclaimed himself emperor: “quidam Samuel qui se im- peratorem vocari iussit et…”,25 a title which, according to some authors, was later recognized by the Pope of Rome, but there is no conclusive evidence. An excellent and detailed analysis of this issue was carried out by S. Stoykov, who convincin- gly suggests that Samuel appropriated the title of the Bulgarian tsars just after the occupation of the north-eastern parts of the Bulgarian state, i.e., after the victory at the Bulgarian gorge (Trajan Gates), east of Serdika in 986, and that he did so in Preslav, the center of, in that time, the abolished Bulgarian state.26 It is believed that the reference to the usurpation of imperial insignia in a poem written by Joannis the Geometer, dated 969–971, refers to Samuel.27 This symbolic act of coronation in the previous Bulgarian capital demonstrates that Samuel’s goal was obviously 21 See Византиски извори, pp. 362 – 364, translation of the sourses with comments). 22 A detailed overview of the various theories about the creation of Samuel’s state was given by Ферлуга in Византијски извори, III, n. 11, рp. 60 – 63. 23 But despite this, Simeon held the title of archon until 913: on the seals he was referred to as the archon of Bulgaria; see Йорданов, Корпус на печатите, pp. 40 – 43. 24 This royal title appropriated by Simeon I was offi cially bestowed on his son Peter after 927 and was carried on by his successors until 971. Different opinions about Simeon’s titles in Стојков, Бугарскиот етнос, pp. 63 – 86, n. 93. 25 Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, XXXIII. 26 See disscusion on this in Стојков, Крунисувањето на Самуил, рр. 85 – 92. 27 See Ioannis Kyriotes Geometres, a tenth-century poet (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 106; Византијски извори Vol. III, pp. 28/29, n. 22. N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...412 to secure the legitimacy of his state, using the previous state-legal status of the Bulgarian state to which Macedonia had belonged at the time of Boris I/Michael (852–889), from 886 at the latest. It is well known that at that time only the rulers of Rome and Constantinople had the right to hold or recognize for someone the title of emperor, imperator, ie., βασιλεύς, so the reason for such an act of Samuel is more than intelligible – to gain legitimacy by appropriating the previous status of the dethroned Bulgarian Tsar Boris II.28 The appropriation of the Bulgarian title had resulted in the naming the subjects of his country as Bulgarians, and in this sense the names Bulgaria and Bulgarians are provisory. And as P. Stevenson rightly points: “the practice of claiming the title of emperor of the Bulgarians, therefore, has no ethnic signifi cance.”29 Before the Ottoman period and after the Eastern Roman Empire, the longest state and ecclesiastical tradition of Balkan Slavs was that of the fi rst Bulgarian state of Byzantine-Christian model, 864–971, (the oldest founded by the so-called Proto-Bulgarian in 681 was pagan), and the Serbian, created just before the middle of the 9th century was on the periphery of the south Slavic world. Consequently, the name of the Bulgarian state (derived from the designation Bulghars – Bulgarians) was used in a political sense for the entire population of the Western Balkans that was included in Samuel’s state. That this is so is obvious from the data in the extensive biography of St. Clement, written by Ohrid’s Archbishop Theophylact (who lived in the 11th and at the beginning of the 12th century) in which he wrote the following: “... and quite simply Clement left us Bulgarians everything related to the church which glorifi es the memory of God and the saints...”.30 Theophylact, who was of Greek origin, from the island of Evia, repeats the same thing in a letter addressed to the Byzantine Empress Maria “And so, now I return to the Bulgarians, as a true citizen of Constantinople, but strange as it is, also a Bulgarian.” 31 So, this designation, apart from the initial ethnic meaning, had a state-legal meaning, indicating the state affi liation. This self- -inclusion of Theophylact among the Bulgarians reveals the inertia of Byzantine writers, given the fact that from 1018 Macedonia was not under Bulgarian but under Byzantine rule. Due to custom, however, in Byzantine and post-Byzantine sources the designation Bulgarians, from the previous state name, was still in use.32 Such an example of the appropriation of a previous state-legal tradition was the Bulgarian prince – archon Simeon I, who between 914–924, probably after 919, 28 Thus the Croatian historian Ivo Goldstein noted that: “The state of Samuel of the Macedonian Slavs, which gratefully took over the state and imperial tradition of the Bulgarian emperors”; “took on the Bulgarian imperial crown”. See Goldstein, Hrvatski Rani Srednji, pp. 335, 346. 29 P. Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, p. 61. 30 Expanded Biography of Clement of Ohrid in the so-called Moscopole Collectanea (the biographies of fi ve saints printed during 1741 and 1742 in Moscopole). The transcription of the fi ve biographies, and translation into Macedonian with comments was made by Х. Меловски, Москополски зборник, Vol. 1. 1, quotation on p. 157, and commentary on the designation Bul- garians on p. 93, English translation of the quoted sentence, is mine (NP). 31 Gauthier, Théophilacte d’Achrida, p. 14; Patrologia graeca, 126, 504, C. 32 See Меловски, Св. Наум, in Москополски зборник, Vol. 1. 1, p. 248. Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 413 relying on the existing tradition, proclaimed himself king (basileus) of the Romans, and was оn the seals referred to as the Tsar of the Romans, Συμεὼν ἐν Χρις[τῷ] Βασιλε[ύς] Ῥωμέων.33 But this does not mean that he and the Bulgarians are Ro- mans (or Greeks, as the term Romei is misinterpreted, because Romaioi is also a state legal term, not an ethnic one). A similar example is the Byzantine emperor Basil I (811–886), who was probably of Armenian-Slavic origin but was named Basil I the Macedonian because he was born in the Byzantine theme of Macedonia, and, accordingly, the dynasty (867–1056) was called Macedonian, which does not mean that the rulers and the Byzantine Empire were Macedonian! These examples explicitly show that the designations of medieval multi-ethnic states did not have ethnic, but rather administrative, i.e., political content and meaning. There are other such examples in the near vicinity. The continuator of the works of Јoannis Skylitzes wrote that in 1072 the rebels against Byzantine rule in Macedonia34 sought and obtained the consent of King Michael VII Douka (1071–1078), to co-operate with them and to give them his son Constantine – also named Bodin – to make him tzar of Bulgaria (καὶ συνεργῆσαι δοῦναί τε αὐτοῖς τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ, ὡς ἂν αῦτόν βασιλέα Βουλγαρίας ἀνακηρύξωσι καὶ τῆς ἔκ τῶν Ρωμαίων ἐλευθερωθεῖεν κατα- δυναστείας καὶ βαρύτητoς...)35 and thus free themselves from Byzantine cruelty. Prince Constantin-Bodin was proclaimed the emperor of Bulgaria and renamed Peter, according to Petar Deljan, the leader of the previous uprising in 1040/41, but that does not imply that the Dukljans are Bulgarians or Macedonians. Later, in offi cial documents, the Serbian Tsar Stefan Uroš IV Dušan (1331–1355), was referred to as Serbian, as well as the Bulgarian and Macedonian tsar36 – as in his famous Code (Dušan’s Code), promulgated in Skopje (21 May 1349); again, this does not mean that Tsar Dušan and the Serbs are Bulgarians оr/and Macedonians! One of the most obvious examples of the use of the state name for different peoples in medieval multiethnic states in the Balkans is the Roman Empire, divided in two in 395. The offi cial name for the eastern part, the so-called Byzantine Empire, derived from Byzantion, the previous name of his capital Constantinople, a name that prevails in scholarly literature, was the Roman Empire: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων / Basileia Rhōmaiōn, in Greek; Imperium Romanum, in Latin. According to the state name, all peoples, regardless of their ethnicity, including the Greeks from Late Antiquity, were named as Romaioi (Ῥωμαῖος / Rhōmaîos), i.e., Romans. This appellation was taken over and used by the Ottoman Turks until the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, so that all the inhabitants of this part of their Empire, were referred to as Rummilet, which literally means Roman people, after the name of the previous Eastern Roman Empire, i.e., Byzantine. Thus, in travel documents 33 Иван Йорданов, Корпус, р. 48 – 53, 11 seals with the title basileus of the Romans. 34 Византијски извори, Vvol. III, no. 7, p. 177 and 181 (This is the uprising led by Bodin and George Wojtech). 35 Византијски извори, vol. III, no. 7, p. 179. Here, Bulgaria is the name of the themа that covered the nucleus of the state of Samuel. 36 This Code is preserved in several manuscripts: Grabalski, Ravanički, Sofi ski, Rudnički, Jagichev and Karlovački, see Соловјев, Законик цара Стефана, so it is evident that it is not a forgery or error of the scribe. N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...414 until 1900, Serbs were registered as Rumeliotes.37 Of course, it does not follow that all these peoples were the same in the ethnic sense of the word, that is, one and the same people! Throughout history, from the Middle Ages to the beginning of the new Age, there are other examples of the borrowing and use of previous titles and ethnic symbols in other parts of Europe, not only in the Balkans. The Frankish ruler Charlemagne, whose capital was Aachen, was crowned as а Roman emperor in Rome in 800 (in St. Peter’s Cathedral, by Pope Leo III). Considered the successor to the Western Roman Empire, the German state in the Middle Ages was named the Roman Empire, and its rulers (Otto I, 936–973, Otto III, 983–1002) were “German- -Roman” emperors. The rulers of the Habsburg dynasty who ruled from 1438 to 1740 also bore the title of Holy Roman Emperor, and the country was named the Holy Roman Empire, which does not mean that the Franks and Germans were the same or had the same origin as the population in the ancient Roman state! Thus, in Byzantine, post-Byzantine and Latin sources, even after the collapse of the “Bulgarian” states, for the entire Balkan Slavic population, in addition to the original designation Slavs/Scythe, the Bulgarian designation is applied. In the Thes- saloniki Legend (from the 11th/12th centuries) it is said that St. Cyril (826/7–869) went to the large country populated by the Slavic peoples, who are called Bulgarians (ѥзики словинскыѥ, се рекше бльгаре),38 and again in the legend of the prophetic Sybil: “а’ родь словѣне, рекше бльгаре”,39 which explicitly shows that it refers to all Slavic peoples. In the biography of St. Gregoriois Hagiorites (fi rst half of the 11th century, Georgian and Latin versions are preserved),40 a Georgian monk and hegoumenos (abbot) of the Georgian monastery of Ivirion (Ιβήρων) on the Sacred Mountain (Mt. Athos), hence the name Gregory of Iveria, it is said that in the vil- lage of Livizdia (Libyzasda) of Mount Athos there live ”Bulgarians who were called Slavs” (Bulgari qui Sclavi apellantur). The Latin syntagm shows that the Greek phrase found in the extensive biography of St. Clement in the Moscopolis collection „ ... τὸ τῶν Σϑλοβένων γένος εἶτ οὖν Βουλγάρων... should also be translated as “the race of the Slavs, who are (called) Bulgarians.”41 H. Melovski explained: “…Macedonia being taken from Byzantines and incorporated within the Bulgarian state, the name Bulgarians was used for the Southern Slavs.” 42 These examples serve as a more than 37 The document in the political archive of Moscow, op. 482 d. 26,229. For a copy of this document, I thank Prof. Dr. Vlado Popovski, Faculty of Law “Iustinianus Primus” – Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje. 38 Иванов, Български старини, p. 282. 39 Милтенова, Тъпкова-Заимова, Историко-апокалиптичната книжнина, pp. 255, 264, 269. 40 The biography was written posthumously by someone named George the Little, or George the Priest. English translation with commentary in Grdzelidze, Georgian Monks; French translation in Martin-Hisard, La vie, p. 63, & 36, 790. 41 Prologue to the extensive biography of Saint Clement, in Х. Меловски, Москополски Зборник, р. 105 text in Greek, comment in note 235. 42 Меловски, Москополски Зборник,p. 135, n. 235 (in Macedonian, English translation of the quoted sentence, is mine). Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 415 obvious proof that one is a state-legal and the other a race-related, ethnological des- ignation. Macedonia was included in the Bulgarian state in the second half of the 9th century, and over time the name Macedonia and the ethnic names of its many Slavic tribes were omitted. Thus, over time, the name of Macedonia and the ethnographic names of its Slavic tribes have been suppressed, being replaced by the administra- tive name Bulgarians. In contemporary Byzantine sources, besides the general term Slavs, all the peoples of the countries belonging to the State of Samuel extend from the Danube and the Sava in the north to Larissa in the south and from the Adriatic Sea in the west to the Black Sea in the east: Serbs, Greeks, Vlachs, Armenians, and others were traditionally called Bulgarians,43 but this does not mean that everyone there was ethnically Bulgarian. Thus, describing the fi rst Crusade (1096–1099), William of Tire wrote: “…ita ut confusus provinciarum nominibus et terminis, totus iste tractus, qui in longitudine habere dictur iter dierum triginta in latitudine vero decem, vel amplius Bulgaria dicitur: miseris Graecis ignorantibus quod hoc ipsum nomen eorum protestetur ignominiam.”44 Namely, to Byzantine authors, the cultural and state criterion more important was than the ethnic. And travel writers in the late Middle Ages until modern times did not understand the difference between the Slavic peoples and used, par inertia, the name Bulgarians. Consequently, in the 17th century Joseph Georgirenes45 wrote that in the monastery of Chilandary (Hilandar monastery, founded in 1198 by the Serbian ruler Stefan Nemanja and his son Saint Sava, whose relics are located there) on the Holy Mountain (Mt Athos), the monks sung prayers in the Bulgarian language.46 The same inconsistency when naming peoples can be found among Byzantine authors for other Slavic tribes. Such fl uctuation is observed in the naming of the other tribes – Serbian and Croatian. Thus the successor of Skilica in the story of the uprising of Gjorgji Vojtech and Konstantin Bodin in 1072, wrote that: the people of the Serbs who are also called Croats: τὸ τῶν Σέρβων εθνός οὐς καὶ Χορβάτας καλοῦσι. 47 This demonstrates that at this time the process of the differentiation of Slavic tribes was not completed and that the path to the maturation of nations was protracted, lasting until modern times. Post-Byzantine authors, both Greek and Latin, however, distinguish between early, i.e., proto-Bulgarians and Macedonian Slavs named as Bulgarians after their incorporation into the Bulgarian state. From Latin sources, it is worth mentioning the so-called Chronicle of Bar (lat. Regnum Sclavorum), written by the anonymous archbishop of Bar, named Pop Dukljanin (Priest of Dioclea or Duklja), probably in the second half of the 12th century.48 In this chronicle, Pope Dukljanin uses two 43 Kedrenos, Chronica, II, 476, 4; Komatina, Pojam Bugarske, pp. 41 – 56. 44 Migne, Patrologia Latina, 201, p. 254: Guilelmi Tyreusis historia rerum transmarinarum. 45 Born on the island of Melos, became a monk on Mount Athos and archbishop of Samos. 46 Georgirenes, A description of, p. 11. 47 Византијски извори III, p. 177, no 7, see also Радојчић, Како су називали Србе, р. 1 – 15. 48 Gesta regum slavorum presbiteri Diocleatis, written on the basis of the older Slavic compositions from the 11th and 12th centuries, see critical editions: Шишић, Летопис Попа Дукљанина, Београд – Загреб, 1928; V. Mošin, Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, Zagreb 1950. N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...416 names: Bulgari, orum (Bulgarians), and Bulgаrini, orum (Bulgarinians).49 He wrote that Samuel was the king of the Bulgarinians “Samuel Bulgarinorum imperator…”,50 while Peter and Simeon are named as Bulgarian emperors “Bulgarorum imperator Petrus” – Peter, the king of the Bulgarians.51 Samuel is fi rst mentioned in connec- tion with his rebellion against Byzantine rule and his taking of the imperial title: among the tribe of the Bulgarinians a certain Samuel rebelled and ordered that he be called king: „ Eo tempore surrexit in gente Bulgаrinorum quidam Samuel qui se imperаtorem vocari iussit...”;52 then in connection with his war with Vladimir in Dalmatia,53 and when Vladislav is mentioned as the only surviving descendant of Samuels’s genus:„Imperator Bulgarinorum mortuus est..”54 The fact that Samuel was called the king of the Bulgarinians several times, and not just once, shows that this is not due to a mistake by a scribe. The same distinction is found in the biography of St. Nahum (9th–10th century): the designations Βούλγαροι (Bulgar- ians) and Βούλγαρεις (nominative) from Βουλγαρέων (Bulgareians).55 From Latin sources, we should also mention the French song (La chanson de Roland), written in old French from the late 11th and early 12th centuries56 on the Carolingian knight, Count Roland.57 When enumerating the military detachments of Saraceni commander Baligant the people of Samuel, i.e., the people of Samuel’s state (et la sedme est la gent Samuel) are mentioned, and the Bulgarians are referred to on the occasion of Charlemagne’s death (e Hungre e Bugre e tante gent averse). 58 Macedonia was named a Bulgarian country after the 9th century, when it came under Bulgarian rule. Until then, in the Byzantine chronicles, to refer to Macedonia and its population, the designation Slovinia (Σκλαβινία, Sclavinica terra)59 and the general race-related, ethnological name Slavs (Σκλαβινοί) were mainly used, name that until the arrival of the Bulgarians on the Balkans, were used for the whole 49 This has already been noted by Прокић, Постанак једне словенске, p. 306. 50 Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, XXXIII, XXXVI, XXXVII. 51 Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, XXX. 52 Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, XXXIII: Eo tempore surrexit in gente Bulgаrinorum quidam Samuel qui se impertorem vocari iussit et commisit praedia multa cum Graecis proiecitque eos ex tota Bulgaria ita ut in diebus cuis Graesi non auderent propinquare illus. 53 Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, XXXVI: ,,Tempore itaque eodam, dum Vladimirus essat afdolescens et regnaret in loco patris sui supradictus Samuel Bulgarinorum imperator, congre- gatao magno exercitu, аdvenit in patribus Dalmatiae, supra terram regis Vladimiri“ 54 Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, XXXVII: „Imperator Bulgarinorum mortuus est et reges huius terrae mortui sunt“. 55 Меловски, Москополски зборник, p. 76 (text in Greek),p. 84 (translation in Macedo- nian), p. 93/4 (comments). The author translates the name as Бугарјани (Bugarjani), which is also correct. 56 On the epic poem see Drašković, La chanson, pp. V – XIV; Gregoire – Keyzer, La chanson, p. 287. 57 Roland was governor of the Marches de Bretagne district, killed in the battle of Ron- cevaux Pass in 778. 58 La chanson de Rolland, Laisse CCXXXIII, verse 3244 (la gent Samuel) ; laisse CCIX, verse 2922 (Bugre); Радоичиќ, Le gent de Samuel, p. 117. 59 The open vowel “o” of the Old Slavic language in Greek is transcribed as “a”. Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 417 Balkans, including Hellas,60 to the Peloponnese in the south: “ad urbem Monafa- siam (Μονεμβασία) in Sclavinica terra”.61 For instance, Pope Gregory VII referred to the King of Zeta, Michael VII of Duklja (1071–1078), as “King of the Slavs”. Although Byzantine authors did not seek to distinguish different and numerous Slavic tribes, they did record the names of certain Slavic tribes of Macedonia. Thus, in the work about the conquest of Thessalonika, Joannis Kaminiates, a Thessalo- nian priest from the 10th century, does not mention Bulgarians in Macedonia at all, but mentions the names of different tribes such as Δρουγουβίται, Σαγουδάτοι, Στρυμονίται,62and of course the general name Σκλαβηνοί or Σκλαβινοί.63 Moreover, the author of Miracles of Saint Demetrius also mentions the Slavic ethnonyms: Drogovitai (Δραγοβῖται), Sagudatai/Sagudates (Σαγουδατες), Velegezitai/Velege- zites Βελεγεζίται/Βελεγεζητες), Vaiunitai/Vaiunites (Βαϊουνητες) and Berzetai/ Berzites (Βερζητες).64 And again in the sources about the creation of the Bulgarian kaghanate in the Balkans in 681, for the population in Thrace, the southern part of present-day Bulgaria, only Slavs – the general race-related, ethnological name – is used,65 and only once seven genres (genus) without names are mentioned66 – a designation that indicates the social order rather than the different tribal names. Information on socio-political organization in the Middle Ages is often partial and comes from later and/or non-indigenous sources. The Slavic population in Macedonia was organized into territorial entities, a kind of principality, in Byzantine sources referred as Σκλαβηνία/Sklabēnía, latin Scla- vinia.67 One of the oldest sources for this designation is the legend of the miracles of St. Dimitrios of Salonika.68 Byzantine sources often distinguish Bulgaria from the Sclavinia in Macedonia. Thus in 687, Theophanes Homologetes Confessor (7th century) mentions Sclavinia separately from Bulgaria: Σκλαουινίαν καὶ Βουλγαρίαν,69 or again: ταν κατὰ την Μακεδονίαν Σκλαουινίαν,70 i.e., Sclavinia in Macedonia, which in Latin translation reads “Slavinias penes Macedoniam”,71 which explicitly 60 Theophanis Chronographia, pp. 456, 33. 61 Miracula Sancti Demetri, Accta SS. Die 2 iullius p. 504. 62 Ioannis Caminiatae De expugnatione Thessalonicae, 8, 81 – 82; 38, 61 – 62. 63 Ioannis Caminiatae De expugnatione Thessalonicae, 20, 74, 80; 20, 6; 25, 53. 64 Miracula Sancti Demetrii II,1; II, 4. 65 In the short history of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus (Sancti Nicephori Patriarch Constantinopolitani Breviarium Rerum) for the events from 602 – 769, it is written that: they (the Bulgarians) also reduced the power of the Slavs, who resided there in the country of Thrace: κρατούση δε και τον παρωχημένων Σκλαβένων εθνών, Breviarium Nicephori: 40.11; τα επί Θράκης χωρία, Breviarium Nicephori: 40.14. 66 Theopahenes Chronographia, written during the years 810 to 815, by Theophanes the Confessor. 67 More on Sclavinia in historical sources see Malinovská, Geographical concepts of Sclavinia, pp. 60 – 65. 68 Miracula S. Demetri, Acta SS IV, Die 8 Octobris, 162, 174 and others. For different opinions on the chronology see Stojkov, Some observations on, р. 33-58; Stojkov, The term Sclavinia, pp. 413 – 433. 69 Theophanis Chronographia, t. I, 347. 70 Theophanes Chronographia, t. I, 430. 71 Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Theophanis Chronographia II. N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...418 shows that the ethngraphic name of the population in Macedonia was Slavs, and that means that it was not the same as those people named Bulgarians. The south-western part of Macedonia, now in R. Greece was, until the beginning of the 20th century, referred to as Sclavicia (Склавиција), a designation derived from the name of the population το τῶν Σκλαβινῶν ἔθνος (the people of the Slavs), in the nominative case Σκλαβινοί / Σκλαβoί – Sclaveni, Slavs. The Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913–959) wrote that ἐσθλαβώθη δε πάσα χώρα, which ac- tually means that the whole country (Hellas) was “Slavisized/Slavonised”.72 This is confi rmed by the 10th century epitome of Strabo’s Geography: ”… now Scythians-Slavs inhabit all Epirus and almost entire Greece, the Peloponnese and Macedonia.”73 The interpretation of some, mainly Greek historians that the name Σκλαβινοί meant slaves and that the whole country (Hellas) was enslaved, is wrong. The name in Latin sources was Sclavini / Sclavi, and not servi. What is more: the country cannot be named after the word for a slave! An obvious argument to that is the name of the metropolitan archdiocese of Voden(a) and Sclavicia recorded by the French classicist A. Delaculonche, a member of the fi rst generation of the French School of Archaeology, who wrote that even today (mid-19th century) the title of metropolitan bishop of the metropolitan of Voden(а) (ancient Edessa) reads: „ὁ παvιερότατoς καὶ θεoπρόβλητoς μητροπολίτης τῆς ἃγιωτάτης μητροπόλεως Βοδένον καὶ Σκλαβίτσης”, ὑπερτίμιος καὶ ἒξαρχoς Μακεδovίας πρώτης.” i.e., “… metropolitan of the Holy Metropolis of Voden and Sklavicia the most respected and exarch of Macedonia Prima”.74 A church organization cannot have a slavish name, i.e., be named after the word denoting a slave. This name was used until 1926, when the Greek authorities renamed by law both the personal names of the Slavic population and the non-Greek, Slavic and Turkish toponyms.75 Thanks to the classicist manner of the Byzantine and post-Byzantine authors who used archaic names even after the settlement of the Slavs in the Balkans, especially during the classicism of the second Renaissance, the ancient names of the Balkan peoples were revived. Thus, according to the classicist tradition, the subjects of Samuel, whose state included different nations, were designed as Mysoi, Scythians, Macedonians, etc. Leo Deacon (10th/11th century), writing about the siege of Basil II of Serdica in 986 literally wrote that “... he gathered an army and quickly went against the Mysoi who harmed the Roman state and ruthlessly plun- dered the areas of the Macedonians (ta tôn Makedonôn)”,76 in which the difference 72 Constаntinus, De thematibus, 53, 18. 73 Muleris, 1861, p. 574. 74 See Делакулонш, Лулката на македонската, p. 233 and 255/6. Translation from French (A. Delaculonche, Mémoire sur le berceau macédonien,) in Macedonian with annotations by N. Proeva. 75 Law on renaming the names of people and places. See Offi cial Gazette of Greece no. 332, of 21. XI. 1926. On the policy of the Greek state towards the domestic population in the part of Macedonia appropriated after the Balkan wars see Proeva, Modern Macedonian myth, p. 172–177. 76 Leo the Deacon, 10th century historian, Leonis Diaconi, Historiae libri X, ch. 8. See Византијски извори, III, p. 15. Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 419 between the Bulgarians (Mysoi) and the Macedonians is obvious. The syntagm ta tôn Makedonôn obviously refers to the population in Macedonia. In a letter, The- ophylact of Ohrid in 1106 wrote of “the landscapes of our Macedonia”,77 although at that time Ohrid was in the theme named Bulgarian, and the name Macedonia was given to the theme encompassing area around Edirne, which shows that, with the disappearance of the ancient Macedonian state, the name Macedonia did not disappear, as well as pointing to the continuity of the name Macedonia for the country. Regardless of the circumscriptions of the Byzantine administration, and subsequent changes in political control, two ancient names, that of the Hellenes and that of the Macedonians, have remained to this day as the name of modern peoples instead of the medieval names Romaioi and Slavs – presumably for the reason of their glorious past.78 The land of Macedonia was still recognized as such by the peoples from Late Antiquity who lived there and by inhabitants who settled there in the Early Middle Ages and mingled with them, as well as by European travelers. There are also numerous documents in which Macedonians are mentioned alongside other Balkan peoples. Here mention will be made of only a few documents issued from the chancellery of Leopold I (1658–1705), the Holy Roman Emperor of Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia, kept in the Military Archives of Vienna, Austria. With the written proclamation (Litterae invitatoriae) of 6 April 1690, Leopold I called on the Balkan peoples (from Albania, Serbia, Moesia, Bulgaria, Silistra, Illyria, Macedonia, Rascia) to join together to fi ght against the Ottomans while he was at war with France in the Netherlands and on the Rhine.79 The second is a let- ter (dated 31 May 1690, Laxenburg, ad mandatum sac. caes. maiestatis proprium) allowing the people of Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania to fi ght against the Turks under the imperial fl ag.80 In these documents, Macedonia is listed along with Bulgaria and Illyria, which disproves the claims about the alleged Bulgarian and Illyrian (presumed Albanian) character of Macedonia and its population in the Middle Ages. This distinction between Macedonians and Bulgarians in an offi cial document is noteworthy. In those circumstances, Leopold I, by letter dated 26 April 1690, placed the Macedonian people (gens macedonica) under the protection of the imperial crown with a recommendation to the military commanders not to attack the mentioned Mace- donian people or to cause them any inconvenience, but to protect, defend, and assist them at all times and in every circumstance, as reads his letter: ... praefetam gentem macedonicam universam in genere et specie in gratiam nostram caesarem ac regiam hisce clementer suscipimus at acceptamus, omnibus et singulis nostris offi cialibus bellicis benigne demandantes, ut repetitam gentem Macedonicam in nulo modo infest- 77 Византијски извори, III, p. 288 (letter no. 22). 78 The general ethnological name related to the race of the Slavs (Sclaveni, Σκλαβoί) as a national name is preserved only for the Slavic tribes of the present-day Republic of Slovenia, and that of Slovakia, but many areas from the Baltics to the Balkans are still called Slavonia. 79 Костић, О постанку и значењу, p. 151 – 152; Радонић - Костић, Српске привилегије, pp. 25 – 27 (transcription), pp 89 – 90 (Serbo Croatian translation), Fig. I – IV and Fig. 7. 80 Радонић, Прилози за историју,p. 56/7, no XXXIV. Bestallungen, no 2609. N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...420 Fig 1. Invitatory letter of Leopold I for the Balkan peoples. Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 421 ent neque molestare prasumat .81 The letter is a response to a request made by two residents of Macedonia, Marko Kraida, whose birthplace was Kožani (Marco Kraida Cosanae),82 and Demetrius George Popovik (Demetrium Georgium Popowik), whose birthplace was Macedonian Salonikai (in Saloniki macedonica natos), both of whom were of “Macedonian descent” (macedonica natos). It follows from this letter that there is no doubt that they were ethnic Macedonians (which is actually obvious from the Slavic name of the applicant, although the other name is not completely legible), and not about some “geographical dwellers,” inhabitants of a geographical territory named Macedonia, as some authors contend to minimize this and other similar data. Even more numerous are Russian documents mentioning Macedonians. On 3 March 1711 the Russian Tsar Peter I addressed a manifesto to:”all Christians of Greek and Roman law in Serbia, Slavonia, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herze- govina” for the fi ght against the Turks.83 The correspondence of the metropolitan bishop of Cetinje Vasilije Petrović with Russian offi cials from 1752 to 1759, has also been preserved, mentioning Macedonians (Македонѧнe) in parallel with Alba- nians (Алвaнези), Bulgarians (Бoлгари), Serbians (Cepви), Bosnians (Боснѧки).84 During the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774, the Russian Admiral G. T. Spiridonov, in his appeal to the Balkan peoples of 12 (23). IX. 1771, to fi ght for the liberation from Ottoman domination, addressed the Slavs, Greeks, Macedonians, Albanians and Roumeliotes,85 which at the same time shows that the Macedonians 81 Protectionales pro gente Macedonica ad partes caesareae maiestatis transeuentes, exp. 26 apri 1690, Bestallungen, no 260, see Radonić, Prilozi za istoriju, p. 52 – 53, no XXXI. 82 Kožani, is a town in south-western Macedonia, now in north-western Greece. 83 Костић, Култ Петра Великог, p. 92. 84 Вуксан, Преписка митрополита Василија, letters nos. XXXI, XXXII, XXXVI, XXXVIII, LXII. 85 Арш, Некоторые соображения по поводу "Греческого проекта, in Хитрова (ed), Век Екатерины II, p. 70. Fig. 1a. A detail of the Invitatory letter N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...422 Fig. 2. Transcript of the Letter of protection of Leopold I for the Macedonian people (26 April 1690). Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 423 were not equated with the Greeks and Albanians. According to the proposal of the Russian Empress Catherine II (1762–1796), in the letter of 10 (21). IX. 1782 addressed to the Austrian Emperor Joseph II for the establishment of an Empire of Balkanic peoples, to be named the Greek Empire, in which Bulgaria, Macedo- nia, and part of Albania were to be included too,86 Macedonia was not identifi ed with Bulgaria. Additionally, there are more data on the subject. After the fall of Macedonia under Ottoman rule, and especially after the unsuccessful uprisings of Skenderbeg in 1443–1479, and that of Karpoš in 1689, as well as after the Austro- Turkish war in 1740, the population emigrated en masse to the north (to Vojvodina, Austria-Hungary).87 From there, due to the attempt to catholicize them and due to the abolition of the border land, the so-called Vojna krajina, the military border area defended by the Slavic settlers, these peoples relocated again, this time to the Orthodox East – Russia, especially in the time of Russian Empress Elisaveta Petro- vna (1741–1761). Thus, a certain Johan Chorwath, a Hungarian form of the name “Jovan”, son of Samuel, who is recorded to have been a Cincar from Macedonia: „а 86 Арш, Некоторые соображения по поводу "Греческого проекта in Хитрова (ed), Век Екатерины II, p. 74. 87 In 1689 the Austrian General Silvio Piccolomini set out to conquer Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia in a counter-offensive against the Ottoman army; then the Karpoš Uprising broke out in the northern part of Macedonia, but it was suppressed the same year. Subsequently, a large number of Macedonians, along with the Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija (KosMet) led by Patriarch Arsenij Charnoević, emigrated north of the Sava and the Danube. After that, an Albanian population from the mountainous parts of Malesia immigrated to these abandoned parts of KosMet and north-western Macedonia. Fig. 3 Letter (16 December 1757) of the metropolitan bishop of Cetinje Vasilije Petrović. N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...424 оной Харвать из Македоніи цинцарь“ 88 attained the rank of a major in the land militia of the Austrian army in Pomorišje.89 Given the Russian spelling of the name Харвать, which is nоt the same as Hоrvat, John or Jovan was very likely from (H) arvati, present-day Arvati.90 After the peace concluded in 1699 in Karlovci between Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, and following the abolition of the military unit of Moriška and Potiška Vojna Krajina, Jovan Šamov Horvat sent a letter to Count (graf) Mikhail Petrovich Bestuzhev-Rumyin, the Russians ambassador to Austria, requesting permission for the Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Vlach peoples to move to Russia. Having received the approval letter (of 25 December 1751), he organized the migration and a large Orthodox, predominantly Slavic population, but also Albanians, Vlachs, Greeks, settled along the lower reaches of the Dnieper River.91 According to his plan and at the behest of Empress Elisaveta Petrovna, the settlements were built, the region was called Slavo-Serbia and New Serbia, the Serbs being the most numerous,92 but there are villages bearing Macedonian names (Nov Polog, Skopsko selo, Makedonsko selo, Kumanovo, etc.), which still exist in Ukraine,93 and mobile regiments according to ethnicity: Serbian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, etc. The Macedonian regiment was formed on 10 May 1759 and existed until 28 June 1773; the soldiers were recorded as Macedonians.94 The Macedonian regiment is listed as the sixth on the register with the names of the regiments. Each regiment had its own fl ag, seal, coat of arms, and uniform of a different color.95 Only the Macedonian regiment had a coat of arms with a display of weapons: a helmet/cap and two long spears; the Macedonian soldiers, besides the curved sword, also carried spears.96 It should be stressed that the weapon displаyеd on the coat of arms is not a weapon of that time, but a traditional one. Both spears are of the sarissa type, used by the ancient Macedonians. In addition, there is a hat placed on the spears that resembles a helmet with paragnatids shown raised up like the ancient Macedonians wore. 88 Вуксан, Преписка митрополита Василија, p. 76, letter no LXII, from 11 December. 12. 1758. 89 Mureş or originally Moris (Hungarian: Maros, Romanian: Mureş) is a river that origi- nates in Transylvania, Romania. It fl ows into the river Tisza near Szeged in Hungary. The area along the river is called Pomorišje, and the name is related to medieval history. 90 А village on the slopes of Baba Mountain in Dolna Prespa, the municipality of Resen. See Матковски, Македонскиот полк, p. 166. 91 On Macedonian settlers see Здравева, Преселници из Македоније, pp. 135 – 145. 92 Костић, Насеља и порекло, pp. 43 – 60. 93 Skopivka, Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast; Skopiivka, Kirovohrad Oblast; Makedonivka, Lu- hansk Oblast; Makedonivka, Donetsk Oblast; Makedony, Kyiv Oblast; Kumanivka, Kozeatîn, Vinnytsia Oblast; Kumanivtsi, Vinnytsia Oblast. 94 On the history of the Macedonian regiment see Матковски, Македонскиот полк, pp. 257–285, 249 (list). See review Troebst, Südost Forschungen, p. 386. 95 Висковатов, Историческое описание одежды, p. 635. 96 Гербы Полевых и поселенныхъ Гусарскихъ полковъ с 1776–1783 г. in Висковатов, Историческое описание одежды, part 13. Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 425 Fig. 4. Uniform of the Macedonian cavalry regiment (10 May 1759 until 28 June 1773). Also the medieval European travelers who paint a portrait of the customs and political situation of the regions they passed through clearly distinguish Macedo- nia/Macedonians from Bulgaria/Bulgarians (and Greeks, Albanians). Bertrandon de La Broquière, who traveled in the Near East in 1432–1433, wrote in Middle French: « Et quant je ouys cecy, il me sambla une chose bien merveilleuse et me souvint de la grant subgection en quoy le Turc tient l’empereur de Constantinoble et tous les Grecz, Macedoniens et Vulgaires et aussi le dispot de Rascie ... »; «Il y a aussi, comme j’ay dit par avant, beaucop de Crestiens qui par force servent le Turc comme Grecz, Vulgaires, Macedoniens, Albanois, Esclavons, Rasciens et de Servie subjectz au dispot de Rascie et Wallaques, lesquelz, comme il m’a esté dit, s’ilz veoyent les Crestiens et par especial les François en grant puissance contre le Turc, ce seroient ceulx qui luy porteroient plus de dommaige et luy tourneroient le dos...” 97 The use of different names, except for the Macedonians, is also found for the other Balkan peoples. Thus, the Bulgarians who started migrating to Romania from the Ottoman Empire in the 14th century, especially in the 16th century, were called Serbs, and in the 19th century the term Bulgaro-Serb or Serbo-Bulgar(ian) was used in Wallachia. These denominations were accepted by the settlers, as seen from their requests addressed to the state administrations, as well as from the toponyms whose integral part is - srb, - srbi. On the other hand, there are a small number 97 Voyage d’Outremer, p. 216, 224 ; 199 (et par la Greece et puys entrasmes au pays de Macedoine); 208 (pays de Macedonie, de Vulgairie et de Rascie) ; 231 (la Vulgairie, Macedonie et la Greece). N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...426 of toponyms derived from the ethnonym Bulgari, a name which in the Romanian language took on the meaning of gardener, and even the verb bulgari was coined, meaning to cultivate vegetables.98 In this case, too, the reason is obvious – in the period from the collapse of the medieval Bulgarian state in 1396 until the creation of the Bulgarian vassal principality in 1878, the ethnonym Bulgarians gradually lost its meaning to the benefi t of the ethnonym Serbs, due to the role of the Serbian vassal principality created earlier (in 1815), as well as of Romania’s relations with Serbia. In medieval sources (Byzantine, Latin, Slavic) peoples are named either ac- cording to the state name, by the administrative unit of the Empire in which they were included, by the geographical name of the region where they lived, or by the names of ancient tribes that previously lived in these territories. An obvious example of the use of “historical” names for the peoples of the Balkans are the Austrian documents of the 18th century, issued by the specially formed “Illyrian offi ce”. In the fi rst half of the 19th century, with the resurrected name of Illyricum, a prefecture created in Late Antiquity, the so-called “Illyrian Movement” was thus named. It lasted from 1830 to 1843 and was designed to work for the cultural and political unifi cation of all southern Slavs and for the thesis that the Slavs are an indigenous people in this part. The Illyrian name was therefore synonymous with the South Slavic peoples! Under the name Illyrians, borrowed from historiography, all South Slavic peoples in the territory of the former prefec- ture of Illyricum were called “Illyrian people”, but this does not mean that they were ancient Illyrians! When all is said and done, the question that many often ask is why in the end the name Macedonians and Macedonia prevailed, and not Slavs and Slavicia / Slavinia or Bulgarians and Bulgaria, names that were used in the past? The name Slavs / Slavinia / Slavicia was gradually suppressed after the cre- ation of the Bulgarian state (kaghanate) and, as can be seen from the writing of A. Delaculonche, persisted only in the southwestern part of Macedonia, (present- day north-western Greece) in both secular and ecclesiastical nomenclature until it was administratively replaced by the Greek authorities under the law of 1926.99 The names Bulgaria, Bulgarians for Macedonia and Macedonians, on the other hand, could not survive because they were not ethnic but political denominations that disappeared with the disintegration of the prevailing political structure. This designation, however, remained longer, inter alia, due to the propaganda of the Bulgarian Church during Ottoman rule. Due to its geostrategic position, Macedonia remained under the rule of the Ottomans for the longest time and was constantly the target of the neighbors’ propaganda (Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia). The later constitution of the Macedonian state and of the offi cial codifi cation of the ver- nacular Macedonian to a literary language, just after the Second World War, are by the neighbors intentionally interpreted as proof that the Macedonian identity and language are artifi cial.100 98 Much more about it in Младенов, За етнонима сьрби (sirbi), pp. 3 – 11. 99 See Offi cial Gazette of Greece, no. 332, of 21. XI. 1926 and footnote 75 above. 100 On the reasons for the late codifi cation of the language, and on the existence of national Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 427 The second, and very important reason for the longevity of the Bulgarian designation for Macedonians in the past is ecclesiastical and legal. Indeed, the territory of the Ohrid Archbishopric, which lasted until 1767, coincides with that of the Assenid Bulgarian state. 101 Thus, in the Ottoman Empire, the religion was recognized, not the peoples – so after the Ottomans recognized the churches of the newly created, centrifugal principalities in the Balkans, all the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire were named according to their church affi liation: as Bulgarians exarchs (members of the Bulgarian Exarchate) or Greeks patriarchs (members of the Patriarchate of Constantinople),102 etc. Effectively, during the attempts of neighbors to appropriate Macedonia, the Macedonians more often sided with the Bulgarian than the Greek Church, which is understandable given that the Greek language was completely foreign and incomprehensible to them. In the Ottoman period until the 19th century, i.e., until the creation of separate states, the designations Bulgarian and Greek had neither ethnic nor political signifi - cance. Thus the designation Bulgarians denoted the entire Slavic population in the Ottoman Empire,103 while the designation Greek denoted all Orthodox Christians. Besides these basic meanings, both denominations also had a social signifi cance: the Slavic population lived mainly in villages and engaged in agriculture, the Bul- garian denomination meaning peasant, while the Greek denomination was used for members of the trader class, who were mostly Greeks.104 That the Macedonian population is not Bulgarian in the ethnic sense of the word can be seen from the written sources in which the language of the Pan-Slavic enlighteners, the holy brothers Sts. Cyril and Methodius (9th century), from Salonica, 105 is not called Bulgarian, as Bulgarian historians claim, but Slavonic i.e. slava, slavonice lingua.106 It was the fi rst codifi ed Slavic language matching the speech of the Macedonian Slavs from the vicinity of Salonica, south Macedonia – homeland (Urheimat) of Slavic literacy. This Church Slavonic language, by impartial linguists, is rightly named as Macedonic slavon, or old Macedonian.107 It is the Old Slavic language from the 9th century with which began the mass Christianization of the Slavic population not only in the Balkans but also in Eastern Europe, and the birth of Slavic literature. This literary Southern Slavic language became the lingua franca of all Slavic peoples until the 18th century.108 Even in Romania, the Church Slavonic identity in the 19th century among the present-day Macedonians, see Friedman, Macedonian Language, pp. 83–98. Reprinted in Macedonian Review, pp. 280 – 292. 101 See the details in P. Komatina, Пojam Бugarske, p. 41 – 56. 102 Detailed processed by Минов, Бугарската пропаганда р. 208 – 222. 103 Friedman, Macedonian Language, p. 84. 104 Wilkinson, Maps and Politics, p. 147 (Greek), 148 (Boulgarian). 105 Salonica (lat.), Σαλονίκη (Byzantine Greek), Selânik (turk.), Солун (modern Macedo- nian), Θεσσαλονίκη (modern Greek). 106 Gesta regum slavorum presbiteri Diocleatis, 301, 304, 320, 393 – slava lingua, 327 – slavonice lingua. 107 Mallory, Adams, Encyclopaedia, p. 301. 108 In spite of this, in 2021, the Bulgarian Parliament shamelessly appropriated the Day of the Ppanslavic Eeducators – Holy Brothers Cyril and Methodius, May 24, declaring it a holiday of Bulgarian literature, education and culture. N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...428 language was not only used for worship, but also as a literary language until the 18th century. From 1862, the replacement of the Cyrillic alphabet with Latin began, and immediately afterwards (1870–1877) the forced Latinization, i.e., the cleansing from the Romanian language of Slavic words and the introduction of words of Latin origin at the expense of non-Latin words – most prominently Slavic, but also Greek, Turkish and other – was conducted by the Romanian Academy of Sciences in each newly published dictionary.109 Over time, the modern Slavic literature developed from this Church Slavonic language, which can be seen from Church Slavonic sources adapted to the local spoken dialects, i.e. ancestral forms of the people for whom they were intended. Thus from the 11th/12th century there are Macedonian, Serbian, Bulgar- ian, Russian, Croatian and other redactions (recensions) depending on the author’s native tongue. The creation of literacy in the Church Slavonic language prevented the assimilation of the Slavic peoples by neighbors who had strong state institutions (Byzantine in the south and German in the northeast) and, at the same time, enabled the creation and development of separate independent socio-cultural identities. These examples show the intertwining of historical circumstances and there- fore the destiny of the Balkan peoples throughout their history, from Antiquity to modern times and that the ethnic aspect in the Middle Ages presents a very compli- cated question that cannot be studied separated from each other. Also, it has been noted that the ethnic aspect in the Middle Ages is oversized and overemphasized. Namely, most historians approach the Middle Ages from the point of view of the national understandings of the 19th and 20th centuries. In particular, the imperial- ist understanding and attitude that has been infl uencing the interpretation of the history of the Balkan peoples is signifi cant and potentially wrong in terms of true understanding of the ethnography, ethnonyms and cultural complexity of the Slavs. This should always be kept in mind when studying the history of the Balkan peoples in order to come to the correct conclusions. Sources and literature Sources Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Theophanis Chronographia II, ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig, 1885. Delacoulonche, Alfred, Mémoire sur le berceau de la puissance macédonienne des bords de l’Haliacmon et ceux de l’Axius. Archives des missions scientifi ques et littéraire, VIII, Paris, 1859, pp. 67–228. Делакулонш, Алфред, Лулката на македонската државност, од Халијакмон до Аксиј. Охрид, 2000. Ferluga, Jadran; Ostrogorski, Georgije et al. eds., Fontes Byzantini historiam populorum Jugoslaviae spectantes. Византиjски извори за историју народа Југославије, III, Београд, 1966. Geō rgarinē s Iō sē ph, A description of the present state of Samos, Nicaria, Patmos, and Mount Athos by Joseph Georgirenes ... ; translated by one that knew the author in Constanti- nople, London, 1867. 109 Bogdan Oprea, Relatinizarea limbii Române, especially pp. 60– - 67. After the Second World War, under Soviet infl uence, a certain delatinization and “Slovenization” of the language took place. Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 429 Immanuel Bekker, Constаntinus Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, Bonn, 1840 Immanuel Bekker, Georgius Cedrenus – Ioannis Scylitzae Ope, II, Bonn, 1838–1839. Immanuel Bekker, August, Sancti Nicephori Patriarch Constantinopolitani Breviarium Rerum, Bonn, 1837. Ioannis Caminiatae De expugnatione Thessalonicae, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, t. IV, Berlin-New York, 1973. Leonis Diaconi Caloensis, Historiae libri decem, Bonn, 1828. Migne, Jacques-Paul, Patrologia Graeca (Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca), 106, Paris, 1863. Mošin, Vladimir, Ljetopis popa Dukljanina (Gesta regum slavorum presbiteri Diocleatis), Zagreb, 1950. Müller, Carolus, Geographi graeci minors, Paris, 1861. Miracula Sancti Demetrii - Paul Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de saint Dé- métrius et la pénétration des Slaves dans les Balkans, Paris, 1979–1981. Nili Doxopatrii, Hieroclis Synecdemus et notitae Graecae episcopatuum, ed. G. Parthey, Berlin, 1866. Offi cial Gazette of Greece no. 332, 21. XI. 1926. Pitra Joannes Baptista (ed), Annalecta sacra et classica specilegio Solesmensi parta, t. VI Juris ecclesiastici graecorum selecta paralipomena, Paris-Roma, 1989. Theophanis Chronographia (The Chronicle of Theophanes: Anni Mundi 6095–6305 (A.D. 602–813)), ed. C. de Boor, vol. I, Leipzig, 1883. Literature Арш, Г. Л., Некоторые соображения по поводу "Греческого проекта" in Хитрова, Н. И. (ed), Век Екатерины II, Россия и Балканы, Москва : РАН, Ин-т славяноведения, 1998 Bogdan Oprea, Helga, Relatinizarea limbii Române, Bucureşti: Universitatii din Bucuresti, 2011 Drašković, Vlado, La chanson de Roland, texte critique, traduction serbocroate, commentaire et glossaire inté gral = Pesma o Rolandu, kritič ko izdanje, prevod, komentar i integralni reč nik, Beograd: Naučna knjiga, 1987. Friedman, Victor, Macedonian Language and Nationalism During the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. Balkanistica, Vol. 2, 1975, 83–98. Reprinted in Macedonian Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1976, pp. 280–292. Gauthier, Paul, Théophilacte d’Achrida: discours, traités, poésie, Thessalonique: Association de recherches byzantines, 1980. Georgirenes, Joseph, A description of the present state of Samos, Nicaria, Patmos and Mount Athos, London: P. Pitil, 1677. Grabar, Аndré, Deux témoignages archéologiques sur l’autocéphalie d’une église, Зборник радова Византолошког института 8/2, 1964, pp. 163–169. Grdzelidze, Tamara, Georgian Monks on Mount Athos: Two Eleventh-Century Lives of the Hegoumenoi of Iviron, London : Bennett & Bloom, 2009. H. Gregoire – R. de Keyzer, La chanson de Roland et Byzance, Byzantion xiv/1, 1939, pp. 265–316. Goldstein Ivo, Hrvatski Rani Srednji Vijek, Zagreb: Novi Liber : Zavod za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta 1995. Иванов, Йордан, Български старини от Македония, София : БАН Наука и изкуство, 1970. Йорданов, Иван, Корпус на печатите на средновековна България, София: Агато, 2001. Коматина, Предраг, Црквена политика Византије οд краја иконоборства до смрти цара Василија I, Београд : Византолошки институт САНУ, 2014. N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...430 Komatina, Predrag, Pojam Bugarske u XI i XII veku i teritorija Ohridske arhiepiskopije, Византијски свет на Балкану, Београд: Византолошки институт САНУ, посебна издања, kн. 42/1, 2012, pp. 41–56. Костић Митa, О постанку и значењу тзв. „Инвитаторије„ Леополда I балканским народима од 6 априла 1960, Историски часопис, II, 1949 –1950, р. 144–156. Костић Митa, Српска насеља у Русији: Нова Србија и Славеносрбија, Српски етнографски зборник, СКА, књ. XXVI, Насеља и порекло становништва, књ.14, Београд 1923. Мита Костић, Култ Петра Великог код Руса, Срба и Хрвата у 18. веку, Историски часопис, Књига 8 Београд 1958, pp. 83–103. Malinovská, Nora. Geographical concepts of Sclavinia in historical sources from the sixth to the fourteenth century, with an emphasis on the Moravian-Pannonian and South Slavic tradition, in Slovakia and Croatia. Historical parallels and connections (until 1780). Bra- tislava; Zagreb: Department of Slovak history, Faculty of Philosophy of the Comenius University, Bratislava; Faculty of Philosophy of Zagreb University Press, 2013. p. 60–65. Mallory James P., Adams Douglas Q. (eds), Encyclopaedia of Indo-European Culture, London; Chicago : Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997. Martin-Hisard, Bernadette, La vie de la Georges l’Hagiorites (1009/1010 – 29 juin 1065), Revue des etudes byzantines, vol. 64 – 65, Paris 2006 –2007, pp. 5–204. Матковски, Aleksandar, Македонскиот полк во Украина, Скопје: Мисла, 1985, in Меловски, Христо, Св. Наум во Москополскиот зборник ( 1741/1741 год.), Светите Климент и Наум Охридски, Скопје, 1995 (Охрид 1993), pp. 245–254. Меловски, Христо, Москополски зборник, пролошки житија на светците, Скопје: Догер, 1996. Минов, Никола, Бугарската пропаганда во Македонија и Големите сили, 1878–1912, un- published doctoral dissertation, Филозофски факултет, Скопје 2015. Милтенова Анисава, Тъпкова-Заимова Василка, Историко-апокалиптичната книжнина във Византия и в средновековна България, София: УИ Св.Климент Охридски, 1996. М. Сл. Младенов, За етнонима сьрби (sirbi) бьлгари, вь румунския език и румунската топонимија, Бьлгарска етнография, X/3, 1985, pp. 3–11. Острогорски, Георгије, Историја Византије, Београд: Српска книжевна задруга,1959. Прокић, Божидар, Постанак једне словенске царевине, Глас СКА, LXXVI/46, 1908, pp. 213–307. Proeva, Nade, Modern Macedonian myth as a response to the national myths of neighbours Albanian panillyrism, Greek panhellenism and Bulgarian panthracism (in serbocroate), Zgodovinski časopis, 64/1–2, (141) Ljubljana, 2010, str. 158 – 200. Proeva, Nade, Makedonci i Makedonija u Prvom svjetskom ratu, Prilog istraživanju percepcije nacionalnih identiteta, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta 47/2, Zagreb, 2016, pp. 787 – 817. Проева, Наде, Триптих за македонскиот идентитет, Скопје: ИЛИНО ИНТ, 2018. Радоичиќ, Ѓoрѓе, Le gent de Samuel” (Народот на Самоил) во песната Роланд (La chanson de Rolland), in Илјада години од востанието на комитопулите и создавање на Самоиловата држава, Скопје : ИНИ, 1971, pp. 111–119. Радојчић, Никола, Како су називали Србе и Хрвате византиски историци XI и XII века Јован Скилица, Никифор Вриеније и Јован Зонара? Гласник Скопског Научног Друштва, 2, 1927, pp. 1 – 15. Радонић Joван - Костић Митa, Српске привилегије од 1690 – 1792, Београд: Научна књига, 1954. Radonić, Jovan, Прилози за историју Срба у Угарској у XVI, XVII и XVIII веку, in Зборник историских докумената, књ. I, no. 25 и 26, Нови Сад: Матица српска, 1909. Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 431 Stephenson, Paul, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, A political study on the Northern Balkans, 900 – 1204, Cambridge: Universiry Press, 2004. Соловјев, Александар, Законик цара Стефана Душана 1349 и 1354 г., Београд : САНУ, 1980. Стојков, Стојко, Крунисувањето на Самуил и митот за царот евнух, Гласник на Институтот за национална историја, 58/1–2, 2014, рр. 73–92 . Стојков, Стојко, Бугарскиот етнос и мултиетничка Бугарија, константа и еволуција на сфаќањата во византиските извори во X век, Гласник на Институтот за национална историја, 59/1 – 2, Скопје 2015, pp. 63 – 86. Стојков, Стојко, Царство, етницитет, наследства, интерпретации, 1000 години од битката на Беласица и смртта на цар Самоил. Скопје: МАНУ, 2018, pp. 113 – 137. Stojkov, Stojko, Some observations on the appearance and use of the term Sclavinia in the Middle Ages. Гласник на Институтот за национална историја, 63 (1–2), 2019, рp. 33–58. Stojkov, Stojko, The term Sclavinia in Byzantine Sources: re-examination of the chronological framework, Monumenta, 4, 2019, pp. 413–433. Schefer Ch. (ed.) Le Voyage d’Outremer de Bertrandon de la Broquière premier écuyer tranchant et conseiller de Philippe le Bon, duc de Bourgogne (1432–1433), Paris: E. Leroux, 1892. Здравева, Милка, Преселници из Македоније у руско царство средином 18 века, in Сеоба Срба у руско царство половином 18 века, Нови Сад: Српско-украјинско друштво, 2005, 135–145. Висковатов, Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич, «Историческое описание одежды и вооружения Российских войск с древнейших времён, Санкт Петербург, 1841 – 1862, Факсимильное издание СПб.: Альфарет, 2007–2008. Вуксан, Душан, Преписка митрополита Василија, митрополита Саве и црногорских главара 1752 –1759, Споменик СКА, LXXXVIII, Други разред 69, Београд 1938, 1–94. H. R. Wilkinson, Maps and Politics. A Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia, Liverpool: University Press, 1951. N. PROEVA: On Rulers' Titles and the Names of Balkan Peoples ...432 P O V Z E T E K O vladarskih nazivih in imenih balkanskih ljudstev od srednjega veka do našega časa – Bulgari (Bolgari), Bulgarini/Bulgarеis (Bolgarinci / Bulgarеjci) Nade Proeva Vprašanje pomena izrazov Bulgari (Bolgari) ter Bulgarini/Bulgareis (Bolgarinci/Bol- garejci) je v zgodovinskih raziskavah prejkone zanemarjeno. Pomanjkanje ali kar odsotnost tovrstnih raziskav je v prid trditvam makedonskih sosedov, ki so zlorabili v srednjem veku običajno prakso poimenovanja ljudstev po državni pripadnosti kot dokaz, da danes ne obstaja niti makedonski narod niti avtohtoni makedonski jezik. Makedonija je zaradi svoje geostrateške lege ostala najdlje pod osmansko oblastjo, poleg tega je bila ves čas tarča propagande svojih sosed (Bolgarija, Grčija, Srbija). Za Bolgare so današnji Makedonci dejansko Bolgari. Ključni argument za to trditev naj bi bilo dejstvo, da se v srednjeveških virih prebivalstvo Makedonije večinoma, nikakor pa ne zmeraj, označuje kot “Bolgari”, po imenu države, ki je proti koncu 9. stoletja v svoj okvir zajela tudi celotno Makedonijo. To poimenovanje se je dlje obdržalo v času Otomanskega imperija, v katerem so prebivalstvo razločevali po verski in né po etnični pripadnosti. Postopoma je ime Makedonija zatonilo v pozabo, prav tako so bila pozabljena tudi etnična imena njenih slovanskih plemen. Območje Ohridske nadškofi je, ki jo je ustanovil car Samuel (968–1014), je sovpadalo z območjem druge bolgarske države v času vlade dinastije Asenidov (1186 –1395). Po silovitem uporu v Makedoniji proti bizantinski oblasti, ki ga je sprožil leta 986 lokalni velikaš Samuel, se je v skoraj tri desetletja dolgi vojni izoblikovala država s središčem v Ohridu in Prespi in ne v tako imenovani Bolgariji (Bulgaria poprie dicta), ki se je razprostirala proti zahodu do Jadranskega morja (Drač), proti jugu v centralno Grčijo, na severu pa je mejila na Donavo. Samuel (976–1014) se je v času svoje dolge vlade oklical za cesarja Bolgarov, z namenom, da bi utrdil svojo vladarsko oblast. Sam naslov carja Bolgarov ni imel etničnega pomena ali etnične vsebine. Šele leta 1014 je bizantinski cesar Basileos II. (976–1025), ki se ga je zaradi njegove krvoločnosti prijel vzdevek “Bulgaroktonos” (ubijalec Bolgarov) zrušil Samuelovo državo. Glede vprašanja etničnosti je raziskovalec bolgarske zgodovine P. Stevenson zapisal: “the practice of claiming the title of emperor of the Bulgarians, therefore, has no ethnic signifi cance”). To potrjujejo tudi drugi analogni primeri: bolgarski car Symeon 893–927) se je leta 925 razglasil za vladarja z naslovom basileus. Knez Konstantin Bodin iz Duklje na teritoriju Črne gore se je leta 1072 razglasil za bolgarskega carja in se preimenoval v Petra; Srbski car Štefan Uroš IV. Dušan (1331–1355) se je razglasil za carja Srbov in Makedoncev (Dušanov zakonik). Ti naslovi ne pomenijo, da so Bolgari postali Romaioi (Bizantinci) ali da so Dukljani postali Bolgari, niti ne pomeni, da so car Dušan in Srbi postali Makedonci. Primeri izposojanja prejšnjih naslovov in državnih imen so poznani tudi v zahodni in centralni Evropi, ne samo na Balkanu. Vladarji nemške države iz dinastije Habsburžanov (1438–1740) so bili imenovani za cesarje “Svetega rimskega Imperija” kar pa ne pomeni, da je bilo prebivalstvo podobno kot v času cesarja Avgusta in njegovih naslednikov. Takšna praksa prisvajanja prejšnjega državnega izročila in poimenovanja ljudstva je bila običajna vse do nastanka modernih nacionalnih držav, saj v srednjem in novem veku do moderne dobe ni bilo naroda kot družbene kategorije, kot jo razumemo danes. Tako se je celotno prebivalstvo Vzhodnorimskega ali Bizantinskega cesarstva (395–1453) dokonca osmanske vladavine nad Balkanom imenovalo Romaioi. V 18. stoletju je bil v habsburškem cesarstvu ustanovljen ilirski urad, ki bi po naslovu sodeč ustrezal poznoantični Ilirski prefekturi; slednja je obsegala več kot dve tretjini Balkana in Podonavja.V prvi polovici 19. stoletja se je ustanovilo gibanje južnih in zahodnih Slovanov, ki se je imenovalo ilirsko gibanje; spet ilirsko ime samo po sebi ne pomeni, da bili Slovani stari Iliri! Zgodovinski časopis | 77 | 2023 | 3-4 | (168) 433 Glede Makedoncev obstajajo dokumenti, ki omenjajo Makedonce poleg drugih balkanskih narodov: v korespondenci Leopolda I. (1658–1705), vladarja “Svetega rimskega imperija,” ki je vključevalo tudi Ogrske deželei, Hrvaško in Češke dežele, V pismu z datumom 26. april 1690 se nahaja odgovor na prošnjo dveh prosilcev, enega iz Kosane (?) in drugega iz Soluna, ki sta bila makedonskega porekla (macedonica natos). Dokument postavlja makedonsko ljudstvo (gentem macedonicam) pod cesarsko krono tj. zaščito. (slika 1); v razglasu (Litterae invitatoriae) z datumom 6. april 1690 se omenjajo pripadniki balkanskih narodov: iz Albanije, Srbije, Mezije (?), in Bolgarije; Srbi, Makedonci, Bolgarije Ilirije, in drugi., ki so se v času carice Elisavete Petrovne(1741-1761) naselili v Rusiji (!). Omenjajo se vasi, ki so nosile makedonska imena, kot na primer: (Nov Polog, Skopsko selo, Makedonsko selo, Kumanovo itd.); vojaki mobilnega polka so bili zapisani kot Makedonci. Nekateri srednjeveški avtorji, tako grški kot latinski, so razlikovali zgodnje, “Prabolgare”, od makedonskih Slovanov, ki so jih po vključitvi v bolgarsko državo imenovali Bolgari. Anonimni dukljanski/dioklejski duhovnik Poр Dukljanin (presbiter Diocleates) je v svojih analih Libellus Gothorum ali Regnum Sclavorum iz XII. stoletja) zapisal, da je bil Samuel cesar Bulgarincev/ (Bulgarini), medtem ko sta bila Peter in Simeon imenovana za cesarja Bolgarov (Bulgari), kar je pravilna ugotovitev: Peter je vladal v letih 927– 969, njegov predhodnik Symeon pa v letih 893–927. V življenjepisu svetega Klementa najdemo tudi razlikovanje med dvema populacijama: Βουλγαροι (Bolgari) in Βούλγαρεις Bolgarejci), pri čemer se je slednji uporabljal za prebivalstvo v Makedoniji. V stari francoski Pesmi o Rolandu – Chanson de Roland (XI/XII stoletje) se poleg Bolgarov (Bugre) omenja tudi Le gent Samuel – Samuelovo ljudstvo, torej ljudstvo njegove države. V starih bizantinskih kronikah se Makedonija imenuje Sklavinia ali Sclavicia, njeno prebivalstvo pa Slovani. Theophanes Homologetes Confessor (VII. stoletje) omenja Sklavinijo ločeno od Bolgarije. V vasi Libyzasda (Sv. Atos) so živeli Bolgari, ki so se imenovali Slovani “Bulgari qui Sclavi apellantur” (Sv. Gregorios Hagiorites, sredina XI. stoletja); ista sintagma rod Slovanov, ki se imenujejo Bolgari, je v obsežnem življenjepisu sv. Klimenta Ohridskega. Očitno je, da je eno poimenovanje državnopravni znak, drugo pa njihovo narodnostno ime. Tudi ohridski nadškof Teofi lakt, Grk z otoka Evia (Euboia) se je identifciral kot Bolgar, očitno kot državljan bolgarske države. Staroslovanski jezik, ki se je uporabljal na območju Soluna v južni Makedoniji, njegovo govorno, pisno in literarno obliko sta priredila solunska brata sv. Ciril in sv. Metod, ki sta leta 863 začela z evangelizacijo med slovanskimi ljudstvi na Balkanu in v vzhodnem delu centralne Evrope (Moravska). V pisnih virih se jezik, ki sta ga uporabljala solunska brata in kasneje njuni učenci, označuje kot slovanski, nikakor ne kot bolgarski, Nepristranski jezikoslovci označujejo ta jezik kot slovansko- makedonski ali kot staro makedonščino. Z razvojem pismenosti v cerkvenoslovanskem jeziku v razdobju od XI-XII. stoletja so se izoblikovale makedonska, srbska, bolgarska, ruska, hrvaška in druge različice, odvisno od materinega jezika avtorja besedil. Obstoj cerkvenoslovanskega jezika z razvitim pismenstvom je preprečil asimilacijo slovanskih ljudstev s strani sosedov, ki so v tem času razvili močne državne tvorbe (kot sta Bizanc na vzhodnem Mediteranu in Karolinško cesarstvo srednji in zahodni Evropi in hkrati omogočili nastanek in razvoj ločenih samostojnih socialno–kulturnih identitet. Z | Ljubljana | 77 | 2023 | št. 3-4 (168) | str. 239–491 ISSN 0350-5774 9 7 7 0 3 5 0 5 7 7 0 0 2