Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State

The article explores the onomastic practices of medieval Bulgarians, focusing on the Second Bulgarian State, from the late 12th to the early 15th century. The collected evidence suggests that soon after their conversion to Christianity, Bulgarians abandoned the attested pre-Christian clan names. Yet, despite the undeniable strength of Byzantine cultural influence, neither aristocrats nor commoners in Bulgaria seem to have adopted Byzantine-type family names, nor, for that matter, making recourse to the use of patronymics as found among the Eastern and other Southern Slavs. Thus, for example, the name Asen became a true family name only among members of the royal family living in Byzantium. More generally, the few cases of family names or patronymics apparently applied to medieval Bulgarians, seem to be restricted to a foreign context. While family names and patronymics do not seem to have been employed in Christian Medieval Bulgaria, many individuals (at least where males are concerned) appear to have sported double names, composed almost invariably of a baptismal Christian name paired with a folk name usually derived from Slavic or even Bulgar tradition. This practice included Bulgaria’s monarchs, most of whom had such double names that should not be misinterpreted as family names or patronyms, as often done in the past. Specific names did, however, function as indicators for belonging within a particular lineage, as witnessed by the propagation of names like Asen, Terter, Šišman, and Sracimir. Thus, while these cannot be considered true family names, we could continue to use them as expedients to designate the ruling clans of Medieval Bulgaria (e.g., the House of Terter), albeit recognizing this to be a modern label. These considerations not only elucidate another aspect of cultural practice in Medieval Bulgaria, but also allow and necessitate a relatively inobtrusive emendation and systematization of the historiographical nomenclature of Medieval Bulgarian monarchs. Discarding the notion of family names and recognizing foreign patronymics for what they are, it becomes possible to recover the actual results of dynastic name selection, as well as the rationale behind them

Concepts of Emperorship from the Ancient Near East to Medieval Bulgaria

This dissertation is about the history of two intertwined concepts, observed from their original appearance until their interplay in the diplomatic experience of Medieval Bulgaria. The first of these concepts is the idea of a fully sovereign type of kingship that is not beholden to any other power besides the divine, which, in fact, is used to legitimize it. An implication of this ultimate sovereignty is monarchy occupying the highest standing wherever it enters into a power relationship with others: a model of hierarchically differentiated kingship. The other central concept is the enduring or recurrent use of the language of symbolic kinship to define or reinforce the relative status of monarchs who claim supreme standing. In patriarchal societies the model never required a self-aware definition as a “Family of Rulers,” and proved surprisingly resilient, continuously reappearing after real or apparent dormancy in the source evidence. It essentially reflected the power relationships between monarchs by translating them into kinship terms: “brothers” for monarchs of equal status; “fathers” and “sons” for monarchs of different status. Chapter 1 introduces the topic. Chapter 2 explores the origins of hierarchically defined kingship, including concepts of divine or divinely instituted monarchy, and the associated vocabulary of symbolic kinship in the Ancient Near East, reflected most clearly in the club of “great kings” in the Late Bronze Age (c.1500–1200 BC). Chapter 3 traces the changing meaning of the Greek term basileus from its humble origins the Bronze Age to the divine kingship of the Hellenistic Period (c.330–30 BC), and its interplay with the models of kingship and symbolic kinship discussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 explores the development of Roman leadership from an Iron Age monarchy to an oligarchic republic (c.500–30 BC), to a new monarchy under the emperors, supreme monarchs by another name. It also demonstrates the gradual adoption or adaptation of Hellenistic royal practices and precedents by Roman leaders and eventually emperors, culminating in the conceptual merger, first informal, then formal, of emperor and basileus. Chapter 5 focuses on the altered world of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages (from the fifth century), in which the surviving, now Christian Roman emperor interacted with non-Roman kings within the basic framework of hierarchically differentiated monarchy and corresponding symbolic language of kinship. After initial acquiescence in these models, as they became more integrated into the Roman tradition, the Franks and then the Bulgarians challenged the position of the Roman emperor, seeking parity in both titles and symbolic kinship. The surviving Roman Empire at Constantinople met these challenges in different ways, resulting in different outcomes. Given the Roman Empire’s geopolitical realities, however, this did not result in invariably hostile relations with the Franks and invariably friendly relations with the Bulgarians, both of whom ably redefined the nature of their emperorship again.PHDHistoryUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/174442/1/imladjov_1.pd