Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 3.: LIST OF ANCIENT BULGARIAN PRINCES — ( P. 29, 31 ) - The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 10

Return to Title Page for The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 10

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: History

3.: LIST OF ANCIENT BULGARIAN PRINCES — ( P. 29, 31 ) - Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 10 [1776]

Edition used:

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury with an Introduction by W.E.H. Lecky (New York: Fred de Fau and Co., 1906), in 12 vols. Vol. 10.

Part of: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 12 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


3.

LIST OF ANCIENT BULGARIAN PRINCES — (P. 29, 31)

A curious fragment of an old list of Bulgarian princes from the earliest times up to 765, was edited by A. Popov in 1866 (Obzor Chronographov russkoi redaktsii). It is reproduced by Jireček (Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 127). The list is drawn up in the language of the Slavs of Bulgaria, but contains non-Slavonic words, belonging to the tongue of the Bulgarian conquerors. It may be translated as follows, with the exception of the Bulgarian words:—

1 Possibly the preceding tvirem conceals the name of the successor of Tervel
2 Mistake for 7 (Jireček, p. 140 note).
[ 124-424.]“Avitochol lived 300 years; he belonged to the race of Dulo; and his years were dilom tvirem.
[ 424-574.]“Irnik lived 100 years and 50; he belonged to the race of Dulo; and his years were dilom tvirem.
[ 574-576.]“Gostun ruled as viceroy for 2 years; he belonged to the race of Jermi; and his years were dochs tvirem.
[ 576-636.]“Kur’t reigned for 60 years; he was of the race of Dulo; but his years were šegor vêčem.
[ 636-639.]“Bezmêr 3 years; he was of the race of Dulo; but his years were šegor vêčem.
“These 5 princes (k’nȩz) held the principality on the other side of the Danube for 515 years, with shorn heads.
[ 679.]“And then Isperich, prince, came to (this) side of the Danube, where (they are) till this day.
[ 639-700.]“Esperich, prince, 61 years; he was of the race of Dulo; his years were verenialem. [Ἀσπαρουχ.]
[ 700-720.]“Tervel 21 years; he was of the race of Dulo; his years were tekučetem tvirem. [Τερβέλης.]
[ 720-748.]“. . .1 28 years; he was of the race of Dulo; his years were dvanšechtem.
[ 748-753.]“Sevar 5 years; he was of the race of Dulo; his years were tochal’tom.
[ 753-760.]“Kormisoš 17 years;2 he was of the race of Vokil; his years were šegor tvirim. [Κορμέσιος.]
“This prince changed the race of Dulo — that is to say Vichtun (?).
[?]“Vinech [?] 7 years; he was of the race of Ukil; his name was šegoralem (?).
[ 760-763.]“Telec 3 years; he was of the race of Ugain; and his years were somor altem. He too was of another race. [Τελέτζης.]
[ 764?]“Umor 40 days; he was of the race of Ugil; his (years were) dilom tutom.” [Οὔμαρος.]

Various attempts have been made to explain the Bulgarian words (which ought to be numerals,3 but which clearly do not correspond in all cases to the Slavonic numbers) from Turkish dialects, or even from the Hungarian language, by Hilferding, Kunik, and Radlov;4 but none of these attempts are convincing.5

The last three reigns cause a difficulty, when we compare them with the notices of Nicephorus (p. 69 and p. 70, ed. de Boor) and Theophanes (a.m. 6254 and 6256). There seems to be no room for a reign of 7 years between Kormisoš and Telec; it is indeed considered uncertain whether vinech represents the name of a prince or belongs closely to the preceding vichtun. The murder of Telec happened, according to Nicephorus and Theophanes, in 762 (after his defeat by Constantine V. in June of that year); but Theophanes relates the elevation of Telec under the same year. Then, according to the Greek historians, Sabinos, son-in-law of Kormisoš, is elected prince; he makes peace with Constantine, but is presently deposed and flies to Constantinople, Paganos (= Baian) being elevated in his place. We then find Umar set up by Sabinos, as a rival of Baian apparently, and deposed by the Bulgarians, who set up in his stead Toktu, brother of Baian, in 764 — Baian being apparently dead; this is the account of Nicephorus. But Theophanes says nothing of Umar; but brings Baian (Paganos) to Constantinople, where Constantine and Sabinos receive him. Both the Greek writers agree that Constantine invaded Bulgaria in this year, but Nicephorus implies that it was in the interests of Sabinos and Umar. Now in the Bulgarian list Sabinos and Baian do not appear.

The Greek historians are far more likely to have made a mistake in regard to these events than the Bulgarian list. The confusion probably arises from the simultaneous reigns of rival princes. If Vinech was the natural successor of Kormisoš, his reign, lasting seven years from the death of Kormisoš, was mainly titular; and the three years of Telec were synchronous with part of the seven years of Vinech, and also with the reign of Baian, an usurper whom the list entirely omits.

It would then turn out that Sabinos of the Greek historians corresponds to Vinech of the list. As Sabinos raised up Umar (of his own Ukil family) to take his place as prince in 764, the seven years of Sabinos would come to an end in that year and we should place the death of Kormisoš in 758. As the years of the Bulgarian list need not all be full years, and as Tervel may have died in 719 (he was still alive in 718-19, see Theophanes, sub ann.), there is no difficulty in this supposition. We thus get: —

  • Kormisoš, c. 751-758.
  • Binech (Savinos), 758-764.
  • Telec, 759-760 to 762.
  • [Baian, 762 to 764.]
  • Umar, 764.
  • Toktu, 764.

[3 ]Certainly vecem altem, docks suggest the Turkish numerals nc, alti, dokus.

[4 ]Tomaschek suggested that they might be epithets [Editor: Illegible word]

[5 ]The various suggestions are put together by Jireček apud Kuun, Relationum Hungarorum Hist. Antiquies ii. p. 12 sqq.