Make your own free website on
The 'Second Bulgarian Empire.' Its Origin and History to 1204
R. Wolff


With the defeat of the Bulgarians and the annihilation of their state there begins in 1018 a period of one hundred and sixty seven years which is badly documented. The Byzantine historians deal very little with Bulgaria, now a portion of the Empire, and such information as they give is often contained in sub-clauses and phrases of sentences and paragraphs dealing primarily with other matters. The details of Basil II's own administrative reform of the Bulgarian Church (1020), including the list of bishoprics, is preserved in a later chrysobull of Michael Palaeologus, from which we known in general that the jurisdiction of the new archbishopric of Achrida was left as great in extent as that claimed by the former Bulgarian patriarchate, now abolished. [19] Seals of local Byzantine officials also provide valuable information as to the nature of local Byzantine administration in Bulgaria. [20]


One of the developments which may certainly be ascribed to this dark period is the growth in importance of the Vlach population. Essentially a pastoral and usually a nomad people, the Vlachs of the Balkans have throughout their history regularly been at least nominally subject to some other national group. Speaking a Latin dialect closely allied to modern Rumanian (the language of the Vlachs north of the Danube), the Vlachs disappear from our sources during the Middle Ages for as much as several hundred years at a time; but the probability is high that they were always resident in the Balkans, watching their flocks, and practicing transhumance and brigandage. Just before the outbreak of Basil's wars with the Bulgarians the Vlachs reappear — after over four hundred years — in the Byzantine sources. From then on, throughout the eleventh century, references to them multiply, and their traces become more frequent, until, by the third quarter of the eleventh century, we find them in large numbers wintering on the eastern slopes of the Pindus mountains and in the Thessalian plain, and summering in the high mountains to the north, living in close communion with the Bulgarians, and revolting against the high taxes imposed upon their herds by Constantine X Dukas (1059-1067). [21]

Because the sources are on the whole so scanty, and because they sometimes lend themselves to conflicting interpretation, this period (1018-1185) and the one which follows (1185-1204), with which we are most concerned, have become the subject of much controversy between chauvinist Bulgarian and Rumanian scholars. In general, it is the Bulgarians' purpose to proclaim, so far as they can make the testimony of the sources conform to their preconceptions, that Bulgaria remained a single administrative unit until late in the period; that the Bulgarians were always restive under and rebellious against Byzantine rule; and, above all, that the Vlachs played no part in the developments at the end of the period of Byzantine occupation which led to the formation of the second 'Bulgarian' Empire. Of this school the most famous representative is Vasil Zlatarski, although Peter Mutafciev, Peter Nikov, and Ivan Duicev have not been far behind. The Rumanians, for their part, are eager to show that the Byzantine government divided Bulgaria into at least two military 'Duchies'; that the Bulgarians of this period were a primitive people with no culture of their own, willing to submit to Byzantium; and, above all, that it was the Vlach portion of the population who led the revolt of 1186 and brought new glory and independence under a Vlach dynasty to the submerged and apathetic Bulgarians. Of this school the most famous representative is, of course, the incredibly prolific Nicolae Iorga; but the most effective scholarly research has been performed and the most notable contributions to


knowledge made by Nicolae Banescu. Iorga and Banescu have sometimes been challenged by Constantin Giurescu.

I feel no sympathy for either party to the polemic, behind which, during the nineteen-twenties and thirties, there lay ill-concealed the wish to impugn or to justify, as the case might be, Rumanian possession of the southern Dobrudja. This is a matter which western scholars would not ordinarily study with reference to mediaeval conditions. But in the Balkans mediaeval data accumulated by scholars are often regarded as providing strong arguments for the settlement of present-day controversies. For this reason the contributions of the Bulgarian and Rumanian historians must be used with great care, and the sources themselves examined afresh.

It should be said at once that such a new study of the sources produces convincing evidence that in this controversy the Rumanians on the whole have much the best of it. Between 1018 and 1185 the administration of Bulgaria, contrary to the views of the modern Bulgarian scholars, was almost surely divided by the Byzantines into two 'duchies.' One of these, Paristrion, sometimes called Paradounavis, included, as its name indicates, that part of Bulgaria between the Danube and the Balkan mountains, and its  had his seat at Dristra (Silistria) on the river. The other 'duchy' was called Bulgaria; its commander had his seat at Skoplye in Macedonia. With regard to the Bulgarian attitude toward Byzantine domination, which became increasingly oppressive after Basil II, it may fairly be said that, despite several revolts in the eleventh century, there were no uprisings under the Comnenoi; the revolt of 1186 was the first for more than a century. Moreover, the testimony of the sources is overwhelming that the brothers Peter (Kalopeter) and Asen (Assen, Asan), who led the revolt of 1186, were Vlachs. A brief review of the controversy over these points will serve to guide the student through the confusing polemic of both sides and to provide him with an understanding of the origins of the 'second Bulgarian Empire.'

In 1920, Iorga published an article in which he tried to demonstrate that during the reign of Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118) certain local chieftains mentioned by Anna Comnena as living along the right bank of the Danube in Paristrion were Vlachs. Iorga relates their names — Tatos, Chalis, Sethslav and Satzas — to similar Vlach proper names. An examination of the passage in Anna Comnena indicates that there were only three of these chieftains, and not four, as Iorga mistakenly thought. [22] Anna says that one of them ruled in Dristra (Silistria) and the others in Vitzina and elsewhere; and that the 'Scyths' (Pechenegs) who were invading the Empire from the north came to an agreement with these rulers before crossing the Danube, and moving on to harass Byzantine territory, where, between 1086 and 1091, they were to cause Alexius grave concern. Anna does not give a name to the people to whom the chieftains belonged. Iorga argues that since the 'Scyths' had to consult with them, the chieftains themselves could not


have been 'Scyths'; there is nothing to show that they were Bulgarians; their lands are said to have been planted with wheat and millet, which were common Vlach crops. Iorga therefore concludes that they were Vlachs, and that the chieftains dominated miniature imitations of Byzantine frontier duchies under a loose Pecheneg control, and out of Byzantine jurisdiction. He adds — without any evidence whatever — that their sway extended across the Danube into those portions of modern Rumania long known as 'Vlasca.' [23]

These conclusions were accepted by Banescu, who accumulated evidence to show the nature of Byzantine administration in Bulgaria between Basil's conquest in 1018 and the revolt of Peter and Asen in 1186. From passages in Cedrenus and Attaliotes and from seals, he began in 1922 to construct the lists of Byzantine 'dukes' of Bulgaria and Paristrion. Dukes of Bulgaria are attested to under Basil, who sent Constantine Diogenes and John Triacontopoulos,  and  with residence perhaps at Nish or Sofia (Triaditza, Serdica). Dukes of Paristrion, Banescu then thought, did not appear until the reign of Constantine IX Monomachus (1042-1055), when Katakalon Kekaumenos held the post. His immediate successors, Michael, son of Anastasius, Basil Apokapes, Nicephorus Botaneiates, the Vestarch Nestor, and George, son of Dekanos, are also known. Their title was  or sometimes  after the site of their headquarters; sometimes the word  is used as the equivalent of . After the accession of the Comnenoi in 1081, no mention of the individual dukes' names had previously been noted; but Banescu concluded that their office was maintained until the death of Manuel. To the evidence, such as it is, provided by Anna Comnena's mention of the three 'Vlach' chieftains Banescu adds that which Cedrenus and Attaliotes indirectly supply, and maintains that the Vlach element emerged under the Comnenoi as effective local rulers. Pushing aside Zonaras' clear statement that Tatos was a Pecheneg, and clinging to Attaliotes' vague mention of the polyglot population of the Danube river cities, Banescu, like Iorga, concludes that Tatos and his colleagues were 'Rumanians.' [24]

Returning to the subject, Banescu later added new and reliable evidence from Cedrenus and Cinnamus to show that, by the time of Basil's conquest, 'Bulgaria' meant to the Byzantines only that western portion of the country which had so long held out against them. He shows that Skoplye was its capital, and that there the 'Duke of all Bulgaria' (once called , once ) exercised supervisory authority over the local military commanders at Strumitza, Prilep, Prizren, Achrida, Castoria, and


Stip. In the east the Dukes of Paristrion — the term which had replaced 'Bulgaria' as applying to the territory along the river — were subject directly to the Emperor. Newly discovered seals, and a close study of Skylitzes enabled Banescu to draw up a fuller list of the Byzantine dukes of Bulgaria, and to add to the list of dukes of Paristrion a new founder of the line, Simeon Vestes (1030). [25] Although further data were added in later articles, [26] the basic Rumanian position in the controversy has not been altered: it emphasizes the division of former Bulgarian territory into two duchies and the importance of the Vlach element. In 1925 the Bulgarian response to the articles began. Mutafciev referred Iorga and Banescu to articles by Vassilievskii and Kulakovskii, and to Skabalanovich's book on the Byzantine church and state in the eleventh century, maintaining that these authorities had long since disproved the Rumanian theories. [27] But, as Banescu was quick to point out, Mutafciev had only clouded the issue: these authorities' views turned out to be not germane, out of date, or in substantial agreement with the Rumanian position. Indeed, Banescu proceeded to demonstrate that the duchy of Paristrion dated as far back as the victory of John Tsimisces over the Russian Svyatoslav in 972. [28] During the next ten years Mutafciev wrote in Bulgarian and then translated into French and expanded an


attack on the Rumanians. Here for the first time he argued that the word 'Vlach' does not mean Vlach, that is to say a Latin-speaking person, but is a device used by the Byzantine sources to avoid saying 'Bulgarian.' [29] In this way he turned the Rumanian arguments against their authors: if 'Bulgaria' meant to the Byzantines only the southern and eastern portion of the country (which the Bulgarian historians are prepared to admit only for the period of the Comnenoi) then the word 'Bulgarian' means only an inhabitant of that part of the country; and the word 'Vlach' is simply a way of designating Bulgarians from the northern and western parts of Bulgaria. 'Vlach' is only a façon de parler; it means a Bulgarian from that part of Bulgaria no longer called Bulgaria. These views were developed and expanded by Zlatarski, who disagrees with Mutafciev on details, but whose basic position is the same. [30] All the detailed arguments of the Bulgarians were once again, and I think conclusively, answered by Banescu. [31]

This is not to say that the Rumanian position on the period 1018-1081 is to be adopted in toto. I am convinced by their demonstration that from the time of Basil II on, the Byzantines had a divided military administration for Bulgaria. I believe that the reappearance of the Vlachs in the sources betokens perhaps an increase in their numbers, and surely an increase in their participation in the national life. But I cannot accept Iorga's thesis that the right bank of the Danube was held by Vlach local chieftains as early as the time of Alexius Comnenus. Indeed, Iorga's view, accepted by Banescu, has not won universal acceptance even by Rumanians, but was combatted by Giurescu, who correctly refers to it


as a mere conjecture. [32] So much then for the problem of administration after the conquest.

During the years between 1018 and the accession of Alexius Comnenus in 1081 there were three Bulgarian revolts. The first (1040-1041) arose because of the intolerable exactions of Michael IV's minister, John the Orphanotrophos, who for the first time demanded that taxes be paid in Bulgaria in money rather than in kind. The rebellion was led by Peter Deljan, probably a son of Gabriel Radomir, himself the son of the great Tsar Samuel. Gabriel Radomir had been murdered by his rival John Vladislav, son of Aaron, who, it is now believed, was the representative of the legitimate Bulgarian royal family against the Armenian 'Comitopouloi.' The hostility between the rival families continued into the third generation: Alusian, son of John Vladislav, first left Byzantine service in Asia Minor to join Deljan's revolt, then betrayed and blinded Deljan, and finally betrayed the rebels to the Byzantines, [33] who had in any case defeated them outside Thessalonica. Whatever conclusions may be drawn from the sources as to the legitimacy of Deljan, there can be little doubt that this was a genuinely Bulgarian revolt, inspired by popular discontent, and made possible by popular loyalty to the old dynasty.

Thereafter, the influx of Pechenegs and Cumans turned Bulgaria into a battle ground between Byzantium and these Turkish tribes; and we hear of no expressions of Bulgarian national self-consciousness or of rebellion until 1073. Then a new revolt broke out during a lull in the Pecheneg war. This was engineered by Bulgarian nobles under George Voitech, () with the assistance of the Serbs.


who supplied a new 'Tsar' in the person of their prince Constantine Bodinus, who took the name of Peter. The revolt was put down by Byzantine troops. [34] Shortly thereafter, a third revolt (ca 1078-1080) broke out, headed by a Greek Bogomile named Lika and by a Slavic Bogomile named Dobromir or Dragomir. The country was being overrun by the Pechenegs, who seem to have supported the revolt; and the Bogomile religious views of its two leaders indicate that there was more behind this movement than mere political discontent with Byzantine rule. It is virtually impossible to decide what role was played by the Bulgarian population during this uprising. [35]

But, to judge from the decreasing effectiveness of the three successive revolts, and from the cessation of all rebellion for a period of more than a century under the Comnenoi, it seems reasonable to suppose that, after the mid-eleventh century, the ability of the Bulgarians to revolt successfully against Byzantium was diminished. The first revolt seems to have been purely Bulgarian; the second was partly Serbian in inspiration; the third was probably religious rather than national. This diminishing effectiveness may be attributed partly to the exhaustion and depopulation suffered during the wars with Basil II; but it is surely to be explained in large measure by the fact that Bulgaria had become the scene of the war between Byzantium and the Pechenegs and Cumans, as well as the staging ground for military operations against the Normans on the Adriatic coast, and the thoroughfare for the armies of the first three Crusades. Even Zlatarski refers to this period before 1185 as the 'period of Grecization.' [36] Here too, then, the views of the Rumanian scholars are substantially borne out.

[Previous] [Next]
[Back to Main Page]

19. F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Ostromischen Reiches, Abtheilung I, Reihe A. Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters mid der neueren Zeit (Munich and Berlin, 1932), pp. 103 f., no. 806. See also L. de Thalloczy, C. Jirecek, and E. de Sufflay, Ada et Diplomata res Albaniae mediae aetatis illustrantia (Vienna, 1913), I, 15-16, numbers 58 and 59. The basic discussion is H. Gelzer, 'Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistümerverzeichnisse der orientalischen Kirche / Byzantinische Zeitschrift, n (1893), 41 ff.

20. Seals recently discovered at Silistria (Dristra) were first published by their discoverer, P. Papahagi, 'Sceaux de plomb byzantins inédits trouves à Silistrie / Revue Historique du Sud-Est Europeen, VIII (1931), 299-311, with rough sketches, and, as it turns out, many misreadings. They were republished with photographs and discussed by N. Banescu, ‘Les sceaux byzantins trouves a Silistrie / Byzantion, VII (1931), 321-331. See also Banescu's even more recent and conclusive discoveries, 'Sceau inédit de Katakalon, Katepano de Paradounavon / Échos d'Orient, XXXV (1936), 405-408; and 'Sceau de Demetrios Katakalon, Katepano de Paradounavon / Ibid., XXXIV (1940), 157-160. See also the splendid historical article of M. Lascaris, 'Sceau de Radomir Aaron / Byzantinoslavica III (1931), 404-413, who gathers all the available evidence about one of the last of Samuel's descendants to rule in Bulgaria, who entered the Byzantine service. For others see G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l'Empire Byzantin (Paris, 1884), pp. 316-317; M. Lascaris, in a review of K. M.  (Alousian) Byzantinoslavica, II (1930), 424; V. Zlatarski 'Molivdovul na Samuela Alusiyan,' Izvestiya na Bulgarskiya Archeologischeski Institut, I (1921) 86-101; 'Molivdovulut na Alusiyana / Izvestiya na Istoricheskoto Druzhestvo v Sofiya, X (1930), 49-63. B. A. Panchenko, 'Katalog Molivdovulov kollektsii russkago archeologicheskago Instituta v Konstantinopolye,' Izvestiya russkago archeologischeskago Instituta v Konstantinopolye, VIII (1903), 225, no. 66, is a seal of a 'strategos of Distra.' This was republished, Ibid, x (1905), 296. Banescu does not refer to its first appearance.

21. See below, Appendix A.

22.' (Alexias, ed. Reifferscheid, I, 222; ed. Leib [Paris, 1943], II, 81.) Tatos is also called Chales; the two are the same person. See below, note 32.

23. N. Iorga, 'Les premières cristallisations d'état des Roumains,' Acadèmie Roumaine, Bulletin de la Section Historique, V-VIII (1920), 33-46. The chief source is Anna Comnena, Alexias, ed. Reifferscheid, I, 222 ff; ed. Leib, II, 81 f.

24. N. Banescu, 'Les premièrs témoignages byzantins sur les Roumains du Bas-Danube,' Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher, III (1922), 287-311. Chief sources are Cedrenos, II, 476, 483, 487, 497, 583, 584, 585, 587, 602, 607, 610; Attaliotes, p. 204; Zonaras II, 713, which Banescu prefers to ignore. For the seals, see Schlumberger, Sigillographie, pp. 240, 103, 241, 710-711. See also Banescu's shorter article, 'La "Roma nuova" alle foci del Danubio,' L'Europa Orientate, III (1923), 580-585, in which chauvinism is more apparent than in some of the others.

25. N. Banescu, 'Changements politiques dans les Balkans après la conquête de l'Empire Bulgare de Samuel (1018). Nouveaux Duchés Byzantins: Bulgarie et Paristrion,' Académie Roumaine, Bulletin de la Section Historique, X (1923), 1-24 (separate pagination). Almost all the new evidence is supplied by seals published by J. Mordtmann, ', XVII (1886), supplementary volume, 144 ff. Some additional data from Georgian sources (Vita beati patris nostri Ioannis atque Euthymii, ed. P. Peeters, Analecta Bollandiana, XXXVI-XXXVII [1917-1919], 50).

26. N. Banescu, 'Ein neuer ,' Byzantinische Zeitschrift XXV (1925) pp. 331-332. The new addition is mentioned by Kekaumenos (ed. Vassilievsky and Jernstedt), p. 181. This brings the total for 'Bulgaria' to thirteen. See also N. Banescu, 'Unbekannte Statthalter der Themen Paristrion und Bulgarien: Romanos Diogenes und Nicephorus Botaneiates,' Ibid., XXX (1930), 439-444, containing new data provided by a seal, cited above note 20, as published by Panchenko, and by another passage in Attaliotes (p. 97). Here Banescu specifically equates .

27. First in BZ, XXV (1925), 211; then in a note in BZ, XXVI (1926), 250-251. V. G. Vassilievskii, 'Vizantiya i Pechenegi,' Trudy (St Petersburg, 1908), I, 1-175; Yu. Kulakovskii, 'Gde nachodilas' vidrinskaya eparchia konstantinopolskago Patriarchata?' Vizantiiski Vremennik, IV (1897), 315-336. Kulakovskii tries to show (pp. 327 ff.) that Tatos and his three (really two) fellow local rulers were Russians. His line of argument, up to the conclusion, is the same as that followed by Iorga to show that they were 'Rumanians.' Exactly the same passages from Anna, Cedrenus, and Attaliotes are cited; but the proof that Tatos = Tatush (Russian) is no more (and no less) convincing to me than Iorga's that Tatos = Tatul (Rumanian). Iorga's work was all done for him by Kulakovskii; he should at least have cited the article; and, to that extent, Mutafciev's indignation is justified. N. Skabalanovich, Vizantiiskoe gosudarstvo i tserkov v XI veke (St Petersburg, 1884), pp. 225-227, gives a very short account, now out of date. V. N. Zlatarski, 'Kakuv narod se razbira u Anna, Komnina pod izraza ,' Izvestiya na Istoricheskoto Druzhestvo v Sofiya, XI-XII (1931-1932), 71-83, concludes that the local rulers were Uzes, not Pechenegs, Cumans, Russians, or Vlachs. See the most recent work of Gyoni, cited note 32 below.

28. N. Banescu, 'À propos des duchés byzantins de Paristrion et de Bulgarie,' Revue Historique du Sud-Est Européen, III (1926), 321-325; 'La domination byzantine sur les régions du bas-Danube,' Académie Roumaine, Bulletin de la Section Historique, XIII (1927), 10-22; 'Ein ethnographisches Problem am Unterlauf der Donau aus dem XI. Jahrhundert,' Byzantion, VI (1931), 297-307.

29. P. Mutafciev, 'Bulgari i Rumuni v istoriyata na Dunavskite zemli,' Godishnik na Sofiiskiya Universitet, Ist-fil fak. XXIII (1926-1927), 1-24; Bulgares et Roumains dans l'histoire des pays danubiens (Sofia, 1932). See Iorga's review in Revue Historique du Sud-Est Europeen, X (1933), 67-72. I have not seen the response to Mutafciev by P. Panaitescu, 'Les relations bulgaro-roumains au moyen âge,' Revista Aromaneasca I (1929), 9-31. BZ, XLI (1941), 262, reports an article by I. Duicev on the 'theme' of Bulgaria, reference to which he has found in MS Vat. gr. 299 of the fourteenth century, containing a text of the eleventh or twelfth. The article, which I have not seen, and whose Bulgarian title is not recorded in BZ, appeared in the Godishnik of the National Library and National Museum of Plovdiv, 1937-1939 (Sofia, 1940), p. 797.

30. V. Zlatarski, 'Ustroistvo Bolgarii i polozhenie bolgarskago naroda v pervoe vremya poslye pokoreniya ich Vasiliem II Bolgaroboitseyu,' Seminarium Kondakovianum, IV (1931), 49-68. F. Dölger, in a brief notice of this article BZ, XXXI (1931), 443-444, points out the ineffectiveness of Zlatarski's argument that Basil's maintenance of unity in the ecclesiastical administration of Bulgaria necessarily implies maintenance of a unified civil and military administration. See also 'Politicheskoto polozhenie na severna Bulgariya prez XI. i XII. vekove,' Izvestiya na Istoricheskoto Druzhestvo v Sofiya IX (1929), pp. 50, separate pagination. Zlatarski has also written an article on the subject in the Festschrift for the Yugoslav scholar, Sisic (Zagreb, 1929), pp. 143-148, inaccessible to me. 'Edna datirana pripiska na Grutski ot sredata na XI vek,' Byzantinoslavica, I (1929), 23-24, maintains that , far from being the equivalent of Paristrion, is a family name. This point was met by S. V. Kougeas, ,' , III (1930), 458-462, and K. Amantos, ,' ibid., IV. (1931), 80, who show clearly that Zlatarski is wrong.

31. N. Banescu, 'La Question du Paristrion,' Byzantion, VIII (1933), 277-308, where he lists Zlatarski's seven chief points, and answers them one by one. See also the still more recent sigillographic evidence published by Banescu, and cited above, note 20.

32. C. Giurescu, 'O noua sinteza a trecutului nostru,' Revista Istorica Romana, II (1932), 2, calls Iorga's conclusions on the Rumanian origin of the three chieftains 'nedovedita' (unproved), and corrects Iorga's misreading of the passage in Anna, rightly reducing the number of the chieftains from four to three. See also V. Bogrea's note published, Universitatea din Cluj, Anuarul Institutului de Istoria Nationala, I (1921-1922), 380-381. For Giurescu's views on the Vlachs of the Balkans see his Istoria Romanilor (Bucharest, 1938), I, 310 ff. The subject has most recently been thoroughly reviewed by M. Gyoni, Zur Frage der Rumänischen Staatsbildungen im XI. Jahrhundert in Paristrion (Archaisierende Volksnamen und ethnische Wirklichkeit in der 'Alexias' von Anna Komnene) [Ost-mitteleuropdische Bibliothek, ed. E. Lukinich, no. 48 (Budapest, 1944)] pp. 106. Like the other works of Gyoni, here cited, this became available only after the completion of this study. It examines all the polemic on the subject of the national origin of the three chieftains, makes a searching study of the vocabulary of Anna Comnena, and concludes that they were probably Pechenegs.

33. Zlatarski, Istoriya, II, 41 ff.; and 'Wer war Peter Deljan,' Suomalaisen Tiedeakaiemian Toimitaksia, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Series B 27 (Helsinki, 1932), 354-363. Psellus, who, Zlatarski is sure, got his information from Alusian, a friend of his, says that Deljan was illegitimate; and Zonaras copies Psellus. From Skylitzes-Cedrenos Zlatarski derives a tradition that he prefers: Deljan was legitimate. He could not have been accepted by the Bulgarians, Zlatarski argues, had he not been so. See also Schlumberger, Épopée, in, 286 ff.; Vassilievsky, Trudy, I, 258 ff; and N. P. Blagoev, 'Delyan i negovoto vustanie v Moravsko i Makedoniya protiv Vizantiitsite,’ Makedonski Pregled, IV (1928), 1-2, 175-176. Harold, son of the king of Norway, took part in the Byzantine campaign against the rebels. Other sources are Kekaumenos and the Armenian Matthew of Edessa. See Adontz, loc. cit. (note 16 above), pp. 40 ff. for the proof that these murders were not, as had previously been believed, all committed within the family of the Comitopouloi. Samuel and Aaron were not brothers, as has been thought; Samuel had only one brother, David.

34. Zlatarski, Istoriya, II, 138 ff. (Source Skylitzes.) See also the Presbyter of Dioclea, ed. F. Sisic, Letopis Popa Duklyanina, Srpska Kralyevska Akademiya, Posebna Izdanya XVIII (Belgrade-Zagreb, 1928), 357-358. (Latin text.)

35. Zlatarski, Istoriya, II, 162 ff., and especially Appendix 5, pp. 495-496, where Attaliotes and Skylitzes' accounts are compared and discussed.

36. Ibid., p. 167, 'Epocha na Romeizatsiyata.' See also Zlatarski's article, 'Namestniki-upraviteli na Bulgariya prez tsaruvaneto na Aleksiya I Komnin,' Byzantinoslavica, IV (1932), 139-158 and 371-398, based almost entirely upon the letters of Archbishop Theophylact of Achrida.