The 'Second Bulgarian Empire.' Its Origin and History to 1204
R. Wolff


In his first letter, written during the last two weeks of December 1199, Innocent III addressed his correspondent as 'the noble man Ioannitsa.' He opened the communication by attributing the Vlach military victories over the Byzantines to God, who had been rewarding Ioannitsa's humility and devotion to the Roman church. Having heard, the Pope says, that your ancestors came originally of a noble Roman line, and that this explains your devotion to the Apostolic See, I have long since been meaning to send you ambassadors, but have been delayed by the pressure of church affairs, and am just now getting around to it. I am


sending you as envoy Dominic, the archipresbyter of the Greeks at Brindisi, and urge you to receive him with the proper honor and kindness, and tell him further of your devotion to us. When he shall have reported back on the sincerity of your proposal and the degree of your affection, I shall send you ambassadors of higher rank, legates, who may strengthen you and your people in their love for the Apostolic See, and who may tell you of our good will. [61]

This letter is clearly marked as an answer to a prior appeal of some sort from Ioannitsa or from Peter and Asen. At least informal representations had been made suggesting that the Vlach-Bulgarian princes were ready to leave the Greek ecclesiastical fold and enter the Roman. Only such a situation could account for Innocent's confidence in Ioannitsa's loyalty to Rome, past and future, or his explanation that he had long since been intending to send Ioannitsa an embassy. Incidentally the reference to Ioannitsa's claim to Roman ancestry, which modern Bulgarian scholars dismiss as mere diplomatic flattery, is, it seems to me, strong further evidence, if any were needed, that Ioannitsa was a Vlach and not a Bulgarian. [62] These conclusions are borne out by the remainder of the correspondence.


It was not until some time in 1202 that Ioannitsa replied, probably early in the year, since Innocent's next letter is dated November; and communication between Tirnovo and Rome was very slow. A note in the papal register says that Ioannitsa's letter had been translated from Bulgarian into Greek and then into Latin. [63] Calling himself 'Caloiohannes Imperator Bulgarorum et Blachorum,' Ioannitsa thanked the Pope for his letter, told him that his late brothers Peter and Asen and he himself had previously tried to get into touch with him, but had been blocked by enemies, asked to be taken into the Roman Church, and requested a crown, just as one had been bestowed on 'our old Emperors.' Our books tell us, wrote Ioannitsa, that Peter was one, and Samuel was another, and that there were others before them who had crowns. Of course, this Peter is the Bulgarian who was recognized as Emperor by the Byzantines in 927. Ioannitsa also told Innocent not to be surprised at his delay in answering: at first he had suspected that the archipresbyter of Brindisi was not a genuine envoy; but a certain Pretextatus (otherwise unknown) had vouched for his authenticity. He asked Innocent to send him the high-ranking ambassadors of whom the Pope's letter had spoken. [64]

In this letter Ioannitsa not only acquiesces in the attribution to him of Roman blood (‘Deus qui reduxit nos ad memoriam sanguinis et patrie nostre a qua descendimus') but also claims lineal descent from the Emperors of the first Bulgarian Empire. His constitutional position as Emperor was defensible only if he could claim to be in the Bulgarian line of descent. At this time a Vlach Empire was not a possible concept, while there was a splendid precedent for a Bulgarian Empire. Basil, the metropolitan of Zagora, also sent greetings to the Pope; and


a 'prince' named Bellota wrote asking that he and his family be admitted to the church of Rome. [65]

Innocent replied, 27 November 1202, to 'Caloiohannes, lord of the Bulgars and Vlachs,' saying that, upon consulting papal records, he found that there had indeed been many kings ('reges') crowned in the land now subject to Ioannitsa. He referred particularly to the correspondence of Popes Nicholas (858-867) and Adrian (867-872) with the King of the Bulgarians, Boris (852-889), who had been christened Michael. Adrian, Innocent recalled, had sent to Bulgaria Roman priests, whom the Bulgarians had slighted, preferring the Greeks. This was a disquieting precedent, Innocent wrote, which tended to make him cautious; he would send Ioannitsa no Cardinal at present. Meanwhile, however, he would send his chaplain and personal friend, who was to regulate all church affairs in Ioannitsa's realm. The chaplain was to bring a pallium for the Archbishop Basil, and would have the right to ordain priests and consecrate bishops. He was also charged with the task of investigating the problem of a Bulgarian crown, in ancient books and other documents, and was to make recommendations on this matter to the Pope. In closing, Innocent once more reminded Ioannitsa of the ties which bound a population of Roman origin to Rome. [66]

Here the Pope's cautious approach is clearly revealed: the crown, which was of course the matter of greatest concern to Ioannitsa, was still to be a subject for investigation. But enough hope was held out by Innocent's references to the precedent he had discovered for Bulgarian kingship to keep Ioannitsa on the hook; although a careful reading of the letter would have shown the ambitious Vlach that the Pope was talking not of an imperial crown but only of a royal crown. Innocent was a skillful fisher of men, and knew how to play his fish. Meanwhile a start could be made on bringing order on the Roman model to the Vlacho-Bulgarian church; and no commitment would have been made to Ioannitsa. Moreover, while Ioannitsa called himself imperator, Innocent still called


him only dominus. Simultaneously Innocent replied to Archbishop Basil, enjoining upon him obedience to Rome; and wrote a similar letter to Prince Bellota. [67]

But before the papal chaplain had arrived in Tirnovo with this letter, Ioannitsa wrote to Innocent again, in August 1203. Six years had now passed, he said, since he had first tried to get in touch with Rome. He had been delighted to receive the archipresbyter of Brindisi, to whom he had given a letter for the Pope, but he did not know whether the Pope had ever received it. The Greeks had heard of the papal mission to Tirnovo, he wrote, and had sent Ioannitsa a patriarch; and the Emperor (it must have been Alexius Angelus, and the negotiations those for the final truce mentioned above) had said: 'Come to us, and we will crown you Emperor and make a patriarch for you, because there can be no Emperor without a patriarch.' Ioannitsa went on to say that, not wishing to accept this offer, he had maintained his loyalty to Innocent and to St Peter; he was sending his archbishop to Rome as his representative with a large train and cattle, and silken cloths and wax and silver, horses and mules, to adore the Pope, and he requested Innocent once more to send cardinals empowered to crown him Emperor, and to make a patriarch in his country. To this letter, which was entrusted to the Archbishop Basil to carry with him, the archbishop himself appended a note saying that he and his party had reached Durrazzo, but had there been denied passage across the Adriatic by a Greek, who had got the Duke of Durrazzo to warn him that if the archbishop went to Italy Ioannitsa would be in trouble. The local Latin clergy had also advised him not to go. He was sending on Ioannitsa's letter to the Pope by Sergius, Ioannitsa's imperial constable, and Constantine a priest. [68]

In this letter we can clearly discern Ioannitsa's impatience, and his own not very subtle effort to bring pressure to bear on the Pope. His weapon against Innocent was the threat, here only hinted at, that he might go over to the Greeks. Innocent had in mind, we know, the previous failure of the papacy in Bulgaria; and was presumably the more anxious to secure Ioannitsa's allegiance. By his emphasis upon his refusal so far to be won over by the blandishments of the Greeks, Ioannitsa let it be seen that another time his patience might have run out. What he wanted of Innocent was still the same thing; and he re-stated his demands more emphatically: after all, the Greeks were ready to grant them. We can be fairly confident that, in order to keep Ioannitsa out of the Roman church, and to make peace with him, they would have made good their offer, with the same mental and titular reservations they had had in the case of the Bulgarian Emperor Peter nearly three hundred years before.

Innocent's response both to Ioannitsa and to Basil said simply that their letters had crossed; and repeated once more the instructions which his chaplain had been ordered to carry out. He informed the anxious pair that the chaplain was now on his way to them via Hungary. He urged Archbishop Basil to try again


to come to Rome in person if possible, advising the crossing to Apulia; and he promised Ioannitsa that his demands would receive due consideration. [69] From a later letter of Archbishop Basil, we know that the Pope's chaplain, John, arrived in Tirnovo while Basil was still waiting near Durrazzo in the hope that he might be able to cross over to Italy. Ioannitsa sent word to him that the long-awaited papal envoy had arrived; and summoned him back to the capital. In September 1203 Basil returned to Tirnovo, found John there, and received the papal benediction and the pallium on 8 September. He wrote thanking Innocent, and asking for some holy oil, and for instructions as to its use, as well as for pallia for the metropolitans of Preslav and Belebuzda (Kustendil). [70]

The papal registers contain the Latin text of a chrysobull (chrysobolum) almost surely first written in Greek, which Ioannitsa now issued. Calling himself 'Lord and Emperor' of all Bulgaria and Vlachia, he recounts how he consulted 'our' ancient books and the laws of 'our' predecessors to find out where the Bulgarian Emperors had got their empire, their imperial title, their crown, and their patriarchal benediction. Symeon, Peter, and Samuel, 'our predecessors,' had got these from the Roman church and from the Pope. So he had asked the present Pope for the same things. And now Innocent III, he wrote, had given a patriarchal blessing to Tirnovo; henceforth all churches of his empire and his patriarch and clergy were to be subject to Rome. In order that the chrysobull might be valid, Ioannitsa wrote, he had given his empire into the hands of John, the Pope's chaplain. [71] Actually Basil had received only an archbishop's pallium, not the rank of patriarch; but Ioannitsa's chrysobull simply brazens this out.

To Innocent, however, Ioannitsa wrote expressing joy at the arrival of John


the chaplain, who had made Basil 'primate' of all Bulgaria; but asking in the strongest terms that the Pope now send the staff of a patriarch, and the other insignia which a patriarch was wont to have; and make the present 'primate' a patriarch. He also asked, because of the long distance to Rome and because of the 'wars of men,' that the Pope grant permission to the church of Tirnovo to elect patriarchs, Basil's successors. He asked for holy oil; the Greeks, he said, would give him none when they knew that he had gone over to Rome. He repeated his request that a cardinal be sent with a crown and sceptre for him, and a golden bull for the church of Tirnovo. He concluded with an offer to have Innocent mediate the boundary dispute between him and the King of Hungary, and the announcement that he was sending presents: 'examita dupplatria, et cupam auream et yperperorum libras quatuor, et scutellas argenteas tres et gradale argenteum.' [72] This letter was carried by the Bishop of Blandizuber (Branichevo). Here we can detect Ioannitsa's anxiety that all the proper protocol be followed and all formalities accomplished to set him on the level of his Bulgarian predecessors and Byzantine rivals. He was by no means satisfied with the mere rank of 'primate' for Basil or with the further investigation which seemed necessary before he himself was to get his crown. The repeated reference to the Greeks in connection with the holy oil may have been intended as a subtle reminder to the Pope of the alternative still open to Ioannitsa.

This missive finally elicited a whole series of letters from Innocent, all written on 25 February 1204. Perhaps the report of John the chaplain had also proved satisfactory. For the Pope had now decided, at last, to send a cardinal, and to fulfill Ioannitsa's wishes — up to a point. This time Innocent formally saluted him as 'Karissimo filio in Christo Calaiohanni illustri Bulgarorum et Blachorum regi,' told him at length of the calling of a king, and sent him the sceptre of a kingdom and the diadem of a king by the hands of Leo, cardinal priest of Santa Croce, a legate of the Holy See. In exchange, Ioannitsa was to swear loyalty to Rome. Moreover, he granted Ioannitsa's petition (of which we now hear for the first time, the letter of request presumably having been lost) to be allowed to coin money with his effigy on it. And he informed Ioannitsa that Basil was to be his primate. [73] He officially notified Basil of the change in Ioannitsa's status ('hac-


tenus dominum . . . regain statuimus'), and in his own, assuring him that a primate and a patriarch amounted to the same thing. Basil could anoint, bless, and crown future kings, and had a great many other privileges and duties. [74] The primate also received a separate letter on the necessity of anointing priests, not hitherto practiced in Bulgaria, and a matter of grave concern both to Basil and to the Pope. [75] Innocent wrote a special letter introducing the legate, who was carrying all these communications, and also the form by which he would confer the pallium and by which Basil would accept it. [76] He also sent Ioannitsa a cross for use as a standard (vexillum) in war against 'those who render the crucifix lip-service only' — the Greeks — and against the wild pagans. [77] He also sent pallia to the bishops of Preslav and Belebuzda (Kustendil). [78] The Hungarians were warned to give the cardinal legate safe transit. [79] This, however, they did not do at first, despite their previous promises to the Pope. They held Leo up at the Danube; and Innocent wrote angrily and sorrowfully in September 1204, urging that this be remedied. [80] But apparently the Hungarian King Emeric had changed his mind before hearing from Innocent; Leo was permitted to cross into Ioannitsa's territory. He arrived in Tirnovo safely on 15 October 1204, anointed Basil on the seventh of November, and crowned Ioannitsa king on the eighth. [81]


Ioannitsa, now calling himself 'Rex totius Bulgarie et Vlachie,' wrote joyfully thanking Innocent; he still referred, however, to Basil as a patriarch, and to his own land as 'imperium meum' rather than as 'regnum,' the word always used by the Pope. [82] Basil also replied gratefully, reporting both ceremonies, and telling the Pope in addition that the cardinal legate had left Tirnovo on 15 November, taking with him two boys, one the son of Constantine the priest, and the other Ioannitsa's own son, to study Latin in Rome. [83]

Thus, in November 1204, negotiations which had extended over a period of more than five years came to an end. Ioannitsa had obtained much but not everything. When the Pope sent Cardinal Leo in February 1204, he had no inkling of what was to happen at Constantinople two months later. The Crusaders, who had taken the city for the first time in July 1203, restoring Isaac Angelus and crowning his son, the young Alexius, sacked it again in April 1204, this time establishing a Latin Empire with Count Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut as Emperor, and driving the Byzantines into exile. The second sack of the city and the formation of the Latin Empire created an altogether new diplomatic situation. The kingdom of Ioannitsa, newly sanctioned by the Pope, was now a neighbor of the Latins, who were also papal proteges, Innocent having taken the Latin Empire under his protection, despite his chagrin at the Latin atrocities committed during the sack. Ioannitsa himself expressed his concern over the new development in his last letter to Innocent, already cited: ‘Write to the Latins,' he asked the Pope, 'to keep away from my empire, and, if they do, my empire will not harm them; but let them not set it at little worth. If they make an attempt against my empire and set it at little worth, and some of them get killed, do not your Holiness suspect my empire because it will not be my fault.' [84] Here is an ominous forecast of the sort of relations which were to obtain between the two states under papal protection.

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

61. Migne, Patrologia Latina, CCXIV, col. 825, Book II, no. 266; A. Potthast, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 931; Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 11, no. 18; H.-D. Documente I, 1, no. 1.
'Nobili viro Iohannitio etc. Respexit dominus humilitatem tuam et devotionem, quam erga Romanam ecclesiam cognosceris hactenus habuisse, et te inter tumultus bellicos et guerrarum discrimina non solum potenter defendit, sed etiam mirabiliter et misericorditer dilatavit. Nos autem, audito quod de nobili Urbis Romae prosapia progenitores tui originem traxerint, et tu ab eis et sanguineis generositatem contrax-eris et sincere devotionem affectum, quern ad apostolicam sedem geris quasi hereditario iure, iampridem te proposuimus litteris et nuntiis visitare; sed variis ecclesie sollicitudinibus detenti hactenus non potuimus nostrum propositum adimplere: nunc vero inter alias sollicitudines nostras hanc etiam assumendam duximus. . . . Dilectum . . . Dominicum archipresbiterum Grecorum de Brundisio ad te personaliter destinantes, monemus . . . quatenus ipsum humiliter et devote recipiens, honorifice ac benigne pertractes, et per eum plenius nobis tuam devotionem exponas. Cum enim plene nobis per ipsum de sinceritate tui propositi et devotionis affectu constiterit, ad te proposuimus maiores nuntios vel legates potius destinare, qui tarn te quam tuos in apostolice sedis dilectione confirment, et te de benivolentia nostra efficient certiorem.'

62. That contemporaries were conscious of the Roman origin of the Vlachs (sometimes calling it 'Italian') is indicated by the passage of Cinnamos, already cited, note 37 above. Even better informed was Kekaumenos, who says they were originally the descendants of the Dacians and the 'Bessoi,' and was aware of their King Decebalus, whom Trajan had defeated. Strategicon, op. cit., p. 74:

M. Gyoni, in his interesting study, 'L'Oeuvre de Kekaumenos, Source de l'histoire Roumaine,' Revue de l’Histoire Comparée, XXIII, nouvelle série III (1945), 96-180, analyses the passage carefully. His demonstration that Kekaumenos took from Dio Cassius, or from some epitome of Dio current in eleventh-century Byzantium, all his information on Trajan and Decebalus is quite convincing. (It had been suggested but not demonstrated by Tomaschek, 'Hamushalbinsel,' loc. cit., 493-494.) But Gyoni's effort to explain Kekaumenos' identification of the Dacians and 'Bessai,' on the one hand, with the Vlachs, on the other, as archaizing typical of the Byzantine sources (pp. 175 ff.) does not entirely come off. It is true that Kekaumenos made an error in locating the Dacians and Bessai 'near the Danube and the Sava, where the Serbs now live'; it is true that he uses the entire passage about these people of antiquity to illustrate perfidy, in connection with a warning to his son against the same trait in the Vlachs. But it would be an extraordinary coincidence if these factors alone, as Gyoni argues, explained away the flat identification of the Vlachs of the eleventh century with the Dacians and 'Bessai' of Trajan's day. Awareness of the Roman origin of the Vlachs is not expressed by any source before Kinnamos known to me, but it became a truism of sixteenth and seventeenth-century comment on them even by Hungarians. I have not seen the latest work on this subject, A. Cioranescu, La tradition historique et Vorigine des Roumains, which is reviewed by G. Bratianu in Revue Historique du Sud-Est Européen, XIX (1942), 663-665. For the 'Bessoi' see Tomaschek, 'Hamushalbinsel,' loc. cit. 478 ff., especially 499 ff.

63. 'Litterae Caloioannis domini Bulgarorum et Blacorum missae domino Innocentio papae III translate de Bulgarico in Graecum et de Graeco postea in Latinum.' It is highly likely that Ioannitsa, who though a Vlach, was now claiming descent from the emperors of the first Bulgarian Empire, conducted his correspondence in Bulgarian, the official language of the first Empire. There would have been plenty of scribes available; and models would have been furnished by the archives of the earlier emperors, which, in part at least, seem to have fallen into Ioannitsa's hands. (See the references below, note 64, to the 'books' in which he had discovered that crowns had been sent by the Popes to Peter and Samuel.) There is, however, it seems to me, the barest possibility that the first version of the letters was in Vlach, although there is no evidence that Vlach was a written language at this time. If, by chance, it was written, it surely would have been set down in Cyrillic characters, and, to an official of the papal chancery, would have looked just like Bulgarian. I doubt if certainty on the original language is attainable, although Lascaris, loc. cit., says that Duicev professes to see traces of the original Bulgarian through the Latin version, which alone has come down to us.

64. Migne, PL, CCXIV, col. 1112 f., Book V, no. 115; Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 15 f., no. 26; H.-D. Documente, I, 2, no. 2.
'In primis petimus . . . coronam et honorem tamquam dilectus filius, secundum quod imperatores nostri veteres habuerunt. Unus fuit Petrus, alius fuit Samuel, et alii, qui eo imperio precesserunt sicut in libris nostris invenimus esse scriptum.'

65. Migne, PL, CCXIV, col. 1115-1116, Book V, no.'s 117 and 118; Theiner, Man. Slav., I, 17 and 18, no.'s 28 and 30; H.-D. Documente, I, 5 and 7, no.'s 4 and 6.

66. Migne, PL, CCXIV, col. 1113, Book V, no. 216; Potthast, 1775; Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 16, no. 27; H.-D. Documente, I, 3-4, no. 3:
'Petisti . . . ut coronam tibi ecclesia Romana concederet, sicut illustri memorie Petro, Samueli et aliis progenitoribus tuis in libris tuis legitur concessisse. Nos ergo, ut super hos maiorem certitudinem haberemus, registra nostra perlegi fecimus diligenter, ex quibus evidenter comperimus, quod in terra tibi subiecta multi lieges fuerant coronati. . . . Cumque idem Adrianus illuc cum duobus episcopis quendam subdiaconum direxisset, Bulgari corrupti donis Grecorum et promissionibus circumventi, Romanis eiectis, Grecos presbiteros receperunt. Licet igitur tanti memoria levitatis nos usque adeo induxerit ad cautelam, ut nullum ex fratribus nostris, Cardinalibus scilicet, presentialiter ad tuam presentiam mitteremus, nichilominus . . . capellanum et familiarem nostrum . . . ad te duximus destinandum . . . ut in tota terra tua quoad spiritualia corrigat, que corrigenda cognoverit et statuat quae . . . fuerint statuenda. . . . Mandavimus . . . ipsi et de corona progenitoribus tuis ab ecclesia Romana collata tarn per libros veteres quam per alia documenta in-quirat diligentius veritatem, ut cum . . . de omnibus redditi f uerimus certiores, consultus et maturius, prout procedendum fuerit, procedamus. . . . Expedit . . . tibi . . . ut sicut genere, sic sis etiam imitatione Romanus, et populus terre tue, qui de sanguine Romanorum se asserit descendisse, ecclesie Romane instituta sequatur. . . .'

For the papal relations with the first Bulgarian Empire, see Runciman, op. cit., chapter 3, pp. 99 ff.

67. Migne, PL, CCXIV, col. 1116 and 1118, Book V, no.'s 119 and 120; Potthast, 1776 and 1777; Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 17 and 18, no.'s 29 and 31; H.-D. Documente, I, 6 and 7, no.'s 5 and 6.

68. Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, p. 20, no. 36; H.-D. Documente, I, p. 10, no. 10. For Basil's postscript and date see also De Thalloczy, Jirecek, and de Sufflay, Acta . . . Albaniae, op. tit., I, p. 41, no. 127.

69. Migne, PL, CCXV, col. 156 and 158, Book VI, nos. 143 and 144; Potthast, 1994 and 1995, 10 September 1203; Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 20, no. 37; H.-D. Documente, I, 11, no. 11.

70. Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 28, no. 44; H.-D. Documente, I, 27, no. 19:
‘Sed littere michi ex parte domini mei Imperatoris venerunt . . . dicentes michi: Revertere cito, quia hie pervenit cardinalis (but it was not a cardinal — see what follows) a domino papa . . . reversus sum et perveni Drinaum per mensem Septembrem, et inveni virum sanctum, iustum et rectum a tua sanctitate directum, nomen eius Johannes cappellanus. . . . Et dominus lohannes capellanus . . . vestram michi dedit benedictionem et largiens pallium ad plenitudinem pontificalis officii, mense Septembris VIII die .... Sanctum crisma non habemus, imo a Grecis reciperamus: sed de cetero nos tamquam et vos Greci exosos habent . . . de sancto crismate nos doceas . . . et mittas michi . . . pallia ad opus duorum metropolitanorum Priosthlave et Belebusdii. ... ‘

71. Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 27, no. 43; H.-D. Documente, I, 26, no. 18:
‘ ... inquisivi antiques nostrorum scripturas et libros et beate memorie imperatorum nostrorum predecessorum leges, unde ipsi sumpserint regnum Bulgarorum et firmamentum imperiale, coronam super caput eorum et patriarcharum benedictionem: et diligenter perscrutantes in eorum invenimus scripturis quod beate memorie illi imperatores Bulgarorum et Blachorum Symeon, Petrus et Samuel et nostri predecessores coronam pro imperio eorum et patriarchalem benedictionem acceperunt a sanctissima dei Romana ecclesia et ab apostolica sede, principe apostolorum Petro. . . . patriarchalis benedictio et mandatum in civitate . . . Trinovi data ... a domino papa . . . Ecclesie enim omnes totius imperii . . . et patriarcha meus, Metropolitani, Archiepiscopi, episcopi, et cuncti sacerdotes Romane subsint ecclesie. . . . Et ut presens chrysobolium imperii mei ratum et firmum habeatur, dedi imperium meum in manibus Reverendissimi viri lohannis sacrosancte Romanae sedis legati et domini pape cappellani. . . . '

For the probable Greek original of this, see Lascaris' review of Duicev's edition of these letters, loc. cit., p. 623.

72. Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 29, no. 46; H.-D. Documente, I, 29, no. 21:
‘ ... et rogo et deprecor magnam sanctitatem vestram, ut compleat desiderium imperil mei et mittat virgam pastoralem ad congregandos oves, et cetera quae patriarcha corisuevit habere, et faciat presentem primatem patriarcham in sancta et magna ecclesia Trinove prime civitatis totius Bulgarie, et habeat ecclesia ipsa etiam post mortem istius patriarche patriarcham . . . et quoniam grave esset propter longitudinem vie et guerras hominum in obitu cuiusdam patriarchae recurrere ad ecclesiam Romanam, concedatur ecclesie Trinove, ut sibi possit eligere et consecrare patriarcham . . . sciat sanctitas tua quod cum sciverint Romei (Greeks) quod receperimus consecrationem a sanctitate tua non dabunt michi crisma. Et aliud peto . . . ut mittas Cardinalem . . . et des . . . diadema et sceptrum . . . et mittas privilegium bullatum auro. . . . Et de confinio Hungarie, Bulgarie, et Blachie relinquo iudicio sanctitatis tue . . . et cessent occisiones christianorum. ... ‘

73. Migne, PL, CCXV, col. 277, Book VII, no. 1; Potthast 2135; Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 23, no. 40; H.-D. Documente, I, 17, no. 15:
‘ ... Regem te statuimus . . . et per dilectum filium L. tituli sancte Crucis presbiterum Cardinalem . . . sceptrum Regni ac Regium tibi mittimus diadema, eius quasi nostris tibi manibus imponendum, recipiendo a te iuratoriam cautionem, quod nobis et succesoribus nostris et ecclesie Romane devotus et obediens permanebis. . . . Ad petitionem . . . publicam in regno tuo cudendi monetam tuo caractere insignitam liberam tibi concedimus facultatem. . . . Archiepiscopo Trinovitano . . . privilegium concedimus primatie. ... ‘

No coins of Ioannitsa are known, and only one seal, published quite recently, on which he calls himself, in Bulgarian, and in Slavic letters 'Tsar of the Bulgars.' N. A. Musmov, 'Un sceau du plomb du Tsar Kaloyan, 1197-1207,’ Byzantinoslavica, IV (1932), 135-138. This is doubtless the same seal that the Revue Historique du Sud-Est Europeen, VIII (1931), 322, reports as having been published in the newspaper La Bulgarie, IX, no. 2487, not accessible to me.

74. Migne, PL, CCXV, col. 280, Book VII, no. 2; Potthast 2137; Theiner, Mon Slav., I, 25, no. 41; H.-D. Documente, I, 20, no. 16:
'Fraternitatem tuam scire volentes quod apud nos hec duo nomina primas et patriarcha pene penitus idem sonant, cum primates et patriarche teneant unam formam, licet eorum nomina sint diversa. Presente quoque privilegio tibi et per te tuis successoribus inungendi, benedicendi, et coronandi reges Bulgarorum et Blachorum in posterum liberam concedimus facultatem.'

75. Migne, PL, CCXV, col. 282, Book VII, no. 3; Potthast, 2138; Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 25, no. 42; H.-D. Documente, I, 22, no. 17.

76. Migne, PL, CCXV, col. 292, 294, 295, Book VII, no. 8, 9, 10, 11; Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 30, 31, no.'s 48, 49, 50, 51; H.-D. Documente, I, 32 ff., no.'s 23, 24, 25, 26.

77. Migne, PL, CCXV, col. 295, Book, VII, no. 12; Potthast, 2141; Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 33, no. 54; H.-D. Documente, I, 38, no. 29;
' ... vexillum quo contra illos utaris, qui honorant labiis crucifixum, cor autem eorum est longinquum ab ipso . . . et contra illos . . . qui non posuerunt deum adiutorem sibi sed in feritate sua . . . nitentur. . . . '

78. Migne, PL, CCXV, col. 292, Book VII, no. 7; Potthast, 2139; Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 30, no. 47; H.-D. Documente, I, 31, no. 22. On the identity of Belebuzda with Kustendil, see D. Rattinger, 'Die Patriarchat und Metropolitansprengel von Constantinopel und die bulgarische Kirche zur Zeit der Lateinerherrschaft in Byzanz,' Historisches Jahrbuch, I (1880), 95 ff.

79. Migne, PL, CCXV, col. 296, Book VII, no. 13; Potthast, 2143; Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, p. 32, no. 52; H.-D. Documente, I, p. 36, no. 27.

80. Migne, PL, CCXV, col. 410, Book VII, no. 126; Potthast, 2282 (15 September); Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 34, no. 56; H.-D. Documente, I, 40, no. 32.

81. See Innocent's letter of thanks to Emeric, Migne, PL, CCXV, col. 427, Book VII, no. 137; Potthast, 2290 (4 October); Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 38, no. 58; H.-D. Documente, I, 47, no. 33. For the date of arrival see the letter of Basil, Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 39, no. 61; H.-D. Documente, I, 49, no. 35.

82. Theiner, Mon. Slav., I, 39, no. 60; H.-D. Documente, I, 48, no. 34.

83. Reference as in note 81 above.

84. Reference as in note 82 above:
'De Latinis quoque, qui Constantinopolim introierunt, scribo sanctitati vestri ut eis scribatis, quatinus distent ab Imperio meo, et sic Imperium meum nullum malum eis facit, neque ipsi nobis parvipendant. Si forte ipsi conati fuerint contra Imperium meum et parvipenderint eum, et occidet ex eis, non habeat sanctitas vestra Imperium meum suspectum, sed sint universa libera.'

For Innocent's letter taking Baldwin under his protection see Migne, PL, CCXV, col. 454, Book VII, no. 153; Potthast, 2321.