[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Boris-Michael was, hesays, Presiam s son.[5] Presiam, or more probably S.Runciman - A history of the First Bulgarian empire - Appendix 8 Page 2 of 51.Bury, op.cit., pp.481-4: Zlatarski, Izviestiya, pp.49 ff.Istoriya, i., I, pp.447 57 (a reply to Bury sobjections to his Izviestiya suggestions).2.Theophylact, Historia XV.Martyrum, pp.193, 197.3.Leo Grammaticus, pp.231-2 ( ? a?d?µe?): Logothete (Slavonic version), pp.101 2 (Vladimir).4.Villoison s inscription, see above, p.89.5.Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Administrando Imperio, p.154.294Presian or Prusian (a well-known Bulgar name), [1] seems, therefore, to have been adefinite Khan, the ???? of the Philippi inscription.On this evidence, Bury and Zlatarski each formed his theory and each supported itby his interpretation of the Shumla inscription, an inscription which mentionsMalamir.Zlatarski rejected the ? ? ?? e?? reading in Theophylact, saying that, asBoris s name had not yet been mentioned, it cannot be ? ?? e?? ; Malamir wassucceeded by his nephew, certainly, but that was Presiam: while Boris, asConstantine says, was Presiam s son.He took the sudden appearance of Michael sname in the story of Cordyles in A.D.835 6 to indicate a change of Khan at thatpoint, Michael being a misprint for Presiam.With the additional aid of the Shumlainscription, he thus built up a Khan Presiam who succeeded in 836.Bury, however, accepted the ? ? ??e?? reading indeed, Zlatarski provides noadequate substitute, and his complaint as to the name not having been mentionedsavours of quibbling.He showed that it is odd of Theophylact to ignore utterly areign of some sixteen years years probably vital for the growth of BulgarianChristianity and to make so much of a reign of five years, or at most ten years(Omortag might have died any time after 827); and he threw reasonable doubt onthe value of any argument based on the Logothete s account.He also disagreed withZlatarski s version of the Shumla inscription.His solution is that Malamir wasPresiam, but took the official and Slavonic name of Malamir about the year 847, justafter the Philippi inscription, which he agreed with Zlatarski in dating about thatperiod.He explained Constantine s account of the Khan s relationships by sayingthat Boris was adopted by Presiam Malamir.Zlatarski replied by reiterating his points, and showing up a weakness in Bury schronology.Presiam must, in S.Runciman - A history of the First Bulgarian empire - Appendix 8 Page 3 of 51.Zlatarski (loc.cit.) easily shows that Presiam is more probably Presian.295Bury s view, have changed his name between the Philippi and the Shumlainscriptions, that is to say in 847; and all the inscriptions bearing the name ofMalamir must be dated in the short period 847-52.[1] Here, however, he is unfair; heonly gave Malamir a reign of five years himself.He also has difficulty in believingthat any Khan took an official name in the middle of his reign.But the main battle is over the Shumla inscription.[2] This, written (as both agree)about the year 847, tells of a Khan s invasion of Thrace with the Kavkan Isbules.After talking of ???? µ?? ? p?ppa , µ? ? , and of how my father Omortag madepeace with the Greeks and lived well (?a?? ) with them, it proceeds (line four, in themiddle)?a? ??G? ???? ???µ?sa? ? a?aµ?? µ et (? ) t? ? ?a?????? ? sß? ? ??? ? p.(a?a ).(e?? ) t? ? ? ? ????? ? t?? p??ß?t?? t? ?as and then proceeds to tell of obviously military operations, mentioning Isbulesagain in line nine with a deleted passage earlier in the line.Zlatarski supplies?pa?? e as the last word of line five.At the beginning of line six he says that after a?a he can read e.?se?? , and so supplies ?a? ? ???se e??. He thereforepresumes that Malamir, too, lived in peace, and the warlike operations belong to adifferent Khan, i.e.Presiam.On the fascimile of the inscription in the Aboba-PliskaAlbum (pi.xlv.) a?a and e?? (the sign for e may also represent ?a? ) are clearlyvisible.But, if the rest of the letters that Zlatarski sees are correct, they mustcertainly be completed in some other manner.Bury s objections, I think, hold good:(i.) Malamir s ?a? ? ???se would precede ?? G????? ???µ?sa? which mark theopening of a war.(ii.) ?a? ? ???se does not make sense with the words thatcertainly follow Zlatarski s emendation of them is unconvincing.(iii.)1.Actually there are only three the Shumla, the aqueduct, and Tsepa s memorial.2.Aboba-Pliska, pp.230 ff.296 S.Runciman - A history of the First Bulgarian empire - Appendix 8 Page 4 of 5The mention of Isbules clearly implies military operations.All this, combined withthe reference to Krum as the Khan s grandfather and Omortag as the Khan s father,seems to make it certain that the inscription was made by Malamir.For this reason and for Bury s reasons given above, I disbelieve in Zlatarski s KhanPresiam, who reigned from 836 to 852.There is another slight reason against it [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl trzylatki.xlx.pl
.Boris-Michael was, hesays, Presiam s son.[5] Presiam, or more probably S.Runciman - A history of the First Bulgarian empire - Appendix 8 Page 2 of 51.Bury, op.cit., pp.481-4: Zlatarski, Izviestiya, pp.49 ff.Istoriya, i., I, pp.447 57 (a reply to Bury sobjections to his Izviestiya suggestions).2.Theophylact, Historia XV.Martyrum, pp.193, 197.3.Leo Grammaticus, pp.231-2 ( ? a?d?µe?): Logothete (Slavonic version), pp.101 2 (Vladimir).4.Villoison s inscription, see above, p.89.5.Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Administrando Imperio, p.154.294Presian or Prusian (a well-known Bulgar name), [1] seems, therefore, to have been adefinite Khan, the ???? of the Philippi inscription.On this evidence, Bury and Zlatarski each formed his theory and each supported itby his interpretation of the Shumla inscription, an inscription which mentionsMalamir.Zlatarski rejected the ? ? ?? e?? reading in Theophylact, saying that, asBoris s name had not yet been mentioned, it cannot be ? ?? e?? ; Malamir wassucceeded by his nephew, certainly, but that was Presiam: while Boris, asConstantine says, was Presiam s son.He took the sudden appearance of Michael sname in the story of Cordyles in A.D.835 6 to indicate a change of Khan at thatpoint, Michael being a misprint for Presiam.With the additional aid of the Shumlainscription, he thus built up a Khan Presiam who succeeded in 836.Bury, however, accepted the ? ? ??e?? reading indeed, Zlatarski provides noadequate substitute, and his complaint as to the name not having been mentionedsavours of quibbling.He showed that it is odd of Theophylact to ignore utterly areign of some sixteen years years probably vital for the growth of BulgarianChristianity and to make so much of a reign of five years, or at most ten years(Omortag might have died any time after 827); and he threw reasonable doubt onthe value of any argument based on the Logothete s account.He also disagreed withZlatarski s version of the Shumla inscription.His solution is that Malamir wasPresiam, but took the official and Slavonic name of Malamir about the year 847, justafter the Philippi inscription, which he agreed with Zlatarski in dating about thatperiod.He explained Constantine s account of the Khan s relationships by sayingthat Boris was adopted by Presiam Malamir.Zlatarski replied by reiterating his points, and showing up a weakness in Bury schronology.Presiam must, in S.Runciman - A history of the First Bulgarian empire - Appendix 8 Page 3 of 51.Zlatarski (loc.cit.) easily shows that Presiam is more probably Presian.295Bury s view, have changed his name between the Philippi and the Shumlainscriptions, that is to say in 847; and all the inscriptions bearing the name ofMalamir must be dated in the short period 847-52.[1] Here, however, he is unfair; heonly gave Malamir a reign of five years himself.He also has difficulty in believingthat any Khan took an official name in the middle of his reign.But the main battle is over the Shumla inscription.[2] This, written (as both agree)about the year 847, tells of a Khan s invasion of Thrace with the Kavkan Isbules.After talking of ???? µ?? ? p?ppa , µ? ? , and of how my father Omortag madepeace with the Greeks and lived well (?a?? ) with them, it proceeds (line four, in themiddle)?a? ??G? ???? ???µ?sa? ? a?aµ?? µ et (? ) t? ? ?a?????? ? sß? ? ??? ? p.(a?a ).(e?? ) t? ? ? ? ????? ? t?? p??ß?t?? t? ?as and then proceeds to tell of obviously military operations, mentioning Isbulesagain in line nine with a deleted passage earlier in the line.Zlatarski supplies?pa?? e as the last word of line five.At the beginning of line six he says that after a?a he can read e.?se?? , and so supplies ?a? ? ???se e??. He thereforepresumes that Malamir, too, lived in peace, and the warlike operations belong to adifferent Khan, i.e.Presiam.On the fascimile of the inscription in the Aboba-PliskaAlbum (pi.xlv.) a?a and e?? (the sign for e may also represent ?a? ) are clearlyvisible.But, if the rest of the letters that Zlatarski sees are correct, they mustcertainly be completed in some other manner.Bury s objections, I think, hold good:(i.) Malamir s ?a? ? ???se would precede ?? G????? ???µ?sa? which mark theopening of a war.(ii.) ?a? ? ???se does not make sense with the words thatcertainly follow Zlatarski s emendation of them is unconvincing.(iii.)1.Actually there are only three the Shumla, the aqueduct, and Tsepa s memorial.2.Aboba-Pliska, pp.230 ff.296 S.Runciman - A history of the First Bulgarian empire - Appendix 8 Page 4 of 5The mention of Isbules clearly implies military operations.All this, combined withthe reference to Krum as the Khan s grandfather and Omortag as the Khan s father,seems to make it certain that the inscription was made by Malamir.For this reason and for Bury s reasons given above, I disbelieve in Zlatarski s KhanPresiam, who reigned from 836 to 852.There is another slight reason against it [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]