Galery

1

Polina Spartyanova
Associate Professor Dr. Todor Popnedelev is Deputy Dean of the Faculty of History at Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski". He specialised in Balkan history and for many years, he has been dealing with Bulgarian historiography. We talked with him about the upcoming anniversary of the death of Tsar Samuel, which will be marked next year in Bulgaria with the support of the Greek Ministry of Culture. 6 October 2014 will mark 1000 years since the death of Tsar Samuel who died from a heart attack at the sight of the Bulgarian soldiers blinded after the battle against the Byzantine emperor Basil II near the village of Klyuch.
Who was Tsar Samuel? What is his significance for the Bulgarian historical heritage?
Tsar Samuel was a very strong personality and he takes a very important place in our history for several reasons. He was a ruler who was able to preserve the Bulgarian state despite the strong pressure exerted by the Byzantine Empire and in the aftermath of a crisis in the Bulgarian state, when the aristocracy manifested its personal ambitions, without being concerned about the unity of Bulgaria. Tsar Samuel remains in the minds of Bulgarians as someone who supported the Bulgarian nation regardless of the developments around it.
What do you think are the most unpopular facts about Tsar Samuel’s life?
Probably his emotions are most unpopular, as they were not described by the medieval chroniclers. I do not know how popular is the fact that he was the ruler who succeeded in retaining his loyalty to the Krum dynasty when he could be declared a Bulgarian tsar. Tsar Samuel showed tolerance for the dynasty without usurping the crown that would enable him to withstand the pressure by the Byzantine Empire and to ensure the internal stability of the Bulgarian state. He demonstrated great strength of character by refusing to be taken as a leader as well as statesmanship sense through which he was able to preserve Bulgaria.
When did the Bulgarian- Byzantine feud between Basil II and Tsar Samuel start and what was its base?
This conflict dates back to the time when the Bulgarian state was created. Lands were seized from the Eastern Roman Empire then and Byzantium had been trying for centuries to regain its former territories. Byzantium flourished when Basil II came to power and, thanks to his far-sighted policies, a lot of changes were made that stabilized the empire. So, he gradually began to attempt to restore the power of Byzantium in a number of lost territories and was able to cope with the constant irritant of the empire, the Arabs. It is significant for us, as Bulgarians, that despite this mighty ruler, we were able to preserve our independence for a very long time.
How did the Bulgarian-Byzantine relations change after the death of Tsar Samuel and during the Byzantine rule?
After the death of Tsar Samuel Byzantium was able to capture a significant portion of the Bulgarian lands and it was just a matter of time as to how long the individual mayors would be able to withstand the pressure of the empire. Basil II, from the viewpoint of Byzantines, was a wise statesman. He offered to the Bulgarian aristocracy for them to retain their posts and positions if they placed themselves at his service. This policy affected the Bulgarian statehood and weakened it. Some sources say that this clever statesman married the daughters of Bulgarian families to the sons of Byzantine families and vice versa, thus aiming to incorporate Bulgarian society into the system of the empire, without turmoil and upheavals. However, the most prominent changes during the Byzantine rule affected the Church - the Bulgarian Patriarchate was liquidated and Ohrid episcopate, which was under the personal supervision of the Emperor, took, to a large extent, spiritual care of the Bulgarians.
Why do you think there are still hundreds of streets in Greece named "Basil the Bulgar-slayer" instead of "Basil II"?
Modern Greece, reasonably or not, claims to be the main successor to the Byzantine Empire. Undoubtedly, when you feel that you are the heir of someone, you respect his historical past. If Basil was not such an evil example for us, Bulgarians, we would properly appreciate him as a very wise statesman. The nickname "the Bulgar-slayer" originated after the battle of Belasitza, not only due to the cruel act of putting out the eyes of the Bulgarian soldiers involved in the battle, but also because of the fact that one foe of the empire, with which it had been unable to cope for centuries, was eliminated. The nickname "the Bulgar-slayer" is unpleasant for us, as Bulgarians, but the Greeks would have probably felt the same way if we had named out streets "Krum the Fearsome" instead of "Khan Krum", because he was fearsome to the Byzantines.
Late last year, former Minister of Culture Vezhdi Rashidov and Greece’s Deputy Minister of Culture Kostas Dzavaras agreed to jointly draw up a programme to commemorate the 1000th anniversary of the death of Tsar Samuel in 2014. Will this be a commemoration of the Bulgarian ruler or a cultural campaign against the Republic of Macedonia in your opinion?
In my opinion, everyone is free to feel what he or she wants to be - Macedonian, Chinese, Bulgarian, but I would not allow the historical past to be replaced. Stealing history usually occurs when you lack roots or need self-recognition but you are unable to gain them on the basis of truth.
Do you think that in 2014 there will be room for a new interpretation of the semi centennial military conflicts between Bulgaria and Byzantium?

A new interpretation is necessary because the facts are here. The past is a very good thing when you can realize it but in order to be able to realize it you must penetrate the minds of the people of the time rather than just judging them from a contemporary point of view. If you are able to enter into their parts, as some historians say, then you will feel the past and it will require a new interpretation.

Have you discussed with your Macedonian colleagues the topic of Tsar Samuel and his historical origin?
I have not and it is probably because my colleagues from Macedonia are professionals and they would hardly carry on such a conversation face to face. The statements in the media and public space, when some people speak the words that are required from them, are another matter. Professionals do not dare to talk about things that are contrary to the facts.
As regards Macedonia, what claims could Bulgaria have in relation to its cultural and historical heritage, especially now in connection with Skopje 2014?
I am not a politician, but as a historian, I can say that claims are very dangerous and when someone has been engaged in history for a long time, then this person should have claims on no one. As I have already mentioned, the most important thing is what you want to feel like, but I would never allow stealing or misinterpreting the past. The role of the state in restoring specific relations that have been broken for one reason or another is to prevent the problems of the past from blending and from creating problems in the present. Let Macedonians make many great monuments of Bulgarian rulers within the context of Skopje 2014; this shows their connection with the Bulgarian past. We can only be grateful that they respect the Bulgarian past.
How will the Faculty of History mark the anniversary of the death of Tsar Samuel?
Perhaps our students will organise a conference tailored to their level of preparedness. The teachers, medievalists, will organise a round table or celebration connected with the clarification of the unknown aspects of the life of the Bulgarian ruler. But, honestly, I oppose these pompous celebrations to some extent because science is done quietly and slowly and only then will we benefit from it. When science speaks loudly, it quickly fades away and people quickly forget about it.