Academic literature on the topic 'Bogomiles in literature'

It is well known that the major anti-heretic written source from the Second Bulgarian Empire is the Tsar Boril’s Synodicon, proved to have been compiled to serve the Synod against the Bogomils, convened in Tărnovo in 1211. However, the subsequent century is also marked by the anti- heretic line in various types of manuscripts which shape the image of the so called Second Golden Age of the Bulgarian literature and culture. The reign of John Alexander (1331–1371) is reputed to be the richest period of compiling miscellanies – encyclopedic, ascetic, and monastic, or for individual reading of the royal family and court. An important account of them is the manuscripts of legal content which vary from functional guides with Canon Law rules to complex compilations of material from diverse sources. They deserve to be investigated not only as a part of the cultural system but also as principal evidences how the mechanism of regulation in the tripartite relationship Law- Society-Culture has functioned. The latest discoveries and the up to day of the catalogued database of Slavonic manuscripts in the Bulgarian repositories and the Russian libraries proved the undisputable role of the Middle Bulgarian written tradition as transmitter of the official attitude against every deviation from the Orthodoxy in three main areas: 1. the traditional so called Christological heresies; 2. the heterodox dualist doctrines of Manicheans, Massalians and Paulicians, including Bogomils; 3. the Latins.

The study is an attempt at a comparative analysis of two pseudo-canonical texts: the Slavic Homily of John Chrysostom on How Michael Vanquished Satanael (in two versions) and the Greek Λόγος τοῠ ἀρχηστρατήγου Μιχαήλ, ὃταν ἐπῆρεν τήν στολήν (BHG 1288n). Both texts, very close to each other in terms of the plot, relate an ancient angelomachia between a heavenly emissary and a demiurge expelled from the angelic hierarchy. When examined against the background of dualistic heterodox doctrines on the one hand, and compared to other medieval cultural texts (be they liturgical, iconographical or folkloric) on the other, these works enable insight into how heterodox and pseudo-canonical texts functioned and were disseminated in the medieval Byzantine-Slavic cultural sphere. The Slavic Homily… is not genetically related to its Greek counterpart, which is only preserved in a lat, 16th century copy. Rather, it was composed before the 13th century on the basis of another, non-extant model with a content similar to the pseudo-canonical Greek Homily… It is probable to a certain degree that the emergence of the Slavic work is connected with the growing interest in the cult of Archangel Michael in the First Bulgarian Empire, especially in the Diocese of Ohrid. Certain Gnostic ideas related to dualistic cosmology, as well as cosmogony, angelology and anthropology spread from the Judeo-Christian world to Byzantine literature and culture. Having undergone a number of transformations in the neo-Manichean communities of the Byzantine Empire and Bulgaria, they formed the basis for medieval dualistic cosmogony, as well as angelology and anthropology. Circulated both orally and in written form, beliefs concerning the invisible God, Archangel Michael as a ‘second God’ and the soul’s journey to Paradise became so widespread that they are not only found in heretic texts, but also cited almost verbatim in anti-heretic treatises. The content and later textual modifications of the Slavic Homily… cast a doubt on the hypothesis concerning its Bogomil origin. Furthermore, it cannot be determined to what extent works such as the Homily… were made use of by (moderate?) Bogomil communities. Even before the 14th century, the text underwent the processes of liturgization and folklorization, as proven by the presence of liturgical quotations (absent from the Greek text), the visualization of the story in sacred space as well as the aetiological legends about Archangel Michael’s fight against the Devil. The existence of ancient Gnostic ideas in the beliefs propagated by neo-Manichean Balkan heretic teachings, as well as their widespread presence in “high” and “low” texts originating in medieval communities call for a more cautious evaluation of the mutual antagonisms between them. This raises the problem of a wider look at medieval culture, in fact a syncretic phenomenon, where the distinction between the canonical, the pseudo-canonical, the heretic and the folkloric is not always clear-cut.

Cosmogonies and mythopoesis in the Balkans and beyondCompared and contrasted in this article are three different types of accounts dealing with the cosmogonic and eschatological themes employed in Slavonic and Balkan oral tradition, para-Biblical literature and modern poetry. The focus of analysis is the cluster of motifs attested in the creation narrative of the apocryphal Legend of the Sea of Tiberias. Two versions are examined: the South-Slavonic one discovered in 1845 by V. Grigorovich in the Monastery of Slepche, and the 18th century Russian account from MS № 21.11.3 (fols. 3a–5b) from the Archaeographic Department of the Library of the Academy of Sciences [Библиотека Академии наук, Рукописный отдел] in St. Petersburg, composed most probably by an Old Believer; this manuscript is published here for the first time. Folklore counterparts of the apocryphal Legend of the Sea of Tiberias are treated, with special emphasis on the oral narratives from the Bulgarian diaspora in Bessarabia (God and the Devil Create the World Amicably but then Fall Out). Finally, a poem of the 20th century Bulgarian intellectual Pencho Slaveykov [Пенчо Славейков] from his anthology “On the Island of the Blessed” is discussed; the poem, entitled How God willed the Earth to come to be and what did Satanail do after that? was designated by Slaveykov himself as “a legend of the Bogomils”, and blended within his lyrics are dualistic themes and motifs attested in vernacular Christianity, with the hallmark of Haeresis Bulgarica. Kosmogonie i mitopoetyki na Bałkanach i nie tylkoW artykule zostały porównane trzy typy narracji zawierających wątki kosmogoniczne i eschatologiczne, które funkcjonują w słowiańskiej i bałkańskiej tradycji ustnej, literaturze parabiblijnej oraz poezji doby modernizmu. Przedmiotem uwagi stała się grupa motywów poświadczonych w narracji o stworzeniu, znanej z Legendy o Morzu Tyberiadzkim. Analizom poddane zostały dwie wersje: południowosłowiańska, odkryta w 1845 roku przez W. Grigorowicza w Monastyrze w Slepče, oraz ruska – z XVIII wieku, znajdująca się w kodeksie MS № 21.11.3 (fols. 3a–5b), przechowywanym w Oddziale Rękopisów Biblioteki Akademii Nauk w Sankt Petersburgu – skomponowana najprawdopodobniej w środowisku staroobrzędowców (rękopis ten jest tu publikowany po raz pierwszy). Następnie przeprowadzona została analiza odpowiedników folklorystycznych apokryficznej Legendy o Morzu Tyberiadzkim, ze szczegól­nym uwzględnieniem narracji ustnych funkcjonujących w bułgarskiej diasporze w Besarabii (Bóg i Diabeł tworzą świat w przyjaźni ale potem stają się wrogami). Na końcu został poddany interpretacji poemat z XX wieku autorstwa bułgarskiego modernisty Penczo Sławejkowa [Пенчо Славейков] z antologii Na wyspie błogosławionych [На острова на блажените]; poemat ten, zatytułowany Jak Bóg zezwolił, aby powstała ziemia i co potem uczynił Satanael?, został nazwany przez samego autora „legendą Bogomiłów”, i skompilowany w jego tekstach z dualistycznymi motywami występującymi w chrześcijaństwie tego regionu, a rozpoznawa­nymi jako haeresis bulgarica.

The casket of St Simeon the God-Receiver is the most representative work in the applied arts of the Croatian Trecento and, at the same time, one which displays great iconographic complexity. Although it was the subject of two monographs and a large number of individual articles, a whole set of questions remains open and awaits plausible interpretations. Particularly great problems are connected to the interpretation of a number of scenes which were understood differently by different scholars. At the same time, it can be noted that the discussion about the casket’s complex iconographic programme lacks a study which would address it as a unique a coherent whole in which every single scene is viewed as its irreplaceable constituent part. This article aims to demonstrate that the casket’s iconographic programme, especially that of the eight panels on its main body, was selected and arranged according to a carefully developed programme the creators of which were five noblemen of Zadar to whom Queen Elizabeth, the wife of the powerful King Louis I the Great of Hungary (1342-1382), entrusted not only the silver for the making of the casket but other important details connected to the commission such as the choice of the artist and, even more importantly, the selection of the scenes through which the casket communicated with its spectators. There is no doubt that the queen had her own demands with regard to what was depicted as can be seen in the opulent dedicatory inscription which records that she was the patron of the casket but also in the donation scene where she appears together with her daughters. It can also be said with certainty that she gave instructions for the somewhat unusual panel which depicts her standing by the catafalque of her father, Ban Stephen of Bosnia (+1354) who is being sent off to the next world by St Simeon the Righteous. It should mentioned that Ban Stephen was considered a heretic – a Bogomil – which means that being a Catholic queen, his daughter attempted to rectify the past with this panel. All these scenes are at the back of the casket. The queen undoubtedly also had a say in the selection of scenes which were depicted on the front. Those relate to the life of St Simeon which, considering that we know of only one event in his life, was done in a very skilful way: the central panel shows the saint receiving the Christ Child in the scene of the Presentation in the Temple while the panels to its left and right depict the translation of the saint’s relics which have not been identified as such in the scholarly literature. The translation consists of three scenes which are always present in the cases of translation: the finding of the body (inventio corporis), the transport of the body to a new place (translatio corporis) and, finally, the placing of the body to a new site where it would remain in the future (colocatio corporis). These three scenes were interpreted by the noblemen of Zadar in an idiosyncratic way in order to affirm the medieval Zadar and its nobility on the casket itself. The scene of the inventio corporis depicts the rectors of Zadar intervening at the last moment before a group of monks from the outskirts of town get hold of the body and place it in their monastery. In the scene of the colocatio corporis, the body of St Simeon is being carried into the Church of St Mary Major in the presence of King Louis and the grateful citizens who are led by the Bishop Nicholas Matafar. This scene depicts the return of the saint’s body from Venice where, according to the author of this article, it had been taken during the local uprising against the Venetian rule (1346-1358). At the same time, the visual message of the two scenes which flank the central one was to show that the exclusive ownership of the relics belonged to the citizens of Zadar. The conflict with the monks which erupted on a local level is being resolved by the local authorities, that is, the rectors of Zadar. When the problem becomes ‘bilateral’, that is, when it involves Venice, the dispute is settled (to the benefit of the citizens of Zadar) by their sovereign, the king of Hungary and Croatia.The visual interpretation of the translation depicted on the casket relies greatly on the scenes from the cycle of the translation of the body of St Mark from the façade of St Mark’s basilica at Venice (the discovery and exhumation of the body, the transport of the body on a ship, the placing of the body in a new shrine). The author of the article, therefore, frequently compares the scenes on the Zadar casket to those from Venice.