{"id":2285,"date":"2014-09-04T13:38:59","date_gmt":"2014-09-04T13:38:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/?page_id=2285"},"modified":"2016-06-25T15:27:11","modified_gmt":"2016-06-25T15:27:11","slug":"marinow-2014-congress","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/abstracts\/marinow-2014-congress\/","title":{"rendered":"Marinow (2014 Congress)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Kiri\u0142 Marinow<br \/>\n(<em>Department of Byzantine History, University of \u0141\u00f3d\u017a, Poland<\/em>)<br \/>\n\u201cThe Empire\u2019s Heart: \u00a0The Significance of the Capital T\u0103rnovo in the History of Late Medieval Bulgaria\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Abstract of Paper Intended for the 49th International Congress on Medieval Studies (Kalamazoo, May 2014)<br \/>\nSession on <strong>\u201cA Neglected Empire: \u00a0Bulgaria between the Late Twelfth and Late Fourteenth Centuries\u201d<br \/>\nPart II: \u00a0&#8220;Engaging in Empire, From Center to Periphery and Beyond&#8221;<\/strong><br \/>\nCo-sponsored by the <strong>Research Group on Manuscript Evidence<\/strong> and the <strong>Center for Medieval and Early Modern Studies<\/strong> at the University of Florida<br \/>\nOrganized by Mildred Budny (<em>Research Group on Manuscript Evidence<\/em>) and Florin Curta (<em>University of Florida<\/em>)<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/2014-congress-accomplished\/\"><strong>2014 Congress Accomplished<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p>[<em>First published on our first website on 20 March 2014, with updates<\/em>]<\/p>\n<p>[<strong>Please note<\/strong>:\u00a0\u00a0<em>Prof. Marinow was unable to travel to the Congress to present his paper.\u00a0\u00a0We post his Abstract as a description of the subject and scope of his contribution to the discourse in our two sessions (Parts I and II) on this theme.<\/em>]<\/p>\n<p>Between 1185\/86 and 1393, and from the mid-fourteenth century of the T\u0103rnovo Tsardom, T\u0103rnovo was the capital of the Bulgarian Empire. \u00a0Different factors were decisive for its history in different decades. \u00a0When it became a city in the 12th century, with its territory greatly limited, it fulfilled functions that were mainly defensive, and to a lesser degree, also economic. \u00a0The renewal of Bulgarian statehood at the end of the century made it the most important center of the country. \u00a0The years 1185\/86\u20131235, that is the era from the proclamation of the Tsardom to the restoration of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria, witnessed the expansion of the capital and its prestige. \u00a0Relics of saints brought to the city by the rulers, as well as churches founded to commemorate those saints, played an important role in that process \u2014 enhancing the sanctification of the City. \u00a0The name of the city was added to the list of official titles of Bulgarian patriarchs; it also appeared in the titles of the rulers.<\/p>\n<p>Significant was the fact that the latter was the rulers\u2019 choice of the city as the place of permanent residence. \u00a0The rulers were accompanied by officials and the court, whose structure was understood as the earthly counterpart of heavenly order, created by God himself. \u00a0From that time onward, it was there where state affairs would be decided, from there that new cultural currents spread all over the country. \u00a0Above all, it was the place from which the whole official ideology of the Empire was created. \u00a0T?rnovo reflected the Constantinopolitan (that is the Byzantine) idea of a capital city, both formally (in court ceremonies, offices and institutions) and ideologically (with the cult of the capital viewed as the city of Providence, and the whole ideology of the state). \u00a0Those conditions explain how it is that everyone who sought to become a legal ruler (tsar\/emperor) of the Bulgarian state, had to capture the city, and become crowned by the patriarch in one of the emperor\u2019s churches.<\/p>\n<p>As it was then understood, independence of the city would guarantee the existence of the country itself, while its collapse would inevitably lead to its end. \u00a0Characteristic of T\u0103rnovo was its role as the central point in both the secular and ecclesiastic administration of the Bulgarian State. \u00a0But the fragmentation of Bulgarian lands in the mid-fourteenth century negatively affected impacted its political significance. \u00a0Nevertheless, it remained the most important cultural and ecclesiastical center of the country until the end of the Second Bulgarian State, that is, between the late twelfth and late fourteenth centuries.<\/p>\n<p>The downfall of the Byzantine capital in 1204, accompanied both by the religious policy of Michael VIII Palaiologos (the close ally of the Holy See) and the weakness of the Byzantines in the mid-fourteenth century (the period of the civil wars), allowed the Bulgarian capital to lay claim to ascendance in the whole Orthodox world. \u00a0By belonging to the cultural circle in which the ideas of the past were particularly remembered and valued, the role which was assigned to T\u0103rnovo and that which it actually played, differed very little from its Constantinopolitan model, although the city itself was not the perfect exact copy, as its location and architectural shape differed considerably from that those of Constantinople. \u00a0T\u0103rnovo as a capital city was also one of the mightiest of Late-Medieval Bulgarian fortresses, as well as the economic center of the country, from the points of view of both local and foreign trade, with districts of Latin tradesmen, including Venetians, Genoese, and Ragusans.\u00a0\u00a0It was not by accident that the ethnic and social structure of its inhabitants reflected the diversity of all subjects, from the poorest to the wealthiest representatives of the higher aristocratic circles, whom the Bulgarian rulers ruled.\u00a0\u00a0The capture of the city by the Ottomans in 1393 put an end to the flourishing history of this city as the country\u2019s capital.\u00a0\u00a0Throughout the previous period, however, examination of the evidence demonstrates that, paraphrasing the well-known Roman saying, \u201call roads in Bulgaria led to T\u0103rnovo\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>*****<\/p>\n<p><em>Website Editor&#8217;s Note<\/em>:<\/p>\n<p>Prof. Marinow presented a paper for another of our co-sponsored Sessions at the Congress in a subsequent year:<br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/download\/7191\/\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>Marinow (2016 Congress Booklet)<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>We thank him for his expert contributions to our co-sponsored Sessions. See also the <a href=\"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/2016-international-congress-on-medieval-studies-report\" target=\"_blank\">2016 Congress Report<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>*****<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kiri\u0142 Marinow (Department of Byzantine History, University of \u0141\u00f3d\u017a, Poland) \u201cThe Empire\u2019s Heart: \u00a0The Significance of the Capital T\u0103rnovo in the History of Late Medieval Bulgaria\u201d Abstract of Paper Intended for the 49th International Congress on Medieval Studies (Kalamazoo, May 2014) Session on \u201cA Neglected Empire: \u00a0Bulgaria between the Late Twelfth and Late Fourteenth Centuries\u201d [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":1023,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2285"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2285"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2285\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7412,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2285\/revisions\/7412"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1023"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}