Milena VRBANOVA
My dear friend, writer and scientist, living for 40 years in the USA, directed my attention yesterday to a text published on the site "work" and titled "Unconventional word for May 24". Its author is Alexander Dimitrov, a name I did not know before, but which intrigued me. In other forums, Alexander Dimitrov is presented as "entrepreneur, public figure, writer, author of "Short guide to the salvation of Bulgaria".
The thesis that Mr. Dimitrov defends in his "work" is not new - this is the recently popular theory that "Cyrillic" does not exist, and the majuscule alphabet that we still use today, created after the Glagolitic script, is completely different from the Glagolitic script and should be called "Bulgarian". - inasmuch as it was invented in Bulgaria and was ordered by Tsar Simeon the Great for the needs not of Great Moravia and Slavs in general, but specifically of the Bulgarian people and their ruler. In the name of protecting our country from the attacks of the already Hellenized Eastern Roman Empire.
As a historian, I have not dealt with the issues surrounding the Cyrillic alphabet. As a schoolgirl and student, I accepted the opinion imposed in our historiography that it was created by St. Kliment Ohridski, one of the closest disciples of St. Constantine-Cyril the Philosopher, to simplify the complex Glagolitic script. The student, himself a great Bulgarian educator, called it "Cyrillic" in honor of his teacher. But as a thinking person who is still related to the word, I have often asked myself why Glagolitic and Cyrillic are so different - and only "simplified and converted from minuscule to uppercase" is cyrillic glagolitic? So doubts had already sprouted in my soul, and Alexander Dimitrov's logic seemed convincing to me.
Mr. Dimitrov's text is polemical, with sharp phrases, such as I myself like to write - and read accordingly. I will, however, dismiss from the face of it some somewhat arrogant opinions that he expresses, for the simple reason that he is not a historian and probably does not know all the research on the ethnic origins of Cyril and Methodius. And also - because, although he calls himself a "writer", he has not sufficiently entered the world of the word and its modern "entrepreneurial" attitude somewhat misleads him.
What is it about?
In his text, Alexander Dimitrov with aplomb opposes the suggestions traditionally imposed in our historiography that the Thessaloniki brothers have something in common with the Bulgarian nation - I quote:
"But let us return to Cyril and Methodius. They are the children of a Roman aristocrat. Whether their mother is Bulgarian (“Slavic”) or not is an unprovable question and completely irrelevant for determining their affiliation to Byzantium. There is even something too humiliating in this emphasis by the official Bulgarian doctrine on the nationality of the mother in a pathetic attempt to ascribe some supposed credit to the work of the Holy Brothers. It is pitiful, humiliating, and strongly to our detriment, when this is a serious thesis and argument in official speeches and words, because we put ourselves in an obviously weak and losing position. So what if “maybe” the mother was Bulgarian. After all, their entire life and work are clearly predetermined by their essence as Romans in the service of the Roman patriarch and emperor!"
Alexander Dimitrov is wrong. On the issue of the Bulgarian origin of the holy brothers from Thessaloniki, new evidence is emerging, starting with the revolutionary study by the authors Mikhail Margaritov and Angelika Margaritof-Hoffer Edle von Sulmthal, entitled "About Cyril and Methodius". and published already in 1989 by Publishing House of OF. The Margaritos are a father and daughter living in Germany (I don't know current data about them), who, based on the Long Life of St. Constantine-Cyril the Philosopher, which abounds with information about the family of the brothers, unnoticed by Bulgarian historical science for many years - and other sources - categorically confirm that not so much the mother as the father of Cyril and Methodius and their entire paternal line is not "Roman".
Here is a quote from the Long Life, in which Cyril himself answers a question about his origin, put to him before his reception with the Khazar Khagan:
"When they got there [i.e. in the capital], when they were about to sit down to lunch with the Khagan, they asked him: “What is your rank, so that we may place you [in a suitable place] according to your rank?” He said: “I had a grandfather, very great and glorious, who stood near the king. But when he rejected the great honor given to him, he was banished and went to a foreign land, became poor, and there he gave birth to me. I sought my former great-grandfather's honor, but I could not attain it, because I am Adam's grandson.“ They answered him: “You speak appropriately and correctly, guest.“ And since then they began to honor him."
Which kingdom, close or adjacent to Byzantium (IRI), declared by Cyril to be a "foreign land" in which the exiled grandfather found shelter, existed around the middle of the 8th century, when it is assumed that he - the grandfather - lived ( Cyril, his grandson, was born in 827) ? It is clear that we are talking about the unnamed Bulgaria. Margaritovi - father and daughter, add more evidence for the Bulgarian origin of Cyril and Methodius, which are multiplied by the research of other modern researchers.
I remind you - the kingdom from which the grandfather of St. Cyril cannot be Armenia, Georgia or Persia, because these countries have alphabets in which no significant changes were noted in the 9th - 10th centuries.
But the capital evidence is the Glagolitic script itself, which corresponds to all the peculiarities of the Bulgarian language at that time. Literacy for a given nation cannot be created (or adapted) by a person who is not a native speaker of the language of that nation and is not familiar with its centuries-old development in the finest details. From the Long Life we know that Cyril, even before he was sent by the Roman emperor as a missionary to Great Moravia, was constantly interested in alphabets and written signs.
This is reflected in the detailed description of the events during the Khazarian mission, to which I will return again. It is very possible, as it was believed until now, that St. Cyril created the Glagolitic even before the Great Moravian ruler asked the emperor for scribes to spread Slavic writing and preach in the Slavic language in his land. On the question of what is the similarity of the Slavic languages, what is the common origin of the so-called Slavic peoples and what do the concepts "Slavs, Slavs, Slavs" mean? - an answer can be found in numerous - including my own - contemporary publications.
So, the most cruel (unintentional) mistake of Alexander Dimitrov, in my opinion, is contained in the passage: "So their whole life and work (of Cyril and Methodius, MV) are clearly predetermined by their essence of Romans in the service of the Roman patriarch and emperor!"
No, the Saints of Thessalonica were never Roman instruments "with a Roman essence". Such a characterization demeans and even slanders them. Their work was created entirely for the benefit of the Bulgarian race, of which they had a crystal clear consciousness of their belonging, ingeniously defended before the court of the Pope of Rome and the court of history. They served not the Roman emperor and the patriarch Photius, but the Bulgarian people and the related Slavic peoples. The fact that at some point the interests of Byzantium (IRI) and Slavs coincided is an amazing fate and reflects the will of Providence that the work of the Thessalonica brothers should last in eternity - now, forever and ever!
Dimitrov is also wrong about "Hellenism" of the Greeks. Elin, who is falsely credited with the "parentage" of the Greeks, is a Pelasgian and has nothing to do with such "descendants". The Greeks were relatively late conquerors in the White Sea basin, in the Anatolian and Balkan regions.
But if the errors noted so far in the text of Mr. Dimitrov, whatever negatives they carry - the first presents in a completely wrong light the motivations for the feat of the Thessalonica brothers, and the second - about the Greek civilizing merit, is a Greek delusion regarding the whole humanity lasting three thousand years - I can call "involuntary" due to insufficient awareness of modern scientific discoveries - the shocking statement that Tsar Simeon PAID for the new alphabet - "Bulgaria" - I can't explain anything. Except by transferring today's corrupt relations between people - to the events of the 10th century.
Alexander Dimitrov expresses himself literally like this:
"This is why Simeon ordered the creation of the new Bulgarian alphabet.
ORDER IT, PAY IT AND GET IT! THE BRAND NEW BULGARIAN ALPHABET".
Mr. Dimitrov, you have magnificently pointed out the motives of the Bulgarian ruler for wanting the creation of a new alphabet for the Bulgarian people - an alphabet specifically for the Bulgarians, unrelated in any way to the ambitions and diplomatic moves of Byzantium (IRI). I accept such an idea because it is logically grounded. Yes, that is quite possible given the nature of our alphabet today. However, where does the term "paid" appear in your text? From entrepreneurial terminology? From the understanding of today's age that everything is a commodity? Here, your business setup has cheated you in historical reconstruction. Do you have any historical information that the supposed creation of a "brand new alphabet" - "Bulgarian woman" - was paid with some banal dividends - Phoenician characters, gold, silver, posts? This phrase annihilates many of the qualities of your text.
Spiritual work today is completely marginalized. No real artist receives a penny in reward for his achievements. On the contrary, the greater the spiritual feat, the more it is trampled and condemned to ridicule and oblivion. Only the ersatz, the lie, the forgery, the vulgarity are paid. But in fact, if we think about it, great spiritual estates have never been paid for by a bell or a rise in the hierarchy - in any age. They were never given a price tag - because that would devalue them. They are created by people for whom money and posts are unclean. People for whom the gold is of Mammon. People of God, accustomed to living in monastic poverty. The recompense for their work is not in the earthly, but in the spiritual world. And in the future of their people, in the progress and well-being of their country.
A great ruler like Simeon would not pour a bag of gold at the feet of the hypothetical creator of the "Bulgarian". And I would express my gratitude to him with wise words. Ours and the Bulgarian people's.
Honestly, I don't see why we shouldn't continue to call our alphabet "Cyrillic" and to consider St. Kliment Ohridski as its creator. Not because I don't understand your reasoning, but because I think that if Bulgaria continues its state path in a just future, as an independent country, its assets and specifically the purely Bulgarian character of our alphabet - will be recognized all over the world. If Bulgaria perishes or continues to be a pitiful training ground of foreign forces and interests, flooded with foreign plague - our writing, as well as our entire history, will fade into non-existence - regardless of the name. The very name Bulgaria will disappear.
Mr. Dimitrov, despite my expressed disagreements with some points of your text, I was deeply impressed by your article. She oozes power - it's not an exaggeration to call her titanic. It is inspired by a manly love for the Fatherland, which I would like every Bulgarian to feel. I will allow myself to quote your revelations of the monstrous erasure of the Bulgarian historical memory by the Greeks during the Turkish slavery. I quote:
"– At the beginning of the 19th century, there were two large burnings of Bulgarian books in Athos, one was in the Zograf monastery in the bread oven.
– In the monastery of St. All Bulgarian books were burned in Naum until Ohrid.
– In 1821, by order of Bishop Hilarion of Crete, the entire 400-year-old Tarnovo Patriarchal Library was burned.
– In 1840, the Greek bishop of Shumen burned all Bulgarian books in a pit near the cemetery of the village of Vacha.
– The destruction of Ivan Asen's inscription in Stanimaka – Asenovgrad – the inscription in the Aseno fortress."
This is only a small part of the systematic, cold-blooded planned and executed atrocities of the Greek clergy. Let the Bulgarians, for whom it is a matter of personal prestige to splash their bodies on some Greek beach on Easter, learn about them.
And now - the promised return to the episodes of the Khazarian mission of St. described in detail in the Spacious Life. Cyril and more precisely - his residence in Kherson, a source of extremely interesting information for the historiographer and linguist. In the Life it is said:
"There [the philosopher] found a gospel and a psalter written in Russian letters, and he met a man who spoke that language. He entered into a conversation with him and understood the meaning of his speech, comparing with his speech the difference of vowel and consonant sounds. And having prayed to God, he soon began to read and speak [in that language]. And they all marveled at him and praised God."
In his book "Peak Bulgaria" (ed. 2016) interpreted the famous name "Russian, Russian" - a long-standing bone of contention among scientists - as "rashki" - Etruscan letters. This opinion of mine opens not a door, but a portal to important conclusions regarding the nature of the Etruscan (Lydian) language and its similarity to Bulgarian. The fact is that the "Cyrillic" or "Bulgarian", if we start calling it that, has an obvious similarity with the alphabet of the Etruscan people.
Another event of St. Cyril's stay in Kherson is his meeting with the "Samaritan", who showed him "Samaritan books":
"There lived a certain Samaritan who came to Constantine and argued with him. One day he brought Samaritan books and showed them to him. The philosopher begged them from him and shut himself up in his dwelling, giving himself up to prayer. Gaining enlightenment from God, he began to read the books without fail. Seeing this, the Samaritan exclaimed in a loud voice: "Truly those who believe in Christ soon receive the Holy Spirit and his grace." Immediately after that, his son was baptized, and after him he was also baptized."
The first thing that comes to mind when reading the text about the "Samaritan" is that it is a person who came from the city of Samaria in Palestine or in Mesopotamia - in today's Iraq. But such Samaritans could only show books written in Aramaic. It is difficult for me to assume that Constantine-Cyril the Philosopher, who graduated from the Magnaur School and reached the heights of education at that time, first saw an Aramaic script in Kherson.
I assume it is a different kind of "Samaritan" - came from Volga Bulgaria, which in the 9th century was still pagan. The name of the cities Samaria and Samara derives from "Samas", "Shamash" - Sun. The ancient Bulgarians were sun worshippers, something more: in the deepest antiquity, they were guardians of the cult of the Heavenly Fire.
That is why perhaps by "Samaritan", the author of the Prostranno vitae means "Bulgarian". from Volga Bulgaria. It is no coincidence that in the 15th century a city with the same name - Samara - was founded in the area. Like the name of the ancient Bulgarian city of Samarkand, which does not come from "samar" but from Sun. If my assumption is confirmed, it means that the ancient Bulgarians had books - and writing!
OUR BOOKS BURNED. WE NEED TO COLLECT KNOWLEDGE AND WRITE IT AGAIN!