the ‘outside’ other 81
of the Bulgar goals and ambitions.^256 So, in this case, the foreign (con-
struction techniques, writing, invocations, etc.) is put to work to sup-
port the Bulgar ‘modernization’ and was not just an infl uence coming
from the Byzantine Empire. In other words, it was intentionally con-
trolled by Pliska, by the central power, which until the 830s neglected
to a certain extent or had a policy of no compromises towards the
Christians living within the borders of Bulgaria and those with high
ranks some of whom even died as martyrs.^257
Th erefore we can accept S. Nikolov’s thesis that until the conver-
sion to Christianity in 864 A.D., communication between the Bulgars
and Byzantine Christianity “never reached the level of a full fusion
of ideas and representations”.^258 Th e use of the Greek language at the
court of the khan for writing inscriptions in Bulgar language using
Greek letters inclusively, was paving the way for expanding Christi-
anity in the region^259 rather than a pre-planned missionary act of the
Byzantine imperial court.^260 However, accumulating so much and for
such a short period—less than 50 years—created a ‘critical mass’ in
Bulgaria because the Bulgars borrowed from Byzantine civilization
symbolic as well as organizational (the comitates) and demographic
resources, which in the end turned out to be crucial for the conversion
of the Bulgars to Orthodox Christianity. It is important to note here
that nobody forced the local elite to ‘modernize’ itself aft er the fi rst
decade of the ninth century by so quickly accepting some Byzantine
cultural and political realia. It became a ‘hostage’ of its expansion in
(^256) For a detailed analysis of this thesis see, Stepanov 1999, passim, and Nikolov
2000, passim. Also see the important conclusion made by L. Fridman (in his “Hori-
zontalnoto obshtestvo”. Sofi a, 2002, 96) though it does not in fact concern the Middle
Ages: “... the resistance should take on assume and symbols of the culture which it
hates so much”.
(^257) For the sources and commentaries see, Follieri and Dujchev 1963, 71–106; also
see, Nikolova 1995, 182–194.
(^258) Nikolov 2000, 343.
(^259) Nikolov 2000, 343. For these inscriptions see, Beshevliev 1992, N N 53, 54—
however, both of them are in the segment of the so-called military inventory inscrip-
tions, meaning they are not aimed at propaganda; which is why they are not written
in Greek! 260
Ivanov 2001, 16, notes correctly that in the fi rst centuries of the Middle Ages evi-
dence about Christianity had been disseminated mostly by traders, soldiers of fortune
as well as captives and hostages amongst the “barbarians”; so the missionary activity
of the Constantinopolitan church indeed dates back to a much later time. Moreover,
the Byzantine church, contrary to that in Western Europe, had never formulated mis-
sionary tasks.