The Ideology Of The Ninth And Tenth Centuries 83
The examples from Bulgaria show different possibilities of interpreting the
vicegerency of the supreme ruler. Assuming that the dual kingship in Khazaria
was also a result of the beliefs of the population subject to the khagan, then it
is only natural that the notion of power was accompanied by various nuances
and differences. The distribution of authority between the two rulers was prob-
ably influenced by mythological notions. Their powers could have changed
their essence, depending, for example, on the seasons or different natural
phenomena.
The functions of the vicegerent are also depicted as varied in Bulgarian folk-
lore. Despite the late date (the nineteenth century), it reflects ancient notions
of sovereignty and its duality. In support of his theory of the Bulgarian diarchy,
A. Kaloianov cites the perception of Marko as a king and his companion ban,
both of whom are “two sons of a king”. “While the first one is characterized by
his immobility and his location in the center, the second one is the active one,
the “irrational” one, the traveling one, knowledgeable in his contact with the
other world and with all things sacred... The younger one (the ban) is actually
only a stand-in in the conquest of the bride (the time for a new annual cycle),
while the older one (the king) is the groom, which is why the ban is riding his
horse instead of him”.295
There is one more interesting example of Marko and the Bulgarian notion
of dual kingship. According to Pl. Bochkov, “in the most popular stories, the
hero (Marko) is held captive in a dungeon (= temporary death), which causes
a destabilization of the order, the “cosmos” [.. .] The king (or the tsar, sultan
or pasha)—i.e. the character, personifying the state and thus the stability and
sovereignty, asks the hero to save him from his misfortunes and to restore the
status quo that has been violated (not so much by the actions of the enemy as
by the hero’s absence). Marko accepts and goes to battle which he wins with
some outside help, since he is usually weaker than Musa, and destroys him [.. .]
The role of the king as a mediator in this battle is determined by his identifica-
tion as “the vicar of God” who judges and is the administrator of justice—and
a potential hypostasis of the hero himself ”. According to some versions of the
story, “the hero kills Musa at the request of Tsar Ivan Shishman and then mar-
ries his daughter, thus becoming his equal by entering the “royal” family; he
also finds himself on the same level as the pauper from folk tales that became
the king’s son-in-law”.296 This is a common plot that resembles the ancient
295 Kaloianov 2003, 150–152.
296 Bochkov 1994, 43–44. Similar notions, related to different aspects of the sacral king and
sacral regicide mythology, are also found in various Bulgarian medieval works. Among
the rulers there are “motifs of initiatory death (the ruler dies for five years to be reborn