Elena Dougia, BA Department of Social Anthropology and History, University of Aegean

 

With the consolidation of Byzantine dominance in the East during the second half of the 9th century, the Empire resolved significant issues it had long faced with the Slavs.[1] Shortly thereafter, the Byzantine state organized a systematic missionary campaign toward the Rus’, whose success became the impetus for a new mission in Moravia.[2] This enterprise was undertaken by Constantine[3] and his brother Methodius. At this point, the Byzantine Empire had the opportunity to expand its sphere of influence and exert pressure on Bulgaria, which lay precisely in the middle ground.[4] The Christianization of Moravia triggered a sequence of primarily political events, that ultimately culminated in the Christianization of Bulgaria as well.[5]

In the middle and late Byzantine world, heresies were grounded on two main doctrinal axes.[6] Within this framework, the heresies of the Paulicians and the Bogomils should be understood. The Bogomils developed a worldview hostile to the institutional structure and function of the Church, marked by a strong dualistic cosmology and a rejection of ecclesiastical hierarchy—something that provoked the reaction of the Byzantine state. In the Eastern Churches (outside Byzantium), heresies emerged in different forms, often influenced by Monophysitism. The Western Church, on the other hand, contributed to the dissemination of divergent theological views for instance, by using unleavened bread in the Eucharist, a practice seen as symbolically Monophysitic.[7]

By the mid-10th century in Bulgaria, the teachings of the Paulicians and the Messalians had merged and adopted Slavic characteristics, giving rise to a new dualistic heresy: Bogomilism, a distinctly Slavic phenomenon.[8] Both Paulicianism and Messalianism were dualistic, built on the notion of a cosmic struggle between good and evil.[9] The term “Bogomils” is of later origin and first appears in Greek form in a letter by the Byzantine monk Euthymius around 1050.[10] The heresy developed outside the Byzantine Empire, in a territory that Byzantium had already sought to control since the 9th century. From the 11th century onward, the moral, structural, and functional differences between the Orthodox Church and Bogomilism were instrumentalized by both Slavs and Byzantines for political purposes.

By the late 10th century, Bulgaria alone retained a traditional royal (tsarist) authority with its own Patriarchate, independent of Byzantium.[11] Thus, it represented the last powerful Slavic state in the Balkans. Emperor Basil II abolished its independence in 1018, after which the Byzantine Empire sought full political and ecclesiastical integration. The independent Bulgarian Church was replaced by the Archbishopric of Ohrid, which, although administratively autonomous, remained under Constantinopolitan control.[12]

Within this context, the Bogomil heresy emerged and gained strength, characterized by its anti-feudal and anti-clerical stance. It spread rapidly across Bulgarian and Byzantine territories. During the second half of the 11th century, it attracted even more followers in Constantinople itself, becoming increasingly dangerous in the eyes of the state. At that time, Basil, the spiritual leader of the sect, together with his disciples, was executed by burning.[13]

The violent process of Byzantinization in Macedonia, Thrace, and the northern Bulgarian provinces during the 11th century intensified local resistance, which often manifested through heretical movements such as Bogomilism. This phenomenon had a distinctly political dimension, as Byzantine authority was imposed upon the Bulgarian Church, provoking widespread discontent and alienation from ecclesiastical institutions. Bogomilism adopted certain elements of Byzantine Christian tradition and the vernacular religious culture, yet it was transformed into a vehicle for social and political dissent. The doctrinal and liturgical differences between Bogomilism and Orthodoxy became instruments of confrontation. [14]

Throughout the 11th century, the Bulgarian population faced severe socio-economic pressures under Byzantine rule. The shift from payment in kind to monetary taxation, combined with overtaxation and exploitation by Byzantine officials, led to the impoverishment of the Bulgarian peasantry. Deprived of protection, many turned to Bogomilism, whose egalitarian and anti-hierarchical teachings offered an alternative form of spiritual and social expression.[15]

In contrast, the Orthodox Church remained hierarchically rigid and subordinated to imperial authority (as exemplified by the execution of Basil).[16] The instrumentalization of Bogomilism was therefore inevitable: for the Bulgarian people, it became a means of resistance against political and ecclesiastical oppression for the Byzantines, it represented a threat to imperial unity. Thus, the structural and functional differences between Orthodoxy and Bogomilism transcended theology, acquiring political significance as tools of power, identity, and legitimacy.[17]

 

MORALITY

The central essence of Bogomil doctrine emphasized brotherhood and equality principles that deeply resonated with the Bulgarian peasantry, who belonged to the lower social strata and felt wronged.[18] Other moral issues arose from the sect’s interpretation of ecclesiastical texts. For example, the Bogomils were accused of believing that the Devil was the son of God, and therefore Christ’s brother, though more generally they held that the Devil was older than God.[19] In interpreting the parable of the “unjust steward” from the Gospel of Luke, they identified the steward with the Devil himself.[20]

In an era when religion defined the normative framework of life, such ideas could not remain confined to theological speculation without provoking unrest of moral destabilization. As Hegel notes, the follower of Christ perceives in Christ the ultimate perfection and thereby forms a community in which Christ himself dwells.[21] He attributes cultural progress to the perfected Christian religion.[22] In other words, society evolves according to the principles of Christian learning and Church tradition. Any deviation or reinterpretation could therefore become an obstacle to moral and social cohesion, explaining the persistent persecution of heresies such as Bogomilism.

Nevertheless, Bogomilism cultivated an environment of critical thought and theological freedom, influenced by the educational activity of the School of Ohrid. It indirectly contributed to the questioning of the established political and ecclesiastical order.[23]

A notable example of the moral and intellectual influence of Bogomilism on political authority is the case of Lazarus, as described in the letters of Theophylact of Ohrid (late 11th–early 12th century). Lazarus sought emancipation from parochial dependency through liberal ideas at a time when the Church was not merely a religious institution but a political and social authority.[24] His attempt to liberate himself from ecclesiastical control constituted not only a spiritual quest but also an act of resistance against institutionalized power.

Another example lies in how Theophylact wrote the Life of Clement of Ohrid about 150 years later, using it for political purposes. He portrayed Clement not as a symbol of spiritual freedom but as a defender of Orthodoxy against the Bogomil heresy. These cases reveal the indirect, yet substantial role played by Bogomil moral and spiritual values in shaping the political landscape of the 11th century. On the one hand, Clement’s educational work expanded theological literacy among lower social strata, providing a basis for critique of both Church and State. On the other hand, Lazarus, as depicted by Theophylact, embodies the individual enactment of this critical stance.[25] Together, these examples illustrate how the principles of Bogomilism functioned not merely as a theological deviation, but as a force reshaping the dynamics of power and social legitimacy in the Balkan world of the 11th century.

Bogomilism was not merely a religious heresy but evolved into an instrument of social, political, and national dissent. In Bulgaria in particular, its differences with the Orthodox Church—both structural and moral—surpassed the boundaries of theological disagreement and became expressions of resistance against Byzantine domination and ecclesiastical oppression. In an era of intense pressure and transformation, Bogomilism gave voice to the oppressed, offering an alternative model of faith and social organization that appealed to the people.

In a study of this nature, it is crucial not to limit the analysis to doctrinal differences alone, but to consider them within the broader historical and political context. Conflicts are not always products of belief, ideology, or faith—they often stem from the ambitions and actions of the ruling elites. This opens questions for further investigation regarding the origins of religious fundamentalism. In other words, when causality shifts from the believer “below” to the power “above,” the narrative itself changes, acquiring new meanings that extend beyond matters of faith.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Ostrogorsky, G. (2012–2015). History of the Byzantine State, Vol. 2, trans. I. Panagopoulos. Athens.

Ostrogorsky, G. (2012–2015). History of the Byzantine State, Vol. 3, trans. I. Panagopoulos. Athens.

James, L. (2014). Handbook of Byzantine Studies, eds. A. Mavroudis & A. Regakos. Athens.

Obolensky, D. (1948). The Bogomils: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1980). Philosophy of History, ed. K. Metrinos, trans. A. Vagenas. Athens.

Angelovska-Panova, M. (2022). The Phenomena of Bogomilism in the Context of Hagiographic Literary Works. Studia Ceranea, 12, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.18778/2084-140X.12.14

—

[1] G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Vol. 2, trans. I. Panagopoulos, Athens 2012–2015, p. 101.

[2] Ibid., p. 102.

[3] Constantine, also known as Constantine the Philosopher, later became Saint Cyril. Together with his brother Methodius, he was among the most renowned Byzantine missionaries who Christianized the Slavs.

[4] G. Ostrogorsky, ibid., pp. 102–103.

[5] Ibid., p. 104.

[6] L. James, Handbook of Byzantine Studies, ed. A. Mavroudis & A. Regakos, Athens 2014, pp. 361–362.

[7] Ibid., p. 362.

[8] D. Obolensky, The Bogomils: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism, Cambridge 1948, p. 111.

[9] L. James, ibid., p. 362.

[10] D. Obolensky, ibid., p. 119

[11] G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Vol. 2, Athens 2012–2015, p. 184.

[12] Ibid., Vol. 2, pp. 193–194.

[13] Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 38–39.

[14] D. Obolensky, The Bogomils: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism, pp. 168–169.

[15] Ibid., pp. 171–172.

[16] L. James, Handbook of Byzantine Studies, pp. 360–362.

[17] D. Obolensky, The Bogomils: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism, pp. 172–173.

[18] Ibid., p. 172.

[19] Ibid., p. 122.

[20] Ibid., p. 123.

[21] G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophy of History, ed. K. Metrinos, trans. A. Vagenas, Athens 1980, pp. 336–337.

[22] Ibid., p. 347.

[23] M. Angelovska-Panova, The Phenomena of Bogomilism in the Context of Hagiographic Literary Works, p. 3.

[24] Ibid., pp. 3–4.

[25] Ibid., p. 4.