1{2 "document_id": "lb_2wikimqa_e5eb5e5215ff4d3f7a036fa1a20699d85cdfb68a7908f086",3 "family": "public_2wikimqa",4 "split": "test",5 "text": "Passage 1:\nWhere Was I\n\"Where Was I?\" may refer to:\n\nBooks\n\"Where Was I?\", essay by David Hawley Sanford from The Mind's I\nWhere Was I?, book by John Haycraft 2006\nWhere was I?!, book by Terry Wogan 2009\n\nFilm and TV\nWhere Was I? (film), 1925 film directed by William A. Seiter. With Reginald Denny, Marian Nixon, Pauline Garon, Lee Moran.\nWhere Was I? (2001 film), biography about songwriter Tim Rose\nWhere Was I? (TV series) 1952–1953 Quiz show with the panelists attempting to guess a location by looking at photos\n\"Where Was I?\" episode of Shoestring (TV series) 1980\n\nMusic\n\"Where was I\", song by W. Franke Harling and Al Dubin performed by Ruby Newman and His Orchestra with vocal chorus by Larry Taylor and Peggy McCall 1939\n\"Where Was I\", single from Charley Pride discography 1988\n\"Where Was I\" (song), a 1994 song by Ricky Van Shelton\n\"Where Was I (Donde Estuve Yo)\", song by Joe Pass from Simplicity (Joe Pass album)\n\"Where Was I?\", song by Guttermouth from The Album Formerly Known as a Full Length LP (Guttermouth album)\n\"Where Was I\", song by Sawyer Brown (Billy Maddox, Paul Thorn, Anne Graham) from Can You Hear Me Now 2002\n\"Where Was I?\", song by Kenny Wayne Shepherd from Live On 1999\n\"Where Was I\", song by Melanie Laine (Victoria Banks, Steve Fox) from Time Flies (Melanie Laine album)\n\"Where Was I\", song by Rosie Thomas from With Love (Rosie Thomas album)\nPassage 2:\nBeaulieu-sur-Loire\nBeaulieu-sur-Loire (French pronunciation: [boljø syʁ lwaʁ], literally Beaulieu on Loire) is a commune in the Loiret department in north-central France. It is the place of death of Jacques MacDonald, a French general who served in the Napoleonic Wars.\n\nPopulation\nSee also\nCommunes of the Loiret department\nPassage 3:\nDance of Death (disambiguation)\nDance of Death, also called Danse Macabre, is a late-medieval allegory of the universality of death.\nDance of Death or The Dance of Death may also refer to:\n\nBooks\nDance of Death, a 1938 novel by Helen McCloy\nDance of Death (Stine novel), a 1997 novel by R. L. Stine\nDance of Death (novel), a 2005 novel by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child\n\nTheatre and film\nThe Dance of Death (Strindberg play), a 1900 play by August Strindberg\nThe Dance of Death, a 1908 play by Frank Wedekind\nThe Dance of Death (Auden play), a 1933 play by W. H. Auden\n\nFilm\nThe Death Dance, a 1918 drama starring Alice Brady\nThe Dance of Death (1912 film), a German silent film\nThe Dance of Death (1919 film), an Austrian silent film\nThe Dance of Death (1938 film), crime drama starring Vesta Victoria; screenplay by Ralph Dawson\nThe Dance of Death (1948 film), French-Italian drama based on Strindberg's play, starring Erich von Stroheim\nThe Dance of Death (1967 film), a West German drama film\nDance of Death or House of Evil, 1968 Mexican horror film starring Boris Karloff\nDance of Death (1969 film), a film based on Strindberg's play, starring Laurence Olivier\nDance of Death (1979 film), a Hong Kong film featuring Paul Chun\n\nMusic\nDance of Death (album), a 2003 album by Iron Maiden, or the title song\nThe Dance of Death & Other Plantation Favorites, a 1964 album by John Fahey\nThe Dance of Death (Scaramanga Six album)\n\"Death Dance\", a 2016 song by Sevendust\n\nSee also\nDance of the Dead (disambiguation)\nDanse Macabre (disambiguation)\nBon Odori, a Japanese traditional dance welcoming the spirits of the dead\nLa danse des morts, an oratorio by Arthur Honegger\nTotentanz (disambiguation)\nPassage 4:\nPlace of origin\nIn Switzerland, the place of origin (German: Heimatort or Bürgerort, literally \"home place\" or \"citizen place\"; French: Lieu d'origine; Italian: Luogo di attinenza) denotes where a Swiss citizen has their municipal citizenship, usually inherited from previous generations. It is not to be confused with the place of birth or place of residence, although two or all three of these locations may be identical depending on the person's circumstances.\n\nAcquisition of municipal citizenship\nSwiss citizenship has three tiers. For a person applying to naturalise as a Swiss citizen, these tiers are as follows:\n\nMunicipal citizenship, granted by the place of residence after fulfilling several preconditions, such as sufficient knowledge of the local language, integration into local society, and a minimum number of years lived in said municipality.\nCantonal (state) citizenship, for which a Swiss municipal citizenship is required. This requires a certain number of years lived in said canton.\nCountry citizenship, for which both of the above are required, also requires a certain number of years lived in Switzerland (except for people married to a Swiss citizen, who may obtain simplified naturalisation without having to reside in Switzerland), and involves a criminal background check.The last two kinds of citizenship are a mere formality, while municipal citizenship is the most significant step in becoming a Swiss citizen. \nNowadays the place of residence determines the municipality where citizenship is acquired, for a new applicant, whereas previously there was a historical reason for preserving the municipal citizenship from earlier generations in the family line, namely to specify which municipality held the responsibility of providing social welfare. The law has now been changed, eliminating this form of allocating responsibility to a municipality other than that of the place of residence. Care needs to be taken when translating the term in Swiss documents which list the historical \"Heimatort\" instead of the usual place of birth and place of residence.\nHowever, any Swiss citizen can apply for a second, a third or even more municipal citizenships for prestige reasons or to show their connection to the place they currently live – and thus have several places of origin. As the legal significance of the place of origin has waned (see below), Swiss citizens can often apply for municipal citizenship for no more than 100 Swiss francs after having lived in the same municipality for one or two years. In the past, it was common to have to pay between 2,000 and 4,000 Swiss francs as a citizenship fee, because of the financial obligations incumbent on the municipality to grant the citizenship.\nA child born to two Swiss parents is automatically granted the citizenship of the parent whose last name they hold, so the child gets either the mother's or the father's place of origin. A child born to one Swiss parent and one foreign parent acquires the citizenship, and thus the place of origin, of the Swiss parent.\n\nInternational confusion\nAlmost uniquely in the world (with the exception of Japan, which lists one's Registered Domicile; and Sweden, which lists the mother's place of domicile as place of birth), the Swiss identity card, passport and driving licence do not show the holder's birthplace, but only their place of origin. The vast majority of countries show the holder's actual birthplace on identity documents. This can lead to administrative issues for Swiss citizens abroad when asked to demonstrate their actual place of birth, as no such information exists on any official Swiss identification documents. Only a minority of Swiss citizens have a place of origin identical to their birthplace. More confusion comes into play through the fact that people can have more than one place of origin.\n\nSignificance and history\nA citizen of a municipality does not enjoy a larger set of rights than a non-citizen of the same municipality. To vote in communal, cantonal or national matters, only the current place of residence matters – or in the case of citizens abroad, the last Swiss place of residence.\nThe law previously required that a citizen's place of origin continued to bear all their social welfare costs for two years after the citizen moved away. In 2012, the National Council voted by 151 to 9 votes to abolish this law. The place of domicile is now the sole payer of welfare costs.In 1923, 1937, 1959 and 1967, more cantons signed treaties that assured that the place of domicile had to pay welfare costs instead of the place of origin, reflecting the fact that fewer and fewer people lived in their place of origin (1860: 59%, in 1910: 34%).In 1681, the Tagsatzung – the then Swiss parliament – decided that beggars should be deported to their place of origin, especially if they were insufficiently cared for by their residential community.In the 19th century, Swiss municipalities even offered free emigration to the United States if the Swiss citizen agreed to renounce municipal citizenship, and with that the right to receive welfare.\n\nSee also\nAncestral home (Chinese)\nBon-gwan\nRegistered domicile\n\n\n== Notes and references ==\nPassage 5:\nMaria Pietersdr Olycan\nPortrait of Maria Pietersdochter Olycan is an oil-on-canvas painting by the Dutch Golden Age painter Frans Hals, painted in 1638, now in the São Paulo Museum of Art. It is considered a pendant to the portrait of Maria's husband Andries van Hoorn.\n\nLife\nMaria Pietersdr Olycan was born in Haarlem in 1607 as the daughter of the wealthy brewers Pieter Jacobsz Olycan and Maritge Claesdr. Voogt. She was the younger sister of the brewer Jacob Pietersz Olycan. Maria's older sister Dorothea married Cornelis van Loo, the son of another brewer, Claes van Loo. Her brother Nicolaes van Olycan married Agatha Dicx, the daughter of the brewer and mayor, Dirk Dicx. Maria's younger sister Hester married the brewer Tyman Oosdorp.\nOn 25 July 1638 Maria married the widower Andries van Hoorn, also a brewer. He had a daughter Christine by his first marriage and a brewery of his own. His sister Agatha had married the brewer Cornelis Guldewagen. Andries and Maria had a daughter of their own, also called Maria, in 1639, but Maria Pietersdr Olycan died only five years later in 1655. Andries survived his second wife by 22 years and lived to see his daughter Christine's wedding in 1657 to Adriaan Noirot, and his daughter Maria's wedding in 1662 to the diplomat jhr. mr. Cornelis Ascanius van Sypesteyn. He also lived to see the Sypesteyn house be searched by a mob in 1672 on suspicion of hiding Johan de Witt, and though nothing was found, C.A. van Sypesteyn continued to be mistrusted and was stabbed to death in 1673 in Gorinchem. Maria van Hoorn outlived both her parents and her husband and died in 1704.\n\nPainting\nMaria's dress reflects the height of fashion in 1638. The millstone collar has made way for layers of intricate lace that edge see-through linen collars that come together with a brooch in a manner that suggests a decolleté. She is holding a fan and wears matching pearl bracelets and a pearl necklace. Her hair is wrapped around a diadem that is studded with gold dangles. This portrait was documented by Hofstede de Groot in 1910, before the sitter was identified. He wrote \"384. PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN. M. 206. Half-length. She is turned slightly to the left, and looks at the spectator. Her left hand is at her breast ; her right hand holds her fan. She wears a black dress trimmed with lace, a close-fitting cap, a white lace collar and wristbands, and a pearl necklace. Grey background. Painted about the years 1635-40. Canvas, 31 1/2 inches by 25 1/2 inches. Exhibited in the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, London, 1903, No. 45. Exhibited at the Hudson-Fulton Celebration, Metropolitan Museum, New York, 1909, No. 31. Purchased in the Isle of Wight, 1896, from the grandson of George IV.'s cook, who had formerly owned it, by the London dealers Dowdeswell. In the possession, successively, of the London dealer C. Wertheimer ; of the Paris dealer C. Sedelmeyer ; and the London dealers T. Agnew and Sons. In the collection of J. Pierpont Morgan, London.\"\nOf this portrait's pendant, Hofstede de Groot noted that it did not resemble the wedding portrait of Michiel de Wael that he included as #242. Of this portrait of an as yet unidentified man, he wrote:282. PORTRAIT OF A MAN SEATED. M. 135. Half-length. He faces right, and leans his left hand on a stick. He has a moustache and slight imperial. He wears a large black felt hat, a black costume, a white ruff, and yellowish-grey gloves. Doubtfully identified as a portrait of Michiel de Wael. [Compare 242.] Inscribed, \"AETAT SVAE 32 AN 1638\" (the last numeral is not clear); canvas, 34 inches by 26 1/2 inches. Exhibited at the Hudson-Fulton Celebration, Metropolitan Museum, New York, 1909, No. 30. Bought in Paris by an elder Seymour (for .40). Sale. Arthur Seymour, London, April I, 1897, No. 113 (T. Agnew and Sons). In the collection of J. Pierpont Morgan, London. \nIn 1974 Seymour Slive tried to trace the remark about the king's cook but there is no reference in the Royal collections of such a statement. He remarked on Andries' portrait bearing an inscription and coat of arms while Maria's portrait lacks this, but notes that coats of arms were generally added by later descendants.\n\nWedding pendant\nSee also\nList of paintings by Frans Hals\nPassage 6:\nSennedjem\nSennedjem was an Ancient Egyptian artisan who was active during the reigns of Seti I and Ramesses II. He lived in Set Maat (translated as \"The Place of Truth\"), contemporary Deir el-Medina, on the west bank of the Nile, opposite Thebes. Sennedjem had the title \"Servant in the Place of Truth\". He was buried along with his wife, Iyneferti, and members of his family in a tomb in the village necropolis. His tomb was discovered January 31, 1886. When Sennedjem's tomb was found, it contained furniture from his home, including a stool and a bed, which he used when he was alive.His titles included Servant in the Place of Truth, meaning that he worked on the excavation and decoration of the nearby royal tombs.\n\nSee also\n\nTT1 – (Tomb of Sennedjem, family and wife)\nPassage 7:\nBoris I of Bulgaria\nKnyaz Boris I (also Bogoris), venerated as Saint Tsar Boris I (Mihail) the Baptizer (Church Slavonic: Борисъ А҃ / Борисъ-Михаилъ Bulgarian: Борис I / Борис-Михаил; died 2 May 907), was the ruler of the First Bulgarian Empire in 852–889. At the time of his baptism in 864, Boris was named Michael after his godfather, Emperor Michael III. The historian Steven Runciman called him one of the greatest persons in history.Despite a number of military setbacks, the reign of Boris I was marked with significant events that shaped Bulgarian and European history. With the Christianization of Bulgaria in 864 paganism (i.e. Tengrism) was abolished. A skillful diplomat, Boris I successfully exploited the conflict between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Papacy to secure an autocephalous Bulgarian Church, thus dealing with the nobility's concerns about Byzantine interference in Bulgaria's internal affairs.\nWhen in 885 the disciples of Saints Cyril and Methodius were banished from Great Moravia, Boris I gave them refuge and provided assistance which saved the Glagolithic and later promoted the development of the Cyrillic script in Preslav and the Slavic literature. After he abdicated in 889, his eldest son and successor tried to restore the old pagan religion but was deposed by Boris I. During the Council of Preslav which followed that event, the Byzantine clergy was replaced with Bulgarian, and the Greek language was replaced with what is now known as Old Church Slavonic.\nHe is regarded as a saint in the Orthodox Church, as the Prince and baptizer of Bulgaria, and as Equal-to-the-Apostles, with his feast day observed on May 2 and in Synaxis of all venerable and holy Fathers of Bulgaria (movable holiday on the 2nd Sunday of Pentecost).\n\nName and titles\nThe most common theory is that the name Boris is of Bulgar origin. After his official act of conversion to Christianity, Boris adopted the Christian name Michael. He is sometimes called Boris-Michael in historical research.\nThe only direct evidence of Boris's title are his seals and the inscription found near the town of Ballsh, modern Albania, and at Varna. There he is called by the Byzantine title \"Archon of Bulgaria\", which is usually translated as \"ruler\", and in the 10-11th centuries also as \"Knyaz\" (Кнѧзъ, Bulg.). In the Bulgarian sources from that period, Boris I is called \"Knyaz\" or \"Tsar\" (\"Царь\", Bulg.), and during the Second Bulgarian Empire, \"Tsar\".In modern historiography Boris is called by different titles. Most historians accept that he changed his title after his conversion to Christianity. According to them, before the baptism he had the title Khan or Kanasubigi, and after that Knyaz.\n\nReign\nCentral Europe in the 9th century\nThe early 9th century marked the beginning of a fierce rivalry between the Greek East and Latin West, which would ultimately lead to the schism between the Orthodox Church in Constantinople and the Catholic Church in Rome.\nAs early as 781, the Empress Irene began to seek a closer relationship with the Carolingian dynasty and the Papacy. She negotiated a marriage between her son, Constantine, and Rotrude, a daughter of Charlemagne by his third wife Hildegard. Irene went as far as to send an official to instruct the Frankish princess in Greek; however, Irene herself broke off the engagement in 787, against her son's wishes. When the Second Council of Nicaea of 787 reintroduced the veneration of icons under Empress Irene, the result was not recognized by Charlemagne since no Frankish emissaries had been invited even though Charlemagne was by then ruling more than three provinces of the old Roman empire. While this improved relations with the Papacy, it did not prevent the outbreak of a war with the Franks, who took over Istria and Benevento in 788.\nWhen Charlemagne was proclaimed Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by Leo III, the Pope was effectively nullifying the legitimacy of Irene. He certainly desired to increase the influence of the papacy and to honour his protector Charlemagne. Irene, like many of her predecessors since Justinian I, was too weak to protect Rome and its much reduced citizenry and the city was not being ruled by any emperor. Thus, Charlemagne's assumption of the imperial title was not seen as an usurpation in the eyes of the Franks or Italians. It was, however, seen as such in Byzantium, but protests by Irene and her successor Nicephorus I had no great effect.\nMojmír I managed to unite some Slavic princes and established Great Moravia in 833. His successor, Rastislav, also fought against the Germans. Both states tried to maintain good relations with Bulgaria on account of its considerable military power.\n\nMilitary campaigns\nBoris I was the son and successor of Presian I of Bulgaria. In 852 he sent emissaries to Eastern Francia to confirm the peace treaty of 845. At the time of his accession he threatened the Byzantines with an invasion, but his armies did not attack, and he received a small area in Strandzha to the southeast. The peace treaty was not signed, however, although both states exchanged temporary delegations. In 854 the Moravian Prince Rastislav persuaded Boris I to help him against East Francia. According to some sources, some Franks bribed the Bulgarian monarch to attack Louis the German. The Bulgarian-Slav campaign was a disaster, and Louis scored a great victory and invaded Bulgaria. At the same time the Croats waged a war against the Bulgarians. Both peoples had coexisted peacefully up to that time, suggesting that the Croats were paid by Louis to attack Bulgaria and distract Boris' attention from his alliance with Great Moravia. Kanasubigi Boris could not achieve any success, and both sides exchanged gifts and settled for peace. As a result of the military actions in 855, the peace between Bulgaria and Eastern Francia was restored, and Rastislav was forced to fight against Louis alone. In the meantime, a conflict between the Byzantines and Bulgarians had started in 855–856, and Boris, distracted by his conflict with Louis, lost Philippopolis (Plovdiv), the region of Zagora, and the ports around the Gulf of Burgas on the Black Sea to the Byzantine army led by Michael III and the caesar Bardas.\n\nSerbia\nAfter the death of Knez Vlastimir of Serbia circa 850, his state was divided between his sons. Vlastimir and Boris' father had fought against each other in the Bulgarian-Serbian War of 839–842, which resulted in a Serbian victory, and Boris sought to avenge that defeat. In 853 or 854, the Bulgarian army led by Vladimir-Rasate, the son of Boris I, invaded Serbia, with the aim of replacing the Byzantine overlordship over the Serbs. The Serbian army was led by Mutimir and his two brothers; they defeated the Bulgarians, capturing Vladimir and 12 boyars. Boris I and Mutimir agreed to peace (and perhaps an alliance), and Mutimir sent his sons Pribislav and Stefan to the border to escort the prisoners, where they exchanged items as a sign of peace. Boris himself gave them \"rich gifts\", while he was given \"two slaves, two falcons, two dogs, and 80 furs\". An internal conflict among the Serbian brothers resulted in Mutimir banishing the two younger brothers to the Bulgarian court. Mutimir, however, kept a nephew, Petar, at his court for political reasons. The reason for the feud is not known, though it is postulated that it was a result of treachery. Petar would later defeat Pribislav, Mutimir's son, and take the Serbian throne.\n\nMotivations for baptism and conversion to Christianity\nThere are a number of versions as to why Boris converted to Christianity. Some historians attribute it to the intervention of his sister who had already converted while being at Constantinople. Another story mentions a Greek slave in the ruler's court. A more mythological version is the one in which Boris is astonished and frightened by an icon of Judgement day and thus decides to adopt Christianity. Richard B. Spence sees the decision as deliberate, practical, and politic.For a variety of diplomatic reasons, Boris became interested in converting to Christianity. In order to both extend his control over the Slavic world and gain an ally against one of the most powerful foes of the Bulgars, the Byzantine Empire, Boris sought to establish an alliance with Louis the German against Ratislav of Moravia. Through this alliance, Louis promised to supply Boris with missionaries, which would have effectively brought the Bulgars under the Roman Church. However, late in 863, the Byzantine Empire under Emperor Michael III declared war on Boris and the Bulgars during a period of famine and natural disasters. Taken by surprise, Boris was forced to make peace with the Byzantines, promising to convert to Christianity according to the eastern rites, in exchange for peace and territorial concessions in Thrace (he regained the region of Zagora recently recovered by the Byzantines). At the beginning of 864, Boris was secretly baptized at Pliska by an embassy of Byzantine clergymen, together with his family and select members of the Bulgarian nobility. With Emperor Michael III as his godfather, Boris also adopted the Christian name Michael.Separate from diplomatic concerns, Boris was interested in converting himself and the Bulgarians to Christianity to resolve the disunity within the Bulgarian society. When he ascended to the throne, the Bulgars and Slavs were separate elements within Boris' kingdom, the minority Bulgars constituting a military aristocracy. Richard Spence compares it to the relationship between the Normans and Saxons in England. Religious plurality further contributed to divisions within the society. The Slavs had their own polytheistic belief system while the Bulgar elite believed in Tangra, the Sky God, or God of Heaven.\nThe arrival of Methodius and his followers introduced the Cyrillic alphabet, freeing the Bulgarians from dependence on Greek as a written and liturgical language. A Slavic Christian culture developed that helped unify the realm.\n\nBaptism of the Bulgarians and the establishment of the Bulgarian Church\nAfter his baptism, the first major task that Boris undertook was the baptism of his subjects and for this task he appealed to Byzantine priests between 864 and 866. At the same time Boris sought further instruction on how to lead a Christian lifestyle and society and how to set up an autocephalous church from the Byzantine Patriarch Photios. Photios' answer proved less than satisfactory, and Boris sought to gain a more favorable settlement from the Papacy. Boris dispatched emissaries led by the kavhan Peter with a long list of questions to Pope Nicholas I at Rome in August 866, and obtained 106 detailed answers, detailing the essence of religion, law, politics, customs and personal faith. Stemming from his concerns with the baptism of the Bulgarians, Boris also complained to Nicholas about the abuses perpetrated by the Byzantine priests responsible for baptizing the Bulgarians and how he could go about correcting the consequences resulting from these abuses. The pope temporarily glossed over the controversial question of the autocephalous status desired by Boris for his church and sent a large group of missionaries to continue the conversion of Bulgaria in accordance with the western rite. Bulgaria's shift towards the Papacy infuriated Patriarch Photios, who wrote an encyclical to the eastern clergy in 867 in which he denounced the practices associated with the western rite and Rome's ecclesiastical intervention in Bulgaria. This occasioned the Photian Schism, which was a major step in the rift between the eastern and western churches.\nTo deliver his response to Boris’ questions, Pope Nicholas I sent two bishops to Bulgaria: Paul of Populonia and Formosus of Porto. The Pope expected that these priests would execute their episcopal responsibilities to address Boris’ concerns, but did not intend for them to be elevated to the positions that they assumed in the Bulgar hierarchy. In Bulgaria, the activities of Bishop Formosus (later Pope Formosus) met with success, until the pope rejected Boris' request to nominate Formosus as archbishop of Bulgaria. Nicholas justified the rejection of the request by arguing that it was “uncanonical to transfer an already established bishop from one see to another”. The new Pope Adrian II refused Boris' request for a similar nomination of either Formosus or Deacon Marinus (later Pope Marinus I), after which Bulgaria began to shift towards Constantinople once again. At the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 870 the position of the Bulgarian church was reopened by Bulgarian envoys, and the eastern patriarchs adjudicated in favor of Constantinople. This determined the future of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which was granted the status of an autocephalous archbishopric by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and an archbishop of its own. Later in the 870s, the Patriarch of Constantinople surrendered Bulgaria to the Papacy, but this concession was purely nominal, as it did not affect the actual position of Bulgaria's autocephalous church.The Christianization of the Bulgarians as a result of Boris’ actions had profound effects not only on the religious belief system of the Bulgarians but also the structure of the Bulgarian government. Upon embracing Christianity, Boris took on the title of Tsar and joined the community of nations that embraced Christ, to the great delight of the Eastern Roman Empire, which was later given the name Byzantium by historians.Toward the end of his reign, Boris began to increase the number of native Bulgarian clergy. Consequently, Boris began to send Bulgarians to Constantinople to obtain a monastic education and some of these Bulgarians returned to their homeland to serve as clergymen. In 885, Boris was presented with a new opportunity to establish a native clergy when Slavic-speaking disciples of St. Cyril and St. Methodius were forced to flee from Moravia after a German-inspired reaction to the death of the apostle.\n\nChanges to Bulgarian culture brought on by Clement and Naum\nIn 886 Boris' governor of Belgrade welcomed the disciples of Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius, who were exiled from Great Moravia into Bulgaria and sent them on to Boris in Pliska. Boris happily greeted two of these disciples, Clement of Ohrid and Naum of Preslav, who were of noble Bulgarian Slavic origin. To utilize the disciple's talents, Boris commissioned Clement to be a “teacher” in the province of Kutmichevitsa.\nBoth Clement and Naum were instrumental in furthering the cultural, linguistic and spiritual works of Cyril and Methodius. They set up educational centers in Pliska and in Ohrid to further the development of Slavonic letters and liturgy. Clement later trained thousands of Slavonic-speaking priests who replaced the Greek-speaking clergy from Constantinople still present in Bulgaria. The script that was originally developed by Cyril and Methodius is known as the Glagolitic alphabet.\nIn Bulgaria, Clement of Ohrid and Naum of Preslav created (or rather compiled) the new Bulgarian script, later called Cyrillic that was declared the official alphabet in 893. Old Bulgarian was declared as the official language in the same year. In the following centuries this script was adopted by other Slavic peoples and states. The introduction of Slavic liturgy paralleled Boris' continued development of churches and monasteries throughout his realm.\n\nReactions to religious conversion\nConversion to Christianity met great opposition among the Bulgarian elite. Some refused to become Christians while others apostatized after baptism and started a rebellion against Boris for forcing them to be baptized. Some people did not object necessarily to the Christian religion but to the fact that it was brought by foreign priests, which, as a result, established external foreign policy. By breaking the power of the old cults, Boris reduced the influence of the boyars, who resisted the khan's authority. In the summer of 865 a group of Bulgar aristocrats (boyars) started an open revolt. Boris ruthlessly suppressed it and executed 52 boyars together with their entire families. Thus the Christianization continued.\n\nEnd of Boris' reign\nIn 889 Boris abdicated the throne and became a monk. His son and successor Vladimir attempted a pagan reaction, which brought Boris out of retirement in 893. Vladimir was defeated and Boris had him blinded, his wife shaved and sent to a monastery. Boris gathered the Council of Preslav placing his third son, Tsar Simeon I of Bulgaria, on the throne, threatening him with the same fate if he too apostatized. Boris returned to his monastery, emerging once again in c. 895 to help Simeon fight the Magyars, who had invaded Bulgaria in alliance with the Byzantines. After the passing of this crisis, Boris resumed monastic life and died in 907. The location of his retreat, where perhaps he was interred, is not certain; it may be near Preslav, or Pliska, or in a monastery near Varna or Ravda.\n\nLegacy\nSt. Boris Peak on Livingston Island in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica is named for Boris I of Bulgaria.\nBoris I's life is featured in the 1985 film \"Boris I\" (Борис Първи), with Stefan Danailov in the title role.\n\nSee also\nChristianization of Bulgaria\nCyril and Methodius\nGlagolitic alphabet\n\nFootnotes\nPassage 8:\nMaria (wife of Boris I of Bulgaria)\nMaria (Bulgarian: Мария) was a Bulgarian royal consort as the wife of the Knyaz Boris I of Bulgaria. Her parents are unknown. She is mentioned in one charter from 850/96, together with her family members. \nThese are the children of Boris and Maria:\n\nVladimir of Bulgaria\nGavriil (Gabriel)\nSimeon I of Bulgaria\nJacob\nAnna\n\nFootnotes\n\n\n== External links ==\nPassage 9:\nPlace of birth\nThe place of birth (POB) or birthplace is the place where a person was born. This place is often used in legal documents, together with name and date of birth, to uniquely identify a person. Practice regarding whether this place should be a country, a territory or a city/town/locality differs in different countries, but often city or territory is used for native-born citizen passports and countries for foreign-born ones.\nAs a general rule with respect to passports, if the place of birth is to be a country, it's determined to be the country that currently has sovereignty over the actual place of birth, regardless of when the birth actually occurred. The place of birth is not necessarily the place where the parents of the new baby live. If the baby is born in a hospital in another place, that place is the place of birth. In many countries, this also means that the government requires that the birth of the new baby is registered in the place of birth.\nSome countries place less or no importance on the place of birth, instead using alternative geographical characteristics for the purpose of identity documents. For example, Sweden has used the concept of födelsehemort (\"domicile of birth\") since 1947. This means that the domicile of the baby's mother is the registered place of birth. The location of the maternity ward or other physical birthplace is considered unimportant.\nSimilarly, Switzerland uses the concept of place of origin. A child born to Swiss parents is automatically assigned the place of origin of the parent with the same last name, so the child either gets their mother's or father's place of origin. A child born to one Swiss parent and one foreign parent acquires the place of origin of their Swiss parent. In a Swiss passport and identity card, the holder's place of origin is stated, not their place of birth. In Japan, the registered domicile is a similar concept.\nIn some countries (primarily in the Americas), the place of birth automatically determines the nationality of the baby, a practice often referred to by the Latin phrase jus soli. Almost all countries outside the Americas instead attribute nationality based on the nationality(-ies) of the baby's parents (referred to as jus sanguinis).\nThere can be some confusion regarding the place of birth if the birth takes place in an unusual way: when babies are born on an airplane or at sea, difficulties can arise. The place of birth of such a person depends on the law of the countries involved, which include the nationality of the plane or ship, the nationality(-ies) of the parents and/or the location of the plane or ship (if the birth occurs in the territorial waters or airspace of a country).\nSome administrative forms may request the applicant's \"country of birth\". It is important to determine from the requester whether the information requested refers to the applicant's \"place of birth\" or \"nationality at birth\". For example, US citizens born abroad who acquire US citizenship at the time of birth, the nationality at birth will be USA (American), while the place of birth would be the country in which the actual birth takes place.\n\nReference list\n8 FAM 403.4 Place of Birth\nPassage 10:\nMotherland (disambiguation)\nMotherland is the place of one's birth, the place of one's ancestors, or the place of origin of an ethnic group.\nMotherland may also refer to:\n\nMusic\n\"Motherland\" (anthem), the national anthem of Mauritius\nNational Song (Montserrat), also called \"Motherland\"\nMotherland (Natalie Merchant album), 2001\nMotherland (Arsonists Get All the Girls album), 2011\nMotherland (Daedalus album), 2011\n\"Motherland\" (Crystal Kay song), 2004\n\nFilm and television\nMotherland (1927 film), a 1927 British silent war film\nMotherland (2010 film), a 2010 documentary film\nMotherland (2015 film), a 2015 Turkish drama\nMotherland (2022 film), a 2022 documentary film about the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War\nMotherland (TV series), a 2016 British television series\nMotherland: Fort Salem, a 2020 American science fiction drama series\n\nOther uses\nMotherland Party (disambiguation), the name of several political groups\nPersonifications of Russia, including a list of monuments called Motherland\n\nSee also\nAll pages with titles containing Motherland\nMother Country (disambiguation)",6 "char_len": 35781,7 "document_hash": "c5109d13dd995c86c97a69b1c933c91782b47a13103eac7648f0e8fb6f4a4519",8 "questions": [9 {10 "question_id": "q00",11 "qtype": "2wikimqa",12 "question": "Where was the place of death of Maria (Wife Of Boris I Of Bulgaria)'s husband?"13 }14 ]15}