Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
General Editor
Florin Curta
VOLUME 14
Word and Power in
Mediaeval Bulgaria
By
Ivan Biliarsky
BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2011
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
KJM92.B55 2011
349.49901'4-dc22
2010048895
ISSN 1872-8103
ISBN 978 90 04 19145 7
Foreword ix
Conclusion 517
Bibliography 523
This book is the result of a project commenced long ago. I have prob-
ably always been interested in what lies concealed within words, in
the unsuspected depths and secrets hidden even in the most common
word. We can delve into countless layers beneath it and-as in some
romantic picture of archaeology-come upon all sorts of wonders, dis-
cover hidden ancient meanings that we never even imagined had any
connection with the present-day meaning of the word. We suddenly
perceive that those remote meanings are very relevant, that they dis-
close the modern meaning more amply. We rediscover the path of our
ancestors that led to this little word "of ours"
Of course this interest-which some may call "childish" -is only
a remote precondition for undertaking a concrete research. I believe
it obvious that this study actually began with my first doctoral thesis,
which dealt with institutions. I understood even then that, in Bulgaria,
the available sources are of such a kind that we can not study a phe-
nomenon without first dealing with the question of its name. And in
some cases a name is all we have-nothing else. Reflecting on appel-
lations, I came to one other conclusion: in some cases they are a testi-
mony not only to the antiquity of a word and its long historical path,
but also that the society where it was used belonged, in cultural terms,
to a broader civilisation. For, perhaps, the ancestors in question did
not create a given word by themselves, but simply borrowed it, "con-
structed" it (an apt way of referring to the formation of words) on the
basis of a foreign one. In the case of mediaeval Bulgaria, its entire cul-
ture, and especially its law, testifies to its affiliation to the great Eastern
Roman Empire, to the New Rome, Constantinople.
The concrete work on the topic began with an article I prepared as
a fellow at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland; the text was later
published in Birmingham, in the collection Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies. But I began systematically working on my investigations
during 2003-2004, a time I spent as fellow in the New Europe College
in Bucharest, the specific topic of my project being the legal vocabulary
in Bulgarian mediaeval documents. This was an exceptionally fruitful
period for me, and I now take this opportunity to thank the college
for the possibility it provided me then. In 2006 I was summer fellow in
X FOREWORD
1. THE PROBLEM
I have devoted a special article to this topic of research on law and institutions of
the Bulgarian Middle Ages: Iv. Biliarsky, "Les perspectives des etudes sur les institu-
tions du Premier empire bulgare", Bv{avnv~ OOJl~, (12) 2001, pp. 171-3.
THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES 3
2.1
This study is based on the legal vocabulary found in original Bulgarian
texts of the Christian period, written in the Slavic Bulgarian language.
The written records chosen for this purpose are such as contain a com-
paratively large amount of legal vocabulary and which are represen-
tative for the official language of the Bulgarian Middle Ages in the
First and Second Empire. Translated works have been left out: this
means that the study excludes texts translated from the Greek, but also
compilations based on Byzantine texts. Regrettably, these translated
works comprise all the extant laws of mediaeval Bulgaria, for written
law after the conversion to Christianity was entirely adopted from the
Byzantine Empire. However, I have made one exception to the rule of
not using translated works here: in a separate glossary I have presented
the vocabulary pertaining to the Law for Judging People (abbreviated
ing with this problem: I. Biliarsky, "Some Observations on the Administrative Ter-
minology of the Second Bulgarian Empire", Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies,
Birmingham, (25) 2001, pp. 69-89.
4 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1
Objections might be raised to such a study of legal vocabulary that
excludes nearly all legal texts. I shall immediately admit that such
questioning and doubt are generally justified and should be responded
to. In this connection, we should have in mind the quantity of extant
legal sources from mediaeval Bulgaria. Of course, I shall at once con-
cur that, whatever the explanations, a study based on all mediaeval
Bulgarian texts and which takes into account the manuscript tradition
as well, would be the richest and most comprehensive, and would lead
to the most precise conclusions. But collecting such a large amount of
material cannot be the work of a single scholar-it could be done by a
comparatively large team working over a considerable length of time.
That is why I have taken the liberty of restricting the scope of texts
used for the study. In doing so, my purpose has been to set the start
of a future, more wide-ranging investigation in which other research-
ers from Bulgaria and other countries would take part. I believe that
a comprehensive presentation of the legal language of Orthodox Slavs
2.1.2
On the other hand there is one other problem-regrettably, a "techni-
cal" one-connected with the inclusion of translated texts, and espe-
cially of laws. It is related to the situation regarding extant publications
of mediaeval Bulgarian legal texts. Of all of them for which indubitable
or doubtful claims have been made that they were part of the legal sys-
tem of the mediaeval Bulgarian state, the only one that has been truly
critically edited is the Law for Judging People. All the others, including
the Ecloga (the critical edition of which has, to my knowledge, been long
since prepared by Y. Shchapov, but has yet to come out), are used from
old editions, mostly Russian ones of the Nineteenth century, which never
take into consideration the historical development of the text and the dif-
ferences in the copies made, though these differences could be particu-
larly significant for research such as this. These considerations would
imply the need for working with manuscripts, a procedure that would
change the nature of the research process. And here the issue arises as to
how accessible these manuscripts are for a Bulgarian researcher.
2.2
As I already mentioned, we have at our disposal quite a limited num-
ber of mediaeval documents or legal written records that have indubi-
tably been present in the Bulgarian state of those times. Of course, the
exact number would depend on what texts are placed in this category,
but even in the broadest range, they are quite few. Here I shall pres-
ent a brief overview of the texts that have been taken as a basis for the
proposed study and in which the presence of a specific lexeme war-
rants inclusion in the glossary and, thus, in the set of words on which
this study is based.
2.2.1
Inasmuch as all mediaeval Bulgarian legal texts are either translated or
compiled, Bulgarian documents of that age hold a major place in the
study. As I already pointed out, the Law for Judging People is included
here exceptionally, but the material it contains is presented separately
from that drawn from the local Bulgarian written records.
THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES 7
2.2.1.1
When drawing on the documentary heritage of mediaeval Bulgaria for
the study of legal vocabulary, we should first of all answer several ques-
tions: what is to be done with the inauthentic or false documents; with
those not enacted only by a Bulgarian ruler but representing bilateral
agreements or treaties to which that ruler was a party; with the docu-
ments representing acts of Bulgarian mediaeval rulers, but published
or preserved only in a foreign language. The approach in these several
cases cannot be the same, so I shall discuss each of them separately.
As regards the inauthentic or false documents come down to us, it
should be said that the approach to them cannot be the same in all cases.
By definition a document embodies some statement of intention-that
of a state organ or a private individual. The declaration in a false docu-
ment is untrue, in some cases inexistent, but this does not signify that
the document has no value as a source. It lacks value only as regards
the substance of the statement of intention and its capacity to provoke
legal consequences, but not as regards the form of the text or the ele-
ments it contains, etc. Obviously, any fake document prepared in the
respective historical age, in order to have been usable, would have had
to contain all the characteristic features of an authentic document. If
we are interested not in the concrete legal relation but in that type
of relation and in the acts whereby it was realised, a fake document
would serve as a completely valid source of information.
This is the case as regards the so-called Virgino Charter attributed
to tsar Constantine Asen. 6 The document is obviously a replica of the
charter of the Serbian king Stephen Uros II Milutin issued in AD 1300.7
It was specially created to justify and provide some historical grounds
for the Serbian king to issue his own charter seemingly confirming
the rights and goods donated to the St. George Monastery by the
6 On this issue there is no single and common opinion shared by all historians.
Some scholars claim that the charter is authentic. This has no bearing on the present
study, for I have included it in the Glossary in any case; but in order to be honest
to my colleagues, I shall point out some major publications on the issue: Balaschev,
G. "Sashtinski li e khrisovulat na tsar Konstantin Tikh (1257-1277)", Minalo, II,
kn 5-6, 1911, pp. 178-87; Petrov P., "Kam vaprosa za avtentichnostta na Virginskata
gramota i dostovernostta na sadatzhashtite se v neja svedenija", Godishnik na Sofijskija
universitet. Filosofsko-istoricheski fokultet, I, 2, 1958, p. 171ff.; Gorina L., "K voprosu o
podlinnosti Virginskoj gramote", Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie, 1965, 5, p. 171ff.
7 R Grujic, "Tri hilandarske povelje", Zbornik za istoriju juzne Srbija i susednih
oblastima, Skopje, 1936, pp. 5-24.
8 INTRODUCTION
8 B. St. Angelov, Iz starata bulgarska, ruska i srabska literature, t II, Sofia, 1967,
pp. 142-7.
9 M. Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota na tsar Ivan Asenja II, (=Bulgarski starini,
kn. XI), Sofia, 1930; J. Ivanov, Bulgarski starini iz Makedonija, (= Ivanov, BSM)
THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES 9
pp. 577-8.
11 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 155-9.
12 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 14-9; Ivanov, BSM, pp. 578-87.
13 Grujic, "Tri hiland.arske povelje", p. 5tf.
14 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 21-3; Ivanov, BSM, pp. 587-90.
15 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 24-6; Ivanov, BSM, pp. 590-4.
10 INTRODUCTION
2.2.2
The mediaeval Bulgarian inscriptions form a second group of texts
on which this study is based. Unlike the documents, they are not so
similar to one another and are classified under one category only with
regard to the form in which they have come down to us. Below I shall
present the basic groups of inscriptions, divided according to these
formal traits; but before all, I would like to point out that inscriptions
include not only official texts but also texts produced on random occa-
sions, such as graffiti. Without doubt, inscriptions are one of the rich-
est sources of lexical material for a study such as this one.
2.2.2.1. Inscriptions on stone, on mural paintings, and on fabric
We pointed out that inscriptions do not represent a uniform group,
not only in regard of their formal traits but also of their textual con-
tents. Indubitably, some individual inscriptions are of the nature of
acts and practically represent official texts come down to us in stone
or as mural paintings. The medium in no way changes their charac-
teristics as official acts. We should remember that even the legal texts
of Antiquity are known to us only from inscriptions. Falling in this
category of epigraphic documents would be all orders, agreements,
16 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 26-8; Ivanov, BSM, pp. 594-600; Iv. Dujcev, Rilskata gra-
mota na tsar Ivan Shishman ot 1378 g., Sofia, 1986.
17 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29; Ivanov, BSM, p. 600-1.
18 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 30; Ivanov, BSM, p. 601-2.
THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES 11
2.2.3
Marginal notes and colophons are notes attached to manuscripts, not
being part of the main text; these too are not a homogeneous group
of texts. Among them we find acts but also texts such as donator's
dedications. Marginal notes-in cases when the acquiring of the book,
its owner, or change of owner, are indicated-may provide interesting
information on the civic exchange.
Marginal notes are arranged according to the numeration in the
first volume of the corpus encompassing texts dating from the 10th-
15th centuries. 22
The proposed study will consist of several parts. Besides this chap-
ter, there will be a separate chapter presenting general observations
regarding law and the system of normative regulation of society as a
whole and a society's culture. I shall present my views on problems
such as law and identity, law and values, law and language.
The main treatment will be given in several chapters presenting the
legal vocabulary in separate branches of public or canon law. My first
idea was to prepare a research on the entire legal vocabulary of the
Bulgarian Middle Ages. That is how it all began, and the glossaries for
all branches of law are practically ready. In the course of writing, how-
ever, I reached the conclusion that such a presentation would result
in too voluminous a work, and one that would be greatly misbalanced
with regard to the representativeness of the sources, with which I was
working. While the selected texts are highly representative of state
institutions and public legal relations as a whole, this is not true as
regards civil and penal law and procedure. I believe the study of these
latter fields requires enhancing their representation by the inclusion
of more legal texts. I have already explained why I believe this to be
unfeasible at the present stage.
ABBREVIATIONS
GLOSSARY
OF MEDIAEVAL BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY
1.1
In the selection of words for the glossary, I have stuck to the broadest
possible meaning of "legal vocabulary" Thus, included in the glos-
sary are not only terms in the strict sense of the word, but likewise all
words related in some way to law and to the linguistic expression of
legal acts, institutes, persons, institutions, objects, etc. Included in the
glossary are verbs expressing certain actions of a legal nature as well as
adjectives related to the sphere of law. I am fully aware that coherence
may thus be forfeited, and that the presence of many of the terms and
other words might be questioned, or simply rejected, by some readers.
Nonetheless, I prefer to err on the side of being excessive in expanding
the number and scope than in restricting them.
1.2
What remains is to present the structure of the separate units. At the
beginning, of course, is the word itself: I have written out in full, with-
out the diacritical titles and other abbreviations occurring in the texts.
The words are arranged in alphabetical order. Following the lexical
unit, I have indicated in brackets its morphological characteristic-a
noun, verb, adverb and so on; for nouns the gender is also given, and
the number, where necessary.
Then follows an indication of the places in the glossary's basic
texts where the word may be found-an abbreviation designates the
text (the name under which the document is known and indication
whether it is an inscription, marginal note, or another kind of text),
followed by a number indicating the page or line in the respective edi-
tion I have used.
18 CHAPTER ONE
ARRA (subst. m.)-N 12. II Etym.: From Hebrew through Greek &~~a.
(Vasmer M., Etimilogicheskij slovar' russkogo jazyka, vol. I, Moscow,
1986,p. 58) II Sign.: "Father", "abbot". Abbot (head) of a monastery. The
word could be used as address to God-Father. (Slovar' drevnerusskogo
jazyka (XI-XIV vv., t. I, Moscow, 1988 pp. 71-2; Institufii feudale din
fdrile romane. Dicfionar, Bucure§ti, 1988, p. 1)
AnOAO.XATOf'll.(subst. m.)-Vatop. 10, Virg. 100, Mr. 29, Ril. 55, Vit.
10 II Etym.: Obviously this is a transliteration of the Greek word
&noooxa'tmp but the latter is not found in any original Greek text.
II Sign.: Fiscal institution. The appellation comes from &noo<)xwv
(= "storehouse for grain") and ooxet:ov (= "store"). One can define
the apodochator as a "responsible for the storehouses, where the col-
lected taxes in grain were stored up" (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gra-
mota, pp. 40-1; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Biliarsky, Institutsiite,
pp. 370-2; Bozilov Iv., "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare ot XIII-XIV
v.". Palaeobulgarica, XXX (2006), 2, p. 48)
Af,XHCTfATHr'll. (subst. m.)-N 22; MN 44 (1) his, 48 (4) his, 51 (1), 54.
II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word apxtcr'tpany6c;. (Vasmer,
I, p. 91) II Sign.: "archstrategus", head commander. In that case this is
the Archangel Michael.
&~H'b (subst. m.)-MAD 104 II Etym.: The origins of the word are
linked to the Steppe peoples. A possible connection could be estab-
lished to the Bulgar word ~oeavoc; ="lord" that is cited by Constantine
Prophyrogennetus. In Mongol "bajan" = "rich", "wealthy", "strong,
powerful". (BER, I, p. 30; Bezlaj F., Etimoloski slovar slovenskega jezika,
Ljubljana, 1976, t. I, p. 11; von Miklosich Fr., Die tUrkische Elemente
in der sudost- und osteuropaischen Sprachen, t. I, Wien, 1884, p. 11)
II Sign.: An institution, which was well spread in Central and Eastern
Europe and in the Balkans. A high official in the local administration.
It was a part of the administrative system of the First Bulgarian Empire
but not at all in that of the Second Bulgarian Empire. (Institufii feudale,
pp. 34-5, 39; Biliarsky Iv., «Les institutions de Ia Bulgarie medievale:
y avait-il des bans en Bulgarie d'avant Ia conqu~te turcque? », Bulgar-
ian Historical Review, 1992, 1-2, p. 89ff.; Popovic R., "Povelja bana
Tvrtka I Kotromanovica Dubrovniku o slobodanu od carini", Stari
srpski arhiv, 5 (2006), p. 153).
&Hf'll.K'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 44 II Etym.: This term and its variants can
be found in almost all Slavic languages. It is adopted from the Tur-
kic languages (BER, I, p. 49) and has its meaning of "tax" The word
does not derive from the verb &fb.TH (="to take", "to give/bear fruits",
"pregnant") but from the Turkic root of "biiri, baru" = "gift, offer-
ing, present" and then "tax" It is to stress also the relation with the
Turkic-Tartar word "bojorowcy" = "ruler, sovereign" and the Turkic
one "bujurudzu" ="boss, chief, person in charge" (Vasmer, I, p. 167).
It is possible it to be a part of the Bulgar heritage in the Bulgarian
and other Slavic languages. II Sign.: "Tax". (Institufiifeudale, pp. 42-4,
44-5).
&1\4\POR'tfb.H'b (adj.)-MAD 4; Virg. 4, Mr. 51, Ril. 112, Vit. 23; N 47,
60, 68, 69, 70, 8~; MN 15, 53, 54 his, 56 (1) his, 57, 58 (2), 59 tris, 80
tris, 89,95 (2), 98.11 Etym.: The word is created as a loan translation of
the Greek epithet for the ruler euxtcrt6<;. II Sign.: Epithet for the ruler,
corresponding of the Greek xtcr't6<;, see also Latin "fidelis". In the early
texts it corresponds to eucre~it<; as well. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p.
63; Biliarsky, "Dva narclchnika za pittakia", p. 262).
&OA'tfHH'A (subst. m.)-Mr. 26, 27; Ril. 58; N 73; MN 45 (4), 76 (3);
K 35:12-13, 35: 14-17 II Etym.: A word of Bulgar (Turkic) origin:
from "boilar", which is plural form of "boila" (= a person of the upper
class of Bulgar nobility). (BER, I, p. 66; Vasmer, I, pp. 203-4).11 Sign.:
"Boyar", "representative of the high aristocracy" During the Second
Bulgarian Empire this term was a general appellation for dignitaries
and nobles, and did not refer to a specific institution. It had an identi-
cal meaning in Serbia, Lithuania, Walachia, and Moldavia. In Russia
the boyars were mostly members of the old hereditary aristocracy, in
contrast with the new "p;BopHHe" (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 119; Institutii
feu dale, pp. 52-4, 499; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare",
p. 48).
&OA<tf~ (subst. f.)-N 56.11 Etym.: See &oA<tfHH"A.II Sign.: "The wife of
a boyar", "a woman-boyar" (Institutii feudale, pp. 52-4).
&f~HI:. (subst. f.)-N 45, 73; MN 45 (4).11 Etym.: From the Indo-Euro-
pean *bhor-ni-s = "quarrel", "encounter", related to the "6opH ce" =
GLOSSARY 39
R4\f4\fb. (sub st. m.)-Vit. 11 II Etym.: From the morpheme "var-" and
the suffix "-ar". Related to the remote Iranian roots (meaning "to
40 CHAPTER ONE
R~T~;x:rz.. (subst. m.)-Virg. 1511 Etym.: The word has its Turkic origins
and come from the peoples of the Eurasian steppe. In the (Old) Rus-
sian speech "eamaza" = "tent", "home", "family", "clan" From this
derives the meaning "head of the clan or of some group in general",
"leader, commander". (Miklosich, Turkischen Elemente, II, p. 185; Vas-
mer, I, p. 278) II Sign.: Military institution, a commander with military
or police functions. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 120; Institutii feudale, pp.
495-6; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 333-5).
"Majesty" Address formula to the ruler. In the cited text this is the
Bulgarian tsar but that formula is not quite typical for the mediaeval
Bulgaria-it is result of a Western influence, which came to Bulgaria
via Serbia and is to become predominant in the Modern times. In
the text of Cosmas the Presbyter, the word means the "magnificence,
splendor of the dignity"
Req.n.. (subst. f.)-Syn. Dr.33, 35, Syn. Pal.33, 35; K 2:18-20, 2:23-25,
26:10-12 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic *vektb, *vektb-, related to the
Gothic "weihts", German "Wicht" (BER, I, p. 140; SDR]a, I, pp. 406-
10; Vasmer, I, pp. 309-10) II Sign.: "thing", naT. "res", Gr. xp&y~,
"act, action" (see 2:23-25). "Thing" or "belonging" is related to the real
law and the latter could be used to describe some action relevant to the
law domain. (Popruzhenko, Sinodik, p. CXXXV; Tsibranska-Kostova,
Formirane i razvitie, p. 56).
RHH4\fb. (subst. m.)-Virg. 99; Mr. 29, Ril. 54, 55, Vit. 9 II Etym.: The
term is created on the basis of the word RHHO (="wine"). II Sign.: Fis-
cal employee, charged with the collection of the taxation on the wine.
Probably he was correspondent to the Byzantine oiv6~e'tpo~. (Dujeev,
Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Institutii feudale, pp. 494-5, 501-2; Biliarsky,
Institutsiite, pp. 364-6).
RAM,'l>IKb. (subst. m.)-AH 199, 200, 203 tris; MN 38 (2), 42, 51 (1),
56 (1) bis, 58 (2), 65, 102, 117; K 3:24-25, 19:19-21,30:23-25,37:9-11,
44:1-2, 46:3-5, 67:12-14, 76:12-16 II Etym.: See RAb.AMb.L.J.b.. II Sign.:
"Ruler", "who has the power" (prelate or lay powerful). (Tsibranska-
Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33).
&A~C'l'e.l\1:../ R.I\~CTe.I\HH'll.
(subst. m.)-MAD 12, 104, K 31:14-16, 35:11-
12,37:9-11,37:13-15,37:15-16, 44:13-15; Virg. 94 R.I\~CTe.I\HH'll.-MAD
20, 57 K 23:6-8, 23:10-11, 23:15-17, 37:17-18. II Etym.: From R.I\~CTb..
Probably a loan translation of the corresponding Greek word &pxrov. II
Sign.: General appellation of the local seniors or state officials. (Ilinskij,
Gramoty, p. 119; Lishev Str., Za genezisa na feodalizma v Bulgarija,
Sofia, 1963, p. 151ff.; Institutii feudale, p. 281, 508; Bozilov, "Doku-
menti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 48).
&A~C'l'b. (subst. f.)-Vatop. 6, Mr. 30, 34, Ril. 44, 50; AH 200, 201; K
6:8-11, 24:1-3, 24:4-5, 37:6-7, 39:3-4, 56:15-16, 61:20-23; MN 16. II
Etym.: Indo-European "*wold-ti-s" meaning "power" (BER, I, p. 163;
Vasmer, I, p. 327) II Sign.: "Power", Gr. €~oucria, Lat. "potestas". (Ilin-
skij, Gramoty, p. 119).
&A'll.XR'll. (subst. m.)-K 80:6-9 II Etym.: From the verb &A'bCHii'\TH. See
&A'll.XROR~HH!e. (BER, I, p. 166; Vasmer, I, p. 346) II Sign.: "Pagan priest",
"magician", "augur", "diviner" The term could be related to the penal
and penitential law. (Institutii feu dale, pp. 514-6; Tsibranska-Kostova,
Formirane i razvitie, p. 33).
GLOSSARY 45
such also is the meaning in the Law for the Judging of People. There
is no etymological connection between the two meanings, this being
merely a specific use of the word.
&'AAI\TH (verb)-K 39:8-10 II Etym.: From the verb N-TH with the
&'A-. II Stgn.:
prefi x . "C on1er
c , , " gtve
. ,
= "partage", "obtain a part". (BER, I, pp. 494-5, II, pp. 69-70; Vasmer,
II, pp. 128, 129) II Sign.: "To take" (53, 74), "to deprive" (15).
R'A~.I\omeHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 13:1-2 II Etym.: From the prefix R"A~
and the Palaeoslavic root "*log" Linked to the meaning of "to lie I
to stay I to be positioned" "Put something to lie on" (BER, III, pp.
268-9, 454-5; Vasmer, II, p. 445) II Sign.: In the expression R'A~.I\OmeHHie
fii'\Ko~ meaning "ordination I consecration", which is a loan transla-
tion of the Greek word xetpo'tovia.
grolified in the same way" This is the Holy Trinity. The word does not
exist in the Palauzov's copy of the Synodikon. (Popruzhenko, Sinodik,
p. CXXXV).
Rb.CeApb.mwreAb. (subst. M.)- Virg. 110; Mr. 211 Etym.: Loan translation
from the Greek word xav'toKpa'trop. II Sign.: Appellation of the Lord
God.
(adj.)-MAD 3; Virg. 114, Zogr. 74; AH, 201, 203, 204 (bis);
R<kfb.H'l>
!Seal I.lOA p. 126; N 45, 48, 73, 83; MN 94 (8); K 17:22-25, 27:1-4,
42:8-10, 58:17, 80:6-9 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*wjara" The Indo-
European roots of the word have the signification of "truth" and then
"fidelity/ faithfulness" (BER, I, pp. 217-8; Vasmer, I, pp. 292-3). II
Sign.: Epithet for the ruler. "Faithful", Gr. 1ttcrt6~, Lat. "fidelis"
r.l\o&4\ (subst. f.)-Virg. 15, 43, 85, Mr. 36-37, 38 his, Vit. 12 II Etym.:
Unclear etymology. The original meaning is "to take a bit", "oppress"
and from there "sadness", "sorrow" and "pain". Related to the Palaeo-
slavic TAro&~\ = "suffering, hardships", "corvee". See also the greek verb
yMi<pro (BER, I, p. 250; Etimologicheskij slovar' slavjanskikh jazykov, t.
6, Moscow, 1979, pp. 131-4) II Sign.: Administrative and penal pun-
ishment, linked to the loss of property (mainly money but also cattle
and so forth), Latin "mulcta" (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123; Institutii feu-
dale, pp. 13-4, 207-8).
rocnOAI:. (subst. M.)-AH 202, 203 bis, 204; N 41 tris; K passim (mean-
ing "Lord God") 36:18-19, 37:9-11, 38:1-3, 38:3-5, 38:5-7, 65:18-
19, 76:4-5; MN 16, 19 (2, 3) 21 (6). II Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic
"gast'pad'", created by the junction of "gast" ="guest, visitor", "home
lord" to the "pat-" = a morpheme with signification of "to can, to
be able", "to rule, to possess" Identical with Gr. 1C6pto<; or au9evtrt<;
and with Latin "dominus" (BER, I, pp. 267-8; Vasmer, I, pp. 446-7).
II Sign.: The meaning "Lord God" is basic but the word means also
"secular ruler" In the Gospel citations it corresponds to the Greek
words of 1C6pto<; and oecrn6trt<;.
II
rr~N\fb. (subst. m.)-Virg. 100; Mr. 29, Ril. 57 Etym.: From the verb
rr~AHTH ="build", "construct", "create" and the suffix -~r~:...ll Sign.: A
state employee, charged with the organisation of the corvees related to
the building. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Biliarsky, Institutsiite,
pp. 382-3). See C'bl.IlO rr~AO~HN\HHe.
Pfb.Mb.THI~'A (subst. M.)-N 10, 59, 65, 71; MN 8 (2, 6, 11), 16, 17, 20
(1), 93. II Etym.: Transliterated from Greek ypa~~ux:ttK6c;.ll Sign.: This
could signify simply "literate person" but could be an institutional
name for an official in the chancellery, a scriptor. (Institufii feudale,
p. 209; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 240-8).
Pf't,X'A (subst. M.)-AH 203; N 18; MN 25 (3), 31 bis, 32 (3), 41, 42,
51 (1), 65, 71 (1), 71 (3), 76 (4), 80; K 1:7-9, 1:12-14, 1:14-17, 2:13-
14, 3:21-22, 9:3-5, 9:17-18, 13:17-18, 14:11, 15:2-3, 15:3-5, 15:7,
19:16-18, 23:12-15, 24:17-19, 25:16-18, 27:14-16, 29:1-2, 37:15-16,
39:4-5, 38:13-15, 39:18-19, 40:2-4, 41:8-9, 42:11-14, 44:22-24,
46:3-5, 46:8-10, 50:17-19, 51:1-4 59:6-9, 59:10-12, 60:7-8, 60:14-16,
60:16-17, 66:14-16, 67:3-4, 67:16-18, 67:21-23, 74:7-8, 75:18-19,
78:11-12, 78:18-19 II Etym.: Most probably the word derives from the
verb POfHTH (= "to burn"), related what sinners could expect in Hell.
(BER, I, pp. 290-1; Vasmer, I, pp. 456-7) II Sign.: "Sin", "peccadillo",
"offence", Gr. &~ap'tta; "guilt", "crime", "condemnation", Gr. Kp'i~,
eylCA.n~a.
A4\HH!e (subst. neutr.)-K 29:5-611 Etym.: See ,1\4\HI:.. II Sign.: "The act
of giving", "gift"
A4\HI:.(subst. f.)-Vatop. 8, 13, MAD 23, 24, 27, 34, 36; Mr. 28, 31, Ril.
59 II Etym.: From the verb ,1\4\TH ="to give". (BER, I, p. 318; Vasmer, I,
p. 484) II Sign.: "Tax, duty", Gr. -reA.o~, Lat. "vectigal". (Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, p. 63; Institutii feudale, p. 135ff.)
Aecnorrrz. (subst. m.)-N 83; NM 18; MN 14, 48 (2), 54, 56 (2), 65 bis.
II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term oecr1t6't'llc; with the original
meaning of "lord" (Prellwit, Etymologisches Worterbuch der griechi-
schen Sprache, Gottingen, 1905 p. 112; Hofmann J. B., 'E'tt>~oA.oytKov
Ae~tKOV Tile; aPXaiac; eMrtvtJcilc;, EV A.9flvatc; 1989, p. 64; BER, I, pp.
347-8; Vasmer, I, p. 507) II Sign.: The rank of despot was the highest
of the three "imperial" titles (together with sebastokrator and Caesar,
kesar) that derived from the imperial titling. Created in the twelfth cen-
tury for designating son-in-law heirs, it developed into a "pure" title,
GLOSSARY 59
AeCh.T'l..~fb. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 9, Virg. 100, Mr. 29, Vit. 10, Ril. SSII
Etym.: From AeCh.Trz..~erz.. (= "tithe") and the suffix -4\fb.. II Sign.: A fiscal
employee related to the collection of the tithe. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata
gramota, p. 38; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Biliarsky, Institutsiite,
pp. 357-61; Institutii feudale, p. 158)
,Aj\rz.m~:.Hrz.
(adj.)-AH 200,201 bis, 202 bis; N 19; K 32:3,39:5-6,44:22-
24, 53:15-17, 53:17-18, 58:1-3, 60:16-17, 61:2-3, 62:22-24, 64:11-13,
65:15-17, 71:4-711 Etym.: See ,Aj\rz.rrz.. II Sign.: "Indebted", "obliged",
"bound", "necessary"
AO&rz.lrrrz.~erz. (subst. m.)-MAD 22, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 47, 85; Ril. 71 II
Etym.: From the meaning of "):lo6MBaM" (= "acquire", "obtain") that
derives from "6MBaM"/ "&rz.ITH" =infinitive of"to be". Could be related
to the Indo-European "bhulijo-" and Greek <puro = "to bear, to give
life", "to augment". (BER, I, pp. 401-2; Vasmer, I, p. 521) II Sign.: "The
one who exists", "the one who augments", the juridical meaning is
related to the signification "the one who brings goods, money", Gr. 'ta
{mapxoV'ta, Lat. ''facultates". In the text of the treaty with Dubrovnik
GLOSSARY 61
AOC'I'OtMlHE (subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 27, 33, Ril. 80, 83-84, 92, 93; Vit. 4;
K 66:6-711 Etym.: Related to the word "AOCTOeH" ("honest", "reliable",
"honorable"). In use mainly in the ecclesiastical speach. (BER, I, p. 415)
II Sign.: "Possession", "property, goods", Gr. KATlPOVO)lt<X, Lat. ''facul-
tas". (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 115; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64).
AO'f..OA'l>K'l> (subst. m.)-Virg. 15, 31, 42, 43, 44, 74, 82, 83, 8511 Etym.:
From AO- and 'f..OAHTH = "to walk", "to go". Identical with the French
word "revenu" and English "revenue, income" The term is a calque
of the Greek word cicr6ow~, cicr6on)l« or 1tp6crooo~ or of the Latin
"obventio". It is to relate to the Greek term <popoA.oyia (BER, I, p. 415)
II Sign.: "Revenue, income" General designation for the incomes of
property (lines 31, 42) or of taxes and other public revenues (lines 15,
43, 44, 82, 83, 85). (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 122; PorCic, "Povelja kralja
Stefana Dusana dubrovnicanima", p. 96).
62 CHAPTER ONE
AfbJK~&~ (subst. f.)-MAD 39, 40 bis, 41, 45; Virg. 75-76, Zogr. 28,
73, Mr. 9, 48, 49-50, Ril. 71; MN 111, 113. II Etym.: From the verb
AfbJK~TH (see!). (BER, I, p. 461; Vasmer, I, p. 503) The term should
be a loan translation of the Greek word Kpa'toc;. II Sign.: 1) "State"
2) In the concrete case of the cited treaty of the tsar Michael II Asen
with Dubrovnik (AD 1253) the term means "immobile goods", "real
estate", which is out of the settlement. Thus the term is opposed to the
"village" This meaning can be found now in some Western Bulgarian
dialects. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 119).
AO'i'~~ (subst. m.)-Vatop. 9, Virg. 99; Mr. 28; N 62.11 Etym.: Translit-
eration of the Greek word oo-61; (that derives from the Latin "dux"). II
Sign.: Official in the local territorial administration. In N 62 the insti-
tution is called AO~~~~ ReAHI~'ll. ("great dux") but this is not the Byz-
antine megas doux. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Biliarsky,
Institutsiite, pp. 292-4; Institutii feudale, p. 180).
A,W~ (subst. f.)-K 37:13-1511 Etym.: From "*dux'b" (from the Indo-
European "*dhouso-s", related to the Lithuanian "dausos" ="air" and
"dvase" = "spirit", Gothic "dius" = "game, wild animals" and "tior" =
"animal", German "Tier" = "animal"). (BER, I, pp. 451-2; Vasmer, I,
p. 558) II Sign.: The basic meaning of the word is "soul", and it is of
a religious-anthropological connotation. These cases are not cited
here. We are only interested in its legal meaning, as "man", "indi-
vidual", i.e., a subject of law. This is the meaning that has been calqued
from Greek, in which 'lfl>Xft may signify "dependent person" (cf. 'lfl>xal
&v9proxrov = "slaves").
edition, Sofia, 1980, pp. 282-4; Fine J. V. A., Jr., The Bosnian Church:
A New Interpretation. A Study of the Bosnian Church and Its Place in
the State and Society from the 13th to the 15th Centuries, New York
and London, 1975; Dragojlovic Dr., Krstjani i jereticka crkva bosanska,
Balkanoloski institute, posebna izd. 30, Belgrade, 1987, pp. 143-64)
eKC4\f,X'll. I eii4\f,X'll. (sub st. m.)-Virg. 83, 85; Mr. 40; K 79:11-1311 Etym.:
Transliteration of the Gr. £~aPXO<; = "exarch".ll Sign.: "Exarch". Eccle-
siastical institution. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 122)
mHTArb (subst. m.)-Ril. 54, Vit. 9 II Etym.: From the word mHrro
(= "corn", "cereals", related to the meaning of "bread, food", "life")
with the suffix -Apb. (BER, I, pp. 548-9; Vasmer, II, p. 57) II Sign.:
The legal meaning of the term is in the sphere of taxation. This was
an official charged with collecting taxes on grain production. It was
probably translated from the Greek word oTtaPXo~. (Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 361-4; Institutii feudale, pp.
231, 255-6)
then the suffix "-HLI,b." (BER, I, pp. 548-9; Vasmer, II, p. 57). II Sign.:
"Granary", "barn" where one keeps the grain. The juridical meaning
is related to the fiscal law and especially to the maintenance of the
natural taxation on grain.
appeal", "to call", "to praise" and Lat. "grates"= "thanks". (BER, I, pp.
537-8, 554; Vasmer, II, p. 63) II Sign.: "/Pagan/ priest", "celebrant"
related to the status of the person.
~~KOHbH'I. (adj.)-Virg. 19, 22, 24, 27, 31, 35, 44, 70; AH 200; K 7:15-
17, 10:5-7, 17:2-3, 17:3-5, 27:7-9, 43:1-2, 61:24, 6219-21. II Etym.:
See ~~KoHrz.. II Sign.: "Legal, lawful", Gr. £vvo~oc;, Lat. "legitimus"
find in the horismos for the Ragusan merchants of AD 1230 and in the
Virgino chrysobull. The term entered the administrative terminology
of the Second Bulgarian Empire as a translation of the Greek term yft
in its juridical sense. In the Treaty of tsar Michael II with Dubrovnik
of AD 1253 the word designated the entire state: either Bulgaria or
Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik). The same meaning appears in West-
ern and Central Europe. For example, in Transylvania the Latin word
"terra" may refer to an administrative district (Institufii feudale, p. 161).
Having in mind the juridical signification of the word we should stress
the meaning of "real estate", "land property" (see K 26:5-6). (Biliarsky
Iv., «Les circonscriptions administratives en Bulgarie au 13e siecle)),
Symmeikta, 13, 1999, pp. 180-3; Institufii feudale, p. 480)
~HMORH4-Je (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 26, 29, 35, 5711 Etym.: The Indo-Eu-
ropean roots of the word are related to the meaning of winter I "sMMa"
(see Avestan "zya -", "zimo" = "coldness", "winter"; Sanskrit "hemas"
= "winter"; Greek XctJ.La = "winter") and the localisation suffix -H4-Je.
(BER, I, pp. 640-1; Vasmer, II, p. 97) II Sign.: A place for the wintering
of the flocks. The juridical signification is related to the goods and the
fiscal system. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 116)
~AA.TAfl:. (subst. m.)-N 61 bis. II Etym.: From ~AA.TO (=gold) and the
suffix -A.fl:. to create nomina agentis. II Sign.: "Goldsmith", the juridical
meaning of the word is related to the status of the person.
~AA.Tone'IA.TI:.H'l>(adj.)-Zogr. 46, 53, 61, 71, Ril. 14, 45, 68, 73, 88,
101, 108; MN 48 (4). II Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek term
xpucr6~ouA.A.o~ = "with golden seal" II Sign.: In the combination
~AA.Tone'IA.TI:.Hoe CAO&o = xpucr6~ouA.A.o~ A.Oyo~ = an imperial act/docu-
ment/ of highest degree. Late, such a document was issued even by
GLOSSARY 75
some ruler who had no imperial title. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64;
Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 38ff.)
~0&1:. (subst. f.)-Mr. 3211 Etym.: The Indo-European roots of the word
are related to the meanings of "food", "mouth", "chew" or "break to
pieces" (BER, I, pp. 650-1). II Sign.: "Grain provender (for the ani-
mals)" The juridical meaning of the term is related to the obligatory
supply or requisition of food for the animals (horses, oxen and so
forth) used by the passing officials or army.
HefOMOH~)('A (subst. m.)-MN 15, 24 (2), 41 (2), 44 (1) bis, 88, 106, 107
(1, 2), 114, 117.11 Etym.: transliteration of the Greek word iepo~6vaxo~.
II Sign.: "Hieromonk", a monk who is priest, presbyter. A monastic
degree.
H~- and the verb ROAHTH < ROA~, ROM~ = "will/desire" (BER, I, pp.
175-6; II, 22; Vasmer, II, p. 121) II Sign.: "To desire", "to have benevo-
lence" The word is related to the founder law and the royal/imperial
goodwill.
H~POHb'IHH (subst. m.)-Virg. 100, Mr. 30 II Etym.: The prefix H~- added
to the verb roHHTH and the suffix -'IHH. Probably a loan translation of
the Greek word axoKptcrt6:pwc;. II Sign.: Employee in the communica-
tion service, "herald I messenger", Gr. a1tOKptcrt6:pwc;, Lat. "nuntius"
(Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 391-2)
HCI(~~~ (subst. f.)-K 21:16-19. II Etym.: From H~- and I(~~HTH (the
latter of the Palaeoslavic verb "*kaziti" to designate the causal; related
to the Palaeoslavic "*cezn'!ti" = "expire", "perish", "disappear" (BER,
II, pp. 31-32, 135-6; Vasmer, I, p. 160, IV, p. 323) II Sign.: "Damage",
"injury" The term is related to civil and penal law.
HCI(O\fnrz.. (sub st. m.)-K 56: 1-2.11 Etym.: See 1(0\fnHTH.II Sign.: "Ransom"
KHf~ (subst. f.)-MN 56 (1).11 Etym.: See KHf'b·ll Sign.: "Mistress" The
feminine form of the word l&p. (Institutii feudale, pp. 162-3)
KHf'b (subst. m.)-Virg. 7, 10, 11, Zogr. 37; N 34, 73; MN 31, 40 his,
47 his, 51 (1), 52, 54, 65, 71 (2), 77, 101 his. II Etym.: Transliteration
of the Greek word l&p. The orthography is not stable: K~f'b and KHf'b·
II Sign.: "Mister, master", Latin "dominus"
KAe&err~ (subst. f.)-K 54:14-17, 67:19-21. II Etym.: Related to the
Indo-European morpheme "* kleu-" > Palaeoslavic KAlil Ill\, KAI:.&~TH
(= "to peck"). One of the proposed etymologies is related to the root
Knerr- (= "to hit, to strike", "to peck") but this is rejected by other
scholars. (BER, II, pp. 427-8; Vasmer, II, p. 245) II Sign.:" Aspersion",
"slander", "calumny", "witness", Gr. Ka'taAaAia. The term is related to
the penal law and to the procedure.
KM.T&~ (subst. f.)-1) Syn. Dr.1, 11, 29, Syn. PaLl, 11, 29; MAD 51,
53 his, 54, MN 54; K 34:1-3, 48:1-3, 74:1-3. II Etym.: From the verb
"KM.TH" (see!). (BER, II, p. 441; Vasmer, II, p. 260) II Sign.: "Oath",
sworn when concluding a contract. 2) Virg. 79, 92, Mr. 46 II Sign.:
82 CHAPTER ONE
KOMOA'l> (subst. m.)-Vatop. 13, 20, Virg. 101, Mr. 31 II Etym.: Prob-
ably this is an abbreviated form of oiKo~Mhov. II Sign.: Fiscal insti-
tution. This was an annual obligation in kind, which was neither a
basic tax on production, nor a tax for land measurement, nor a tax for
weighing grain produce and determining the tax on the latter. We first
come across it in the charters of Basil II for the Ochrid archbishopric,
which gives us reason to conclude that this was a Bulgarian tax of
the time of the First Empire, introduced to Byzantium after Bulgaria
was conquered in AD 1018 and became part of the Empire. (Dolger,
Staatenwelt, pp. 251-6; Bompaire J., «Sur trois termes de fiscalite byz-
antine», Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, 80 (1956), pp. 625-31;
Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija, pp. 310-4; Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrar-
nite otnoshenija, pp. 91-95; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 42-3;
Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 103-4; Andreev, "Traits speci-
fiques du systeme fiscal", p. 90; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 82-3)
then comes the meaning "Kpa~a" = "to steal" (see TAT!:.). The final
form is "*krad+ja" (BER, II, pp. 704-6; Vasmer, II, p. 364) II Sign.:
"Theft", a crime; Gr. KAoml; Lat. "furium"
~fMb. (subst. m.)-MAD 8, Virg. 3, 10, 12, 65, 93, 94, 107, 112,Zogr. 31,
Bra. 3 bis; N 47; MN 41, 44 (1), 48 (4) bis, 65. II Etym.: From German
"Karl" ("Karal")-the name of Charlemagne, the king and emperor of
the restored Empire in the West. The word is present in all the Slavic
languages, in Romanian and even in Turkish "keral", "qyral", in Hun-
garian "kinlly" and in Greek KpclA'l'J~· (BER, II, pp. 712-3; Vasmer, II,
pp. 333-4) II Sign.: "King", Lat. "rex", Gr. Pill; The term is not a part of
the Bulgarian juridical and political terminology and was in use only
for foreign rulers, in that case the Serbian one.
~ep-tnoCTb. (subst. f.) -Zogr. 60; N 45. II Etym.: From K£-tnrz. = "for-
tress" See Palaeoslavic "*krer'b-k'b" < Indo-European *kre-pu-" It
is related to the Old Icelandic "hf~~::fa" ="stand, endure", "bear", "suf-
fer". (BER, II, p. 735; Vasmer, II, p. 372) II Sign.: The word can signify
"fortress, fortification" but in the cited case it means that the tsar is
decided to protect the privileges he instaured with his document; Gr.
icr:x;uc;, Kacr-cpov; Lat. "robur", "castrum"
I~THTOf'll. (subst. m.)-Zogr. 11; N 46, 50, 85 (2); MN 54, 70. II Etym.:
Transliteration of the Greek word K't'fi-crop = "benefactor", "who cre-
ated something", "founder" The Greek word originates from the verb
K'tt~ro = "to build", "to create" (BER, III, p. 70; Vasmer, II, p. 393;
Nichev Al, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", Ezik i literatura, 35 (1980),
2, pp. 59-60) II Sign.: "Benefactor", "founder", "donor"
KO~Mepb.1~'1>. (subst. m.)-Dubr. 11, MAD 27, 46, 48, Ril. 74 II Etym.:
Transfiteration of the Greek word KO'Uj..l.j..I.EpKtOV (from the Lat. "com-
mercium").ll Sign.: "Duty, customs", "tax on the trade". In the Horis-
mos for Ragusan merchants the is citation of the "Law of Koumerki"
(Andreev, "Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", 92; Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky Iv., «Quelques observations sur la reglemen-
tation du commerce de l'Etat medieval bulgare», La pratique commer-
ciale (= Mediterranees, No 30/31, 2002), p. 99ff.; Institutiifeudale, pp.
490-2).
GLOSSARY 87
KO\j'nAh\ (subst. f.)-Dubr. 2, 3, MAD 27, Ril. 7211 Etym.: See Ko~nHTH.
II sign.: "Commodity, merchandise". (Dujcev, Rilskatagramota, p. 64).
~eo~nHTH I KO\j'nO&~TH (verb)-Dubr. 7, 9, MAD 23, 24, 26, Ril. 72 II
Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*kupiti" = "to buy", which is adopted from
the Germanic languages ("*kaupjan", Goth. "kaupon" = "to buy, to
trade"). (BER, III, p. 142; Vasmer, II, pp. 420-1) II Sign.: "To buy", "to
tra de, , Gr. o.yopo.~:~etV,
' 'Y Lat. " emere,
Ko~m~u,b. (subst. m.)-MAD 21, 26, 27, 29 bis, 31, K 76:9-10.11 Etym.:
See Ko~nHTH. II Sign.: "Tradesman", "merchant" The word is cited
only in the treaty with Dubrovnik of AD 1253 and probably was more
familiar to the Serbian than to Bulgarian usage.
K'l..MOTf~ (subst. f.)-AH 201.11 Etym.: The word is adopted from Latin:
"cum mater" This could happen in Great Moravia as well as in the
Balkans, where the phrase was commonly used in Roman law. There
is no common opinion on that question. (BER, III, pp. 124-5, 126;
Vasmer, II, p. 414; Etimologicheskij slovar' slavjanskikh jazykov, t. 6,
Moscow, 1979, pp. 151-2; SSKJ, t. I, p. 98) II Sign.: "God mother" The
cited text is not official and we cannot know if the word was adopted
by official or by vernacular way. (Minceva, "Entstehungswege", p. 53ff.;
Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 68, 88).
AOKH4Je (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 26, 30, 41, 54, 56, 50, 60, 69, 90, Mr. 25,
Ril. 4711 Etym.: Nomen loci from "*laVb" ="hunt" The Indo-European
roots of the word are related to the signification of "award, prise",
"booty, loot" (BER, III, pp. 449-50; Vasmer, II, pp. 508-9) II Sign.:
Related to the hunting right, Gr. lCUVtyemov, Lat. "venatus" (Ilinskij,
Gramoty, p. 117)
AklAHe (subst. m. pl.)-Vatop. 4, 17, 21, MAD 19, 20, 21, 25, 31, 33,
35, 39, 47, Virg. 12, 76, 81, 87, 98, Mr. 20, 21, 24, 31, 34, 37, 39, 40,
48, Vit. 6, 7, 12, 14, 17 Ril. 34, 49, 52, 60, 64-65, 70, 89, 102, Bra. 2, 3;
AH 200, 203; MN 2, 65 his; K 19:8-11, 19:16-18, 35:9-11, 40:19-20,
75:12-13, 78:18-19, 79:5-6, 80:9-10. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ljud'b,
ljudbje" <Indo-European "leudh-,*leudheies" meaning "people", "free
men" (BER, III, pp. 577-8; Vasmer, II, p. 545) II Sign.: "People",
"men". (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 118; Institutii feudale, p. 280; Tsibranska-
Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 37-8)
MeTe,X4\'l'H (verb)-Vatop. 23, Virg. 14, 39, 42, 82 84, Mr. 38, Vit. 5, 7
II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek verb ~'texro = "participate, own
a part" (BER, III, p. 768) II Sign.: "Make obstacles", "make obstruc-
tions/difficulties", "intervene, interfere" A formula to prohibit the
state officials to interfere in the privileged monastery's affairs and to
make obstacles for the benefits and rights set by the charter. (Ilinskij,
Gramoty, p. 119; Nichev, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", p. 65)
Me'l'O,XH~ (subst. f.)-Vatop. 12, Virg. 84, 88, Ril. 16; MN 48 (4). II
Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word ~£'tQxtOV I ~E'toxfl = "com-
munity", "participation", "part" (BER, III, pp. 771-2; Vasmer, II,
p. 611) II Sign.: Possession/patrimony of a monastery. A small mon-
astery. (Nichev, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", p. 65; Misic, "Povelja
kralja Stefana Urosa III manastiru Hilandaru", p. 78)
Me'l'O,X'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 7, 29, 23, 24, 34, 59, 61, 98, Ril. 20, 39. II
Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word ~'tQxtOV I ~e'toxft. II Sign.:
See Me'l'O,XH~. (Nichev, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", p. 65; Institutii
feudale, pp. 294-5; Misic, "Povelja kralja Stefana Urosa III manastiru
Hilandaru", p. 78)
bringer" and the word is created under the pattern of the Greek term
mta96.pto~. II Sign.: The spatharioi were part of the imperial guard and
then became a title without any service in the administration or army.
The cited text is the unique evidence for the institution in Bulgaria. It
was better known in Walachia and Moldavia. (Institutii Jeudale, pp.
449-50)
MHAOCTb. (subst. f.)-Dubr. 12, Virg. 66, 104, Zogr. 22; !Seal ILl
p. 130, II.2 p. 132; N 46; MN 38 (1), 48 (4); K 11:7-8,30:10-12, 36:7-8,
54:8-10,67:16-18, 77:9-11.11 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*milasttJ" <"*mil'b" =
"dear", "beloved", "darling" and the suffix "*-asttJ". (BER, III, pp. 787-9,
795; Vasmer, II, p. 622) II Sign.: "Mercy", "benevolence", "benefac-
tion" (Institutii feudale, pp. 27-8; Popovic, "Povelja bana Tvrtka I
Kotromanica Dubrovniku", p. 154)
MHT~Trz. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 13-14, Virg. 101, Mr. 31, Ril. 56 II Etym.:
Transliteration of the Greek term ~'ll't&:tov. II Sign.: Fiscal institute. The
term designates a specific obligation of the population, but also the
official charged with ensuring its fulfilment. In the Byzantine Empire
this obligation was for the benefit of the military in the tagmata: tem-
porary requisitioning of part of the homes of the population for accom-
modating commanders or soldiers during a relatively long period of
time. This obligation does not involve providing food, which should
be ensured by the state or be bought by the military. (Ferrari della
Spade, Immunita ecclesiastiche, pp. 158-9; Jones, The Later Roman
Empire, I, 249-253; Ostrogorsky, Steuergemeinde, pp. 60-1; Laskaris,
Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 43-4; Solovjev, Masin, Grcke povelje srp-
skih vladara, pp. 466-7; Cvetkova, "Influence exercee", pp. 252-3;
Bartusis M., "State Demands for the Billeting of Soldiers in Late Byz-
GLOSSARY 93
(adj.)-Mr. 37, 39, Vit. 6, Ril. 20, 28, 30, 39, 69, 71, 76,
UOHMT'l>lfb.CK'l>
K 55:13-15. II Etym.: See MOHACT'l>lf'l>· II Sign.: Adjective from "mon-
astery"; "monastic"
MOHA,X'l>/MHH,X'l>(subst. m.)-MN 16, 35, 44 (1), 45 (4), 47, 60, 70, 77,
78, 83 (1), 84 (4), 86 (1), 106. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek
word ).!Ova.x6c; < )l6voc; ="alone". (BER, IV, p. 233; Vasmer, II, p. 649)
II Sign.: "Monk"
uocrrb.HHHA (subst. f.)-Virg. 30, 103 II Etym.: From uocT'l. ="bridge"
(Old Slavic "*mastt1" akin to the Indo-European verb "*mot-tos"= "to
set", "to through", "to shift"; something that connects two points in
94 CHAPTER ONE
space) and the suffix -HHH~. The word seems to be a translation from
the Greek ye<pupromc; (BER, IV, pp. 254-5; Vasmer, II, p. 662) II Sign.:
Corvee, related to building and maintenance of bridges, which existed
in the Empire from ancient times. (cf. I. et P. Zepos, Ius graecoro-
manum, I, Athtmes, 1931, p. 23, Basiliques, V, 1.4 = Cod. lust. I,
2, 5 et Basiliques, V, 3, 6 = lust. Nov. 131, p. 5). It usually occurs
cited together with the obligation of building roads (Mocrtprocria,
ooou Kat6.macric;. 606mpromc;). The expression may also be ye<pupac;
avaK'ttcrt<; or ye<p{>pac; oiKOOO~ft Kat avaverocrtc;. This was an excep-
tional (not regular) obligation of the population in cases when the
state was hard pressed by circumstances. (Ferrari della Spade, Immu-
nita, pp. 137-8; Karayannopoulos 1., Das Finanzwesen des fruebyz-
antinischen Staates, Mi.inchen, 1958, p. 181; Oikonomides, Fiscalite,
p. 109; Institutii feudale, p. 366)
M'kCTO (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 38, 51, MAD, 28, Mr. 7, 15, 19, Zogr.
12, 13, 70, Ril. 15, 36, 47; N 14, 22; MN 48 (4), 54 /in the meaning of
GLOSSARY 95
Ui'l\la. (subst. f.)-MN 54; K 11:9-11 (only the special meaning of the
word is cited here). II Etym.: From the Indo-European root "*monk-",
"*menk- " = "press, squeeze", ''break to pieces" This meaning is in
the basis of the words "to knead", "to mix", "to squeeze, to kneed"
(see Russian "MYJ<a" = "dough, pastry"), related to Greek ~acrcrro and
Sanskrit "m<kate", "mancate" ="break to pieces". (BER, IV, pp. 381-3;
Vasmer, III, pp. 6-7) II Sign.: "Punishment"
H~,XOAb.HHK'A (subst. m.)-Ril. 5711 Etym.: From the verb ,XOAHTH; the
primary meaning is "to find", "to find something in the road" (BER,
IV, pp. 569-70) II Sign.: Communication officer, imperial messen-
ger, Gr. 1tpecr~uc;, Lat. "nuntius", "legatus" (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota,
p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 392-3)
in the basis of the Greek word aya~oc;.ll Sign.: "Who is not married",
Gr. li-ya~oc;.
HHRb. (subst. f.)-Virg. 39, 92, Ril. 48, K 2:1-3, 56:1-2. // HHRHe (pl.)
-Gr. &poupa, Lat. "ager"; Virg. 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27bis, 28, 29, 34,
40-41, 51, 54, 55, 57-58, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63bis, 69, 71, Mr. 24, Ril. 28,
30, 6111 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*niva" meaning "plain", "basin", "depres-
sion (geological)" < Indo-European "*nei-" = "down", "under"; Gr.
vet6c;. (BER, IV, p. 636; Vasmer, III, p. 72) II Sign.: "Field, cornfield",
immovable property, Gr. xrop&qnov, Lat. "ager" (Ilinskij, Gramoty,
p. 116)
H~AHTH /eM (verb)-K 68:18.11 Etym.: See H,mAb..ll Sign.: "To vio-
lat~ (somebody)", "to force (somebody)"
O&AM1'b. (subst. f.)-1) £~oucria, potestas; Virg. 82, Ril. 49, 69, 78, Vit.
12, 13; MN 111; K 76:17-19.; 2) E1tap:x,ia, provincia; Virg. 16, 34, 40,
Mr. 20, 48, Ril. 72, 76; MN 44 (1), 48 (4). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ob-
vlastU" (*bV>*b) = "power" (see RAM1'b.). (BER, IV, p. 747; Vasmer,
III, p. 102) II Sign.: The primary meaning is "power" The meaning
"region, county, administrative territorial unit" is secondary. In the
note of the Stanislav's synaxary (see MN 44 (1)) the word is opposed
to "chora" -the cited oblast of Ovchepole is a part of the Zletovo chora.
(Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 118; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65; Biliarsky,
"Les circonscriptions administratives", pp. 186-7; Institufii feudale,
pp. 481-2)
OT'll.~o~nrz..
(subst. m.)-MN 65. II Etym.: See ~O\j'nHTH with the prefix
rl
Sign.: "Ransom", a manner to avoid the responsibility, espe-
0'1''11.-.
cially the penal in the framework of the vengeance.
(subst. m.)-AH 200 his, 201, 202; !Seal I.lOA p. 126; MN 17,
OTI:.U.I:.
21 (7), 28, 30, 31, 32 (1), 35, 40 his, 42, 43, 44 (1)-four citations, 48
(4) his, 51 (1) his, 54, 60, 61, 69 his, 78, 80, 83 (1), 84 (3), 84 (4), 86
(1), 98, 106 his, 108 (1), 117; K (father) 1:2-4, 1:14-17, 1:19-20, 4:22-
24, 22:8-10, 23:2-3, 23:20-21, 26:9-10, 30:20-23, 30:25-26, 31:8-10,
32:5-6, 32:22-23, 32:23-25, 34:10-12, 34:12-13, 37:20-22, 45:10-12,
48:5-6, 51:13-14, 54:18-20, 59:13-15, 64:9-11, 65:17-18, 67:7-9,
67:14-16, 69:19-21, 71:7-9, 77:13-15, 80:11-14; (priest) 2:1-3, 2:4-5,
11:12-13, 15:12-14, 33:11-12, 49:16-18, 52:2-3, 56:21-22, 58:7-9,
63:9-11, 70:13-15, 79:3-5, 79:9-11, 79:16-18, 79:21. II Etym.: Palaeo-
slavic "*atbcb", created by the third palatalisation of "*atbko" (see Rus-
sian "oTeK" ="father" and "6mK" ="male"). From the Indo-European
GLOSSARY 107
root "*atta-" = "mother", "elder sister" > Goth. "atta", Hittite "attas"
and Greek li:mx related to the meaning of "father", "leader" The word
comes from the children language and replaced the Indo-European
"pater" = "father" (BER, IV, pp. 960-1; Vasmer, III, p. 170) II Sign.:
"Father", "priest" The latter is derivative and secondary. Related to
matrimonial law.
nb.I~OCTb./nb.~OC'l'b.
(subst. f.)-Dubr. 8, MAD, 23, Bra. 5, K 44:1-2,
77:13-15. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pakastb" = "evil", "damage" (BER,
V, p. 15; Vasmer, III, p. 189) II Sign.: "Damage, mischief, harm"; in the
citation in Bra. this is a part of the prohibition to bring any injuries
the merchants from Bra~ov/Kronstadt.
nb.~OCTHTH (verb)-Virg. 98, Mr. 3911 Etym.: See nb.~OC'l'b..ll Sign.: "To
do mischief", "to injure", Gr. eJ..L1toOi~etV, Lat. "impedire"
n4\n4\ (subst. m.)-MAD 53; Syn. Dr.41, Syn. Pal.61; N 37. II Etym.:
From Latin "papa", related to the Latin "pater" (Vasmer, III, pp.
200-1) II Sign.: "Pope", the bishops of Rome and of Alexandria.
nATfHAf,X'I> (subst. m.)-ISeal II.l p. 130, II.2 p. 132; N 46, 70; MN 14,
15, 16, 45 (4), 52, 57, 101, 105. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek
word 1tO.'tpuiPX'll~· II Sign.: "Patriarch", the highest Episcopal degree,
Gr. 1ta'tpt<XPX'll~· Lat. "patriarcha"
nHCb.U.b. (subst. m.)-Virg. 100, Mr. 28; MN 14, 54, 74.11 Etym.: Palaeo-
slavic "*pbsati", "*pisq." ="draw", "depict" (then nHc~TH ="to write").
(Vasmer, III, pp. 268, 270-2) II Sign.: Employee, charger with the tax
cadastre, Greek a1toypa<pe:6~ or avaypa<pe:6~. The word can signify sim-
ply "clerk" (see MN 54). (Institutii Jeudale, pp. 120-1).
nMHHH~ (sub st. f.)- Vir g. 18, 26, 27, 35, 41, 50, 52, 53, 70, 89; Ril. 36;
MN 48 (4). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*planina", formed by "*plano", the
initial meaning of which was "empty, bare (with reference to a local-
ity)" and "barren (referring to land, soil)" It comes from the Indo-
European root "*pel-"/"*po-", from which "none" (= field), "rromma"
(= meadow) are also derived. It is akin to the Icelandic "fell"= "moun-
tain", the German "Feld" and the Latin "panus = "field" (BER, V, pp.
302-3) II Sign.: "Mountain" In this case what concerns us is the fact
that the term designates some kind of property. In Serbian documents
"nA~HHHH" are described as a place where "one neither plows nor digs"
or where "one neither plows nor mows" -i.e. this is a word refer-
ring to insufficiently cultivated lands, mostly left to serve as pastures.
(Solovjev, Masin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 482; Gy6ni M., "La
transhumance des Valaques balkaniques au Moyen Age", By:amti-
noslavica, XII, 1951, p. 38; Blagojevic M., "Planine i pasnjaci u sred-
njovekovnoj Srbii", Istoriski grasnik, 2-3 (1966), pp. 3-95; Bozilov Iv.,
Bulgarite vav Vizantijskata imperija, Sifia, 1995, pp. 39, 47; Mihaljcic,
Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 200-1).
noR~f"" (subst. m.)-Mr. 29 II Etym.: From the root "var-" and the
verb R~fHTH = "to boil" II Sign.: "Cook assistant", Gr. ~6:yetpo~, Lat.
"coquus"; an employee, charged with the food and subsistence of the
army. (Biliarsky, "Trois institutions meconnues", pp. 102-4).
noReA<kTH (verb)-Virg. 108, Mr. 53, Zogr. 50; N 73; MN 48 (1), 54,
58 (2); K 11:23-24, 12:20-22, 13:5-7, 14:16-17, 26:10-12, 32:21-22,
38:20-21, 40:9-10, 48:6-7, 60:1-2, 60:8-10, 62:3-4, 72:18-20, 74:12-
13, 77:15-1711 Etym.: From the verb ReA<kTH ="to say" The comple-
tion of the ruler's power by ordering decrees. (BER, V, p. 402; Vasmer,
I, p. 288) II Sign.: "To ordain", "to decree"
not.t~CTb.H'll.IH (rrpHJI)-MN 14 II
Etym.: From M~CTO (see!). Probably
the word is a translation of the Greek 't01m:6c;. II Sign.: "Local" (for a
ecclesiastical council, opposed to the "ecumenical").
non'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 81, 84, MAD, 50, Mr. 39, Ril. 32, 34; N 9, 18,
43; MN 4 (1), 6, 7, 8 (2, 7), 10 (1), 17, 20 (2), 22 (1 his), 23 his, 25 (1,
2, 3), 27 (1), 30, 39 (1), 40 his, 41 tris, 43, 52, 71 (2), 99, 103 (8),112;
K 2:5-7, 12:1-3, 12:3-6, 12:8-9, 12:20-22, 12:22, 13:2-4, 13:13-14,
13:17-18, 13:20-21, 31:10-12 his, 31:13-14, 39:16-18, 40:8, 74:26-27,
116 CHAPTER ONE
nop~GO'l'HTH Ch. (verb)-K 51:4-6.11 Etym.: See p~s'l..11 Sign.: "To obey",
"to submit", "to become slave"
II
noc.l\0\fW~TH (verb)-K 22:6-7; MN 16. Etym.: From C.I\~W~TH (see
noc.I\~Xrz.).ll Sign.: "To witness", "to testify", "to attest". Here only the
special juridical meaning is cited but not the general: "to listen", "to
hear", "to perceive sound"
noco&HTe.l\1:. (subst. m.)-Mr. 4-5 II Etym.: The word derives from the
pronoun ce&'k = "oneself (my/your/him/her/itself, our/your/them-
selves)" The verb "cnoco6cTB)1BaM" = "to help", "do somebody to
reach certain result by me" (BER, V, p. 542; Vasmer, III, p. 340) II
Sign.: "Helper, collaborator I who helps", Gr. ~on96~, Lat. "auxilia-
tor" In the citation this is the saint-patron of the monastery (in that
case-Saint George) as intercessor and protector of the tsar and of the
imperial power. The juridical meaning of the word is related to the
ideology of the ruler's power.
nocrr~RHTH (verb)-Virg. 83, 90, 105, Mr. 30; AH 204 (to appoint, to
nominate); N 44 (to appoint, to nominate); K 11:19-21, 12:6-7, 12:22,
29:4-5,30:1-2,40:9-10,52:14-15.11 Etym.: The prefix no- and the verb
118 CHAPTER ONE
npb.RHHb. (subst. f.)-Vatop. 4, MAD, 34 his, Virg. 18, 22, 23, 24, 27,
28bis, 31, 35, 42, 51-52, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 58 his, 59, 60, 61, 62,
63bis, 64, 70, 71, Mr. 34, 39, 48, Ril. 17, 35,9211 Etym.: See npb.RbA4\. II
Sign.: "Privileges", "goods", Gr. OtKatiDJ.J.(X'ta. Related to (and probably
created after) the Greek word OtKaiov. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 115-6;
Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64).
npb.ROR'tfb.H'll. (adj.)-Virg. 8, 9, 65, 79, 92, 93, 94, 107, 112; MN 14; K
2:5-7,3:4-6, 3:6-8, 12:1-2, 12:8-9, 19:8-11.11 Etym.: See npuoR'tfH!e;
an adjective: "orthodox".ll Sign.: "Orthodox"; related to the status and
to the canon and penal law.
npb.ROCAb.Rb.H'll. (adj.)-Virg. 1, 2, Zogr. 3, 10, 14, 19, 70, Mr. 17, 44,
Ril. 99; Syn. Pal.llO II Etym.: Loan translation of 6p960o~oc;. II Sign.:
"Orthodox"
np~,XToprz. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 7; Virg. 14, 99, Mr. 38, Ril. 53, Vit. 8 II
Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek npaK'trop that has Latin origin. II
Sign.: There are two significations: 1) in Vatop. this is the general appel-
lation of the officials in the local administration; 2) in all the other docu-
ments this is appellation of a special fiscal official; Gr. npaK'trop, Lat.
"exactor" (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 35-6; Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 350-3).
npHAe;K~HHHl (subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 45, 56, 64, Mr. 25, Vit. 4-511 Etym.:
Palaeoslavic verb "*prilaziti", "*prilaia" = "enclose", "attach, add"
(Goth. "lagian", Old Icelandic "liggia" = "put, apply"). (BER, V, pp.
716-9) II Sign.: Related to the property. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 115)
nrHnA~T~ (subst. f.)-Virg. 1411 Etym.: See the verb nA~THTH. Imple-
mentation of a debt, obligation. II Sign.: Implementation of the obliga-
tion to pay the tax to the state. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123).
npHch\Pb. (subst. f.)-AH 201 II Etym.: From the verb npHch\ij.IH = "to
swear", "to vow" < Palaeoslavic "*s~gti" meaning "to tighten, to fas-
ten", "to cover", "to fit" (Vasmer, III, pp. 367, 825) II Sign.: "Oath,
vow", in the citation the word means a type of pagan worship ritual.
npH'Ib.T'll. (subst. m.)-MN 45 (4), 47. II Etym.: From "qeTa" (with the
primary meaning of "calculate" passing through "to conform with, to
take in consideration") and "rrpMtieT" ="honour", "respect" (BER, V,
p. 745, Vasmer, IV, pp. 374-5) II Sign.: "Clergy". (Tsibranska-Kostova,
Formirane i razvitie, pp. 34-5).
npocHTH (verb)-Virg. 66, Zogr. 40, 43; MN 103 (2, 4, 6), 104, 108
(2, 3), 110 (1). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*prasiti", "*prasati" (the Indo-
European root "*prok' I *prek'- I *prk'-"). (BER, V, pp. 779-82; Vas-
mer, III, pp. 377-8) II Sign.: "To beg", "to supplicate", "to plead" The
word describes the contact of the common people with the power.
np<BR'I.ICOK'I. (adj.)-Zogr. 36, 39, 44, 59; MN 16, 45 (4), 47, 48 (4),
50 (1), 53, 56 (1), 57, 59, 89. II Etym.: Prefix nf<S- to the adjective
R'I.ICOK'I.. Loan translation of the Greek t)\JftM'ta'toc;. II Sign.: Epithet
for the ruler. (Biliarsky, "Dva narolchnika za pittakia ot kasnoto Sred-
novekovie", p. 262).
126 CHAPTER ONE
(subst. m.)-Virg. 105, Zogr. 22, Mr. 42, Ril. 95; N 22; MN
nf<tCTO.I\'b
58 (2); K 6:8-11. II Etym.: From np<t- ("per-") and CTO.I\'b = "chair"
(BER, V, pp. 676-7; Vasmer, III, p. 361) II Sign.: "Throne", Gr. 9p6vo~,
Lat. "thronus"
"to acquire" (BER, V, p. 709; Vasmer, III, pp. 369-70) II Sign.: "To
receive", "to obtain" the power.
m:.c.a.pb./ nb.Cb.h\K'll. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 9-10, Virg. 100, Mr. 29, Ril. 57,
Vit. 11 II Etym.: From nb.C'll. (in Indo-European languages this word is
related either to the meaning of "motley" or to "cattle" and "to graze,
to lead to graze") = "dog", with the suffix -.a.p. The word was influenced
by the Greek lC\)Vrt"fO<;. (BER, V, pp. 185-6; Vasmer, III, pp. 248-9) II
Sign.: Fiscal official charged with the obligation to raise hunting dogs
for the court. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 39-40; Dujcev, Ril-
skata gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 379-82).
nb.C.a.TH I nHCb.'I'H (verb)-Vatop. 13, Virg. 112, Mr. 9, 31, 49, 53, Ril.
110, Bra. 2 II Etym.: From "*pbsati", "*pisq" = "to draw", "to write"
130 CHAPTER ONE
f~&OT~ (subst. f.)-Vatop. 8, Virg. 14, Mr. 28, 32, Ril. 59-60, 62, K
44:1-2, 44:13-15. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*arbata" < from "*arbU" =
"child", "boy", "orphan" (Greek op<pav6<;) and finally po&'b = "slave"
and the suffix "-ata" The meaning "slave" derives from the meaning
"orphan" (Indo-European "*orbho-" ="orphan") because the orphans
were charged with the haviest work in the home. The meaning "ser-
vice", "work" derives from the meaning "slavery". (BER, VI, pp. 132-6,
274-6; Vasmer, III, p. 427) II Sign.: A general appellation of the state
service, Gr. imrJpecria, oouA.et6., Lat. "ministerium" The word could
mean "corvee". (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Tsibranska-Kostova,
Formirane i razvitie, p. 53; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispra-
vama, pp. 206-8)
f~&OTb.HH~'b (subst. m.)-Virg. 96, 97, Mr. 20-21, 27, Ril. 58, 62 II
Etym.: See p~&OT~. II Sign.: "Official", "slave" (Dujcev, Rilskata gra-
mota, p. 64; Institu{ii feudale, pp. 173-5).
p~&'b (subst. m.)-N 5, 6 bis, 8, 12, 15, 27, 28 bis, 29, 32, 33, 52, 55,
56 (f~&~-f.), 57, 82, 85 (2), 85 (3), 85 (4), 85 (5); MN 1, 3 (1), 4 (2),
8 (6), 12 (1), 16, 22 (1 bis), 30, 40, 44 (1), 45 (4), 51 (1), 56 (1), 58 (2)
bis, 91 (1, 4), 108 (3) bis, 110 (1), 117; K 12:9-11, 12:17-19, 35:13-14,
36:16-18, 36:18-20, 37:9-11, 38:1-3, 38:3-5, 45:21-23, 47:2-4, 65:18-
19, 74:21, 76:4-5, 76:8-9, 76:10-11, 80:3-6. II Etym.: See f~&OT~. II
GLOSSARY 131
fA&'AIHil\ (subst. f.)-N 29.11 Etym.: See fAG.OTA.II Sign.: "Female slave",
"female servant", "dependant woman"
fMI~OA'A (subst. m.)-K 2:21-22. II Etym.: From "*arz-" and the verb
"kalti" = "to cut", "to pick" (BER, II, pp. 564-5, VI, p. 154; Vasmer,
Ill, p. 444) II Sign.: "Schism", "split"
fMno~cT'll. (subst. m.)-Mr. 37, Vit. 13.11 Etym.: From no~cTHTH derived
from *poustu" = nsCT'A (= uninhabited), AHR'A (= wild) with the prefix
"arz-" I "raz-". "To free someone", "to unyoke" (BER, VI, pp. 5-9) II
132 CHAPTER ONE
fOAHTeAb. (subst. m.)-MN 40, 41, 58 (2), 71 (2), 99; K 65:17, 74:1-
3.11 Etym.: See fOA"A·II Sign.: "Parent", "ancestor", Gr. yove.Uc; (Solovjev,
Masin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 415).
suffix "* -bho-" M "* -da". Related to the meaning "who exists by him-
self" (Latin "causa sui"); possible relation to the name of the Thracian
divinity "Ia~a~wc;". (BER, VI, p. 561; Vasmer, III, pp. 582-3) II Sign.:
"Liberty, freedom", Gr. €A£u9epia, Lat. "libertas"
(subst. m.)-Vatop. 9, Virg. 14, 99, Mr. 28, 38, Ril. 53; !Seal
ceR4\CT'll.
IV.10 pp. 142-3, IV.12 p. 143; N 44, 72, 73, 75, 81. II Etym.: Translit-
eration of the Greek word cre~acrtoc;. II Sign.: Ie~acrtoc;. Sebastos was
one of the epiteths of the Byzantine basileus (= Latin "augustus") that
later (in the eleventh century) became a title by itself. It is a "pure title"
without any service in the administration. The title is attested in Bul-
garia and in Serbia as well. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 36-7;
Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 125-35 with
the cited discussion on the character of the title).
ceAH4-Je (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 33, Mr. 21,22 his, Ril. 1811 Etym.: Palaeo-
slavic "*sela/*sedla" (see "ceAO") with suffix of nomina loci" -iSce". (BER,
VI, p. 602; Vasmer, III, p. 596) II Sign.: "Settlement", "dwelling place",
"village" (Institutii feudale, p. 433; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim
ispravama, pp. 208-10; Misic, "Povelja kralja Stefana Urosa III mana-
stiru Hilandaru", p. 78).
136 CHAPTER ONE
ceJ\0 (subst. neutr.)-Vatop. 3, 4, MAD 27, 39, 40 bis, 41, 45, Virg.
17bis, 19, 21, 22 bis, 23 bis, 24, 25, 27 bis, 28 bis, 34, 40, 43 bis, 44,
51, 52 bis, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 67, 71, 72, 75, 84, 87, 89,
98, Zogr. 29, 30, 31, 33, 41, 43, 45, 55, 63, Mr. 31, Ril. 16, 17, 29, 31
tris, 32 tris, 33 tris, 52, 64, Vit. 6; N 10; MN 12 (1), 45 (4) tris, 48 (4);
K 18:15-16, 32:1-2, 56:1-2.11 Etyrn.: Palaeoslavic "*sela" and "*sedla"
(BER, VI, pp. 604-6; Vasmer, III, p. 596) II Sign.: "Village", Gr. xropiov,
Lat. "vicus" (Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp.
210-1; Misic, "Povelja kralja Stefana Urosa III manastiru Hilandaru",
p. 78)
CHHOf'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 19, 31, 35, 44; MN 48 (4). II Etyrn.: Trans-
literation of the Greek word cruvopov. (BER, VI, pp. 674-5) II Sign.:
"Boundary", "border", boundaries between real estates. (Institutii feu-
dale, p. 282).
CAOKO (subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 46, 53, 61, 71, Ril. 14, 46, 68, 73, 88, 101,
108; AH 199, 201,202, 203; N 24, 73.11 Etym.: The origin of the word
is close with the word CAUl\ = "glory", "reputation" (Vasmer, III,
p. 673). II Sign.: "Word", "speech", Gr. ').jyyo-,. In the cited cases
the meaning is "imperial document", ~A4\TonelJ4\Tb.HOe CMKO = Gr.
x;pucr6~0'UAAO<, A.6yo-,, Lat. "bulla aurea"
CMHOK1:.4-JHH4\ (sub st. f.)- Vir g. 101 II Etym.: Related to the Indian
"fYI'ayati" and Avestan "srayate" = "to lodge, to give shelter to" (BER,
V, p. 468; Vasmer, III, p. 675) II Sign.: A fee or a right, related to the
shelter of the livestock in the mountains. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 125;
Dujcev Iv., "Ezikovi belezhki kam srednovekovni bulgarski pamet-
nitsi", Izvestija na Instituta za bulgarski ezik, III, 1954, pp. 309-11;
Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 222; Tsankova-Petkova, Agrar-
nite otnoshenija, p. 110 note 160, 146, 163 /proposing two different
meanings/; Andreev M., Angelov D., Istorija na bulgarskata feodalna
darzhava i pravo, Sofia, 1972, p. 146; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgar-
skite tsare", p. 49).
C.l\o~mi:.GI\
(subst. f.)-MAD 54; Syn. Dr.49, CJ.m, ITan. 42; MN 32 (1);
K 14:1-4, 44:18-19, 52:1-2, 65:21-23, 66:5-6, II Etym.: See C.I\O'J'r~! II
Sign.: "Service", "state service", Gr. Um,pecria; the word is related to
the administrative law. (Institutii feudale, p. 446).
n'MI:. (subst. f.)-Vatop. 4, Mr. 25, Ril. 17, 48, 69, Vit. 611 Etym.: Bor-
rowed from the Greek mam~. II Sign.: "Property", "possessions", "pat-
rimony" (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65).
n'O.I\I:.HHK'l.. (subst. m.)-ISeal IV.8 p. 141 (=H 77).11 Etym.: From CTO.I\'l..
(see!); loan translation of the Greek obtl 'til~ -rpaxe~rt~· II Sign.: "Stol-
nik", an official, charged with the care about the tsar's table. (Institutii
feudale, p. 456; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 177-81, 465).
GLOSSARY 139
C'I'OA't.. (subst. m.)-MAD 17, Ril. 8, 12; MN 14 bis, 80, 89; K 14:12-15,
14:17-20, 14:20-22 bis. II Etym.: Related to the Palaeoslavic "*stati",
"*stojc/ = "to stay", "to become" (Indo-European morpheme "-st-").
"Chair" (Vasmer, III, pp. 764-5, 788) II Sign.: "Throne", Gr. 9p6vo<;,
Lat. "thron us"
C'l'fb.'I'Ofb. (subst. m.)-Virg. 100, Ril. 56, Vit. 10-11 II Etym.: Translit-
eration of the Greek word a'tpa'trop < from mpa't6<; = "army". (Hof-
man, 'EWj.LOAoytK6v A.€.1;tK6v "til<; etPXaia<; eAA1lVtKf\<;, p. 407) II Sign.:
In Constantinople this is the appellation of the soldiers of one of the
imperial guards. In Bulgaria this is a military officer in the provincial
cavalry regiments. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65; Biliarsky, Insti-
tutsiite, pp. 319-21).
c~:.pesp~:>HH~'ll. (subst. m.)-K 76:4-5, 76: 6-7, 76: 12-16 bis. II Etym.:
Substantive of Cbfe&po. II Sign.: "Silver coin", Gr. taA.avtov.
C<tHO~OC'll. (subst. f.)-Virg. 41, 63, 69, Mr. 22, 24, Ril. 4711 Etym.: From
C<tHO II
="hay" and the verb ~OCHTH = "to mow, to cut" Sign.: This is
appellation of a corvee to furnish hay to the cavalry or administration.
(Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 116; Institutii feudale, p. 198; Mihaljcic, Zakoni
u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 211-2; Misic, "Povelja kralja Stefana
Urosa III manastiru Hilandaru", p. 78).
GLOSSARY 143
Cli\AHTH (verb)-MAD 36, Virg. 15, 43, 75, 76, 77; AH 203; N 37;
MN 35, 38 (2), 65; K 12:9-11, 15:5-6,60:4-7, 78:10-11. II Etym.: See
Cli\A"h.. (Vasmer, III, pp. 795-6) II Sign.: "To judge", Gr. Kpivew, Lat.
"iudicare"
Cli\AH~ (subst. m.)-MAD 4, 59, Ril. 54; MN 45 (4) his. II Etym.: See
(Vasmer, III, p. 796). II Sign.: "Judge", Gr. Kpt'tfl~, Lat. "iudex"
Cli\A"h.!
In the text of MAD the word means not only "judge" but one of the
highest institutions of the Republic of Dubrovnik. (Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, p. 65; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 327-33; Institufii feudale,
pp. 257-9).
(subst. m.)-Virg. 78, 87, 104, Mr. 46; MN 19, 70; K 15:5-6,
Cli\A"h.
18:12-13, 41:1-2, 57:1-3, 58:1-3, 75:1-2, 77:9-11. Cli\AH4-Je (subst.
neutr.)-Virg. 36-37, 109, 110 II Etym.: From "*som-" and Indo-Eu-
ropean "*dhe-" (meaning "to do", "work, deed", "affair"). The initial
meaning of the term is connected with anything that makes for unity,
unites, hence the meaning of "vessel (something containing a certain
volume)"> "measure"> "to measure"> "to estimate, to judge in court"
(Vasmer, III, p. 794). II Sign.: "Tribunal, court", Gr. Kpicrt~, Kpt'tflpwv,
Lat. "iudicium" (Institutii feudale, pp. 11-12, 257ff., 267ff., 460).
TR~fHKO (subst. neutr.)-Ril. 7811 Etym.: See ~fHKO and fHKoc. (Dujeev,
Rilskata gramota, 65). II Sign.: Additional tax, identical with Byzantine
&eptK6v. (see ~fHI~o).
Tprz.rrz. (subst. m.)-MAD 23, 24, Virg. 30, 31 bis, 103, K 57:7-9. II
Etym.: The word is akin to the Albanian "trege" (= "market") and
GLOSSARY 145
,X.Ab.Krz. (subst. m.)-K 61:6-7.11 Etym.: Unclear etymology. All the pro-
posed variants are quite hazardous. (Vasmer, IV, pp. 257-8) II Sign.:
"Unmarried", "single", Gr. liya~o~.
is to an imperial sign. The word occurs in the same sense in the works
of Patriarch Euthymius, and it is known from the letter of pope Inno-
cent III that he, the Pontifex, sent a flag to tsar Kalojan, which was
evidently thought to be highly significant by the Bulgarian ruler .
(subst. m.)-N 28, 46, 47, 66, 70, 73, 842; MN 48 (4) bis, 54. II
.Xfb.M'll.
Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*xormn" = "building", related to the Lettish
"karms" and to the Old Icelandic "harmyan" = "fortress". See also the
Arabic word "haram" = "the holy part of the home"! Maybe related
to the Hittite word "karimmi" = "temple" The general meaning of the
word is related to "building", "security". (Vasmer, IV, pp. 265-6, 273) II
Sign.: "Temple", a sanctuary.
.XfHCORO~A'll.(subst. m.)-Virg. 96, 104, 106, 108, Mr. 12, 18, 43, 47,
Vit. 1, 15; !Seal I.lOA p. 126; MN 48 (4); .XfHCORO~Ail\ (subst. f.)-Virg.
9 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term xpucr6~ouA.A.ov. II Sign.:
This is an abbreviation of the xpucr6~ouA.A.to<; Myo<; (= ~Ab.Tone'lb.Tb.Hoe
CAORO, Lat. "bulla aurea"), an imperial document of supreme degree.
(Dolger, Byzantinische Diplomatik, pp. 36ff.; Solovjev, Masin, Grcke
povelje srpskih vladara, pp. LXX-LXXVI; Institutii feudale, pp. 60-1,
226; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", pp. 38ff.) .
.XfHCTOAkl&HR'll. (adj.)-Zogr. 10, 19, Ril. 1-2; N 47, 67, 70, 74; MN
31, 47, 50 (1), 51 (1), 53, 54 bis, 56 (1), 57, 58 (2), 80 bis, 98, 106; K
2:25-27, 3:14-15,20:4-7. II Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek word
<ptAQxptcr'to<;.ll Sign.: "Philochrist", "who loves Lord Jesus Christ", Gr.
<ptAQxptcr'to<;, Lat. "philochristus"
U.b.feR'b/LI,b.fHH'll./LI,b.fb.C~'ll./U.b.f!eR'll.
(adj.)-Virg. 14, Mr. 2, 8, 49, Ril. 39,
110; N 46, 80; MN 98, 99, 106; K 39:8-10,40:19-20.11 Etym.: Adjective
from U.b.fb.· II Sign.: "Tsar's", "imperial", Gr. ~acrtA.uc6<;, Lat. "imperia-
lis". In the document of the despot Alexis Slav of AD 1220 the used
150 CHAPTER ONE
U.b.fHU.b. (subst. f.)-N 49, 70; NM 6, 9 (type V); MN 16, 38 (2), 45 (4),
56 (1), 56 (2), 59, 61, 80, 89, 117; K 18:1-3.11 Etyrn.: See U.4\fb.· II Sign.:
"Tsarine", "empress", "tsar's wife or mother"
"imperator" The Slavic term is fully identical with the Greek ~acrt.A.€-6<;
as concerns the secular imperial title as well as the titles of the biblical
rulers of Israel and Judea, and also the Celestial King, the Lord Jesus
Christ. This means that, in its secular sense, the corresponding Latin
term would be "imperator", while in the religious sphere (including
the text of the Holy Scripture) the Latin term would be "rex" (Rado-
slavov Tsv., "Titlite na bulgarskite vladeteli", Izvestija na bulgarskija
arkheologicheski institut, V, 192811929, pp. 168ff., 174ff.; Romanski St.,
"Simeonovata titla 'u,'kc~p~:.'", Bulgarski pregled, I, 1, 1929; Dolger Fr.,
"Tsarskata vlast v Bulgarija i imperatorskata vav Vizantija", Rodina,
I, 3, 1938!1939; Angelov D., "Kam vaprosa za tsarskata vlast v sred-
novekovna Bulgarija", Sbornik v pamet na Al. Burmov, Sofia, 1973,
pp. 158-66; Kolarov, "Titulatura i polnomochija vladetel'skoj vlasti v
srednevekovoj Bolgarii", Etudes balkaniques, 3, 1978, pp. 89-101;
Dujcev Iv., "Varkhu njakoi bulgarski imena i dumi u vizantijskite
avtori", in: idem, Prouchvanija varkhu srednovekovnata bulgarska isto-
rija i kultura, Sofia, 1981, p. 341; Bakalov G., Srednovekovnijat bulgar-
ski vladetel (Titulatura i insignia), Sofia, 1995; Uspenskij B. A., Tsar'
i imperator. Pomazanie na tsarstvo i semantika monarshikh titulov,
Moscow, 2000; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", pp. 42-4).
Ll.fb.K'll.l (subst. f.)-MAD 41, 42 tr., 45, 49 bis, 50; Virg. 2, 4, 36, 44,
67, 68, 72, 81, 84, 85 bis, 86, Mr. 1, 4, 8, 10, 15, 39, Ril. 3, 6, 9, 25; AH
202; N 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 30, 40 ('lfb.K'll.&b.), 64, 73; MN 1, 14, 65, 106;
K 3:11-13, 8:21-23, 11:1-3, 11:17-18, 15:12-14 15:15-16, 15:19-21,
15:21-22, 19:3-6,22:8-10,25:9-10,26:5-6,30:1-2,31:14-16,33:19-20,
34:15-16 bis, 36:10-12, 36:13-14, 44:11-12, 65:12-14, 65:14-15,
68:5-6, 68:8-10, 67:26, 71:4-7, 74:13-14, 79:14-15. II Etym.: Very
ancient borrowing from the Goths-Arians-"*kirik6" (= "Church").
The Germanic word has its origins in the Greek Kt>ptK6v < Kt>ptaK6v
="Lord's (place)" (Vasmer, IV, p. 300) II Sign.: "Church" (all mean-
ings of the word), Gr. EKKA1lcria, Lat. "ecclesia, templum" (Institufii
feudale, pp. 45-48; Minceva, "Entstehungswege", pp. 57-8)
U,'tH~ (subst. f.)-MN 14, 15, 31, 117. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*cena",
related to the Lithuanian "k;.Hna" ="price", "profit", Avestan "kaena-" =
"vendetta", "feud", "punishment", Greek 'ttvco= "to repent",Irish "cin" =
"guilt, culpability", "debt" (Vasmer, IV, p. 298) II Sign.: "Price",
"payment"
"cetati" ="to show consideration for", "to observe", "to think". (Vas-
mer, IV, p. 350) II Sign.: Epithet for the ruler and some other high
officials. (Institufii feudale, pp. 342-3).
"'AAb. (subst. f.)-AH 200; N 74,85 (2); MN 45 (4), 48 (4), 59; K 17:10-
12.11 Etyrn.: Palaeoslavic "*c~oo", related to the words H~"'b.H~, H~"'ATH
(= "to begin") and KOHM.J..b. (= "end") as well as to the Greek Kaw6c; =
"new" (and not related to the Old Saxon and Old German "kind").
(Vasmer, IV, pp. 310-1) II Sign.: "Posterity, progeny", "people"
RHH~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 (with the verb C'ATROfHTH) =
E. XVII. 1 ai-tia. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in
the general glossary. In the Joasaph copy of XVI century the word for
"guiltiness" in the Last member of the Law for Judging the People is
Rf~UA. This is defined by J. Vasica as a Moravian word result of a taboo
on the word about the adultery. (Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 89-90)
(subst. f.)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a; Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 (his)=
R.I\MTI:.
E. XVII. 5 £~oucria and R'A R.I\MTI:. &'AIR~h\ = <iPXo~t. II Etym.: See in
the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general glossary.
GLOSSARY 157
ROHHA (subst. f.)-Ust. 24, Nov. 26, Vars. 26 HA ROHH~ ("during the
war") = E. XVII. 10 £v <pocrmitcp iltot ev EK0"1teOi.tcp ("/being! in the
army or in a campaign"). II Etym.: Indo-European root *wei-, *woi-
= "to chase", "to pursue", "to hunt"; related to the Greek verb te)lat
("to hurry", "to hasten", "to strive", "to aspire"), Lithuanian "vyti" ("to
hunt", "to pursue"), Sanskrit "veti" ("to pursue", "to strive"), Latin
"venor" ("to hunt"). From that meaning comes also the military signi-
fication of the word. (BER, I, pp. 173-173, SDRJa, I, p. 562; Vasmer, I,
pp. 334-5) II Sign.: "War"
RfAmi:.AA (subst. f.)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a-no; Ust. 15, Nov. 17,
Vars. 17 = E. XVII. 41 £x9pa. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II
Sign.: See in the general glossary.
R"AmAPATH (verb)-Ust. 14, Nov. 16, Vars. 16 =E. XVII. 40 m>p E)l~6.A.ro
(R"AmAPAh\H = o1t'Bp E)l~aA.c.Ov); Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 = E. XVII.
41 1tup 1ta.Oaoioro)lt; related to the crime of fire; the same concern-
ing or~:.H'A (YeT. 15) = E)l1tP1lO")l6<;. II Etym.: R'A- added to the Palaeo-
slavic *fega, *fefesi; from the root *deg->*geg->*feg-. Related to the
158 CHAPTER ONE
&~p~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 18, Nov. 20, Vars. 20 (HM~TH R~f'AI = "to
befieve") =E. XIV. 2.1-2.11tpocro£xoJ..Lat ("to accept"); Ust. 21, Nov. 23,
Vars. 23 = E. XVII. 6 1ttmt~ ("faith" in the religious sense). II Etym.:
See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Faith"; related to some crimes in
connection with religious beliefs.
rr~A"A (subst. m.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 =E. XVII. 411t6At<;; Ust.
21, Nov. 23, Vars. 23 =E. XVII. 6 1tOAt9da (1tOAt9eia corresponds to
~eMA~ H rr~A'A in the Slavic translation). II Etym.: See in the general
glossary. II Sign.: "City", fortified political, administrative and military
centre. see in the general glossary.
rr'kX"A(subst. m.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1-2 ai·tia. II
Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Sin", "crime", "transgres-
sion" (see in the general glossary).
A~TH (verb)-Ust. 9, Nov. 10, Vars. 10-no; Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars.
21 his = E. VIII. 2 1tA1lp6ro and no; Ust. 30, Nov. 32, Vars. 32 = E.
XVII. 17 otoroJ.u. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in
the general glossary.
A'kR~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 =E. XVII. 291tap9evo<;; Ust.
9, Nov. 11, Vars. 11-no in E. XVII. 30. II Etym.: See in the general
160 CHAPTER ONE
A'kRHLI,b. (subst. f.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 =E. XVII. 29 KOp1'\; Ust.
9, Nov. 11, Vars. 11 = E. XVII. 30 KOp1'\; Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12 =
E. XVII. 31 <p9ape'icra (this is not a translation: the Greek word means
"violated, raped" and the Slavic-"girl"); Ust. 11, Nov. 13, Vars. 13 bis
= E. XVII. 32 aAAo'tpta J.LV1'\0"Tll and KOP1l· II Etym.: See in the general
glossary. II Sign.: "Virgin", "girl", "unmarried woman" (see in the gen-
eral glossary). (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33)
~~noR'kAb. (subst. f.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1 ev'toA.fl.ll
Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general glossary.
~'l>M&A (subst. f.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 ~AO&'l>l A't~ATH = E. II.
9. 2 E7tt~ouA.curo. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*zolo" ("bad, evil"), related
to the Sanskrit "hvarati", "hvalati" and Avestan "zbaraiti" ("to zig-
zag", "to stumble", "to fell"). (BER, I, pp. 663-6; SDRJa, III, pp. 426-8
Vasmer, II, p. 99) II Sign.: "Evil", "bad"
H~n7l>IT4\TH (verb)-Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 (bis) =E. XVII. 1 owu.:ero
and ~rrtero (see H~HC~4\TH). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic n'll.IT4\TH is related to
the Indo-European "*peu-" ("to examine", "to be reasonable"). (BER,
V, pp. 265-6; Vasmer, III, p. 421) II Sign.: "To examine", "to investi-
gate", the latter is the meaning in the Law.
~MReT4\ (subst. f.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2-no; Ust. 30a, Nov. 33,
Vars. 33-no.ll Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Calumny",
"slander", "accusation" (see in the general glossary.).
~'l..I'I'H (verb)-Ust. 30, Nov. 32, Vars. 32 ("to hide" the criminal action
in the art. 30) =E. XVII. 17 Kpt>1t'tro.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*kryti" ("to
hide"); related to the Lithuanian "kniuti" and Lettish "kraut" = "to col-
lect", "to amass" and to the Greek Kpt>1t'tro = "to hide" (BER, III, pp.
15-6; Vasmer, II, p. 390) II Sign.: The word is not a juridical term but
this is the criminal action in the art. 30 of the Law.
~0\fnH'I'H (verb)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 (to pay for the freedom of
a captive) = E. VIII. Ct.yop&~ro. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II
Sign.: "To buy"; see in the general glossary.
the Balkans, or at least part of them. (BER, II, pp. 494-5, Maksimo-
vich, ZSL, pp. 58-68, 90-2) II Sign.: "Dignitary", "official", "mayor",
"provost"
.1\HU.e (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1xp6crro7tov.
II Etym.: A diminutive form of the Palaeo slavic "*liko" = "face" The
juridical term is created as a loan translation of the Greek word
xp6crroxov. (BER, III, pp. 397-8, 438-9; Vasmer, II, pp. 495-6) II Sign.:
"Person"
.1\b.CTI:. (subst. f.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1 {m69ecrt<;.ll
Etym.: See in the general glossary! II 3aHti.: See in the general glossary!
166 CHAPTER ONE
MI:.~I:.HHK'A (subst. m.)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 =E. VIII. 2J..Licr9w<;
("hired labourer"). II Etym.: See u~:.w. II Etym.: "Hired labourer"
M'kCTo (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 9, Nov. 11, Vars. 11 (in the general mean-
ing of "place") = E. XVII. 30-no; Ust. 22, Nov. 24, Vars. 24 = E.
XVII. 7 't61to<;. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the
general glossary.
Mli\m~THU.~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12-no.ll Etym.: See in
the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general glossary.
Mli\m"A (subst. m.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 = E. II. 9. 1-2-3 avftp.
II Etym.: From the very ancient Palaeoslavic word "*mangia-" that
has no exact counterparts in the Indo-European languages; related to
the Goth. "manna" and the Old German "mann" Tacitus cites the
latinised form "Mannus" as the name of the mythic ancestor of the
German. See and Sanskrit "manu~/ manu-, manus-"= "man, human",
"husband" and Avestan "manus-" that derive from the Indo-European
"*man, *mon" (BER, IV, pp. 373-4; Vasmer, II, pp. 670-1) II Sign.:
"Man", "husband"
(BER, VI, pp. 212-5; Vasmer, III, pp. 465-6) II Sign.: "To engage", "to
choose"
HHR~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 =E. XVII. 41 xrop6:qnov. II
Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Field", real estate.
HHI.J.Ib. (adj.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1-no; Ust. 5, Nov. 6, Vars. 6 =E.
XVII. 22 e-6teA.ftc;; Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 = E. XVII. 29 1tEv'llc; and
ave-61topoc;. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*nistj'" related to the Indo-Euro-
pean "*nistya-" ="foreigner" (BER, IV, p. 666; Vasmer, III, p. 77) II
Sign.: "Poor", "unfortunate"
Ho~mAb- (subst. f.)-Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12-no; Ust. 16, Nov. 18,
Vars. 18 his (Ho~meto and Ho~m~MH = "forcibly, compulsorily") = E.
XVII. 1 ~ia (Ho'rmeto = ~i~t). rl Etym.: H~ Ab.MH where the consonant
dj > z. II Sign.: "Need", "necessity"; Instrumentalis: "forcibly, compul-
sorily" (Institutii feudale, pp. 441-2)
OCTfHI.J.IH /eM (verb)-Ust. 28, Nov. 30, Vars. 30 =E. XVII. 15 Koupe:6ro.
II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*strigti"; related to the Old German "strihhan"
and Goth. "strikes"= "strip", "free space". (Vasmer, III, p. 778) II Sign.:
"To cut the hair"; the word could designate a type of punishment but
mostly this refer to the monastic practice of tonsuring novices when
entering a monastery.
OCII\AHTH (verb)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a-no; Ust. 15, Nov. 17,
Vars. 17 = E. XVII. 41 Ka'taOtKa~ro; Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33-no.
II Etym.: See Cli\A'A in the general glossary. II Sign.: "To condemn", "to
convict", "to find guilty"
(adj.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10-no; Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars.
noRHHb.H'll.
12-no; Ust. 30, Nov. 32, Vars. 32 (noRHHb.H'll. npHC'I'fOHTH) =E. XVII.
17 a1tOKatacrtmn<;. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Sub-
ordinate", "obedient"
noR'tAI\TH (verb)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 ("to appeal", "to com-
plain") = E. XVII. 5 1tpomprov£ro. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*beda" < Indo-
European "*bhoidh-"; related to the Lithuanian "beda" and Lettish
"bcrda" = "concern, worry", "pain", Goth. "bajdjan" and Old German
"beitten" ="to force"; Old Albanian "*bhoidha" = "vow, oath", Latin
''fides" = "faith" and Greek 1teiero = "to convince" (BER, I, p. 39) II
Sign.: "To appeal", "to complain"
non"A (subst. M.)-Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 =E. XVII. 1 iepe-6~.11 Etym.:
See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Priest", "presbyter", "cleric"
IIfHG'I.IT'I.K'I. (subst.
m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 =E. XVIII. 1xpocr9111C!l·
II Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Income", "revenue" In
that citation the word is an exact translation of the Greek term. (Mak-
simovich, ZSL, pp. 67-8; Institutii Jeudale, pp. 163-4)
nyoAA.mA. (subst. f.)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a (to sell as slave)-no. II
Etym.: See nyoAA.TH in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Sale", transmis-
sion of property.
p~&'ll.
(subst. m.)-Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4-no; Ust. 18, Nov. 20, Vars.
20 =E. XIV. 2.1-2.2 oouA.o~; Ust. 25, Nov. 27, Vars. 27 tris =E. XVII.
176 CHAPTER ONE
fOAHTeAI:. (subst. m.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10-no; Ust. 18, Nov. 20,
Vars. 20 = E. XIV. 2.1-2.2 yove-6<;. II Etym.: See fOA'A in the general
glossary! II Sign.: "Parent", "father or mother"
CROGOAb.HH~'ll. (subst. m.)-Ust. 18, Nov. 20, Vars. 20 =E. XIV. 2.1-2.2
axeA.eu9epoc;. II Etym.: See CROGO~ in the general glossary! II Sign.:
"Free man"; the word could signify also "libertine", "former slave"
(Institutii Jeudale, pp. 180-1, 445; Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 47-50, 77)
CHA~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 =E. XVII. 5 ouvacr-reia. II
Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*sila", related to the Lithuanian "siela" = "soul,
spirit, sense", Old Prussian "noseilis" ="spirit", Old Icelandic "seilask" =
"to endeavour" (BER, VI, pp. 644-5; Vasmer, III, p. 621) II Sign.:
"Force" (Institutii Jeudale, pp. 441-2)
CTf~Hb.H'll.IH
(adj.)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 ("foreign", "alien",
"adversary")= E. VIII. 2 ex9p6c; (="foe, enemy"). II Etym.: See crrr~"~
in the general glossary! The meaning "alien" derives from "country"
> "who belongs to other country. (Vasmer, III, pp. 768, 771) II Sign.:
"Foreigner", "adversary", "foe, enemy" (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 48)
C'll.Rf'll.CTb. (subst. f.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1 cru~uyia.ll
Etym.: From the Indo-European root "*wergh-", borrowed in Albanian
as "verzellik" = "bracelet", related to the Lithuanian "wetZti" = "to tie"
(BER, I, pp. 188-9) II Sign.: "Connection", "matrimony, marriage"
C'll.R<tA<tTeAb. (subst. m.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2-no; Ust. 20, Nov. 22,
Vars. 22 =E. XIV. 8 ~ap-ruc; (C'll.R<tA<tTeAb CAO\J',X~ = ~ap-rupec; aKofiv).ll
Etym.: The verb C'll.R<tA<tTH < R<tAb. = "know1edge", "magic" and then
R<tA~TH ="to know" (BER, I, pp. 140-1, V, pp. 546-7; Vasmer, III,
p. 577) II Sign.: "Witness" See also noCAO\J',X'll.! (Institutii feudale, pp.
283-4, 289-90; Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 10d-1)
178 CHAPTER ONE
crz..R~A~Te.l\b.C'I'ROR~TH
(verb)-Ust. 20, Nov. 22, Vars. 22 tris =E. XIV.
8: 1) npocr~uxpwpero, 2) no, 3) J..Lapwpero. II Etym.: See crz..R~A~Te.l\1:.! II
Sign.: "To witness", "to testify" (Institufii feudale, pp. 289-90)
crz..'lb.T~HHte (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 (about the mat-
rimony) = E. II. 9. 1 O'U~t>yia. II Etym.: See C'l>'lb.T~TH! II Sign.: See
C'l>'lb.T~TH!
CII\AH!b. (subst. m.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2-no; Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a,
Vars. 2a-no; Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10-no; Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars.
33-no. II Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Judge" See in
the general glossary!
CII\A'l> (subst. m.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 bis CII\A'l> and
C'l>Cii\A'l>-no.ll Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Tribunal",
"court". See in the general glossary!
Cli\noC'I'~Trz..
(subst. m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 = E. XVIII.l €x,9p6c;.
IIEtym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Enemy", "adversary",
"foe".
GLOSSARY 179
TenerrH (verb)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 =E. XVII. 29 'ttm'tro; Ust. 13,
Nov. 15, Vars. 15 =E. XVII. 35 'tU1t'tro; Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 =E.
XVII. 5 oepro; Ust. 24, Nov. 26, Vars. 26 =E. XVII. 10 'tUx'tro; Ust. 26,
Nov. 28, Vars. 28 =E. XVII. 13 'tUx'tro; Ust. 28, Nov. 30, Vars. 30 =E.
XVII. 15 oepm.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*te(p)ti" ="to beat", "to strike"
Probably the origins of the word are related to the Uralic languages,
the root "*tap-"-"to beat"; Mordvinian "tapa-", Finnish "tappa-",
Hungarian "tap-", "top-", Nenets "tapa-" (Vasmer, IV, pp. 44-45) II
Sign.: "To beat", "to strike" a type of punishment. The appellation is
close to the Greek W1t'tro. (Institutii feudale, pp. 39-40)
TAm.a. (subst. f.)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a-no. II Sign.: "Dispute",
"complaint". ForK. Maksimovich the word is identical with m.yh\ but
I cannot accept that opinion because the two words are separated in
the text of the Law. (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 49)
0\j'&<krrz.. (subst./particip. m.)-U st. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 (who seeks asy-
h1m) =E. XVII. 11tpompeuyrov (see nyH&<krrz..l).ll Etym.: See nyH&<kr.a.TH
in the general glossary! II Sign.: The person seeking asylum.
180 CHAPTER ONE
of the Latin word "definitio" (directly adopted into English); thus the essence of a
thing is made evident by distinguishing it from similar things and phenomena
2 Ct: a book specially dealing with these issues by the late N. Nenovsky, Law and
Values (Nenovski, Pravo i tsennostl, Sofia, 1983), p. 91 ff; and esp. p. 100 ff.
LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY 185
3 Law regulates social relations, which are considered to be value: Nenovski, Pravo I
tsennosti, p. 102. It ensures order and organization in society-ibid, p. 102-3. It should
be pointed out that, according to Hans Kelsen, we cannot refer to value in law, a view
that is a logical corollary of his theory-ibid. p. 110 tf. From that type of axiological
perspective, law obtains its characteristic as a value from society and its culture, not
from the norm itself. I strongly believe that the position should be reversed if we take
the position of the absolute values and see in the norms an expression of God's will.
186 CHAPTER TWO
2.1
In a concrete historical context, and taking into account the impor-
tance of ethnic identity, we could characterise the example I shall give
as one of law as a factor of ethnic formation.
The emergence of a people, of an ethnos, takes place in different
historical times and in different ways. Particularly important for this
process in Europe was the time of the early Middle Ages, connected
with the impact of the Great Migration of Peoples. In any case, this is
not a biological process, although ethnicity is more strongly connected
with the tribe and kinship relations than is the nation, which emerged
in modern times. I am referring to the creation of a community with
a shared culture and to the development of shared identity based on
some formal ties, the most important of which seem to be the common
cult and the common political power, as well as-and I should stress
this-the shared normative system. The latter, as already pointed out,
is based on shared fundamental values that it defines and upholds in
imposing rules and thereby creating common and compulsory behav-
iour patterns in everyday life, in economic activity, at the higher levels
of public activity and authority, and even in deviant behaviour.
A particularly telling example in this respect is the text of one of the
Orkhon inscriptions, which I shall briefly present. Of course, it is not
Bulgarian in its origin, but dates back to the time of the great Turkic
(Tiurkiut) khaganate, which preceded the Bulgars (or Turkic-speaking
Prato-Bulgarians). Nevertheless, I believe this text could be taken as
a relevant source for the culture of early mediaeval Bulgarians, for it
is beyond doubt that the Bulgars of khan Asparukh originated from
within the enormous Turkic Empire. The inscription was made on
behalf of a khagan who relates the activity of his father, the preced-
ing ruler:' It states that he had started out with seventeen men. When
the people of towns and mountains heard about his heroic feats, they
gathered about him and so the number of followers grew to seventy.
The Heaven gave them added force, and the warriors of the old khagan
were like wolves, while their foes, like sheep. They continued to be
triumphant and soon numbered seven hundred. It was then that the
khagan organised the people and gave it decrees in accordance with
the rules of the ancestors.
2.2
The second example I shall refer to is from our time, though it
is strongly rooted in past ages. It is not from Bulgaria, but from a
6 Le Kanun de Leke Dukagjini, Tract. Chr. Gut, eel. Sht Gje~vi, Dukagjini Publish-
ing House, Peje, 2001.
LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY 189
felons. We should have no doubts that the state power in Albania had
been sufficiently strong for many decades, for it lay in the hands of
one of the most ferocious of totalitarian dictatorships. Far from desert-
ing its repressive functions, the Albanian regime was wont to perform
them most diligently, not only against its political opponents but also
against any kind of behaviour that deviated from the norms of the
regime. The act that starts the chain of revenge (usually a killing) is
certainly such behaviour.
Then what is it that determines the requirement for blood revenge?
Without dealing in detail with the problem, I shall point out some
characteristic traits that are closely related to our topic. Blood revenge
is connected with the kin-based society, and although the practice sur-
vived after tribal society and continues to exist in the pre-state and
early state forms of society, it remains something typical for the tribal
stage. One of the first concerns of the state is to eliminate blood ven-
geance and to substitute it with repression by the state, thus setting
the beginnings of law, specifically of penal law. Contemporary studies
show that the places where vendetta is still practiced are those parts of
the Mediterranean world 7 where strong kinship ties exist. As for the
western parts of the Balkan peninsula, there is an evidently strong and
permanent tendency to retribalisation, to a reversion to a tribe-based
organisation of society, a trend that began in the late Middle Ages and
at the dawn of the modern times, and is still continuing in one form
or another today.
Getting back to the concrete case of the Albanian elders and their
Kanun, we may say that they had been carrying out the duty of blood
revenge not because there is no other power to punish the criminal
and perform the function of social repression, but because this prac-
tice is an inseparable part of the solidarity maintained within their
groups, a solidarity that serves as a basis of their group identity. As
head of the group, the elder is responsible for the community and
must abide by certain norms himself if he is to demand from others
to obey norms in general.
7 Ch. Boehm, Blood Revenge. The Enactment and Management of Conflict in Mon-
tenegro and other Tribal Societies, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1987.
190 CHAPTER TWO
3.1
Law is the result of an expression of will that creates certain rules appli-
cable to certain circumstances and requires that these rules be obeyed
under threat of punishment. This expression of will is usually that of
the state, and is made through some state organ. As I already had the
occasion to point out, these rules are always regarded as values and are
related to basic civilisation values of society. It has become evident that
in pre-modern ages law was always connected with the divine, with
the will of gods, inasmuch as the divine lay in the core values of those
societies. For all that, law nearly always contains, to various degrees,
the idea of a pragmatic regulation of social relationships.
There are two big exceptions, which I would like to focus on: the
Jewish religion and Islam, which derived from Judaism. In the societ-
ies based on other religions, including Christian societies, law, though
it is connected to the divine, is the work of the state. In this sense, it
is a human creation and bears the imperfections of the visible world.
However, for the Jews law was an expression of God's will, disclosed to
people through Revelation. This first happened when Moses received
the Tables of the Law on Mount Sinai, and later with the coming into
direct legal effect of the normative texts of the Old Testament and
its interpretations. 9 Thus, law appears as the result of the will of the
Almighty, not an expression of human will. Law therefore possesses
the characteristics of the divine: it is immutable and perfect, not sub-
8 See also Naydenova D., "Die by:zantinischen Gesetze une ihre slavische Dberset-
zung im Ersten Bulgarische Reich", Scripta & e-Scripta, t. 3-4, 2006, p. 242 ff.
9 This power oflaw continues in the present-day state of Israel, and this explains
the specifics of the country's legal system. There the biblical law has direct effect and
is not amenable to amendment or revocation by the Knesset. For its part, the state
does not have a Constitution, for any constitutive law would become the basis for the
rest of the legislation, which would come into direct contradiction with the effect of
the biblical law.
LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY 191
ject to change; law is not subject to the intervention of society not only
as concerns the texts, but also even by their interpretation.
The situation is similar for Islamic religion. The Qur'an, the Revela-
tion of Muslims, is God's word, which comes from the Almighty and
was disclosed to the prophet Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel.
The Qur'an, together with the Sunnah, a supplement to the Qur'an, is
the main source of Sharia, i.e. Islamic law. Once again, we find that
a divine origin is ascribed to law, believed to be a direct expression
of divine will; and the result is similar to what we see in Jewish law:
law is a system of perfect and eternal rules, which are irrevocable and
unchangeable, and which cannot be acted upon by people. The state,
the ruler, society, can only create normative acts of a secondary order,
but these must not contradict in any way the norms of Revelation,
which represent God's requirements towards people.
Judaic and Islamic laws have one other common characteristic,
though it is expressed differently in the two: the direct connection
between obedience to the law and Divine protection or Salvation in the
eschatological aspect. The Jews are God's Chosen People, and as such,
they receive the Law as a result of the Testament with God. God's pro-
tection and the endowment of the Promised Land are contingent upon
observance of the requirements set down in the Testament. The Jewish
people lost God's protection and their land due to their lawlessness, as
the prophets asserted. This was the punishment for disobedience to the
Law; according to interpretations by some contemporary Judaic think-
ers, this punishment will be overcome only in an eschatological per-
spective. For Islam, salvation (which is transcendental and individual
that comes after death, and after the eschatological End of the world)
is directly connected to Sharia law and its observance. The salvation of
people is contingent upon obedience to God's will, equated with the law.
Thus, law proves to be a value not only in a cultural framework but also
for the essential eschatological perspectives of people. Law is not linked
to religion alone, yet is part of religion, and no distinction is essen-
tially made between religious and legal norms. The two are identical.
Amongst the monotheistic religions, only Christianity offers a differ-
ent view on law, making a strict distinction between the secular and the
sacred, as Hans Hattenhauer has argued convincingly and in detail. 10
3.2
The first example is from early Bulgarian history and hence permits
making a connection between the traditions of the Eurasian steppe
and those of the Mediterranean world. I am referring to events that
took place around the time of the Bulgarians' conversion to Christian-
ity, and described by Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, in a continuation
of the Bertiniani annales from AD 861 to AD 882; also to the Response
Seventeenth by Pope Nicholas I to the questions of khan Boris-Michael
I. Archbishop Hincmar gives an account of the motivation of the Bul-
garian ruler, of the rebellion of the boyars against him, and of God's
assistance for overcoming the rebellion and the triumph of the Chris-
tian faith.U This narrative gives us a framework of historical events for
the enormous change in the life of Bulgarians, which ultimately led to
Bertiniani annales, pars III, sub an. 866, Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
SS, t. I, pp. 473-4.
LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY 193
biblioteka, No 16, Sofia, 1922, p. 32-3: "lgitur referentes, qualiter divina dementia
Christianam religionem perceperitis, qualiterque populum vestrum baptizari omnem
feceritis: qualiter autem illi postquam bapti:zati fuere, insurrexerint unanimiter cum
magna ferocitate contra vos, dicentes, non bonam vos eis legem tradidisse. volentes
etiam vos occidere, et regem alium constituere, et qualiter vos, divina cooperante
potentia, adversus eos praeparatl, a maximo usque ad modicumsuperaveritis, et mani-
bus vestris detentos habueritis, qualiterque omnes primates eorum., atque maiores
cum omni prole sua gladio fuerint interempti; mediocres vero, seu minores, nihil mali
pertulerint.. .".
13 Zlatarski V. N., Istorija na bulgarskata darzhava prez srednite vekove, t I I 2,
Sofia, 1971, p. 73.
194 CHAPTER TWO
holy brothers Cyril and Methodius to Great Moravia, and their activity
there in the legal sphere, should likewise be viewed. 14 In this way the
two possible ways of interpreting the term "law" in the papal text-
the religious and the legal way-could be made to coincide. There is
hardly anything more powerfully formative of identity than religion
("re-ligio" comes from "re-ligare", the maintenance and determining
of the ties which create the community and through which an individ-
ual determines, defines himself) and "law" in the broad sense, which
determines the rules of conduct, which, in turn, make it possible for
an individual to be part of the community.
I would like to stress that, in my opinion, both written law and legal
custom have this kind of significance. I would not risk giving priority
to one of them over the other. Tradition, custom, is simply the living
identity transformed into a norm, while the written norm, introduced
by an act of governance in a specific sphere of authority, asserts iden-
tity, creates a new identity (sometimes perceived as a "return back
to our roots"), or imposes affiliation to already existing communities.
Such was the case of the Evangelisation of the Bulgarians at the time
of Khan Boris-Michael I.
3.3
The next text to which I would like to draw the reader's attention pro-
vides a very good opportunity for connecting together the idea of law,
Old Testament images, and the Christian faith. The text is all the more
important as it has a direct bearing on the activity of St. Cyril and St.
Methodius for the dissemination of Christianity and for literature in
the Slavic tongue and the beginnings of Slavic law.
I am referring to the long Life of St. Cyril, where we read: "Rostis-
lav, the prince of Moravia, at an inspiration from God, took counsel
with his princes and with the Moravians and sent [emissaries] to the
Emperor Michael, conveying to him these words: "Our people has
renounced paganism and follows the Christian law (my italics-!. B.;
no xpicTi~HCI~'l>IH ce ~~~~oHrz.. Afb.meij.liHMb.), but we have no such mas-
ter who can teach us in our own tongue the true Christian faith, so
that other lands, when they see this, should do as we have. That is
14 Important in this connection is the work ofPapastates, who puts a special emphasis
on the legal aspect of the activity of St Method.ius and St. Cyril in Great Moravia-
d. X.. Ilwracnru;9Ti (Papastathis) To voJlolknrrov EfYYOV rij~ 1(1)p!UoJle8o6uxvfi~
{epwrocnoMj~ ev MeraA.n Mopa{J{f!, eecmaA.ovt<;KTJ, 1978.
LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY 195
why, lord, send us such a bishop and teacher, for the law that com~
from you is always a good one for all countries (my italics-I. B.; R~ w
GW H~ R'l>Ce C'l'p~H'I.I AOGfb. ~~KOHb. HC)(OAHTb.)'." 15 Further on there is
an account of how the basileus assigned the mission to St. Cyril, who
agreed to go, but only if their language had an alphabet. Michael III
answered that the rulers of Constantinople had long striven to make
one, but had not succeeded, and only a scholar such as him could
achieve this for the victory of the Christian faith. Thus, he undertook
it, and with God's help created an alphabet and started his work by
translating the Gospel words that in the beginning was the Word.
This episode is rich in information and many different interpreta-
tions have been given of it, some of which are about the importance
itself of the mission of the brothers St. Cyril and St. Methodius in
Great Moravia in the context of the Byzantine Empire's cultural and
religious policy towards the Slavs. 16 Our interest here is focused on the
relation between "law" and "faith" -the connection between the two is
demonstrated in an exceptionally interesting way in the quoted text.
Although it seems to be a very clear text, there is no single opinion in
academic literature regarding its interpretation.
For instance, Josef Vasica accepts the narrative without any criti-
cal perspective and literally, believing it shows the holy brothers were
instructed to compile the Law for Judging People, using the Ecloga as
a basis. 17 Of course, this interpretation fits in perfectly with the efforts
of this scholar to prove the Moravian origin of the Law for Judging
People. Moreover, he finds a direct correspondence between the text
of the long Vita of St. Methodius and the text of the Law; he sees a
connection in the part of the text that refers to the epistle sent by
Prince Rostislav to Michael III and including the following words:
"To AO&f'tH RAKo, nocuH T~Krz. u~mb., Hme Hrz.l Hcnr~RHTb. Rb.CK~
nf~Rb.Aof· 18 The similarity to article 1 of Law for Judgi9-g People is
obvious: nreme R'M'tKOh\ nr~RA'I.I AOCTOHHO leC'J'b. 0 GHH nf~RA't
rA~TH" (the quote is from the text of the oldest extant copy of Law for
15 Kliment Okhridski, Stlbrani stlchinenija, t. III, Sofia, 1973, p. 104; Stara bulgarska
t. 4, p. 72.
196 CHAPTER TWO
Judging People). 19 Not taking sides in the issue concerning the possible
Moravian origin of the Law for Judging People, I should say I doubt
there is such a direct loan. I also doubt Vasica's other conclusion, that
the Moravians requested from the Empire not so much a preacher
of the Christian faith as a capable legal expert to prepare the laws of
the land. 20
I think it is obvious that, in all these cases, the Christian religion is
designated in the text as "law" This, of course, is not only a reference
to personal faith but also to the comprehensive complex of religious
elements, including a robust ecclesiastical organisation, the liturgy, and
all relevant practices, rules, and norms. Thus, we see that, for people of
pre-modern times, religion, which was their most significant criterion
of identity, was designated in terms of "law", precisely because law was
related to the fundamental values of society.
3.4
All this directs our attention to the oldest Slavic code, the Law for
Judging People, in which we find passages that complement our obser-
vations relevant to our topic. I mean the multiple references to "God's
law" in the text; here I shall discuss some of them.
In article 2 of Law, the phrase "God's law" occurs three times; and
"fear of God", once. 21 This text concerns the regulation concerning
testimonies by witnesses and has no direct correspondence to title 17
of the Ecloga. In the first case, it is said that the lawsuit should not be
heard and decided without witnesses. Turning to the Old Testament,
we see that testimonies by witnesses, in the legal sense, are mentioned
several times there. Asserted in Leviticus is the duty for everyone to
testify to what he knows and has seen (Leviticus, 5:1). More than one
witness is required when a murder is being investigated (Numbers,
35:30). The same rule applies to those who practice a different religion:
for them to be sentenced to death there must be more than one wit-
ness to their crime (Deuteronomy, 17:6). In Deuteronomy, we find the
requirement for more than one witness and the regulation concerning
3.5
I would like to indicate a few quotations from the so-called Anony-
mous Homily in the Codex Clozianus. "God's Law" or "the holy divine
law of Jesus Christ"25 is mentioned several times, meaning by this, at
least in some cases, Holy Scripture. C. Papastathes points this out, and
emphasises that some of the quotations refer not to specific Bible texts
but to an older law text based on the Bible and evidently quite familiar
to the compiler of the homily. 26 According to Papastathes, this older
text was the Law for Judging People-such is his general thesis. We
shall deal with these problems elsewhere; here I would like to point out
once again the use of the term "law" for indicating the Bible and the
resulting diffusion between religion and law.
There is no doubt that the text itself permits such usage, for it refers
to legally regulated relations. Such are the relations regulating mar-
riage, and especially obstacles to it and its annulment, and also the
relations connected to a ban on pagan practices and prayers. Both cases
fall under spheres directly associated with religion and it is natural that
they find support for their regulations in the Bible. But in any case, we
should not neglect the fact that the Bible itself is called "God's Law" in
the Homily, and this fact is a continuation of the thesis presented in
the Law for Judging People.
Thus, we see that the mediaeval Slavonic texts provide a good founda-
tion for seeking the link between religion, which supplied the basic
values forming identity during that age, and norms, in particular law,
based on those values and aiming to impose and preserve them. From
a historical perspective, having in mind "custom" and "customary
law", the norm first appears as an instituting of the values themselves,
and a way of life based on them, as a rule that is obligatory and leans
on repression but also on the awareness that law is a value. The written
law came later and it replaced custom only to some degree. Neverthe-
less, what is the difference between the two?
On one hand there is an evident difference contained in the name
itself: the specification "written" We may thus reach the conclusion
that the "writing down" of law is the fact that assigns it to "written
law" and distinguishes it from "custom" Obviously, this conclusion
could not lead us to a distinction we are in search of. Of course, cus-
tomary law, just like any other "law", consists of "norms", and every
norm, being a generally valid rule of conduct, has its linguistic form.
I mean it cannot be expressed but in some language. It is a text that
27 They are precisely the topic of the first volume of Valentin Georgescu's study on
Roman law penetrated into various societies and its reception during
the Middle Ages (in the Latin, Greek and Slavic tongues) and in mod-
ern times, when it was extended not only to Europe but practically to
the whole world in a great variety of languages.
The particularities of a language determine the particularities of the
professional jargons used in all the spheres of human activity, particu-
larly the sphere of law. This includes not only special terminology but
also the special meanings of words that are otherwise part of a com-
mon vocabulary, and also the particular constructions and formula-
tions characteristic for legal language down to this day. It is evident,
for instance, that in aiming for clarity and avoiding ambiguous mean-
ings, legal language is more conservative and includes specific words
and syntactic forms that are not typical for everyday speech.
I already had the occasion to stress that both written and custom-
ary laws represent cultural, civilisational markers. This study will
be focused only on written law in the context of its reception from
Roman/Byzantine law in mediaeval Bulgaria. In this connection I
should go back to the problem of "novelty" as a characteristic of writ-
ten law. It is an important trait that could provoke certain misunder-
standings. Novelty is a quality that is estimated according to the basic
cultural values of the respective civilisation model. Our contemporary
civilisation values novelty, discovery, invention, and the kind of cre-
ative human activity that creates things that did not exist previously.
In the past, such a positive attitude to the new was not always clearly
present. According to the view that the world is the work of a divine
Ancestor-Creator or Cultural Hero, or is the work of divine Providence
in the Judeo-Christian tradition, human creative endeavour is defined
in a different way. It consists of the discovery of already existing real
things that are the fruit of the extra-temporal and extra-spatial activity
in the framework of the cosmogonical myth or of the activity of the
Creator according to the Bible. That is how every "legislative creation"
or "novelty" in law was given meaning. That is precisely what made
possible a given legal system or even a concrete normative text to be
declared a "ratio scripta" (,written reason"), and every "amendment"
to be justified not as a novelty but as a discovery of the authentic will
of the predecessors in the past. Such is the argument when by the
act of imposing the norms of "written law" it is claimed that the true
will of the Creator has been revealed; or when the new law is presented
as part of the cycle of recurrence, of the repeated "occurrence" of the
cosmogonical myth.
LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY 201
based on, became the official and liturgical language, though it differed
to some degree considerably from the spoken Slavic tongues of the
time. The way this new cultural language was created is not without
importance-namely, through translations of the Bible, of various
ecclesiastic and legal texts from Greek. These sources had a strong
impact on the nature and subsequent development of the language,
which became part of the cultural development of mediaeval Bulgaria;
of course, this development was not due to the work of St. Cyril and
St. Methodius alone, but to the whole and continuous influence of the
Empire.
Mediaeval Bulgaria was part of the Orthodox (or Byzantine) Com-
monwealth, and this was an essential feature of its culture and of its
history. The language did not separate it from, but in a way integrated
it with, Byzantine culture. Bulgarian literature consisted of a prevalent
number of translated Greek works, and the literary language followed
the original model in some degree or another. This trend began in
Great Moravia and continued, and even intensified, in Bulgaria, both
in Preslav and in the south-western parts of the state. The Cyrillic
alphabet, which was in fact an adaptation of the Greek alphabet and
came as a substitute for the Glagolitic letters, which were further from
the Greek original, was only an outward mark of this trend.
In the legal sphere the reception was obvious, as was obvious its
political-cultural character. Unfortunately, it is rather problematic for
historical science to ascertain the presence of most mediaeval legal
texts in Bulgaria. I am referring to the fact that they are not very wide-
spread in the manuscript tradition, which has caused some scholars,
mostly Russian ones, to cast doubt on whether some laws were at all
received into the Bulgarian legal system. This is not the topic of the
present study, but I shall make a note concerning the nature of the
reception oflaw in Bulgaria. We may pose the question to what degree
the compiled or translated Byzantine laws were applied in Bulgaria.
This is an exceptionally complicated and delicate problem due to the
lack of sources, and I shall not attempt to give a definitive answer.
I already remarked that the laws are not only a regulator of social
relations but an identity marker, for they are a value that serves to
protect the foundation of a society. These characteristics of law are
expressed in unity, but under specific historical circumstances, they
can be divided. Thus, law is a value and protects society and social
relations in its capacity as regulator, and as such, law is a marker of
affiliation to a civilisation. However, the declaration made by a govern-
LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY 203
ment that it will follow a certain norm could serve as such a marker
regardless of whether the regulation is actually observed in public life.
This could find expression in the promulgation of a law that has a
purely ideological importance regardless of its actual application. It
is much like the minting of jubilee coins, which in practice are not a
means of payment but serve to glorify the rulers or to celebrate some
event. This practice-whether it be purposeful or not-can be found
to exist in past ages and in our times alike (for instance the passing
of certain laws for the purpose of the country's integration into the
European Union or the inclusion of the declaration of human and
civil rights in the constitutions of states with dictatorial regimes, etc.).
Inasmuch as we defined law as a marker of identity, it could be used
precisely as such. With regard to Bulgaria, this may have taken the
form of promulgation of compiled or translated Byzantine laws for the
purpose of affirming or proclaiming the imperial nature of the ruler's
power. This is a characteristic feature of the political and state ideology
of the country during the time of Symeon, who took the title of tsar.
He not only declared himself to be a ruler equal to the one in Con stan-
tinople, but also a basileus of the Rhomaioi, meaning of the Romans,
and thereby indicated the universal character of his power. In the spe-
cific historical context of these events, such a pretension could only be
justified through Christianity and the Roman legacy. Law was certainly
an essential component of this legacy and as such, it penetrated into
mediaeval Bulgaria through the mediation of Constantinople. Thus,
the reception of Roman/Byzantine law was effectuated with a view to
introducing a new regulation of relationships in the renewed society
but also for emphasising the Roman/Byzantine heritage of the power
of the Bulgarian tsars. Of course, this is only one possible explanation
for this reception of law. 29
Therefore, we saw that language and professional jargon, but also
law, are equally identity characteristics of every civilisation. The pres-
ent study aims to clarify this aspect of interrelations between language
and law based on a study of the legal vocabulary of the mediaeval
Bulgarian state.
stvo", Istorichesko badeshte, IX, 2005, 1-2, p. 163) advanced the idea that some ofthe
laws could be examined more as literary works than as legal texts.
CHAPTER THREE
supreme state offices. No such has been preserved, but most probably
no such existed. Power relations were regulated by tradition and, dur-
ing the Christian age, likewise by the desire to follow foreign models,
particularly those of Constantinople. The organisation of the supreme
state institutions, their creation and way of functioning, must have
been effectuated according to the will of the ruler, who took into
account these foreign models.
It appears obvious to me that the vocabulary related to power is
relevant to the topic of this study, as likewise that public law belongs
to the legal sphere, and I do not think it necessary to specially justify
the inclusion of the topic in my present research. I think it obvious
that the public sphere was regulated and that its regulation was of a
legal nature. This is implied in the indivisible link existing between
statehood and law. My present historical, albeit interdisciplinary, work
is devoted to the vocabulary of state power and public law in a specific
age and country-mediaeval Bulgaria-and it is quite natural that the
circle of problems related to the institutions of supreme power should
be particularly relevant to this work.
Presented in my discussion are terms and words from this field,
but due to the wide scope of this sphere and its insufficiently precise
definition, the glossary to some degree loses its systematic quality. The
glossary encompasses a wider range of terms as well as many epithets
and verbs, all of them connected with power and the exercising of
power, but with various degrees of concreteness and legal relevance.
This is the cause of a certain amorphousness here, which we shall try
to overcome by systematising the lexemes based on their respective
types. Of course, greater attention will be devoted to terms included
in the legal sphere of state power and to the logic of constructing legal
and professional language in this particular legal sphere.
The glossary contains more than one hundred and thirty words related
to state power, the great majority of which figure in the main glossary;
while only a dozen or so, in the glossary for the Law for Judging People;
most of the latter appear likewise in the main glossary. This is under-
standable, for the Law does not regulate matter related to supreme
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 207
power, which is the topic of this chapter. The Slavic terms are more
than fifty in number, the Greek ones, directly borrowed and transliter-
ated, are also about fifty, and an equal number of words are calques
from Greek. About thirty words are translations from Greek. About fif-
teen are of other origin, and of these, two thirds are cited as Germanic
loan words, due to the origin of the word "tsar" and its derivatives.
But this last is a rather tentative grouping, for the term "tsar" has been
completely Slavicised and assimilated as a proper Slavic word into the
Slavic language; in any case it does not indicate any Gothic influence
on the Bulgarian public law vocabulary. We also have two terms that
originated from the languages of the people of the Eurasian steppe:
one is the Bulgar chertog, and the other is from Mongol-horugva.
There is one word of Georgian origin-pechat. These three words are
obviously an exotic set and do not define the mediaeval Bulgarian legal
vocabulary related to supreme state power.
In systematising and dividing the terms included in this chapter into
types we obtain three basic groups: words related to the institution of
ruler in Bulgaria; words designating supreme central state institutions
other than that of the ruler (collective ones or other); words related
to other (not that of tsar or foreign institutions) positions of rule; and
words connected to the idea of power and exercise of power. The larg-
est part of these categories constitutes the vocabulary connected with
the monarchic institution. It comprises about sixty words, which can
be subdivided into four sub-groups. The names of the institution of
ruler are nine in number, of which one is Slavic, two are translated
from Greek, two are calques, and four are royal appellations that we
may tentatively classify as of German-Latin origin. The epithets refer-
ring to the monarchic institution are twenty in number, of which
three are Slavic, three are translated, twelve are calques, and two are
of German origin; there is none of Greek origin. We have nine units
related to inheritance of the throne, which is an essential element of
the monarchic institution. Of them, five are Slavic, one is Greek, and
two are calques of Greek terms. Finally, we have twenty-one words
designating things connected with the power of the ruler. Of them, six
are Slavic, five are Greek, two are translated from the Greek, two other
are calques of Greek words, and six are of miscellaneous origins. Of
these six, three are Germanic in origin but very well assimilated by the
Slavs, one is Georgian, and two come from the Eurasian steppe-one
being of Mongol origin and one most probably of Bulgar origin.
208 CHAPTER THREE
1 Bobchev S. S., "Knjaz ili tsar Boris?", Bulgarska sbirka, XIV, 5, 1907, pp. 309-19;
Balaschev G., "Titlite na starobulgarskite gospodari", Minalo, I, 1909/1910, pp. 84-5;
Radoslavov Tsv., "Titlite na bulgarskite vladeteli", Izvestlja na bulgarskija arkheolo-
gicheski institut, V, 1928/1929, p. 161.
210 CHAPTER THREE
pp. 19-21.
6 Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii, pp. 229-31.
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 211
Symeon on the list are called "tsars" The rulers of the pagan period
were obviously not "princes", nor did Boris-Michael have to become
one. The explanation is that this was simply the most appropriate term
for translating the Turkic "khan" ("kan", "kana", etc.), so that is how
the title was rendered in the Slavic texts. 7 In summary, we may say
there was no change of ruler title, while knjaz (prince) is just a transla-
tion of the old Bulgar appellation.
3.1.2
The term U.b.fb. (tsar) comes from the Latin Caesar and in this form-
U.~CAfb.-the Slavs borrowed it from the Goths, probably when they
were living in proximity to them in the Southern Russian Steppes. The
term retained the meaning of emperor's title, which it officially became
for the first time in Bulgaria in the early lOth century, at the time of
tsar Symeon. The Greek pronunciation of the Latin Caesar is Katcrap,
which passed into Bulgaria as l~eC4\fb. (kesar) and is the word almost
uniquely used with reference to the Roman emperors in biblical texts,
or in the special meaning of highest title (but not the ruler's) in the
Byzantine title system until the 11th century. 8
Some language experts believe that the pronunciation of the word as
U.~CAfb. was preserved for a relatively long time in the Slavic language
in Bulgaria-in any case, until the end of the First Bulgarian Empire.
Some believe it continued even during the Second Empire and even in
the time of tsar John Sratsimir. 9 Not counting some obviously unten-
able assertions, which were criticised by Ivan Bozilov,10 we should say
the question remains open. Coming in support of the view that the
word was pronounced U.~C4\fb., is the way it is written out in full (with-
out abbreviations and titles) in the Codex Suprasliensis, which obvi-
ously indicates the use of such a pronunciation; but we should bear in
mind that the dating of the manuscript is of an early age that raises no
debate. This is the sense in which a quotation from the chronicle ofJ ohn
Scylitzes may be understood, in which he writes that, at the unforeseen
attack by the emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonos against the Bulgarian
7 Tsvetan Radoslavov believed that the title of Bulgarian rulers before Symeon was
"khan" or "prince", which are equivalent to the Latin "rex" (Radoslavov, "Titlite na
bulgarskite vladeteli", p. 162).
8 Biliarsky, "Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", p. 54 tf.
9 Daskalova, Rajkova, Gramoti, p. 16.
10 B<>Zilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", pp. 42-4.
212 CHAPTER THREE
11 Skylitzes-Cedrenus, Historia, ed. Bonn. P. 466 13 _14; Dujcev, "Vlirkhu njakoi bul-
3.1.3
The term KfMb. ("Kpan", kral, king, rex) is also similar in a certain
sense to the examples given above; it represents a title constructed
by the Slavic peoples on the basis of the name of the Frankish king
and emperor of the restored Roman Empire, Charlemagne. This fact
indicates an interesting development in the Slavs' idea of power; though
214 CHAPTER THREE
3.1.4
Particularly worthy of attention is the term c~MOAfb.mM.J,b. (samodrzhets,
autocrat), which is a calque of the Greek word a:i:rtOlcpa'trop. This term
shows most clearly the Byzantine views on the universal power of
the basileis. According to the study by George Ostrogorsky, it has a
different meaning in the various Slavic countries of the "Byzantine
Commonwealth"Y Thus, in Serbia samodrzhets denotes the indepen-
dence of the ruler from alien power, while in Russia it signifies his
unlimited power within the country. G. Ostrogorsky did not specially
discuss the meaning of the term samodrzhets in the Rumanian lands.
The use of the word there-similar to that in Serbia and Russia before
the 16th century-was in drastic contradiction with its initial, origi-
nal Byzantine meaning. The rulers of Walachia and Moldavia had no
imperial title and hence could not be autocrats. Nevertheless, the term
did exist and was used in those principalities with reference to their
rulers since a very early time (14th to 15th century), before the Empire
had fallen completely into the hands of the Osmanli conquerors. This
means the influence upon the lands north of the Danube was not quite
indirect. This issue is not a concrete goal of our study, so here I shall
only mention that in Walachia and Moldavia the meaning of the term
was probably similar to that in mediaeval SerbiaY Unlike the above-
mentioned examples, in mediaeval Bulgaria the term had the precise
Roman/Byzantine meaning, indicating that the basileus "holds by him-
self" the entire power of the Oecumene, being placed by the Celestial
King Jesus Christ to rule the visible world and prepare the Salvation of
people. This conclusion is consistent with the whole tendency of medi-
aeval Bulgarian culture, which strove to repeat the Empire not only in
the political field, but also in nearly all areas of the life of society.
In Bulgaria, the title of samodrzhets was particularly widespread
during the Second Empire, but its earliest use is connected with the
age of tsar Samuel and his heirs. 14 It was first mentioned in the Bitolja
inscription of tsar John Vladislav, 15 a fact that testifies to its quite early
reception in Bulgaria. In view of the fact that even in the Empire it
became established as late as the lOth century, the presence of the
word in that inscription of the second decade of the 11th century is
highly significant as regards the culture and political ideology of the
country. In any case, for us the important thing was that, in order to
designate a Byzantine reality and transplant it to the Bulgarian land, a
Greek word was borrowed and a calque of it was formed that not only
repeated the original, but was meant to be comprehensible in a Slavic
speaking environment.
3.1.5
The term "rom.lAHH'I./rocnOAb.fb." [gospodin/gospodar = lord, ruler]
could be viewed as a translation of the Greek term aueeVTllc;, and
in some cases of ri>pwc; or Bc.cr1t6-trtc;, and corresponds to the Latin
dominus. This is because the word had many different usages. It could
simply mean a respectful term with which to address or to designate
a person of high authority, but a term without any concrete institu-
tional connotation. It could also be the title of a ruler. It is as such
that we see it was used in some of the small states in the Serbian lands
as well as in the Romanian principalities Walachia and Moldavia. In
these cases, it had a precise institutional meaning, which the Byzantine
term aueev't'llc; did not, for the latter was used to designate the ruler
14 Here I will not dwell on the issue regarding the stone inscription containing the
term we are discussing and dating from the time of the decline of the First Bulgarian
Empire; there are many and justified suspicions as to the authenticity of this inscrip-
tion. One supporter of its veracity as a source was the eminent Bulgarian linguist and
scholar of mediaeval culture Ivan Dobrev (Dobrev Iv., Dva Tsarsamuilovi nadpisa
[=Altbulgarische Studien. Beitriige zur Kultur-, Literatur-, Sprach-, und Kunstge-
schichte Bulgariens. Bd 6]. Linz, 2007, pp. 443-500).
15 Zaimov J., Bitolski nadpis na Ivan Vladislav, samoditrzhets bulgarski. Starobulgar-
ski pametnik ot 1015-1016 g., Sofia, 1970; Mosin VL, "Bitoljska plocha iz 1017 godine",
Makedonski jazik, Skopje, XVII, 1966, pp. 51-61.
216 CHAPTER THREE
3.2. Epithets referring to the ruler and his power in the mediaeval
Bulgarian legal vocabulary
The praise of the ruler is essential to the religious meaning attached to
him, a meaning that during the age under study was inseparable from
the notions regarding the nature of his power and his legal position. 16
The ruler's status, his authority and his power, were defined and legiti-
mised through a religious interpretation according to which he was set
in his position by God and derived his power and authority from the
Heavenly King. Inasmuch as no treatise or other source has been pre-
16 On the praise of the ruler during the Middle Ages and its importance, cf.
E. Kantorovicz, Laudes regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler
Worship, Berkley-Los Angeles, 1946.
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 217
three parts (Kava, rtptXt and &uwo), and translated these as "the prince
of tomorrow". 19 If we accept this reading, we shall see it has nothing in
common with the subsequent tradition. After the Conversion the reli-
gious basis of power changed drastically, but I do not believe that the
way the heir in the ruling family was determined also changed. It was
just the way the choice of heir was grounded that became different.
The Second Empire did not inherit the traditions of the First with
respect to the supreme power (except for the title of tsar and Syme-
on's idea of empire) or other institutions but adopted the Byzantine
model. Nevertheless, this is not so obvious in the area of inheritance
of power. In retracing the historical events following the renovation of
the Empire by the Asen brothers, we see a rather confusing picture of
the inheriting of the throne. In any case, the data do not provide a clear
testimony that there was an established order of succession of power
from father to son. The first three rulers were brothers, and while the
case of John I Asen and Peter does not pose a problem due to the
specific circumstances of the event, Kalojan assumed the throne even
though there were living sons of his elder brother. 20 After Kalojan's
death, the throne was assumed by his nephew after a serious internal
crisis in the family, which grew into a war, although Kalojan had a
son named Bethlehem, whose fate is not quite clear for historians. 21
The very fact that nearly all cousins strove for the throne, and two of
the sons of John I Asen escaped toRus', indicates that the succession
was not fully regulated or at least was not clearly determined as pass-
ing from father to son. Here we shall not discuss the sad end of tsar
Boril's reign, but I should point out that the first occasion when power
passed to the son of the preceding, deceased ruler was in the case of
tsar Koloman I.22 Henceforth until the end of the Bulgarian state at the
end of the 14th century, succession from father to son occurred only
19 Georgiev P., "Olovni pechati ot manastira pri Ravna, Provadijsko", in: Izvestija
na Narodnija muzej-Varna, 26 (41), 1990, pp. 103-7. See also Georgiev P., "Titlata i
funkciite na bulgarskija prestolonaslednik", Istoricheski pregled, 1992, 8/9, pp. 3-12.
20 Boiilov lv., Gjuzelev V., Istorija na Bulgarija VII-XIV vek, Sofia, 1999 (= Isto-
rija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. 1), pp. 435-6, 441 ff.; Bo:iilov lv., Familijata na Asenevtsi
(1186-1460). Genealogija i prosopografija, Sofia, 1985, No 1-3, p. 27 ff.
21 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 465-8; Bo:iilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No
10, pp. 94-5.
22 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, p. 501; Bo:iilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No 18,
pp. 104-5.
220 CHAPTER THREE
four times: tsar Smilets was inherited by his son John, 23 tsar George II
Terter inherited the throne from his father Theodore Svetoslav,24 tsar
John Stephen inherited his murdered father tsar Michael III Shish-
man Asen in 1330,25 and tsar John Shishman inherited his father tsar
John Alexander-as he was not the first-born son, this act provoked
an open conflict in the family. 26 To these observations, we may add
certain facts related to the concrete cases, which would bolster the
claim that there was no set rule for father-to-son succession to the
throne, and, probably no firmly established rules for legitimisation
of the succeeding ruler. Apparently, the only rule was connected with
the charisma of the dynasty, specifically of the Asen dynasty. I believe
the most typical variant of procedure among those registered in the
sources was the preliminary co-opting to power of the son or sons
of the ruler while the father was still living. In fact, this was a typical
Byzantine practice.
How should we interpret all this? Is it possible for a state to have no
established rules for succession to power? If this was indeed the case
in Bulgaria, what was the reason?
The search for an answer to these questions leads us to seeking par-
allels with practices in other states and cultures. Here we shall not
consider the Old Testament tradition, which generally views monar-
chy with mistrust, perceiving it as a rival of theocracy and of the direct
power of the Lord God over His people. The order of inheriting power
is practically not regulated in Islamic countries either, inasmuch as in
the Qur'an and in the Sunnah there is no strictly established rule for
this matter. In general, the monarchic order in these countries was
quite problematic from a legal perspective. For this reason the Otto-
man Empire, for instance, never had an established rule of succession
to the throne, apart from the requirement that the heir had to be part
of the Osman family, or, in case the family expired, the heir was to
be from the family of the Crimean Tartar khans, i.e. from the Giray
dynasty.
23 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 540-2; B<>Zilov lv., "Belezhki vil.rkhu bulgar-
skata istorija prez XIII vek'', in: Bulgarski Srednovekovie. Bulgaro-savetski sbornik v
chest na 70-godishninata na prof Ivan Dijcev, Sofia, 1980, pp. 78-81.
24 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 554-6.
25 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 574-5; Bozilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No 26
M 29, pp. 119-34 and 139-42.
26 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, p. 501; Bozilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No 33,
40, 44, pp. 149-78, 197-210, 224-33.
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 221
There was an entirely different reason for the lack of a rule for suc-
cession in the Byzantine Empire: there it was assumed de iure that
power was not inherited. Constantinople, the New Rome, never
renounced the traditions of the Old Rome, including its republican
legacy. The Empire never became a real monarchy in the sense of the
term in later ages, but neither can we call it a true republic, at least
not in the modern sense. The power of the basileus from a legal view-
point was not hereditary, and since the aim had always been to ensure
factual succession, various means were found for defeating the choice
made in principle by the Senate, the people, and the army. Since the
importance of the dynasty for legitimising power became increasingly
great, especially after the iconoclastic epoch, co-opting sons into power
became an increasingly important device. The mechanism was very
simple and widely used in early mediaeval Europe: the ruling father
during his lifetime co-opted his son and bestowed on him the respec-
tive imperial or royal title. Thus after the father's death there was no
need to choose a ruler, for there already was one, and all he needed to
do at that point was to gain factual power, inasmuch as he already had
the title. In the Empire, this practice was quite familiar and has been
documented in the sources. Of course, this is merely the technique
for transference of power. The ideal basis of all this lies in the thesis
of the divine origin of the ruler's power. This power actually belongs
to God, Who temporarily cedes it to the earthly vicar. This cession is
always the result of some special grace and charisma, and cannot be
defined by earthly, fortuitous events such as birth. It always occurs at
His will, which is not constrained by facts or actions. The latter have
some importance only as the means by which the will of God is made
evident to the people. This charisma, its reception and transmission,
can be defined in different ways, but its essence was always the same
for the Byzantine political doctrine.
Were things similar in Bulgaria?
There can be no doubt that in mediaeval Bulgaria there were dynas-
ties and a way of thinking in terms of dynasty, there were charismatic
families. During the First Empire, this way of thinking partially origi-
nated in the importance-traditional for the Steppe-of clans, as very
clearly displayed in the List of the Bulgar Princes. This attitude per-
sisted after the Conversion to Christianity not only within the ruling
family in Greater Preslav, but with the Comitopouloi dynasty as well,
and even after AD 1018. During the second Empire charisma was pos-
sessed above all by the Asen dynasty, which dominated the political life
222 CHAPTER THREE
27 About this dynasty and the affiliation of the Shishmans to it, ct: BoZilov, Famili-
jata na Asenevtsi, passim.
28 BoZilov Iv., "Ivan I Asen i Stefan Nemanja-Sv. Simeon: rodonacalnitsi dve
30 There is a comparatively rich store of literature on the law related to the anoint-
ment of the ruler. Here I will only quote those which present the legal viewpoint by
the literature they refer to: E. Kutsch, Sal bung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und
im Alten Orient, Berlin, 1963; lv. Biliarsky, "Mutaberis in virum alium. Observations
sur certains problemes juridiques, lies a l'onction royale", Ius et Ritus. Rechtshisto-
rische Abhandlungen iiber Ritus, Macht und Recht, Sofia, 2006, pp. 83-125.
224 CHAPTER THREE
3.4.1
The first of these sub-groups refers to the name of the state over which
the ruler's power extends. Here I should mention first of all the term
ArbmMA (drzava = state) itself, which represents a translation of the
Greek Kpho~. The word is derived from the verb ArbmATH, which,
specifically in the legal sphere related to the exercise of power, is a
31 Dagron, "Ne dans la pourpre", pp. 105-42; Andreev J., "Tituliit 'bagrenorodni' na
3.4.2
The second sub-group includes insignia; here we may place words
like &~Hb.U.b. (wreath), AHb.AHUb. (diadem), mb.~A'l> (sceptre), nytC'J'OA'l>
(throne), CKHrrrpo (sceptre), _xopsr&b. (banner), &b.Pf~HHL.J.b. (bagrenitsa
= purple mantel), as well as the names of other objects not present in
the glossary (the cross, the globe, red shoes, the loros). Apart from
the word _xopsr&b., which may be of Turkic-Mongol origin but is well
assimilated into the Slavic languages, the rest of the words are of the
Slavic-Byzantine set. We may distinguish several couples. For instance,
the crown is designated by two words: the Slavic &~Hb.U.b. and the Greek
oui&ru.1a. In this case, they are completely the same in meaning. It
should be pointed out that the Slavic word venets (= crown, corona)
comes from the Greek prototype: either from the word oui&r!~a or
from crte<pavo~, which is not present in its Greek form in our texts.
Dependent on the concrete text and the way it was created, either the
Greek word directly, or its Slavic derivative, were used. In any case, the
usage was dependent on the similar reality the term designated, which
had its origins in the Empire.
Similar is the case with the words mb.~A'l> and CI~Hnrrpo (= sceptre).
They are identical in meaning, but one is Greek, while the other is
Slavic and was probably based on the Greek word. Here we may add
the word nMHL.J.b. (palitsa), which has multiple meanings, but in its
legal sense of a symbol of power is identical with these two. This is a
particular kind of stick on which the ruler or bishop (as representative
of ecclesiastic power) leans as a sign of his power, more precisely his
disciplinary power.
The word np~cTOA'l> (= throne) stands alone here, but I intend
to consider it together with two other words identical in meaning:
np'l>&onp~cTOA'l>H'l> and nporro-o-poH'l>H'l>. Considering them, we see how
the Slavic term np~C'J'OA'l> proves to be interchangeable with the Greek
9p6vo~, which, transliterated with Cyrillic letters, has the same mean-
ing. We may assume that the very concept of "throne" as a symbol of
power was adopted from the Byzantine Empire into Bulgaria; it was
thus that both the Greek term and its translations came to be used,
226 CHAPTER THREE
as in these two cases. Here we may also mention the word C'tAMHI.J.Ie
(= seat), which was created by the interpretation of the idea that the
tsar sits on his throne.
The bagrenitsa (&4\Pf'tHHLI,4\) is an outermost garment of the tsar, and
we encounter it in many texts, but we build our notion of it mostly
from the depictions of mediaeval Bulgarian rulers. 32 Here we shall dis-
cuss the word as mentioned in tsar Boril's Synodicon. The reference
is to the convening and presiding of the Council by tsar Boril, who
was dressed in a "light-coloured bagrenitsa". 33 The word also occurs
in Codex Suprasliensis, where it is certainly denoted as distinctive to
the tsar, as well as in the translation of the Constantine Mannasses'
Chronicle. 34 Both texts are translations and therefore have no place
in the glossary. In all cited cases in these texts, the reference is to the
apparel of the Byzantine basileus, not the Bulgarian tsar. A similar case
is that of the glorification of St. Constantine and St. Helena by Patri-
arch Euthymius; the expression "light-coloured bagrenitsa" occurs
there as well, this being part of the tsar's apparel. 35 In this text, as in
the Synodicon, there is once again mention of the participation of the
ruler-in this case of the emperor Constantine the Great-in the activ-
ity of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. We should certainly
note that the texts resemble each other and the question arises as to a
possible influence of one text on the other, at least as concerns "light-
coloured bagrenitsa", despite the considerable differences between the
two in other aspects. Such influence may be impossible to prove, but
the fact certainly remains that the bagrenitsa was part of the insignia of
Bulgarian tsars, and-like other insignia-was borrowed together with
the respective word for it from Constantinople. Although the word is
Slavic, it has a precise Greek match and in its lexical formation recalls
the term bagrenoroden (= porphyrogenitus), which suggests the exis-
tence of a formula, a fixed norm of adoption of Greek political and
institutional terms.
Among the imperial symbols, we should mention the horugva, or
banner. Besides the two texts of letters, already mentioned, it also
3.4.3
The third sub-group comprises various acts of the tsar, which are
inseparable from the regulation of the institution, and objects related
to these acts. Most probably, the Bulgarian imperial chancellery fol-
lowed the model of the chancellery of the basileus of Constantino-
ple.38 This is proven by the extant acts, but being extremely few, it is
impossible to draw any particularly detailed conclusions. I know of
D., "Hrisovulja cara Stefana Dt!Sana o Lu:iaCkoj metohiji", Stari srpski arhiv, 5 (2006),
pp. 110-l.
42 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 2891 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, pp. 53 9 " 65. See BoZilov,
vladara, p. LXXXIV-LXXXV.
45 Dolger, Byzantinische Diplomatik, pp. 44-6; Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srp-
skih vladara, p. LXX-LXXVI. The following ones are the argyrobulls or "silver seal
word" (ajYY'I)poJ3m>A.A.to~ Ahyoc;;), molybdobulls or "lead seal word" (p.o/.;oj30oJ3m>A.A.w~
Ahyo~) and those called cirobulls or "wax seal word (KTJpoJ3m)IJ..~ Ahyo~). See Sto-
janov, Diplomatika, p. 71 ff. Here I will not discuss terms not found in Bulgaria, such
as argyrobulls, molybdobulls, or those with a wax seal. No such documents created in
Bulgaria have been preserved, nor do we have data that they at all existed.
230 CHAPTER THREE
3.4.4
The last sub-group includes words designating the environment in
which power is exercised. This environment is particularly important,
not only in its technical aspects but also ideologically. It is all con-
nected with the specific "imperial religion" of Constantinople and with
the court rituals connected with this ideology. The terms present in
the glossary do not give us the possibility of tracing this rich field of
study, but this is not part of the tasks of this work in any case. Here we
should present the terms AROf'll. (dvor = court), AfO~mHHb. (druzhina =
band, company, group), '1fb.Torrz. (cr'tog= palace), ek. They constitute
an amorphous group formed mainly based on the non-inclusion of
each term in other groups rather than on some logic internal to the
group. It encompasses words related to the dwelling of the ruler, his
home, and his environment. All other terms for palace, retinue, ought
to be included here, but they are modern loanwords from West Euro-
pean languages.
Dvor (= court) is a Slavic word with multiple meanings, but here
we are considering its designating the circle around the ruler, which
is far from the most common meaning of the word. Other words are
derived from it. The concept of "court" was formed over a long period
in Bulgaria, and we can say this formation was completed probably at
the time of tsar Symeon.
Druzhina (=band, company, group) has multiple meanings, and the
connotation of "a group of warriors attached to the ruler" is likewise
derivative. Generally, it signifies a group, solidarity, one kind of which
is a group of warriors. It is worth noting that, although it is Slavic, the
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 231
word has the same underlying logic as the Greek e'tatpe{a, in which
the idea of unity, solidarity, comradeship, also passes through the idea
of "otherness" (from E'tmpo<; = "one of two", "other"). In other words,
in order to be united with someone, we must be different, not one
and the same. In the same sense we may indicate the words Afl:.r'll.
(senator) and Afl:.roRe (in plural, meaning "Senate"):~ 7 The etymologi-
cal origin is evidently the same, and the citing of senate and druzhina
as the closest circle of people surrounding the ruler may suggest cer-
tain surmises: whether these persons attached to the ruler were not
the others of the ruler, his alter ego. I believe it is a question worth
thinking about.
The word 'lfi:.Tor'll. (tr'tog = palace) is of Persian origin, but reached
the Slavs through the Steppe peoples, probably through the Bulgars. It
was used to designate the palace of the ruler, but the word is not an
institutional term. It expresses the idea of some fine, luxurious dwell-
ing, rather than having any special institutional meaning.
3.5. Encomia for Bulgarian rulers and verbal formulae and images
used in them
The several royal encomia that have been preserved in old Bulgar-
ian literature are of the greatest importance as indicating the attitude
of contemporaries towards the state power, whether this attitude be
authentic or only formal and feigned. These are works of rhetorical
prose which, in glorifying the person, demonstrate the ideology of
power and the way in which power is expressed in words. Encomia
show most clearly the verbal model used with respect of the ruler. The
oldest extant panegyrics for Bulgarian rulers are those dedicated to
tsar Symeon (893-927), one of which is in verse and included in the
Izbornik of AD 1073, while the other, a prologue supplement to the
translated collection Zlatostruj or Chrysorrhoes, is a mixture of forms.
Importantly, it was Peyo Dimitrov's achievement to define this text as
similar to the Panegyric for tsar Symeon in the Izbornik, and even to
suggest that the author of both works was John Exarch. 48 Typical and
common for both works is that the tsar is lauded not for his military
feats and victories, but for his love of learning and his patronage of
3.5.1
The encomia for tsar Symeon and tsar John Alexander inherited the
fruitful literary tradition of Byzantine court rhetoric. During the time
of tsar Symeon, these texts were connected with the rise of the newly
converted country, which had now become part of the so-called Byz-
antine Commonwealth and was even striving, in the person of the Bul-
garian ruler, to head it. The situation had become different in the 14th
century, when the country was in a state of severe political decline and
about to be conquered by the Ottomans.
3.5.1.1
The encomia for tsar Symeon were focused on lauding him as a books'
devotee. In the context of that age, this signified that he disseminated
the Book (i.e. the Bible and the wisdom it contains) and the Christian
faith. This characteristic determined the verbal formulae of praise used
in the text. Although in our times this ruler is best known for his mili-
tary victories, this was not the main characterisation made during his
reign. How he was perceived by Bulgarian authors in the lOth century
is made evident by the literature and other "cultural" production of
the times, as well as by the encomia, which we shall specially focus on
in the present study.
49 Bakalova E., "The Image of the Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bulgarian Literature and
Art", In: Les cultes des saints souverains et des saints guerriers et l'ideologie du pou-
voir en Europe Centrale et Orientale. Actes du colloque international17.01.2004. New
Europe College, Bucarest. Volume coordonne par I. Biliarsky et R G. Pliun. Bucarest,
2007, pp. 77-80.
50 Dujcev Iv., Iz starata bulgarska knizhnina (=Dujcev, SBK), t. II, Sofia, 1943,
pp. 150-2.
51 Dujcev, SBK, II, pp. 129-30; Dujcev Iv., Miniatjurite na Manasievata letopis,
Sofia, 1964, p. 25.
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 233
for literary life in general, but specifically for the Word of God. The
mediaeval Bulgarian ruler was basically described as an enthusiastic
supporter of learning. Whatever formulations taken from the arche-
type of the Byzantine emperor may have accreted in the portrayal of
the two tsars in question, both being referred to with the ideological
formula "book-lover", there is no doubt that for mediaeval Bulgaria
this element of the image of the ruler was particularly important.
"Love of books" is a religious characteristic linked to piety and grace
as foundations of power, and to the duty of the ruler to care for the
salvation of the souls of his subjects, one of the means for which is the
dissemination of the Holy Scripture, of the Books (the exact transla-
tion of the Greek word Biblia /plural of Biblion/ = the Bible). That
was exactly what khan Boris-Michael and tsar Symeon and tsar Peter
did. The "state power" factor of the development of book learning
and art remained traditionally strong throughout the whole mediae-
val period.
Because in the second encomion no mention is made of the military
victories of the tsar, the epithets here remain mostly within the frame
of the moral model of a pious ruler. They are drawn from the set of the
most persistent, enduring verbal formulae, such as &Ab.roR~fb.Hrz.. (pious),
:XfHCTOAklGHR'l.. (Christ-loving), np~R'l..ICOK'l.. (highest), &oroR~Hb.'lb.H'l..IH
(crowned by God), and the cliche epithet Cb.UOAfbJKb.U,b. (autocrat). In
the end of the encomion, and in keeping with the book being cop-
ied, mention is made of the intercessors and bringers of good tidings,
the four evangelists. Having in mind that the miniatures adorning the
basic text are portrayals of the tsar John Alexander with each of the
four evangelists, we may say that the author was purposefully seeking
unity of the ideal and artistic message of the work and a complete
identity of its verbal and visual signs.
3.5.1.4
The third, brief encomion is actually the several added lines, the original
Bulgarian addition to the copy of Constantine Mannasses' Chronicle
in priest Philip's copy of 1344-1345. According to Ivan Dujcev, this is
a glossP Where the original Chronicle refers to the emperor Theodo-
sius II, the Byzantine chronicler added a glorification for the emperor
Manuel I Comnenos. For his part, the Slavic glasser and translator
changed the addressee and added praises that were significant in the
context of the ruler's institution embodied by John Alexander himself.
Since Constantine Mannasses' Chronicle was one of the tsar's man-
uscripts from Tarnovo, such interpolations were justified and quite
in keeping with the style of courtly rhetoric devoted to the tsar. This
gloss strings together with typical pathos the epithets and other liter-
ary devices, and can be viewed not simply as an interpolation but as
a gloss-encomion or glorification of the Bulgarian ruler. In an order
determined only by the will of the glossator, allusions are placed
here to the following ideological components of power: the ruler-
warrior (no&-tAOHOCb.LI,b., RI!AHK'li. RA4\A'li.11~4\); the ruler as the descen-
dent of a good family (KoreH-t CmijJ4\ i'W4\H4\ nr-tH~AijJH4\4\PO); the good
ruler, meaning humane and merciful (nr-tl~rOT'li.K'li., MHAOCTHR'li.); the
ruler showing fervour for things spiritual (MOH4\)I:OAto&HR'li. = monk-
loving). "Light" is indicated here as a general biblical symbol that
serves as a kind of frame for the contents of the encomion. The men-
tion at the beginning of c&-tTb.l\'li. and c&-tTOHOCb.H'li. U.4\rb. is an attempt
to use with reference to the earthly ruler one of the devices for por-
traying Jesus Christ Himself, in His divine nature. The colour white
and the halo of light around the tsar is one of the basic elements in
the Transfiguration of Our Lord, which testifies to the incarnation of
Jesus as Son of God, and the return of the earthly person to God the
Father. The address to the all-dominating ruler represents an antono-
masia for Christ, who legitimises state power in general. At the end of
the encomion, the topos "light" occurs once again, accompanied by a
wish for a long and bright reign: erome Aj''li.mMm CA'li.HU.4\ &e~'IHCA'li.H4\4\
A4\ HC'I b.TmT'li..
Particularly important for the gloss is the mention of Tarnovo as the
new Tsarevgrade (Tsar's city = Basileuousa Polis = Constantinople),
which was completely in the identical tradition, manifested later in
Russia, where Moscow was claimed to be the "Third Rome". Such lit-
erary devices imposed a model of glorification of a city, whereby the
power of the tsar over the capital city was legitimised. This could also
be done following the example of the Bible, where the Celestial Jeru-
salem was indicated as the abode of the Lord; but the most apposite
example is that of the first and only capital of the world, Rome. All
traditions related to capital city derived from there and the Polis of
Constantine the Great was built after that model: the city was officially
called "New Rome" by the Church. The glorification of Tarnovo as the
"New Tsarigrade", in other words a kind of second Constantinople,
238 CHAPTER THREE
and hence a kind of "Third Rome", was one of the characteristic fea-
tures of the ideology pertaining to ruler and state during the Second
Bulgarian Empire. Thus, in these glorifications we see achieved a syn-
thesis of Roman imperial and biblical traditions, which is one of the
characteristic features of the whole early Christian culture, sprung
from the Hebrew religion but "born", just like the Saviour Himself,
on the territory of the Empire.
3.5.2
The glorifications of Bulgarian tsars also contain a specific imagery,
whereby the ruler is delineated as the compiler of the work saw him or
was set the task of depicting him. All comparisons had a religious basis,
although direct references to the Bible are not evident in all cases.
3.5.2.1
The first of the images and comparisons I would like to discuss is that
referring to Alexander the Great: the Bulgarian ruler was called "a sec-
ond Alexander" This was not based on the coinciding of the name,
but on the victories of the ancient ruler, who had united the world in
his time. According to ancient aesthetics, a ruler was to be described
above all in terms of his courage, the highest virtue of a warrior, and
the victory of a courageous, powerful emperor is best expressed by a
series of battles. There is another-! believe significant-element in
this comparison. Alexander the Great was not only an ancient charac-
ter but also a living hero in mediaeval literature. I believe it doubtless
that in 14th century Bulgaria knowledge and representations of him
were taken mostly, or even exclusively, from the book of Alexandria.
Moreover, it must have been the so-called Serbian Alexandria, because
the older Chronograph's Alexandria, which was closer to Pseudo-Cal-
listhenes' original of the "Romance of Alexander", had already been
lost at that time in Bulgaria. 58 This book59 was the work that gave new
meaning to the image of Alexander the Great, setting a biblical code
on it and lending it a different implication than that related to the
ancient heroes. Alexander conquered the world, and this could not
Beletristikata, pp. 129-30), and thus tends all the more to "transform" Alexander the
Great and interpret him in a Christian context
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 239
60 This not only refers to the fact that he acquired the miraculous stone Lychnitarios
with the name of the Lord Sabaoth, the name inscribed likewise on Joshua's helmet
Essentially the image of Alexander is similar to that of Joshua-a victorious military
commander who defeats his enemies with God's assistance-d. Durie V., "Novi lsus
Navin", Zograf, t. 14, Belgrade, 1983, pp. 5-16.
61 Jonova, Beletristikata, pp. 140-1.
240 CHAPTER THREE
the rank of Constantine's merits for the world. It should also be noted
that Constantine was closely associated with the triumph of Christian-
ity. He was head of the militant Church, as we may judge by his por-
trayal in the frescos of the church in Pcltr<luti (Romania), built at the
time of the Moldavian ruler Stephen the Great, who, in turn, adopted
many features of the Bulgarian state, political, and ideological legacy.
The most important element in the devotion to St. Constantine in con-
nection with the triumph of Christianity was the Cross and the sign
that the emperor saw in the sky before the battle of the Milvian Bridge.
This event was the basis for the image of the victorious Christian ruler
who defeats his enemies with the aid of God and with the revelation
of the True Cross. 62
The image of St. Constantine and his mother St. Helena is present in
the encomion contained in the London Gospel, but there the emphasis
is on the dissemination of the Word of God. The two Christian rul-
ers are the prototypes of supporters of the Christian faith, for they
were ascribed the merit of the discovery of the cross on which Christ
was crucified. This was tantamount to the unearthing of a treasure.
Here the author of the encomion used an extensive comparison not
only with the ruler who had become a prototype of Christian piety
and Orthodoxy among rulers, but also with the symbolic gesture: the
discovery of the symbol of Christianity. In the field of Christian reli-
gious literature, the Gospel is the Holy Book, and is as important and
life-giving as the Cross itself, which is a substitute for the presence of
God. In fact, the basic ruler's virtue that is lauded in this encomion is
religious fervour, which is the power-forming ideological element; in
fact, the copying of books that bring salvation is an act of affirmation
of the state itself. The Gospel is not only a work of literature and art, it
is not only an outward object, a set of valuable materials and a palette
of colours, but is the outflow of God's Word, which gives power, just
as the sceptre is the material symbol of power. It is no coincidence
62 This is present both in Slavic countries and in the Byzantine Empire where it
originated. Extensive literature on the subject exists, where the official line of the
Church but also popular beliefs are presented. Cf. Pljukhanova M., Badalanova F.,
"Srednevekovaja simvolika vlasti: krest Konstantinov v bolgarskoj traditsii", Literatura
i istorija. Acta et commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis, t 78, 1987, and Pljukhanova
M., Badalanova F., "Srednevekovaja simvolika vlasti v Slavia Orthodoxa", Godishnik
na Sofijskija universitet, Fakultet slavjanski filologii, t. 86, kn. 2, 1993.
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 241
65 Bozilov Iv., Tsar Simeon Veliki (893-927): Zlatnijat vek na srednovekovna Bul-
garija, Sofia, 1982, p. 113ff.
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 243
I~HH1::Z.1 MHW~'l>l HC~HC~W~. COAOMW,.. nyt~m r'l> ~'E !!A 'I~ &'l>C'E 'li\~'1>
&1:. l,eri\M'E ~H&O~,I.J.IH; HC,~HCA ...&W. _.(.• njH'l'~'IH H. (e• n'ECH~."' &I:. ,~HH
1
l~el~l H~'E u.r~· W&~l '0~&0 ~' I~HH , H~&rAHHH ~Wm.,.. W~. Wr H~
nj'EAAHH '&'EWm;. WfH~e*e , er~'l''HI~~· Cmi.J.Ie, .~C'l'~.&H; I~H~. A. -f.~ t;
&'1> nO'l'OnH. H. (A• no* *e. A HCHAW• nOi\8HCIWCK'l>l HCnHCA. tl • I~HH •
A ~'l'Oi\OM~ ~~'l>~HPOi\~&_eu.~:. C'l>~rb. A~· r,H ~~·~HP'bl. § C~Mew' ur~:.
&i\'l>PArCI~'l>l HCnHCA MHWP'l>l I~HHP'bl. _I! IAI~O A&A'l> Ll,rl:. HA ~i\A'l''l>l.
Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, vol. II, 1897, issue 2, p. 359. This text by A. I. Jatsimir-
ski was reprinted by L. Miletich ("Tsar Simeon, spomenat v edin sredno-bulgarski
rakopis", Bulgarski pregled, VI, 7 (1898), p. 159), and, since then, by all Bulgarian
authors working in this field. Here we are publicising the entire text as given by Jatsi-
mirsky. The latter indicates that this is a manuscript from the middle of the 17th
century containing discourses and exhortations for the Sundays of Lent; the manu-
script belonged to the Saint Nicholas' scete of the Condrita monastery in the Bessara-
bian region of the Russian Empire; the author had visited the scete in the summer
of 1895.
69 Bozilov, Tsar Simeon Veliki, pp. 164-5. The author has an interesting, but
improvable and merely hypothetical assumption that there might have been a minia-
ture depicting tsar Symeon as king David.
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 245
note on the statutes closely related to St. Sava (the publication itself
does not give a clear idea), in which multiple Old Testament themes
occur. There are frequent mentions of the prophets Isaiah and Moses,
and of the People of Israel and Jerusalem. The text vividly presents
the idea that the Serbs are the New Israel, the New Chosen People.
When assessing the quotation, this context must certainly be had in
4.1
The Synklit or Senate is mentioned in the sources only sporadically
and in connection with official events; no clarification at all is given
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 247
206.
248 CHAPTER THREE
78 Documenta Romaniae Historica (=DRH), ser. B, vol I, No 15, pp. 36-7, No 234,
p. 374.
79 I nstitufii feudale, p. 441.
80 BoZllov, Familijata na Asenevts~ p. 115ff.
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 249
sical times. Most probably, the situation in Bulgaria was even further
from the original. Given the lack of all traditions of collective man-
agement or of the idea of magistracy similar to the Roman one, the
Bulgarian Synklit was probably only some copy of the one of Con-
stantinople. The sources provide a quite amorphous idea of it; most
probably the institution in reality was equally so. It must have been a
council of the ruler, and its functions could hardly have consisted in
decision making. Only in case of grave crisis and vacancy of the throne
could it have had some say as to the choice of the next ruler, and this
authority must have been dictated by the needs of the situation, and
not by any specific rights of the Synklit.
4.2
The presence in the Glossary of the word for national assembly, veche
(or vece, &-t'le/&'t4-Je, C'll.HI:.M'll.), and of the related word "vecnik", is
related only to the institutional system in the Dubrovnik republic; it
has nothing to do with Bulgaria. Nevertheless, we should give some
attention both to the institution and to its name, for some authors
claim it existed in the country during the First Bulgarian Empire. 90
This claim is connected basically with several cases: in deposing vari-
ous khans, especially khan Sabin in the 8th century, in the case of the
so-called Khan Krum's Laws, in the conversion to Christianity, in the
deposition of Khan Vladimir-Rasate in AD 893, etc.
I do not intend to deal with issues related to Khan Krum's Laws; it
seems that basically there was no such code at all. It would be enough
to refer the reader to the article by D. Naydenova, which has treated
of this problem thoroughly. 91
Jordan Andreev, the only author who has written a special article
on the problem of the veche, discerns the first such in the national
assembly for deposing khan Telets after the latter lost the battle with
the Byzantines. 92 Before expressing any opinion, I shall note that this
problem should be considered and decided only in the general context
90 Zlatarski, Istorija, 1/2, Sofia, 1971, p. 257; Andreev J., "Narodnite slibori v poli-
ticheskija zhivot na pyrvata bulgarska dlirzhava", Istoricheski pregled, 1971, 4, pp. 96-
105; Petrova G., Istorija na bulgarskata darzhava i pravo, pp. 77-8.
91 Naydenova D., "Istoricheskata dostovernost na Leksikona 'Suda' kato iztoch-
of events in Bulgaria around the middle of the 8th century. They form
a unity of all that transpired in relation to the removal from power
of khan Sabin. The chroniclers are more concrete in their account.
We may quote the words of Theophanes the Confessor: " ... when
Sabin sent envoys to the emperor and asked that peace be concluded,
the Bulgarians held an assembly (KOj..L~evtov 7totftcrav·w;) and firmly
opposed Sabin ... "93 For his part the patriarch Nicephorus relates the
same events, but without mentioning the "convent", only stating that
the Bulgarians opposed his decision. 94 We cannot fail to notice that
Theophanes the Confessor used a precise and concrete term, which
was not typical for the Greek language but was borrowed from Latin.95
This suggests that the use of the term was accidental and the writer had
something concrete in mind. For all that, we can hardly suppose that
Theophanes was as familiar with the structure of power in Bulgaria as
to have indicated a concrete existing institution. I believe this was the
same kind of rebellion and opposition that not a few Bulgarian khans
became victims of during the rule of Constantine V Copronymus in
Constantinople. There must certainly have been an assembly, a revolt,
and an organisation of some sort. But this does not mean that the
quoted word gives us sufficient grounds to assume there was some
regular, or even extraordinary but established, organ of power in Bul-
garia resembling a national assembly, much less a "veche"
are designated precisely by this term. 117 The same meaning of the word
occurs in other cases as well. 118 In certain quotations, the meaning
is that of an ecclesiastic counciP 19 or of a liturgical prayer assembly. 120
All these examples confirm the general observations concerning the
lexeme and fail to convince us it referred to an institution. In fact, the
thing coming closest to an institution is connected with regulations of
the People of Israel, which we find in a later historical source, which
we shall now examine.
In the Constantine Mannasses' Chronicle the word we are discuss-
ing occurs once, and refers to the assembly of the People of Israel in
the time of Joshua. It is notable that it stands together with the word
C'b 6op'b: n )CII
0 IIIIW\I'CeH me
N~RIHH'l..
.. .. 1..
CH'l.. C , HMh.ACTROR~ C'l..G.OfOU
.
H o&A~ e&peHCKHu' crz..Huourz... 121 In the Greek original the word is
crJ.Lftvoc;, 122 which simply means "a multitude", its original meaning
being "a swarm of bees"
I believe the indicated examples-both historical and lexical-can-
not convince anyone there was in Bulgaria a special institution of a
"National Assembly". Actually, the very claim there was such is rooted
either in faulty comparisons with Western Europe or in ideological
motives connected with the idea of a "military democracy" as a tran-
sitional period toward the establishment of a state. Our knowledge
about at least two of the assemblies for which such claims are made
is derived from West European sources: the archbishop Hincmar
of Reims and Pope Nicholas 1st regarding the events related to the
Baptism; and abbot Regino on the events of AD 893. This creates the
preconditions for transferring the idea of assemblies of people of a
specific category, as they occurred in the west of Europe, to a com-
pletely different cultural environment; what the chroniclers wrote was
addressed to their own public and cannot accurately reflect the reality
in south-eastern Europe.
I believe that the groundlessness of the thesis there were some kind
of national assembly is felt by the authors who have written on this
matter, as evidenced by the interpretations they offer. For instance,
it has been claimed that a National Assembly is a term with a nar-
row meaning, and was something always connected with a rebellion.
Here is a quotation: «Rebellion was a phenomenon that in most cases
accompanied the National Assembly and seems to have been the only
means by which the Assembly succeeded in imposing its will and
bringing the purposed changes to life". 123 This assertion is essentially
ludicrous: according to it an obviously illegal act, a revolt, proves to be
the only means for implementing the decisions of such a high organ as
the «National Assembly" is claimed to have been. I believe the author
himself sensed the weakness of his thesis and sought for a way to rep-
resent the factual circumstances of the revolt as some sort of regulated
means for effectuating the supreme legal acts.
I believe the main reason for the assertion that national assemblies
existed in Bulgaria is to thereby support the idea of a «military democ-
racy" and the remnants of a tribal organisation. Incidentally, this idea
does not fit in with the events at the time of Khan Boris-Michael and
tsar Symeon. To be honest, this contradiction was acknowledged in
the article by Jordan Andreev, who noted that in the 8th century this
institution served as a tool of the aristocracy to be used against the
ruler, while in the 9th-10th century, on the contrary, it was used to
affirm the power of the ruler. 124 Thus, even the authors who support
the belief that such «democratic" political organs existed, are aware of
how problematic the thesis is. I cannot accept the assertion that the
National Assembly was an organ able to make the decision of remov-
ing the khan from power .125 I think this is untenable when consider-
ing the sacralisation and all-encompassing scope of power during the
period in question.
Here I would like to unexpectedly reverse the issue: I claim that it
was precisely this sacralisation of power during the pagan period that
could serve as an argument for the possible removal of the khan in
cases when he was found religiously unfit to be a ruler. This is a situ-
ation similar to the position of the Goktiirk (= «celestial Turks") or
the Khazar khagans of the Ashina clan, for whom it was believed their
deficiencies might harm the nation, so that the rule was they were
to be removed from their position by being put to death. Vesselin
Besevliev claims such a practice existed in Bulgaria as well; he states
this in connection with events at the end of the reign of one of khan
Krum's heir, known as Ditsevg, as documented in the Constantinopoli-
tan synaxarium. Having very cruelly persecuted the Christians and put
to death Manuel, the archbishop of Hadrian opolis, Ditsevg was struck
by blindness, and therefore removed from power. This and most other
important disabilities made the ruler unfit from a religious perspective
to be head of the state, and this led to his being slain and substituted
by someone else, someone not deprived of the protection of the pagan
deities. In the Synaxarium it is said that, due to his blindness, Ditsevg
«was put to death by his own men, and Mourtagon/Omourtag assumed
power". 126 It seems a wonder no one has yet claimed these events were
part of a National Assembly! Someone evidently made the decision
to remove the unfit ruler from power, but it is not given us to know
what organ made it. To claim this was a National Assembly would be
forcing the sources; but for that matter, so would any other concrete
claim or assumption. In any case, here we are treading on issues more
relevant to the power of the ruler than to that of the «people". I simply
believe there is no reason to claim that there were in Bulgaria some
kinds of national assemblies existing as regular organs; we must leave
the rest to romantic historiography.
5. CONCLUSION
ensi, H. Delehaye, Bruxellis, 1902, col. 415; Besevliev V., Parvobulgari. Istorija, Sofia,
1984, p. 139.
260 CHAPTER THREE
127 An example of this are the Bulgarian army's constant attacks directed toward
Constantinople, perceived by all Orthodox Christians as the centre of the Christian
world and the true capital of the universal Empire-Biliarsky Iv., "Srednovekovna
Bulgarija: Tsarstvoto i naroda", IIOAYXPONIA. Sbornik v chest na prof. Ivan Boiilov,
Sofia, 2002, pp. 31-2.
128 Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel, p. 148 ff.; Petrova G., Istorija na
bulgarskata darzhava i pravo p. 73ff, 86 ff.
CHAPTER FOUR
Biliarsky Iv., Hierarchia. L'Ordre sacre. Etude sur l'esprit romai'que, (Freiburger
Veroffentlichungen aus dem Gebiete von Kirche und Staat, Bd. 51), Fribourg/Suisse,
1997.
262 CHAPTER FOUR
an honorary title only marks some quality of the person who carries
it. 2 In various civilisation environments, titles have different features,
which are important for clarifying our concrete case, inasmuch as the
Byzantine (and hence Bulgarian) concept of a "title" differs from that
in Western Europe. In West European society, organised into social
categories (estates), a title designates affiliation to the aristocracy (i.e.
to the military estate). It was connected with nobility and passed from
father to son by heritage. Byzantine society and the societies of most
other Orthodox countries in the Byzantine Commonwealth (as they are
designated, using the classical term coined nearly half a century ago
by Dimitri Obolensky) were organised and structured in a completely
different way. There were no legally regulated social groups similar
to the estates in the West, and inheritance of a hierarchic position
for a person was reduced, at least de iure, to a minimum. Titles in
Constantinople were not hereditary and were acquired through merit,
with a special act of the basileus. Nevertheless, a title was essentially
the same as in Western Europe or anywhere else: it marked the quality
of a person. In the Byzantine Empire, however, this quality was not
determined by belonging to the estate but by one's personal worthi-
ness. Personal virtue was the reason for belonging to the hierarchy
(the principle of sacredness), i.e. to the holy order which structures the
world. In its political aspect, this order was the Ecumenical Univer-
sal Empire, organised in the likeness of the celestial hierarchies, and
hence similar to the Kingdom of God. 3 Affiliation to the hierarchy was
a personal achievement based on merits and qualities, not on fam-
ily origin. This was the great difference between Constantinople and
Western Europe. The Empire was the image of the Celestial Kingdom
in the visible world; this concept was an essential characteristic of the
political ideology of the New Rome, and hence of the other coun-
tries of the Byzantine Commonwealth. This political ideology reflected
in the state structures and in public law, and it certainly made titles
an essential characteristic of the institutional system of the Empire,
though not investing them with specific state functions.
The same is true for the various court offices and the officials work-
ing for them. In general, these were not state services in the proper
sense of the word, but offices pertaining to the state, inasmuch as they
served the person of the basileus, i.e. they were not part of the admin-
istration. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we should not evaluate the
phenomena of public power thousands of years ago in terms of the
present day. The personal serving of the basileus is not defined as a
kind of administrative activity, but neither is it simply the kind of duty
a servant performs. The activity of the court services is closely con-
nected with the imperial ritual of the Palace, which, in turn, is a visible
expression of the doctrine of the Universal Empire and the only space
where we may see, perceive with our senses, the hierarchical order of
dignities as a reflection of Celestial Hierarchies. Thus, we learn that
many of those responsible for serving the person of the Tsar were
actually fulfilling predominantly ritual functions. In this connection,
the function of the eunuchs stands out particularly vividly, and surely
grotesquely-yet most services in the court were reserved for eunuchs
only. The duties of the eunuchs in court were mostly ritual. As 'sexless'
beings, they represented in the various ceremonies Divine messengers
from the Celestial Army of angels, which are likewise sexless.4 In fact,
the presence of eunuchs in the court was above all a sign of the divine
nature of the ruler's power. No doubt, such a function was directly
connected with justifying power and justifying the mechanism of func-
tioning of power. Here we see one instance of the great importance of
court services in the public legal sphere of the mediaeval state.
2.1
The origin of administrative terminology in mediaeval Bulgaria, as pre-
sented in the glossary, confirms the conclusion drawn when studying
terminology in other legal spheres. We observe a prevalence of terms
that have their origin in Byzantium or are somehow connected with it.
The glossary words connected with administration and titles are more
than a hundred and sixty, of which one hundred and ten are Slavic.
In the general glossary, we have thirty-three Greek words. The words
4 Guilland R., « Les eunuques dans l'Empire byzantin >>,Etudes byzantines, I, I 943,
passim; Biliarsky, Hierarchia. L'Ordre sacre, pp. 17-20.
264 CHAPTER FOUR
of Turkic origin are eleven; the Latin words are four; one word is of
German origin, one or two are Hungarian (which are designations
not of Bulgarian institutions, but of institutions of the city of Bra§OV/
Kronstadt); and two are words of an origin that remains unclear to
me. Some words figure in both glossaries. At first glance, the numeri-
cal prevalence of the Slavic vocabulary is so obvious, that it might lead
us to question the conclusion I drew initially. Nevertheless, I would
like to point out certain circumstances that might change this first
impression.
It is to stress that, in referring to vocabulary connected with the
Empire, I do not mean only that which is purely Greek in origin. We
are thinking about the integral influence of the legal system of Constan-
tinople, which had accumulated in itself the traditions of Roman law.
Hence, some of the Latin words also represent this influence, as do some
of the Slavic words, the roots of which are to be sought in calques and
translated foreign vocabulary. In examining the accumulated material,
we find that at least thirty-six of the Slavic words (considered as specia-
lised terms) are of an origin connected to Greek vocabulary and show
the unquestionable impact of the Byzantine administrative system. In
addition to this, there is at least one word of Latin origin ("desetnik"),
which can be said to have come into the Bulgarian vocabulary from the
military-administrative language of the Byzantine Empire. Out of the
total number of Slavic words, we should also not count a number of
words that belong to the Dubrovnik administrative terminology, and
which in fact have nothing to do with Bulgaria, yet are present in the
glossary, because they have been taken from a text that is included in
those on which the glossary is based. Such words are "vechnik", "veche",
"obshtina", "obshtinski", which, at least in the text from which they
were drawn, have nothing to do with Bulgarian realities.
We thus see that the purely Slavic vocabulary is lesser in number.
As noted at the beginning of this study, the glossaries include not only
terms but also a wide range of vocabulary. If we examine separately
only that part of the terminology that definitely better reflects the pro-
cesses we are concerned with, we shall see that the relative weight of
the Greek lexical units grows even greater.
2.2
An appreciable percentage of words are ultimately of Byzantine origin,
and their importance is made greater by the fact that the vast majority
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 265
of these words are terms. Among them, I have included the word prim-
mikirios/primmicerius, which is of Latin origin but undoubtedly came
into the Bulgarian administrative vocabulary through the Greek lan-
guage. I believe we could add to this category the term kastel/castle, also
of Latin origin. The situation of the term katun is specific. It is likewise
of Latin origin but came into the Balkans from colloquial Latin, and we
cannot categorically ascribe it to the Byzantine influence in Bulgaria.
2.3
Among the words of Latin origin included in the glossary, we should
focus special attention on the word Krz..uerrrz.. (kmet), and I have done so
further on in my presentation. We see that the Latin vocabulary is not
widely present in the Bulgarian administrative language: this is quite
understandable in view of the cultural affiliation of the country.
2.4
The Turkic terms are of special interest for our study, for some of
them derive from the Bulgar heritage and the problem of continu-
ity in Bulgarian statehood before and after the Conversion to Chris-
tianity. More than ten such words are present in the glossary, but we
must not view them all in the same way. According to origin, they
may be divided into several groups, the largest of which is that of
Bulgar origin, including, in all, six words: bagain, boliarin, boliarka,
san, chergubylia, chergubylstvo. Four terms we can generally connect
by origin to the steppe peoples (Bulgars included): ban, vatah, zhupa,
zhupan. The etymology of most of them is much disputed, and there
is no prevalent opinion on the matter. Last, I would like to add the
term serdar, the appearance of which in the Bulgarian administrative
nomenclature is the result of a loan from the Osmanli Turks in the
time when these were conquering the Balkan Peninsula.
Also in this number are two terms which are ultimately of Turkic
origin: kraishte and pobirchia. The term "kraishte" is a translation of
the Turkic word "uf" (which initially meant "mount", "arrow", and
hence, "end", "marginal territory"), as some of the territories newly
conquered by the Osmanli were called, territories under the power of
the Uf-beyi I uc-beg. 5 The term pobirchia derived from &Hf'l..Krz.., which
is of Bulgar origin and must be related to the fiscal system of the First
Bulgarian Empire. We shall devote special attention to it in the chapter
on the fisc and the public finances.
2.5
One term is of Germanic origin-purgar from "Burger", another of
Hungarian origin-folnog (= fonok). I was unable to determine the
exact origin of the term faingl, but it should be related to the Hungar-
ian language (and especially to the word faliigye/6 = "somebody in
charge with something", "administrator") or to a Saxon dialect spoken
by a large and politically dominant part of the population of Tran-
sylvania. The term does not belong to the Bulgarian administrative
vocabulary but to that of the Saxon city Bra~ov (Kronstadt).
Among the Germanic terms I have not included knjaz (= prince),
which is also of a remote Germanic origin but was already borrowed
in the Palaeo slavic language and does not represent a case of Germanic
influence in mediaeval Bulgaria.
these terms are part of the general context of the reception of names
during the Second Empire, unlike the names of Bulgar institutions,
which derive from an entirely different culture and had nothing to do
with the processes that took place later.
Several years ago, I devoted a special article to the administrative
terminology in mediaeval Bulgaria, in which I presented the basic
findings of my research on this problem. 6 The main differences in this
presentation consist in the range of documents in the basis of the pres-
ent study and the inclusion of a wider set of administrative terms.
That is how some of the follow-ups of the various studies took shape.
The administrative terms not present in the range of documents on
which the glossary was built are not included in it, but it does com-
prise terms that have nothing to do with the Bulgarian practice of gov-
ernance. One such term is "knez", used to designate the institution of
the Dubrovnik Republic. It is present in the Bulgarian administrative
vocabulary but with a meaning that has nothing to do with the men-
tioned Ragusan institution. This is also true for the other Dubrovnik
terms already mentioned. Of course, furthest away from the practice
in Bulgaria are the terms designating the leaders of the Saxon commu-
nity in the city of Bra§OV (Kronstadt), who had their own German or
Hungarian appellations that had nothing in common with the terms
used in mediaeval Bulgaria.
Finally, I shall group the terms according to their origin in order to
attempt to infer some dependency between the character of the insti-
tutions and the origin of their name.
3.1
Words transliterated from Greek and other languages usually comprise
the high-ranking dignitaries, courtiers, and higher institutions. Such
are practically all titles, and this is easily understandable. A title in the
Byzantine institutional system had an important ideological and struc-
ture-defining function in the contexts of the general Byzantine under-
standing about the world. In this sense, its inclusion in the Bulgarian
institutional system signifies a borrowing of this concept and of the
place of the entitled person in the universal order. The title designates
3.1.1
Regarding the assimilation in Bulgaria of Byzantine titles, perhaps the
most typical case is that of the three so-called "imperial titles" -despot,
sebastocrator and caesar/kesar-which retained their Greek appella-
tions with hardly any change and demonstrate the transplantation of
the Byzantine political doctrine to Bulgaria. We shall deal with them
in detail further.
3.1.2
The other two "pure titles" known to us in the Bulgarian mediaeval
institutional system also bear names directly copied from the Greek.
These are protosebastos and sebastos. 7 The two titles are similar and do
not pose different kinds of problems; these are obviously Greek appel-
lations and one originated from the other with a specification for the
higher rank. In the relevant literature, there is no unanimous view as
to the nature of this institution in Bulgaria and Serbia, and there is
debate as to whether that was an office or a "pure title". 8 I have pre-
7 The title of the protosebastos is known to us from the Hilendari charter, dating
from 1300, of the Serbian king Milutin and from Tsar Boril's Synodicon (Novakovic
St, Zakonski spomenici srpskih driava srednjego veka, Belgrade, 1912, pp. 391, 392;
Popruzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, p. 90, No. 132). The title of sebastos is cited in
several Bulgarian charters (those of Vatopedi, Virgino, Mraka, Rlla)-cf llinskij, Gra-
moty, 15 14, 18 98 _99, 25 28, 38, 27 53; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 59, as well as in
the Stenimachos and Bozhenitsa inscriptions: Zlatarski V. N., "Asenevijat nadpis pri
Stanimaka", in: idem, Izbrani proizvedenija, voL II, Sofia, 1984, p. 405; Mutafchiev P.,
"Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", in: iden. Izbrani proizvedenija, vol. I, Sofia, 1973, p. 493.
8 Mutafchiev P., "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", pp. 494-5; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gra-
mota, p. 37; Gjuzelev V., "Nadpisa ot krepostta", Bozhenishki Urvich, Sofia, 1979,
p. 43; Petrov P., "0 titulakh 'sevast' i 'protosevasf v srednevekovom bolgarskom gosu-
darstve", Vizantijskij vremenik, t. XVII (1959), pp. 52-64; Andreev M., "Sluzhbite na
provintsialnoto upravlenie na srednovekovna Bulgarija i na srednovekovna S!lrbija
spored gramotite na bulgarskite i sr!lbskite vladeteli ot XIII-XIV v." Godishnik na
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 269
3.1.3
The directly borrowed Greek terms predominate likewise in the part
concerning court officials and the central state administration. I would
like to stress that, due to the nature of the Byzantine hierarchic system
of titles, these administrative services also had the nature of titles. In
this sense, the approach in constructing their designations is of spe-
cial interest for this study. Even from a cursory review of the extant
approximately fifteen appellations, including those not given in the
glossary, we see that eleven are directly transliterated from the Greek
(protovestiarios, vestiarios, grand primmicerius, protostrator, grand
dux, protokelliotes, grand logothete, logothete, grammatik), while four
are calques/translated from the same language (palace curator/curo-
palates, stolnik, voevoda, tainik). The addition of the modifier "great",
which could be a translation of the Greek word J.l.eym; or else added
in the Bulgarian version of the term, does not change matters, for the
title is nevertheless formed by the basic term.
3.1.4
So far, the terms discussed were Greek, such is not the case with the
word ~'ll.MeT'll. ("kmet"), specifically in the sense, claimed for it, of "dis-
tinguished person", "noble" This word has already been the focus of
attention and (excessive) interpretations in some studies; it has been
adduced as an argument in support of the Western Slavic origin of the
Law for Judging the People. 9 The thesis of K. Maximovich is far from
generally accepted and has been criticised with good reason by certain
scholars, Russian ones included. For instance I. Dobrodomov expresses
disagreement with views on the meaning of the word put forward as
early as the 19th century, and defines it as "landlord, husband"; he
rejects both the view that it was of Moravian origin and that it came
directly into Russia together with the Law for Judging the People. 10 All
Sopjijskija universitet, Juridicheskifakultet, t. 58,2 (1967), pp. 11, 16, 19, 26-7; Biliar-
sky, Institutsiite, pp. 119 tf, 125tf.
9 Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 90-2.
10 Dobrodomov I. G., "Iljuzornaja sem.antlka v ruskikh istoricheskikh slovarjakh i
ee posledstvija (na primere slova K'bMemb)", Drenjaja Rus', 3 (21), september, 2005,
pp. 26-7.
270 CHAPTER FOUR
3.1.5
3.2
The translated and calqued terms usually comprise the lower dignities,
although there are certain exceptions to that. Such is the office of the
palace curator or curopalates, which we shall examine further in this
study. In this group, we may include the stolnik, yet another court
official.
The most important military-administrative term, calqued from
Greek, is that of voevoda. This was a typical case of the early influence
of Constantinople on the Bulgarian institutional system, and that is
why it should be examined in its proper place.
Amongst the appellations of officials in the ruler's chancery, a trans-
lated word is tainik (TAHHHK'l>.); it is not present in the glossary, for we
find it in the text of the Vita of St. Philoteia by patriarch Euthymius,
which is not one of our base sources. 13 It was calqued from the Greek
~umuc6~, which, in turn came from the Latin secretarius. 14
Practically all designations of Bulgarian administrative-territorial
units, except the directly assimilated ones chora and kleisoura, are
translated, or calqued, from Greek, and, ultimately, were borrowed
from the administrative system of the Empire. 15
3.2.1
Finally, I would like to consider several groups of terms that are not
exactly appellations of institutions but are certainly relevant to the
institutional system and, precisely in this connection, were borrowed
through calques or translation from Greek. These are vlastel, glava
(= "head"), gospodin!gospodar (= "lord", "master") and their deriva-
tives nastolnik and nastoinik, together with words connected with
them, nachalo and nachalnik, rabotnik and rabotati (=to work), chin
(= ordo, degree) and their respective derivatives.
The word glava (= head) is related to ''being at the head of" and
exercising power, without exactly being the name of an institution. In
my opinion, it was a precise translation of the Greek word Ke<j>aA:ft.
The latter was of the nature of an administrative term designating a
district governor who headed the late-Empire administrative-territorial
unit called katepanikion. 16 This term was transliterated, not translated,
into Bulgarian as ~e<j>MHh\ (kephalia), the word presented here in
the glossary. For its part, glava (head) remained a very general name
for the leader's function, and not a specific institution. This dem-
onstrates the general approach that was used for the building of the
p. 324; Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 13811 , 160 11 If.• 1795_6; Guilland R., «Etudes sur
l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin. Le mystique, 6 !L'OOnK6~ », Revue des
etudes byzantines, XXVI, 1968, pp. 279-96; Magdalino P., «The Not-so-secret Func-
tion of the Mystik.os »,Revue des etudes byzantines, XLII (1984), pp. 229-40.
15 On this issue, cf. Biliarsky, « Les circonscriptions administratives », p. 190tf.
16 Mutafchiev, "Bozhenishkijat nadpis", pp. 495-6; Dujeev, SBK, II, p. 345;
Maksimovic, Provincijska uprava, p. 71tf.; Ostrogorsky G., Serska oblastposle Du5anove
smrti, Belgrade, 1965, p. 94; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provincialnoto upravlenie",
pp. 15-6; Institufii feudale, p. 95; Biliarsky Iv., "Belezhki W.rkhu institutsionnata
sistema na Vtoroto bulgarsko tsarstvo: kephalia", Tarnovska knizhovna shkola, voL V,
Veliko Ti!.rnovo, 1994, pp. 553-562; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 286-92.
272 CHAPTER FOUR
3.3
The purely Slavic words in the administrative vocabulary usually have a
closer connection with colloquial language, do not always have a pre-
cise institutional reference, and often designate persons of lower rank.
3.3.1
First of all I should cite the widely used word knjaz/knez (KH~~rz.
from KHi\\Srz.), although this is a Common Slavic loanword from the
Germanic languages. 19 Its meaning can vary widely. Initially it meant
"prince", "leader", i.e. the military leader of the tribe; later this was to
19 The citations from the charters have been indicated in the glossary. See also the
interesting case of the citing of "local knjazes" in the Vita of St Joachim of Osogovo:
Ivanov, BSM, p. 412. Regarding knjazes in mediaeval Serbia, see: Novakovic, Zakonski
spomenici, pp. 105, 107, 108, 109, 177, 182, 255, 260, 310, 312, 389, 424, 453, 455, 456,
471, 473, 494, 601, 614, 616, 620, 662, 680, 683, 704, 720, 759.
274 CHAPTER FOUR
turn into a monarch's title. In Bulgaria, this meaning does not exist as
a concrete title or administrative appellation but simply as a general
name for a high-ranking person or rulers. As a technical term, the
word is present in the Bulgarian nomenclature with the meaning of
village leader or leader of a small community. 20
3.4.
As pointed out, the words for honorary titles were entirely borrowed
from the Greek or simply transliterated in Cyrillic letters with the nee-
20 Petrov P., Grozdanova E., << Mittelalterliche balkanamter und Titel im osmanis-
essary phonetic changes. The clearest case is that of the direct loan
from Greek of the appellations for the so-called "imperial titles" (Ct.~iat
to£ ~acrtAl~): despot, sebastocrator, and caesar. The data for all three
are from the period of the Second Bulgarian Empire, which means
they were the result of the strong political and cultural influence of
the Empire.
4.1.1
The title of despot was characteristic for Bulgaria in the 14th century;
it was the highest title and certainly remained a "pure title" (i.e. not
connected to service in the administrative apparatus) and reproduces
the basic characteristics of this title in the Byzantine Empire without
significant deviation. 22
4.1.1.1. Origin of the title
The term oemt6tTl<; is of Greek origin, but has an old Indo-European
root. It can be broken down to oecr and -1tot'll<;· The part oecr- (from
oe~cr-) is an old genitive form of oro, oro~ = "home", while -1tot1l<;
(in Latin, potest, potestas) comes from a root related to the idea of
"ability", "mastery", "might", etc. 23 The literal translation and initial
meaning of the word was "master of the house", "lord of the house",
but early on, in antiquity, it acquired the general meaning of "mas-
ter" In the pagan period the word oemt6t'll<; = Latin "dominus" had
no special meaning. After Constantine the Great, two Greek terms
very close in meaning-Jd>pto<; and Oemt6tTl<;-came to be commonly
used in popular speech as a designation of the emperor. 24 Later the
term "despot" was used to address high-ranking clergymen, i.e. in
the sense of "bishop" in modern Bulgarian. According to Procopius
of Caesarea, Justinian was the first to introduce it as a designation
for the emperor. It became established and was in usage until the
22 Regarding the rank of despot, see the classical research by Bozidar Ferjancic
(Ferjancic B., Despoti u Vizantiji I u juznoslovenskim zemljama, Belgrade, 1960), and
an earlier study by Rodolphe Guilland (Guilland R, Recherches sur les institutions
byzantines, vol. II !=Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten, Bd. 35, 2/ (Berlin-Amsterdam
1967), pp. 1-24 (=Guilland R, Recherches sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire
byzantin: le despote, REB, XVII, 1959, pp. 52-89). Concerning despots in Bulgaria,
see: Biliarsky 1., "The Despots in Mediaeval Bulgaria", Byzantinobulgarica, voL IX,
Sofia, 1995, passim; idem, I nstitutsiite, pp. 17-84.
23 Prellwit, Etymologisches Warterbuch der Griechischen Sprachen, Gottingen, 1905,
p. 112.
24 Guilland, "Despote", pp. 52-3; Ferjancic, Despoti, p. 3.
276 CHAPTER FOUR
Srpske Akademije, t. XXVIII, 1908, pp. 237-44; FerjanciC, Despoti, pp. 156-204.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 277
tures. The first information about despots in Serbia dates from before
the imperial coronation of Stephen Dusan, and this shows the title was
received from abroad, from Constantinople or Tolrnovo. The bearers
of this high title in the second half of the 14th century, John Oliver,
Dejan, Vukasin, John Uglesa, John Dragas, etc., received it from the
Serbian Tsars.
The 15th century brought specific features to the title. There was no
longer a Serbian Tsar, and the title was received from Constantinople
and borne by the rulers of the country: Stephen Lazarevic, George
Brankovic, Lazar Brankovic, etc. As we shall see, this is no reason to
refer to a "Serbian Despotate"
4.1.1.2. Titular characteristic of the title of despot
The thesis that the characteristic of despot was purely titular, not related
to any function, is undisputed in foreign historiography. In this respect
Pseudo Kodinos was categorical: '0 oecrx6trtc;, cre~acrtoKpatrop Kat
Ka'icrap oUOeJ..Liav {m·npecria £xoucrtv, £av J..L'h taxe&mv eic; itreJ..Loviav. 30
The despot, as well as the sebastocrator and Caesar, performed no
office in the state apparatus. They could be entrusted by the basileus
de; ft'Y£J..LOviav, which meant to head a military expedition in strictly
defined cases. In fact, this was hardly the only kind of state activity with
which a sovereign could entrust a despot. What is important is that the
activities were not connected necessarily to the institution in a way that
would make the bearer of the latter part of the state apparatus.
As for the participation of the despot in the court ritual, it would
be hard for us to refer the Byzantine sources to Bulgarian conditions.
Although the tsars in Tarnovo strove fervently to imitate the basileus,
their court could hardly have implemented the complex and expen-
sive practices of Constantinople. Moreover, there is no evidence of
the existence in Bulgaria of most of the titles that were part of the
Byzantine court.
4.1.1.3
The "despotates" problem. We may say that the rejection of the view
that the title of despot was related to an office is not a topic of any
considerable debate. However, the same is not true for the issue of
the so-called "despotates", for which scholars have claimed, it was
not an official's title but the title of a ruler over a certain territory. A
34 Angelov B., Iz starata, vol. II, p. 143; Ivanov J., "Pomenitsi na bulgarskite tsare
i tsaritsi", in: idem, Izbrani proizvedenija, t. I, Sofia, 1982, p. 146; Stancheva M.,
Stanchev St., Bojanskija pomenik, Sofia 1963, p. 28.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 281
This problem appears even more interesting when related to the the-
sis advanced by B. Ferjancic that the Bulgarian tsars began to bestow
despot titles late in time, only starting with Eltimir. 35 It is hard either
to support or to reject this assertion. There can be no doubt that the
title, whatever its origin, was present in Bulgaria during the 13th cen-
tury. Even denying the case of Alexis Slav, at least Jacob Svetoslav and
George Terter were certainly despots on Bulgarian territory. On the
other hand, it seems this title remained somewhat alien to Bulgarian
reality: we say this because of the discussion above and in view of the
obvious intermeddling of foreign powers in all three cases.
Indeed, during the 13th century the title of despot was apparently
somewhat displaced by that of sebastocrator. Over approximately half
a century, we see there were four sebastocrators, who were quite pow-
erful in political terms: these were Strez, Alexander, Peter and Kala-
jan. Moreover, the first two were brothers of the ruler and the third,
albeit only a son-in-law of his, seems to have dominated the political
life of the state around the year 1253. We must not forget the great
importance attached to the degree of kinship in the Byzantine system
of titles. Of course, in saying this, I do not mean to cast doubt on the
hierarchic ranking of the titles despot and sebastocrator in Bulgaria;
but we stress once again that the title of despot seems to have been
alien to the court in Tarnovo during the first century after the restora-
tion of the Bulgarian state, which may have been due to a general delay
and belated reliving of the preceding epoch.
Also of interest for our topic is how the mutual relation between
these two titles developed subsequently. It seems that during the 14th
century the title of despot replaced that of sebastocrator. The number
of Bulgarian despots known to history increases, while we have no
data about a single sebastocrator. This fact is indirectly confirmed by a
little-used source: "Prayer for the Entitlement of Caesar and Despot",36
in which the second in rank title is not mentioned. Although it is hard
to believe the title of sebastocrator dropped from the hierarchy, the
lack of it bespeaks that it had become untypical for Bulgaria and alien
to the court in Tarnovo.
Why did Bulgarian tsars start bestowing despot titles at the end of
the 13th and beginning of the 14th century? We could glean some
suggestions as to the cause from the charters, which give information
about the overall increased complexity of the institutional system. The
most probable explanation is that the relatively late assimilation of
this practice in n.rnovo was due to the general delay in the process of
reception of Byzantine culture in Bulgaria.
One of the basic differences compared with Byzantine practice was
in the circle of people honoured with a title. In the time of the Palae-
ologos dynasty, there was a rule whereby the eldest son and heir to the
throne would bear the imperial title ofbasileus, while the younger sons
were despots. 37 All this was in connection with the ruler's dynastic
policy, aimed at ensuring the inheritance of the crown and preserving
the highest titles for the ruling family. In Bulgaria, this practice can-
not be identified as something established. Of the Bulgarian despots
known to us, only one was the son of a tsar-Michael, depicted in the
murals of the church in Dolna Kamenitsa. It seems that such exactly
was the case: Michael III declared his elder son John Stephen tsar;
and at least one of his younger sons, despot. In general, the Bulgarian
rulers were not strangers to the practice of declaring the heir to the
throne tsar: this is what Constantine Asen, George I Terter and nearly
all 14th century rulers did. Nevertheless, these events were not con-
nected with the Byzantine practice of bestowing the title of despot on
the younger sons. In this respect, the cases of Michael III and John
Alexander provide the most interesting material.
Of the two marriages of Michael Shishman, the only offspring
known to us are the four sons he had by king Milutin's daughter. Of
them, John Stephan carried the title of tsar while his father was still
alive. John Cantacuzene, who devoted considerable attention to the
other son, Shish man, does not mention any title of the latter, and he
would hardly have overlooked a title if there had been one. The only
mention of the other son, Ludovic, is in a Neapolitan document, and
there is no indication of his title there. The only one left is Michael,
known by his title of despot.
What is particular about tsar John Alexander is that all his sons
carried the title of tsar, an unprecedented case in Bulgarian mediaeval
history. While some of them, Michael Asen, John Stratsimir, and John
Shishman, were heirs to the throne, this is not true for the other two,
both called John Asen. All this suggests a purposeful policy in this
respect pursued by John Alexander. Of course, in such a case, there
were no despots among the direct heirs.
Evidently, the single example of Despot Michael cannot convince
us that the Byzantine practice of entitling the younger sons as des-
pots was observed in Bulgaria. On the contrary, we may assert that
such a tradition never existed in our country. An interesting fact in
this respect is that, when bestowing this title, the Bulgarian tsars did
not limit themselves to the closest relatives, such as sons, brothers,
and sons-in-law. We already discussed the sons. No data are avail-
able regarding brothers, for Eltimir did not receive his despot title
from George I Terter, his brother, and Voisil did not get his from his
brother, tsar Smilets. Despot Constantine and Eltimir were the only
son-in-law. The degree of kinship was quite remote. According to the
Dubrovnik historian Giacomo di Pietro Luccari, Michael Shishman
was a cousin to Theodore Svetoslav Terter, but this was a rather distant
and even artificial relation by the second marriage of tsar George I
Terter. If we assume that despot Sratsimir received his title from the
same tsar, the "kinship" must likewise have been along the line of his
wife, and if he received it from Michael Shishman, in that case he was
related as brother-in-law. John Alexander was nephew to Michael III,
from whom he probably received the title. Dobrotitsa and his son John
Terter had no kinship with the Bulgarian ruler's family. Their policy
was mostly oriented to Constantinople.
We have before us a rather extensive circle of relatives who bore
the highest court title. This inclines us to believe that, in bestowing
it, the Bulgarian tsars pursued a different policy from that of the
basileis. The title of despot somehow lost its dynastic feature in Bul-
garia (and in Serbia as well).
In connection with the practice of bestowing the title of despot in
Bulgaria in the 14th century, another interesting issue is the entitling
of foreigners. The Empire widely used this practice in order to attract
powerful rulers to its policy. The question as to whether it was used
by Bulgarian tsars as well is of special interest, for it would reflect
on the overall assessment of their foreign policy and would provide
a new characteristic of their political doctrine. The awarding of the
highest court title, especially to foreigners, was a vivid manifestation of
the imperial idea, with which all Orthodox countries became involved
eventually.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 285
The only country in which we may look for titles bestowed by Bul-
garian tsars is Serbia. In my opinion, it is untenable to presume Byz-
antine leaders were entitled as despots by Tclrnovo. Since we find no
despot titles during this period in Walachia and Moldavia, the only
country left is Serbia. What complicates the situation is that, after
1346, Stephen Dusan was tsar and could have granted such titles him-
self. Therefore, the answer to our question should be sought in the
preceding period. The sources afford us just one possibility, connected
with despot Dragoslav. We shall agree with B. Ferjancic that this des-
pot most probably got his title from Tclrnovo and not from Constan-
tinople.38 It seems the practice of bestowing despot titles to foreigners
did exist, but further data are lacking.
4.1.1.5. Insignia
In order to understand correctly the title of despot and the rights and
position of the bearer, we should devote the proper attention to insig-
nia. Every element of apparel and other attributes of the despot, rang-
ing from the crown to the colour of the horse-collar and the tent, were
emblematic and indicated his place in the hierarchy. Byzantine sources
make this sufficiently clear. Regrettably, we should point out from the
start that the study of despot insignia is not clearly a part of this study,
which is devoted to the language of power. This is because we do not
have available to us a description of insignia in Bulgaria, and can only
judge by the extant depictions, which are not numerous either. There
is the wall painting in the church in the village of Dolna Kamenitsa
and the picture of despot Constantine in the London Gospel. There
is one other depiction, that of despot Jacob Svetoslav upon his coin.
He is portrayed frontally, dressed in armour, with loros and stemma. 39
However, the image is such that we can hardly get a thorough idea
about the insignia and the institution that concerns us. The image is
mostly related to Western models and mainly indicates the imperial
claims of the lord of Vi din rather than his title of despot.
In view of the scarcity of domestic sources, we shall once again have
to turn to a foreign original. The treatise by Pseudo Kodinos con-
tains quite a comprehensive presentation, which enables us to form
an image of the garments of Byzantine despots around the middle of
the 14th century.40 The skiadion of the despot is entirely covered with
pearls and bears his own name, embroidered in gold threads. The pen-
dants are those of a basileus but without knots and palms. The tunic is
red, like that of the basileus, with embroideries, but without military
insignia. The tamparion is red, with braids. The stockings are red and
the shoes are two-coloured, violet and red, with pearl-embroidered
images of eagles. The spurs are like those of the basileus, while the
straps are two-coloured. The saddle is also two-coloured with embroi-
dered eagles upon the similar two-coloured covers of the horse. The
despot's tent is white, covered with red eaglets. It is specifically indi-
cated that the children of the despot do not wear their skiadion in
court. The skaranikon of the title bearers is decorated with precious
stones, and the kabbadion is violet or red, embroidered with pearls if
the wearer desires.
Unfortunately, we can find no such description of the despots in
any of the countries neighbouring the Empire, and the uniforms in
the courts of Tarnovo or Skopje were hardly so exquisite. In any case,
as additional source material for our study we could draw upon the
available portrayals of Serbian despots. Nevertheless, we should use
this data very cautiously. There are undoubtedly differences compared
with Bulgaria, especially as concerns the 15th century, when the Ser-
bian rulers usually had the rank of despots.
Of course, even the data from the two depictions of Bulgarian des-
pots do not allow us to make a full description, like that in the treatise
by Pseudo Kodinos. That is why we shall touch upon some of the most
important elements among the insignia for which we have data. To
start with the crown of the despot, we see that despots Michael and
Constantine wear rather different crowns. This is how D. Panayotova
describes the crown on the wall painting in Dolna Kamenitsa: "Despot
Michael has upon his head a crown which consists of a metal band
combined with a top of thick, hard material. At the base of the crown,
upon the metal band, are precious stones (rubies and emeralds), held
by small metal clamps, and all this strewn with pearls. In front the
metal band raises in a rectangular shape (kamara), upon which is a
shining stone typical for the crown of a despot. Two pearl pendants
hang from the crown in front of the ears."41 The Yugoslav scholars
M. Corovic-Ljubinkovic and R. Ljubinkovic note that this is a rather
archaic model crown. According to them, early Byzantine, Bulgarian,
and Norman rulers wore similar crowns, but not the same. We find
no such crown worn by any Balkan despot in the 14th to 15th cen-
tury.42 The crown of despot Constantine is of a completely different
kind. It has a gold rim with plates in front and on the sides, a large
red precious stone (ruby) attached to each plate. The entire crown is
decorated with pearlsY
What determined the difference in crowns? The treatise by Pseudo
Kodinos indicated a distinction between the despot sons and despot
son-in-laws of the basileus. In our case, precisely this was the difference
between Michael and Constantine. Not least, the two lived about half a
century apart in time, an interval that might be of some significance.
Another interesting element is the sceptre. Both despots are por-
trayed holding sceptres. The same object is found in Serbia, but is not
mentioned in the treatise of Pseudo Kodinos. Despot Michael was por-
trayed holding in his right hand a cross, decorated with pearls and pre-
cious stones. Researchers consider this to have been a sign of kinship
with the reigning family. 44 Such a cross does not occur in Serbia, but
we encounter it among the basileis of Constantinople after Theodore
Laskaris, and likewise in the portrayal of tsar John Alexander and the
young tsar John Shishman in the London Gospel.4 5 Unlike them, the
Tsar's son-in-law Despot Constantine is depicted with a red sceptre,
at the end of which is an ornament in the shape of two cones with
touching tips connected by a small ball.46 The ornamentation is of the
same material as the sceptre: it seems to be red in colour. There are
no other ornaments. A striking fact is that such sceptres are carried
not only by the despot but also by the three daughters of the tsar (his
wife and her two sisters), by tsaritsa Theodora, and even by tsar John
41 Panayotova D., "Les portraits des donateurs de Dolna Kamenica", Zbornik radova
VizantoloSkog instituta, t. XII, 1970, pp. 146-7.
42 Ljubinkovic R, CoroviC-LjubinkoviC M., "Crkva u Donjoj Kamenici", Starinar,
t. I, 1950, p. 69.
43 Zhivkova L., Chetveroevangelieto na tsar Ivan Alexander, Sofia 1980, p. 82, tabl. I,
p. 2.
44 Panayotova, "Les portraits des donateurs", p. 147.
45 Ljubinkovic R., Corovic-LjubinkoviC M., "Crkva u Donjoj Kamenici", p. 70;
Zhivkova, Chetveroevangelieto, p. 83, tabl. II.
46 Zhivkova, Chetveroevangelieto, p. 82, tabl. I, p. 2.
288 CHAPTER FOUR
fer in clothes from her two sisters. Here she is present mostly in her
quality of tsar's daughter than of "despotitsa". As for the wife of des-
pot Michael, certain elements of her clothing and decorations-the
closed crown with earlaps, the bicephalous eagle, and the abundant
pearls-underscore certain specific features in the insignia. In general,
we should not forget that the wives of these titled persons carried their
title only inasmuch as it was the title of their husbands. In this sense,
the emblematic importance of their garments is restricted to reflecting
those of their husbands. Pseudo Kodinos does not mention the gar-
ments of the women.
Finally, we should say that no general conclusions might be drawn
based on the available data. Nor can we confirm the Byzantine model
was either strictly followed or disregarded. The garments of despot
Michael and despot Constantine are sufficiently different, so that we
may not discern the specific features of the despot's clothing in medi-
aeval Bulgaria, yet sufficiently alike to have the same approach to them.
Nor should we forget the different position of the two: one was a son,
the other was a son-in-law of the tsar. A particularly important fact is
that the wall paintings in Dolna Kamenitsa depict a ruler, even though
despot Michael's apparel is not a usual ruler's apparel. This is indicated
by the above-mentioned insignia and by the depiction, above the des-
pot and his wife, of Jesus Christ making a gesture of blessing.
4.1.1.6. Promotion
The insignia of despot were delivered to the entitled person with a
special ceremony. Only a tsar (basileus) could perform such a pro-
motion in rank. All titles included in the Byzantine hierarchic system
were bestowed upon specific people, usually for life. They were not
hereditary. In his treatise, Pseudo Kodinos does not say this explicitly,
but the matter would have been obvious for a 14th century author. The
very logic of the relation excludes inheritance of the title. Sources on
mediaeval Bulgaria do not testify to serious deviations here from the
Byzantine practice.47
In his treatise, Pseudo Kodinos outlines a circle of people bearing the
title. These were the closest relatives: sons, brothers, and son-in-laws of
the basileus. Of course, the sources attest that limitation to this circle
was not strictly observed. The deviations can be traced with particular
clarity, for the title depreciated over the 14th century. The circle of
entitled persons was one of the areas in which the practice in Bul-
garia (and in Serbia) differed from the Byzantine one. Yet this did not
bring significant deviations from the Byzantine archetype as concerns
the nature of the title and the act of bestowing it in Slavic Orthodox
countries.
The treatise of Pseudo Kodinos provides a relatively complete
description of the ritual of bestowing the title of despot. 48 Notably,
the ceremony resembled to a considerable degree the coronation of
the ruler. Another interesting source, preserved in several copies,
is the prayer for the entitling of a despot and other high titles. 49 This
was a purely ecclesiastic ritual, which makes it different from the
above-mentioned. The earliest copy, that in tsar Baril's Synodicon-
was from late 14th century Bulgaria.
Finally, we should touch upon several exceptions in bestowing the
title of despot. First is the information from George Sphrantzes that
the pope honoured Andrew Palaeologos with the title-this was the
first son of the despot Thomas. 50 We have all reasons to believe this
case to be an exception. Moreover, the papacy was certainly one of the
institutions that lay claim to be heir to the traditions of the Roman
Empire, including the Eastern one. This case offers the possibility for
such an interpretation: entitling a despot may be a claim of the Holy
See to the heritage of the imperial traditions of Constantinople.
A similar situation is evident in the Serbian-Hungarian relations. In
the second half of the 15th century and up to the middle of the 16th,
the Hungarian kings bestowed despot titles on the last representatives
of the Serbian ruler families. 51 It should be emphasised that this prac-
tice started only after 1453, when there were no longer basileis in Con-
stantinople. Undoubtedly, here again we see a sign of certain claims to
the Byzantine heritage. In penetrating into the Balkans, the Hungarian
kingdom emerged as one of the powers capable of resisting the Mus-
lim conquest. There was a struggle for domination over the peninsula,
and such domination was undoubtedly linked with the ideological tra-
ditions of Constantinople. In this sense, it is to emphasise once again
that the Hungarian kings took the liberty of bestowing titles only after
the Ottoman Turks destroyed the Byzantine Empire.
Having examined the ritual of creating a despot, we should devote a
few words to the question of how the title could be withdrawn. In gen-
eral, the hierarchic system of the Empire excluded such a possibility
even in the case of cumulation when a new, higher one was received.
4.1.1.7. Titles and forms of address
As bearer of the highest court dignity, the despot had the right to
the corresponding title and certain forms in which to be addressed.
Regrettably, the domestic sources once again provide little and insuf-
ficient data, and we shall therefore have to resort to comparisons. The
basic Byzantine sources in this respect are the acts of despots, the trea-
tise of Pseudo Kodinos, and some forms found in letters. We need not
retrace the whole development of the despot's title in the Empire based
on preserved acts and narrative texts. That is why I shall limit myself to
pointing out that, while the earlier despots were content with signing
themselves only as N. o Oemt6't'll<;, the title of the despots of Morea
in the 15th century reached its most ceremonious form: ev Xpu:ncp -rep
eecp euae~'h<; oemt6't'll<; naJ..moMro<; (o nop<!>uporevVI'J-ro<;).
The treatise of Pseudo Kodinos remains an invaluable source on
the Byzantine system. Concerning the despot, it contains a compara-
tively detailed presentation of the forms of address. 52 Unfortunately,
there are no data on the ceremony in the Bulgarian court, and we
could not look for parallels with the data in this source. Valuable
information is also contained in the correspondence manual of the
patriarch's chancery « Ekthesis nea », especially as a similar, though
far from identical, Slavic text has been discovered. 53 Here too we
come across the forms oemw-r6. ~ou and it ~amA.eia crou. Of addi-
tional interest is the form of address specifying the position of the
despot himself: 41-42 1t(XV£U'tUXe<J't(X't£ Oemto-r6. ~ou, 43 eu-ruxecr'ta't£
oemto-ra and 44 1tavemuxema-re, £voo~6-ra-re, ~eyaAo1tpexema-re. 54 In
4.1.1.8. Acts
As a high dignitary, the despot had the right to issue certain acts. 59
Probably all despots, especially the powerful local lords, had their
chancery, where official documents were issued. The despot acts were
silver-seal decrees or argyrobulls, unlike the imperial gold bulls or
chrysobulls. In this respect as well, there were a number of variants
in the Empire. 60
A text that may be considered issued in the chancery of a Bulgarian
despot is Jacob Svetoslav's letter to Cyril, metropolitan of Kiev. Regret-
tably, this document is such that it can help us but little in our present
research. In both extant copies, this document is combined with John
Dragoslav's addition, but is separate from the rest of the text. It starts
with an address to the prelate and is written in the first person singular
of the despot. However, the form of address is permanently lost, as
well as the signature, the seal, and other elements. Moreover, what we
have is most probably not the full text of the message.
4.1.1.9. Coin minting
A feature that distinguishes Bulgarian despots from the Byzantine ones
is coin minting. 61 We have no data on existence of coinage struck by
Byzantine despots. The right to mint coins belonged exclusively to the
basileus, and it was not infringed upon. In this respect, the situation
in the neighbouring Balkan countries varied: mediaeval Serbia offers
ample historical information. We have extant coins of the despot John
Oliver and of 15th century despots.
Extant coins minted by a Bulgarian despot and dating back as early
as the 13th century are those of the lord of Vi din-despot Jacob Sveto-
slav. The other despot who coined money is Dobrotitsa, the ruler of
the Karvouna land (Scythia Minor). His son despot John Terter also
minted coins.
We may ask ourselves whether the authority to mint coins defined
some essential difference between the Byzantine despots and those of
Bulgaria and Serbia. In this connection, it is to point out that mint-
ing was hardly part of the set of rights defining the status of the title.
59 For more details on the acts of despots, see: Biliarsky, "The Despots", p. 144 and
Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite, pp. 43-4.
6° C£ Ferjancic B., "0 despotskim povelama", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog insti-
4.1.2
The title of sebastocrator also followed the Byzantine archetype with
no significant deviations at all. 63
At first, the title of sebastocrator was reserved only for the clos-
est relatives of the basileis. Alexis Comnenos first appointed it to his
brother and afterwards to his son. Alexis III Angelos started giving
the title to his sons-in-law, one of whom, the grand zhupan of Serbia
Stephen Nemanja, was even a foreigner. The title existed in Nicaea as
well. After the reconquista of Constantinople in 1261, the title was
evidently quickly depreciated. This is largely due to the increasingly
wide use of the title of despot, which was not linked with inheritance
of the throne. Sebastocrator was a title that did not lose its place in
the hierarchy, but largely lost its dynastic element. A general deprecia-
tion can be seen there too. Constantine Palaeologos was the last ruler's
brother to bear the title of sebastocrator-after him all such relatives
are despots. In one case, the title was even given to Momchil, a quasi-
brigand and lord of the Rhodopes Mountains. The last bearers of the
title were from the Cantacuzene family. Subsequently, there are no
more data on this title: its use seems to have been discontinued in the
Empire during the 14th century and is not mentioned in the sources
after that time. 66
The Latin emperors of Constantinople tried to copy the basileis in
all respects, which had a reflection on the hierarchic system. Regarding
the title of sebastocrator, the only extant information, contained in a
letter by Pope Honorius III, is about Conon de Bethune.
In mediaeval Serbia, the title of sebastocrator appeared relatively
early: Stephen Nemanjic the First-Crowned received it in his quality
of son-in-law of the basileus. 67 In this connection, B. Ferjancic is right
in pointing out that Stephen was only a Byzantine sebastocrator, not a
Serbian one. In fact, the true story of the sebastocrator title in the state
of the Nemanides begins in the 14th century and is connected mostly
with the age following the coronation of Stephen Dusan. That was
the age when there were Serbian sebastocrators in the proper sense,
i.e. such as had received their high title from the Serbian ruler. 68 As
in most cases of borrowed Byzantine institutions, here too we may
observe essential, serious deviations from the traditions of Constanti-
nople: the purely titular nature of the dignity was preserved. In Serbia
as well, the title waned towards the end of the 14th century, together
with the end of the tsardom. In this case, as well, we notice the com-
mon tendencies occurring in both Balkan states. In Tarnovo and Sko-
pje alike, the Byzantine tradition was strictly observed and no serious
deviations from the archetype are evident. In both states the title of
despot proved more viable, and that of sebastocrator vanished (as it
did in the Empire) much earlier.
4.1.2.2. Titular nature of sebastocrator
In connection with our topic, an interesting question is what the title
of sebastocrator was essentially. The question is whether it was an hon-
orary title that gave the bearer a place in the hierarchy and a place in
the court ritual, or else a state office involving certain functions in
the central management apparatus or in the provincial administration.
Some Bulgarian historians raised this problem, which is not present in
foreign historiography.
There are no doubts concerning the title in the Empire. The extant
source data are definite that there was no state office connected with the
title. No such data can be found in Anna Comnena or in later authors.
Pseudo Kodinos was categorical that the sebastocrator had no definite
office, unless assigned as military commander by the basileus.
The problem as to whether this was a title or an office was raised
by P. Petrov in connection with his research on sebastos in mediae-
val Bulgaria. E. Kojeeva continued this direction of interpretation. She
devoted several articles to the topic of Bulgarian sebastocrators. In
them, she categorically asserts that the sebastocrator was an adminis-
trative and military governor of a large province and had several sebas-
toi subordinated to him. I believe these claims are quite unfounded
and I have commented on them elsewhere. 69 Here I shall only mention
that, in my opinion, the Bulgarian title of sebastocrator was identical
with the Byzantine one. It was purely titular, reserved for the closest
circle of relatives of the ruler, and was not necessarily connected with
any functions of a public legal kind. Such was the essential nature of
the reception of a title: to assimilate something from abroad together
with an integral transplantation of the Byzantine culture, and not to
spoil and make a "national change" of the existing model.
4.1.2.6. Acts
Being one of the highest dignitaries, the sebastocrator had the right
to issue specially regulated acts. In the Empire, these acts underwent
some development, but in general tended to be in the category of
ypa<l>'fl. 75 The signature had to be written in blue ink. 76 There are no
extant acts of Bulgarian sebastocrators, but we may presume such acts
existed and were similar to the Byzantine ones.
4.1.2.7. Insignia
We have a considerable amount of available information regarding the
apparel and insignia of the Byzantine sebastocrators. The first data are
from Anna Comnena in her account of the creation of this title. The
author informs us that Alexis I Comnenos allowed the sebastocrators
and caesars to wear crowns at festivities, crowns that were second in
splendour only to that of the basileus himself, decorated with pearls
and precious stones only in some parts and did not have a rounded
cover above. 77 The Yugoslav scholar J. Kovacevic devotes special atten-
tion to the crown of the sebastocrators. 78
The treatise by Pseudo Kodinos provides a rather comprehensive
description of the garments and insignia of this title as they were by
the middle of the 14th century. According to this source, the skiadion
of the sebastocrator was red and gold, decorated with gold thread. The
veil and pendants were like those of the despot, as was the red tunic,
except that it was without embroidery. It is not known what kind of
tamparion he wore, but we do know that the stockings were blue. The
author of the treatise informs that John Cantacuzene allowed his wife's
brothers, John Asen and Manuel Asen, to wear tamparia and stock-
ings like those of despots. The shoes of the sebastocrator were blue,
with eagles embroidered in gold thread against a red background, of
the kind that the despots wore. The whole harness was blue. The tent
was white with blue squares sown on it.79 What is noticeable here is
the use of the colour blue, which seems emblematic for this title. The
other evident tendency is towards similarity with the despot.
In general, the Serbian sebastocrators did not deviate from the tra-
ditions of the Byzantine Empire. Unfortunately, we have no descrip-
tions of their garments, but we can make some inferences based on
the extant portraits. 80 Some of the portraits are in a rather poor state,
such as that in Treskavets, and do not provide much information.
Some other interesting depictions, such as the portrait of sebastocra-
tor Isaac Doucas in St. Panteleimon in Ochrid, contain bicephalous
eagles, which are also emblematic components. We have a portrait of
the sebastocrator Vladko in the small church in the village of Psaca.
I would like to draw attention to the colours: the apparel of Vladko
is crimson. This is not typical for the Empire, at least not according
to the information provided by Pseudo Kodinos; on the other hand,
this matches the tendency for similarity to the emblems of the despots
(and the emperors), emblems that are common to the supreme titles.
The patron portraits in the Bojana church provide the only extant
data concerning the apparel of the Bulgarian sebastocrators. From
them we can draw no conclusions, nor trace a development, but they
do give us some idea on the matter. 81 Kalojan is portrayed wearing
a sebastocrator crown with a plate in front, upon which there is a
precious stone. His apparel consists of a mantle and divitission. The
mantle is green and hangs only to the shoulders without buttoning in
front. The divitission is dark-blue (according to some authors, dark-
green), long, fastened at the waist by a belt of metal plates. There are
peribrachia on the sleeves. The fabric is luxurious and with orna-
ments. Dessislava wears a crown, veiled with a thin fabric that covers
the ears, but leaves visible the hair, which is decorated at the temples
with a string of pearls. She also wears large pearl earrings. Her dress
is of a richly decorated fabric. I would like to draw attention to the
predominantly green colour of Kalojan's garments, rather than the
blue considered typical for the Byzantine sebastocrators. Of course,
this single depiction is not reason enough to claim there was a serious
deviation from the Byzantine traditions, especially as Manuel Philos
indicates green as the colour of the sebastocrators' clothes in Constan-
tinople as well. 82 This description is from a time closer to that of the
8° Kova.Cevic J., Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih slovena, pp. 49, 54, tabl XXXVIII.
81 Mijatev Kr., Bojanskite stenopisi, Dresden, 1961, pp. 16-7, table 46-50; Grabar
A., Bojanskata tsarkva, Sofia, 1978, pp. 68-70, tables I-III.
82 Ferjancic, "Sevastokratori u Vizantiji", p. 144.
302 CHAPTER FOUR
Bojana wall paintings and probably reflects a feature that was present
both in the Empire and in Bulgaria.
4.1.2.8
Having broadly retraced the basic characteristics of the title of sebas-
tocrator in mediaeval Bulgaria, I believe we may say they were not
essentially different from those of the Byzantine archetype. Even if some
specificity did exist in the concrete practice of entitlement in Bulgaria,
it could not have been of a kind justifying the claim there was an
essential difference compared with the Byzantine title. In other words,
this was a case of reception, or transplantation, into Bulgaria of the
Byzantine practice. Finally, I would like to mention the names of the
Bulgarian sebastocrators known to us. They were sebastocrator Strez
(brother of tsar Baril), sebastocrator Alexander (brother of tsar John
II Asen), sebastocrator Peter (brother-in-law of tsar Michael II Asen),
sebastocrator Kalojan, and sebastocrator Radoslav (brother of tsar
Smilets and of despot Voisil ).
4.1.3
The title of caesar is rather more problematic; it is not included in
the glossary, because it occurs only in a translated liturgical text, a
prayer for the promotion of the holder of the title. 83 No Bulgarian
caesar is known by name, nor is there any concrete information about
the activity of such a dignitary. Nevertheless, I believe we should not
neglect the prayer for entitlement of this category of dignitary, in view
of the obvious scarcity of sources for our mediaeval history. What is
important for this study is that the name of the title of caesar is like-
wise transliterated from the Greek, although ultimately the word is of
Latin origin. 84 The title of caesar is the oldest of the "imperial" titles.
Like the other two in this category (despot and sebastocrator), its ori-
gin is connected with the set of titles of the basileis. The Byzantine
x:a'icrap comes from the Latin word Caesar, which was the name of
Caius Iulius Caesar and during the Principate (in the Early Roman
83 See: Biliarsky Iv., « Le rite du couronnement >>, pp. I06, I33-4; Biliarsky Iv.,
"Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", Istoricheski pregled, II (I989), pp. 54-7;
Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. Ill-5.
84 On the caesars in the Empire, cf Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, 134 (I), I48 ff.;
Oikonomides, Les listes, 293; Guilland, Recherches, II, 25-43 [=Orientalia Christiana
periodica, 13 (I947) I68-94].
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 303
189-91.
87 Guilland., "Cesarat", p. 187; Ferjancic, "Sevastokratori i cesari u Srpskom carstvu",
pp. 263-68.
88 See Biliarsky, "Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", pp. 54-7.
89 Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 151.
90 Goar, Ei>xo/Jrywv, p. 730; Arranz, "Couronnement royal", p. 103.
91 National Library "Sts Cyril and Methodius", No 289 (55), f 41v; Popruzhenko,
Sinodik tsarja Borisa (1898), p. 80; Biliarsky, "Le rite du couronnement", p. 106
(note 215).
304 CHAPTER FOUR
has to value these texts as historical source, whether they were applied
in any way for the real promotion dignitaries. I have already discussed
this problem elsewhere;92 here I shall only recall the basic conclusions.
In this respect, the text itself cannot help us much. We can only note
that the Greek archetype was faithfully followed and there were no
large deviations from it. The most interesting are the differences in the
title. The title of caesar is present in all copies known to us. That of
nobelissimus is present nowhere because it seems to have gradually dis-
appeared towards the end of the 12th century. The curopalates occurs
only in the text of the Synodicon copy. We shall discuss the latter fur-
ther in this research; here I shall only note that the title is written in
Cyrillic letters, but with the precise Greek spelling and even with the
suffix for nominal case, which is not at all typical for translated texts.
The main difference between the Greek and Slavic headings is the cita-
tion of the title of 'despot' in the latter. Another important difference
is the mention of "other dignitaries" in the translated versions.
We see the differences are few and occur mainly in the heading.
Nevertheless, I would say they demonstrate the translator composed
an or do of the highest titled persons that was actually meant for use in
the respective country. The Greek prayer reflects the ordo of promotion
the highest titles in the Empire in the period of the 9th-11th century.
Caesar, nobelissimus and curopalates were the first three positions in
the hierarchy in the taktika of U spensky, Benesevic, Oikonomides, and
in the treatise of Philotheus. 93 The Slavic text reflects a similar posi-
tioning: the despot is first in the hierarchy, and the caesar is in the top
ranks. In the later transcripts (or translations), "other great or small
dignitaries" are also indicated, meaning the rest of the title-bearers.
Therefore, the source we are discussing provides the only extant
information about caesars in mediaeval Bulgaria. The possible objec-
tion that this was a Serbian translation that subsequently passed into
Bulgaria does not seem convincing, not only because, as mentioned,
the sebastocrator's title is missing from it, but also because the oldest
preserved transcript is from the manuscript of the Bulgarian Synodi-
con. The title of Caesar probably belonged to the highest strata of the
aristocracy and it is surprising that there are no preserved data about
92 Biliarsky, "Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", pp. 54-7; Biliarsky, "Le rite
du couronnement", p. 125.
93 Oikonomides, Les listes, p. 293.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 305
it. In fact, this might be the most serious argument against the thesis
that it was present in the Bulgarian rank system. Of course, this thesis
cannot be disregarded, but I personally am not inclined to accept it.
I must again refer to the extreme scarcity of sources in this respect.
We should not forget that, for the second most important title, that
of sebastocrator, we know of only five bearers, two of whom are men-
tioned in the preserved sources only once, and one of whom is cited in
two or three places. Hence, we should not disregard a piece of infor-
mation, which might enable us to enrich our understanding of the title
system in mediaeval Bulgaria.
It would be pointless to discuss in detail the status of the caesar.
We have no other data, and these prayers do not allow us to set it
apart from the other persons indicated there: despot, curopalates, etc.
It would be interesting to know when this title was included in the
Bulgarian hierarchical system. The question is complicated by the fact
that it existed in the pagan period as well, when emperor Justinian II
honoured khan Tervel with it. 94 Despite these data showing the But-
gars had encountered this title in the earliest period of our history,
I do not feel we have reasons to seek its roots in the First Bulgarian
Empire. There are no supporting data for this, and it is impossible to
assume it was preserved after khan Tervel. Most probably, the title
had a place in the political life during the Second Empire, when the
complete hierarchical system was built after the Byzantine model. Yet
it was not widely used in mediaeval Bulgaria.
4.1.4. Protosebastos
This title is mentioned in extant mediaeval Bulgarian sources only in
connection with two persons: in a charter of the Serbian king Ste-
phen Uros II Milutin on the donation to protosebastos Pribo and in
the Synodicon, where there is a reference to the former protosebastos,
now monk Theodosius. 95 The data are such that it would not be pos-
sible upon them alone to build some notion of the title. Essentially,
they attest only that it existed in Bulgaria. That is why we shall turn
again to the Byzantine archetype.
The title of protosebastos was one of the highest in the hierarchical
system of the Empire under the dynasty of the Comnenoi, and to some
degree under the Palaeologoi. 96 The name is formed on the basis of
cre~acrto<;, which, having been an epithet used for the basileus, became
a separate title. Subsequently, through prefixes, new titles were formed
(7tavtmepcre~amo<; or 7tpOYtocre~acrto<;), which stood in a considerably
higher position in the hierarchy. 97 The appearance of the title of pro-
tosebastos in the Empire was connected with the reforms and dynastic
policy of Alexis I Comnenos, when a number of titles were created on
the basis of cre~acrto<;. The first bearer of the title was the brother of
the basileus, Hadrian Comnenos. 98 It was also bestowed upon foreign-
ers, such as the doge of Venice. Despite the general devaluation of
titles, protosebastos retained its high position in the hierarchy. Some
of its bearers were among the most eminent families in the Byzan-
tine Empire: the Palaeologos, Comnenos, Tarchaniotes, Raoul, and
Metochites. 99
Our basic information about this title comes from the treatise of
Pseudo Kodinos. In this author's ranking, the protosebastos occupies
the fourteenth place and comes immediately after the grand logothete
and before the pincerna. 100 In other preserved 14th-century rank enu-
merations, this title generally retains a similar place in the hierarchy,
with certain fluctuations between the 13th and 14th positions. 101
Pseudo Kodinos gives us valuable information about the apparel of
the protosebastos, though not by direct description but in reference to
that of the great contostablos and the great primmicerius. The garment
consisted of a golden-green skiadion, with silk threads. The kabbadion
was also of silk, as was the skaranikon, in which several colours were
interwoven. The skaranikon bore depictions of the basileus: in front
4.1.5. Sebastos
There is no unanimity of scholars on the nature of this institution in
Bulgaria and Serbia, and the question has arisen whether this was an
office or a "pure title". 111 I have presented my standpoint in the discus-
sion elsewhere; here I shall discuss mainly the term and the institu-
tion itself. The term cr£~amo~ is Greek and means "honoured", "holy",
"exalted", "grand", etc. It is to a great degree the Greek match for the
Latin "augustus", which, after Octavian, became a title of the emperor.
109 Ahrweiler H., "Le sebaste, chef des groupes ethniques", in: Polychronlon (Fest-
Until the 11th century cre~amoc; was an epithet of the basileus. 112 Anna
Comnena stated that Alexis I Comnenos created the particular title of
sebastos, 113 but this claim is hardly acceptable, especially as her own
father, so the same Alexis I, obtained the title of sebastos before becom-
ing a basileus. If we may believe Michael Psellos and John Zonaras, the
title first appeared under Constantine IX Monomachos (1042-1054),
who bestowed it in succession on his two mistresses. Later it was
borne by Constantine Ceroularios; Isaac Comnenos and his brother
Alexis received the title from Nicephorus III Botaniates. Hence, we
may assert that the creation of this new title was the most important
novelty in the hierarchical system of the Empire prior to the reforms
of Alexis I Comnenos. 114 At first, the title was of quite high a rank, but
quickly lost its importance and in the 14th century figured near the
bottom of the list.
Sebastos existed in mediaeval Serbia as well. 115 The charters of Ser-
bian rulers after the middle of the 13th century mentioned often the
title. Some of these cases refer to some privileges and the sebastos is
listed together with officials of the provincial administration to whom
the ruler forbade entering in the beneficiary's property.l16 Along with
this, it is undeniable that in other places, the title of sebastos is pre-
sented mostly as a title or an explicit difference is indicated between
the state and the state officials on one hand, and certain local lords
(HHHMb. rocnOAb.C'I'R08klW'I'HMb. no ~fMK!RC'I'R8 MH) on the other. 117 All
this presents a rather intricate picture. Essentially one may say that
the problem is similar to that in Bulgaria, for the data are similar. I
would specially like to note the view of Stojan N ovakovic that the Ser-
bian sebastos was not significantly different from the Byzantine arche-
type of the title and cannot be classified as part of the administrative
apparatus. 118
112 Brehier L., "L'origine des titres imperiaux a Byzance", Byz. Zeitschrift, XV,
p. 150; Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 209-10, 254; Mutafchiev, "Bozhen-
ishnikjat nadpis", pp. 493-4; Dujcev, SBK, II, pp. 316-47.
113 Annae Comnenae Alexias, I, p. 148; Brehier, Les institutions, p. 139.
114 Stiernon L., Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines. Sllbaste et gam-
bros", Revue des etudes byzantine, XXIII, 1965, pp. 228-227; Oikonomides, "Organisa-
tion administrative (1025-1118)", pp. 126-127, Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 139 30•
115 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 354-8.
116 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 177, 310, 388, 401, 407, 415, 423, 424, 455,
471, 473, 609, 614, 620, 662, 673, 680, 720.
117 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 394, 415, 613.
118 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", p. 257.
310 CHAPTER FOUR
119 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1514, 1898 _99, 25 28 .3 8, 2753; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota,
p. 59; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 5253.
120 Petrov, "0 titulakh 'sevast' i 'protosevast'", pp. 52-64.
121 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 127-31.
122 Mutafchiev, "Bo:zhenishnikjat nadpis", pp. 494-5, Laskaris, Vatopedskata gra-
mota, p. 37.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 311
127 Kalu:iniacki, Werke, pp. 289-90, 295, 309, 326, 358, 370, 383-4, 392.
128 Ivanov, BSM, p. 541.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 313
tiarioi and the whole remaining imperial order. However, being igno-
rant of imperial customs, he introduced at the foundation something
Bulgarian, rather barbaric. He was familiar neither with the order,
nor with the structure, nor with the ancient customs that existed in
the courts". 129 This is the only data that contains some information,
albeit indirect, concerning the customs and structure of the Bulgarian
imperial court. Writing about the palace of Theodore Doucas Angel
Comnenos, the author in fact points out some characteristics of the
imperial court of Tarnovo or at least reflects the Byzantine view on
it. It is to emphasise that the court was structured after the model of
the Byzantine tradition; at least such was the intention. In this sense,
a particularly important indication is that this happened after and
in connection with the promotion of the ruler Theodore Comnenos
as emperor. His emperor-style deed was to bestow the highest court
dignities in keeping with the tradition of Constantinople, i.e. despots,
sebastocrators, domestikoi, which, as we know, are titles only a ruler
of imperial rank could give. The authors, in writing about ignorance
or non-observance of the exact traditions, had in mind precisely the
traditions that the ruler of Thessalonica had attempted to observe, i.e.
the Byzantine ones. Undoubtedly, Epirus became a centre that tried
to restore the Empire and win back Constantinople. In this sense, we
could hardly doubt that the court of the newly crowned basileus tried
to appear in all respects as the legitimate continuation of the old Byz-
antine traditions. However, it would seem, there was something "Bul-
garian" about this court, or rather "barbaric" Can we assume that in
this case "Bulgarian" is set in opposition to "Byzantine", and in what
sense? The answer is not simple. Yes, "Bulgarian" is set in opposi-
tion to "Byzantine", for it is, among other things, "barbaric", yet it
is not opposed as something radically different, but as a distortion
due to ignorance. Hence, we should not believe that the reference was
to a mixture of Byzantine and Bulgarian traditions in organising the
court in Thessalonica. On the contrary, this information indicates that
the Byzantine traditions were the ones observed, but not properly so,
being evidently not well known to the uneducated Bulgarians or the
"ignorant" Theodore. I believe that this information is exceptionally
129 Acropolita Opera, I, pp. 33-4; Theodori Scutariota Historia, Biblioteca graeca
medii aevi, vol. VII, Paris 1894, pp. 468-9.
314 CHAPTER FOUR
4.2.1
Here, I begin the presentation of the court institutions with the curo-
palates, who probably carried the translated designation )\fAHHTeAb
noAAT'E (palace curator). Due to the character and scarcity of sources,
the very existence of this institution and its name might be put in
doubt. 130 We know the title only from the text of the ecclesiastical or do
for promotion of high titles, one of which is the court institution that
we are discussing here: M.Arr&A HA nocrrA&AeHie KeCAfA ce me H HA
130 Biliarsky, << Le rite de couronnement >>, 134-5; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 148-56.
Regarding curopalate in the Empire, see: Oikonomides, Les listes, 97, 293; Verpeaux,
Pseudo Kodinos, 137 11 , 1752o-22·
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 315
131 Popruzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borisa (1898), p. 80; Biliarsky, « Le rite de couron-
latter.B4 The very fact that this title was held by Justin II, and subse-
quently by other future emperors, shows its very high position in the
hierarchy but also that it was related to some degree with accession to
the throne.
The development of the institution is in itself of special interest.
Without taking into account the office of the curae palatiorum, we
should note that initially the curopalates was a high-ranking court
functionary who performed certain duties in the central administra-
tion. The sources lead to the conclusion that he was commandant of
the court guard and something similar to a major-domo. A person,
who was a relative of the ruler, held the office. In time, the curopal-
ates gradually lost the actual performance of his functions and the title
became an honorary one. 135 In the treatise of Philotheus this title was
placed among those bestowed through insignia, so among the "pure
titles".U 6 Pseudo Kodinos also asserted categorically that the curopal-
ates had once had some duties in the court (by then forgotten), but no
longer performed any functions at all. 137 Based on all this, one can state
that it became a 'pure title' by around the 8th century and remained
such until the end of the Empire.
The title of curopalates underwent a very significant development
with respect to its place in the Constantinople hierarchy as well. In
the early period, its holder was of exceptionally high rank, a relative of
the ruler, and someone involved in the inheritance of the throne. The
decline of the title began as early as the 9th century, when it was given
to some foreign ruling princes, mainly from the Caucasus. According
to Philotheus, the curopalates was in the top positions of the hierarchy,
but in Pseudo Kodinos, the curopalates was 17th in rank, and in the
15th century, the title does not seem to have been bestowed any longer,
or at least there are no concrete data about who its holders were.
In Constantinople, the curopalates possessed insignia correspond-
ing to their rank. For the earlier period, we draw information from the
treatise of Philotheus, where the garments indicated are the red chiton,
trimmed with gold thread, the chlamys, and the belt; all these were
134 Martroye, "L'origine du curopalate", pp. 80-1; Guilland R., "Le Curapalate",
Bu~avnva, 2 (1970), pp. 187-249.
135 Guilland, "Le Curapalate", pp. 187-90.
136 Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance, p. 97.
137 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 17520 _22•
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 317
4.2.2
The office and title of protovestiarios147 in Bulgaria is known only from
one Greek text, the "History" of the former basileus John Cantacuzene. 148
Nevertheless, I would reconstruct the Slavic name of the title as a trans-
literated one; I dare do so because we find the word in other Slavic
texts, Bulgarian, Serbian or from Walachia, and Moldavia. 149 An addi-
tional justification for this is the presence of the term "vestiarios"
The protovestiarios inherited the service of the comes sacrae vestis
(5th century). He was head of the private vestiarion of the basileus. It
is important to distinguish this from the public vestiarion, which is a
completely different office, headed by a xap'touMpw~ 'toU ~ecr'tw.piou.
The protovestiarios owed much of his importance to the complicated
court ceremonies, which required multiple costumes, kept in the ves-
tiarion of the ruler together with various precious items that gave the
office the characteristics of a treasury. 150 Initially the office of the pro-
tovestiarios was reserved exclusively for eunuchs, but gradually it came
to acquire a titular character. In the 14th century, according to Pseudo
Kodinos' treatise, the protovestiarios still performed some exclusively
ceremonial functions in the court. 151 In a later period, the title was
increasingly distributed among the close to the basileus people and
even to persons entrusted with military command that excluded active
participation in court ceremonies. At the same time, the protovestiar-
ios was among the highest-ranking dignitaries in the Empire: he occu-
pied one of the highest ranks in the list. We know he had the right to
the epithet ~eyaA.ooo~6'ta'to~. 152
147 Guilland, Recherches, I, pp. 216-36; Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 130-1; Ver-
peaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 134 2, 1677_11 ; Oikonomides, Les listes, p. 305; Biliarsky,
I nstitutsiite, p. I 56ff.
148 loannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris Historiarum libri IV, ed. L. Schopen, Bonnae
1828, t. I, I. 11.26, p. 458 19•
149 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 97, 174-5, 198, 200, 213, 236, 601; Docu-
The office of the Serbian protovestiarios 153 is important for our study
inasmuch as the institutional system of mediaeval Serbia was closest to
the Bulgarian one. Vladislav Milutinovic, dating from 1323, in which
there is reference to protobistial ]urech, first mentioned this dignitary
in a letter. Protovestiarios is mentioned multiple times in the docu-
ments of Serbian and Bosnian rulers, and in those of some local rul-
ers of lands that are now part of Albania. The preserved data pose no
problem for understanding the institution, which apparently did not
deviate much from its Byzantine archetype. In mediaeval Serbia, this
court dignitary, in addition to his titular quality, retained many of the
initial functions related to guarding the ruler's treasury.
We owe the information about the garments of the Serbian digni-
taries to the portrait of an unknown protovestiarios (Constantine?) of
the second half of the 14th century in Dobrun. 154 It is relatively well
preserved, but the figure is portrayed only down to the knees. The
notable is dressed in a garment sharply cut around the neck and but-
toned in front with a row of pearls. The sleeves are narrow and have
sleeve-protectors; at the wrists, there are also pearls (perhaps serving
as buttons). The portrayed person also has a belt made of various metal
plates, with a large buckle. The comparison with Byzantine protovesti-
arios is interesting. Pseudo Kodinos' treatise informs us that the pro-
tovestiarios has a green sceptre decorated with gold, green stockings,
and a green tamparion with braids. 155 Thus, it is hard to make any com-
parison with the data for the colour, which must have had emblematic
importance. The differences are obvious. In any case, such a deviation
cannot be proof there were significant differences in the nature of the
title in question. On the other hand, the indicated data provide no
possibility for us to make any conclusions regarding the uniform of
the Bulgarian protovestiarios. It is true that Bulgaria followed the Byz-
antine models more strictly than Serbia, but distortions occurred here
too. Hence, any assumptions would be purely arbitrary.
We have interesting data on a similar office in Walachia and
Moldavia. This dignitary first appears in the sources as early as the
14th century. We first encounter the title in the Walachian lands,
where npOToRHC'I'H~f nonwop is mentioned as being a member of the
153 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 97, 174-5, 198, 200, 213, 236, 601; N ovakovic,
"Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 261-3.
154 Kovaeevic, Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih slovena, pp. 58-9.
155 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 153.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 323
156 Grigo~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 270-3; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc,
pp. 217-227; Georgescu V., Strihan P., Judecata domnesca din Tara Romaneasca ~i
Moldova, part I, Organizarea judecatoreasca, vol I (1611-1740), Bucure~ti, 1979,
pp. 134-5; Institutii feudale, pp. 502-4.
157 Grigo~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 271-3; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc,
pp. 219-220, 224; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domneasca, pp. 134-5; Institufii feu-
dale, p. 502-3.
324 CHAPTER FOUR
appear in the sources by the 16th-17th century; their task was to assist
their chief and to keep records on collection and expenditure. The
logothete of the vestiaria was a sort of secretary of the treasury, while
the diacs, the camara~ and the scribes of the vestiaria had mostly exec-
utive functions. 158
There are extant indications that this service was continued in the
Sultan's court as well. Among the personal attendants of the Padis-
hah, those enumerated in the Kanunname of Sultan Mehmed II, we
notice the hazinedarba~t, who was third in rank and came immediately
after the kapuagasz and odaba~t. 159 The similarity between this dignitary
and the Byzantine protovestiarion seems to be additionally confirmed
by the fact that, as it would appear, he was not the most active figure in
finance management. The treasury in the Ottoman state was created in
the second half of the 14th century; the state treasury (Hazine-i Amire)
was distinct form the sultan's treasury (Hazine-i Hassa). The control
over the revenues and expenditures was exercised by the great defter-
dar (ba~ defterdar) and other defterdars, who also had their places in
the ranks of titles. It is within this set that we should also consider the
positions of the hazinedarba~z, whose very honourable position among
the personal attendants of the Padishah is strongly reminiscent, I shall
stress once again, of the Byzantine protovestiarios.160
We have already had the occasion to point out that the data on
protovestiarios in mediaeval Bulgaria are very scarce: in fact, there is
just one mention in the sources. This caused the French scholar Rod-
olphe Guilland to assert that Raxin, indicated by John Cantacuzene,
was a Bulgarian prince who had received his title from the basileus of
Constantinople. 161 This assertion basically refutes the thesis that there
were protovestiarioi in mediaeval Bulgaria or, at least, it denies the
only existing data about them. I would not go so far as to support such
a view. The boyar in question was closely connected with the court in
158 Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 221-2, 226-7; Grigora~, I nstitu fii feu dale din Mol-
Tolrnovo and took an active part in the coup d'Etat against the young
tsar John Stephen. All these facts make it rather improbable that he
was a Byzantine noble.
Protovestiarios did exist in mediaeval Bulgaria but it is hard to say
anything beyond that. Foremost, the indicated source does not make it
possible to answer the question whether this was an office or an honor-
ary title. During the period in question, the dignity was purely titular
in the Byzantine Empire. On the other hand, in Serbia and especially
in Walachia and Moldavia, his official characteristics as head of the
central financial administration seem to predominate. Due to the lack
of any concrete data at all regarding the institution in Bulgaria, the
preference for any one of the two suggestions would be arbitrary and
doubtful. Nevertheless, I shall present a view, according to which the
protovestiarios in Tarnovo probably had some functions connected
with the imperial treasury and the management of the finances.
In order to be comprehensive in our argumentation we shall also
present an objection made by the late Peter Koledarov. He points out
that both terms, protovestiarios and vestiarios, are present in Greek-
language sources, which raises the question not whether these offices
existed in Bulgaria, but what their exact appellation was there. We
should note that in the Codex Suprasliensis we find the term fH~b.HHU,~, 162
while in the Virgino chrysobull there is reference to AeMOCHOH"A. 163 The
latter appellation comes from Greek and denotes the same thing but
seems to be a more explicatory kind of word. Considering the prob-
lems linked with the Virgino chrysobull, it would not be superfluous
to point out that this term occurs, albeit rarely, in Serbia but only
in Greek-language acts. 164 For its part, the word fH~b.HHU.~ has the
same semantic content vestiarion, and might be a calque. The word
is certainly popular among the Slavic languages. This is precisely why
P. Koledarov stated the view that this was the name of the tsar's trea-
sury in Bulgaria during the Middle Ages, and that its chief was called
lJe.l\b.HHK'A fH~b.HHlJb.CK"A. 165 Regrettably, this author did not use the text
of the ordo for the tsar's coronation, where the term vestiarios occurs
in the Slavic language. Nevertheless, I do not exclude the possibility
that both terms were in usage, but I dare claim that vestiarios or pro-
tovestiarios were probably of a more official kind. Of course, there
may have been certain differences in various periods.
4.2.3
The great primmicerius was one of the important officials in the impe-
rial court. 166 The term primmicerius is present in the glossary; it denotes
a completely different institution, but evidently the designation was
built on the basis of the same term-the Latin primmicerius,-which
passed into Greek as 1tptJ.1Jltrilpto~ and from there into the Slavic
npHt.tH~Kif'A· We have a single reference to the great primmicerius in
mediaeval Bulgaria: the mention of the great primmicerius Tsamblak
in the Synodicon. 167 In itself this text does not enable us to draw con-
clusions regarding the status of the court dignitary we are concerned
with here. The value of the document is chiefly that it indicates the
existence of such a dignitary. Hence, as we are once again dealing with
something borrowed from the institutional system of the Byzantine
Empire, we shall turn to the archetype and discuss the possibility and
admissibility of drawing parallels that may enable us to obtain some
notion of the situation in Bulgaria.
Although this office had quite deep roots in ancient history, the first
data about a great primmicerius in the proper sense come from the
second half of the 11th century. Louis Brehier links its creation with
the rule of Nicephorus Botaniates; while R. Guilland, with the rule of
Alexis I Comnenos. 168 At first, as most court officials, the great prim-
micerii were eunuchs. They were responsible for the duties performed
previously by the rector in the court but also generally in the basileus'
retinue. In his treatise, Pseudo Kodinos gives a detailed description
of the purely honorary office of the great primmicerius during recep-
tions. He had the privilege of handing the basileus his sceptre, which
a representative of the vestiarion had previously brought, and if the
166 This institution in Bulgaria is known only from the reference to the Great
169 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 1376, 174-5, 18218-21> 185s-14• 3008, 3078-9• 32027•
33437_38, 344 16, 347 11 _ 1:z; Brehier, Les institutions, p. 148; Guilland, "Primicier", pp.
144-5.
170 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 155; Guilland, ''Primicier", p. 144.
328 CHAPTER FOUR
4.2.4
The imperial cupbearer provides an interesting opportunity for ter-
minological study of the institution, for we have available to us sev-
eral different appellations coined in the process of construction of the
institutional vocabulary. 171 The terms used are enHKefHHH, lJb.Rb.Hb.'IHH,
'lfb.n'IHH.
4.2.4.1
The Bulgar (Turkic) word *cbVan, *cugun, 'lb.Rb.Hb.'IHH and the words
derived from them occur in many and various texts, although none of
these texts contains direct testimony that such a Bulgarian institution
existed. The texts refer to a court cupbearer, though not a Bulgarian
one.
I would like specifically to touch upon the quotation in the Roman
Paterikon, where the word 'lb.Rb.Hb.'IHH in manuscript Pogodin No. 909
is replaced in Tolstoy's copy with 'lf'll.n'IHH. 172 The semantic connection
179 Zlatarski, "Zhitie i zhizn"', p. 12; Ivanov J., "Bulgarski i vizantijski prlisteni",
Izvestija na Bulgarskoto arkheologichesko druzhestvo, II, fasc. 1, 1918, p. 2, table 1;
Antonova V., "Novootkrit starobulgarski nadpis ot Shumenskata krepost", Izvestija
na narodnija muzej v Kolarovgrad, 4, 1967, pp. 81-2; Popuruzhenko, Sinodik, p. 90;
Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 291.
180 Oikonomides, Les listes de preceance, pp. 1355, 306; Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos,
p. 137; Bury, The Imeperial Administrative System, p. 128; Brehier, Les institutions,
p. 134; Guilland R, "Le Maitre d'Mtel de l'empereur", Etudes byzantines, 3 (1945),
pp. 188-89.
181 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 175 17, 207-18.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 331
grew in importance in the 16th century, when the epithet "great" was
added to the name and he was included among the high dignitaries.
In Moldavia, the dignitary under study was called lJb.WHHKI:.; in Latin-
language documents, he was referred to as paharnig or pincerna. 189 The
office was identical with that of the respective Walachian dignitary, but
here there are no data indicating military attributions. 190 Being excep-
tionally close to the ruler, in the 16th-17th century he was among the
personal attendants of the prince.
Of interest for our research on this topic is the considerable vari-
ety of terms designating the cupbearer in Walachia and Moldavia:
lJb.WHHK'll., nb.)(b.fHHK'll., nHlJefHHK'll., etc. This raises the question how
admissible it is to compare the situations in the Byzantine Empire
and in Bulgaria. Of course, there was a similar office in the courts of
all rulers in mediaeval Europe: such was the French grand echanson,
the German Mundschenk. In Hungary, a similar institution was called
regalium magister or paharnok, but there this official did not have any
special power or importance in the court. In Poland, the cupbearer
performed typical court duties and had at his command a whole appa-
ratus of subordinates. It should be noted here that the essential differ-
ences between the above-mentioned officials and dignitaries and those
in the courts in Constantinople and the other Balkan countries were
rooted in some typical differences in the respective court cultures. The
mystic reverence for the basileus conferred a special role for his per-
sonal attendants in a quasi-religious ritual; this in turn defined the
place of these attendants in the hierarchic structure of society. Hence,
we should take into consideration that Walachia and Moldavia were,
in purely geographic terms, at the borderline between the two Chris-
tian worlds; after surviving the conquests in the 15th century, the two
principalities passed the temporal divide between two different ages
that defined the destiny of the nations of southeastern Europe. This
reflected in the above-mentioned appellations. Most impressive of all
is the use of the term nHlJefHHK'll., which is the earliest of all and dates
back to the end of the 14th century. There is no doubt that this word
is a transliteration of the Greek 1tt"(KepV11c;, probably through the Bul-
garian enHKepHHH. This attests the greater influence of the countries
189 DRH, ser. A, vol. I, Na 13, 23-25, 27-32 etc.; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, p. 277.
190 Grigo~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 272-3; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc,
p. 277.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 333
south of the Danube during that earlier period. For its part, the term
most often used in Walachia, n4\,Xb.pHH~'ll., also points to traces of South
Slavic influence, but mostly that of Serbia and Bosnia. The typical Mol-
davian word '14\WHH~'ll. seems to display an influence coming mostly
from Poland and Lithuania. As I have already had the occasion to
point out, the variety of terms is due, in my opinion, to the variety
of the respective traditions. The situation in Walachia and Moldavia
was not simple, but after the overview presented above, I believe we
may assert that in both principalities the traditions of the Byzantine
Empire were predominant, having probably come through Bulgaria
and Serbia.
Our available data indicate that the pincerna was one of the highest-
ranking persons in the Bulgarian Empire. This position was frequently
occupied by relatives of the ruler. The exceptionally high position of
this dignitary in Bulgarian society of the late Middle Ages is attested
by the fact that he possessed the right of ktitor, i.e. the right to create
monasteries. This indicated his serious social level but also provided
great possibilities for him in his quality of donor.
In summary, we have all reasons to claim that the pincerna dignity
in mediaeval Bulgaria did not differ much from the archetype in the
Byzantine Empire or from the parallel institutions in Walachia and
Moldavia. This was a high-ranking titled noble belonging to the closest
circle of the ruler. His immediate task was to take care of the wine at
the ruler's table, and he personally served at table for important feasts.
In connection with this, he also had duties in managing the vineyards
and wine cellars of the ruler, as well as the probable responsibility
for collecting the tithe on wine. The great pincerna presumably had
his apparatus of subordinates, but the sources contain no data about
them. Strict faithfulness to the preserved texts does not permit draw-
ing any conclusions more concrete than this.
Thus, in tracing the names of the imperial cupbearers, we gain the
rare opportunity of reconstructing the terminological development
of a court institution in the First and Second Bulgarian Empire. The
path of the term started with the creation of the Bulgar (Turkic) word
based on the Greek appellation for cupbearer. This indicates a presum-
ably early assimilation of the institution, at a time when the Bulgar
language was still actively in use in the administration and govern-
ment structures. We can claim nothing more concrete than this, for
lack of data. The byzantinisation of the political structures, of law, and
other institutions during the Second Bulgarian Empire reflected in the
334 CHAPTER FOUR
court official in question. The Bulgar word dropped and the Greek
term was accepted instead. It is to note that in the Bulgarian admin-
istrative nomenclature, the title retained its original and fullest form,
bttKepvtO~/enH~efHHH/ 91 which did not exist even in the court in Con-
stantinople, where the brief form 1tt"((Cepv1l~ was in use. Thus, we can
retrace and confirm our basic conclusions from the study of Bulgarian
mediaeval administrative terminology as a whole.
4.2.5
The stolnik (C'J'OAHH~'A) was the person who took care of the imperial
table; he is presented in the glossary. 192 The name of the institution was
formed based on the Greek o €xl 'til~ -rpcm£~11~/ 93 and the substanti-
ated name was formed from -rp6.xe~a/CTOA'A (= table) according to the
grammatical rules of the Slavic language. We know the term only from
the inscription on a gold ring that once belonged to Slav, stolnik of the
tsar. 194 Of course, this single piece of information may attest only that
the institution existed; it cannot serve as a basis for its full interpreta-
tion. For the latter purpose, we shall have to turn once again to the
corresponding offices in the neighbouring Balkan countries and above
all in the Byzantine Empire.
A special staff took care of the imperial table in Constantinople;
the staff was headed by a court functionary called, as already indi-
cated: o€xl 'til~ -rpax£~'11~· By the 7th century, this had become a rather
important position. Although mentioned multiple times in the treatise
of Philotheus, 195 the title did not have a place in any of the honorary
tables dating from the period of the 9th-10th century. This was one of
the court institutions reserved for eunuchs. The name itself makes it
clear that this was a person who took care of the table-of provisions
and of the special banquet ceremonial,196 For this purpose, he had spe-
cial servants under his command.
After 1204, the importance of the stolnik began to grow. In Pseudo
Kodinos he is present in the list and occupies a place in the middle
range of ranks. 197 This author provides data about his special uniform:
an embroidered skiadion, a silk kabbadion and a golden-red sceptre. 198
The stolnik in the court at Constantinople retained his table-serving
duties, albeit markedly ritual ones, at the imperial table. 199 Neverthe-
less, it is to note that there was a perceptible tendency for this court
office to acquire an increasingly ceremonial character and to turn into
a title. There were many cases when it was bestowed on persons only
to provide them a place in the hierarchy, so that the respective digni-
tary was not engaged with actual care for the banquets in court. Under
the basi leis in Nicaea and under the Palaeologos dynasty many known
members of the ruling dynasty held the title.
In mediaeval Serbia, the term stolnik does not figure in the sources,
but we do find the appellation CT~RHAb.L.J,b. 200 used several times. The
earliest mention of the word dates from the time of king Stephen
Decanski, and most mentions are from the time after the reforms
made by tsar Stephen Dusan. This is enough to suggest there was an
increasing closeness to the Byzantine tradition. In this respect, Stojan
Novakovic categorically asserted that the Serbian CT~RHAb.L.I,b. was an
institution corresponding to the Byzantine o e1tt Tile; .,;pa.1te~'ll<;·
We have considerably more information about the lands north of
the Danube. The stolnik was part of court life both of the Walachian
and the Moldavian principalities. 201 We encounter him as early as the
14th century: in Walachia in 1392 and in Moldavia in 1393. A great
variety of names was in use to designate this institution. The most
frequently encountered one, of course, is CTOAHH~'l., but we also find
Tf~ne~OCTfOHTeAb. (March 6, 1628), while in Latin documents and some
narrative sources there is stolnig, magister mensarum, dapifer, cucinae
196 Bury, The Imperial Administrative System, pp. 125-6; Guilland, "Maitre d'hOtel",
pp. 179-180; Olkonomides, Les listes de pereseance, pp. 305-6.
197 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. B82.
198 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 15715-23·
199 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 207-18; Guilland, "Maitre d'hOtel", pp. 181-5.
200 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 298, 653, 691; Novakovic, "Vizantijski
cinovi i titule", pp. 252-4.
201 Stoicescu, Sfotul domnesc, pp. 280-4; Institifii feudale, p. 456; Dicfionar elemen-
tilor romtlne~ti, p. 223.
336 CHAPTER FOUR
4.2.6
The name of the great comes of the imperial stables is conjectured, for
we do not find it in any Bulgarian text. We find some information
about the existence of this court office in the letter of Pope Innocent
III, where the author refers to comestabulus Sergius. 202 We may assume
the data in certain charters are also relevant; there we find the words
KOUHCb. Cb. KOHb.UH and KOUHCb.. 203 It is obvious that the two cases do
not refer to the same office, for in one case the reference is to a high
functionary in the capital city, while in the other to middle-level pro-
vincial officials. Yet there can be no doubt these were officials belong-
ing to the same system, the nature of which we shall try to clarify.
The name of the institution arrived to us only in its Latin form
(or perhaps translated?)-comestabulus-because the mentions are
202 Dujcev, "Prepiskata na papa Inokentija III", No. IX p. 31, No. X p. 33, No. XVI
p. 45.
203 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1899 _100, 29 10; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52s6·
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 337
204 Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance, pp. 5320, 10316• 10716• 123s7. 1419, 1453o.
24930, 271 16, 338-9; Bury, The Imperial Administrative System, pp. 113-4; Jones, The
Later Roman Empire, II, pp. 625-6; Gu!lland R., "Etudes sur l'histoire administrative
de l'Empire byzantin, le grand conetable", Byzantion, t. XIX, 1949, pp. 99-102.
338 CHAPTER FOUR
was similar: he took care of the ruler's horses and stables. 205 One of
his basic duties was to provide fodder for the animals. In this con-
nection, he took part in administrating the incoming tax in kind on
hay, while in Moldavia he also managed the forest reserve around the
river Prut, helped in this by his subordinates, the brani~tari. The great
comes would accompany the ruler in horseback riding. In addition,
he supervised the delivery of horses that were owed by Walachia and
Moldavia in tribute to the Sublime Porte. He attended the feasts for
Epiphany and Saint George's day, at which the horses were displayed,
including the horse presented as a gift to the prince by the sultan.
I believe it is fully justified to assert that the Romanian institution
was closely connected with, and probably originated from, the Bulgar-
ian one. The very name attests it. In the Slavic documents, it is given
as KOMHCb, or, more rarely and in more distinguished documents, as
KOHtoW or KOHO.Xf~HwreA (cf. a Moldavian charter of January 20, 1657).
In the Latin-language documents, this official was called magister aga-
zonum, agazonum magister alias comiss, stabuli praefectus, agazonum
et stabuli praefectus. After all, the Slavic names were the original ones,
which make it possible to draw conclusions, based on the similarity,
about the situation in Bulgaria and to obtain a fuller idea about the
institution in Tarnovo.
The situation in Bulgaria could hardly have been very different, but
still, we should address some important questions. First is the problem
as to the exact appellation of the office. The Latin form comestabu-
lus could serve as a reference point. I believe we may assert with a
relatively large degree of certainty that the name was built around the
word "comes" This is the conclusion to which we are led by the pre-
served Latin form and by parallels with Constantinople, Walachia, and
Moldavia, but above all by the occurrence of "comites" in the charters.
Of course, the form comestabulus could be translated and be a word
that matches the meaning rather than a transliteration, but this does
not provide a solution and only makes it harder to get to the single
possible solution. Yet we should say with regret that the presence of
the element "comes" is the only thing that can be claimed with relative
certainty as regards the name we are looking for. It is highly probable
this official was called "great" or that he was connected with the impe-
205 Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 293-8; Institufii feudale, pp. 111-2.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 339
rial stables in order to emphasise his position in the capital, but there
is no direct information to support this.
As to the nature of the obligations of this court official, I believe no
serious differences of opinion could arise. He looked after the ruler's
horses, supervised the imperial stables and their maintenance, the rais-
ing of horses and provision with fodder. Presumably the great comes
was in charge of a large service, with divisions in Tarnovo and in the
country. Regrettably, almost nothing certain can be asserted regarding
the organisation of this service, its connection with the administration
of the receipt of certain taxes or the fulfilment of corvees relevant to
the above-mentioned activity.
I believe that we have very good reasons to conclude that the great
comes was one of the high-ranking dignitaries at the imperial court.
This is attested by the nature and importance of his service, by parallels
with neighbouring countries, but also by the data on the comestabulus
Sergius. In the letter by Pope Innocent III, this official is presented
as a very influential man and as one of the envoys of the Holy See;
subsequently he continued the mission after the archbishop Basil was
detained in Durazzo. Of course, this man could not have been just
anybody. He is the only person to hold the office whose name has
come down to us.
many respects the chancery in Tclrnovo was organised after the model
of that in Constantinople. Practically all known officials in it had
for their archetype-both in their appellations and in the substance
of their duties-in the institutional system of the Byzantine Empire.
These were the various logothetes, headed by the great logothete, the
tainik-mystikos and the grammatiks. It is hard to believe that such
loanwords could have been taken coincidentally without also borrow-
ing the whole structure to which they belonged. The same observations
can be made based on the charters issuing from the tsar's chancery: in
their features, they followed the Byzantine models.
I should emphasise beforehand that we can hardly claim the two
chanceries were identical. Bulgaria could neither repeat nor ignore
the thousand-year-old tradition of the Byzantine Empire. The history
of the imperial chancery is exceptionally interesting. It became one
of the basileus' offices closest to and most trusted by him. This was
perhaps the best place to start a career in the administration. Along
with this, the chancery offices, except for the highest ones, were never
included in the hierarchy system. Unlike the people personally serving
the basileus, and although they were to a greater degree the true trans-
missions of state power, none of these functionaries gained a particu-
larly high place on the list because of their office alone. This provides
yet another reason to dispute seriously the view that the titular system
and the governing apparatus in the Empire coincided.
The imperial chancery in Constantinople exercised a strong impact
on nearly all Balkan countries. This was due to the overall cultural
radiance emitted by the Empire towards the Orthodox world, but also
to the direct contacts with this office, which was entrusted precisely
with foreign relations. The Serbian rulers built their own chancery to
fulfil the need of administrative service for the conquered former Byz-
antine territories in Macedonia, Thessaly, and Epirus. The issue is even
more complicated for Walachia and Moldavia, where there was Slavic,
Greek, and Latin were all used in the chancery simultaneously. Work-
ing in them required quite a good education and knowledge of diplo-
matic practices that at times differed considerably. We know about the
division of competencies between the different logothetes in them, the
diaks, the scribes and other lower level staff.
In the course of this overview, I would like to mention also the
chancery in the Ottoman sultans, which inherited many of the Byzan-
tine traditions. The person who headed it was the "ni~anet''; and the
chief secretary, "kalfa" The great vizir also had a chancery of his own,
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 341
p. 15.
210 Ivanov, BSM, p. 606.
342 CHAPTER FOUR
211 Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 254-5; Guilland, "Les logothetes", pp. 5-8.
212 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, 1378, I74; Brehier, Les institutions, pp. IOI-3,
276-7; Guilland, "Les logothetes", p. 5-I6; Oikonomides, "Organisation administra-
tive (I 025-11I8)", p. 132; Oikonomides N., "La chancellerie imperiale de Byzance
du 13• au Is• siede", Revue des etudes byzantines, XLIII, I985, pp. I68-9; Raybaud,
Gouvernement, p. 213; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 22I-36.
213 NovakoviC, "Vizantijski Cinovi i titule", p. 259; Novakovic St., Sluiba logoteta
Tomas, dated October 14, 1458. 214 In my opinion, this text leads us to
accept that a separate office of "great logothete" did exist.
Unfortunately, we have too few data about the nature of this office
in Serbia. Undoubtedly, it had some connection with the ruler's chan-
cery. Grounds for this conclusion are provided by the multiple indica-
tions that the logothetes were compilers of documents that have come
down to us. A text meriting special attention is the Law Code of tsar
Stephen Dusan, where there is a regulation as to how many perpera
the logothete should receive for preparing a chrysobull. These find-
ings present this institution as fully inscribed in the general Balkan
context. This provides reasons to claim that its functions overlapped
with those of its Byzantine archetype and of parallel offices in the other
neighbouring states.
The sources from the Walachian and Moldavian principalities are
considerably richer. The distinction there between great logothete and
the other logothetes is quite clear in the sources and in historiography,
so that it is beyond doubt. 215 The first mention of the great logothete in
Walachia is in documents dating from the last decade of the 14th century.
His office was in the ruler's chancery. First, it is to note that the great
logothete was keeper of the great seal, with which international docu-
ments and ceremonial chrysobulls were sealed. The middle seal was for
less significant charters, and the small one for ordinary ruler's decisions
and prescriptions; the latter two seals were in the keeping of the sec-
ond and third logothetes respectively. This position had a particularly
strong impact on the great logothete in the administration. The activity
of his was particularly significant: we see that in most cases the ruler's
acts were entirely in the hands of this functionary. Until the 16th cen-
tury, the ruler did not sign the documents and only the seal certified
their authenticity. By tradition, the great logothete counter-signed all
decisions of the Council and in many cases was entrusted with their
implementation. He also had some particular judicial powers, as well
as competencies as a notary. We see that the great logothete (during a
certain period there were two of them) in Walachia was a high state
official: he was a member of the Council and third in rank after the
great ban and the dvornic. The funds for this functionary came from
service ended, the tsar was very joyful and merry together with all
his military men. He thought of a good plan: to translate the body
of the venerable to his own state. Nevertheless, he vouchsafed telling
this plan clearly to his tainiks and princes (H CROHMb. Tb.HHHKWM H
KHA\SeMb.), which he did. And they, when they heard this, exclaimed
as with a single mouth "The Tsar's heart is in God's hands! 0, Tsar,
do what you plan with all speed, for if you turn the intentions into
a completed deed, you will bring great benefit for our souls. More
than that, our land and our city will obtain great assistance!" 217 This
is the only text containing information on the existence of tainiks.
Perhaps that is why this term passed unnoticed for a long time by
researchers. 218 The translators of modern Bulgarian editions of the text
have also neglected it, and they translated the term only as "advisors"
or "secret advisors"
The word Tb.HHHI~'ll. is Slavic but the archetype of this institution was
once again in the institutional system of the Byzantine Empire. Lin-
guistically the word "tainik" fully corresponds to the Greek f..LUcrttx:6c;
(mystikos), from which it has been coined as a calque, just as the Greek
word is a calque of the Latin secretarius. This fact gives some orienta-
tion for our search.
The office of the mystikos in Constantinople existed ever since
the time of the Macedonian dynasty. In the honorary tables of the
9th-10th century (that of Benesevic and that of Oikonomides), the
title occupied, respectively, the 31st and 37th place. 219 In the trea-
tise of Pseudo Kodinos the mystikos was 30th in rank, and in the
other extant rank tables of the late period, the rank varies between
26th and 31st position. 220 We also have a description of his apparel:
a turban and an epilourikon, with no skaranikon. 221 The mystikos was
an official, not a bearer of a "pure" title. This is indicated in Pseudo
Kodinos' treatise, but this anonymous author does not inform us of
the nature of the mystikos' duties, saying only that they are evident
from the name of the institution. 222 This piece of information does
not tell us much, but it still orients us to view this official as part
of the chancery. The insufficiency of sources results in a variety of
227 Vasiliev A., Ivanovskite stenopisi. Materiali za istorijata na grad Ruse i Rusenski
okrag, Sofia, 1953, pp. 10-15; Margos A., "Nadpisa na lvo Gramatik", Archaeologia,
1981, 1-2, pp. 36-40 and especially p. 38; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 279; Popkonstantinov
K., "Oshte vednil.zh za nadpisa na lvo Gramatik", Archaeologia, 1983, 1-2, p. 102;
Zlatarski, Istorija, III, p. 425.
348 CHAPTER FOUR
preparing imperial acts. Usually they wrote them down to the basileus'
dictation. The office was a modest one and not of an official kind, so
it had no place in the hierarchy, but it was often occupied by young
people and was a very good starting point for a career in the adminis-
tration. It suffices to point out that among the grammatiks were future
eminent politicians such as Michael Psellos, Nicetas Choniates etc. 228
The Yugoslav historian Ljubomir Maksimovic notes that the office of
grammatik existed with similar functions in the provincial adminis-
tration as well. This is probably so in connection with the duties of
this official to serve as secretary of a superior, but we have reasons
to believe there was a great difference in the work that an emperor's
grammatik and a provincial one performed, as well as in their social
position.
The office of grammatik existed in the Serbian lands as well, but
apparently, it was not typical for the ruler's chancery there. We find
traces of it in a charter of the Bosnian ban Matthew Ninoslav, dating
from 1235.229 This text makes it clear that the grammatik was the per-
son who prepared the ruler's act. This provides grounds to assert that
the functions of this office did not deviate in Bosnia from its Byzantine
archetype. Nevertheless, we should note that it occurs quite rarely in
documents of Serbian rulers.
The official of the same name had identical functions in the prin-
cipalities to the north of the Danube. 230 There he was subordinated to
the great logothete and prepared ruler's acts. In Walachia, we come
across this office for the first time in a charter dated June 10, 1415; in
Moldavia, in 1422. In the 18th century, the institution comprised three
degrees. The great grammatik was equal in rank to the great pahar-
nic and was an influential figure. The office was preserved until the
19th century, a time when he was called first .. secretary" of the ruler.
The information we have about the position of grammatik in Bul-
garia does not exclude but, on the contrary, gives ample grounds for
drawing conclusions based on similarity with the corresponding Byz-
antine institution and that in Walachia and Moldavia. The grammatik
in Tarnovo was also a secretary to the ruler and took an active part in
preparing tsar's acts. It is to stress also that grammatik existed not only
228 Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 166-7; MaksimoviC, Provincijska uprava, p. 107.
229 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 145.
230 Georgescu V., Bizantul ~i institutiile romanqti pana la mijlocul secolului al
nota.
234 J. B. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene, Lon-
don, 1889, p. 228; Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, p. 263; Zlatarski, Istorija,
vol. 1/1, p. 228 note 1; Dujcev lv., "Vi!.rkhu njakoi bulgarski imena i dumi u vizan-
tijskite avtori", pp. 341-2. J. B. Bury and G. Moravcsik relate the Bulgarian word
"chigat" to the Turkic "jigit" and define it as some kind of military institution or,
generally, as "soldier". Jurdan Trifonov (Trifonov Ju., "Ki!.m vaprosa za starobulgar-
skoto boljarstvo", Spisanie na BAN, XXVI, 1923, pp. 16, 26) was the first to relate
the word to the Byzantine spatarii and points out some of its local usages that were
preserved until modern times. The name of the village of Chigotovo is referred to in
a document of the King Stephen Uros II Milutin, dating from 1314.-cf. NovakoviC,
Zakonski spomenici, p. 624.
350 CHAPTER FOUR
In any case, these observations are yet another reason for seeking a
connection between the Byzantine institution of the spatharios (either
protospatharios, either spatharios or spatharocandidatos) and the Bul-
garian chigots. The proposed etymology of the term also points in that
direction. 242 Actually, ever since Yurdan Trifonov there has been a
unanimous opinion in Bulgarian historiography that the institution
of "chigot" corresponds to the Byzantine "spatharios". 243 Only Ivan
Venedikov asserts the extravagant view that the ones corresponding
to the Byzantine institution, and to what is evidently its Bulgarian
loanword mechenosha (sword-bringer), were not the chigots but the
bagaturs. 244
4.4.1.2
This conclusion immediately takes us to the term "mechenosha",
which corresponds to "chigot" in some translations, such as that of
the Roman Patericon. This, in turn, leads us to the institution of the
"mechenosha", quite rarely present in sources. As the appellation of
a Bulgarian institution (not a Byzantine one mentioned in a Bulgar-
ian text), the term is attested as existing only in an inscription on the
golden seal-ring found in the region of Pazardzhik. The inscription
reads uelJWHWWb. Tb.PlJH, and bears the monogram Tagchi. 245
Before going on to discuss the institution of the mechenosha, I would
like to consider the word/name "Tagchi", about which different views
have been expressed. The prevailing and traditional opinion is that this
was the name of a bearer of the title, usually defined as a "non-Slavic"
one, Turkic or Iranian. Not long ago Mosko Moskov, who sees it as
possibly being a term, did state a different, though not categorical,
view. He proposes an origin based on dag* or tag*, meaning "brand",
"seal". 246 This leads to the name-title tamgaci, meaning "keeper of
the seal", "keeper of the banner", "flagbearer", "person who sets the
seal" .247 One possible interpretation is that this was a person from the
fiscal administration who branded the livestock after payment of cus-
toms duties at the border, a customs inspector. In support of this is
adduced the Russian word for customs inspector "TaMo:>KeHMK", which
is derived precisely from the Tartar word "tamga". 248 M. Moskov does
not state categorically whether he considers Tagchi to have been the
name of a person or part of the name of the institution, but I think
he was inclined to the latter view. I do not believe this has been con-
vincingly proven, especially as it concerns a fiscal institution that was
little compatible with that of the spatharios, who was military court
institution.
Two recently published articles are especially devoted to the topic of
the sword-bringers in early mediaeval Bulgaria; they offer a completely
new interpretation of the institution and of the manner how it relates
to that of the chigot. 249 According to the author, the word tagchi is not a
name, but an appellation oflranian origin identical with mechenosha,250
and repeated afterwards in the Slavic language. Evidently, this author
is also inclined to relate the word to bagaturs and gives arguments for
the special place of the institution in the Bulgarian political system
during the First Empire. As for chigot, the author relates the word to
jigit and defines it as a military rank of youths and adolescents. I can-
not agree with such an interpretation and ascribe it to the insufficiency
of sources on Bulgar institutions. In any case, this interpretation does
not explain some of the usages of chigot as a counterpart of proto/
spatharios in translated texts or concrete cases of substitution of the
two terms in some of the texts that I cited above.
na chl.-kor. prof dr. Veselin Besevliev, Veliko Tarnovo, 12-15. V. 2000, Sofia, 2003,
p. 486; Drevnetjurkskij slovar', pp. 158, 527.
247 Moskov, "Omonimi ot bulgarski proizhod", pp. 486-7; Drevnetjurkskij slovar',
p. 530.
248 Moskov, "Omonimi ot bulgarski proizh.od", p. 488; Vasmer, IV, p. 18.
249 Jordanov St., "Mechonostsite na P1l.rvoto tsarstvo", in: Traditsii i priemstvenost v
Bulgarija i Balkanite prez Srednite vekove. Jubileen sbornik, posveten na prof dr. Jordan
Andreev. Izsledvanija i materiali ot mezhdunarodnata nauchna konferentsija v chest
na 6--godishninata na prof din Jordan Andreev, 14-15 mai 1999 z., Veliko Tarnovo,
Veliko T1l.rnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo "Sts Kiril i Metodij", 2003, pp. 384-404.
250 On the origin of"Tagchi" from the lexeme meaning "saber", c£ likewise another
Most scholars date the ring of the mechen osha from the time of the
First Bulgarian Empire. There is one exception: in his corpus on the
seals of mediaeval Bulgaria, Ivan Yordanov sets it in the 13th-14th
century. 251 His argument for this view is based on how the ligature
of the inscription was written. With all due respect for this eminent
Bulgarian specialist in sphragistics, his dating of the source in the time
of the Second Empire seems unconvincing and the argument appears
insufficient. The historical evidence and the name of the persons (pre-
suming that "Tagchi" is a personal name, about which opinions differ)
point indubitably to the time before the 11th century.
I believe we cannot avoid the connection between the institutions of
"spatharios", "chigot" and "mechenosha" and their appellations. Viewed
as a connected set, they give us an idea about the development of Bul-
garian institutions under the influence of the Byzantine Empire since
the early time of the Bulgarian state when it constructed its adminis-
trative terminology. It is hard to prove to what degree the appellation
"chigot" was coined in imitation of the Byzantine term "spatharios" or
its derivatives, but it is fully clear that the subsequent development of
the term was precisely as a counterpart of the original Byzantine term.
Nevertheless, I believe this was exactly the path: first, the construction
of a Bulgar Turkic word (or the adaptation of an already existing word
to the purpose) based on the Greek term and as a counterpart to it;
second, with the introduction and imposed predominance of the Slavic
literary language as the official language of the state, the Bulgar term
was substituted by a Slavic one, which matched its Greek original even
more closely. We cannot say how and when precisely this substitution
took place. In any case, it was not immediately after the first steps of
Slavic literature, for the word "chigot" was in usage in the Slavic liter-
ary environment as well, where it has left ample traces. I believe that
the two terms ("chigot" and "mechenosha") were used simultaneously
for a while, and, possibly, one of them was official. The permanent
substitution must have occurred in the lOth century, but the word
"chigot" must have continued to exist and be used in various texts.
I believe that the institution "chigot" represents an early example
of the influence of the Byzantine Empire upon the Bulgarian institu-
tional system, and the presence of the term attests the adapting of the
Bulgarian terminology (Bulgar/Turkic or Slavic) to the administrative
4.4.2
The office of protostrator is known to us only from the information
provided by George Pachymeres about the protostrator Kasimbek,
whose activity is dated in the restless times of Ivailo. 252 Therefore, the
only data on this institution are in the Greek language, but I believe we
can reconstruct it based on the existing strator, which is presented in
the glossary. 253 This single mention tells us nothing except merely that
the institution existed in the Bulgarian state. In order to learn what it
essentially was we shall have once again to proceed from comparisons
with the Byzantine Empire. It is stress that the mention of the office
in a foreign-language text alone makes the term hard to use in a study
of legal vocabulary such as this one. Nevertheless, I have included it,
because it represents yet another evidence of the influence of Constan-
tinople in Bulgaria.
In the Byzantine Empire, the protostrator was a military figure
among those of the basileus' entourage. The first information on Byz-
antine protostrator comes from the 8th century, during the rule of
Constantine V. They were commanders of one of the court guards,
and their subordinates were the strators, the armophylax and the stau-
locomites. The protostrator rides besides the basileus. He could usher
in foreign envoys instead of the protospatharios. At the time when
Philotheus wrote his treatise, this institution did not hold a particu-
252 Georgli Pachymerls De Michaeli et Andronico Palaeologis libri XII, rec. Im.
Bekkerus, t. 1-11, Bonnae 1835, pp. 466-8; G. Pachymeres, Relations historiques, ed.
A Failler, t. II, pp. 589-91.
253 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 207ff. Regarding the protostrators in the Empire cf:
Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 1374, 173; Oikonomides, Les listes, pp. 337-8; Brehier,
Les institutions, pp. 132-3; Oikonomides, "Organisation administrative (1025-1118)",
p. 145; Guilland, Recherches, I, pp. 478-97.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 355
larly high place in the hierarchy, but it rose subsequently. The pro-
tostrator had a strong position not so much due to the importance
of his office but because of his closeness to the basileus. 254 In later
times, Nicetas Choniates compares the service of the protostrator to
that of the French marshals, while Pseudo Kodinos informs us about
how he accompanies the ruler, carries the ruler's sword, and leads his
horse. 255 However, we have reasons to believe that the actual functions
of the protostrator were considerably larger. They are related mostly
to military command. During military campaigns, he headed the light
cavalry, the vanguard, and the patrol forces. Occasionally protostrator
would command the whole army and even head the navy. In fact, this
was one of the highest-ranking dignitaries in the Empire, among the
highest on the list.
In mediaeval Serbia, the office of protostrator has not left any trace
in the sources, but Stojan Novakovic is seemingly inclined to iden-
tify it with that of the tepchi,256 a view that is hard for me to accept
as proven. On the other hand, I should explicitly point out that the
Romanian stratornic has nothing in common with the protostrator,
and we can gain a better idea of his office from another appellation:
postelnic.
As for Bulgaria, here too the very existence of this institution may
be put in doubt. The doubt grows stronger from the already men-
tioned fact that the word is not present in the other Balkan countries.
For his part George Pachymeres explicitly stresses that Kasimbek was
bestowed the title of protostrator by Michael VIII Palaeologos. 257 It
may be supposed that here too we have a case of a typical awarding of
a rank to foreigners in order to attract them to the politics of Constan-
tinople. Yet I believe that such a conclusion would be somewhat over
hasty. Since it originated from the Byzantine system, the Bulgarian
rulers could have adapted the title of protostrator as well.
In conclusion, we may say that the Bulgarian protostrator was among
the most prominent functionaries in the state. This is evidenced by
Kasimbek's closeness to the tsar. The duties of the institution were
254 Bury, Impeiral Administrative System, pp. 117-8; Brehier Les institutions,
pp. 132-3; Guilland, "Protostrator", pp. 156-8; Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance,
pp. 337-8; Oikonomides, "Organisation administrative (1025-1118)", p. 145.
255 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 168, 173, 176.
256 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 200-1.
257 Georgii Pachymeris De Michaeli et Andronico Palaeologis libri XII, vol I, LVI.
19, p. 466; Pachymeres, Relations historiques (ed. A. Failler), vol. II, pp. 5988_9•
356 CHAPTER FOUR
4.4.3
The office of the great dux (ReAHKrz.. AO'rii or AO~K~ ReAHKrz.. from o
~era~ oo-6~)2 58 is known to us only from the inscnption of the "duka"
Vrana, discovered by Stefan Verkovic and published in several differ-
ent editions: +
~'l'l> Rf~H~ AO~~ ReAHK'l.. C'l..TROfHX'l.. Pf~# KfHU,VR~
MM~ ~Cb.LI,~ S~R (6712=120l:l r.) ~~ MOAHTb.R'l..l KMOiW~H~ u_"'p<k. 259
This is all the information we have from mediaeval Bulgaria. The office
existed at least in the time of tsar Kalojan. The word itself is an adop-
tion from the Greek, which leads us to seek its origin in the Byzan-
tine Empire. In Constantinople, there was an institution with a similar
name (~era~ oo-6~. It appeared towards the end of the 11th century
in connection with the reforms undertaken by Alexis I Comnenos. By
AD 1118, this functionary had permanently been established as com-
mander of the Byzantine navy. It is as such that he is mentioned in
the treatise of Pseudo Kodinos. 260 There he held the fifth place in the
hierarchy-a confirmation of his strong position in the time of the
Palaeologos dynasty as well.
The institution was not typical for Serbia. Its name occurs in a docu-
ment of Balsa III, dating from AD 1420: ~. c~MOAfb.mUHH rocnoA~fb.
GMW~, no MHAOCTH GO;KHeH AO~K~ ReAHKH H rocnO#fb. ~eMAH
4.4.4
Finally, I would like to focus attention on a transliterated Greek term:
protokelliot/in/ (npOToKe.I\Hi'wrHHO'r, Dat.)/62 Evidently the archetype of
the word was xprotoKeMuirrn<;, but such an institution is not known
to have existed in the Byzantine Empire. The name of the office occurs
twice in tsar Boril's Synodicon-npOToKe.l\i'OTHH"A. 263 Indisputably, the
word is of Greek origin and can be related to the entourage of the
ruler, but such a designation for an official in the Empire is not known
to have existed. In the sources there is a term KeMtO't'll<;, 264 but the
context of its use is such as does not permit comparisons with the
Bulgarian institution.
The Romanian sources seem to provide better possibilities for com-
parisons. I should first note that to the north of the Danube as well,
the term "protokelliotin" is not found in this form. We should point
our attention to the similar designation kellar (Ke.Ab.fb.)/65 used at
times for the office better known as kliuchar (K.Akl'lb.fb.) or kliuchnik
(K.Akl'IHHK'A). The word kellar itself and its etymology do not pose any
difficult problems. The origin is in the Latin word cella, but it was
262 Poporuzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, p. 90; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 213-5.
263 Poporuzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, p. 90.
264 Du Cange, Glossarium, col. 631.
265 Dicfionar elementilor romdne~ti, p. 40 (Mold. 16 oct 1538-1540). A monastery
office of the same name is found in Russia as well-c£ Sreznevskij, Materialy, vol. I,
1204.
358 CHAPTER FOUR
directly borrowed from the Greek KeAMpwc;, and passed into the
Romanian language from the Slavic. We shall not discuss this Greek
term, inasmuch as it does not denote any Byzantine court institution.
More interesting for our study is the Moldavian version. Of course,
the latter is not identical with the Bulgarian designation, and hence no
possible similarity between the two institutions can be assumed.
The earliest record in Walachia of the designation of the office of
kliuchar (identical, as I pointed out, with the term that concerns us
here, kellar) is from August 29, 1469; in Moldavia, it is from May 12,
1425. From the very start, the great kliuchar was a high-ranking digni-
tary, and at times a member of the Council in Walachia. His occupation
was to ensure provisions for the court. He took care of all that had to be
supplied in the ruler's storages and supervised how it was spent. 266
When undertaking the search for parallels with Bulgaria, we should
explicitly note that the form l~eA~fb. is found in Moldavia alone, where,
unlike Walachia, the Bulgarian influence predominated over the Ser-
bian. Despite this, drawing conclusions based on comparisons in this
case would be very risky. The extant Bulgarian sources attest merely
the existence of this institution and do not permit any concrete asser-
tions as to the duties it involved. The authors who have written on the
topic (we should point out that they have merely separate notes on
the topic) believe that the protokeliot was an aide-de-camp of the tsar,
but at the same time was entrusted with the protection of the latter. 267
This, of course, is very probable but cannot be proven. Regrettably, we
must note that a similarity to the Moldavian kliuchar/kellar cannot be
proven either. Any comparison would be entirely arbitrary, especially
as the terms do not coincide. That is why I shall refrain from insisting
on any parallels.
The only fact that supports the thesis that this official had military
duties is that, at the mention of the term in the Synodicon, it is suggested
that the protokeliots die in battle in defence of their lord. However, is
that a sufficient indication? With some relative degree of certainty, we
could only say that these were high-ranking dignitaries close to the
ruler: two of them found a place in the Synodicon. It is very probable
they had military functions, and I am inclined to accept this.
4.5.2
270 Iv. Billarsky, "La 'Terra Albanese' nel sistema amministrativo bulgaro", Vocafia
istoriei: Prinos profesorului $ef'ban Papacostea, Brnila, 2008, pp. 259-71.
271 About the office ofvoevoda, cf Petrov P., Grozdanova E.,« Woiwode in mittel-
alterlichen Balkanlander und im Osmanischen Reich », Etudes historiques, IX (1979),
pp. 99-127; Bogdan 1., Originea voievodatului la romani, Bucure~ti, 1902 [= Analele
Academiei Romane, Memoriile sectiuni istorice, III, t. 24, pp. 191-207]; Virtosu E.,
Titulatura domnilor ~~ asocierea la domnie fn Tara romaneasca si Moldova (pfna la seco-
lul al XVI-lea, Bucure~ti, 1960, p. 105 ff; Institufii feudale din tarile romane, Dicfionar,
Bucure~ti, 1988, p. 168 ff.; Z. Wojciechowski, L'Etatpolonais au moyen Age. Histoire des
institutions, Paris, 1949, p. 243; Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 201-7, 270-86.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 361
272 Poporuzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, § 136 Pal. p. 90; P. Petrov, E. Grozdanova,
"Woiwode", p. 101.
273 Vasmer, I, p. 332; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 270. It is worth noting the similar
formation, on the basis of a calque, of the German word Herzog. The authors of the
etymological dictionary are inclined to see a domestic origin of the word and indicate
its Greek counterpart as an example of a similar word-forming process: BER, vol. I,
pp. 172-3.
274 Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, p. 48 Ust. 3, p. 36 Nov. 3, p. 42 Vars. 3
Byzantine culture and the Slavs in this age was the Balkan Peninsula,
and taking into account the historical context, it may be asserted that,
as a term of public law, this word was coined in Bulgaria. Even assum-
ing that it was created in the framework of the apostolic mission of
the first Slavic educators St. Cyril and St. Methodius in Great Moravia,
there it could have only been a word used for the purpose of a transla-
tion from Greek texts, not the name of a concrete institution. Such,
I believe, it became in the Balkans, within the Bulgarian state system.
This signifies that not only the word but also the institution itself of
the strategos-voevoda was transplantated in Bulgaria and the Bulgar-
ian public law.
The institution of strategos as military commander and provin-
cial governor was adopted in Bulgaria even before the Conversion. I
am referring to the Hambarli inscription of the early 9th century. It
mentions that the army and state were divided into central, left, and
right part, governed respectively by the brother of the ruler, the boila
kaukhan, and the itzirgou boila, each with his subordinate strategoi. 277
Thus the subordinate of the khan's brother was strategos Leon; the
subordinates of the itzirgou boila were the strategoi Vardan and Gian-
nis/Iani; and of the boila kaukhan; the strategoi Kordil and Gregoras.
Evidently, these strategoi were not Bulgars, although they were officers
of the Bulgar ruler. Of the quoted five names three are Greek (Leon,
Iani, and Gregoras), and two are Iranian, and probably Armenian
(Vardan and Kordil). 278 There is reason to believe they were Chris-
tians. The assumption has been stated that the strategoi Iani and Leon
were those same "strategoi of the Christians" slain by khan Omurtag,
as stated in the Constantinopolitan Synaxarium. 279 This was part of
277 Besevliev, Pt'lrvobulgarski nadpisi, No. 47, pp. 186-7. Ivan Venedikov explains
the appearance of Christian strategoi south of the Balkan mountains in the newly con-
quered Byzantine territories by the presumed desire of Khan Krum to organise these
lands in preserving the local specific features of governance (Venedikov, Voennoto i
administrattvnoto ustrojstvo, pp. 63-5). This assertion is quite arbitrary, as is, for that
matter, a large part of the views of the author expressed in this book
278 Regarding the names Vardan and Kordila, c£: Marquart J., Osteuropiiische
und ostasiatische StreigzUge, Leipzig, 1903, p. 493; Justi F., Iranisches Namenbuch,
Marburg, 1895, pp. 351-3; Vasmer M., Untersuchungen Uber die iiltesten Wohnsitze
der Slaven, I, Die Iraner in SUdruj3land, Leipzig, 1923, p. 35; Zgusta L., Die Person-
ennamen griechischer Stii.dte der nordlichen SchwarzmeerkUnste, Prag, 1955, p. 335;
Be8evliev, Pt'lrvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 188-191.
279 Delehaye H., Sinaxarium ecdesiae Constantinopolitanae, Bruxelles, 1902, p. 416;
Gregoire H., "Les sources epigraphiques de l'histoire bulgare", Byzantion, IX, 1934,
fasc 2, pp. 758-9; Halkin Fr.,« Inscriptions grecques relatives a l'hagiographie. (suite)
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 363
VI. Grece continentale et les pays balkaniques ,, Analecta Bollandiana, 70 ( 1952), fasc.
1 et 2, p. 131; Besevliev, Parvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 188-9.
280 A similar view is presented by: Venedikov, Voennoto i administrativnoto
ustrojstvo pp. 64-5.
364 CHAPTER FOUR
Mare Neagm", Studii ~~ cercetari de istorie veche, 1951, 1, p. 171; Com~a E., Bogdan
D. P., Panaitescu P. P., "Inscrtptia slavil. din Dobrugea din anul 943", Studii (Revista
de istorie ~~ filosojie), IV, 1951, pp. 122-3; Bogdan D., "Dobrudzhanskaja nadpis' 943
g.", Romanoslavica, 1, 1958, pp. 88-104; Gju:zelev V., "Dobrudzhanskijat nadpis' i
sabitijata v Bulgarija sled 943 g.", Istorichski pregled, 1968, 6, pp. 40-8; Bozllov Iv.,
''Nadpisil.t na zhupan Dimitil.r ot 943 g.", Izvestija na okrazhnija istoricheski muzej v
366 CHAPTER FOUR
in the Law for Judging the People. During the Second Empire this
office was not present in the institutional system of Bulgaria, although
it does appear as a word in some texts that usually reflect foreign (Ser-
bian, central European, or Romanian) realities. 290
Before presenting briefly what we know about the nature of this
institution, we should consider the origin of its designation. The ety-
mology is not completely clear. In general, there are two prevalent
views: that it is of Slavic or Turkic-Avar origin (generally connected
with the traditions of the Eurasian steppe). The proponents of the
Slavic origin believe that it comes from mo~nb. with the suffix« -b.H'b »
and is related to the Indo-European root *gheu-/*ghu-, which pro-
duces the Greek guph, and the Palaeoslavic *gt>pan. 291 The assumption
has also been made that the origin of the word is related to cultivating
the soil by burning wood, a technique used by the Slavs; hence, passing
through the word msmwz. ("fire") comes msnb., whence msnb.H'b. 292 Yet,
the predominant view is that it is of Turkic origin, for parallels with
the languages of the steppe peoples can be found. Initially the meaning
of the word was evidently 'chief' or 'commander' of a group or mili-
tary unit. A. Briikner believes it is of Avar origin, while K. H. Menges
links it to the Turkic cupan (= "assistant to a village mayor"); to their
arguments P. Malingoudis adds reasons based on history. 293
Historical data on zhupans provide very interesting material. The
first evidence of the word in the sources is in a Bavarian document
dating from AD 777. 294 The term occurs several times in Bulgar inscrip-
tions, two of these cases being in the Bulgar Turkic language. The case
of the treasure of Nagy-Szent-Mikl6s is not quite clear and undispu-
Tolbukhin, 1973, pp. 37-58; BoZ!lov Iv., "L'inscription de jupan Dimitre de l'an 943
(theories et faits)", Etudes historiques, VI, 1973, pp. 11-28; Istorija na Dobrudzha,
t. II, pp. 40-1, 62-3.
290 Regarding the literature on this topic cf.: Grachev, Zhupan 1965, p. 178ff.;
Grachev, Zhupan 1967, p. 3ff.; Dobrev, Zhupan 1965, pp. 383-7; Malingoudis, "Zupan",
pp. 61-76; Institufii feudale, pp. 239-40, 260, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 266 ff.; Philippi,
Die Burger von Kronstadt im 14. und 15 Jahrhundert, p. 131; Gavllkova, "Transfor-
matsija", pp. 62-3; Holzer, Zur Sprache, pp. 57-63; Havlov3, K pullkovanym, pp. 24-7;
Cleminson, "Brashovskaja gramota tsarja Ivana Sratsimira", p. 370.
291 Machek V., Etymologickj slovn£k jazyka ceskeho, Praha, 1968, p. 598; Malingoudis,
"Zupan", pp. 62-3; BER, I, pp. 559-60; Vasmer, II, p. 66.
292 Dobrev, "Zhupan", p. 385.
293 A. Briikner, Slownik etymologiczny j~zyka polskiego, Krak6w, 1927, p. 667;
K. H. Menges, The Oriental Elementsin the Vocabulary of the Oldest Russian Fpos, New
York, 1951; Malingo~dis, "Zupan", pp. 64, 74-6.
294 Malingoudis, "Zupan", pp. 64-7.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 367
table for historical science. 295 The Bulgar inscription clearly indicates
the place of the zhupan in the military hierarchy. There we find it in a
combination that is still not quite clear: trouptrouva 1t11Ae l;omav. 296 In
two Greek commemorative inscriptions (in Besevliev numbers 61 and
63), the zhupan-tarkan Chsounos (Xcrouvo<;) of the family Kiurigir and
an anonymous zhupan of the Ermiar family are indicated as people in
the employment of the ruler. 297 On the Bulgarian side, we have data
about the great zhupan Sivin from his silver cup found in a grave in
Preslav. 298
While the above-mentioned data on zhupans are chiefly related
to the capital (or generally to the centre of the state) and to specific
military functions, other data present these people as officials in the
provinces, as district governors with competencies clearly falling in the
sphere of defence. Such is the case of the already cited Slavic-language
inscription of zhupan Dimiter, dating from AD 943. 299 Although pre-
served in fragments, it provided reasons to believe that this person was
a local Bulgarian governor in North Dobrudja who had taken part in
some military campaign. Here I shall not touch upon the unfounded
assertions that his rule represented the start of "Romanian statehood"
in Scythia Minor, or that it was inherited, or the claims about some
sort of "Russian island amidst Dobrudzha"
Zhupans are also mentioned in the Law for Judging the People
(ch. 3 and ch. 20),300 but the mentions are of such a kind that they do
not shed additional light on the nature of the institution. One mention
is connected with the distribution of spoils, and there the "zhupan" is
contrasted with the "prince" on one hand and with ordinary people on
the other. Without going into an extensive discussion of this problem,
buch Leons III. und Konstantins V., p. 216 (XIV.8-here the term "zhupan" is a trans-
lation ofta~O'I)Mpw~). 244 (XVIII.l-here it is a translation of liPXrov).
368 CHAPTER FOUR
I shall only say that in this case the reference is not to a concrete
institution but simply to "powerful person", "military commander",
"high-ranking person", all of whom are people whose due share of the
spoils is equal to that of the prince, i.e. their part is equal to that going
into the state treasury. A similar position is connected with article 20,
regulating second hand testimonies of witnesses, which are prohibited
even for "the zhupans". In my opinion, this too is not a concrete insti-
tution but a reference to the state and social elite of those times.
The term "zhupan" figures in the quite early Codex Suprasliensis,
where it means a person close to the ruler. 301 In his treatise on the gov-
ernance of the Empire, the basileus Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos
mentions "zhupans" several times, but these indications are not about
Bulgarian but about the Serbo-Croatian lands. 302
This was a rather widespread institution, obviously of a complex
nature, and it is difficult to give an unambiguous definition of what
it essentially was. Much depends on the definition of its origin, which
in turn is closely connected with the etymology of the term. Evidently
this was a remnant (and elaboration) of a tribal institution within
the state. The proponents of the Slavic version see it as a way for the
Slavic aristocracy to take part in the political life of Bulgaria. 303 I do not
intend to comment on ideas that are the result of the presumed ideo-
logically based thesis regarding the "federal" character of the state in
the early Middle Ages and the strong Slavic presence in it. As I already
said, the two opposed views as to the etymology of the word "zhupan"
are that it is of Slavic or Turkic-Avar origin (or generally of the Eur-
asian Steppe peoples). It is beyond the limits of our task to take a final
stand on this issue, which falls in the competence of philology. Our
goal is to clarify the status of the Bulgarian institution and its origin.
In this sense it may be said that, whatever the etymology of the term
"zhupan", it was preserved chiefly among the Slavic peoples and their
neighbours who were under their influence (Romanians, Hungarians,
Baltic peoples, etc.) Nevertheless, we should not forget that the Slavs
themselves underwent an exceptionally strong influence by the peoples
301 The reference is to the Vita of St Aninos, where zhupans are mentioned among
the other high-ranking dignitaries: Supraslski ili Retkov sbornik, pp. 561 24 , 562 26;
Malingoudis, ":Zupan", pp. 68-70.
302 Constantini Porphyrogeniti De administrando imperio, pp. 124, 144, 158.
303 Kojceva E., "Titlata zhupan u v1l.prosite na bulgarskata d1l.rzhavnost", Bulgarija
of the Eurasian Steppe. The status of the zhupan, especially during the
late Middle Ages, was different from what it was in Bulgaria during
the First Empire. In the latter age, references to this institution place
it entirely within the traditions of the Bulgar pagan state, which had
nothing in common with the Slavs. The first names and family names
of all bearers of the title are non-Slavic, probably Turkic Bulgar, which
attests their affiliation to the ruling aristocracy. The only exception was
the zhupan Dimiter, but his name is Christian and of Greek origin, so
it provides no information about his ethnic affiliation. Thus we can
claim with a relative degree of certainty that the zhupan institution
(together with all its composite variants) in Bulgaria in early mediae-
val times probably originated in the Eurasian steppe and was related
to a military commander with governing authority in the territorial
administration; he was a person of high social rank. The preservation
of the word in a Slavic environment is easily explained; it probably
passed into the language in a similar way as the word "boyar"
The zhupan institution did not exist in Bulgaria during the Second
Empire, when the Byzantine system was introduced. 304 Nevertheless, it
continued to be widespread among the western and northern neigh-
bours of the Bulgarians. The earliest information on zhupans and great
zhupans among the Serbs dates from the 12th century, but there they
had nothing in common with the Bulgarian institution and are not of
interest for our study. 305 In any case, it is important to note that the
title of "great zhupan", which until the beginning of the 13th century
was the designation of a Serbian ruler, had nothing to do with the
"great zhupan" from the inscription of Sivin, who was not head of the
state. All authors who have written on the topic share this view.
In Walachia and Moldavia there is much data on zhupans, but this
was not an institution in the proper sense but rather a reference to a
"person of high standing", a "distinguished person" as a social category,
not a legal one. Such were usually the boyars without a specific office;
among those boyars who did have an office, only the highest-ranking
ones were zhupans. 306 In fact in some cases, the citations of "zhupan"
are such that this very much resembles a "pure" title, especially when it
is combined with the office of the person: msn~H HR~H ReAHKH RHcrr'i~f,
m~n~Hb. H~roe ReAHKH G4\Hb. Kf~MRCKH, msn~H Af~rHT AWrocf,eT. 307
fn his history of the campaign of Frederic I Barbarossa, Ansbertus
gives an account of the meeting of the crusaders with a "zhupan or
satrap of Bulgaria" (iuppanum vel satrapam Bulgarie). 308 This text is
quite a vague piece of information about the institutions and provokes
discussions more than it identifies the person, so it is not interesting
for our study. The author was probably referring to some local lord in
Macedonia, not to a concrete institution or ruler's title.
In the Vir gino chrysobull the word zhupa occurs,309 a term that was
widespread among the Slavic peoples neighbouring to the Bulgarians.
T. Vasilevski devoted a special study to this term and its related
zhupania; 310 the author reached the conclusion the two were not iden-
tical. The zhupania in the later Middle Ages was a large administrative-
territorial district that encompassed several zhupas. I do not believe we
can accept either of these existed in Bulgaria in the 13th-14th century,
and I say this not only because of the inauthenticity of the Virgino
chrysobull. The latter document is known to have been an antedated
copy of the charter of the Serbian king Stephen Milutin, dating from
AD 1300, so that many of the data in it are about Serbia and have noth-
ing to do with Bulgaria. In addition, the mention of zhupas does not
recur in any other document.
A reference to a zhupan there is also in the letter of tsar John Sratsi-
mir to the authorities in the city of Bra~ov (Kronstadt). One of the
leaders of the city was had that title, given in the Latin-language docu-
ment as "judex" and in the German-language as "Richter". 311 He is in
first place in the address in the letter, a fact that suggests he was first
in rank among the governors ofBra~ov. This was not a Bulgarian insti-
tution but a Slavic and Hungarian designation for a Saxon institution
in one of the most important cities in Transylvania. Hence, it is not
relevant to our study.
Vladislav Grammatik's Rila Narrative contains an interesting men-
tion of zhupan in the account of a stop along the way during the trans-
307 Kodov Khr., Rajkov B., Kozhukharov St., Opis na slavjanskite rt'Jkopisi v bib-
liotekata na Zografskija manastir v Sveta Gora, vol I, Sofia, 1985, pp. 78, 82, 85.
308 Ansberte Historia-in: Chroust, Quellen zur Geschichte, p. 5619-33·
309 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 1774·
310 Wasilewski, "Zhupa i zhupanija", pp. 84-92.
311 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 301.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 371
lation of the relics of St. John of Rila from Tolrnovo to the monastery
founded by the hermit. The procession was met in Nicopolis by Bogdan
zhupan, who led the participants to his palace and set the relics of the
saint in a house of prayer. 312 The text makes it clear that Bogdan was a
very wealthy and influential person. There is mention of his servants,
of the copious meal with which he regaled the travellers. The difficulty
of understanding this case comes from the fact that these events are
dated from the second half of the 15th century, i.e. more than half a
century after the Bulgarian state was occupied by the Osmanlis. Hence,
this could not have been a 'Bulgarian zhupan' or some legacy from
the Bulgarian Middle Ages. More probably, this was a local spahi or a
Romanian boyar who possessed some goods in the Nicopolis region
and come to this territory from the north.
Evidently, the title of zhupan was in use into the Ottoman Empire
for a short time in the early period of Ottoman rule to designate local
eminent persons. For instance in one source there is a reference to the
timar for the zhupan Halil, son of Ibrahim bin Hac1 from the village of
Busmantsi, involving a personal military obligation, with one warrior
and one tent. 313 The zhupan Bogdan must have been something of the
sort: a Christian spahi or a Walachian boyar possessing property and
estates to the south of the Danube as well.
4.5.2.3. Kephalia (Ke<j»MH!b.)
The designation of this official occurs several times in Bulgarian sources
from the time of the Second Empire. In particular, it is to mention the
imperial documents: one finds the term in two of them, the Virgino
chrysobull and the Vitosha chrysobull. 314 In the latter, the institution
is cited as "kephalia of the city of Sofia", and there he is placed in the
head of the listed provincial administration's clerks. The functionary
in question is also mentioned in the famous inscription of sebastos
Ognyan from Bozhenishki Urvich. 315 This source is of special interest
for the present study, inasmuch as both the honorary title and the
administrative position of this Bulgarian dignitary are indicated there.
Gregory Dobropisets' Vita of St. Romil of Vi din contains another data
about the kephalia. The work relates how the kephalia of Skopelos
312 Kalu:iniacki, Werke, pp. 420-1; Stara bulgarska literatura, vol IV, p. 388.
313 Izvori za bulgarskata istorija, vol XIII, Sofia, 1966, p. 21.
314 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 16u. 29s-s-
315 Mutafchiev, "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", p. 493.
372 CHAPTER FOUR
warned the hermits about Muslim bandits in the vicinity. 316 Was he a
Bulgarian or a Byzantine official? Considering the location of the city
of Skopelos, we should assume it was most probably the latter.
The term "kephalia" itself is of Greek origin, derived from Ke<jxxA.ft,
meaning "head" We thus come to the etymology of the word. There is
opinion that kephalia was initially military commander of the detach-
ments in a given district but gradually assumed civil functions as well. 317
Ljubomir Maksimovic proposed the thesis that the origin of the term
was non-official. The general sense of "chief", "superior" gradually
turned into the most widely used expression for a governor in the
provinces during the last two centuries of the history of the Byzantine
Empire. 318 This is not in contradiction with D. Zakythinos' idea that
the term under question denoted in general a great variety of offices
during the earlier period. The institution of kephalia in the proper
sense of the word took shape in the 13th century. It occurs above all in
the European provinces: Peloponnesus, Thrace, Thessaly, and in nearly
all the provinces of Asia Minor.
Since the 14th century, we have data on kephalias in Serbian docu-
ments; moreover, they are so numerous that the institution had evi-
dently become very popular in Serbia. There he was too a head of a
district government. 319
From all these remarks, it becomes clear that the kephalia in the Byz-
antine Empire and in mediaeval Serbia was official in the provincial
administration. The office had no titular value, as evidenced by the fact
that it is absent from the hierarchic honorary table in Pseudo Kodinos'
treatise. I believe it is to reject the opinion that the kephalia could have
been the name not only for an official but also for a local ruler.
Ljubomir Maksimovic specifies that the kephalia had under his super-
vision a territorial unit called katepanikion (not a kephalatikion-there
was no such unit), which, though not large, could not have been lim-
316 Syrku P. A., "Monakha Grigorija Zhitie prepodobnago Romila", in: Pamjatniki
drevnej pis'menosti i iskustva, t CXXXVI, Sankt Petersburg, 1900; Stara bulgarska
literatura, t. 4, p. 493.
317 Mutafchiev, "Bo:zhenishnikjat nadpis", pp. 495-6; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 345;
Zakythinos D., Le Despotat grec de Moree, t. II, London, Variorum Reprints 1975,
pp. 65 tf., 85.
318 Maksimovic, Provincijska uprava, pp. 71-2.
319 Ostrogorsky, Serska oblast, p. 94; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto uprav-
lenie", pp. 15-6, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 287-9.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 373
320 Zakythinos, Despotat, II, p. 61; Maksimovic, Provincijska uprava, pp. 73, 78-9.
374 CHAPTER FOUR
in the protection formula. 321 The term occurs also in the Treatise on
the Letters by Constantine Kostenechki. 322 There is a reference to the
dux of the theme of Thessalonica in the Panegyric for St Dimitrios
of Thessalonica by Gregory Tzamblak, 323 but he was not an official of
the mediaeval Bulgarian state and this information can serve only as
a linguistic fact. In the texts, the term occurs in both forms: AO~I~A
and AO~~·
The name of the Byzantine institution Soul; comes from the Latin
dux. The name underwent large changes in the course of the history
of the Empire. In the early centuries, duces were typical military com-
manders subordinated to the strategos of the theme, but they later
headed certain administrative territorial units. 324 The battle of Man-
tzikert, which dealt a heavy blow to the thematic system, had an
impact on this institution as well. The duces became provincial gover-
nors of administrative territorial units that were smaller but greater in
number. They remained so as late as the 13th century, chiefly in Asia
Minor and the islands of the Aegean Sea, where the Latin invasion had
caused less destruction. 325 Under the Palaeologos dynasty, the basic
unit of territorial organisation became the katepanikion, headed by a
kephalia, while the dux (often designated by the combined title Soul;
Kat anoypa<j>eu~) retained certain functions in the defence sphere and
the fiscal apparatus. 326
The common opinion on the office of the dux as it existed in medi-
aeval Bulgaria is he was a district governor. M. Laskaris thinks that
this was the official designation of the governor, while kephalia was
the colloquial name. 327 I cannot agree with the latter assertion, which is
unproven and, besides, is refuted by the data for the Byzantine Empire
and Serbia. Nevertheless, I accept the view that the dux was a district
governor in the Bulgarian state. Data contained in charters very defi-
321 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1898 _99 , 28 28 ; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 59;
pp. 52-5; Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance, pp. 343, 354; Maksimovic, Provincijska
uprava, p. 65.
325 Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 140-1; MaksimoviC, Provincijska uprava, pp. 68-9.
326 Maksimovic, Provincijska uprava, pp. 67, 70.
327 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 321; Andreev,
(1901), p. 204.
376 CHAPTER FOUR
' ' 0 Zakythinos, Despotat, II, pp. 58-9; Guilland, "Le Commendant en chef",
p. 58; Oikonomides, Les listes de presiance, pp. 343, 354; Ahweiler, Recherches sur
!'administration, pp. 64-7; Ferluga J., "Ni1.e vojno-administrativne jedinice tematskog
uredenja", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, t. 2, 1953, p. 74; Laskaris, Vatoped-
skata gramota, p. 38; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 152; Maksimovic, Provinci-
jska uprava, pp. 78-9.
m Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 2-12, 47, 80-2, 118, 266, 569, 788.
m Stoicescu N., Curteni ~i slujitori. Contribufii la istoria armatei romane, Bucur~ti,
1968, pp. 246-260; Grigor~, Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 314-5; Georgescu,
Strihan, Judecata domneasca, pp. 149-50; Institu{ii feudale, p. 84.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 377
342 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 138 35, 163-64, 180 6, 7, 185 5_ 14, 301, 305, 307-8,
309, 322, 337, 345, 348; Brehier, Les institutions, p. 148; Guilland R., « Les com-
mandants de la garde imperiale sous les Paleologues: l'rni mi> mpa:mi> et le juge de
l'armee », Revue des etudes byzantines, 18 (1960), pp. 83-92.
343 Novakovic, "Vizantijski Cinovi i titule", p. 264.
344 Snegarov lv., "Po vllprosa za spahiite-nemokhamedani'', lstoricheski pregled,
p. 12; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 162; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Biliarsky,
lnstitutsiite, pp. 314-7.
380 CHAPTER FOUR
In that case, we may ask what the correlation was between this office
and the other two provincial military offices connected with the cav-
alry, namely, the strators and the comites with horses. An interesting
fact is that all three offices are present in the charters of Tsar John
Shishman. As the Virgino chrysobull was antedated, we may disregard
the mention of comites with horses and of the strator in that docu-
ment. There is no doubt that, of the three, the ala gator stood highest in
the official hierarchy. In the enumeration he is in 4th to 6th position,
while the comes with horses is in 13th-14th, and the strator in 14th-
15th. However, this knowledge provides no grounds for inferring that
some specific relations of subordination existed between them, for the
precise nature of the offices has not been fully clarified. Possibly their
military obligations were not too different, and horses are the only
common element between the three.
4.5.3.5. Comes with horses
The form ~OMHCI:. c1:. ~OHI:.MH occurs only in the Virgino chrysobull. 346
In the two charters of tsar John Shishman, the Rila and Vitosha
chrysobulls, we only see the form ~OMHCH (pl.). 347 1t is to clarify whether
these two forms refer to the same institution. In my opinion, the dif-
ferences in designation are not so great as to cause a serious debate
on the problem. Personally, I am not inclined to accept the possible
assertion that the addition "with horses" changes the nature of the
office; probably, we have two different ways of articulate the term in
the documents. The full designation was probably the official one, but
this is hard to prove.
The fact that the institution was included in the charters attests that
in the performance of his duties this provincial official might infringe
some rights granted by the ruler. As for the content of the official's
obligations, the indicating of horses may provide some information.
In order to find parallels with the situation in the Byzantine Empire,
Walachia and Moldavia, I would refer to what was said about the great
comes. Here I would only like to make some remarks about the two
principalities. In addition to the great comes, in sources there we also
find references to a second and third comes, and to twelve officers
348 DRH, ser. A, vol I, Na 139, I43, I44, I45 etc.; DRH, ser. B, vol. I, N 242, etc.;
Dicfionarul elementilor romane~ti, p. 52; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 295-7; Institufii
feudale, pp. 112-3.
349 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 620.
350 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 317-9.
351 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64.
382 CHAPTER FOUR
4.5.3.6. Strator
The designation of this official-CTfb.TOfb. (plural CTfb.TOfH, CTfb.TOftl)-
occurs in three documents: the Vir gino, Rila, and Vitosha chrysobulls. 352
The term itself is of Greek origin and is evidently related to the mili-
tary sphere. In studying the Bulgarian institution, we have to consider
again the Byzantine archetype, which is well evidenced in the sources.
In Uspensky's Taktikon and in Philotheus' treatise we learn they were
court officials. In Constantinople, the office was titular. The strators
were the horsed escort of the basileus in the earlier period. They rep-
resented a court schole, headed by the protostrator. They occupied the
thirteenth place in the hierarchy. The last mentions of them date from
the lOth and early 11th century.353 In the Balkan countries neighbour-
ing with the Byzantine Empire, this office, or at least its designation,
was preserved after this period. In Serbia, the strators are present in
the enumeration of offices in the chrysobull of king Stephen Milutin
from AD 1300. 354 In that source, the official in question occupied the
sixth rank, but the context does not enable making concrete inference
as to the nature of the functions he performed.
Evidently, direct parallels are admissible only with the Serbian insti-
tution, but it too is scarcely represented in the documents. We should
also take into account that the office is mentioned in the well known
chrysobull of Milutin, dating from AD 1300, a document that is closely
related to the Virgino chrysobull. The big question is how admissible
it is to make parallels with the Byzantine institution. The authors who
have touched upon this topic have usually expressed the opinion that
parallels can be made. They have pointed out that the strators were part
of the military organisation of a district and were specifically respon-
sible for the cavalry. 355 This was probably so, but it must be proven.
There are several reasons why it would be risky to assume this a priori.
Foremost, it is evident that in Bulgaria and Serbia (probably under
Bulgarian influence, for the information comes from Macedonia, a
352 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 100, 29 10 _11 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 5256·
353 Bury, The Impetial Administrative System, p. 118; Guilland R., "Etudes de titu-
lature et de prosopographie byzantines. Le protostrator», Revue des etudes byzantines,
VII, 1950, p. 156; Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 132-33; Oikonomides, Les listes de pre-
seance, pp. 61 22, 121 30, 155,20526, 227 7,21 , 298, 337-8; Georgescu, Bizantul ~i institufiile
romane, p. 55.
354 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 620.
355 Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie», p. 12; Dujcev, Rilskata gra-
mota, p. 65; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 162.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 383
358 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 127; Ireeek K., Istorija na bulgarite, Sofia, 1978, p. 446;
Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63.
359 Biliarsky, "Trois institutions meconnues de Ia Bulgarie medievale: Bap'HH'I~H.
362 Pakalm M. Z., Osmanli tarih deyimleri ve terimleri sozlUgii, t. III, Istanbul, 1954,
pp. 178-9.
363 Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 256-9; Grigor~, Institufii feudale din Mol-
dova, pp. 309-10; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domneasca, p. 143; Institufii feudale,
pp. 434-5.
386 CHAPTER FOUR
under Basil Lupu, and its duties were considerably more complex. Of
course, the military functions were predominant here too, especially
as concerned guarding the borderline separating the country from
the Tartars in the direction of Bucak (or Budjak) and Crimea. The
17th century historian Miron Costin even calls the serdar 'a second
hetman'. From command over the border cavalry, the functions of the
serdar gradually passed to some purely administrative powers compa-
rable to those of the parcalabs and elders in the respective districts.
The Moldavian serdars had power for administration of justice as well,
especially with respect to certain thefts (in particular thefts committed
by Turks or Tartars), as well as for imposing fines at market places.
During the 18th century, this office gradually lost its active duties, and
in the 19th century it turned into a purely honorary title.
All this raises the issue as to how admissible it is to seek parallels
with the situation in Bulgaria. In his view on the issue, Peter Kole-
darov leaves no room for doubt: according to him, the Walachian and
Moldavian institutions &eAH~'ll. cepAAfb. and cepAb.fb. were borrowed
from the Bulgarian administrative system. 364 However, his argumen-
tation seems inadequate, and I would not risk being so categorical.
Undoubtedly, this was an institution borrowed from the Osmanli
Turks. Did it pass through Bulgaria before reaching the principalities
of Walachia and Moldavia? Let us recall that there is record of it in the
Vitosha chrysobull in the 14th century; while in Walachia, no earlier
than the middle of the 17th century (in Moldavia even later!). Nearly
three hundred years would have been quite enough time for such a
tradition to disappear. That is why I believe the assumption that there
was a direct loan from the Ottoman administrative system cannot be
rejected a priori-it even seems to be the more probable explanation.
The indisputably common origin of the two institutions-Bulgarian
one and the Romanian-drives me to consider the comparisons the
only way for attaining more concrete knowledge. Previous authors
that have worked on this issue have followed this line and defined
the serdars mostly as military officers. 365 I believe that the relation of
the Bulgarian serdars with the army cannot seriously be put in doubt.
These were indeed military officers in the provincial administration.
Of course, the specific features of the time and state had their impact.
Based on the Bulgarian document one can state that this was not a
high-ranking military officer, but a rank that came in sixteenth posi-
tion in the enumeration.
4.5.3.9
The vatah is mentioned only once in the Vir gino chrysobull: ... HH
R~rr~;x:. 366 In the enumeration, he comes in fifth place. The meaning
of the term designating him is not quite clear. The authors who have
written on this topic are not unanimous about it. 367 Konstantin Jirecek
believed that the vatah was an official dealing with judicial and finan-
cial matters. G. Ilinsky is more inclined to interpret the term as mean-
ing an elder of a tribe. M. Andreev and D. Angelov define him as a
fiscal official with some judicial powers. In this situation, in order to
achieve some more or less satisfactory conclusions, we shall have to
clarify the origin and content of the term itself and seek parallels with
neighbouring countries.
Konstantin Jirecek was the first to make some suggestions about the
etymology of the word; he pointed out that "vatazhka" is the name of a
tribe elder in the Carpathian region; in the Old Polish language wata-
cha and wataha means "union", "association"; in Russian "vataga" is
the designation of a fishermen's guild on the Volga river. In fact, we
may claim that the word came to the Balkans from the East Slavic lan-
guages, into which it was borrowed from Turkic. In Romanian, apart
from the special institutional meaning of the word, it also means "a
person who heads some group", a "chief" (with indication that the
word is borrowed from Ukrainian). 368 Evidently, some Bulgarian non-
institutional meanings of the word are also of this origin. For instance,
Nayden Gerov indicates that "vataf" is the designation of a leader of
calu~ars, who go around on the Rusalii feast practice. 369 1he meaning
in Russian comes from "BaTara" (vataga) ="company", "mob", "gang",
"artel", while "BaTar" (vatag) = "ataman", "elder" = "leader" Else-
where the emphasis is on the meaning 'fishermen's artel', which will
(vlltaf, vlltag, vllta~, vlltav); Scurt dicfionar etimolojic allimbii moldovene~ti, Ch~ineu
1978, p. 82 (B9Tacp, B9TaB, B9TIIX, B9TaiiJ;).
369 Gerov N., Rechnik na bl'garskij jazyk, part 1, Plovdiv, 1895, p. 109.
388 CHAPTER FOUR
370 Dal' VI., Tolkovyj slovar' zhivogo velikorusskago jazyka, vol. I, Moscow, 1989,
p. 167, Slovar' russkikh narodnikh govorov, t. IV, Leningrade, 1969, pp. 66-7, Slovnik
staroukrai·ns'koi movi (XIV-XV), vol. I, Kiev, 1977, p. 156, Slovnik ukralns'koi movi,
t. I, Kiev, 1970, p. 296.
371 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 46, 47, 51, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64; Dujeev, SBK,
II, p. 342.
m Dicfionarul elementilor romdne~ti, p. 257; Stoicescu, Curteni ~i slujitori,
pp. 233-243; Grigora~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 310-4; Georgescu, Strihan,
Judecata domneasca, pp. 148-9; Institufiifeudale, pp. 495-6.
INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 389
is why authors who have written about it are hesitant. 375 Konstantin
Jirecek believed that the topshtikals had judicial and financial func-
tions. Ivan Dujcev was also inclined to define this official as a low-
ranking officer. For their part, M. Andreev and D. Angelov considered
him a fiscal agent who disposed of judicial powers. Unfortunately, the
source itself is too poor in information and does not provide a possi-
bility to make a generalisation on the topic. In any case, the participa-
tion of the topshtikal in the administration of justice is very probable.
This, after all, provides a more concrete idea about his obligations. We
can define them, in accordance with the text, as judicial-police duties. 376
As for the fiscal competencies that some authors suggest, this is merely
a conjecture, neither confirmed nor denied by the sources. That is why
it seems arbitrary to me.
5. CONCLUSION
5.1
The study is focused on the mediaeval Bulgarian administrative
vocabulary in Slavic, the official language of the state. Slavic became
the official language some time after the Conversion to Christianity,
which brought a change of the cultural and civilisation model of the
country. The Bulgar's paganism, until then predominant and deter-
mining for the character of the state through the culture of this ethnic
group (of the Eurasian steppe peoples), was substituted by Orthodox
Christianity. Bulgaria fell under the influence of Constantinople and
developed under it, which is especially evident in the processes related
to statehood and law. In this sense, it is not surprising that in the ter-
minology of that period we observe a prevalence of terms which, in
one way or another, originated from the Byzantine Empire.
375 Irecek, Istorija na bulgarite, p. 445; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 342; Andreev, Angelov,
The preserved Turkic terms are very few, although in most cases
they are quite concrete. We should also take into account the fact
that not all of them can be ascribed to the legacy of the Bulgars. One
observes also an influence from the later nomads, as well as an early
influence from the Osmanli Turks.
5.2
The influence of the Byzantine Empire began at a very early epoch, for
some of the terms, which have preserved their Bulgar Turkic forms,
have their origin in the concepts adopted from the Byzantine legal
and administrative terminology. In the presentation in this chapter
several such cases were given. Thus, in the earlier period, a term was
created in the Bulgar Turkic language; this term however, followed
its Byzantine archetype. In the following epoch, this term was usually
substituted by a Slavic one, which also followed its Greek-language
original. It is possible that the two were in usage at the same time,
one being more official, and the other (usually the Slavic term) more
colloquial sounding. Finally, usually at the time of the Second Bulgar-
ian Empire, it was possible for a direct loan of the Greek designation
to occur, transliterated in Cyrillic letters, and for this word to take the
place of the previous ones.
5.3
It is possible to trace a certain scale of preferences in the construction
of the terms.
The superior institutions with greater ideological importance had
designations, closer to those in the Byzantine Empire from which they
had ultimately originated. Thus, we can see that practically almost all
"pure titles" had designations directly borrowed and transliterated
from the Greek. These were the highest titles, which had a relation to
the institution of ruler and to the hierarchic order in society, an order
that lies at the core of the Byzantine worldview and, hence, of the
Byzantine political ideology.
The court institutions were usually also titular in character and
heavily charged with ideological meaning, because of their relation to
personal service for the ruler and to the organisation of the cult of
the ruler and the rituals connected with him. This is the reason that
the Greek forms of designation for these institutions are predominant
here as well. The same one can state about the highest-ranking officials
392 CHAPTER FOUR
resentatives, which is typical for the present day but not for the premodern societies
such as the Bulgarian one during the epoch we are concerned with.
4 Stojanov P., Danachno pravo, Sofia, 1994, pp. 19-21; Kuchev, Finansovo pravo,
p. 160
5 Stojanov P., Danachno pravo, p. 21.
394 CHAPTER FIVE
Sejm, Etats generaux) the idea was adopted that the ruler only pro-
poses, suggests the levy, and the assembly decides. This is a kind of
self-taxation on the part of the population, for the decisions are made
by their representatives. This practice is still valid and it is assumed
that taxes can be imposed only by virtue of an act of the national rep-
resentation, which is solely empowered to decide on the spending of
revenues based on the Budget Act. The special nature of taxes, which
have never been a very agreeable thing to the population and ever been
a source of corruption or suspicion of corruption, generates likewise
a variety of theories about their essence-the insurance theory and its
version called equivalent theory, as well as the sacrifice theory. 6
Here I would suggest a working definition of taxes: they are state titles
governed by public law and thus of a compulsory nature, and intended
for the support of state activities indispensable for the existence of the
state-organised societies. 7 The public law nature of the receipts8 has a
special importance not only because it makes it mandatory for the
population but also because it radically changes its meaning. Usually
Marxist scholars defined taxes, various fees, and other charges imposed
by the state in pre-modern societies as a type of exploitation. According
to Marxist views, exploitation is the appropriation of the labour result
either coercively or in the form of a surplus product and value. All this
is implemented and organised by means of property and its manage-
ment, which defines also the type of management of the economic
activity in general. Thus, the classical type of exploitation, according
to Marxist theory, is implemented within the framework of relations
regulated by private rather than public law, which regulates the taxa-
tion relations. Thus, we should by definition exclude taxes from the
forms of exploitation exerted by any dominant class. These receipts
are necessary for society; it cannot exist without them and from them
obtains resources for the socially useful activity of the state. It should
be noted however, that fiscal relations aim at, or could aim at, not
only the funding of state activity but also some sort of redistribution
of goods. The latter may be either fair or unfair; either justified or not;
6 Stojanov Iv., Danachno pravo. Obshta chast. Danachen protses, pp. 18-9.
7 Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite, p. 346. There are many definitions of taxes, and the one
given here does not claim to explain the phenomenon but to serve as a working basis
for the present research. For other more detailed definitions, ct: Stojanov P., Danachno
pravo, p. 19 and especially 21; Str. Kuchev, Ju. Kuchev, Danachno pravo, Sofia, 1997,
pp. 7-19; Stojanov Iv., Danachno pravo. Obshta chast. Danachen protses, p. 17.
8 Str. Kuchev, Ju. Kuchev, Danachno pravo, p. 15.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 395
the 9th century, especially after the conversion to Christianity, and yet
another in the 1Oth-llth century, within the increasingly Byzantine-
like administrative structure created by Symeon, Peter, and Samuel.
The era of the Second Empire provides a somewhat greater amount
of information, as we have several imperial documents from that time.
It is precisely data from that period that will be the basis of this chap-
ter. I have tried to follow the definition of fiscal in its broadest possible
sense, taking the risk to include words that some readers might con-
sider superfluous; but the aim was to miss no term, whatever its degree
of significance. Below, I am going to introduce in detail the vocabulary
and its interpretation, the titles of the officials of the fiscal offices, and
the taxes, corvees and auxiliary objects.
term 'pobirchia', I put forward the idea that that 'bir' and 'birk' were
church titles, 19 but my position now need re-evaluation and correc-
tion. I believe that, within the context, the preferred interpretation
should be that this is a general designation for taxes and other state
revenues. It is to stress the fact that the word 'birk' is not of Slavic
but of Turkic origin and is likely to be one of the few words inherited
from the Bulgar language. 20 It is not a derivative of the verb Gfb.TH
(= 'gather', 'take') as it would seem at first glance, but of the Turkic
root 'biiri, biirii' meaning 'gift', 'present'. Here we find another ancient
concept of the tax as a gift for the ruler from the population. This does
not change anything at the lexical level, for in Slavic both concepts
('gift' and 'toll') originate from the verb 'to give'. However, the pres-
ervation of a term borrowed from the languages of the Steppe-and
in such a special area at that-is a significant fact of the culture of
mediaeval Bulgaria. Franz von Miklosich first thought the word to be
of Magyar origin and this opinion was shared by Ivan Dujcev.21 I am
reluctant to subscribe to this opinion but it is to note that it would
again direct us to the traditions of the Steppe. I would like to note
also that Genoveva Tsankova-Petkova connects the term in question
with the Russian-Scandinavian 'vira'. 22 This opinion, mentioned only
as a reference in a footnote, without elaboration of a specific thesis,
I find to be unacceptable, for the term quoted had a completely dif-
ferent meaning in Rus'. The word 'birk' is used also in the Russian
language. In Serbia it is found at least in Milutin's charter of AD 1300,
which is practically the same text, as the Virgino charterY But here we
also find a quite similar word, &Hfb., 24 which undoubtedly has a similar
meaning. I consider the term 'birk' to be of interest, since it not only
originated from a quite ancient period of the Bulgarian state system
but also suggests the nature of the tax income, being related to the
meaning of 'ruler' and 'sovereign', something I have mentioned in the
presentation of the word in the glossary.
Another term for general designation of state titles through compul-
sory payments by the population is AO"f,.OA"b.l<."b. ('dohodak}, which is
found only in the Virgino chrysobull; however the word has differ-
ent meanings in that text. In two of the citations it is about revenue
in terms of goods that the tsar has donated to the monastery, 25 while
in the remaining cases it is about revenues from taxes or other public
state titles. 26 Evidently, the situation at the source is quite intricate.
Nevertheless, I think that the obvious solution is the most likely one,
and it was proposed by G. Ilinsky at the beginning of the 20th century: 27
'dohodak', or just 'earnings' or 'income', has no special legal meaning;
it simply means the revenue, which the state or the entity favoured
by the chrysobull has from taxes or other liabilities of the population.
However, for us it is more important to note that the term is a loan
translation from the Greek dcr6ow~, dcr6&ruux or xp6crooo~ or from
the Latin 'obventio', which not only have the same meaning but are
also structured in the same way.
Another interesting term is er.t'M'l'&O ('emstvo'), quoted in tsar
Michael II Asen's treaty with Dubrovnik dating from AD 1253.28 Ivan
Dujcev advanced the opinion that it means 'guarantee', or 'judging',
and compared it to the Latin vadimonium. 29 The word comes from
the verb 'eMBaM' (in Modern Bulgarian), which most generally means
'grab'. Essentially, this does not lead in any way to the meaning on
which our eminent scholar insisted. Furthermore, the context of
the quotation does not allow such an interpretation. The text of the
treaty is clear: "And if the people of Thy Holy Empire or of that of
His Highness, the high sebastocrator, have any claim against a subject
of Dubrovnik, we undertake the obligation to bring him to court
exempt from judicial fees and taxes in accordance with our law of
full justice. Likewise, there shall be justice for our people on the ter-
ritory of Thy Holy Empire or of that of His Highness, sebastocrator
Peter in accordance with the law of Thy Holy Empire or of that of His
Highness, sebastocrator Peter, exempt from any taxes and judicial fees,
and without (any) emstvo". 30 I think that we have grounds to see in
the word 'emstvo' a general designation for state revenues from taxes
and charges. It is true that judicial fees are alluded to, but I would not
exclude such taxes as well, since the word dan' is clearly mentioned in
the text. Yet to be addressed is the possible assumption that the term
is purely local to Dubrovnik and has nothing to do with the Bulgarian
fiscal and legal vocabularies. This question will remain pending since
there is no data proving either assumption. I would not exclude this
term from the study, since the treaty is an act involving two parties,
and it could be assumed it is a relevant source for this research.
And finally, before approaching the individual words in the taxation
area, I would like to elaborate also on the term npH11A~T~ ('priplata')
as a general designation for the implementation of state titles. It is
found in the Virgino chrysobull: " ... and shall not do any work for
the tsar and shall not give any priplata ... "31 The context is clear and
I think it refers to a general concept covering not only taxes but all
such incomes, either in kind or in money, except the corvees, where
usually the consideration is in labour or in materials. This term is
found also in Serbia, and we have grounds to think that it bears the
same, more general meaning. 32 D. Angelov mentions 'priplata', but
apparently considers it to be a type of tax and not a general designa-
tion for payables. 33 G. Tsankova-Petkova also considers it to be a type
of levy with undefined meaning. 34
3.1.1. Taxes
Taxes form the most significant part of financial and legal institution
and are also the most significant source of state revenues. Here the
known terms will be introduced in random order without consider-
ation of their size or importance for the state revenues.
3.1.1.1
Tithe (AeCh.Trz..~erz.., desjatak) was one of the important taxes in the
fiscal system of mediaeval Bulgaria. It is a levy on the production
and is defined as a percentage thereof. The term is mentioned in the
Vatopedi and Mraka charters but we should also add the information
on the tithe officers, who were vested with the duty of collecting it. Thus
in the oldest Bulgarian document-the one in favour of the Vatopedi
Monastery-tithe officers are mentioned and, several lines below, the
767 XIV.
44 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 455 X, 467 II, 614 XXXII, 680 XXI, 767 XIV.
45 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 407 III, 411 IV, 467 II, 614 XXXII, 767 XIV. In
connection with bee tithe in Serbia I would like to take notice of what was written by
A. Solovjev and VL Mosin as well as of one of the possible interpretations of the term
yoojkA.wnK6v, which is found in Greek language documents of the Serbian rulers-
Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 415-6, 464-5.
46 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 407 III, 411 IV, 448 III, 614 XXXII; Solovjev,
Mo8in. Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, No. II line 49 (7tpoj3atoxotpo&.Ka'teia), p. 485.
47 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 455 X.
404 CHAPTER FIVE
considering also the wide scope of the cited levies on material production,
I think it could be maintained that all those clarifications do not
aim at comprehensively listing the products on which this tax was
imposed. This provides grounds to consider it to have been a general
tax imposed on production, and the quoted clarifications to be examples
of only its more important aspects. Of course, this could also mean
that those favoured by the endowment of the ruler were exempt only
from the above-listed types of tithe, but such a conclusion could be
made only after a detailed study of the specific case, which is not the
purpose of our study. In general, I think that the main conclusion
could be that the tithe in mediaeval Bulgaria was not a different kind
of taxation from the tithe in Serbia.
This fiscal institution also existed in Walachia and Moldavia. There
it was called 'dizmarstvo' (AH~U~fC'I'Ro, from 'dijma' = 'tithe' and
'dijmarit'), a term practically the same as the one in Bulgaria and
apparently also originating from the fiscal terminology of the Empire.48
Even though, like the Byzantine word OeKateia, it means tithe, one
tenth of what is produced, in fact the percentage going to the state
was rarely as low as that, and it varied considerably over time. Data
for Walachia and Moldavia is richer than those for Bulgaria and the
differentiation is more detailed but I do not think that conclusions
could always be made on analogy because the information refers to
different epoch and much better developed financial system, strongly
influenced by the Central European states.
Certainly, the origin of the Bulgarian and of the other Balkan fiscal
institution should be sought in the Empire. This is obvious at least in
relation to the designation: the term 'tithe' is definitely a loan transla-
tion from the Greek OeKatda. However, it seems that the Byzantine
tax mainly concerned stock-breeding production.49 At the same time
differentiation should be made between the tax payable and the 'tithe',
which is rent for the land that serves as the basis for production. 50
It is likely that the tithe was collected in kind by special official
called 'desetkar', tithe officer. 51 According to M. Lascaris the tithe was
a tax imposed only on stock-breeding, while the main land tax was the
48 DRH, ser. B, vol. I, No. 12, 23, 39 etc.; Institutii feudale, pp. 158-60.
49 Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption jiscale, pp. 74-6.
50 Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption fiscale, pp. 127-8.
51 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 357-61 (as well as the indicated therein older literature).
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 405
fiscal", p. 90.
56 B<>Zilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 49.
57 With this I would like to correct my statement that the tithe was the main tax in
of volobershtina'. Otherwise, the term ~£IYY!XIl!Xnnov is well presented in the Greek docu-
ments of the Serbian rulers: Solovjev, Mosin, Grtke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 442-4.
406 CHAPTER FIVE
the tax. 60 On the other hand, in the Bulgarian documents are found the
terms 'zevgar' or 'zevgelie', but they only mean 'a pair of oxen' and do
not imply any tax burden. 61
Volobershtina as a kind of tax has not been neglected by researchers.
G. Danailov defines it as a tax imposed on a pair of oxen. 62 Practically
the same opinion is expressed by D. Angelov. 63 After some hesitation,
he defines it as a monetary tax, but the justification is reduced only to
contradistinction from the in-kind tithe. According to G. Tsankova-
Petkova, volobershtina is a tax imposed on a pair of oxen and on the
arable land per pair of oxen. 64 This combination between draught ani-
mals levy and land levy is odd; but the author's position is not quite
clear as to whether the tax was imposed on the oxen as means of pro-
duction or whether zevgar is referred to as a way to define the unit of
arable land in terms of a pair of oxen. In fact, the most extravagant
point in the position of G. Tsankova-Petkova is the unification she
proposes for the various taxation terms. The author considers that the
terms zeugologion, zeugaratikion, komod, zhitarstvo, sitarkia, volober-
shtina and soc/soce mean one and the same tax that bore different
designations in various countries. Thus, she actually lumps into one
all the taxes related to agriculture. I see contradiction in this position,
inasmuch as some of the designations are found in one and the same
text both in Bulgaria and in mediaeval Serbia. M. Andreev practically
denies the existence of a tax called 'volobershtina' in the fiscal system
of Bulgaria in the Middle Ages. 65 Indeed, the fact that it is mentioned
only once in the non-authentic Virgino charter may make it question-
able; but I have preferred to discuss it here-at least at the termino-
logical level; apart from this, it may have carried its Greek designation
in Bulgaria as well.
Evidently, the views of the researchers vary significantly. Unanimous
though is the understanding that volobershtina has its roots in the
Empire and corresponds to 'zeugologion' (l;euyoA&ywv) or 'zeugaratikion'
(~c.t>yapa'ttKwv). It is very important for our study to emphasise that
66 Papadopoulos J., pere A. Vatopedinos, "Un acte officiel au sujet du couvent Spe-
leotissa pres de MeJ.enikon", Spisanie na BAN, XLV, 1933, p. 5, Actes de Vatopedi, p. 127
No. 13llgne 18.
67 Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, p. 53; Dolger Fr., Zum Gebuhrenwesen des Byzantiner,
tela Iter, hauptsachtlich auf Grund der Brie.fe des Erzbischo.fs Theophylaktos von Achrida,
Mtinchen, 1937, p. 40 ff. See also the work of Solovjev, Mosin, Grtke povelje srpskih
vladara, p. 442 ff.; Kazhdan, Agrarnye, p. 122 ff.
69 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 84.
70 Theophylacti Achridensis Epistulae, ed P. Gautier, Thessalinique, 1980, no. 26,
l. 22
71 Inalclk H., "The Problem of Relationship between Byzantine and Ottoman
Taxation", Akten des XI. Interna. Byzant. Kongresses (1958), Miinchen, 1960, p. 241.
72 Institufii feudale, pp. 99-100.
408 CHAPTER FIVE
no doubt that it followed its Byzantine prototype and was a land and
production levy, not a draught animals levy. The latter are mentioned
only as a measure for the area ploughed with them. It is difficult to
say whether only the transliterated Greek designation alone was used
or the Slavic designation as well.
3.1.1.3
Dimnina (A'AIMbHHH~) is a poll tax imposed per household; its des-
ignation is a translation from the Greek term 'kapnikon' (K<X1tVtKov).
The general idea is to refer to the "smoke"= x:a1tV6<; (Greek), A'AIU'b
(Slavic). This term also occurs in the Virgino chrysobull where it is
quoted among the other taxes the monastery was exempted from
" ... the convents of St. George shall not pay priselitsa, neither volober-
shtina, nor perpera or dimnina ..."73
In terms of the nature of the financial duty, dimnina does not pose
any special problems. G. Danailov defines it as house duty, 74 which is
not quite correct, but indicates the indiscriminate nature of the state
title, though he links it to property, not to the household. D. Angelov
defines it as a Bulgarian counterpart of the Byzantine 'kapnikon', and
as "a tax for an individual fireplace in a house" payable in money.7 5
G. Tsankova-Petkova defines it as a poll tax per household and main-
tains that it was one of the pillars of the mediaeval taxation system,
but again expresses a rather peculiar opinion that it is identical with
'oikomodion' or 'komod'. 76 This is because she links the Greek word
oix:6<;" = 'home' with 'toll on the home or the house'. According to
Tsankova-Petkova, this tax was payable even by the poor households
that did not have sufficient produce with which to pay the land tax.
On the other hand, M. Andreev expresses the view that dimnina did
not exist as a tax in the fiscal system of mediaeval Bulgaria. 77 Thus he
practically denies the information contained in the Virgino chrysobull
regarding the Bulgarian practice.
As I have already mentioned, that the dimnina originated from
the Byzantine kapnikon is considered an indisputable fact. It is obvi-
ous even from the designation, which is a loanword from the Greek
78 Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, pp. 51-3; Dolger, Staatenwelt, pp. 221 ff., 254 ff.;
Ostrogorsky, Steuergemeinde, pp. 49-52, 113; Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih
vladara, p. 451; Ostrogorsky, Feodalite, pp. 303-5; Khvostova, Osobenosti, pp. 166-8;
Kazhdan, Agrarnye, pp. 149-50; Kazhd.an, Derevnja, pp. 145-50; Oikonomides,
Flscalite, pp. 30-1, 72.
79 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 310 VIII, 407 III, 609 X, 614 XXXII, 680 XXI,
696 XCXLIV, 707 I, 709 III, 759 IX.
80 Interesting, espetially from terminological aspect, is the use ofthe word x:a1tvol..ayia
in a chrysobull of Tsar Symeon Uros of AD 1361 (Solovjev, Mosin, Gr&e povelje srpskih
vladara, No. XXXII lines 66-67, p. 236). Probably this is the only case when the Byzan-
tine Ko:1tVt.K6v is called that, but the meaning of the term is the same (Solovjev, Mosin,
GrCke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 451-2).
81 Institufii feudale, pp. 201-2.
410 CHAPTER FIVE
has not been sufficiently clarified either for the Empire or for medi-
aeval Bulgaria. 88
Based on Bulgarian data alone, we could hardly make any serious
generalisations about the state title in question. At any rate, it is
apparent that the designation 'ariko' originates from the Greek term
Ct.eptK6v (aerikon) and designates an identical, or at least similar, reality
and fiscal legal institution. It has been the topic of a great number
of studies. 89 Different, sometimes contrary, opinions have been stated,
which we shall merely outline here. Franz Dolger maintains that ever
since its origination aerikon had the nature of a fine, which gradually
turned into a regular tax. I find this unacceptable; the sources do not
confirm this view. Ioannis Tornarites in the beginning of the 1930s and
after him John Haldon in the first half of the 1990s maintain that the
designation aerikon comes from the Latin word aes, aeris (='copper',
'bronze', 'small coin') and define this title as a monetary tax or a vari-
ety of the well-known 'dykeraton' or 'hexapholon'. The most recent
study is by Nicholas Oikonomides; it is based on a review of the avail-
able sources. He confirms the meaning as being that of a fine in some
late or isolated cases. However, according to this author, the main and
original meaning of the term was an additional tax on the livestock
collected annually in cash (initially in kind) for which the village bore
collective responsibility.
I think we should look for the characteristics of the Bulgarian ariko
within these parameters. There is no extant data on it except for the
designation itself and the fact that it concerns a state title included in
the monastery privileges. The opinion of the authors that it refers to
a fine is not a result of their special research but rather of the strong
influence and authority of Franz Dolger. I personally consider the
position of Nicholas Oikonomides to be better grounded; his research
is also the most recent. Thus, ariko appears to be an additional tax on
stock-breeding. The nature of penalty that this right acquired later in
the Empire might have existed in Bulgaria as well. In any case, the
Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, p. 6.
100 Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija, pp. 310-4.
101 J. Bompaire, "Sur trois termes", pp. 625-31
102 Vasilevskij, "Materialy po vnutrennej istorli Vizantijskogo gosudarstva",
pp. 368-9.
103 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 82-3.
104 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 620.
414 CHAPTER FIVE
Komod is especially interesting for this study, for the term was bor-
rowed from the Greek language but the earliest information avail-
able comes from the Bulgarian state and from the time of the First
Bulgarian Empire. In one of the charters of Basil II Bulgaroctonos
for the Archbishopric of Ochrid, it is said that the kliriks are exempt
from oikomodion and other epoireiai as it had been in the time of
tsar Samuel. 105 This concerns what John Scylitzes has said about the
taxes payable in kind imposed on the Bulgarians during the time of
Comitopouloi. 106 There is an opinion that this duty was established in
Bulgaria and was adopted and disseminated by the Byzantines after
the conquest in the beginning of the 11th century, and which could
have been transformed later from basic into additional. 107 In any case,
I do not think that the coincidence of the names is accidental nor that
'komod' could have been some unknown Bulgar Turkic word, later
Hellenised in the administrative language of the Empire. At least at
terminological level, I believe this was a Greek loanword, although the
reality it referred to may have had a distant Bulgarian origin.
3.1.1.6
Perper (ner'l.ner'l>, 1m£pn:upov) is the name for a coin in the Byzan-
tine Empire and later became the name for a specific tax payable in
money. It can be found in the Bulgarian documents, together with the
similar word for the person in charge of collecting it-perperak. Per-
per ("ner'l.nerA/ner'l>ner'l>") is mentioned in the Virgino and Zographou
chrysobulls but not always in the sense of tax. Thus in the Zographou
chrysobull the word designates only the monetary unit. It refers to the
fifty perpers from the payment of which the hagiorite monastery was
exempted from paying by the basileus after the intervention of the
Bulgarian tsar, and not to a specific tax. 108 Unlike this, in the Virgino
chrysobull there is reference both to the coin and the monetary tax:
"... neither volobershtina nor perpera, nor dimnina .. ." i.e. the taxes the
monastery was exempt from were listed. 109 In addition to this informa-
tion, there is mention of perperaks, i.e. the officials collecting this tax,
in the Rila and Vitosha chrysobulls. 110 Both texts are identical and the
perperaks are cited among the tax officers.
The authors who have studied the issue are unanimous that the perper
refers to a monetary tax-the word itself suggests this. Beyond that,
however, opinions differ. M. Lascaris is inclined to see in the perper a
kind of customs duty (similar to the Byzantine 'koummerkion'); and in
the perperak, a special customs officer.m D. Angelov views it as being
some vague kind of monetary tax. 112 M. Andreev also maintains a
similar position. 113 According to G. Tsankova-Petkova this was a basic
monetary tax, similar to the Byzantine xcipay~ (charagma), which
had acquired its designation from the golden coin im£pn:upov. 114
In Byzantium the payment of taxes in money, especially the proce-
dure and calculation in charagma, 115 was related mainly to land tax.
Having in mind that monetary relations were incomparably better
developed in the Empire than in mediaeval Bulgaria, I do not believe
we have grounds for drawing direct parallels. This is also reinforced by
the fact that no state title of such a designation, originating precisely
from the name of the coin hyperpyron/perper, is known to have existed
in the Byzantine fiscal system. The term was known in Serbia and there
are multiple quotations, but one should bear in mind that they mostly
refer to the coin and not to the tax. A special study of the local sources
will be necessary for further clarification, but it is out of the scope of
our direct tasks. However, I would like to draw attention to the only
quotation of 'perperak' in a document of tsar Stephen Dusan: "... H OTrz.
COK~ H AHMHHHe H nepnerb.K~, H AeCeT,Kb. mHTHOrb. ... " 116 It becomes
clear from the context that it does not mean an official but the tax
itself. Unfortunately there are no other details concerning its nature.
In Walachia a tax by the designation of nepneprz. was known since the
account that the words xapay~a (charagma, nomisma) and i>xepm>pov are first of all
names for coins. However, the former is used also as a name for a specific tax, which
apparently served for the construction of the Bulgarian term.
115 It is worth mentioning that the Byzantine institution charagma passes over to
15th century (the respective tax in Moldavia was called 'leul pe bute').U7
It was a state monetary duty within the Principality imposed mainly
on commercial goods and products such as fish and wine.U 8
All this proves that the only sure thing we could state about the
perper is that it refers to a monetary tax, collected by officials called
'perperak'. Any other more specific clarifications could lead to random
conclusions. Having in mind and highlighting the uncertainty of these
statements, I dare to say that the comparison with the Walachian insti-
tution suggests a reference to a levy on commerce. This comes close
to what M. Lascaris has written earlier, although I shall not be too
specific and I am only proposing these ideas as a matter for debate.
3.1.1.7
Otrotzina (or otrochina) is mentioned only once in a Greek text
by archbishop Theophylactus of Bulgaria. 119 Because of the nature
of this source, the word is available only in Greek transcription-
6tp&rt~tva. There is no doubt, however, that the reference is to a
Slavic term derived from otrok (O'I''AfO~'A), which designated a specific
category of peasants, which we shall discuss further on. It is in connec-
tion with this category that we should seek the meaning of this kind
of state duty.
It should be noted that its nature is not quite clear, which is due to
the fact that the source base amounts to a single reference. G. Litavrin
seems inclined to define otrotzina as a tax payable by the lord for the
right to have serfs. 120 After some hesitation, G. Tsankova-Petkova
suggests the hypothesis that it refers to a tax payable by the landless
peasants-serfs (otroks). 121 About a decade ago Nicholas Oikonomides
touched upon this issue in his work on the fiscal relations in the
Empire. He mentions otrotzina in the section dedicated to paroikiatikon
but defines the title as similar to the Byzantine aktemonitikion
(aK't'll~OVt'rtKtOV) and raises the question as to whether this was a kind
117 DRH, ser. B, vol. I, No. 31 pp. 223-4 (document ofJanuacy 15, AD 1467); Dicfionarul
129 Mijatovic C., "Financije srpskog kraljevstva, II, Izvori za financijski dohodak u XIII
i XIV veku", Glasnik Srpskog utenog druStva, IX (26), Belgrade, 1869, p. 175; Danailov,
"Stranitsa iz dArzhavnoto stopanstvo", pp. 48-50; Angelov, "Prikhodi", p. 404, Andreev,
Angelov, Istorija, p. 146; Lishev Str., Za stokovoto proizvodstvo vav feodalna Bulgarija,
Sofia, 1957, pp. 98-9; Andreev M., Kutikov VL, "Dogovorat na dobrudzhanskija vladetel
Ivanko s genueztsite ot 1387 g. (Prinos kAm izuchavaneto na mezhdunarodnite dogovori
na srednovekovna Bulgarija", Godishnik na Sojijskija universitet. Juridicheski fakultet,
t 51, 1960, No. I, p. 12; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64.
130 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 49 note 3.
131 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 145, 146, 162.
132 Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption jiscale, p. 171.
m Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 151, 254, 172, 187; Mijatovic, "Financije",
p. 175 ff.
134 I nstitufii feudale, pp. 490-2.
135 0 n the regulation of trade in mediaeval Bulgaria, see: Biliarsky, "Reglementation
du commerce", pp. 99-117.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 419
Dubrovniku", p. 155.
140 Danailov, "Stranitsa iz d1l.rzhavnoto stopanstvo", pp. 44-5.
141 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 226-9; Angelov, Andreev, Istorija, p. 146,
Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 162.
420 CHAPTER FIVE
the same document, and this, I think, is a sufficient reason for such
conclusion as to the obviously identical nature of the levy.
A separate problem is raised by with the reference to 'tsarina' in the
Virgino chrysobull, which is closely related to the original king Milu-
tin's chrysobull of AD 1300. Was this not a purely Serbian fiscal insti-
tution, fallen by chance in the inauthentic document? In Serbia there
is a lot of data on 'tsarina' but there the term means either customs 142
or customs duty, and also 'the imperial exchequer'. 143 I consider this
second meaning to be similar to the meaning found in the beginning
of the Vir gino chrysobull; it should also correspond to demosion and
demosia, found in lines 79 and 93 of the same chrysobull. 144
142 The quotation is incomplete: N ovakoviC. Zakonski spomen ici, pp. 78 III, 90 III, 167,
171 XVI, 179 VI, 182 III, 190 I, 196 II, 209 II, 211 II, 434 III, 464 IV, 500 I, 609 VI,
614 XXXII, etc.
143 The quotation is incomplete: Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 392 II, 617 L,
topic define it as related to the use of pastures for the livestock. Thus,
G. Tsankova-Petkova defines travnina as a "tax on the use of moun-
tainous pastures", which "was payable in money"Y 5 Further in her
book the author defines 'travnina' as identical with 'gornina' and as a
'fee' for using the pastures. 146 This is not the place to clarify the differ-
ence between 'tax' and 'fee', 147 but it is evident that the institute under
question has been defined without a profound study of the matter. On
the other hand, M. Andreev also sees in travnina something resembling
a fee for the use of pastures. 148 D. Angelov has devoted more attention
to this state title in his study of the monastery economy. 149 He calls it
a "charge for using the lord's land", which was usually paid in kind,
though a combined form of payment was also applied. It is obvious
that the author mixes the 'feudal annuity', which is an income gov-
erned by private law, with duties and taxes under public law.
In order to say something more, one should address the richer data
of the neighbouring countries with similar legal systems. In the Serbian
sources travnina is mentioned many times. 150 At some places in the
documents it is quoted among the corvees (f~&OTE u.~rcTR~ HH), which
leaves the impression it was one of them. 151 Nevertheless, we know of
at least two texts that quite clearly relate the payment of travnina to
livestock pasture, shelter and hibernation in the mountains. 152 To this
data one should also add 'travnina ovcha' (sheep's travnina). Article
197 of the Law Code of Stephen Dusan provides more detailed infor-
mation on travnina. It stipulates that if anyone spends the winter in
the ruler's estates, they shall be obliged to pay travnina of one animal
per hundred. 153 Thus, the term refers to a percentage payment in kind
for a certain use of the territory.
Certainly, the Byzantine sources are the richest in information on
the respective legislation in the Empire. I have indicated in the glossary
that the term corresponds to the Greek £vv6~tov and data on it should
be correlative to the fiscal title in question. It represented a charge
on livestock-except on draught animals for land ploughing, which
were taxed in relation to farm production-and was substantiated as
a charge for using the pastures. 154 It was paid at six-month periods
in summer and winter and its structure and nature suggest to the
researchers to define it as identical with the tithe; initially it was a rent
for use of the pastures. With its further development it was increas-
ingly assimilated as being part of the taxes and eventually became a
permanent state title imposed on the owners of livestock, not a charge
for use of the pastures. 155 It was payable by everybody regardless of
their social status. It seems that in the cases of taxation privileges for
the monasteries, the travnina was not paid to the state but to the ben-
eficiary of the privilege. 156
3.1.2.2
Gornina (ropb.HHHA) is mentioned twice in the Zographou chrysobull
of tsar John Alexander. 157 Its origin is Slavic-from POfA (i.e.
'mountain')-and the meaning is obvious. The context, in which the
term is mentioned, is that of zhitarstvo and gradozidanie. It refers to
the fact that the Zographou Monastery had to pay to the Byzantine
authorities fifty perpers for 'zhitarstvo, gornina and gradozidanie' and
the tsar managed to exempt them from this liability. This gives us rea-
son to believe it was related to various kinds of liabilities the mon-
astery redeemed itself from by paying some fixed amount. The other
1s3 Novakovic St., Zakonik Stefana Du5ana cara srpskog 1349 i 1354, Belgrade, 1898,
p. 145 art. 197.
154 Ostrogorsky, Steuergemeinde, pp. 57 -8; Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vla-
dara, p. 431; Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, p. 53; Dolger Fr., Aus den Schatzkammern des
heiligen Berges, Mi.inchen, 1948, pp. 31, 208; Xanalatos, Beitriige zur Wirtschafts- und
Sozialgeschichte, _p. 41; Ka.zhdan, Agrarnye, pp. 123-4; Schmid G., "Byzantinisches
Zehntwesen", JOB, 6 (1957), pp. 45-110; SchUbach E., Byzantinische Metrologie,
Mi.inchen, 1970, pp. 262-3; Harvey A., Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire,
900-1200, Cambridge, 1989, p. 104.
Iss Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 75.
1s6 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 76.
157 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 23 5o, 5s·
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 423
into account that these texts pertain to mediaeval Serbia (the Vir gino
chrysobull is obviously related therewith) and not to Bulgaria.
The term 'planina' (nA.avtva or nAav'l'(vft) is also found in many
Byzantine documents mainly from the 14th century although the
earliest reference dates as far back as the 12th century and is in a
document of Andronikos I Comnenos in favour of the Great Laura
monastery, dated 1184, concerning the region of Moglen. 164 Without
any claims to comprehensiveness, here we could quote Michael IX
Palaeologos' chrysobulls of 1299/1300 and 1319,165 a chrysobull of his
father, Andronikos II Palaeologos (1319) 166 and of his son Andronikos
III Palaeologos (1319, 1329, 1332,),167 as well as a charter of 1305 168 The
same word occurs also in the documents of the Mount Athas monas-
tery of Iviron, 169 and in many other places. It is noteworthy that the
word nA.avwft is quoted also in the Greek-language documents pub-
lished by the Serbian rulers, having there the legal meaning of a type of
property or estate, not of a geographical concept. 170 The term has been
a subject of interest mainly with relation to the Slavic toponymy in
Greece. Analysing it from this aspect, Ivan Bozilov states that it proves
the presence of a Bulgarian population in the village of Radolivon. 171
We could subscribe to this statement but it does not concern our study
of a specific fiscal institution. Therefore, the question remains open as
to how the term was adopted in the Byzantine official vocabulary of
that epoch and reflected in the imperial documents. Obviously, the
term was about a type of property and most likely borrowed from
the Slavic legal terminology. How did this happen? This question
also remains open but it seems to me that it is related to the Serbian
invasion in Macedonia and its annexing in the end of 13th and the
beginning of the 14th century. Thus, the above-mentioned, well-
described in the Serbian sources term planina probably penetrated the
Byzantine vocabulary as a designation for a type of property. This is
164 Actes de Lavra, vol. I, No. 66lines 1, 14; BoZilov, Bulgarite vav Vizantijskata imperija,
p. 47, note 342.
165 Actes de Chilandar, vol. I, No. 18lines 51-3, No. 43line 51.
166 Actes de Chilandar, vol I, No. 42lines 137, 142.
167 Actes de Vatopedi, vol. I, No. 68line 79, vol. II, No. 78line 37; Actes de Chilandar,
hardly inconsistent with the reference to the word in the 12th century,
not only because it is relatively isolated but it also refers to another
geographical region and is in another context. I would like to reiterate
that here it does not refer to toponymy but is a legal property term.
It is worth mentioning that the term gornina is not typical for Serbian
documents. Therefore, one may ask whether the Serbian planiatiko is
not some kind of toll on the use of a type of property, called 'plan ina'.
M. Andreev's discussion on the question is not very specific and
detailed, but in all probability he defines 'gornina' as a charge payable by
the peasants for the use of pastures in the forests and mountains. 172 On
the other hand, G. Tsankova-Petkova defines the term in question as a
"tax (and later on in the presentation it becomes a 'fee'-undoubtedly
a more correct term-the remark is mine I. B.) on the use of mountain
pastures" and obviously places it on the same footing with travnina. 173
Therefore, it is obvious that only G. Ilinsky's view that it refers to a
corvee related to ore-mines differs significantly. The other authors
centre their views on the use of mountains and particularly the pas-
tures therein. The specified theses are based mainly on the interpreta-
tion of the name of the fiscal institution.
D. Angelov refers to a similar Byzantine phenomenon. Obviously,
the search for parallels with the neighbouring countries is the best
way for clarifying the actual meaning of this liability in mediaeval Bul-
garia. The designation 6ptK'fi can be found in the Empire, and I think
the Slavic term 'gornina' was borrowed from there (from opoc; = rop~.
'mountain'); 174 N. Oikonomides defines it "as right of common use
of the mountain forests and lumbering, payable to the owner of the
estate". 175 N. Svoronos does not go into details about this revenue and
categorises it under "other taxes". 176 A similar term can be found in
documents from Walachia and Moldavia: gor~tina. 177 It has two mean-
ings: one is a fee on sheep and swine for grazing them in the mountain
pastures, and the other is a type of customs duty for foreigners who
livestock pens out of the settlement", similar to kosharshtina ), 146 (tax imposed on
building a livestock pen on a municipal territory), 163 (charge for use or the right to
build shelters and fences for the needs of the stock-breeders).
194 Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 146.
195 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 16 l9-3o·
430 CHAPTER FIVE
pp. 227-8.
197 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 162.
198 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, pp. 63-4.
199 I nstitufii Jeudale, 60.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 431
tion of some public liability, which from a state fee was transformed
into an income in favour of the incumbent of the privilege.
3.1.2.6
Diavato or diabaton (AH~&~To), as evident from the designation, is a
charge for passing through a certain place. The term can be found in
the Virgino and Rila chrysobulls. 200 In both cases it is in the protec-
tion formula of the chrysobull. In Virgino chrysobull, it is placed after
tsarina and before mostnina and in Rila chrysobull-after koumerk.
The term was simply transcribed from the Greek oui~atov. 201 In the
Virgino chrysobull, exempt from paying the charge were the monas-
tery people as a whole, while in the Rila chrysobull people carrying
on trade were specified as exempt. G. Tsankova-Petkova defines dia-
vato at one place as a charge imposed on traders for crossing passages
and other guarded places,202 and at another-as a charge for crossing a
ford or for passing from one area into another. 203 Iv. Dujcev interprets it
as a charge for crossing a river, crossing a bridge, etc., which is identical
with brodnina'. 204
I consider this fiscal institution to be relatively clear. It refers to a
fee for passing through certain places. Only the differences with regard
to brodnina have to be clarified. Diavato cannot have been identical
since they are found in the same document, i.e. the Vir gino chrysobull.
However, this is the only definite statement I can make. I think that
the rest can be derived from the names. In the case of diavato it is
about passing through a certain place in general-either geographical
or just a toll spot; in the case of brodnina the meaning is clearer-
the nature of the place for passing is specified. Besides, the context in
which diavato is quoted is more clearly related to commercial activi-
ties, which were obviously taxable by the state.
3.1.2.7
Sudbina (cmAb.GHHb.) is mentioned only in the treaty between tsar
Michael II Asen and Dubrovnik, dating from 1253,2°5 which might
provoke the question as to whether this was some kind of revenue
typical only for the Dalmatian Republic and with no relation to the
Bulgarian legal system. This view is disproved by the very text of
the treaty. The treaty stipulates that if a subject of the Bulgarian tsar
or of sebastocrator Peter has any claims (litigation) against anyone
from Dubrovnik, the administration of justice shall be exempt from
"sudbina and taxes in accordance with our law"; in Bulgaria or on the
terriotory of sebastocrator Peter, in similar cases the administration of
justice shall reciprocally be exempt from "taxes, sudbini and without
(any) emstvo". It can be seen that the reference is to revenues existing
in both countries. In one case they are juxtaposed/distinguished from
'taxes', and in the other from 'taxes' and 'emstvo'. As far as I know,
only I. Dujcev has expressed a position on this charge, defining it as
'judicial costs'. 206 This is an acceptable position although I would not
have dared to be so specific, since various judicial fees could also be
the answer to the problem as to the nature of this institution.
The term itself is definitely a derivative from Clf\A"b. (= court of law)
with a suffix for derivation. It looks like borrowed and loan-translated
but I cannot find an accurate Greek equivalent.
K!X't~X K!Xtpov apx;tep!XU.'OOV't!X )llJ'tE 'tOV 1tp!XKmpeUOV't!X rne)l[lavetv 'tcp 'tOI.O'&tco :x;coptco
ii f.v Til 11ovfi e~ ~iJ'tTlatv 'tTl" ol.!XVoov .... ii ~el..runv ii ~royol..uyioo OOOtv ii ayyapia~
ii :rt!Xpayyap~ ii 'lfCO)lO~TJil~ ii illTJ~ ...." -Actes de Vatopedi, vol. I (Des origins a
1329), ed. J. Bompaire, ]. Lefort, V. Kravari, Chr. Giros, Paris, 2001, No. 13, p. 127 18 •
434 CHAPTER FIVE
210 Jones, I, p. 118, II, p. 833; Ferrari della Spade, Immunita, p. 124 ff; Solovjev, Mo8in,
GrCke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 379; Tsankova-Petkova, ZA agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 122,
note 210; Stauridou-Zaphraka, "'H ayyapeia O'tO m9WJI.!X Bu~avno", pp. 35-6;
Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 106-7.
211 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 13 _14; Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 19 1o1• 2531·
212 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 31·
213 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 124.
214 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 110, 114, 160.
215 Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 123.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 435
Greek language), 614 XXXII, 620 LXXVII, 673 XVI (in the Slavic acts).
436 CHAPTER FIVE
ispravama, p. 205.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 439
to the state, which later was transformed into a tax payable in cash. 235
Several years ago on the occasion of studying the zhitar institution I
made a statement that it was probably a tax similar to the tithe, 236 basing
my assertion on the existence of "wheat tithe" in Serbian documents. 237
Perhaps this position should be reconsidered. Then again, we face
the extraordinary opinion of G. Tsankova-Petkova that it refers to
the main land tax for production in mediaeval Bulgaria, which is
identical with the Byzantine sitarkia and zeugaratikion and with the
Bulgarian volobershtina (and maybe also with komod) as well as with
the Serbian soc. 238
I consider the relatedness of zhitarstvo to sitarkia to be indisputable
and therefore, before drawing hasty conclusions, I would like to elabo-
rate on its nature. The literature on this topic is not very abundant and
this is evidence that the income in question was not one of the most
significant ones in the Byzantine financial system. Al. Solovjev and Vl.
Mosin consider sitarkia to be a basic tax which is also close to other
rights. 239 N. Oikonomides dedicates only a few lines to the Byzantine
crttapKia (named also crttapxia, crttapKtcr)l6<;, crttapKtcr~) and interprets
it as a special requisition of wheat in favour of the state, made for the
purpose of supplying the army. 240
This term cannot be found in Serbia but there are some similar ones
there, like 'wheat nametak' or 'wheat tithe'. In the Romanian lands
though, there is a state title referred to as jitarstvo/zhitarstvo or jitarit. 241
Clarification of the nature of the Bulgarian obligation should be
based on the text of the documents and its Byzantine archetype.
As I mentioned already, the only information about zhitarstvo as a
taking is from the Zographou chrysobull where the Tsar says that he
has secured the exemption of the Hagiorite Monastery from paying
fifty hyperpers for zhitarstvo, gornina and gradozidanie. None of these
three takings is a tax in its fiscal and legal nature. Gradozidanie is a
corvee and gornina is a special fee. Then is it right to define zhitar-
stvo as a tax paid to the state, and a major one at that? It should not
242 llinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 101 _102• Ilinsky notes that the part 'cheese' seems to be added
or pesjaks ... "258 It can be seen that it is placed in relation to the cited
officials who were forbidden to trouble the monastery, as well as
among the duties the monastery was exempt from. This provides a
starting point for research and an explanation of the nature of the duty
called by this name. Unfortunately, in this case there is no additional
data except the word itself.
Padalishte has not been a subject of special interest in the studies of
the mediaeval Bulgarian fiscal system. In his comment to the edition
of the chrysobulls, G. Ilinsky dedicates to it only a few words, and
these contain contradictions at that: 259 in the presentation he classifies
padalishte with the goods of property and more specifically-under
real estates, defining it as 'hotel', 'inn', and in the glossary is written
"K6.9tcr~, hospitium gratuitum" D. Angelov equates padalishte with
priselitsa and mitaton and defines them together as a duty for provision
of shelter to officials and soldiers passing through the village. 260 This in
fact repeats the meaning of what G. Ilinsky has written in the glossary
regarding free accommodation, but it is equated with K6.9tcrJ. ux.
Actually, I think the solution to the problem is the following:
'padalishte' is a translation/loanword of the Byzantine term 'kathisma'
(K6.9tcr).ux) where one should look for a parallel in order to explain
the nature of the duty. In the administrative system of the Empire
K6.9tcr).UX always means some building, used by the representatives of
the local administration when moving around the territory under their
jurisdiction. 261 There were such buildings at different places across the
area and they served as temporary headquarters for representatives of
the administration, the judiciary, the fisc, and various military com-
manders. And since this refers to some burden for the population,
apparently the population had to provide and maintain the buildings.
I consider that padalishte in Bulgaria was a provision of buildings for
temporary headquarters of the administration at various places on the
territory as well as maintenance and support. Such duty was in place
everywhere during the Middle Ages, but I am not aware of this term
being in use in mediaeval Serbia.
the Serbian rulers: Solovjev, Mosin. Grtke povelje srpskih vladara, p. No. XVIII line 72
andp. 449.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 445
3.2.1.7
Obligations regarding combat animals and animals used for transporta-
tion by the army and the administration. As quoted in the chrysobulls,
these obligations appear to be connected mainly to the feeding of the
service animals. Some of them are better presented, others only by cita-
tion of the products that the population had to supply.
The hay supply was very important for the service animals and for
this reason traces of such obligation can be found at several places in
the documents although presented in different ways. First of all, there
is a relation to the name of the institution senar quoted in the Rila
and Vitosha chrysobulls (we shall dwell on it further in that study).
In the former, the official in question is placed among those officials
who were forbidden to trouble the monastery, and is mentioned after
strator and before mitat. 262 In the Vitosha chrysobull senar is in the
same citation, ranking last. 263 Apparently this refers to some fiscal or
military officer, especially from the cavalry, in charge of supervising
the obligations of the population regarding hay supplies. I think that
this is more likely to concern some kind of corvee or supplying and
was not a tax on hay. This statement is confirmed also by the fact that
there is data on obligations of the population with regard to hay. In
the Virgino chrysobull among the duties the monastery people were
exempt from is said: "nor hay to be mowed". 264 This is quoted in the
protection formula after the prohibition to be made on hoing vine-
yards and before the one on harvesting and giving tsarina. It is clear
that this refers to a corvee or compulsory labour related to mowing
hay and submitting it to the state. I think that senars were in charge
of exactly this obligation. At the same time the term 'senokos' (= hay-
mowing) is also found. However in the Virgino charter this is not a
duty of the population but a good of property-obviously meadows
for producing hay for the livestock. 265 It is the same in the Mraka and
Rila charters. 266
In mediaeval Serbia there was a corresponding obligation of the
population and it is relatively well described in the sources. 267 The Law
268 Novakovic, Zakonik Stefana Du5ana, p. 32 art. 34, pp. 55-6 art. 68, p. 188.
269 I nstitufii feudale, p. 198.
270 DRH, ser. B, vol I, p. 110 No. 56; Institufiifeudale, p. 198.
271 DRH, ser. A, vol. I, p. 16 No. 11; DRH, ser. B, vol. I, p. 224 No. 131; Institutii
feudale, pp. 56-7, 112.
272 I nstitufii feudale, p. 113.
273 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 32·
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 447
of king Milutin for the St. Stephen Monastery in Banjska. 274 Surely it
existed also in the Empire, in Walachia and Moldavia, as well as all
over Europe, and data from there is more detailed and not limited
only to mention of the name of this duty.
Another obligation of the population was to provide pasture for the
service animals. The mentioning thereof in the Virgino chrysobull is
not quite clear. It refers to a prohibition to pasture horses on church
territories. 275
de /'Empire byzantin aux IX-XI siecles,pp. 17, 19, 22; Ahrweiler, Byzance etla mer,p. 146;
Lemerle, The Agrarian History of Byzantium, pp. 175-6; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp.
106-7, 119-20
285 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 106-7.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 449
for work, nor their workers, nor their zeugari shall be taken for corvee,
nor horse nor beast ... "289 Here oxen are replaced with 'zeugari' and
after 'horse' follows the generalisation 'beasts' indicating all livestock;
but there is no doubt that draught animals were meant.
In the Byzantine Empire all these duties and requisitions were inher-
ited from the late Roman Empire. Usually, though not necessarily, this
activity was under the jurisdiction of the imperial communications,
the so-called Dromos headed by the logothete tou Dromou. 290 In many
cases however, it was connected with the army or with performance
of specific military operations, and it was natural in such cases for
these duties and requisitions to be organised by the military institution
or by the commanders of the operation. Similar obligations existed
practically everywhere, not only during the Middle Ages but also in
Modern Times.
In mediaeval Serbia the seizure of saddle horses and draught ani-
mals is registered several times in the documents, but it is only in king
Milutin's chrysobull of AD 1300 that this procedure is phrased in a way
similar to that in Bulgaria. 291 Data on such obligations can be found
also in the Law Code of tsar Stephen Dusan. 292
with the ordinary verb describing the work of construction, for the
latter has no legal meaning. This is not the case in the above-mentioned
document where the quoted activity is explicitly classified among the
burdens the monastery people were exempt from and is described as
rp'A ~b.Ab-TH, which is a version of the term in question.
There are no significant differences among authors regarding the
content of this corvee. G. Ilinsky describes it as building of fortresses
and quotes earlier authors. 295 G. Tsankova-Petkova defines gradozi-
danie as labour service related to the construction, maintenance and
restoration of fortresses, city walls and other fortifications. 296 The same
opinion is maintained by D. Angelov. 297 I think that the consensus of
the authors is due both to the clarity of the term and to its undispu-
table correspondence with the Byzantine corvee, which deserves some
more attention.
The term gradozidanie itself is an obvious loan translation from the
Greek Ka.mpoK'ttcria. (kastroktisia), which gives reason to conclude that
the word was borrowed from the Empire's fiscal system and had a direct
connection with the military sphere. In general, the construction and
maintenance of fortifications and other important infrastructural sites
such as roads, bridges, etc. were part of the obligations of the local mil-
itary commanders. 298 At times however, special imperial officials with
broad powers were sent for the purpose of construction of important
sites. They were called kastroktistes (Ka.crtpOK'ttmm). As far as it was
related to defence, this obligation fell within the framework of the mil-
itary administration (A.oyo9£mov toil crtpa.ttrottKoi'l). 299 At the same
time the link with the fisc is inevitable, inasmuch as the reference is
to the organisation and imposition of some burden on the population
and the right of the state to require it. Archbishop Theophylactus of
Bulgaria describes kastroktistes as executors of some very heavy charge,
who were entitled to demolish buildings for the materials or because
of alleged threat to military facilities. 300 The significance of this duty
to the state is confirmed by the basileus Leo VI the Wise. 301 However,
initially this was an extraordinary burden that was not imposed on
a regular basis. Such imposition is evidenced starting from the 13th,
when the local authorities or landlords started to misuse it for regular
construction, sometimes even of private castles. 302
It seems to me that what contributed to this abusive practice was the
possibility of redeeming this obligation: it became standard practice to
pay some amount of money instead of performing the labour. 303 This
practice is of special importance for our research, for the text of the
Zographou chrysobull refers precisely to exemption from this payment,
which, until then, the monastery had paid to the Byzantine authorities.
Unfortunately, this document cannot help us make inferences regard-
ing the existence of redemption in Bulgaria. It refers to the Empire and
the Bulgarian tsar had intervened in favour of the Zographou Mon-
astery. Therefore the information about the fifty perpers redemption
payment refers to the local practice. Whether it existed in Bulgaria or
not is uncertain. There is no data although I personally suppose that
the answer should be in the affirmative. Probably this practice was
borrowed from the Empire and existed also in Bulgaria.
Data on gradozidanie is available from mediaeval Serbia as well and
kastroktisia is mentioned in the Greek acts of the Serbian rulers. 304 This
obligation is quoted in the chrysobulls sometimes with its full name or
only as 'grad'. 305 It is also mentioned in the Law Code of tsar Stephen
Dusan, where it provides for construction not only of fortresses but
also of other buildings. 306 This data can be used for making parallels
with the situation in Bulgaria. I think that all of it proves more or
less the Byzantine archetype of the obligation in the two Balkan coun-
tries. In this sense it could be said that there is a complete coincidence
between the loan-word and the designation of the institution as well
as in its connotation.
3.2.3.2
Mostnina (MOCT'AHHH~, from "most/uocrr"A" = "bridge") is an obliga-
tion of the population and there is no unanimous position on its sub-
stance as a result of some gratuitous statements not based on extensive
research. The term is found twice in the Virgino chrysobull: 307 firstly
(line 30) it is mentioned among the goods granted to the monastery
by the Tsar, and secondly (line 103) among the duties the monastery
was exempt from by the grace of the Tsar. At the first place mostnina
is cited together with brodnina but among 'fields', 'meadows', 'winter
pastures', 'summer pastures' 'game hunting and fishery reserves', etc.
The second quotation contains an interdiction to take either diavato or
mostnina, or to take for corvee monastery people or an ox or a donkey.
Undoubtedly, there is some contradiction between the two texts that
should be clarified in order to understand how an obligation can be
transformed into a good, right or privilege. Therefore, the nature of
the obligation should be made clear.
The positions expressed in the scholarly literature gravitate towards
the view that mostnina is some kind of fee, usually demanded for
crossing a bridge over a river. It is already expressed by G. Ilinsky in
his comment to the published documents. 308 The same is the opinion
of D. Angelov who also proposes a solution to the contradiction in the
Virgino chrysobull: mostnina is a charge for carrying goods across a
bridge, while in the privileges-the monasterywas not only exempt from
it but was entitled to collect it from others in its favour. 309 G. Tsankova-
Petkova also maintains the opinion that mostnina is a charge for crossing
a bridge. 310 Obviously, all authors have based their arguments on
the name of the duty and have classified it with the fees without any
research or parallels made with neighbouring countries.
Here I shall disagree again basing my argument on the name of the
fiscal institution. Mostnina is obviously a translation of the Byzantine
term gephyrosis (ye<j,.6procrt~ from "ye<f>upa./gephyra" = "bridge") and it
does not designate a charge for crossing a bridge but a special building
corvee. 311 This was an obligation of the population to participate in the
p. 16.
314 I nstitufii feudale, p. 366.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 455
315 Law for the vojnuks-Turski izvori za istorijata na pravoto, I, pp. 279-83; Snega-
only in the capital but also in the provinces. There is no doubt that in
mediaeval Bulgaria the tsar's hunting was an important activity going
far beyond pure entertainment. There is no detailed information except
for an explicit quotation in the Vita of St Sabbas of Serbia, who died in
Tarnovo at the time when the tsar had gone hunting. 318 Hunting was
so closely related to the supreme power that some authors even define
it as an exclusive right of the tsar. According to G. Danailov, only he
had the right to hunt, and ceded this right with special provisions in the
documents where 'hunting and fishery reserves' were mentioned. 319
As with every ideologically significant activity, it could be presumed
that hunting in the Bulgarian imperial court had been organised after
the model of this activity in Constantinople and duplicated the main
Byzantine traditions in this respect. That is precisely how those tra-
ditions spread throughout the Balkans; some of them survived the
Empire. Thus, it could be said that hunting in Basileuousa Polis at
the Bosphorus coast can be divided into two categories: hunting with
hunting birds and hunting with dogs. The former was especially popu-
lar among the basileis. I would like to make a special remark about the
dogs, for their importance and role for hunting in mediaeval times
were different and much more significant than in modern hunting. In
fact the hunting animals did not only find and bring the catch but they
chased it and blocked it, and only the last act remained for the hunter,
usually armed only with a knife or a short spear. In this respect the
training of the dogs was of paramount importance. This is also obvious
for the hunting birds and does not need to be proven. During the time
of Andronikos III Palaeologos the court kept thousand hunting dogs
and thousand hunting falcons. 320 These impressive numbers required a
significant number of attendants and a very good organisation of their
work. Therefore a special official of the palace was in charge, called
protoierakarios (i.e. chief and first falconer), whose position will be
further discussed in greater details in the presentation regarding the
officials involved in the ruler's hunting.
All this refers to the organisation of hunting at the tsar's court, but
it shows the entire system, and was mirrored in the provinces. Mediae-
318 Teodosije Hilandarec, Zitije svetoga Save, Belgrade, 1984, pp. 189-92.
319 Danailov, "Stranitsa iz darzhavnoto stopanstvo", p. 50.
320 Brehier, Les institutions, p. 150; Guilland R., "Sur quelques grands dignitaires
from the jurisdiction of the sancakbeg and were under the jurisdiction
of their doganctba~t. 330
After this brief overview of the situation in the other Balkan coun-
tries, we must conclude by discussing the situation in the mediaeval
Bulgarian state. Unfortunately, the information that has reached us is
such that the only thing that can be asserted with relative certainty is
the existence of specific duties for the population related to hunting.
Our knowledge is based only on the available information about the
designations of the officials in charge of the implementation of these
duties. The nature of the duties is not known in details, but it is obvi-
ous they were connected with service animals trained to take part in
the hunt-rapacious birds and hunting dogs. Apparently, the popula-
tion had the obligation to breed, to train and to deliver such birds and
dogs to the authorities, and at the same time provided duty shifts in
the capital to look after the animals. It is also likely that the popula-
tion was obliged to participate in the ruler's hunting parties personally
and with their own animals. It is not certain whether this applied to a
specific category of population of special status or was a general obli-
gation for people when called upon. However, this activity apparently
caused inconvenience to the people and was a burden for them; hence,
the domains specially privileged and endowed with an order of the tsar
were exempted from it.
3.2.4.2
The obligations related to performance of police and guard functions
are known from some occasional mentions in documents. The most
important are found in the Virgino chrysobull, where we find refer-
ence to an exemption of the monastery people from a duty designated
as """ rr~ ~HAb.TH "" &AklCTH H, "" TeUHHU,A &AklCTH". 331 It is
quoted between the different types of nametak, which precede it, and
other labour services (ploughing, vine digging, hay mowing and har-
vesting), which follow. This information is scanty and insufficient to
provide a complete idea about this duty but it allows us to define it as
an obligation of the population that falls in the category of corvee. To
this data we may also add the mention of the position of the varar in
the Bulgarian administration. I have defined it in my previous studies
332 Biliarsky, "Trois institutions meconnues", pp. 100-2; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp.
321-3.
333 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 616; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 322.
334 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 401, 448, 498, 499, 512, 514.
335 SakAzov Iv., "Dan!1chnata sistema v srednovekovnite ni monastiri", Dukhovna
4.1
The imperial treasury3 38 and the names it used to bear in mediaeval
Bulgaria is still a not well-explored part of its institutions. There are
several different terms that have probably been used in different ages.
I shall consider them one by one.
One of them is 'vestiarion', for which we judge mainly by the name
of the official vestiarios (&HC'l'Hil\fl:.) or protovestiarios who used to be
in charge. 339 The word was directly loaned from Byzantium, where
the term ~ecrnapwv 340 comes from Latin, from vestiarium, derived
from vestis (clothing). There is also a conjecture about a relation to
the word bestia (beast, animal), in connection with the use of ani-
mals as units to measure wealth in ancient times. It is interesting that
the grand duke's treasury in Kievan Rus' was called Cl~iYI'I:.HHLI,A, which
could be a derivative precisely from this interpretation of the trea-
sury. Record of vestiarios can be also found in Serbia where there is
even a preserved portrait of one such official, the protovestiarios Con-
stantine.341 We have grounds to believe that, there too, the institution
was organised in a way similar to its Byzantine archetype. Due to the
nature of the sources and the specific features of the historical des-
tiny of Romanians, records on vestiars in Walachia and Moldavia are
much more abundant. In addition, there is evidence about the service
pp. 97, 174-5, 198, 200, 213, 236, 601; Kovacevic, Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih
slovena, pp. 58-9.
462 CHAPTER FIVE
Acropolites, who announced that the first thing Tsar John II Asen had to do after his
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 463
but I do not believe that in our case it entirely repeats this particular
meaning. Indeed, at least in one of the two quotes, what we have is
rather the meaning of "treasury". It should be related to the term tsar-
ina mentioned in the same chrysobull.349 All this makes things quite
vague, especially taking into account the specific character of the inau-
thentic Virgino chrysobull, where all these various terms have been
gathered in order, perhaps, to express one meaning; or similar terms,
different meanings. In my opinion, the question remains open.
4.2
As it seems, there was no tax cadastre in Bulgaria. In contrast to the
Byzantine Empire, there is no direct evidence of its existence here,
even though there were some kinds of tax lists. As far as the lists are
concerned, we can judge mainly by indirect evidence, such as the
ban imposed on "writing" (nM~TH) or mentioning the fiscal institu-
tion called nHceu,b.. The latter can be found in the Virgino and Mraka
chrysobulls,350 indicated in both places as the prohibition for officials
to trouble the monastery with their doings. I think there is no doubt
that a fiscal institution is meant. 351 The verb nM~TH or &"AnHc~TH is
mentioned repeatedly in the documents, 352 though in most cases the
reference is to the verb "to write" without any specific legal connota-
tion. At the quoted places, however, it is among the actions not allowed
to the administration in view of not disturbing the monastery and
its people. This leads to the conclusion that we are probably talking
about making lists for the purpose of collecting public taxes.
Nevertheless, we can ask ourselves whether this might have been
something inherited from the time of Byzantine rule. For that period
we have solid proof corroborating the existence of a cadastre,353 but
that does not give enough grounds to assume that a cadastre was con-
tinued in Bulgarian state as well. It seems that in Serbia a cadastre had
not been set up-at least according to the opinion of K. Jirecek. 354 In
victory of Klokotnitsa, was to appoint "soldiers, strategists and public tax (fuw,6cna
!JlopoA.oyruJ.a'ta) collectors"-Acropolita Opera, I, p. 43.
349 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 15 14• 18 79, 93·
350 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 181oo• 25 2s·
351 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 353-4.
352 Illinskij, Gramoty, pp. 19 112, 25 31 ; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 13•
353 Litavrin, Bolgarija-Vizantija, pp. 223-4.
354 Jirecek. Staat und Geselschaft, II, p. 67.
464 CHAPTER FIVE
Walachia and Moldavia there was a cadastre and it was drafted by spe-
cial officials called catastifi (catastihi). 355 They, however, did not appear
until the end of the 15th century and cannot serve as proof of the
existence of a cadastre in Bulgaria. Ultimately, I think that either there
was no cadastre in Bulgaria, or any evidence and record on this matter
has been lost. A solution to the issue related to the fiscal institution
of 'writers' can be found in the assumption of M. Andreev that there
existed some kind of tax registers, 356 but these could not be acknowl-
edged to be a complete cadastre in the true sense of the word.
4.3
In-kind taxes had to be kept in special storage as part of the system for
collecting and accruing public revenues. We are not aware of how they
were called except for the terms apodochia and zhitnitsa. The first one
was mentioned in the Vatopedi charter, while the second is known
from an inscription/57 which is not a legal text and the legal meaning
of the evidence thus provided is rather doubtful. Here this will be left
outside the scope of our concern.
The apodochia (~nOAOXH~) is cited in the Vatopedi charter among the
various duties the monastery and the lands belonging to it were exempt
from. 358 This evidence should be supplemented with information on the
official bearing the name of apodochator, who was obviously the head
of the apodochia. 359 These institutions have to be considered as inter-
related, though they are not identical. It was G. Ilinsky who associated
the apodochia with the tax system. 360 Of key importance to its study
is the correspondence between M. Lascaris and F. Dolger with ref-
erence to the name of the apodochator, obviously a word of Greek
origin, though not found in Greek sources but only in Slavic. 361 In the
and the diac, camara~ and scribes of the vestiarion, who had mainly
operational functions. 385
The sultan court of the Ottoman Empire preserved many of the
preceding Byzantine traditions, one of which is somewhat reminis-
cent of the protovestiarios. Among the personal attendants of the sul-
tan listed in the Kanunname of sultan Mehmed II we also find the
hazinedarba~t, who was third in rank in the hierarchy. 386 He occupied
a quite honourable position among the sultan's personal attendants;
in spite of his name and some of his obligations, he was not the most
active person in managing finances. This brings him even closer to the
Byzantine protovestiarios. 387
We therefore see that according to records from Bulgaria's neigh-
bouring countries, and before all, its closest neighbours Serbia, Wala-
chia and Moldavia, the institution of the protovestiarios preserved the
functions it clearly had in the Byzantine Empire. Moreover, it was con-
siderably better defined and more closely related to the fisc and man-
agement of public finances. All this gives us grounds to conclude that
the situation in Bulgaria during the Second Empire must have been
similar. Probably the protovestiarios attended not only to the impe-
rial wardrobe and valuables kept there, and his function was not only
ritual-which was an indisputable fact and evidenced in the sources
concerning the coronation of the ruler. 388 Most likely he had respon-
sibility for the ruler's treasury and its revenues and expenditures. The
source records we have available allow us to maintain only this asser-
tion. I think any further specification and elaboration on the functions
and responsibilities of the dignity in question would lead to arbitrary
and speculative claims.
385 Grigora~, Institufii feudale din Moldova, p. 272; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 222,
227; I nstitufii feudale, p. 503; Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite, p. 159.
386 Turski izvori za istorijata na pravoto, I, p. 12.
387 Nedkov, Osmanoturska diplomatika I paleograjija, t. I, p. 49 ff.; Lybyer, The Gov-
ernment of the Ottoman Empire, p. 167 ff.; Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and
Modern Turkey, pp. 119-20, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 159-60.
388 Blliarsky, "Le rite du couronnement", p. 104 51 _52, 55, Blliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 161.
470 CHAPTER FIVE
412 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 100,25 29,27 55, 29 10; Laskaris, Vatopedskatagramota,p. 5 9;
Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 193 9; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 55 •
413 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 36; Dujeev, SBK, II, 322, 349; Andreev,
"Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie", p. 8; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, 153;
Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63.
414 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 620.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 475
415 DRH, ser. A. vol. I no. 195 p. 275 (see also 241); ser. B, vol. I, no. 127 ect
Serbia we find the term xotpo&.Ka'teia: Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara,
No. II 56, pp. 504-5.
476 CHAPTER FIVE
this is not likely to be the case as far as we have records on the desetkars.
At first glance, it is not easy to explain this special interest in honey, its
production and the importance of its taxation. In my opinion, the only
solution can be the importance of this product for export and its high
demand (together with wax) in Ragusa, Genoa, and Venice.
In foreign documents, mostly Serbian, there are other tithes men-
tioned, such as great and small, corn, wine. There is no evidence of
profiled officials in charge of these. It is quite interesting that all deset-
kars mentioned were related only to cattle-breeding, but I shall refrain
from insisting on a solution that these officials were involved only in
the taxation of cattle-breeding and relevant production. Such an asser-
tion cannot be credibly corroborated.
In conclusion, we can say that the desetkars were fiscal officials in
charge of collecting tithe on definite kinds of production. The subject
of taxation is specified in the name of the institution itself. I believe it
can be asserted they were not leading figures but neither were they at
the bottom of the tax hierarchy.
4.5.2.2.2. The term pobirchia (pl. no&HftHe) is found in the Mraka and
Rila chrysobulls.427 Some time ago I gave an opinion that it must be
related to the tax called &Hfb. or &Hfb.~'ll., but now I believe the nature of
this public receipt should be reassessed. 428 Earlier in the present exposi-
tion I defined it as a general notion of tax, or, to be more exact, as one
of the existing general notions. Along this line we could also define the
pobirchia-as far as we consider its name as derived from birk-as a
more general designation for a tax officer or certain officer responsible
for some kind of revenue (in money, in kind, or other). The context
where pobirchias were mentioned in the Mraka and Rila chrysobulls
cannot serve as an argument for a similar conclusion, however, I do
not know whether it can be subject to a more detailed interpretation
at all. In both cases the pobirchias are mentioned among officials in
charge of corvees, but obviously they were not. It is evident that every
solution can be questioned, but I would suggest only the option based
on relevance between the receipts called birk (and defined as a generic
notion of a tax) and the job of the pobirchia.
427 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 25 3o, 27 s:t. Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 57·
428 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 368-70.
478 CHAPTER FIVE
the 13th century, while in the 14th century the term was replaced by
the Slavic kraguyar. 433
Kraguyar is a Slavic word (maybe of some remote Turkic origin)
originating from the outdated word Kf4\r8H (kraguy = falcon), which
existed in the mediaeval language as well as in most contemporary
Slavic languages. 434 Nevertheless, it must be noted that it is onomato-
poeic and can be also related to some similar words in other languages,
as is the case with the Greek verb Kpa~ro (= "croak", imitating the
sounds produced by birds of prey).
In order to be able to say anything about the service for the organi-
sation of the imperial hunt with hunting birds, we shall again have to
refer to the parallel services in the neighbouring countries and mostly
in the Byzantine Empire. I already said a few words about the corvees
related to hunting and the aspiration of the Tarnovo court to resemble
the one in Constantinople. The parallel with the practice there is quite
obvious, as the Bulgarian gerakar was evidently borrowed from the
Byzantine l.epaKapw<; or 1tproto'iepaKapt0<;.435 Pseudo Kodinos indi-
cated his place in the court hierarchy and noted shortly that he was
in charge of those who carried the hunting birds. 436 We also have a
description of his uniform and insignia, among which special men-
tion is made of the symbolic glove worn at the waist-belt. 437 Of course,
in this case the word refers to a court service, whereas the Bulgarian
officials under consideration in the study were minor and provincial,
according to the available records.
In Serbia we find only gerakar, but not kraguyar. 438 As it was already
said, this official is mentioned everywhere along with the psar, probably
due to the similar hunting nature of the corvees they were responsible
for. This coincides with the quotes from Bulgarian documents, which
confirms the identity of the Bulgarian and Serbian institutions.
In the section on the hunting corvees it was already mentioned
that the Ottoman Empire preserved many of the mediaeval Balkan
traditions, including the one related to the tsar's hunting with birds.
In the sultan's court, the office for hunting with birds was headed by
the ~aktrctb~t, who seemed to have inherited the Byzantine protoie-
rakarios, and his title most probably originated from the Greek term.
He was a high-ranking figure in the Kanunname (Law Code) of Sultan
Mehmed II and occupied 11th-12th place, being sixth among the
military ranks.439 In the province440 the head of the hunting bird service
was the beglerbeg of the doganct, and in every nahiye (district), the head of
the local group of falconers was the doganctb~t, called also serbazdaran
or Ser$ahinct. His subordinates were grouped according to the name
of the birds they were occupied with, namely: doganet, $ahinct, taktret,
balabanct, while the hunters and bird-trainers were called atmanct.
Unfortunately, we do not have enough detailed evidence on the
organisation of this service in Bulgaria, but we may assume that the
Ottoman Empire had at least partially preserved this service from
the preceding period. There are no records on the person responsible
for the imperial hunt with birds in the central administration, and I
do not consider it necessary to indulge in speculations as regards this
government official. Only local provincial services are mentioned. We
are not aware if there was some differentiation with regard to the type
of hunting bird they were responsible for, but I do not believe the
difference between the kraguyar and gerakar lies in that.
Records from the charters show that the persons mentioned there
were officials and not people of special status. They could have obvi-
ously created problems for the people and possessions of the monas-
tery, and for this reason they were included in the formula of protection
in the charters. The institution was comparatively widespread during
the Second Bulgarian Empire and was responsible for the corvees
related to breeding, training and provision of hunting birds for the
imperial court. 441
4.6.1.2
The Psar (mllc~pb), or the person in charge of the hunting dogs, is
mentioned in five of the preserved documents from the Bulgarian
Middle Ages: the Vatopedi, Virgino, Mraka, Rila, and Vitosha char-
439 Cvetkova, "Influence exercee", p. 243; Inalctk, The Ottoman Empire, p. 81;
Turski izvori za istorijata na pravoto, vol. I, p. 12.
44° Cvetkova, "Sokolarstvoto", pp. 66-7.
441 Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 374-9.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 481
ters. 442 The quote in the first of the listed documents is question-
able because it is a supplement made by M. Lascaris; for his part,
M. Andreev suggested another reading. 443 The term is found in dif-
ferent forms and with different spellings, but there is no doubt it
originated from the word for "dog" = nb.C'A. I believe most certainly
the service of the psars was related to the imperial hunt, and espe-
cially, to some kinds of pertinent corvees I already discussed earlier
in my exposition. I think that the term itself is built similar to the
Greek Kt>V11y6c;, also based on the word for dog (Kt>rov) and meaning
"hunter" From Pseudo Kodinos' treatise we know about the great
hunter or 1tprotOKt>V11'Y6c;, who occupied the 41st place in the hierarchy
and held an honourable post in the palace.444 We find these officials in
Croatia at an early time, as evidenced in Mutimir's charter of AD 892,
and in a number of Serbian documents. 445 These records largely overlap
with evidence from Bulgarian documents, and we can quite confidently
assert that Serbian and Bulgarian psars had similar responsibilities.
Ottoman sources have also provided some additional data on the
imperial hunt officials. There we find the so-calledsagbanlaror seymenler,
i.e. "those who lead dogs", a designation completely coinciding with
the Greek-Byzantine and Slavic ones. They belonged to the military
structures and, more precisely, to the janissary corps. 446 They were
divided into thirty-four cohorts, each comprising 40 to 70 people, and
were entrusted with the organisation of the sultan's hunt, but accom-
panied the ruler at war as well. They also performed the obligations
of guards of the sultan and we might say that these were people of his
close entourage.
Unfortunately, we do not have any evidence on imperial hunt
services in Tolrnovo and our interest should be focused on the pro-
vincial officials. Earlier in the exposition I already discussed records
on hunting corvees and some kind of taxation on dogs, which prob-
ably comprised taxation on hunting. I think the special features of the
psar's service should be identified and studied mainly along this line.
470, 486, 507, 515, 609, 620, 653, 660, 680, 704, 767 etc.
446 Shaw, The Ottoman Empire, p. 123.
482 CHAPTER FIVE
revenue. 465 Moreover, wine has always been an important part of peo-
ple's meals, supplied them with up to one third of the calories they
required. This fact also determines the importance of the obligatory
deliveries of wine for the army and governing bodies. Obviously, this
was not a matter of pleasure, but rather of a necessity to fulfil the pro-
vision in question. Consequently, not less important was the function
of the vinar who-as it seems - attended to providing these deliveries
called wine nametak". So, the officials in question turn out to have been
part of the fiscal administration; however, not part of the tax authorities
there-as I have written elsewhere466-but rather of the office related to
corvees and mandatory deliveries. They were officers in the provincial
administration and did not belong to the top management.
4.6.2.4
The senar (c~Hb.fb.) is mentioned in the Rila and Vitosha chrysobull:
c~Hb.fe (pl.). 467 The term is Slavic, and not difficult to understand: it
means ,the one who takes care of the hay". I have discussed the insti-
tution elsewhere and here only the final results will be presented.468
Taking into account the importance of hay for cattle-breeding, and
for the military as well in connection with the cavalry, we come to
the conclusion that organising the provision of hay for the army and
for public offices was of particular importance. Various imperial
documents repeatedly mention hay and haymaking,469 but special
attention should be paid to an obligation of the population, called
c~Ho KOCHTH (to mow hay); it is cited in the Virgino chrysobull. 470 In
Serbian documents this obligation is much better evidenced.471 In spite
of the unauthentic character of the chrysobull in question, I think the
quote found there is not only a replica from king Stephen Milutin's
document of 1300, and that the obligation existed in Bulgaria as well.
The senar must have administered that same obligation, and by stating
this I would like to amend a previous assertion of mine when I agreed
with the opinion of I. Dujcev, who wrote that we this was probably a
only in the Rila chrysobull of tsar John Shish man and most probably
these people were also officials related to communications.479
We have all reasons to assume that they had similar duties and simi-
lar relation to the population corvees. These were officials responsible
for communications, and as far as they benefited from certain special
obligations of the population related to transportation, accommoda-
tion and overall support on the road, they had some relation to their
organisation.480 In this sense I would like to quote the records found in
a document of tsar Stephen Dusan, where reference is made to relieving
the population from corvees called npoROA~ no~<AHC~fb..481 I believe its
purpose was to serve the tsar's heralds. We have no knowledge of the
exact nature of this corvee, but it is not difficult to guess it, since it
could not have differed substantially from the other obligations related
to the support and transportation provided to passing public officials.
479 llinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 57; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 57; Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite,
pp. 392-393.
480 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Dujcev, SBK, II, pp. 322, 348; Andreev,
Vatopedskata gramota, p. 153; Koev T., "Die Institution der Apokrisiarioi", Etudes
balkaniques, 1978, 4, pp. 57-61; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 153; Andreev, "Sluzhbite
na provintsialnoto upravlenie", p. 12, Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64.
481 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 680.
482 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 25 29, 57 5?: Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 57·
483 Ireeek, Istorija, p. 446; Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 121; Slovnik jezyka staroslovenskho,
VIII, p. 430.
484 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 382.
488 CHAPTER FIVE
low in the hierarchy, and in charge of some specific tasks, but he was
not responsible for the overall organisation of this obligation.
4.6.3.2
Other officials responsible for building corvees were the so-called var-
nichi (&4\fHH"'i'e, pl.), referred to only in the Rila chrysobull. 485 I have
already proposed that the term originates from "varnitsa" (lime pit)
and with the suffix "-chii" it forms a masculine noun designating a
profession.486 So we come to the meaning of "a person dealing with
the lime pit" and we have to determine in what way he could disturb
the population as to be included in the protective formula of the docu-
ment. The only way was for him to have had his responsibilities in the
area of fisc and corvees. I think this leads us quite naturally to building
corvees (and, in particular, the gradozidanie), where he must have par-
ticipated as a person in charge of the lime-pit serving to provide this
product, needed for construction works. Probably the population had
some kind of obligations related to producing and using this product
and the varnichi was perhaps responsible for all that. Nothing else
could be added, except that we have here a low-ranking official who
mostly carried out orders in his functions.
5.1
The term f~&rz.. (slave) has quite a few meanings in Bulgarian mediae-
val texts. One of them, which is also the most widespread in literature
and in this glossary, is the religious connotation designating a definite
type of relations between man and God. We shall leave it aside in the
present study. The basic, original and primary meaning of the word
designates slavery, i.e. the existence of a right of ownership over a
human being. Beyond any doubt, slavery did exist in Bulgaria in the
Middle Ages487 as practically in all countries of continental Europe and
the Mediterranean region at that era. However, it was by no means
widespread or of major importance economically or socially. In this
sense, the problem about slavery remains marginal for our study.
Nevertheless, the term and mainly its derivations, raise definite
interest by their secondary connotations. The word is Slavic, with
Indo-European roots, and originates from the most general meaning
of "child" (*arb'b). Particularly important is the similar meaning
"orphan" (Indo-European *orbho-), from which the meaning of"slave"
is derived.488 So it obviously comes from the implication of "subor-
dinate", "dependent", which, in turn, lexically repeats the historical
development of slavery which originated from the placing of individ-
ual who are not family members in dependence similar to the power
of the father over his family.
The word's derivatives have much greater importance for our study
and, in my opinion, have followed a different path in their construction
than the basic term "slave" I have in mind the terms f~GOT~ (work)
and f~GO'l'HH~rz.. (worker), as well as the verb f~GO'l'~TH (to work). They
all can be found in the charters and in one of their connotations they
mean the position, functions and common name of tsar's (or, in other
words, "public") officials. They have been recurrently ca}led "the work-
ers of My Empire" (w &rz..crtp G.OA'tf'l.. H r~GO'l'HH~rz.. Ll.fR~ MH),489 and
their service is defined as "work" (f~&oT~). 490 There is no dispute as
to the meaning of those references in historiography and they have
been universally accepted as a generic name for public/tsar's officials,
which, in fact, becomes quite clear in the text itself. What I would
like to add is that a similarly special meaning of the words derived
from "slave" is not the result of an independent development from
the Indo-European root, but rather a borrowing from Greek: oouA.eux
meaning "slavery" but also "service" or simply "work"; the same is also
true for the verb oouA.euro (f~GOT~TH, to work). Once more, this comes
to prove the influence Byzantium had not only on the Bulgarian legal
system, but also on the related vocabulary.
In close relation with the word "slave" is also the word c&OGOAbH'A
(free man), which is featured both in the general glossary and in the
one from the Law for Judging the People. It refers to a person's status
related to the specific regulation of the Law. From a terminological point
of view, the word does not raise any particularly difficult questions,
and we must only pay attention to the fact that it might mean both
"a free man" and "liberated", which presents certain differences in the
preceding status that might also have a bearing to the succeeding one.491
5.2
The term otrok (OT'AfOK'A) originally meant "a slave" but later it acquired
a special meaning pointing to a category of individuals related to the
social structure as well as to economy, taxation and appropriating
wealth. We find it in the Virgino and Mraka chrysobulls492 and the tax
called otrotzina (6't'pO)'t~wa), mentioned earlier in the exposition, also
bears reference to it. The life of St Joachim of Osogovo493 mentions
otroks of the local lord. The word &poKO<; is also found in the Greek
documents of the Serbian rulers. 494
It is about a category of dependent population, which, for various
ideological reasons, has been cited as part of feudalism and conse-
quently has become an issue of particular interest to Marxist histori-
ans. In this sense we can say that research has been done on the topic
but most of it is quite ideologised and biased. Our aim is different,
because we shall just slightly touch upon otroks as a socio-economic
category and we shall consider their position in a definite social and
cultural context of the mediaeval Balkans.
5.3
The paroikos (n~pH~'b) are mentioned in the Virgino and Mraka
chrysobulls. 504 Marxist historiography has given to that category much
attention, probably because they have been widely featured in docu-
ments and other sources. Naturally, this attention was concentrated
mainly in the period from the 1940s to the first half of the 1960s within
the theoretical views on Bulgarian feudalism. D. Angelov mentions
several times the paroikoi and their situation. 505 They are defined as
land for payment. It is obvious that the less dependent position of the
paroikoi was due to the fact that he had his own farm and stock and a
certain degree of economic independence.
5.4
The technitar (rre_xHHTAfb.) is mentioned only in the Mraka chrysobull
(HAeme ll.ij.IG Clf\T'll. HAH nAfHLI,H H WTfOLI,H HAH TG,XHHTAfG HAH
A~He ~A~O&H AH&o) 511 along with the otroks and paroikoi and he
has been differentiated from the latter two, though this suggests the
term likewise designates a category of population. In fact, the differ-
ence compared with the other two is obvious from the word itself.
This is also the reason why in historiography there are no particular
differences in the interpretation given by authors who have written on
the topic. For G. Ilinsky this is a special category of craftsmen. 512 In a
strongly ideologised and quite superficial article, A. Burmov discusses
the technitars, practically not going beyond the scope of what their
name actually means: it refers to craftsmen both in villages and towns,
who, according to him, were in some kind of dependence on the "feu-
dal lord". 513 D. Angelov wrote several times about this category of
population. 514 He practically did no more than to underline the impor-
tance of artisans for the monastery farm, and, as far as the technitars'
status and characteristics are concerned, he stated they were depen-
dent people. S. Lishev defines the technitars as a feudally dependent
population in the town. 515
There were technitars in Serbia as well, though the term is not wide-
spread. We find it in a document, dating from 1330, about the mon-
astery St. Nicholas Mracki near Oriakhovo; in it they are listed after
the paroikoi and otroks and before "people, whatever they might be". 516
I think there is no difference in the way this population is represented
in Bulgaria. It must be also noted that there is reference on a donation
to that same monastery for which the Mraka chrysobull was issued,
which might mean there was some kind of mutual influence-an issue
worth discussing separately.
Obviously, those people were craftsmen. The term technitar itself
shows this clearly enough. It is a loanword and is only transliterated
from the Greek word texvrrtapn<;, designating 'a craftsman', and is
derived from texvn, meaning 'art' or 'craft'. The word was certainly
borrowed, because the very notion of a craftsman comes from outside
of Bulgarian society. In general, we should say that, even in the suc-
ceeding period, the terminology in this field was borrowed from Italian
or Persian and Arabic, a fact that speaks for itself regarding the key
position of the Balkans between the West and the Near East. The only
mentioning of technitars in an official document does not provide much
liberty for interpretation. As was already said, they were listed among
the monastery people along with the paroikoi and otroks. This surely
means they were also part of the common farm and were to some extent
tied to it. We cannot make a guess what exactly was the case.
The argument is not only about townspeople, though crafts are usu-
ally associated with the city. In pre-industrial society there were small
producers in villages as well, where the populace had to be supplied
with tools, furniture and household goods, construction services and
so on. Commodity-monetary relations were not unknown to Bul-
garia, but the economy could hardly be called a market one, especially
when we take into account that most of the trade was in the hands
of foreigners. Thus, the local community tried to a maximal degree
to satisfy its needs on its own; likewise the master's estate, granted a
number of privileges by the authorities-the large monasteries were
such estates-also needed craftsmen bound to it. This raises a rather
interesting side issue regarding guilds and associations of artisans in
Bulgaria. This question has already been on the list of topics for his-
toriography, but I do not think an adequate and correct answer has
been found. I shall quote the opinion of S. Lishev, who focused some
of his pursuits on the Bulgarian mediaeval town. Though somewhat
reservedly, he acknowledged that there were such associations, mainly
basing this view on the records about the Saxon mining communi-
ties according to evidence from Macedonia and the western regions
of Bulgaria, such as the town of Chiprovtsi. 517 The texts substantiating
pp. 223-4.
496 CHAPTER FIVE
all this are Serbian and I do not consider these data as relevant for the
whole of Bulgaria. There might have been craftsmen's associations, but
we do not have knowledge about such. I do not think we can use for
comparison the subsequent development in this area under Ottoman
rule, because urban life was then much better developed in our coun-
try, and there was a comparatively orderly organisation of artisans, the
existence of which in mediaeval times cannot be simply claimed with-
out solid proof. There is another side issue related to our present topic,
namely, terminology. As regards craftsmen's associations under the rule
of the sultans-esnaf, rufet-there are names that represent a strange
mixture of words of Italian origin and words borrowed from Persian
and Arabic. This could be easily explained from a historical point of
view, but it could become the topic of a separate study, which prom-
ises interesting results. Here I shall only note that a similar situation
does not allow us to trace a tradition coming from the Middle Ages
and make a parallel with the preceding era.
5.5
As a separate category of people were the hired labourers
(H~HMb.HHKrz.), who worked in the master's estate for pay. As additional
records we can mention the word included in the glossary m'zda
(Mb.W), one of the meanings of which is 'salary' The terms themselves
are not found in the charters, but we find them in presbyter Cos-
mas and in the Long Vita of St Clement of Ochrid by archbishop
Theophylactus. 518 It is precisely the text Oration on Heresy that is cited to
characterise the work of the hired shepherd. 519 Widely varying opinions
have been given in historiography as to the meaning of the term.
D. Angelov believes it is about hired farm workers (farm hands) usu-
ally attending to cattle for pay. 520 G. Tsankova-Petkova defines them
as tenant farmers. 521
However, both authors agree on one thing: they define the Slavic
word H~HMI:.HHI~rz. as corresponding to the Greek j..Ltcr9CO't6c;. Here I
could add that the above-mentioned Slavic word Mb.W has the same
518 Milev Al., Grittskite zhitija na Kliment Okhridski, Sofia, 1966, p. 136; Begunov,
Kozma prezviter, p. 388.
519 Lishev, Za genezisa na feodalizma, p. 177.
520 Istorija na Bulgarija, t II, p. 362.
521 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 148, 177.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 497
5.6
Popoviani (nono&'tHHH'A) is a term we encounter in the Virgino
chrysobull. 524 The term is very clear as regards its origin-it is a deriva-
tive of pop (= priest) and in this sense has some reference to the clergy.
Popoviani were also mentioned in king Milutin's chrysobull of 1300. 525
The word priest itself is repeatedly found in the charters and sometimes
means dependent people who were apparently clerics and were pro-
tected, as stipulated in the endowment documents. 526 In literature we
find the opinion that, among the subordinates in the monastery estate,
there were some representatives of the petty clergy as well. 527 There
is, however, a hesitant opinion on the identity of pops (priests) and
popoviani. In my opinion, the text of the Virgino chrysobull makes it
clear that we are talking about different persons who were in a similar
situation: i.e. both the former and the latter belonged to the cohort
of monastery people. In my opinion, we should start from the names
themselves, which would certainly lead us to the conclusion that pops
were ecclesiastics in the position of paroikoi, while the popoviani were
persons connected to them, probably members of the family, who
were in a similar situation.
I would like to make a step further and associate the popoviani (I
accept it as a generic notion including both the pops /priests/ and the
522 The word is found in Greek documents of Serb rulers: Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke
povelje srpskih vladara, No. XXXIII lines 7, 8, XL line 27 and p. 466.
523 Angelov, "Prinos !<Am pozemlenite otnoshenija", pp. 88-93.
5:u Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 18 82·
525 Grujic, "Tri hilandarske povelje", p. 18 XLIII.
526 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 81, 84• 25 39, 27 32, 34; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 32, 34-
527 Istorija na Bulgarija, t. III, p. 204.
498 CHAPTER FIVE
6. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we have to say that records on the fiscal system and its
legal terminology corroborate the conclusions made about the other
legal fields. A substantial part of the words comprising the databank
presented in the glossary are Slavic in their origin, but most of them
belong to the colloquial everyday speech and are not specific terms.
Most of those that have a specific fiscal and legal meaning owe their
origin to the Greek legal vocabulary in the Byzantine Empire. This
origin could be of various kinds. Some of the words were directly bor-
rowed from Greek and were then incorporated into the Slavic language,
which was Bulgaria's official language. Others were loan translations
528 Lishev, Za genezisa na feodalizma, pp. 145 ff., 171 tf.; Tsank.ova-Petkova, Za
agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 90 and note 53, pp. 94, 95, 105, 136; Istorija na Bulgarija, t. II,
p. 360 ff.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 499
1.1
First, I should highlight two different conceptions as to what the
Church is: one is from the perspective of Christian ecclesiology, and
the other from the perspective of institutions in the visible world. 1
Christian theology devotes special attention to the Church and its
interpretation. The definition of the Church is included in the very
Credo, formulated by the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (AD 325)
and subsequently by the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople
(AD 381); the Creed provided the briefest and clearest possible definition
Mila8, Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, p. I ff, 223 ff; Troianos Sp., Ilpaooaeu;
h:KI..rota<m.KO'i) OtKaioo, Athens-Komotini, 1984, p. 34 ff.
502 CHAPTER SIX
of the latter. One might say this perspective on the Church is purely
theological and dogmatic, not juridical, so it will not concern us in the
framework of this study. Such a radical exclusion from the scope of
our interest of the ecclesiological understanding of the earthly organ-
isation of the Church could lead to erroneous results in the study.
Of course, the theological theory of the Church is not a topic for the
science of law, yet it is so important as to penetrate the sphere of law
and influence it, directly or indirectly. In any case, we can discover
such an influence in the framework of the topic we are elaborating
upon in this study. Interpreted as a universal Divine-human organism,
the Church retains some of its universal characteristics, even though
it is divided in its administrative aspect in the visible world. This has
a two-fold impact in the juridical sphere: on one hand the essential
elements of church and canon law remain common to the Univer-
sal Church, and the legislation of the ecumenical councils and certain
other norms and cannons apply to the entire world, not being limited
to any separate denomination; on the other hand, although divided
in terms of administration of the concrete local commonwealth, the
Church has the same type of organisation, structure, and institutions
everywhere, and these elements in most cases have the same or similar
designations. This similitude is obviously most relevant for the sphere
of legal terminology, which is the object of this study.
The visible Church, i.e. the Church within the visible world, consists
of the faithful people, of the council, which is the visible head of the
Church according to Orthodox doctrine, and of the earthly hierarchy,
consisting, for its part, of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as well as of
various ecclesiastic administrative offices. This organisation within the
visible world is made up of people and exists within the legal sphere,
being regulated by canon and ecclesiastic law, but also by the law of
the state. The organisation has its hierarchy, its administration (ter-
ritorial administration and central offices), its institutions; all of these
are formed and function according to strictly defined rules. 5 Other
aspects of the life of the Church are also strictly regulated, especially
liturgical activity, which includes various sacraments and other rites.
In the final account, we could say that this Church, with its organisa-
tion, institutions, life, and regulations, will be the focus of our interest.
This is the Church as it exists in the legal world, yet, as I mentioned on
1.2
The Church, viewed as an ecclesiastic hierarchy and organisation
within the world, was closely linked with the state during the Middle
Ages, without ever being part of the state. 6 This is obviously true for the
Church in Western Europe, but it holds true for the Orthodox coun-
tries as well. In both great divisions of Christianity, the Church has
always been considered universal, although the Roman curia created
a unified and centralised organisational structure, while the Eastern
Orthodox countries have autocephalous Churches. The latter feature
is not an essential characteristic of Eastern Orthodoxy but a result
of its historical development. The Roman Catholic Church became
centralised and, in itself, acquired and claimed the characteristics of
universality, while in the Eastern Church there remained four auto-
cephalous patriarchates: in addition to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople, there were the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch
and Jerusalem. That of Constantinople was indisputably predominant,
but there was nevertheless a plurality, which was later used by various
Orthodox states, including Bulgaria, when they strove to create their
local and so-called "national" Churches linked to each separate state. 7
It came about that the local church organisation became increasingly
connected with its state; moreover, the loss of one world centre put
that church in a growing dependence on the political power of the gov-
ernment. Of course, this does not apply to the purely religious sphere,
but only to the political and administrative sphere. The connection
between the Empire and the Church dates back to Antiquity, even to
the times of the pagan Roman Res Publica. The Christian Church was
born as an organisation within the framework of the Roman Empire,
on its territory, and it followed the model of the Roman administrative
structures. The early dioceses, coincided with the provinces, and this
situation was preserved for centuries.
Nevertheless, the Church did not become part of the state administra-
tion,although it was integrated in what we maygenerallycall the political
1.3
I gave these examples in order to indicate the mutual interpenetration
between state and Church during the Middle Ages, a relation that is of
particular interest for this study, for we see it existing in the sphere of
law as well. Specifically, I am referring to the normative texts that incor-
porate the ecclesiastic rules. 10 We know that the source oflaw this is an
expression of the legislator's will, which generates and imposes rules.U
We find that, in the case of canon law, the issue oflegal sources appears
even more complicated, for this is not the law of a state but of an institu-
tion interpreted as Divine-human. Hence, there is a risk that this might
entail a belief in the divine origin of law, which would put a research
such as this one in a very delicate situation. Such are the cases-those
of Judaism and Islam-where the Revelation books are assigned the
function of normative legal texts that have direct legal effect for human
pravo, p. 67 ff.
11 I believe one version of this is the view that the organ making this expression of
will is the source of law. Cf. F. C. von Savigny, System des heutigen romischen Rechts,
Bd I, Berlin, 1840 (ND 1981), p. 11 ff.
506 CHAPTER SIX
In the proposed glossary, we have about two hundred and twenty words
in the sphere of the Church and canon law. Of these words, fifty-five
are directly borrowed from Greek and transliterated; the translated or
calque words mainly from Greek are over sixty; about ninety terms are
Slavic; twelve are ofLatin origin; two are of Gothic, and one is ofTurkic-
Mongol origin. We see a strong prevalence of words that are in some
way of Greek origin, and this is quite understandable; yet we should
have in mind that these statistical figures do not provide a precise idea
of proportions in the vocabulary. The ecclesiastic part of vocabulary in
the present study includes a great variety of terms, of which the only
common element is their connection with the Church and religion. I
believe we would get a relatively more precise picture by examining
those words that are clearly ecclesiastical and canon law terms. Using
this approach, we would see an even greater prevalence of Greek-origin
words, whether directly borrowed, calques, or looser translations. Here
we will confine ourselves to terms related to power relations.
2.1
We thus have over eighty terms designating various church institutions.
Of them, directly borrowed from the Greek and simply written out
in Cyrillic letters are forty-five words, and the calques or translations
from Greek are sixteen. We thus see that, in fact, three fourths of the
words designating various ecclesiastic dignities, offices and institutions
are in some way related by their origin to the Byzantine Empire. This
is only natural in view of the history of the Bulgarian Church. Only
eighteen of the words in this group are of purely Slavic origin. Five
terms are of Latin origin; we will touch upon them later on.
2.2
In the glossary, we have forty or so canon law terms. It should
be noted however, that this sample is not entirely representative. Of
the indicated words, only four are directly borrowed from Greek,
while the translated words and calques are only three. On the con-
trary, about thirty terms and words are of Slavic origin, and fourteen
are Latin. I believe this proportion is due to the non-representative
nature of the sample, which, for its part, is due to the choice of texts
on which the glossary is based.
2.3
The same can be said about a group of words that are liturgical
terms with a legally relevant quality. There are about ten of these in the
GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL VOCABULARY 509
glossary, of which two are Greek and two are translated from Greek
originals. The Slavic words are five in number and the Latin are two.
Having in mind the enormous influence of Constantinople on Slavic
liturgy and the fact that practically all liturgical texts were translated
from Greek, this proportion can be explained only by the choice of
sources from which the glossary was built. There are no liturgical
sources among them.
We hardly need to point out the paths along which this terminology
was created (or more precisely borrowed). The Bulgarian Church arose
in the 9th century as a daughter church of the Ecumenical Patriarch-
ate of Constantinople. 20 After the creation of an autonomous and later
autocephalous local church, it adopted the structure inherited from
the practice of the mother church, and created government bodies
and ecclesiastic dignities matching the original onesY In the religious
sphere, the trend was the same as in other fields of public life and cul-
ture in which Byzantine influence was overwhelming. It is even more
perceptible in the ecclesiastic sphere, which concerns us here. This
leads to borrowing of terminology.
We must also take into account the fact that practically all designa-
tions of ecclesiastic dignities are of a similar kind. 22 Their different
pronunciation in certain Romance and Germanic languages does not
lead to the coining of new words. Hence, apart from the strong influ-
ence of Constantinople over Bulgaria, the country simply followed the
same trends typical for all churches, Orthodox and others.
This explains the fact that the only purely Slavic word among these
designations refers to the heretical hierarchy. The term A~Ab.U.b.
(dedets), in the form A~AU.~ cytAe'lb.CIC4\ro (Gen. 'dedets of Sredets'),
we find in the Synodicon. 23 The institution is well known and com-
paratively well presented in the sources regarding the heretical dualists
in Bosnia. Other Slavic appellations were used there, such as 'rocT',
'cTapeu;' or 'CTpo:tiHMK' (gost, starets, stroinik). 24 Dedets was something
like a bishop for the Neo-Manichaean heretics, a person who may have
held some power in the community, but may also have performed
only ritual or purely religious functions. 25 The mention of 'dedets of
Sredets' (the old name of the city of Sofia) in the Synodicon suggests
the territorial or diocesan characteristics of the institution. This might
signify that this was a person with some religious and perhaps disci-
plinary power over the heretics in a specific region (in this case, around
the city of Sredets). Yet this data does not afford us the possibility to
3.3. Terms designating various ecclesiastic offices and the officials in them
con of the Stoudios monastery and later the Jerusalem typicon. Bulgar-
ian monks founded various monasteries, after which they spent some
time in the large monastic centres of the East. The contact zones of
Eastern Orthodoxy were also of great importance for this influence.26
The foremost influential monastic centre was Mount Athos, and there
were other large ones in the East or in Constantinople. Contacts in
these centres created a community that proved even more stable and
powerful than the communion between the ecclesiastic hierarchies
and managements. They also provided the opportunity for the construc-
tion of a common ecclesiastic language, with common designations
for common objects.
That is why the Greek terms are prevalent in this group. They
are designations for representatives of various categories of monks
(t..toHb.X'I., KMo~reprz. and their female counterparts), of the monaster-
ies themselves and their branches (t..tOH4\CTrz.1prz., .1\4\Rfb., uerroxrz., ~ee.I\H~),
and the various degrees of monastic life: Hepot..tOHb.Xrz., CXHMHHKrz.. We
should also focus attention on those monastic institutions, which also
entirely duplicate their Byzantine archetypes. Here we should give as
an example the word 4\RRb., which is Hebrew, but came into the Slavic
language of Bulgaria from Byzantium; likewise the designations for
leaders of the monastic community: Hro~t..teHrz. and b.fXHMb.HAfHTrz..
The latter word is not only the highest rank among the presbyters
(and thus first in rank after the bishop), but also the leader of the
fraternity. For their part, the various monastic offices also have Greek
names. One such word in the glossary is ~ee.l\4\fb.; others are noprrb.fb.,
t..tb.refHHLI,4\, etc., which were borrowed into the Slavic language directly
from Greek.
The translated terms in the glossary are six in number: HHo~erz. and
CRh.I.J.IeHoHHoKrz., and the words related to the concept of wilderness,
desert. In the respective place in the glossary, I have explained that I
believe HHo~erz. to be a translation of the Greek word ~ovax6~. The sec-
ond cited word would be a calque of the term iepo~6vaxo~, to which
it fully corresponds in structure and meaning. The theme of 'wilder-
ness' provokes justifiable interest, for it reveals one of the character-
istic features of mediaeval culture, and also indicates a characteristic
phenomenon of that culture. The no~crrrz.m~, the 'wilderness', the 'des-
27 Popovic D., "Pustinje i Svete Gore v srednjevekovne Srbija (pisani izvori, prostorni
obrasci, graditeljska resenja)", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, t. XLIV /1, 2007,
pp. 253-73.
516 CHAPTER SIX
4. CONCLUSION
3 Ivanov V. V., Toporov V. N., "0 jazyke drevnego slavjanskogo prava (k analizu
kljuchevykh terminov)", Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. VIII Mezhdunarodnyj s'ezd slavistov
(Zagreb-Ljubljana, sentjabr' 1978 g.). Doklady sovetskoj delegatsii, Moscow, 1978, p. 221.
4 Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane I razvitie, p. 25.
5 Ivanov, Toporov, "0 jazyke drevnego slavjanskogo prava", p. 223.
CONCLUSION 519
I. PRIMARY SOURCES
Georgiev P., "Olovni pechati ot manastira pri Ravna, Provadijsko", in: Izvestija na
Narodnija muzej-Varna, 26 (41), 1990, pp. 103-9.
Georgii Acropolita Opera, t. 1-11, Lipsiae, 1903.
Gjuzelev V., "Nadpisa ot krepostta", Bozhenishki Urvich, Sofia, 1979, pp. 43-44.
- , Venetsianski dokumenti za Bulgarlja i bulgarite ot XII-XIV vek, Sofia, 2001.
Grabar A., Bojanskata tsarkva, Sofia 1978.
[Grlgorij Tsamblak], Zhitie na Stefan Dechanski ot Grigorij Tsamblak, Sofia, 1983,
328 p.
Grujic R., "Trihllandarske povelje", Zbornik za istoriju juzne Srblje i susednih oblastima,
Skopje, 1936, pp. 5-24.
Ilinskij G., Gramoty bolgarskikh tsarej, Moscow, 1911.
Joannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris Historiarum libri IV, ed.. L. Schopen, Bonnae 1828,
t. 1-11.
Joannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab Ioannae et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed.. Aug.
Meineke, Bonnae MDCCCXXXVI.
Joannis Skylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed.. I. Thurn (= Corpus Jontium historiae
byzantinae, series berolinensis, vol. V), Berolini-Novi Eboraci MCMLXXIII.
Istrin V. M., Khronika Georgija Amartola, Petrograde, t I (1920), t II (1922), t. III (1930).
- , Khronika Joanna Malaly v slavjanskom perevode, ed.. M. I. Chernysheva, Moscow,
1994.
Ivanov]., Bulgarski starini iz Makedonija (=BSM), Sofia, 1931.
- , "Bulgarski i vizantijski priisteni", Izvestlja na Bulgarskoto arkheologichesko
druzhestvo, II, fasc. 1, 1918, pp. 1-14.
- , "Pomenitsi na bulgarskite tsare i tsaritsi", in: idem, Izbrani proizvedenija, t. I,
Sofia, 1982,pp. 144-154.
Jordanov Iv., Korpus na pechatite na srednovekovna Bulgaria, Sofia, 2001.
Jurukova ]., Penchev Vl., Bulgarski srednovekovni pechati i moneti, Sofia, 1990.
KaluZniacki E., Werke des Patriarchen von Bulgarien Euthymius (1375-1393), Wien,
1901.
Kekavmen, Sovety i rasskazy. Pouchenie vizantijskogo polkovodtsa XI veka, ed.. G. G.
Litavrin, St Petersburg, 2003.
Khristova B., Karadzhova D., Uzunova E., Belezhki na bulgarskite knizhovnici X-XVIII
vek, t. 1 (X-XIV vek), t. 2 (XV -XVIII vek), Sofia, 2003-2004.
Kliment Okhridski, Sabrani sachinenija, t. I-III, Sofia, 1973.
Laskaris M., Vatopedskata gramota na tsar Ivan Asenja II,(= Bulgarski starini, kn. XI),
Sofia, 1930.
Leonis Diaconi Coloensis Historiae libri decem, rec. C. B. Hasii, Bonnae,
MDCCCXXVIII.
Ljubinkovic R, Corovic- Ljubinkovic M., "Crkva u Donjoj Kamenici", Starinar, t I, 1950,
pp. 55-86.
Malingoudis Ph., Die mittelalterlichen kyrillischen Inschriften der Hamus-Halbinsel,
Tell. I, Die bulgarischen Inschriften, Thessaloniki, 1979.
Malov S. E., Pamjatniki drevnetjurkskoj pismenosti. Teksty i issledovanlja, Moscow, 1951.
Margos A., "Nadpisa na lvo Gramatik", Archaeologia, 1981, 1-2, pp. 36-40.
Mijatev Kr., Bojanskite stenopisi, Dresden, 1961.
Milev Al., Gratskite zhitija na Kliment Okhridski, Sofia, 1966.
MiSic S., "Povelja kralja Stefana Uro8a III manastiru Hilandaru", Stari srpski arhiv, 5
(2006), pp. 65-81.
Magnae Moraviae fontes historici, t. IV, Brno, 1971.
Mosin VL, "Bitoljska plocha lz 1017 godine", Makedonski jazik, Skopje, XVII, 1966,
pp. 51-61.
Nicephori archiepiscopi constantinopolitani Opuscula historica, ed. de Boor, Upsiae 1870.
Novakovic St., Zakonski spomenici srpskih driava srednjego veka, Belgrade, 1912.
- , Zakonik Stefana Du5ana cara srpskog 1349 i 1354, Belgrade, 1898.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 525
Oikonomides N., Les listes de presea nee byzantines de IXe et Xe siecles, Paris, 1972.
Georgii Pachymeris De Michaeli et Andronico Palaeologis libri XII, rec. lm. Bekkerus,
t. 1-11, Bonnae MDCCCXXXV.
Georges Pachymeres, Relations historiques, ed. A. Failler, t 1-V, Paris, 1984-2000.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus [IIa1ttlbO!tO'I)A.oi)_ Kepa~] l\. l\ vaUJCta 'lepocroi..'I>)J.t-ttKi!~
mcrox;oo~ 't. A', St Petersburg, 1891.
Papadopoulos J., pere A. Vatopedinos, "Un acte officiel au sujet du couvent de Speleotissa
pres de Melenlkon", Spisanie na BAN, XLV, 1933, pp. 1-16.
Popkonstantinov K., Kronsteiner 0., Altbulgarische Inschriften, vol 1-11 (Die slawischen
Sprachen, Bd. 36, 1994; Bd. 52, 1997).
- , "Oshte vednil.7h za nadpisa na lvo Gramatik", Archaeologia, 1983, 1-2, pp.
98-105.
Popovic R, "Povelja bana Tvrtka I Kotromanovica Dubrovniku o slobodanu od carini",
Stari srpski arhiv, 5 (2006), pp. 149-56.
Popruzhenko M.G., Sinodik tsarja Borisa, Odessa, 1898.
- , Sinodik tsarja Borila, (= Bulgarski starini, VIII), Sofia, 1928.
Popruzhenko M., Kosma prezviter, bolgarskij pisatel' X veka, (Bulgarski starini, XII),
Sofia, 1936.
Porcic N., "Povelja kralja Stefana Du8ana dubrovnicanima o carini sluge DabiZiva",
Stari srpski arhiv, 5 (2006), pp. 83-98.
Reginonis Chronicon, ed. G. H. Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae historica, SS, I, Leipzig,
1925, pp. 537-629.
de Sacy baron Sylvestre, "Memoire sur un traite fait entre les ~nois de Pera et un
prince des Bulgares", Histoire et memoires de l'Institut Royal de France, Academie
des inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, t. VII, Paris, 1824, pp. 292-326.
Stara bulgarska literatura, t. 3, Istoricheski sdchinenija, Sofia, 1983; t. 4, Zhitiepisni
tvorbi, Sofia, 1986.
Solovjev Al., Mosin VL, GrCke povelje srpskih vladara, Belgrade, 1936.
Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii v slavjanskikh literaturakh,
ed. M. A. Salmina, Sofia, 1988.
Stanchev St., "Nadgrobnijat nadpis na cha.rgubllja Mostich ot Preslav", in: Nadpisyt na
chargubilja Mostich, Sofia, 1955.
Stancheva M., Stanchev St., Bojanskija pomenik, Sofia 1963.
Stojanovic Lj., Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi, I, Belgrade, 1902.
Supraslski ili Retkov sbornik, ed. J. Zaimov, M. Capaldo, t. 1-11, Sofia, 1982/1983.
Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi,
H. Delehaye, Bruxellis, 1902.
Ti!pkova-Zaimova V., MlltenovaA., Istoriko-apokaliptichnata knizhnina vav Vizantija
i v srednovekovna BuJgarija, Sofia, 1996.
Teodosije Hllandarec, Zitije svetoga Save, Belgrade, 1984.
Theophani Confessoris Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, Lipsiae, 1883.
Theophylacti Achridensis Epistulae, ed. P. Gautier, Thessalonique, 1986.
Thomsen V., Inscriptions de l'Orkhon, Helsinki, 1896.
- , "Alttiirkische lnschriften aus der Mongolei in i.ibersetzung und mit Einleitung",
Zeitschrift des deutschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft, 78 N.F. 3, 1924, pp. 120-75.
TotomanovaA.-M., Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, Universitetska
biblioteka, No 474, Sofia, 2008.
Turski izvori za istorijata na pravoto po bulgarskite zemi, t. I, Sofia, 1962.
Vasiliev A., Ivanovskite stenopisi. Materiali za istorijata na grad Ruse i Rusenski okrag,
Sofia, 1953.
Verpeaux J., Pseudo Kodinos. Traite des offices, Paris, 1966.
Zacos G., Veglery A., Byzantine Lead Seals, t. I, Basel1972.
Zaimov J., Bitolski nadpis na Ivan Vladislav, samodarzhets bulgarski. Starobulgarski
pametnik ot 1015-1016 g., Sofia, 1970.
526 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bakalova E., "The Image of the Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bulgarian Literature and Art",
In: Les cultes des saints souverains et des saints guerriers et l'ideologie du pouvoir
en Europe Centrale et Orientale. Actes du colloque international 17.01.2004. New
Europe College, Bucarest. Volume coordonne par I. Biliarsky et R. G. P1l.un. Bucarest,
2007, pp. 34-80.
Balaschev G., "Titlite na starobulgarskite gospodari", Minalo, I, 1909/1910, pp. 79-93.
- , "S1l.shtinski li e khrisovul1l.t na tsar Konstantin Tikh ( 1257-1277)", Minalo, II, kn
5-6, 1911, pp. 178-87.
Bartusis M., "State Demands for the Billeting of Soldiers in Late Byzantium", Zbornik
radova Vizantoloskog institute u Beogradu, t. XXVI (1987), pp. 115-23.
- , "State Demands for Building and Repairing Fortifications in Late Byzantium and
Medieval Serbia", Byzantinoslavica, 49 (1988), pp. 205-12.
Beldiceanu N., "La region de Timok-Morava dans le documents de Mehmed II et de
Selim I", Revue des etudes roumaines, III-IV, Paris, 1957, pp. 111-29.
- , "Vozarliq: une institution pontodanubienne", Siidost-Forschungen, XXXII, Miin-
chen, 1973, pp. 73-90.
- , "Le Valaques de Bosnie a Ia fin du XV• siecle et leurs institutions", Turcica, VII,
Paris, 1975, pp. 122-34.
Benveniste E., Vocabulaire des institutions indo-europeennes, vol. I-II, Paris, 1969.
Besevliev V., Parvobulgari. Istorija, Sofia. 1984.
Bezlaj F., Etimoloski slovar slovenskega jezika, Ljubljana, 1976-, t 1-.
Biliarsky Iv., "Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", Istoricheski pregled, 11 ( 1989),
pp. 54-7.
- , "Belezhki wrkhu institutsionnata sistema na Vtoroto bulgarsko tsarstvo: kephalia",
Tarnovska knizhovna shkola, vol. V, Veliko T1l.rnovo, 1994,pp. 553-562.
- , Institutsiite na srednovekovna Bulgaria. Vtoro bulgarsko tsarstvo (XII-XIV v.),
Sofia, 1998.
- , "Srednovekovna Bulgarija: Tsarstvoto i naroda", IIOAYXPONIA. Sbornik v chest
na prof Ivan Boiilov, Sofia. 2002, pp. 25-40.
- , "Primeri za ranno vlijanie na Imperijata wrkhu formiraneto na bulgarskata pub-
lichnopravna terminologija: voevoda. chigot, chvanchij, Istoricheski pregled, 5-6,
2008, pp. 16-27.
- , "Trois institutions meconnues de Ia Bulgarie medievale : RAVHH'iiH, RAV~V'>•
noRAp~>", Ricerche slavistiche, XLI, 1994, pp. 95-104.
- , "The Despots in Mediaeval Bulgaria", Byzantinobulgarica, t. IX, Sofia, 1995,
pp. 121-62.
- , "Les institutions de Ia Bulgarie medievale: y avait-il des bans en Bulgarie d'avant
Ia conqu~te turcque?", Bulgarian Historical Review, 1992, 1-2, p. 89 ff.
- , "Les institutions de Ia Bulgsrie medievale: tainik-mystikos", Byzantinoslavica, t
LIII (1), Prague, 1992, pp. 53-6.
- , "Les circonscriptions administratives en Bulgarie au 13e siede", Symmeikta, 13,
1999, pp. 177-202.
- , Hierarchia. L'Ordre sacre. Etude sur l'esprit romalque, (= Freiburger Veroffentli-
chungen aus dem Gebiete von Kirche und Staat, Bel. 51), Fribourg/Suisse, 1997.
-,"Some Observations on the Administrative Terminology of the Second Bulgarian
Empire", Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Birmingham, 25, 2001, pp. 69-89.
- , "Les perspectives des etudes sur les institutions du Premier empire bulgare",
Bu~a;vnv6~ 06)10~, (12), 2001, pp. 171-3.
- , "Un cosmopolitisme entre Ia beaute et Ia saintete", Guerre et paix dans l'Orient
mediterraneen, (= Mediterranees, No 29), 2001, pp. 39-50.
- , "Quelques observations sur Ia reglementation du commerce de l'Etat medieval
bulgare", La pratique commerciale (= Mediterranees, No 30/31, 2002), pp. 99-117.
-,"La Demeure et Ia corne de l'Empire", Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vol. 69,
fasc. I, 2003, pp. 179-97.
528 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Feldbrugge F., Law in Medieval Russia, (=Law in eastern Europe, vol59), Leiden-Boston,
2009.
Ferjancic B., "0 despotskim povelama", Zbornik radova VizantoloSkog instituta, t. IV
( 1956), pp. 89-112.
- , "Povelje sevastokratora i cesara", Zbornik radova VizantoloSkog instituta, t. XXIII
(1984), pp. 105-17.
- , Despoti u Vizantiji i u juinoslovenskim zemljama, Belgrade, 1960.
- , "Sevastokratori u Vizantiji", Zbornik radova VizantoloSkog instituta, t. XI (1968),
pp. 141-90.
- , "Sevastokratori i eesari u Srpskom carstvu", Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta u
Beogradu, t. XI, 1 (1970), pp. 255-69.
- , "Sevast i protosevast Pribo", Zbornik Filozofskogfakulteta u Beogradu, t. XV-1,
Spomenica Ivana Boiica, Belgrade. 1985, pp. 91-6.
Ferrari della Spade G., Immunita ecclesiastiche nel Diritto Romano imperiale, Venezia,
1939.
Fine J. V. A., Jr., The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation. A Study of the Bosnian
Church and Its Place in the State and Society from the 13th to the 15th Centuries,
New York and London, 1975.
Gallagher C., "St. Methodios the Canonist: The Greek 0 rigin ofSlavonic Canon Law", In:
Gallagher C., Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium. A Comparative
Study, (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, vol. 8). Aldershot, 2002,
pp. 85-113.
Ganev V., ZAKOH'l> c~AH'l>IH AIOAI>U'l>, Sofia, 1959.
Gavlikova L., "Transfdrmatsija, retseptsija i adaptacija vizantijskoj voenno-politicheskoj
terminologii v slavjanskoj srede", Vizantijskij vremenik, t. 50, 1989, pp. 59-65.
Georgescu V., Etudes de philologie juridique et de Droit romain, vol. I, Les rapports de
Ia philologie classique et du Droit romain, Bucarest-Paris, 1940, 530 p.
- , Strlhan P., Judecata domnesca din Tara Romdneasca ~i Moldova, part I, Organi-
zareajudeciitoreasca, vol. I (1611-1740), Bucure~ti, 1979.
- , Bizantul ~i institufiile romane~ti pana Ia mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea, Bucure~ti
1980.
Georgiev P., "Titlata i funkciite na bulgarskija prestolonaslednik", Istoricheski pregled,
1992, 8/9, pp. 3-12.
Georgieva Tsv., Enicharite v bulgarskite zemi, Sofia, 1988.
Gernet L., Anthropologie de Ia Grece antique, III Droit et predroit, Paris, 1968.
Gjuzelev V., "Ichirgu boilite v Pyrvata bulgarska dArzhava (VII-XI B.)", Godishnik na
Sofijskija universitet. Filosofsko-istoricheski fakultet, 65, 3, 1973, pp. 123-81.
- , "Les relations bulgaro-venitiennes durant la premiere moitie du XIV• siecle",
Etudes historiques, t. IX, 1979, pp. 36-76.
- , Ochertsi viirkhu bulgarskija severoiztok i Chernomorieto (kraja na XII-nachaloto
na XV vek), Sofia, 1995.
Gorina L., "K voprosu o podlinnosti Virginskoj gramote", Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie,
1965, 5, pp. 60-8.
Gorskij A. A., Drevnerusskaja druzhina, Moscow, 1989.
Grachev V. P., "Iz istorii izuchenija slavjanskikh srednevekovykh institutov (Vopros
o zhupakh i zhupanakh v istoriografii)", Uchenye zapiski institute slvjanovedenija,
t. XXIX, Moscow, 1965, pp. 178-209.
- , "Terminy 'zhupa' i 'zhupan' v serbskikh istochnikakh XII-XIV vv. i traktovka
ikh v istoriografii (K izucheniju politicjeskoj organizacii v srednevekovoj Serbii)",
Istochniki i istoriografija slavjanskogo SrednevekovJa. Sbornik statej i materialov,
Moscow, 1967, p. 3-52.
Granberg J., Veche in the Chronicles of Medieval Rus. A Study of Functions and Ter-
minology, Goteborg, 2004.
Gregoire H., "Les sources epigraphiques de l'histoire bulgare", Byzantion, t. IX, 1934,
fasc 2, pp. 745-86.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 531
Grlgora~ N., Institufii feudale din Moldova, vol. I, Organizarea de stat pdna la mljlocul
secolului al XVIII-lea, Bucure~ti, 1971.
Grivec F., "Duo sermones s. Methodii Thessalonicensis", Oriental ia Christiana Periodica,
16, 1950, pp. 440-8.
Guilland R, "Protovestiaire", Etudes byzantines, 2, 1944, pp. 202-20 (= Guilland,
Recherches ... , I, pp. 216-36).
-,"Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin, le cesatat", Orientalia
Christiana Periodica, XIII, 1947, pp. 168-94 (= Guilland, Recherches ..., II, pp. 25-43).
- , "Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin, le grand conetable",
Byzantion, t XIX, 1949, pp. 99-111.
- , "Etudes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines. Le protostrator", Revue
des etudes byzantines, VII, 1950, pp. 156-79 (= Guilland, Recherches ... , I, pp.
478-97).
- , "Les commandants de la garde imperiale sous les Paleologues: I' btl. -too crtpa-too
et le juge de l'armee", Revue des etudes byzantines, 18 (1960), pp. 79-96 (= Guilland,
Recherches ... , I, pp. 522-34).
-,"Sur quelques grands dlgnitaires byzantins du XIVe siede", T611oc; KcovcrtavtiVO'O
Ap!1£Vo1t0'6A.oo, eecmaA.ovilCTJ., 1951, pp. 192-5.
- , "Etudes sur Ia titulature byzantine. Les titres auliques reserves aux eunu-
ques (suite). Le Primicier", Revue des etudes byzantines, XIV, 1956, pp. 122-57
(= Guilland, Recherches ... , I, pp. 300-32).
- , "Le Maitre d'Mtel de l'empereur", Etudes byzantines, 3 (1945), pp. 179-87
(= Guilland, Recherches ... , I, pp. 237-41).
- , Recherches sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin : le despote, REB,
XVII, 1959, pp. 52-89 (= Guilland, Recherches ... , II, pp. 1-24).
- , "Le Curapalate", Bu~avttva, 2 (1970), pp. 187-249.
- , "Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin. Le mystique, o
J1UcrttK6c;", Revue des etudes byzantines, XXVI, 1968, pp. 279-96.
-,Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, vol. I-II (Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten,
Bd 35, 1-2), Berlin-Amsterdam 1967.
- , "Les logothetes", Revue des etudes Byzantines, t. XXIX, 1971, pp. 5-16.
Gy6ni M., "La transhumance des Valaques balkaniques au Moyen Age", Byzantino-
slavica, XII, 1951, pp. 29-42.
Haldon J., "Aerikon/Aerika: a Re-Interpretation", JOB, 44 (1994), pp. 136-42.
Halkin Fr., "Inscriptions grecques relatives a l'hagiographie (suite)", Analecta Bollan-
diana, 70 (1952), fasc. 1 et 2, pp. 116-37.
Harvey A., Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 900-1200, Cambridge, 1989
Hattenhauer H., Europiiische Rechtsgeschichte, 4. Auglage, Heidelberg, 2004.
Havlova E., "K publikovanym i nepublikovanym pracfm Ant. Matzenauera", Studia
etymologica Brunensia, 2, 2003, pp. 11-28.
Hofmann J. B., 'EWJlOMytKOv A.el;tKC'>v 'tile; cXPX;aiac; v..A.1JVtJcilc;, £v Aef\vatc; 1989.
Holzer G., "Zur Sprache des mittelatrelichen Slaventums in Osterreich. Slavisch unter
bairischen Einfluss", Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, Bd 48, 2002, pp. 53-73.
Inalak H., "The Problem of Relationship between Byzantine and Ottoman Taxation",
Akten des XI. Interna. Byzant. Kongresses (1958), Mi.inchen, 1960 (=H. Inalctk, The
Ottoman Empire: Conquest, Organisation, Economy, Variorum, II), pp. 237-42.
-,The Ottoman Empire. The Classical Age (1300-1600), London, 1975.
I nstitufii feudale din fa rile romane. Dicfionar, Bucure~ti, 1988.
Iorga N., Contribufiuni la istoria bisericii noastre, Bucur~ti, 1912.
Ireeek K., Istorija na bulgarite, Sofia, 1978.
Istorija na Bulgarija, t I, Sofia, 1979, t. II, Sofia, 1981, t. III, Sofia, 1982, ....
Istorija na Bulgarija, t. I-III: t. I: Iv. B<>Zilov, V. Gjuzelev, Istorija na Bulgarija VII-XIV
veK, Sofia, 1999.
I us et ritus. Rechtshistorische Abhandlungen uber Ritus, Macht und Recht, herausg. von
Iv. Biliarsky, Sofia, 2006.
532 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ivanov V. V., Toporov V. N., "0 jazyke drevnego slavjanskogo prava (k analizu
kljuchevykh terminov)", Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. VIII Mezhdunarodnyj s'ezd slavistov
(Zagreb-Ljubljana, sentjabr' 1978 g.). Doklady sovetskoj delegatsii, Moscow, 1978,
pp. 221-40.
Jirecek K., Staat und Geselschaft im mittelalterlichen Serbien. Studien zur Kulturge-
schichte des 13.-15. /h., Bd. I-III, Wien, 1912-1914.
Jones A. H. M., 1he Later Roman Empire, Oxford, 1964, vol. 1-.
Jonova M., Beletristikata v sistemata na starata bulgarska literatura, Sofia, 1992.
Jordanov St., "Tremini za oboznachavane na probodno-sechashti orlizhija u prabul-
garite", in: Acta Musei Varnaensis I. Orazhie i snarjazhenie prez kasnata Antichnost
i Srednovekovieto IV-XV v. Mezhdunarodna konferentsija. Varna 14-16 septemvri
2000, Varna, 2002, pp. 87-98.
- , "Mechonostsite na P1l.rvoto tsarstvo", in: Traditsii i priemstvenost v Bulgarija
i Balkanite prez Srednite vekove. Jubileen sbornik, posveten na prof dr. Jordan
Andreev. Izsledvanija i materiali ot mezhdunarodnata nauchna konferentsija v chest
na 60-godishninata na prof din Jordan Andreev, 14-15 mai 1999z., Veliko Tarnovo,
Vellko T1l.rnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo "Sts Kiril i Metodij", 2003, pp. 384-404.
Kadlec K., Instoduction a l'histoire du droit slave, Paris, 1925.
Karayannopoulos 1., Das Finanzwesen des frubyzantinischen Staates, Miinchen, 1958.
Kazhdan A., "Sevastokratory i despoty v Vizantii XII v.", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog
instituta, t. XIV-XV, 1973, pp. 41-4.
Kazhdan A. P., Agrarnye otnoshenija v Vizantii XIII-XV vv., Moscow, 1952.
- , Derevnja i gorod v Vizantii IX-X vv., Moscow, 1960.
Khristova-Shomova 1., "K1l.m v1l.prosa za proizkhoda i znachenieto na dumata neprijazn",
in: Acta Palaeoslavica. vol 2. In honorem professoris Angelinae Minceva, Sofia, 2005,
pp. 161-71.
Khvostova K. V., Osobenosti agrarnopravnykh otnoshenij v pozdnej Vizantii XIV-XV
vv.. , Moscow, 1968.
Kodov Khr, Opis na slavjanskite rakopisi v bibliotekata na BAN, Sofia, 1969.
Kodov Khr., Rajkov B., Kozhukharov St., Opis na slavjanskite rakopisi v bibliotekata na
Zografskija manastir v Sveta Gora, vol. I, Sofia, 1985.
Koev T., "Die Institution der Apokrisiarioi", Etudes balkaniques, 1978, 4, p. 57-61.
Kojeeva [Savceva] E., "The Office and the Title of Sebastocrator in Bulgaria", Etudes
balkaniques, 1978, 4, pp. 70-4.
Kojeeva E., "Particularites etatiques et juridiques du titre 'sebastocrator' en Bulgarie
durant Ia periode XIW-XIV• siecle", Etudes balkaniques, 1979, 3, pp. 53-71.
Kolarov Khr., "Titulatura i polnomochija vladetel'skoj vlasti v srednevekovoj Bolgarii",
Etudes balkaniques, 3, 1978, pp. 89-101.
Koledarov P., "Le titulariat des boyards dans Ia Bulgarie medievale et sa protee dans
les autres pays", Etudes historiques, IV, 1968, pp. 191-212.
Kolias G., Tiepl. a1tA:qK"t01), in: 'E1te'tepi~ 'E-tatpe~ B'I>~!XV'tl.VOOV 1;1t01)000V, 't. 17 (1941),
pp. 144-84.
Kotseva E., "Pripiska 1350-1360 g. v sbornlk Pyrvoslava", Byzantinobulgarica, t VI,
1980, pp. 247-58.
Kovacevic J., Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih slovena, Belgrade, 1953.
Krlistanov Tr., "Titlite ekzarkh i patriarch v bulgarskata ts1l.rkva ot IX do XIX vek. Sv.
loan Ekzarkh ot Rim i patriarch na bulgarskite zemi", Darzhava i Tsarkva- Tsarkva i
darzhava v bulgarskata istorija. Sbornik po sluchaj 135-godishninata na Bulgarskata
Ekzarkhija, Sofia, 2006, pp. 73-86.
Krys'ko V., "Russko-tserkovnoslavjanskie rukopisi XI-XIV vv. kak istochnlk po istorii
staroslavjanskogo i russkogo jazykov: novye dannye", in: Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie.
XIII Mezhdunarodnyj s'ezd slavistov. Ljubljana, 2003. Doklady rossijskoj delegacii,
Moscow, 2003. pp. 339-55.
Kuchev Str., Kuchev Ju., Danachno pravo, Sofia, 1997.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 533
-,Die turkische Elemente in der siidost- und osteuropiiischen Sprachen, Wien, 1884.
Milas N., Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, Sofia, 1904.
Miltenova A., Kajmakamova M., "The Uprising ofPatar Deljan (1040-1041) in a New
Old Bulgarian Source", Byzantinobulgarica, t. VIII, 1986, pp. 227-40.
- , "Neizvestno bulgarsko letopisno sllchinenie ot XI vek", Palaeobulgarica, 4 (1983),
pp. 52-73.
Mineeva A., "Entstehungswege der friihesten christlichen Terminologie bei den Slaven",
Orpheus, 8 (1998), Georgiev Memorial Volume, pp. 53-63.
Moravcsik Gy., Byzantinoturcica. Sprachreste des Tiirkvolker in den byzantinischen Quellen,
vol. 1-11, Budapest, 1943.
- , ''Komenton-pechenezhkoe ill russkoe slovo?", Acta antiqua Academiae Scienci-
arum Hungaricae, I, 1951, pp. 225-31.
Mosin Vl., "Zur Frage der Abfassung der Chrysobullen bei den Si.idslaven und in
Byzanz", Jubilejnyj sbornik Russkogo areheologicheskogo obshchestva v Korolevstve
Jugoslavii k 15-letiju obshchestva, Belgrade, 1936, pp. 93-109.
Moskov M., Imennik na bulgarskite khanove (Novo tillkuvane), Sofia, 1988.
- , "Omonimi ot bulgarski proizhod", in: Protobulgarica et mediaeval/a europensia.
Materiali ot jubilejnata nauchna konferentsija v chest na 100-godishninata na chl.-
kor. prof. dr. Veselin BeSe'Vliev, Veliko Tilrnovo, 12-15. V. 2000, Sofia, 2003.
Mutafchiev P., "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", in: iden, Izbrani proizvedenija, vol. I, Sofia,
1973, pp. 486-517.
Myth and Law among the Indo-Europeans, ed. by J. Puhvel, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London,
1970.
Naydenova D., "Pravnite pametnitsi v Pllrvoto bulgarsko tsarstvo", Istorichesko bildeshte,
IX, 2005, 1-2, pp. 136-63.
- , "Istoricheskata dostovernost na Leksikona 'Suda' kato iztochnik za zakonodatelstvoto
na khan Krum", Starobulgarska literatura, t. 35-36, 2006, pp. 167-80.
-,"Die byzantinischen Gesetze und ihre slavische Obersetzung im Ersten Bulgar-
ischen Reich", Scripta & e-Scripta, t. 3-4, 2006, pp. 239-52.
Nedkov B., Osmanoturska diplomatika i paleograjija, vol. I, Sofia, 1966.
Nenovski N., Pravo i tsennosti, Sofia, 1983.
Nichev AI, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", Ezik i literatura, 35 (1980), 2, pp. 55-68.
Niederle L., Slovanske starozitnosti, t. I-IV, Praha, 1901-1924.
Nikolova B., Ustrojstvo I upravlenie na Bulgarskata pravoslavna tsarkva (IX-XIV vek),
Sofia, 1997.
- , Neravnijat pilt na priznanieto. Kanonichnoto polozhenie na bulgarskata tilrkva
prez Srednovekovieto, Sofia, 2001.
Novakovic St., "Vizantijski cinovi i titule u srpskim zemljama XI-XV veka", Glas Srpske
Akademije, t. XXVIII, 1908, pp. 178-279.
Obolensky D., The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500-1453, London, 1971.
Oikonomides N., "L'evolution de !'organisation administrative de !'Empire byzantin
au Xle siecle (1025-1118)", Travaux et memoires, t. VI (1976), pp. 125-52.
- , "ot llo(;!XVttvoi &rol..o1t!ipourot", l:u)l~tlcr!X, 5, 1983, pp. 295-302.
- , "La chancellerie imperiale de Byzance du 13e au 15e siede", Revue des etudes
byzantines, XLIII, 1985, pp. 167-96.
- , Fiscalite et exemption jiscale a Byzance (IX'-XI's.), Athenes, 1996.
Ostrogorsky G., Die liindiche Steuergemeinde des byzantinischen Reiches im X. Jahrh.,
Stuttgart, 1927.
- , "Avtokrator i samodrl.ac", Glas Srpske Kraljevske Akademije, drugi razred, 84,
1935, pp. 95-187.
- , "Urum-Despotes. Die anfiinge der Despotewiirde in Byzanz", Byzantinische
Zeitschrift, XLIV, 1951, pp. 448-60.
-,Pour l'histoire de la jeodalite byzantine, Bruxelles, 1956.
- , Serska oblast posle Du5anove smrti, Belgrade, 1965.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 535
abbot 27, 29, 76, 138, 253, 257, 410 Altar 170
Abraham 234 Anastasius Bibliothecarius 349
accusator 81 Anatolia 270
accuser 81, 154 Ancestor-Creator 187, 200
acolyte 60 anchorite 128
Ac~ 293, 300,444a 261 Andrew Palaeologos 290
Adriatic 9, 41, 188, 467, 512 Andronikos I Comnenos, emperor 424
adulterer 126 Andronikos II Palaeologos, emperor
adulterium 126 424
adultero 126 Andronikos III Palaeologos, emperor
adultery 90, 126, 139-140, 156, 166 424,456
adversarius 143 angel 519
aedificare 75 Anglo-Sax 101, 110, 117, 138, 162,
aedifitio 75 172, 174
Aegean Sea 374 ango 154
aerikon 410-411 Anna Comnena 295,297, 300,309
aes 411 anointed 86, 114-115, 223
Africa 363, 515 anointment 114, 223
aga 385 Anonymous Homily 12, 18, 47, 197
agazonum et stabuli praefectus 338 Ansbertus 370
agazonum magister alias co miss 338 Antioch, town 504
ager 100 Antiquity 10, 187 a 5, 250, 275, 315,
aktemonitikion 416, 492 497, 504, 518
alagator 378-380, 455 aplekton 436, 437
alagion 378 apocryphon 350
Albania 188-189, 322 apodochator 27, 461, 464-465, 471-472
Albanian 39, 92, 114, 118-119, 144, apodochia 412, 464-465, 472
171, 177, 188-189, 199, 360, 467 apokrisiarios 486
Alexander, sebastocrator 279, 281, 298, apostle 227, 337, 502
302 apostolic 362, 502, 521
Alexander eel Bun/Alexander the Good applicatum 122, 436
(prince of Moldavia) 323, 468 Arabic 149, 495-496
Alexander the Great 238, 239 Aramaic 145
Alexandria 108, 238, 239, 504 Arbanashka 360
Alexandrine Library 243 Archangel Gabriel 191
Alexias 295, 300, 309 Archangel Michael 29
Alexis, sebastos from Stenimachos 312 archbishop 28, 510
Alexis I Comnenos, emperor 276, archbishopric 83
295-296, 300, 303, 306, 309, 326, 342, Archbishopric ofOchrid 395,414
356 Archiereus 28
Alexis III Angelos, emperor 296 archont 272
Alexis Slav, despot 24, 54, 104, 149, archypresbyter 125
151, 229, 279-282, 292, 294, 334, 407, argentum 142
433 ariko 409-411
Ali <;a~ from Sofia 458 aristocracy 29, 38, 152, 193, 205, 250,
aliegena 78 258,262,295,304-305,319,368-369
all-faithful 217 Ark of the Covenant 255
540 INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
140, 142, 145, 158, 161-162, 164, lord 8, 31, 36, 54, 58, 158, 195,
166, 170-171, 175, 184-203, 205-207, 215-216, 271-272, 275-276, 279, 285,
216, 218, 223-224, 260-262, 264, 273, 293, 296, 358, 370, 416, 446, 490-494,
278-279, 333, 362, 365, 373, 390, 394, 498
397-398, 401, 417, 421, 430, 432, 460, Lord God 51, 53-54, 75, 220
493, 499, 501, 503-510, 517-520 loros 225, 285, 288
Law Code of tsar Stephen Dusan 343, Lovech, town 38, 292
421,439,445-446,450,452,492 lucrum 121
Law for Judging the People 3, 5-6, Ludovic 283
18-19, 83, 156, 173, 175, 195-198, luere 110
206,269,361,366-367,396,490
Law for the koumerk 417 Macedonia 22-23, 54, 239, 307, 340,
Law for the ~ahinct and faktrct of the 364, 370, 381-382, 424, 475, 495
sancak (district) ofVidin 458 Macedonian 239
Lazar Brankovic 277 Macedonian dynasty 345, 376
Lebedia 361 magister agazonum 338
legatus 97 magister mensarum 335
legislator 71 Magna Charta Libertatum 205
legitimus 72 magnus provisor 318
Leo III, emperor 249 Magyar 400, 418
Leo VI the Wise, emperor 312, 452 major-domo 316
Leon 362 Malachi 242
Lettish 33, 39-40, 46-47, 52, 61-62, Malalas, John, chronicler 83, 249
70, 76, 82, 92, 114, 116, 133, 141-142, malefactor 75
145-146, 149, 164, 167, 169-171 Manichaean 511-512
leul pe bute 416 manifestatio 103
Leviticus 196 Mannus 167
lex 71 mantle 301
liber 134 Mantzik.ert, town 374, 376
libertas 134 Manuel Asen, despot 300
libra 165 Manuel I Comnenos, emperor 236,
Libri Basilicorum 493 276
limes Romanus 512 Manuel Philos, Byzantine writer 301
List of the Bulgar Princes 218, 221 marginal note 17, 26, 210 n. 4, 423
Lithuania 38, 333 Mark 51, 192, 234
Lithuanian 39, 46-48, 52-53, 55, 61, marriage 38, 68, 91, 98, 112, 122, 166,
63, 65, 70-71, 76, 82, 92, 111, 114, 176-177,197-198,235,284
116, 133-134, 136, 141-142, 145, 152, marscalcus 318
157, 163-164, 167, 169-171, 177-178 marshal 355
littera 109 martolos 455
liturgical 138, 202, 216 n. 16, 223, martyr 95, 127
256-257, 302, 312, 503, 508-510, 516 master 81, 124, 194, 233, 271-272,
Liturgik.on 138 275-276,491-493,495-497
liturgy 89, 196, 502, 509 matrimony 38, 112, 119, 122, 131, 166,
locus 95 168, 170, 176-178, 235, 507
logoflt de taina 347 Matthew 234
logothete(s) 51, 89, 269, 306, 324, Matthew Basarab, prince ofWalachia
340-344,348,450,466,468 385
logothete of the vestiaria 324, 468 Matthew Ninoslav, ban of Bosnia 348
logothete tou Dromou 450 mechenosha 274, 349, 351-353
logothetehood I logothetstvo 342 Mediterranean 145, 165, 189, 192, 213,
London Gospel 232-235, 240, 245, 489, 516
279, 285, 287-288 megas doux 63
552 INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
Mourtagon, khan 259 oblast 101, 271 n. 16, 360, 372 n. 319
Mraka chrysobull 19, 310-311, 375, obshtina 264
399,402-403,412,433-434,442, obshtinski 264
445-449,468,470,475,477,486-487, obventio 61, 401
494 occidere 145, 193 n. 12
mulcta 53 occupatio 104
A!undSchenk 332 Ochrid, town 83, 166, 301, 395, 414,
M urfatlar 20 496
Musina, village 129, 476 Octavian Augustus, emperor 308
Muslim(s) 98, 191, 290, 372, 506 odaba~t 324
Mutimir 481 Odartsi, village 20
mystikos 271 nn. 13, 14, 340, 345-347 Oecumene 214, 224
mythopoetical 518 ojfikion 466
Ognyan, sebastos 311-312, 371
nachalnik 271-272, 365 oikomodion 408-409, 412-414,417,499
nachalo 271-272 Old High German 52, 61, 65, 70
Nagy-Szent-Mikl6s 366, 367 n. 295 Old Testament 190, 194, 196, 213, 220,
nahiye 480 223-224, 233, 239, 241-246
nahodnik 486 Orner Avni 458
namestnik 273 Omourtag, khan 210, 259, 362
nametak(s) 427, 440-442, 459, 484-485 Oration on Heresy 12, 19, 496
Narration of Isaiah 350 ordination 49
nastoinik 271, 273 ordo 152, 271, 299, 304, 314-315, 317,
navy 355-357 319, 325
negligentia 97 Oreshak, village 21
Nehemiah 256 Oriakhovo, town and village 10, 494
Nemanides 222, 296 Orkhon, river in Mongolia 186
Nemanja, Stephen 296 orphan 130, 136, 489
nemets 183 Orthodox 4-5, 75, 102, 120, 192, 202,
Neophyte 100, 201 234-235, 260 n. 127, 262, 284, 290,
Nevsha, village 23 311, 314, 340, 390, 398, 435, 499,
New Rome 221, 237, 262, 520 502-504, 506-507, 511, 516, 520-521
New Testament 234, 241, 243, 506 Orthodoxy 120,234,240,243,504,514
Nicaea 37, 226, 280, 296, 335, 501 Osman family 220
Nicephorus III Botaniates, emperor Osmanli(s) 136, 214, 247, 265, 371,
309,326 385n. 362,386,391
Nicephorus, patriarch 252 Osmar, village 23
Nicephorus Melissenos 295 Ossetian 88, 94
Nicetas Choniates 348, 355 otrok 416, 488, 490-495
Nicholas 1st, Pope 192-193, 257 otrotzinalotrochina 416-417, 490, 492
Nicopolis, town 341, 371 Ottoman 29, 45, 73, 85, 136, 291, 324,
ni~anct 340-341 340, 364, 371, 379, 381, 384-386, 407,
nobelissimus 304, 315, 319 415 n. 115, 435 n. 217, 454, 478, 481,
nobiltty 29, 38,193,250,262,466 483, 486, 496
Nomocanon 8, 519 Ottoman Empire 220, 324 n. 160, 363,
norma 119-120 371, 407, 455, 457-458, 469, 479-481,
Norman 287 486 n. 446
Norway 350 Ovchepole 101
Notitia Dignitatum 315 ox, oxen 73, 75, 132, 397, 406-407,
Novgorod, town 26 417, 447, 449-450
novice 117
Numbers 26, 196, 367, 456 Pachymeres, George 354-355
nuntius 77, 97 padalishte 436-437, 443-444, 447
nuptials 38, 68, 176 Padishah 324
554 INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
pagan 1, 3, 40, 44, 52, 65, 71, 76, 112, patriarch 51, 109, 123, 247, 271, 291,
123, 171, 174, 192, 198, 208, 210-213, 299, 365, 510
218, 243, 258-259, 275, 305, 363, 369, Patriarchy 148
504, 519 patrimonium 31, 37, 64, 346
paganus 112, 171 patrimony 31, 61, 91, 138, 163, 430
paharnig 332 Paul Claudiopolites, metropolitan of
paharnik 331 Melenikon 54, 104, 151
paharnok 332 Pax Romana 242
palace 43, 153, 230-231, 242, 263, Pazardzhik, town 21, 351
269-270, 312-314, 317-320, 371, 456, pechat 207, 228
481 Pechenegs 136,252 a 95,385
palace curator 269-270, 314, 317, Peloponnesus 372
319-320 pen 29,84,426-428, 429a 193
Palaeologos 283, 290, 296, 306-307, penal 13, 33, 35-36, 44-45, 47, 52-55,
330-331, 335, 346, 355-356, 374, 424, 64-65, 67, 71, 75-78, 80-81, 90, 95,
456 99, 101, 105, 114, 120, 124, 126-127,
Palaeologos dynasty 282-283, 317, 145, 161, 164, 166, 170-173, 189, 319,
330, 335, 346, 356, 374 389, 398, 507
Palaeoslavic 31-33, 36, 38-45, 47-54, penitence 32, 36, 83, 99, 118, 197
58, 60, 62, 68, 70-72, 78-79, 81-82, penitential 44-45, 48, 78, 126
84-88, 90-92, 94-114, 116-125, 127, Pera, Genoese colony 419
129-137, 139, 141-146, 148-149, peribrachia 301
152-154, 157, 161-177, 179-181, 209, Pernik, town 21
266, 329, 366, 520 perper 414-416, 418, 436, 439, 473-474
palatinus 318-319 perpera 343,408,414
palatium 315 perperak 414-416,461,473-474
Palauzov (Spyridon Palauzov and Persia 66
Palauzov's copy of the Synodikon) Persian 66, 73, 85, 88, 136, 153, 231,
26, 49-50, 52 247,384-385,433,495-496
Palestinian 89 person 4, 11, 30, 33, 36, 38, 40, 43,
palitsa 208, 225 47, 55-57, 59, 63-65, 67, 71, 74, 82,
panate 171 86, 98, 103, 113, 117, 120, 122, 124,
Panegyric forSt Dimitrios ofThessalonica 129, 134, 136, 147, 155, 162-165, 169,
374 173, 179, 183, 188, 197, 212, 215-218,
panis 148 231-232,237,262-263,267,269,274,
Pannonia 519, 521 289, 293-294, 310-311, 316, 320, 322,
Pannonian 174 331, 334, 339, 340, 341, 347-348, 352,
papa 108,227 a 37,336 367-371, 379, 383, 387, 414, 417, 466,
papacy 290 469,472,474-476,480,487-488,491,
papal 194 507, 509-512
paraggareia 261 433-434, 443, 446 pesjaks 444
pclrct'.Uab 386, 389 Pesnivets 232, 234-235, 241
paroikiatikon 416 Peter, tsar and saint 219, 227, 236,
paroikos 45, 108, 115, 407, 409, 417, 314, 396
433,438,488,491-495,497-498 Peter, sebastocrator 281, 298-299, 302,
paroikos-aktemon 417 401,432
paroikos-boodatos 417 Peter, logothete 341
paroikos-zeugaratos 417 Peter Deljan, tsar 253, 363
Parvomaj, town 21 petitio 125
parvoprestolen 513 pharaoh 242-243
pascere 108 Philip, logothete 344, 466
Paterikon 328, 350 Philip, priest 232, 236
PAtnluti. village 240 philochrist I philochristus 149
INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES 555
Phllos, Manuel 301 priest 28, 39, 44, 52, 71, 76, 79, 99,
Phllotheus 304, 316, 320, 334, 354, 382 106-107, 116, 121, 135, 172, 212-213,
Phocas, emperor 249 232, 236, 497, 512
Phrygian 73 priesthood 115, 134, 505
pincerna 306, 317, 331-333, 334 n. 191 Prilep, town 307
pious 217, 224, 233, 236, 243 primicerius 88, 122
pisets 461, 471 primmicerius 122, 265, 269, 306,
pittakia 34, 43, 125, 138, 291 nn. 53-54, 326-328, 331, 379
292 n. 55, 299 primmikirios 265
planina 110, 423-425 prince 13, 62, 88, 132, 165, 193-195,
plebs 110 209, 211, 218, 221, 219, 227, 252
pleo 110 n. 95, 266, 273, 276, 316, 318, 324,
Pleven, town 19 331-332, 338, 345, 367-368, 385, 419
Pliska, town 21, 23 n. 138, 446, 468
Plovdiv, town 21, 23, 387, 478 n. 431 princeps 88
pobirchia 265, 400, 477 Principality (-ties) 2, 5, 39, 88-89,
podvoadA 113,449 214-215, 225, 248, 304, 318-319, 323,
podvod 448 332-333, 335-337, 343-344, 348, 376,
podvoda 443,447,449 378, 380-381, 385-386, 416, 418, 430,
Poland 332-333, 363 446, 454, 462, 467-468, 476 n. 426,
police 40, 144, 376, 388-390, 433, 455, 486
459,460 Principate 303
Polish 318, 387, 468 principium 272
polytheism 212 priplata 402
pomazan 223 priselitsa 408, 435-439, 444
pomazanie 151, 223 prison 73, 145
ponos 448 privilege 121, 326, 396, 420, 422, 431,
Pontlfex 149, 227 453
pop 115, 497, 512 privilegium 121
pope 149, 227, 290, 510 Procopius of Caesarea 275
popoviani 115, 497-498 prodltor 126
populus 154 Promised Land 191
Porphyrogennetus 30, 116, 226, 361 property 8-9, 31, 36, 53, 58, 61, 71,
possessio 141 74, 77, 89, 98, 100, 102, 108-110,
post 70, 95, 128, 341, 448, 454, 481, 119, 121, 130, 138, 140-142, 174-175,
513 309, 346, 371, 394, 408, 420, 423-425,
postelnic 355 444-445,493
postoy 435 prophet 191, 241, 246
potca 119 prosecutor 154
potestas 44, 101, 275 prostagma 228, 342
povar 461, 486 protalagator 379
praefectus 323, 336, 338, 364, 468 protekdikos 124
praktor(s) 377-378, 461, 470, 474 protolerakarios 456, 480
predel 359-360 protokeliot 357, 358
prefect 133 protokelliotes 269
prelate 28, 43, 76, 293 protopapas 512
Preljub 303 protopop 125
presbyter 41, 47-48, 76, 116, 121, 127, protopresbyter 124-125, 512
155, 172, 496, 503, 512, 514 protopriest 124
Preslav, town 21, 23, 51, 202, 221, 314, protosebastos 268, 305-308, 320
351 nn. 243, 245, 367, 509, 521 protospatharios 274, 349, 351, 354
Prespa, town 19 protostrator 269, 354-355, 382
Pribo, sebastos and protosebastos 305, protothronos 513
308, 312 protovestiarion 324
556 INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
Rus' 219, 400, 461 Second Bulgarian Empire 3, 31, 38, 74,
Rusalii 387 208, 238, 250, 267 n. 6, 275, 280, 317,
Russe, town 23 328, 333, 361, 375, 377, 391, 398, 471,
Russia 5, 38, 214, 237, 269, 357 n. 265 480,498-499
Russian 6, 31, 40-41, 47, 58, 90, 94-95, Second Ecumenical Council 501
106, 139, 154, 166, 202, 210-211, 244 secretarius 271, 345, 347
n. 68, 249, 254, 269, 352, 364, 367, secretary 324, 340, 346-348, 468
387-388, 400, 410 segbanlar 457
Ruyno 21 sejm 205, 394
Seldjuk 270
Sabaoth 239n. 60,241 Semalto, village 9
Sabin, khan 251, 252 senar 445-446,461,485-486
sacerdos 79 Senate 41, 221, 231, 246-250, 339
sacrament(s) 86, 235, 290 n. 49, senator(s) 231, 248-250
502-503, 506, 507 senex 138
sacrifice 70, 118, 179, 394 senokos 445
sagbanlar 481 sentinel 40, 139, 384
~ahinc1 458, 480 Septuaginta 243
sailor 84 seraphim 502
samodrzhets 214-215 serasker 385
Samuel, tsar 215, 242, 255, 395-396, serbazdaran 480
414, 499 Serbia 2, 5, 9, 24-25, 38, 41, 55, 69, 85,
san 265,270 98, 119, 125, 134-135, 214, 216, 222,
sancakbeg 459 247,268,273,277-278,284-285,287,
Sanskrit 32-33, 46-47, 50-52, 55, 58, 290, 292-294, 296, 299, 303, 307-309,
61, 62, 70, 74, 76, 92, 94-95, 99-100, 311, 317, 319, 322-323, 325, 333,
111, 113-114, 116, 134, 152-153, 335-336, 342-344, 355-356, 364-365,
157-158, 162, 166-170, 173, 179 370, 372, 374, 376-377, 379, 381-382,
satrap 370 389, 399, 400, 402-406, 415, 417-418,
Savet 247 420, 424, 426-428, 435-436, 440,
Saviour 223, 227, 234, 238, 244, 502, 444-446, 450, 452, 454, 456-457,
506 461-463,467,469-470,474-476,
Saxon 128, 147, 154, 266-267, 370, 495 478-479,484,486,491,493-494
Scandinavian 400 Serbian 2, 7, 9, 31, 39, 41, 61, 69, 80,
sceptre 70, 107, 136, 141, 208, 225, 85, 87, 110, 117, 150, 215, 238, 245,
227, 240, 287-288, 307, 317, 322, 247, 268 n. 7, 272, 276-278, 286, 290,
326-327, 331, 335, 467 292, 294, 296, 301, 303, 304-305, 307,
seep tru m 136 309, 318, 321-322, 331, 335, 340,
Schatzmeister 323, 468 348, 357-358, 366, 369, 370, 372-373,
Schism 131 376-377, 382, 403, 405, 409, 413,
schole 382 419-421, 423-426, 429, 435, 438-443,
scribere 130 444 n. 261,448,452,460,467,470,
scriptor 56 472-473, 475-479, 481, 483-485,
Scylitzes, John 211, 252, 395, 414 490-491, 493, 496
Scythia Minor 293-294, 367 serdar(s) 265, 270, 384-386, 443
seal(s) 11, 21, 26, 72, 74, 89, 109, 218 Serenissima Respublica 63
n. 18, 228-229, 242, 293, 305 n. 94, Serenissima Signoria 63
334 n. 192, 341, 343-344, 351, 352, Sergius, comestabulus 336, 339
353 Serres, town 9, 38
sebastocrator 54, 58, 135, 268, 275, ser~ahinc1 480
277, 279, 281, 294-305, 312-313, 320, servi casaN 492
401,432 servo 149, 180
sebastos 24, 135, 268, 295, 297, servus 106
307-312, 320, 371, 373, 376 Sextus lulius Africanus 248, 255-256
558 INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
445,447-450,453,459,462-463, 404,407,409,415,425-426,439,
470-471,474-476,478,480,484-486, 446-447,449,461-462,464,467-469,
490,492,497 473-476,483-484
Virgino chrysobull 7, 9, 19, 69, 74, warfare 45
98, 310, 311, 325, 370-371, 373, 375, warrior 45, 112, 132, 235, 238, 371
377, 380-383, 387, 389, 399, 400-403, watacha 387
405-406,408-410,412-414,419-420, wataha 387
423-424, 426-431, 433, 438, 441, 445, widow 51
447-450,453,459,462-463,470-471, witch 52
475-476,478,484-485,490,492,497 witness 81, 117, 133, 140, 172, 177,
vis 96 196-197,247
vistierie 462 wreath 223, 225
vistiernic 323, 468 wysthernik 323, 468
vita 100
Vitosha chrysobull 10, 19, 107, 371, Yanuka, ban 478
373, 378, 383-384, 386, 403, 439, 443, yeni yeri 486
445,447,470,473,475,478,485 Yugoslav 287, 300, 348
Vitosha Mountain 10
Vladimir, sebastos 312 Zajecar, town 24
Vladimir-Rasate, khan 209, 251 Zechariah, prophet 242
Vladislav, despot 294 zemlya 359-360
Vladislav Grammatik 370 Zeno, Marino 279
Vladislav Milutinovic 322 Zeta 356
Vladko, sebastocrator 301 zeugar(s) 45, 405
vlast 151, 272 zeugaratikion 406-407, 412, 440
vlastel 271-272 zeugari 407, 450
voevoda 46, 216, 269-270, 274 n. 21, zeugarion 395
323, 360-365 zeugologion 406-407
Voisil, despot 284, 294, 302 zevgar 406
Vojhna, kesar 303 zevgelie 406
vojnuk(s) 379, 455 IL 315 zhitar(s) 439-440, 461, 482-483
Volga, river 387 zhitarstvo 397, 406, 422-423, 439-440,
volober 405 441,450,482-484
volobershtina 397, 405-406, 408, zhitnitsa 464
413-414,427,436,440-441 zhupa 69-70,265,270,370
vornic 318 zhupan(s) 69-70, 265, 270, 296,
voynuks 455 365-371
Vrana 356 zhupania 370
Vratsa, town 24 zhupan-tarkan 367
VukaSin, king 277 Zlatostruj 231, 233, 243
Zletovo 101
Walachia 2, 38, 45, 66, 73, 79, 89, 92, Zographou Bulgarian History 471
108, 112, 136, 147, 214-216, 247-248, Zographou chrysobull 9, 19, 414, 422,
285, 318-319, 321-323, 325, 331-333, 439,440,450,452,482
335, 337-338, 340, 343-344, 348, 358, Zographou Monastery 422, 452
369, 380-381, 385-386, 388-389, 399,
GREEK INDEX
&ppa 27 uva:cpepro 49
&ya:9oefY'(eaia: 34 &.vecrts; 12 5
uya:96v 33 uveu1topoc; 168
&ya:J.Loc; 99, 148 uviJp 167
uyya:peia: 66, 433 n. 208 and 209, 434 UVOJ.l.O<; 56
n. 210 UV'tlJ.l.l'ta:'ttKtOV 435
uyya:peoeiv 66 aV'ttma'tTJ <; 14 3
&yya:pos; 66 UV'ttbtKO<; 14 3
aria 1s1 al;ia: 275
uyvoia: 157 U1ta:pVEoJ.l.O:l 170
uyopti 145 a1ta:'taro 90
uyopa~ro 87, 162, 164 uJtetpia: 168
liyopos; 107 u1teA.a:aia: 160
ayxro 154 a1teA.a:uvro 160
&.yro 361 a1teAru9epoc; 177
&.Bwxv 433 n. 209 fi1tATJK'tOV 122,436
uBui~eo~os 168 a1tay pa:cprus 11 o
uBuiA.mos; 168 uJtobtroKro 176
aei 123 uJtoBoxa'trop 27
ueptx6v 28, 132, 144 a1toboxfl 465
u~iJJ.Lto<; 155 u1toB6xwv 27,465,472
O:t!J.OJ.l.t~a:t 164 U1tOKa:9ta'tTJJ.l.l 158
a:'tpecrts; 67 u1toKa:'tama:crts; 171, 180
a:ipenx6s; 67 u1toxoup01ta:A.a'tTJs 317
a:iaxp6tTJ<; 32 &1toxptataptoc; 28, 77
a:t'tTJJ.l.O: 125 U1tOA.eA.UJ.l.EVTJ 129
a:i'tia: 156, 42 a1toA.uro 105-106, 170
a:ix¢A.OYto<; 171 U1tOJ.l.l'tO:'ttKtOV 435
UKtVTJ'tO<; 98 a1topero 163
UKpDU'tTJ<; 172 a1totivew 110
UK'tTJJ.l.OVt'ttKtOV 416 upyopopooA.A.to<; A.6yoc; 229 n. 46
UK'tiJJ.LroV 41 7 aprup6s 142
uA.a:ya'trop 27 upxero 159
aA.A.6'tpws 160-161, 167, 181 &poupa; 100
aU6qroA.os 78 &.p-to<; 148
&.A.oyov 378 UPXetV 101
aJ.L1teA.c:Ov 156 apxiJ 97, 272
UVO:"(VcOa'tTJ <; 27 upxtmtcrK01tO<; 28
uva:yprupru<; 11 0 aPXtepapxos 28
uva:BiBroJ.Lt 158 UPXtepa:'truoV'to<; 433 n. 209
uva:tpero 179 uPXtepeus; 28
uva:ipecrt<; 131 UPXlJ.l.O:VbphTJ<; 29
UVO:t<JJCI)V'tO<; 32 uPXtcr'tpa:ny6s; 29
uva:xa:ivroats; 10 1 fiPXOJ.l.O:l 156
UVO:~OptK6<; 150 fiPXro 132
uva~rop 150 UPXOOV 43-44,88,97,132,156-157,
UVO:J.l.UP'tTJ'tO<; 32 160, 165, 272, 361 n. 274, 365, 367
&va:cpa:ipe'to<; 99 n. 300
564 GREEK INDEX
pill; 85 cruatpc:mc&tT\c; 62
pfrtmp 133 crxit!J.a: 139
ptvoK61ttiD 180 crm!J.a: 176
pw6c; 180
p&yu 169 ta:~uMptoc; 160, 367 n. 300
taA.a:vtov 142
:Ea:P<lStoe; 134 tal;tc; 32-33, 152, 155
cre~atoKpatmp 135,277,299 't!X1tEtv6t; 138
cre~a:atoc; 135,295,306,308-309 tatum 144
LE!J.EA.T\ 73 'tEKVOV 160
crt-y{Utov 229, 433 teA.oc; 57
crtta:plcia: 68, 425, 439-440 -r£xv11 144, 495
crttapKWtc; 440 't£XVT\'tUPT\t; 144, 495
crua:pKtcr!J.6c; 440 'tT\tam 144
auapxia 440 'tt!J.Tt 181
crttaPXoc; 68 'tlVID 113, 152
crh01) 69 'tt91'\!J.t 65, 89, 162, 341
crK'i11ttpov 70, 136 't01ttK6t; 115
mcrtJt't(J) 136 t61t0c; 95, 161, 167, 359
ari>A.oc; 172 tpa1te~a: 334
cr!J.ilvoc; 257 tcreMyya:c; 364
cr1ta:9aptoc; 92, 350 'tU1ttK6V 144
crta:crta~(J) 254 tu1ttm 179
ataatc; 254 tuq>Mm 175
crtE!J.~ 73 'tiDUp'tiDUV!X 1t1'\l.,e ~ID1t!XV 367
crtepym 139
crtE<pa:voc; 52,225 \S1ta:vSpoc; 167
crtE<pm 52 {)1tUPXIDV 60
crtpa't1'\Y6c; 46, 361, 363 l)1tEpftq>avoc; 154
crtpana 361 uitEPJtupaKtc; 473
crtpa:t6c; 139, 361 u1tEp1tupov 109,414-415
crtpatmp 139 U1t1'\peaia: 130, 137-138, 277
cruyyevftc; 154 u1toypaq>ew 113
cruyyiyvo!J.a:t 173-17 4 u1t68emc; 165
m)YKeUoc; 144 U1tOM!J.~UV(J) 99
auYKA.T\ttK6t; 83, 249 u1tovo8eum 174
:EuYKA.T\tOt; 249 uJt6ata:crtc; 163
au~u-yia: 177-178 u'l'tMc; 43
au~uy6c; 141 u'l'lMta:toc; 125, 217
cru!J.~a:crV.eUc; 295 U'lf6ID 49
crTI!J.~liDV 166
cru~uA.it 252 q>a:vepmmc; 1o3
cru!J.~uMa: 178 lp!Xp!J.!XKEta 45
au !J.~ouA.tov 178 q>E~Of.J.!Xt 145
cruva;ymyit 140,256 q>epm 76
cruv&A.A.a:r!J.a: 17 6 q>Seipmv 160, 173
:EuveSpmv 256 q>tA.Oxptcrtoc; 149
aUVEbpoc; 256 q>Mym 33
cruvit811c; 103 q>6~c; 145
cruvoSia: 62 q>6voc; 47, 145, 147
cruvoSoc; 256 q>opoA.oyia: 61
cruvotKecrtoc; 166 q>6poc; 147
cruvopov 136 q>ocrcratoc; 157
cruvta:yf.J.a: 146, 256 q>pftyYU!J.t 102
570 GREEK INDEX
27, 514
1>.1!:1!:.\ RAA.roH~B:OAGHHif 34
A.EfHKOC 132 RAA.rOCAOB:GC'I'B:H'I'H 34
MA.rA.'I'Ofb. 27, 378 RAA.rOCAOB:H'I'H 34
A.HA.rHOC'M. 27 RAA.rOCAOB:AifHHif 34
A.nO,A.OXA.'I'Ofb. 27, 471-472 RAA.ro'I'B:OfH'I'H 34
A.nOAOXHA. 27, 464 RAA.ro~ b.C'I'Hif 35
A.nOAOXH~b. 472 RAA.ro~b.C'I'HB:'l>IH 35, 217, 292
A.nOKfHCH~'l> 28 RAMIEH'l> 123
A.fHKO 28, 132, 144, 409 RA~H'I'H 35, 139-140, 155
A.fXHGn HCKOn'l> 28, 510 RA~'l> 36,71
A.fXHEfA.fX'l> 28 ~b.HHK'l> 36
A.fXHEfEH 28, 29 IWI'\ltiAEH Hlf 36
A.fXHEfEHC'I'B:O 29 RAIOC'I'H 35, 459
A.fXHMA.HAfH'I"l> 29, 514 RO rA.'I''II'I'H 37
A.fXHC'I'fA.'I'Hr'l> 29 ROrA.'I'H~HIJib. 36
ROrA.'I"l> 36-37, 102
RA.rA.HH'l> 29,225-226 ROrA.'I'b.C'I'B:O 37, 156
RA.rf'l> I 30
RA.r'l>f'l> &oroiH'l> 29
RA.rf'IIHH11.A. 30, 225-226 ROroRO~Hb.H'l> 37, 217
RA.rf'IIHOfOAb.H'l> 30, 223 ROroB:'IIHb.~A.Hb.H'l>IH 37, 236
RMWA. 356 ROI'OAA.H'l> 37
RA.H'l> 31 ROroAIORHB:'l> 37, 218
RA.IJIHHA. 31 ROroHA.fG~GH'l> 37, 217
RG~A.KOHb.HHK'l> 31 ROroHM "'f'I'A.H'l> 37, 217
RG~A.KOH b.H'l> 31 ROrOHOCb.H'l> 37
RE~RI»Kb.H'l> 31 &oroC'l>nA.Cb.H'l> 38, 218
RE~rf'IIW b.H'l> 32 &oroo~rOAb.HO 38
RE~~HCA'l>H'l> 237 ROr'l> 31, 36, 37-38, 102
RGC'I'~Ab.H'l> 32 ROliiH 356
RGC'I' Ab.C'I'B:O 32 ROA'IIfHH'l> I ROA'IIf'l> 38, 249, 289
RGC% b.H'l>IH 32 ROA'IIfKA. 38
REC'l>B:'IIA 'II'I'EAb. 140 RO~HH'l> KUG'I"l> 83
REC'l>B:'IIC'I'b.H'l> 32 RO~HH'l> KOUH'I''l> 83
RGC'l>'l"l>IJIG'I'A. 155 RO~E, ROI"b.j)'l>l 249
RGIJIHHA. 32 ROtb.'I'H 37
RGIJIHHHif 33 RfA.K'l> 38, 39
REIJIHHb.HHK'l> 155 RfA.H H'I'H 38, 48
REIJIHHb.HH11.A. 32, 155 RfA.H b. 38, 156
RGIJib.C'I'B:OB:A.'I'H 33 RfA.'I'H 33, 38, 400
RGIJib.C'I'Hif 33 RfA.~b.Hb. 39
RHfOK'l> 399 RfOMfHHA. 429
RHf'l>K'l> 33, 111, 265, 396, 399, 477 RfOAH'I'H 39
RHfb. 400, 477 RfOA'l> 39, 429
RAA.ro 33 RfOAb.HHHA. 39, 429
RAA.roB:'IIHb.~A.H'l>IH 34, 217 Rf'IIB:'IIAErH 121
RAA.roB:'IIfb.H'l> 34, 217-218, 236 R'l>~EAA. 245
RAA.I'OAA.'I'b. 34 R'l>~EAA.fb. 129
RAA.rOA 'lltb.H Hlf 34 R'llrA.'I'H 119, 121
572 OLD CYRILLIC INDEX
111!,A.o\ 39 I!:A'l>eHII'\TH 44
111!,A.HTH, ll'tiii,<VI'\ 39, 111 I!:A'l>)I:I!:OI!:o\HHif 44
111!,A.b.H'l> 39 I!:A'l>)l:l!:'l> 44,45
G'IIAb.IH 39 I!:A'l>Wb.Go\ 45
G'IIAb.U,b. 39, 512 I!:O,A.HTH 45, 95, 112, 361
I!:Olii,A,b. 45
1!:.\j)b.fb. 39, 383 I!:OHHo\ 157
1!:.\j)HTH 40, 111, 384 I!:OHHOI!:O,A,b.U.b. 45
1!:.\j)OI!:o\TH 384 I!:OHHb.eTI!:O 45-46, 312
1!:.\j)THTH 170 I!:OHH'l> 45
1!:.\j)'l>l!:o\f'l> 40 I!:OHeiCo\ 45
l!:b.fb.HH~HH 40, 488 I!:OAHTH 77
1!:1\To\ro\ 388 I!:OAOGGfb.IJIHHo\ 45, 405
l!:o\To\Uo\H'l> 388 I!:OAb.H'l> 46
l!:o\To\)l:'l> 40, 387 I!:IWA. 46, 77, 157
I!:GICb.HHICb. 40, 256 I!:OfHHICb. 318
I!:GAHICH 111\Hb. KfMGI!:eiCH 370 1!:~ 361
I!:GAHICH I!:HeTi.\j) 370 I!:Oifl!:o\TH 46
318
I!:GAHK'iH ,A,I!:OfH'l>IH es,A,'io\ I!:OIIii!:O,A.o\ 46, 157, 165, 360, 361
I!:GAHK'iH eb.Kj)OI!:HWHHICb. 323, 468 l!:fb.r'l> 46-47
I!:GAHIC'l> 40, 46, 63, 150, 233, 234, 237, l!:fb.lllb.Ao\ 47, 157
356, 386 l!:fo\lllb.,A,GGHHIC'l> 157
I!:GAHIC'l> I!:Oifi!:O,A.o\ 46 l!:fb.Ho\ 356
I!:GAHIC'l> A""rli 356 l!:fb.THTH 48, 158
I!:GAHK'l> eGfAb.fb. 386 l!:fb.~"' 47
I!:GAH~b.eTI!:O 40 l!:fG,A,HTH 157
I!:GAb.H 41 l!:f"'IA'l> 47, 157
I!:GAb.UII'\lll'l> 41 l!:eG~b.eTb.H'l>IH 153
I!:GA"'ITH 41, 46, 72, 111, 156 l!:e"'ll!:"'lfb.H'l> 217
I!:G~G 40-41 l!:'l> I!:AMTb. G'l>ll!:o\~ 156
I!:GIJib. 42, 156 l!:'l.,A,o\TH 48
I!:H,A,GTH 100, 133 l!:'l>lllo\ro\TH 157
I!:HHo\ 42, 99, 156, 169 l!:'l>~o\ICOHHTH IK'l>~o\ICOH~TH 48, 158
I!:HHb.fH~b.fb. 484 l!:'l>~Gfo\HHTH I l!:'l>~Gfo\H~TH 48
I!:HHb.fH~H IKHHo\j)H~BA'l> IKHHb.fH% 484 l!:'l>~l!:fb.THTH 158
I!:HHb.fb. 42, 484 l!:'l>~l!:f"'IIJI H 48
I!:HHO 42 l!:'l>~I!:HSo\TH I l!:'l>~I!:HrHII'\TH 48
I!:HHOrfA,A,'l> 156 l!:'l>~f~HTH 48
I!:HHb.H'l> 42 l!:'l>~"'II!:HTH 158
I!:HHb.H'l>IH Ho\UGTb.ICb. 484 l!:'l>~HUo\TH 48-49, 158
I!:HOOIC'l> 43, 299 l!:'l>~AOliiGHHif 49
I!:HeTH~HHIC'l> 323, 468 l!:'l>~AOliiGHHif fii'\K, 49
I!:HeTH~ I I!:Heb.~b. 43, 323, 468 l!:'l>~HGeTH 49
I!:AA,A.Mb.U.b. 43, 101 l!:'l>K3no&Olllb.H'l> 49
I!:AA,A.o\HHG 43 l!:'l>K nonf"'leTOAb.H'l> 49
I!:AA,A.'l>I!Co\ 43, 156, 233, 237 l!:'l>K noeAo\l!:b.H'l> 49
I!:AA,A.'l>I~HU.o\ 43 l!:'l>U H~TH 50
I!:AA,A.'l>l~b.eTI!:Hif 43, 44 l!:'l>nHeo\TH 50, 463
I!:AA,A.'l>l~b.eTI!:O 44 l!:'l>eGAGHMIC'l>IH 50
I!:AA,A."'ITH 44, 125 l!:'l>eGHb.fO~HT'l>IH 292
I!:AAeTGAHH'l> 44 l!:'l>enf"'ITHTH I 1!:7>enf111Jlb.TH 50
I!:AAeTGAb. 44 l!:'l>enfHbO.TH 50
I!:AAeTH 44 I!:~ITHTH IK'l>e)('l>IIJio\TH 50
I!:AAeTb. 44, 101, 156, 312 1!: 'l>eii'\A'l> 83
OLD CYRILLIC INDEX 573
~~'I!;~;;;~:
A a 373-374
.· 370
1Kfb.'I'Hif
IKan.\
IK n.\H'l>
IK
69. 366
n'-\7>
IKb. A'l>
76
69, 160,
366
70, 225
365, 366, 370
KO\ff'Z> 87 MOr~'l'b. 93
K'1.f..i~'I'H4J~ 164 1.10/\H'I'KA 303
K'1.1.1~'1''1. 265,269 MONM'I'Hf'l> I 91, 93, 514
MONM'I"1.1f'1.
K'l>I.IO'I'fo\ 1 K'l>I.IO'I'r 87, 165 MONM'I"1.1fb.CK'1. 91, 93
K'l>l.lb.'l'b.83, 16 MOH<l>.)(MIO&HK'l> 237
K'l>HHro\ 87-88,228,243 MOHo\)('1. 93, 514
K'l>HHrO/\IO&~LI,b. 244 MOfH'I'H 146, 180
K'1.H'Il7,'1. 273 1.10f7> 146
~n~'l'fo\ 165 I.IOC'I"1. 93, 453
Kvyonoho~>.'I'HCI> I K~yonMo~>.'I'HCI> 303, 315 MOC'I''l>HHHo\ 93, 453
K~f'l> 81 M04Jb. 115
M7>Ab.hOC'I'b. 94, 166
1\o\Kfo\ 88, 514 Mb.4Ao\ 94,166-167,496
1\HKb.Ao\ 89 l.lb.4Ab.HHK'1. 167
/\H'I'fo\ 165 1.1 b.C'I'H'I'~/\1> 94
/\H'I'O\ffrHtn 89 Mb.C'I'b. 94, 105, 167
hH)(O~I.I'IlHHhl I 1\H)(OHI.Ib.C'I'KO 89 Mb.C'I'b.HHK'l> 167
/\H)('l>89 M'llHIA'I'H 50
/\HLI,~ 165 M'llC'I'O 94, 115, 167, 359
MKH4J~ 89 1.1~<\'l'o\IA 167
Mr~'l''l> I Mrocp'"''l> 89, 90, 370 1.1~<\'I'HLI,o\ 95, 167
MlKH'I'H 100 1.1~'1. 41,95, 161,167
h7>ro~>.'I'H 101 M~Ko\ 95
/\b.C'I'H'I'H 90, 114, 126 M~%NHK'1. 95
1\b.C'I'b. 90, 165 I.I~~H'I'H 95
1\b.C'I'b.LI,b. 90
/\10&0,6. 'llHC'I'KO I 1\to&O,A.'lliAHHhl 90, 166 NAK'iHH'l>, IHCO\fC'l> 257
/\10&0,6. 'llHLI,o\ I 1\to&O,A.'llH 90 HAKO,A.H'I'H 95
1\to&O,A. 'llhb.No\ 245 NAKO,A.'l> 95
/\10&'1.1 90 Hb.A'l> 97
1\IO,A.H 90, 166, 494 No\HMb.NHK'l> 96,493,496
hto,A. b.CK'l>l H 166 No\Ko\:l,AHHhl 96
1\m~H'I'H 105, 131 No\Ko\:l,A'I'H 96
Ho\1.1 ~'1''1.K'1. 96, 441
Mo\r~NHLI,o\ 514 Ho~>.f~%Nb.Ho\o\ 161, 167
MM'l>lK~No\ I MM'1.lK~N'1. 166, 197 Ho\fOA'l> 96
I.IM'l>lK~HC'I'KO 90 Ho\fO~ H'l' H 167
I.I~JKAA 91 NMH/\Hhl 96-97
1.1~'1'~)(<\'I'H 91 HM/\'Il,A.H'I'H I NMh'll,A.OKo\'I'H 96-97, 223
I.I~'I'O)(HIA 91 NM/\'Il,A.b.HHK'l> 97
M~'I'O)('l> 91, 514 NM'I'AKHHK'l> 97
M~~~NOC~LI,'l> 350 NM'I'O/\b.NHK'l> 97
I.I~~OHOWo\ 91, 351 NM'I'OIA'I'H 97
~..~~~'1.1 1.11>~'1. 91 Ho\)(0,6.1>NHK'1. 97
I.IHMC'I'HK'l> 237 No\~~N'l>II.IH rfol>.,A.o\ 365
MHMC'I'b. 92, 356 No\~b.N~ 97, 154, 365
MH/\'1. 114 H~&f'lllK~NHhl 97
MHf'l> 138 H~&f'll4JH 97-98
1.1 Hfb.CK'l>IH 92 N~K'Il,A. 'llNHif 168
I.IH'I'o\'1''1.92,434,482 N~K'IllK,A.b.C'I'KHhl 98
I.IH'I'fOnO/\H'I"1. 93, 510 N~K'Ilfb.HHK'l> 98
MHH)('l> 93 N~K'Ilfb.H'l> 98
MNOrOrf'llWb.N'l> 56, 93 H~K'IlC'I'o\ 98
MOI'ih 41 H~,A.KHlKHM'l> 98
OLD CYRILLIC INDEX 577
I
~
C7>A 1lhl.'I'H 65 &H'I'H 0\f&Hitb.'I'H 145, 179
C'bKf01tH4J~ 141 &OH 145
C'bU~Wb.'I'H 141 0 &~r'b 179
C'bN~M'b 246,251,253,255-256 0~&'1liiiH4J~ 145
C'bH~U~HHK'b 256 O~KOfH7,N~H'b 145
C'bn.l.KOC'I'H'I'H 141 01KfM'I'H 164, 179
C'bnM.l.'I'H I C'bn.l.C'I'H 38 olMb.ftA'I'H I ,uopH'I'H 146, 180
c'bnymr'b 141 o1nOAO&H'I'H 127
C'bC'I'O/\~H HK'b 256 0 f~7,b.'I'H HOC'b 180
C'b'I'KOfH'I'H 156, 160 0 C'l'b.lt'b 146
C'b'l'fb.n~7,NHK 256 O~C'I'fO~HHh1 146, 180
C'beii\A'b 178 0 C'l'fOH 146
C'b%'1'<\HHI\1 178 0 C'l'fOH'I'H 146, 180
C'b%'1'<\'I'H 178 O~~Kb.'I'H U~~~U'b 180
C~f~&fO 142 0 'l'ltf'bAH'I'H 146
C~f~&f~HHK'b 142 0 'l'ltf'bi!IA~HH~ 241
C~AMH4J~ 142, 226 0 ~~HHK'b 146-147
C~A~'I'H 142 0 ~H'I'~/\~ 147
C~Hb.f~ 142, 485 O~~H'I'H 146-146
C~HO 142, 485
C~HO KOCH'I'H 485 cf.l.HrH'b/\'b 147
C~ NO KOC'b 142 ipoAHOr'b 147
Cii\AH'I'H 105, 143, 170 <poyoc'b 147
Cii\AH4J~ 143 <J>,H'b 147
Cii\AHIA 143, 178
Cii\A'b 143, 170, 178, 143 )Cb.f'I'ocp~AA/i'b 147
Cii\A~&HHA 143, 432 )1:/\.l.K'b 148
cmnoC'I'A'I"b 143, 178 )CI\~&'b 148
cmn~r~ 143, 178 )COAA'I'AH 148
cmn~f~HHK'b 143, 178 )COAA'I'AHC'I'ItO 148
C~rKAH'I"b I CHrKAH'I"b 246-247, 249, 250 )COAH'I'H 32, 61, 97, 148
~Hw..'b I ~rK~/\'b 144 )COfb. 148, 359
)COfmr'bl 148, 225
'l'.l.r~H 351 )CO'I'~'I'H I )C04Jm 119
'l'b.HHHK'b 270, 344-345 )CfAM'b 149, 180
'1'.1.'1'~ 84-85, 144 )CfAHH'I'~/\~ nOAA~ 303,314-315, 317,
'l'b.'l'~&b. 144 319-320
'l'itb.fHKO 144, 409 )CfAHH'I'H 149, 180
'l'ltOfH'I'H 155 )CfHCOKO\f/\'b 149, 228, 230
'I'Itf'l.A'b 118 )CfHC'I'O/\kl&Hit'b 149, 218, 236
'l'~n~'I'H 179
'I'~'I'H 119 U,Af~K'b 149
'I'~)CHH'I'b.f~ 144, 494 U.b.fHrf<\A'b I U.b.f~Krf.l.A'b 150
'I'HnHK'b 144 U,b.fHHb. 150, 419
'I'OnijJHKM~ 144, 389 U.Af~ 149-151,211-212,237, 350,356
'l'fb.it~HHH.l. 144, 420 U.Af~CK'b 149
'1'fb.n~7,0C'I'fOH'I'~/\~ 335 U,b.f~C'I'KHI\1 151
'l'f'brOitb.'I'H 144 U.b.f~C'I'KO 151, 292, 421
'l'f'br'b 144 U,Af ~C'I'KOKA'I' H 151
'l'f~&b. 179 U,lt~'I'A 245
'1'0\ffU.H 311 U,lt~'I'~U,~ 245
'I'~M.~. 145 U.f~K'blt~H'b 152, 180
'I'~M~HHU,b. 145 U.f~K'bl 152, 181, 399
O~&HH U,b. 145 U,~Cb.f~ 150, 233
582 OLD CYRILLIC INDEX