Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria

Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450 General Editor Flo...

Author: Ivan Biliarsky

38 downloads 1512 Views 29MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria

East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages,

450-1450 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. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Biliarsky, Ivan, (Ivan Aleksandrov), 1959Word and power in mediaeval Bulgaria I by Ivan Biliarsky. p. em.- (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450, ISSN 1872-8103; volume 14) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-19145-7 (hardback) 1. Law-Bulgaria-Language. 2. Law-Bulgaria-History-To 1393. 3. Law, Medieval-Language. I. Title. II. Series. KJM92.B55 2011 349.49901'4-dc22 2010048895

ISSN 1872-8103 ISBN 978 90 04 19145 7 Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints BRILL, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus NijhoffPublishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

To my fatherAlexander Biliarsky

CONTENTS Foreword

ix

Introduction The Bulgarian Legal Vocabulary during the Middle Ages: Outlining the Problem. Objectives and Tasks of the Study Abbreviations

1 15

Chapter One Glossary of Mediaeval Bulgarian Legal Vocabulary

17

Chapter Two Chapter Three State Power

Law, Language, and Identity

183

Legal Vocabulary Related to the Supreme 205

Chapter Four Institutions, Military and Administrative Vocabulary

261

Chapter Five Taxation and Fiscal Legal Concepts and Terms

393

Chapter Six General Ecclesiastical Vocabulary. Ecclesiastical Dignities, Orders and Institutions

501

Conclusion

517

Bibliography

523

Index of names and places

539

Greek Index

563

Old Cyrillic Index

571

FOREWORD This book is the result of a project commenced long ago. I have probably 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, discover 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 disclose 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 phenomenon without first dealing with the question of its name. And in some cases a name is all we have-nothing else. Reflecting on appellations, I came to one other conclusion: in some cases they are a testimony 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, "constructed" 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 culture, 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

the Centre for Byzantine Studies, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C., working on the same topic; my stay and research there proved decisive for the final result of my efforts. I now extend my thanks for this opportunity, kindly provided me; I also thank Prof. Predrag Matejic, director of Hilandar Research Library, Ohio State University, and the whole team responsible for that wonderful collection of microfilms of Slavic manuscripts, that I was able to consult during my stay in the United States. That is how my present work came about. It is a rather voluminous one and I fear that, like every large work, it might be ridden with errors. The responsibility for the latter is entirely my own, but for the good that I hope it also contains, I want to express my thanks to all colleagues and friends that have supported me in various ways during its preparation: Maria Yovcheva, Hans Hattenhauer, Ivan Bozilov, Theodor Piperkov, Irina Vainovski, Krassimir Stancev, Tania Slavova, Anna-Maria Totomanova, Mariyana Tsibranska, Vladimir Vladov (who translated the text so carefully) and so many others. And also I would like strongly to express my gratitude to Penka and Nikolay, my dear friends, without help of whom I would be completely lost.

INTRODUCTION

THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES: OUTLINING THE PROBLEM. OBJECTIVES AND TASKS OF THE STUDY 1.

THE PROBLEM

The present study is devoted to a specific problem in the investigations on mediaeval Bulgarian history and culture: the specific legal vocabulary. This problem field should be considered and presented against a general cultural backdrop, and the language of law should be made meaningful as charged with certain concepts, as something that incorporates norms, rules of conduct regulated by the state in the particular context of Balkan Slavs during the Middle Ages. Legal vocabulary discussed in the book should be viewed likewise in the context of the culture to which mediaeval Bulgaria belonged. During the pagan age, Bulgaria was a state of the Bulgars, and hence carried the distinctive traits of the culture of the Eurasian Steppe. After Christianity was adopted as official religion, the country's course became directed to Constantinople, and this had an impact on all fields of life and on legal vocabulary in particular. The objectives and tasks of the study are focused on this influence. Law is a cultural phenomenon and one of the essential features of any cultural community. As a system of rules in the state-organised societies, it is an essential part of the overall normative system built upon the fundamental values of civilisation, its task being to safeguard those values. The protection of values amounts in fact to the protection of the community's identity, built upon them. In various epochs, law has had varying degrees of importance as a component of the normative system: in some societies customs were predominant; in others, various religious prescriptions, and morals invariably played an enormous role. In all cases, along with the growing complexity of social ties, of exchange, of the tasks, aims, and methods of governance, the significance of law also constantly increased. It is exceptionally important for practice and for theory alike to grasp that the construction or reception of a specific type of legal system is a mark of affiliation

2

INTRODUCTION

to a certain culture, or is a way of adhering to that culture. For its part, every system of law has its general terminology and its specific vocabulary. It must have these in order to achieve unity of the separate subdivisions-in other words, in order for the "national" legal systems to function in a similar way when faced with similar tasks. Together with this, in many cases a shared vocabulary is due to the common origin of the legal regulation texts. Such has been the function of Roman law in Europe and in the Christian world in general, and of Sharia law (the respective texts of the Qur'an, the legal practice and religious-legal interpretation) in Islamic countries. The study of vocabulary is particularly important for enquiries on mediaeval Bulgarian history. The lack of adequate sources for this field determines the need for a specific kind of research which alone may compensate for the shortage of direct information: I am referring to the etymological approach to extant data. This approach is especially necessary for research in the field of mediaeval Bulgarian law. Regrettably, information about many of the legal institutes or state institutions have reached us only as names mentioned in various texts, without any elucidation on their essential nature. This raises the need to clarify the character of the word, of the appellation of the institution or legal relationship: such clarification proves to be the only way to reach a conclusion about its basic characteristics. 1 The appellations may contain clues, but could also suggest the need for research on corresponding institutions in contemporaneous neighbouring countries, mainly in the Byzantine Empire, but also in Serbia and the two principalities of Walachia and Moldavia, for which there are abundant data. But before we can pursue such research, we must first fulfil two conditions: first, we must clarify the basic thesis regarding the similarity of legal systems and even regarding the origin of Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian law as derived from Byzantine law; and second, we must identify the word and its corresponding terms in the documentary and legal heritage of countries that were neighbours of, and culturally related to, mediaeval Bulgaria. In these notes I shall also present the basic direction of interpretation that I shall take regarding the legal vocabulary of the Bulgarian Mid-

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 institutions du Premier empire bulgare", Bv{avnv~ OOJl~, (12) 2001, pp. 171-3.

THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES

3

dle Ages. Bulgarian culture of the 10th-15th centuries existed entirely within the framework of so-called "Byzantine Civilisation", or the "Byzantine Commonwealth", as Dimitri Obolensky called it nearly 40 years ago, or "le monde byzantin", according to a more recent appellation by Ivan BoZilov. 2 This is true as regards the literature, art, political ideology, and even the everyday life and mentality, but especially the state structure and law. Whereas even after the adoption of Christianity the First Bulgarian Empire preserved a large number of institutions inherited from the pagan state of the Bulgars-institutions based on Eurasian Steppe traditions, the Second Bulgarian Empire was entirely under the influence of the Byzantine traditions of statehood.3 This explains why Byzantine legal culture dominated so categorically in Bulgaria during the latter period:' In the present study I shall endeavour to trace this process with respect to the legal vocabulary in a wider range of texts.

2.

TEXTS ON WHICH THE PROPOSED STUDY IS BASED

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 comparatively large amount of legal vocabulary and which are representative 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

2

D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500-1453, London.

1971; lv. Bozilov, Vizantijskijat svjat, Sofia, 2008. 3 lv. Biliarsky, Institutsiite na srednovekowna Bulgaria. Vtoro bulgarsko tsarstvo (XII-XIV v.), Sofia, 1998. 4 On this issue, as regards administrative terminology, cf. my article specially dealing with this problem: I. Biliarsky, "Some Observations on the Administrative Terminology of the Second Bulgarian Empire", Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Birmingham, (25) 2001, pp. 69-89.

4

INTRODUCTION

as LJP or ZSL), a document created on the basis of title Seventeenth of the Ecloga. 5 The reasons for including it are the following: first, this work is not a precise translation of the text of the Ecloga, and its inclusion would help enrich the vocabulary basis of this study; and second, the inclusion of such texts would additionally make clear why I have chosen only original Bulgarian texts as a basis for this work. I would especially like to stress that my study is based on legal language found not only in documents and texts of regulations but also in purely narrative ones: the latter in fact make up the greater part of my material, due to the character and exceptional rarity of extant purely legal texts. I am responsible for the choice of texts used, which is not a random one, but aimed at more representative works relevant to the task. I am aware that the wider the range of texts used, the better the research task will be accomplished. On the other hand, this restriction is necessary in view of the limited possibility for one person to process all the materials from what is, after all, by no means a small mass. Thus, some readers will probably look for certain items in the Glossary and not find them there, while other readers will wonder why other items are there.

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 concur 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 researchers from Bulgaria and other countries would take part. I believe that a comprehensive presentation of the legal language of Orthodox Slavs

5 Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, ed. M. N. Tikhomirov, Moscow, 1961; Ganev V., ZAKOHZ eoyAHZIH AIOAbMZ, Sofia, 1959.


5

during the Middle Ages should be accomplished in the frameworks of the entire Slavia Orthodoxa or at least of the Balkan Orthodox Slavs, and not for a separate state. Here I have tried only to indicate parallels with Serbia, Russia, and the Danubian principalities, without including in the glossary materials of non-Bulgarian origin. Still, the quantitative criterion and the impossibility for a scholar to process more than a certain amount of texts is not an irrefutable argument against the use of that material. I should say that I have other, more substantial reasons. They are related to the nature of the proposed study. Among other, my interest is focused on the mutual dependence of specialised legal language, on the penetration of words and verbal formulae from one of these spheres into the other, a process that would not be adequately reflected in a translated legal text. My chief argument against including translated and compiled texts as a basis for the study is the strong dependence of translation on the original text. I am referring not to the more general cultural dependence typical for the literary Bulgarian language during the Middle Ages but to the direct dependence of word formation and linguistic constructions on the original text. Though not without importance for the formation of the Bulgarian legal vocabulary, a focus on this dependence would give a different orientation to this study, and I have tried to avoid this in view of the restricted scope of this work. I shall take the liberty of quoting at the very start one of the results of the present work: particularly as regards terminology (and here I present a wider range of vocabulary in addition to the specialised terminology), the mediaeval Bulgarian legal language was strongly dependent on the Greek language of the Empire. This dependence, of course, came as a result of the reception of Byzantine law, which involved not only the norms but the language in which they were thought, written down, and uttered. If I had included the translated laws, my conclusions would obviously not have been different-indeed, they would have been even more categorically confirmed-but such a range of material would have made my conclusions more dependent on the fact of translation rather than on the overall cultural exchange with, and influence of, the Empire. It would not have supported my explicit wish to take into consideration the mutual penetration between professional legal language and everyday, or at least non-specialised, speech. This problem becomes quite evident when considering the glossary of the legal vocabulary of the Law for Judging People. We clearly see there how closely the Byzantine Greek language was followed and how forms were specially coined for the purpose of this translation or

6

INTRODUCTION

compilation. Examples of this will be given at the relevant places in the course of our exposition. 2.1.2

On the other hand there is one other problem-regrettably, a "technical" one-connected with the inclusion of translated texts, and especially 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 system 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 differences in the copies made, though these differences could be particularly 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 number of mediaeval documents or legal written records that have indubitably 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 present 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 warrants 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.


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 questions: 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 documents 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 document 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 elements 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

Bulgarian tsar several decades earlier. So we should say the Bulgarian tsar Constantine Tich Asen probably did not accord such rights to the monastery in question, but if he had, he would most probably have done so by means of a similar document containing similar elements, structure, and vocabulary. Thus, I believe that in this concrete case we may use this text, which, as it happens, is the richest in legal terms of all texts used for the glossary. But some false documents cannot possibly be used. Usually these are documents prepared in much later historic periods for the purpose of justifying claims to property supposedly donated during the Middle Ages. As for the bilateral agreements and treaties, they present a different case. I believe they should be used in an enquiry such as this one, but only after taking into account the fact that a bilateral act cannot reflect the legal views of one side alone. Thus, inevitably, it would contain terms that have nothing to do with the Bulgarian legal milieu, and mostly pertain to the other country they were concluded with. Now we come to the problem of acts issued not by the Bulgarian ruler, but by some local lord. For researchers it is obvious how few extant acts were issued by local rulers on the Bulgarian state territory. To this category we may assign certain inscriptions or notes; such also are certain letters exchanged with foreign countries. The most important of the latter is the letter of despot Jacob Svetoslav to the metropolitan of Kiev, with which he sends him a copy of the Kormchaja (the Nomocanon). 8 The letter contains some significant material such as the formulae for appellation, clarifications regarding this collection of laws, etc. 2.2.1.2 After circumscribing in general the documents that, in my view, should be included in the study, in my further discussion I shall present some brief information about the documents on which the study is based. - The Vatopedi charter of Tsar John II Asen, dating from AD 1230.9 This document was issued immediately after the battle at Klokot-

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)


-

-

-

-

-

9

nitsa and during a visit of the Bulgarian ruler to Mount Athas. In it he grants the village of Semalto, near Serres, to the Vatopedi monastery. The document was discovered and published by the Greek scholar Michael Laskaris in 1930. The Dubrovnik (Ragusa) charter of Tsar John II Asen, dating after the year 1230. 10 This horismos, issued some time after the battle of Klokotnitsa, when John Asen became practically the most powerful ruler in the Balkans. By it he grants certain rights and privileges to the merchants of the Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) to conduct trade freely on the territory of the Bulgaria. This was a unilateral act of the Bulgarian ruler. The treaty between Tsar Michael II Asen and Dubrovnik, dating from 1253,11 is a bilateral act between the Bulgarian empire and the Adriatic republic, whereby the relations between the two were regulated. On one hand a political alliance against Serbia was concluded, and on the other, trade relations, the regime for foreigners, property issues, etc., were regulated. The Virgino charter, or chrysobull of Virgino, is an inauthentic chrysobull ascribed to Tsar Constantine Tich Asen (1257-1277),12 The text antedates the version of the charter, dated AD 1300, of the Serbian king Stephen Uros II Milutin for the St. George monastery near Skopje. 13 The Zographou charter, or chrysobull, of Tsar John Alexander, dated AD 1342. 14 The chrysobull is issued by the Bulgarian ruler, whereby he confirms that he successfully entreated the Byzantine emperor to cede the village of Chantak, situated on the lower Strymon river, to the benefit of the Bulgarian hagioritic monastery St. George Zographou. The Mraka charter of Tsar John Alexander, dated December 1, 1348. 15 By this chrysobull of the Bulgarian ruler made a donation to the St. Nicholas monastery, situated in the region of Mraka near

Sofia, 1931, pp. 576-7; M. Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota I vaproslte na bulgarskoto feodalno pravo, Sofia, 1965. 10 G. Ilinskij, Gramoty bolgarskikh tsarej, Moscow, 1911, p. 13; Ivanov, BSM, 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

the village of Oriakhovo in Western Bulgaria. Several villages were donated to the monastery, together with the respective revenues and rights. - The Rila charter, or Rila chrysobull, of Tsar John Shishman, dated September 21, 1378. 16 This golden-sealed document was issued by the Bulgarian ruler to the benefit of the Rila Monastery. This is the only mediaeval Bulgarian document now kept in Bulgaria: it is in the archive of the Rila Monastery. - The Vitosha charter, issued by Tsar John ShishmanP This is a chrysobull for the benefit of the Dragalevtsi monastery situated in Vitosha Mountain near Sofia. - The letter to Bra$OV/Kronstadt by Tsar John Sratsimir. 18 1t confirms the rights of traders from the municipality of Bra~ov (Kronstadt) to freely carry on trade on the territory under his authority.

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 occasions, such as graffiti. Without doubt, inscriptions are one of the richest 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 contents. 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 characteristics 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 gramota 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.


11

inventories, border inscriptions, etc. I believe I need not specially argue for the importance of these texts for the history of law. For the sake of convenience, in preparing the glossary of legal vocabulary, I have used the edition of mediaeval Bulgarian inscriptions prepared for publication by K. Popkonstantinov and 0. Kronsteiner/9 but in the abbreviations I have added literature on individual texts, whereby the original edition and certain interpretations may be identified. I needed this corpus mainly for the task of arranging the material and preparing its numeration. 2.2.2.2. Inscriptions on seals

A seal is the sign of a specific person or institution; placing a seal always symbolises a declaration on the part of the person to whom that seal belongs. The declaration itself is not contained on the seal but in the text, under which the seal is placed. That is why inscriptions on seals are not of the nature of acts, yet are usually official. Setting one's seal is in all cases a legally relevant act, and I believe the reason for my including this category in the study is obvious and undisputable. Once again I should say that, in preparing the glossary, I have used the corpus prepared by Ivan Jordanov;20 the number of each seal and the page on which it is published in that book has been indicated. 2.2.2.3

Inscriptions on coins are, in fact, seals placed by the ruler or more generally the authorities upon metal plates in order to certify the quality and quantity of the metal for the purpose of its use in commercial or other exchange. In this sense coins are official and contain the declaration of the authorised person, whereby the afore-mentioned characteristics are confirmed. That is precisely why (in addition to prevention of eventual damages) the counterfeiting of coins and banknotes is penalised by the state according to law. Coins (and monetary notes in general-but coins alone were in use in mediaeval Bulgaria) also have political and emotional significance, and are important in terms of identity. Most, if not almost all, mediaeval Bulgarian coins were not minted for the purpose of civil exchange but in order to confirm the prestige of those in power. Obviously the texts on them belong to a

19 K. Popkonstantinov, 0. Kronsteiner, Altbulgarische Inschriften, vol. 1-11 (Die slawischen Sprachen, Bd. 36, 1994; Bd 52, 1997). 20 Iv. Jordanov, Korpus na pechatite na srednovekovna Bulgaria, Sofia, 2001.

12

INTRODUCTION

strictly legally regulated field, such as government, exchange, etc., and thus are of special interest for our research. I would like to point out once again, that in preparing the Glossary of legal vocabulary pertaining to inscriptions on coins, I have referred to the book by J. Yurukova and V. Penchev/ 1 the use of which permits a better organisation of the material. 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 10th15th centuries. 22 2.2.4. Narrative texts, treatises, and rhetorical prose

I have already attempted to ground the inclusion of such texts in the study. A more difficult task is to determine their exact number and individual characteristics. Arguments can always be found for the inclusion of material from some text or another. I have been guided by the consideration of the importance and lexical richness of a text, as well as by the presence of themes having some relation to law, even if not a predominant one. That is why included in the study are: the treatise by presbyter Cosmas, "Oration on Heresy"/ 3 which is probably the most significant original Bulgarian literary work of the Middle Ages; the so-called Anonymous Homily from the Codex Clozianus, 24 also J. Jurukova, V1. Penchev, Bulgarski srednovekovni pechati i monet~ Sofia, 1990. B. Khristova, D. Karadjova, E. Uzunova, Belezhki na bulgarskite knizhovnitsi X-XVIII vek, t. 1 (X-XV vek), Sofia, 2003. 23 Ju. K. Begunov, Kozma prezviter v slavjanskikh literaturakh, Sofia, 1973; M. Popruzhenko, Kosma prezviter, bolgarskij pisatel' X veka, (Bulgarski starinl. 12), Sofia, 1936; D. Angelov, Prezviter Kozma i besedata mu protiv bogomilite, Sofia, 1945; Starobulgarska literature. Entsiklopedichen rechnik, Sofia, 1992, pp. 233-4. 24 The text of the homely was first published by A. Vaillant, Une Homilie, pp. 37-47; cf. also A. Dostal, Clozianus Codex paleoslavenicus glagoliticus, Praha, 1959, pp. 10949; MMFH, IV, pp. 199-204; Va8ica J., "Anonimni homilie v rukopise Clozovl! po strance pravne", Slavia, 25, 1956, No 2, pp. 221-33. 21

22


13

known as Instruction for Princes-though not a legal work, it contains vocabulary of interest to our topic; and Tsar Boril's Synodicon-I feel that the usefulness of its inclusion is obvious and does not require to be argued for. 3. THE STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY. GLOSSARY OF THE LEGAL TERMS: STRUCTURE OF THE SEPARATE UNITS IN THE GLOSSARY

The proposed study will consist of several parts. Besides this chapter, 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, however, 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

BER DRH

Bulgarski etimologichen rechnik, t. I-, Sofia, 1971 Documenta Romaniae Historica, ser. A

Dujcev, SBK, t. I-II

(Moldova), ser. B (Tara Romaneasca) Dujcev Iv., Iz starata bulgarska knizhnina, t. I-II, Sofia, 1943

ESS]a

Ivanov, BSM Jurukova-Penchev

Etimologicheskij slovar' slavjanskikh jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksicheskij fond, rec. 0. N. Trubachev, t. I-, Moscow, 1974Ivanov J., Bulgarski starini iz Makedonija, Sofia, 1931 Jurukova J., Penchev Vl., Bulgarski srednovekovni pechati i moneti, Sofia, 1990

MGH MMFH

Monumenta Germaniae Historica Magnae Moraviae Jontes historici, t. IV, Brno,

P. K. I-II

1971 Popkonstantinov K., Kronsteiner 0.,

Cmapo6MzapcKu Haonucu/Albulgarische Inschriften, vol. I-II (Die slawischen Sprachen, Bd. 36, 1994; Bd. 52, 1997) RESEE SBL, t. III, IV

Revue des etudes sud-est europeennes, Bucharest Stara bulgarska literatura, t. 3, Istoricheski sachinenija, Sofia, 1983; t. IV, Zhitiepisni tvorbi, Sofia, 1986

S]SS SSK]

Slovnik jezyka staroslovenskeho, t. I-, Praha Slovar slovenskega knjiznega jezika, t. I-V, Ljubljana, 1970-1991

CHAPTER ONE

GLOSSARY OF MEDIAEVAL BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY 1

Before proceeding further, I should present the structure and contents of the separate units of which the glossary consists. 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 glossary 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, without 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 edition I have used.

18

CHAPTER ONE

After these indications, I have attempted to supply a brief clarification of the etymology of the word. I believe this is a significant part of the study, for in many cases we may judge of the legal importance of a specific word only by what we know regarding its origin. In the course of this clarification, I have referred to certain works of my own, but of course I have leaned above all on the achievements of philology embodied in the etymological dictionaries I have used. The latter, as well as other bibliography, are indicated in brackets immediately following this part. Finally, I offer a historical and juridical interpretation of the respective word, including clarification of its concrete legal meaning, which alone is of interest to us. This step is necessary, for in some cases the words are in general usage and their additional legal meaning is narrowly specialised. Together with this, the meaning of the word is clarified in the course of its development and in the concrete historical environment of mediaeval Bulgaria, as well as in the framework of the concrete text in which we find it. After this part of the unit, I have supplied a brief bibliography, which I have striven to keep limited. My aim has been to refer to new titles, under which anyone could find the literature that might be of interest. 2. PRESENTING THE MATERIAL ON WHICH THE STUDY IS BUILT

As I pointed out, the material upon which this study is built is of a widely varying kind. It encompasses many works, quoted in each unit of the glossary so as to indicate the place where the respective word can be found. Given here are the abbreviations used in citations. But the Law for Judging People and the vocabulary it contains are presented in a separate glossary. TEXTS THE GLOSSARY IS BASED ON

AH = Anonymous homily of Codex Clozianus published in MMFH, t. IV, pp. 199-204 Bra. = Bra§OV (Kronstadt) charter of the tsar John Sratsimir Vars. = Law for Judging the People. Copy of the Kormchaja, colled Varsanofievskaja (Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, ed. M. N. Tikhomirov, Moscow, 1961, pp. 41-6) Vatop. = Vatopedi charter of the tsar John II Asen

GLOSSARY OF MEDIAEVAL BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY

19

Virg. = Virgino chrysobull, ascribed to the tsat Constantine Asen. Vit. = Vitosha chrysobull of the tsar John Shishman Dubr. = Horismos for Republic of Dubrovnik, 1230-the tsar John II Asen E.= Ecloga (L. Burgmann: Ecloga. Das Gesetzbuch Leons III. und Konstantins V., herausg. L. Burgmann (= Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Bd. 10), Frankfurt-am-Main, 1983 Zogr. = Zographou chrysobull of the tsar John Alexander ZSL = Law for Judging the People, normalised text (Zakon Sudnyj ijudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, ed. M. N. Tikhomirov, pp. 104-9) K =presbyter Cosmas, Oration on Heresy MAD = Pact of the tsar Michael II Asen with Dubrovnik (AD 1253) Mr. = Mraka chrysobull of the tsar John Alexander • N 1-Bitolja inscription of the tsar John Vladislav (AD 1017): Mosin Vl., "Bitoljska plocha iz 1017 godine", Makedonski jazik, Skopje, XVII, 1966, pp. 51-61; Zaimov ]., Bitolski nadpis na Ivan Vladislav, samodarzhets bulgarski. Starobulgarski pametnik ot 1015-1016 g., Sofia, 1970; Bozilov Iv., "Bitolskijat nadpis na tsar Ivan Vladislav i njakoi vaprosi na bulgarskata srednovekovna istorija", Istoricheski pregled, 1971, 1, pp. 84-100; G. Tomovic, Moifologija tirilickih natpisa na Balkanu, Belgrade, 1974, p. 33; P. K., I, p. 15 • N 2-lnscription on the lead plate from Calara~i (Romania): P. K., I, p. 19-21 (X-begin. XI century) • N 3-lnscription from Tsar Asen Village (Silistra district): Angelov N., "Starobulgarskijat nadpis ot kraja na IX vek ot s. Tsar Asen, Silistrenski okrag", Archaeologia, 1980, 2, pp. 35-38; Popkonstantinov K., "Za cheteneto i talkuvaneto na nadpisa ot Tsar Asen, Silistrenski okrag", Archaeologia, 1982, 3-4, pp. 43-9; Medyntseva, A. "0 nadpisi na 'kreste' Manasij (s. Tsar Asen, Bolgarija)", Sovetskaja archaeologia, 1990, 4, p. 39; P. K., I, p. 25 (X century) • N 4-lnscription from Gigen (Pleven district): Iv. Goshev, Starobulgarski glagolicheski i kirilski nadpisi IX-X v., Sofia, 1961, pp. 79-83; Malingoudis, I, p. 37ff.; Margos A., "Njakoi belezhki po cheteneto na protivobogomilskija nadpis ot srednovekovnata tsarkva pri s. Gigen", Starobulgarska literatura, 15, 1984, pp. 119-25; P. K., I, p. 29 (X century) • N 5-lnscription from Golesh (Silistra district): P. K., I, p. 33 (X century) • N 6-lnscription from Hagios Germanos near Prespa lake (Greece): Uspenskij F., "Nadpis' tsarja Samuila", Izvestija russkago Instituta v Konstantinopole, 4, 1899, pp. 1-4; L. Miletich, "Kam samuilovija nadpis ot 993 g.", Izvestija russkago Instituta v Konstantinopole, 4, 1899, pp. 14-20; Malingoudis, I, pp. 39-42; P. K., I, p. 37 (993 AD)

20

CHAPTER ONE

• N ?-Inscription (1) from Krepcha (Targovishte district): Skorpil K., Opis na starinite po techenieto na r. Rusenski Lom, Sofia, 1914; Konstantinov K., "Dva starobulgarski nadpisa ot skalnija monastir pri s. Krepcha, Targovishki okrag", Archaeologia, 1977, 3, pp. 19-28; Smjadovski St., "Epigrafsko-tekstologichni dobavki varkhu tri starobulgarski nadpisa", Archaeologia, 1982, 2, pp. 38-42; P. K., I, p. 47 (end X-begin. XI century) • N 8-lnscription (2) from Krepcha (Targovishte district): see N 7, P. K., I, p. 49 (October 921) • N 9-lnscription (4) from Krepcha (Targovishte district): see N 7, P. K., I, p. 55 (X century) • N 10-lnscription (5) from Krepcha (Targovishte district): see N 7, P. K., I, p. 57 (X-begin. XI century) • N 11-lnscription (6) from Krepcha (Targovishte district): see N 7, P. K., I, p. 57 (X-begin. XI century) • N 12-lnscription (7) from Krepcha (Targovishte district): see N 7, P. K., I, p. 59 (X-XI century) • N 13-Glagolitic inscription from Murfatlar (Romania): P. K., I, p. 73 (X century) • N 14-lnscription (1) from Murfatlar (Romania): Barnea 1., "Les monuments rupestres de Basarabi en Dobrugea", Cahiers archeologiques, 13, 1962, pp. 187-208; Mihaila G., "Staroslavjanskie nadpisi, otkrytye v s. Basarab (obl. Dobrudzha)", Revue roumaine de linguistique, 9, 1964, 2, pp. 149-69; Popkonstantinov K., "Les inscriptions du monasb~re rupestre pres du village Murfatlar (Bassarab)", Etudes ethnoculturelles, Sofia, 1987, pp. 115-45; P. K., I, p. 75 (X century) • N 15-lnscription (2) from Murfatlar (Romania): N 14, P. K., I, p. 77 (X century) • N 16-lnscription (3) from Murfatlar (Romania): N 14, P. K., I, p. 79 (X century) • N 17-Inscription (4) from Murfatlar (Romania): N 14, P. K., I, p. 81 (X century) • N 18-lnscription (5) from Murfatlar (Romania): N 14, P. K., I, p. 83 (X century) • N 19-lnscription (8) from Murfatlar (Romania): N 14, P. K., I, p. 91 (X century) • N 20-lnscription (10) from Murfatlar (Romania): N 14, P. K., I, p. 95 (X century) • N 21-Inscription from Mircea voda (Romania): Comsa E., Popescu D., "Cercetari arheologice pe trascul canalului Dunare-Mare Neagra", Studii ~i cercetari de istorie veche, 1951, 1, p. 171; Bogdan D., "Dobrudjanskaja nadpis' 943 g.", Romanoslavica, 1, 1958, pp. 88-104; Gjuzelev V., "Dobrudjanskijat nadpis i sybitijata v Bulgarija sled 943 g.", Istoricheski pregled, 1968, 6, pp. 40-48; Bozilov Iv., "Nadpisat na zhupan Dimitar ot 943 g.", Izvestija na okrazhnija istoricheski muzej v Tolbukhin, 1973, pp. 37-58; P. K., I, p. 109 (943 AD) • N 22-Inscription on a lead plate from Odartsi (Dobrich district): P. K., I, p. 113-5 (X-XI century)


21

• N 23-lnscription on a lead plate-amulet from Oreshak (Varna district): Doncheva L., K. Popkonstantinov, "Apokrifna molitva ot X-XI vek varkhu oloven amulet ot s. Odartsi", Sbarnik v chest na D. Angelav, Sofia, 1994, pp. 288-92; P. K., I, p. 119 (X-begin. XI century) • N 24-lnscription on a terracotta plate from Parvomaj (Plovdiv district): Zaimov J., "Nov starobulgarski pametnik. Parvomajski nadpis ot XI-XII century", Bulgarski ezik, 1983, 4, p. 293; P. K., I, p. 129 (X-XI c.) • N 25-Inscription on the golden seal of sword-bringer Tagchi from Pazardzhik district: Stanchev St., "Nadgrobnija nadpis na chergubilja Mostich ot Preslav", Nadpisat na chergubilja Mastich, Sofia, 1955, p. 13, fig. 19; Jordanov lv., Karpus na pechatite na srednavekavna Bulgarija, Sofia, 2001, p. 142, No 183; P. K., I, p. 132 (X c.) • N 26-lnscription on a lead plate from Pernik: "Epigrafski pametnitsi", Sbarnik Pernik, 2, Sofia, 1983, pp. 171-5; P. K., I, p. 135 (X c.) • N 27-Inscription (1) from Pliska: Georgiev P., "Eine zweisprachige Graninschrift aus Pliska", Palaeabulgarica,1978, 3, pp. 32-44; P. K., I, p. 153 (begin. X century) • N 28-lnscription (3) from Pliska: lvanova V., "Starobulgarskija nadpis ot s. Teke Kozludja", Izvestija na bulgarskata arhealagicheska druzhestva, VII, 1932-33, pp. 319-21; P. K., I, p. 157 (end IX-begin. X century) • N 29-Terracotta cyrillic inscription (2) from Preslav: P. K., I, p. 175 (X century) • N 3D-Inscription (3) from Preslav: P. K., I, p. 177 (begin. X century) • N 31-lnscription (5) from Preslav (of chergubylia Mostich): NadpisiU na chergubilja Mastich, Sofia, 1955; P. K., I, p. 185 (X century) • N 32-lnscription (6) from Preslav: Gjuzelev V., "Koja e Ana ot novootkritija dvuezichen preslavski nadpis?", Istaricheski pregled, 1967, pp. 82-85; P. K., I, p. 187 (begin. X century) • N 33-lnscription (7) on a lead seal from Preslav: Gerasomov T., "Nov molivdovul na Georgi monakh i sinkel bulgarski", Izvestija na arkhealagicheskija institut, XX, 1955; P. K., I, p. 188 (X century) • N 34-lnscription (9) on terracotta plates from Preslav: P. K., I, p. 190 (X century) • N 35-lnscription (11) from Preslav: P. K., I, p. 197 (X century) • N 36-Inscription (12) from Preslav: P. K., I, p. 199 (X century) • N 37-Inscription (1) from Ravna: Popkonstantinov K., "Za dva pametnika s psaltirni tekstove", Prinasi kclm bulgarskata arkhealagija, I, Sofia, 1992; P. K., I, p. 215 (end IX-begin. X century) • N 38-lnscription (4) from Ravna: P. K., I, p. 223 (X century) • N 39-lnscription (5) from Ravna: Georgiev P., "Khronologichesko prouchvane varkhu datiran nadpis ot Ravna", Epakhi, 2, 1993, pp. 58-60; P. K., I, p. 225 (889) • N 40-lnscription (11) from Ravna: P. K., I, p. 233 (X century) • N 41-lnscription on a lead plate from Ruyno (Silistra district): P. K., I, pp. 237-9 (X century) • N 42-lnscription from Shumen: P. K., I, p. 242 (end IX century)

22

CHAPTER ONE

• N 43-lnscription from Varosh (Macedonia): Miljukov P., "Khristijanskie drevnosti v Zapadnoj Makedonii", Izvestija russkago arkheologicheskago institute v Konstantinopole, 4, 1899; Tomovit G., Moifologija tirilskih natpisa na Balkanu, Belgrade, 1974, p. 32; P. K., I, p. 244 (996 AD) • N 44-Inscription from Stenimachos (now Asenovgrade): Zlatarski V., "Asenevijat nadpis pri Stanimaka", Izvestija na bulgarskoto arkheologichesko druzhestvo, Sofia, II, 1911, pp. 231-47; Dujcev lv., Iz starata bulgarska knivnina, t. II, Sofia, 1944, p. 38; Malingoudis, I, pp. 60-2; P. K., II, p. 15 (1231) • N 45-Inscription on a cross encolpion from Vatopedi: Frolov A., "Une inscription bulgare inedited", Revue des etudes slaves, Paris, XXI, 1944, p. 97; Doncheva L., Smjadovski St., "Krast encolpion relikvar na tsar Georgi Terter", Archaeologia, 1990, 2, pp. 45-51; P. K., II, p. 19 (XIV century) • N 46-lnscription from Batoshevo (Gabrovo district): Khristov Khr., "Batoshevskijat nadpis", Archaeologia, 1976,4, pp. 65-70; Malingoudis, I, pp. 63-8; P. K., II, p. 23 (XIII century.) • N 47-Inscription (1) from Bojana church: Safarik J., "Pismeni spomenici srpski i bugarski", Glasnik Srpskog naucnog drustva, 1855, 7, p. 191; Grabar A., Bojanskata tsarkva, Sofia, 1924, p. 28; Zlatarski V., "Bojanskijat nadpis", Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet, Istorikofilologicheski fakultet, 1935, p. 31 (10), 7; Galabov 1., Nadpisite kam bojanskite stenopisi, Sofia, 1963; Dobrev lv., "Kam talkuvaneto na ktitorskija nadpis v Bojanskata tsarkva", Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet, Fakultet Slavjanska filologija, 1982, 71 (1), p. 129ff.; P. K., II, p. 31 (1259 r.) • N 48-lnscription (2) from Bojana church: seeN 47, P. K., II, p. 33 (1259) • N 49-lnscription (3) from Bojana church: seeN 47, P. K., II, p. 34 (1259) • N 50-Inscription (4) from Bojana church: seeN 47, P. K., II, p. 35 (1259) • N 51-Inscription (5) from Bojana church: see N 47, P. K., II, p. 36 (1259) • N 52-Inscription (6) from Bojana church: seeN 47, P. K., II, p. 38 (1346) • N 53-Inscription (1) from Cherven: Angelov N., "Nadpisi, monogrami, bukvi i znatsi", Srednovekovnijat Cherven, Sofia, 1985, p. 236ff.; P. K., II, p. 45 (XIII century) • N 54-Inscription (2) from Cherven: see N 53, P. K., II, p. 47 (XIII century) • N 55-Inscription from Dojran: Ivanov J., BSM, Sofia, 1931, p. 199; Velenis G., "Dva dvuezichni nadpisa ot XIV v.", Palaeobulgarica, 1979, 3, pp. 39-45; P. K., II, p. 51 (1362) • N 56-Inscription (1) from Gradets (Vidin district): Mijatev Kr., "Starobulgarski nadgroben nadpis ot XIV vek", Godishnik na Naro-


• •

• •

•

• •

• • •

23

dnija muzej, 5, 1933, pp. 253-5; Mladenov St., "Belezhki varkhu novonajdeni nadgroben nadpis na vidinskata boljarka Stanislava", Spisanie na Bulgarskata Akademija na naukite, 48, 1934, pp. 241-61; P. K., II, p. 59 (XIV century) N 57-Inscription (2) from Gradets (Vidin district): seeN 56, P. K., II, p. 61 (XIV century) N 58-Inscription (1) from Ivanovo (Russe district): Vasiliev A., "Novootkriti nadpisi i ktitorski obrazi pri s. Ivanovo", Izvestija na bulgarskija arkheologicheski institut, 15, 1946, pp. 197-203; Margos A., "Nadpisa na Ivo Gramatik", Archaeologia, 1981, 1-2, pp. 36-40; Margos A., "Za nadpisite, svarzani s tsar Georgi Terter pri s. Ivanovo, Rusensko", Palaeobulgarica, 1984, 4, pp. 44-50; Smjadovski St., "Njakolko ezikovi belezhki za nadpisa na Ivo Gramatik", Archaeologia, 1981, 1, pp. 41-4; Popkonstantinov K., "Oshte vednazh za nadpisa na Ivo Gramatik", Archaeologia, 1983, 1-2, pp. 98-105; Margos A., "Za cheteneto na nadpisa na Ivo Gramatik pri s. Ivanovo, Rusensko", Archaeologia, 1986, 2, pp. 39-44; P. K., II, p. 65 (1290-1291) N 59-Inscription (2) from Ivanovo (Russe district): seeN 58, P. K., II, p. 67 ( 1290-1291) N 60-Inscription from Jambol: Skorpil K., Njakoi belevki varkhu arkheologicheskite i istoricheski izsledvanija v Trakija, Plovdiv, 1885, p. 103; Skorpil K., "Materiali po arkheologijata i anticheskata geografija na Bulgarija", Periodichesko spisanie, 21-22, 1887, pp. 523-5; Galabov Iv., "Jambolskijat nadpis", Ezikovedsko-etnografski izsledvanija v pamet na akademik St. Romanski, Sofia, 1960, pp. 421-6; P. K., II, p. 71 (1356) N 61-Inscription from Kalugeritsa (Shumen district): Kr. Mijatev, "Starobulgarskijat nadpis pri s. Kalugeritsa", Sbornik Djakovich, Sofia, 1927, pp. 319-25; Margos A., "Starobulgarskite nadpisi pri s. Kalugeritsa", Pliska-Preslav, I, Sofia, 1970, pp. 193-7; P. K., II, p. 77 (XIII century) N 62-Inscription from Karydochorion (Greece): Ivanov, BSM, pp. 29-34; Malingoudis, I, pp. 47-9; P. K., II, p. 81 (1204) N 63-Inscription from Krichim (Plovdiv district): Goshev Iv., "Tsar Asenevijat nadpis nad krepostta Krichim", Spisanie na BAN, 70, klon istorikojilologicheski 33, 1945, pp. 65-85; Mladenov St., "Njakolko dumi za Krichimskija nadpis", Spisanie na BAN, 70, klon istorikojilologicheski 33, 1945, pp. 87-94; Margos A., "Krichimskijat nadpis", Muzei i pametnitsi na kulturata, 1965, 4, pp. 3-5; Malingoudis, I, p. 73; P. K., II, p. 85 (XIII century) N 64-Inscription from Kriva Palanka (Macedonia): Ivanov, BSM, p. 147; P. K., II, p. 88 (1350) N 65-Inscription from Nevsha (Varna district): K. Khadzhiev, "Za srednovekovnite kirilski nadpisi ot s. Nevsha, Provadijsko", Archaeologia, 1986, 4, pp. 41-4; P. K., II, p. 91 (XIII century) N 66-Inscription from Osmar (Shumen district): Konstantinova V., "Srednovekovni nadpisi ot Shumensko (XII-XIV)", Palaeobulgarica, 1983, 7, p. 68; P. K., II, p.102 (XIII century)

24

CHAPTER ONE

• N 67-Inscription (1) from Royak (Varna district): Margos A., "Srednovekovnite bulgarski nadpisi pri s. Rojak, Provadijsko", Bulgarski ezik, 1976, 4, p. 296-302; Smjadovski St., "Epigrafsko-textologichni dobavki varkhu oshte dva bulgarski nadpisa", Archaeologia, 1987, 1, pp. 39-40; P. K., II, p. 119 (1252) • N 68-lnscription (2) from Royak (Varna district): seeN 67, P. K., II, p. 119 (XIV century) • N 69-lnscription (5) from Shumen: Antonova V., "Novootkrit starobulgarski nadpis ot Shumenskata krepost", Izvestija na narodnija muzej v Kolarovgrad, 4, 1967, pp. 79-83; Malingoudis, I, p. 87; P. K., II, p. 135 (XIV century) • N 70-lnscription (1) from Troitsa (Shumen district): Popkonstantinov K., "Starobulgarski nadpis ot s. Troitsa, Shumenski okrag", Archaeologia, 1980, 4, pp. 56-64; P. K., II, p. 147 (1263) • N 71-lnscription (3) from Troitsa (Shumen district): seeN 70, P. K., II, p. 150 (XIV-XV century) • N 72-Inscription from Bozhenishki Urvich near Botevgrade (Sofia district): MutafCiev P., "Bizhenishkija nadpis", in: MutafCiev P., Izbrani proizvedenija, t. I, Sofia, 1973, pp. 486-517; Gjuzelev V., "Nadpisyt ot krepostta", Sbornik Bozhenishki Urvich, Sofia, 1979, pp. 43-4; P. K., II, p. 155 (XIV century) • N 73-lnscription (1) from Saint Fourty Martyrs church in Veliko Tarnovo: Dujcev, SBK, II, pp. 38-39; P. K., II, pp. 167-8 (1230) • N 74-lnscription (2) from Saint Fourty Martyrs church in Veliko Tarnovo: Goshev, lv. Tarnovski tsarski nadgroben nadpis ot 1388 g., (= Bulgarski starini, kn. XIV), Sofia, 1945; N. Ovcharov, "Za pravilnoto chetene na tarnovski nadgroben nadpis ot tsarkvata 'Sv. 40 machenitsi'", Archaeologia, 1995, 1, p. 46; P. K., II, p. 169 (XIV century) • N 75-lnscription on the cross of sebastos Berislav from Velika Tarnovo: Gerasimova-Tomova V., "Krastat na sevast Berislav", Izvestija na okrazhnija muzej vav Velika Tarnovo, 5, 1972, pp. 129-36; P. K., II, p. 173 (XIII century) • N 76-lnscription (5) from Veliko Tarnovo: P. K., II, p. 181 (XIIIXIV century) • N 77 -Incription on the golden ring of the stolnik Slav: Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 291; Malingoudis, I, p. 103; P. K., II, p. 190 (XIII century) • N 78-lnscription (12) from Velika Tarnovo: P. K., II, p. 193 (XIVXIII century) • N 79-lnscription (13) from Veliko Tarnovo: P. K., II, p. 195 (XIII century) • N SO-Inscription (1) from Vratsa: P. K., II, p. 203 (XIII century) • N 81-lnscription (2) from Vratsa on the golden ring of the sebastos Hinat: P. K., II, p. 205 (XIII century) • N 82-lnscription from Zajecar (Serbia): Galabov lv., "Edin maiko izvesten nadpis ot vremeto na Sratsimira", Bulgarski ezik, 1956, 3, pp. 229-38; Margos A., "Kam cheteneto i talkuvaneto na dva srednovekovni bulgarski nadpisa",Archaeologia, 1982, 3-4, pp. 55-6; Smjadovski


25

St., "Epigrafsko-textologichni dobavki varkhu tri starobulgarski nadpisa", Archaeologia, 1982, 2, p. 41; P. K., II, p. 209 (XIVcentury) • N 83- Inscription from the church in Donja Kamenica (Serbia): LjubinkoviC R., Corovic-LjubinkoviC M., "Crkva u Donjoj Kamenici", Starinar, I, 1950, p. 54; Zivkovic B., Donja Kamenica (Crtezi fresaka), in: Spomenici srpskog slikarstva, 6, Belgrade, 1987, tabl. IX • N 84-lnscription from the Saint Nicholas church in Stanicene (Serbia): Crkva svetog Nikole u Stanicene, Belgrade, 2005, pp. 79-80 lines 1-4 • N 85-Inscription from the Saint Nicholas church in Kalotina (Sofia district): Gerov G., Kirin A., "New Data on the Fourteen-Century Mural Painting in the Church of Sveti Nikola (St. Nicholas) in Kalatina", Zograf, 23, 1993-1994, pp. 51-64. N 85 (1)-p. 52, N 85 (2)p. 53 and 54, N 85 (3)-p. 53 and 55, N 85 (4)-p. 53 and 56, N 85 (5)-p. 57. NM = Inscription on coin. NM 1-Golden coin of the tsar John II Asen: Jurukova-Penchev, p. 79. NM 2-Copper coins of the tsar John II Asen: Jurukova-Penchev, p. 79. NM 3-Coins of the tsar Constantine Asen: Jurukova-Penchev, pp. 85-8. NM 4-Silver coin of the tsar Theodore Svetoslav Terter: JurukovaPenchev,pp. 100-1. NM 5-Copper coins of the tsar Theodore Svetoslav Terter: JurukovaPenchev, p. 106. NM 6-Silver coins of the tsar Michael III Shishman Asen (types III and IV): Jurukova-Penchev, p. 111 NM 7-Copper coins of the tsar Michael II Shishman Asen (type IV): Jurukova-Penchev, p. 121. NM 8-Silver coins of the tsar John Alexander (type I-II): JurukovaPenchev,pp. 125-8. NM 9-Copper coins of the tsar John Alexander, produced in Tarnovgrade (type I-V): Jurukova-Penchev, pp. 137-40. NM 10-Copper coins of the tsar John Alexander, produced in Shumen: Jurukova-Penchev, p. 142. NM 11-Copper coins of the tsar John Alexander, produced in Cherven (type IV-VI): Jurukova-Penchev, pp. 145-7. NM 12-Silver coins of the tsar John Sratsimir: Jurukova-Penchev, pp. 149-51. NM 13-Copper coins of the tsar John Sratsimir: Jurukova-Penchev, pp. 160-2. NM 14-Silver coins of the tsar John Shishman (type 11-IV): Jurukova-Penchev, pp. 166-9.

26

CHAPTER ONE

NM 15-Billon coins of the tsar John Shishman (type I-II): JurukovaPenchev, pp. 170-2. NM 16-Copper coins of the tsar John Shishman (type I-II): Jurukova-Penchev, pp. 172-5. NM 17-Coins of Mitso: Jurukova-Penchev, pp. 176-8. NM 18-Coins of the despot Jacob Svetoslav: Jurukova-Penchev, p. 178. Nov.= Law for the Judging of People. Novgorod copy (Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, ed. M. N. Tikhomirov, Moscow, 1961, pp. 35-40) !Seal= Inscription on a seal. The seal are presented following its number and page in the Corpus, prepared by Ivan Jordanov: Iv. Jordanov, Korpus na pechatite na srednovekovna Bulgarija, Sofia, 2001.

Slovar' drevnerusskogo jazyka = Slovar' drevnerusskogo jazyka (XI-XIV vv.), t. I-, Moscow, 1988MN = Marginal note or colophon (the texts are arranged and numbered following their edition in B. Khristova, D. Karadzhova, E. Uzunova, Belezhki na bulgarskite knizhovnitsi ot X-XVIII vek, t. 1 (X-XV vek), Sofia, 2003) Ril. = Rila chrysobull of the tsar John Shishman Syn. = Synodicon (the text is cited following the edition of M. G. Popruzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, Bulgarski starini, kn. VIII, Sofia, 1928, the numbers cite the numbers of the articles of the both copies of the Bulgarian Synodicon-Palauzov's and Drinov's) Syn. Dr. = Synodicon, Drinov's copy Syn. Pal.= Synodicon, Palauzov's copy Ust. = Law for the Judging of People. Ustiuga copy (Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, ed. M. N. Tikhomirov, Moscow, 1961, pp. 47-54)

GLOSSARY (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) ARRA

(subst. m.)-Ril. 54, Vit. 9. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word &A.aya'tmp. II Sign.: Military institution in the provinces link to the command of the cavalry. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 314-7; V. Velev in: Ezik i literatura, XXXV, 1980, p. 95) MAPATOfb.

(subst. m.)-N 34. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word &vayvffi~avttvO'U aeptKou", APXelOV Bv,av·nvov 8uca£ov, 1 I 1 (1930), pp. 1-212; Tornarites J. Ch., "i\eptK6c;-aerarium-fiscus", APXel'ov Bv,avnvov 8uca£ov, 1 I 2 (1931), pp. 307-66; Solovjev AI., Mosin VI., Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, Belgrade, 1936, pp. 383-5; Litavrin G., Bolgarija i Vizantija v XI-XII vv., Moscow, 1960, pp. 324-5; Haldon J., "AerikoniAerika: a Re-Interpretation", JOB, 44 (1994), pp. 136-42; Oikonomides N., Fiscalite et exemption fiscale a Byzance (IX•-xJ• s.), Athenes, 1996, p. 80ff.; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 49) 4\fXHenHc~on"A (subst. m.)-MN 1, 2, 14 five citations, 77. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word CtPXt£XtcrKoxoc;. (Bulgarski etimologichen rechnik (= BER), t. I, Sofia, 1971, p. 17; Vasmer, I, p. 91) II Sign.: "Archbishop", high ecclesiastical dignitary.

4\fXHefl\fX"A (subst. m.)-Mr. 5, 19, 48 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word apxtep6.PXoc;. (BER, I, p. 17) II Sign.: "High priest", "prelate", common word for the episcopal ecclesiastical degrees. 4\fXHepeH (subst. m.)-Mr. 26; MN 54. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word CtPXtepeuc;. (BER, I, p. 17; Vasmer, I, p. 91) II Sign.:

"Archiereus", "high priest", "prelate", common word for the episcopal ecclesiastical degrees. (Institutii feu dale, p. 20)

GLOSSARY

29

Af.X"~f~HC'J'Ro (subst. neutr.)-N 46. II Etym.: see "Af.X"et~"" II Sign.: Having episcopal degree, being a bishop, episcopal service in the Church.

Af,XHUAHAfHT'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 9, 95, Mr. 35, 38, Af,XHMh.AfHTORA (adj.-archimandritae; Gen. sg.)-Virg. 89; N 59; MN 31, 51 (1). II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word H'll. (adj.)-K 31:16 II Etym.: From rp-t,X'll. (="sin") with the negative particle &e~-. Probably it is a loan translation of the Greek word aVa)lapTrJtO C'll.R'tC'J'I:.HI:. with the negative particle &e~-. II Sign.: "Unscrupulous", Gr. acruv9£to "to say, to speak", "to order, to command". (BER, I, pp. 132-3, 391-2; Vasmer, I, p. 288) II Sign.: "To command", "to order", "to say"

I the classical form is R~I.J.Ie/ (subst. neutr.)-MAD 64, 71, 87 II Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic "*vl!t'b" = "to speak" > "s'bvl!t'b" = Gr. ~ouA.ft, Latin "Senatus" See Avestan word "vae9a", Gr. lbto~, IndoEuropean "ueku". (Skok P., Etimologijski rjecnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, t. III, pp. 589-90) II Sign.: "Senate", "assembly", Latin "Senatus", "consilis", "contractus", Gr. ~ouA.ft. Assembly of the Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik)-a state institution of the Adriatic city. In the text we find cited three types of "veche": "small" (line 64), "reduced" (line 71) and "great/big" (line 87). It did not exist in Bulgaria and the term is not a part of the Bulgarian institutional public system. One can find the word mainly in Serbian and Russian texts with two key meanings: "urban assembly of the elders" and "gathering of rebels" Ph. Malingoudis advanced the idea that the latter meaning is secondary and was created in Bulgaria. (Zavadskaja S. V., "0 'startsakh gradskikh'i startsakh ljudskikh' v Drevnej Rusi", Vostichnaja Evropa v drevnosti i Srednevekov'e, Moscow, 1978, passim; Granberg J., Veche in the Chronicals of Medieval Rus. A Study of Functions and Terminology, Goteborg, 2004; Malingoudis Ph., "Zu einigen Verfassungstermini des Codex Suprasliensis", Cyrillomethodianum, V, 1981, p. 200; Lukin P. V., "0 tak nazyvaemoj mnogoznachnosti ponjatija 'veche' v russkikh &e"'e

42

CHAPTER ONE

letopisjakh. Domongol'skoe vremja", Neischerpaemost istochnika.K 70-letiju V. A. Kuchkina, Moscow, 2005, passim; Lukin P. V., "Rannye neletopisnye upominanija vecha", Drevnjaja Rus', 3(21), 2005, pp. 58-60; Feldbrugge, Law in Medieval Russia, pp. 147-65). 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. 40610; 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).

(subst. f.)-Zogr. 4, K 17:1-2, 19:2-3, 48:1-3, 51:14-17, 52:1314, 59:2-4, 73:10-12 II Etym.: From the Indo-European "*weina" = "cause", "motive", "guilt, responsibility" (BER, I, p. 148; Vasmer, I, p. 316) II Sign.: "Guilt, responsibility", "cause", "motive", Greek ai·tia, Latin "causa" (Institufii feudale, pp. 232-3; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 56). RHH4\

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.: Fiscal 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).

(subst. neutr.)-Mr. 32 K 13:10-11,26:10-12,27:12-14,27:14-16, 28:10-13, 29:2-4, 53:10-11, 58:9-11, 60:11-13, 63:19-21, 65:10, 74:18-21, 78:19-21 II Etym.: The word is adopted directly or via Germanic languages from the Latin word "vinum" or the related Greek word (F)otvo~ = "wine". It is from the Indo-European "*wei-"= "coil, creep"; it is linked to the form of the vine. (BER, I, p. 149; Vasmer, I, pp. 316-7) II Sign.: The word is used to describe the obligations of the people to provide wine to the passing army or state officials. Of course, the general meaning of the word is not related to the law. (Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 185-7). RHHO

RHHI:..H'l..

"guilty".

(adj.)-K 73:1-3, 78:18-19

II

Etym.: See

RHH4\.

II

Sign.:

43

GLOSSARY

RHCOK'l> (adj.)-MAD 11, 32, 33 II Etym.: From the Indo-European "*ups-ok-os", similar to the Greek t)\JftMc; with the same meaning = "high". (BER, I, p. 152) II Sign.: Legal signification of the word is linked to an epithet for the ruler. (Biliarsky, "Dva narachnika za pittakia ot Kasnoto Srednovekovie", p. 262).

RHCTH~fb. (subst. m.)-N 78.

II

Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word ~ecr'tul.pwc;/~ecnul.pwv, which comes from the Latin "vestiarium" II Sign.: "Vestiarios", servant in the palace, charged with the ruler's treasury. In the Empire the office was reserved for eunuchs. (Institutii feudale, pp. 82, 101, 502-504; Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 412; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 156-64). RHCb.~fb. (subst. m.)-MAD 7711 Etym.: See RHCTH~fb.·ll Sign.: An institution of the Republic Dubrovnik. It is cited as RHCb.-tpb.e onb.I~HHb.CI~H (pl.) = "communal vistiarioi" RAM,Mb.U.b. (subst. m.)-Virg. 42 bis, 80 II Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic "*vold-" (Indo-European "*wold/hi-") with the meaning of "to dominate", "to rule, to govern" (BER, I, p. 160) II Sign.: A general denomination of a person with power, usually a local senior. "somebody with power" It corresponds to the Greek &p:x;rov. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 119). RAb.Ab.HHe

(subst. neutr.)-MAD 8

II

Etym.: See

RAb.AMb.L.J.b..

II Sign.:

"domain" (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). (TsibranskaKostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33). RAM,'l>IKb.

(subst. f.)-Zogr. 2; N 1; MN 38 (2), 43. II Etym.: See Translation od the Greek word o£mtowa. See also the Latin word "domina" II Sign.: Appellation of Our Lady, Mother of God. RAM,'l>llJHU.b. RAM,Mb.L.J.b..

(subst. neutr.)-AH 204; K 44:19-21 II Etym.: See RAb.A'l>ll~b.. II Sign.: "Rulership", Greek oemto'teia. (Popovic, "Povelja bana Tvrtka I Kotromanovica Dubrovniku", p. 153). RAM,'l>llJb.CTRHie

44

CHAPTER ONE

&A~A'll.IOU.C'l'RO (subst. neutr.)-MN

14 bis.ll Etym.: See &A~A'll.I"'MTRH!e.

II Sign.: "To be bishop", address to a bishop.

&A~A'kTH (verb)-N 45; K 39:22, 40:1 61:3-4, 62:8-10 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*vold-" (adj.)-K 57:3 "released"

II Etym.: See ROA~. II Sign.: "Free", "voluntary",

(verb)-K 54:10-12 II Etym.: See &OHHbCT&o. (BER, I, p. 177; Vasmer, I, p. 332) II Sign.: "Wage war; be at war", "to fight" &ole&4\TH

(subst. m.)-N 52, 74

&eAHI~rz.. &Oie&OA4\;

MN 45 (4), 48 (1) II Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek word mpo:t'l1"(6c;. (BER, I, pp. 172-3; SDR]a, I, pp. 457-8; Vasmer, I, p. 332) II Sign.: It signifies a concrete institution, "voevoda" (a military commander and/or regional governor), as well as military commander in general. In some cases it was part of the complex name of a higher institution &eAH~rz.. &Oie&OA4\ = "great voevoda" (in MN 45 /4/, although in this case the word refers to the tsar). (Institutii Jeudale, pp. 508-10; Petrov P., Grozdanova E., "Woiwode in den mittelalterlichen BalkanHindern und im Osmanischen Reich", Etudes historiques, IX, 1979, pp. 99-127; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 201-7, 270-86; Mihaljcic R., Vladarske titule oblasnih gospodara (Prilog vladarskoj ideologii u staroj srpskoj proslosti), Belgrade, 2001, pp. 125-56). &Oie&OAI\

&eAH~rz.. &Oie&OA4\, 48 (4) five citations ReAHI~rz.. &OieROA4\.

(subst. m.)-MAD 9, 10, 12, 14; MN 45 (4), 71 (3), 94 (8); K 1:9-10, 2:18-20, 2:22-23, 3:14-15, 4:8-9, 4:10-11, 21:13-14, 22:7-8,

Rfb.P'l>

GLOSSARY

47

23:15-17, 32:9-10, 32:10-12, 50:11-12, 53:12-13, 53:17-18, 77:13-15 II Etym.: Related to the Lithuanian "vargas" ="misfortune", "vergas"= "slave", Lettish "vargt" ="to suffer", Prussian "wargs" ="bad", Gothic "wrikan" ="to chase", "to hunt". (BER, I, pp. 178-9; SDR]a, I, p. 479; Vasmer, I, p. 360) II Sign.: "enemy", "foe", "adversary", Gr. £x9p6~, Lat ". . . tntmtcus ))

Rfb.mb.~

(subst. f.)-Virg. 86, 87, K 6:23-24, 14:1-4, 33:17-18, 53:11-12, 64:8-9, 64:9-11 II Etym.: Derives from Rfb.P'll.. The original meaning is "hatred", "odium" and from it> "murder, slaughter, homicide" (Gr.

R'ki.J.IHU.~ (subst. f.)-N 22 bis. II Etym.: From RK'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

II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*dargo", related to the Lettish "dargs" ="dear", "darling", to the Sanskrit "a-driyate" = "observe", "respect", Irish "dir" ="due, proper, befitting" (BER, I, pp. 417-8, Vasmer, I, p. 531) II Sign.: "Dear", "expensive", "valued" Ap~r'b (adj.)-K 36:4-5

Ap~mHH~ (subst. f.)-MAD 30, 32; K 44:1-211 Etym.: From Af~r'b = "different", "other", "comrade", "companion". In the Codex Suprasliensis the word corresponds to rruvooia, crucrtpan&-tat, hatpot. The term Ap~mHH~ could be a loan translation of the latter as far as the idea of "community" should be expressed by the term of "otherness" (BER, I, p. 432; Vasmer, I, p. 543) II Sign.: "Company", armed military group following the king or the prince. In the treaty of AD 1253 thus are designated the men, following the merchant. (Institufii feudale, pp. 88-89; Gorskij A. A., Drevnerusskaja druzhina, Moscow, 1989; Feldbrugge, Law in Medieval Russia, pp. 140-5). 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).

AfbJKUb.H'b (npHn)-MN 50 (1) "Related to the state", "important"

II

Etym.: See Afb.m~TH.

II

Sign.:

AfbJK~TH/nf'kAfbJK~TH

(verb)-Vatop. 5, MAD 54, 55, 105; Virg. 95; N 45, 73; MN 42, 58 (2); K 8:3-5, 9:5-6, 11:18-19, 15:2-3, 25:4-5, 31:14-16, 41:6-8, 55:18-20, 63:12-14, 75:12-1311 Etym.: The verb has Palaeoslavic root with the meaning "hold", "possess", "have in my hands" (BER, I, pp. 460-1; Vasmer, I, p. 503) II Sign.: "To possess", "to have the power" Gr. Kpa'tiiv, Lat. "tenere" AO~m'b (subst. m.)-MAD 4, 52, 54 II Etym.: From the Italian term "doge", which derives from the Latin "dux", probably through the Greek oou~ that is a part of the Byzantine influence on the Venice. II

GLOSSARY

63

Sign.: The head of the Serenissima Respublica or Serenissima Signoria (Venice). The same term is in use in Genoa to refer to its leader. This is not a Bulgarian institution. 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 institution is called AO~~~~ ReAHI~'ll. ("great dux") but this is not the Byzantine 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 IndoEuropean "*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", "individual", 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").

A'll.IMb.HHH~ (subst. f.)-Virg. 8811 Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek term Ka1tVtK6v (from A'll.IM'll. ="smoke"). (BER, I, pp. 390-1, 392; Vasmer, I, p. 558) II Sign.: A tax, payed by every household. (Dolger Fr., Beitriige zur Geschichte der by:amtinischen Finanzverwaltung, besonders des 10. und 11. ]ahrhunderts, Darmstadt, 1960, pp. 51-53; Dolger, Staatenwelt, p. 221ff., 254ff.; Ostrogorsky G., Die liindiche Steuergemeinde des byzantinischen Reiches im X. ]ahrh, Stuttgart, 1927, pp. 49-52, 113; Ostrogorsky G., Pour l'histoire de la feodalite byzantine, Bruxelles, 1956, pp. 303-5; Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 451 /Ka7tVo"Aeyyia/; Khvostova K. V., Osobenosti agrarnopravnykh otnoshenij v pozdnej Vizantii XIV-XV vv.. , Moscow, 1968, pp. 166-8; Kazhdan A. P., Agrarnye otnoshenija v Vizantii XIII-XV vv., Moscow, 1952, pp. 149-50; Kazhdan A. P., Derevnja i gorod v Vizantii IX-X vv., Moscow, 1960, pp. 145-50; Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 144-5; Andreev, "Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", pp. 91-2; Institutiifeudale, pp. 201-2; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 30-1, 72).

64

CHAPTER ONE

A't&4\ (subst. f.)-K 70:21-2211 Etym.: From the Indo-European *dhe(y) w- ("to milk", "to suck"). The word "AeTe" (= "child") has the same origin. (BER, I, pp. 330-1; SDR]a, III, pp. 147-8; Vasmer, I, p. 491) II Sign.: "Virgin", "young woman", "unmarried woman", Gr. xap9£vo~. The juridical signification is linked to the (matrimonial) status and could be linked to the penal law. (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33).

(subst. f.)-K 23:17-20, 61:14-15, 61:17-19. II Etym.: See Sign.: The same as A't&4\. (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33).

A't&HL.I,4\ A't&4\.

II

(adj.)-Virg. 8611 Etym.: An adjective from A't&4\ (see!). (BER, I, pp. 330-1; Vasmer, I, p. 491; The word is cited in Codex Suprasliensis too) II Sign.: The juridical signification is linked to the penal law, especially to the "virgin kidnapping" (A't&H'Ib. fb.~&oH). A't&H'U.

(subst. neutr.)-K 60:13-14, 60:14-16, 60:18-20, 61:20-23, 70:21-22 II Etym.: See A't&4\. II Sign.: "Virginity" Could be related to the status of the person and to the penal law.

A't&b.CT&o

(verb)-K 18:16-17, 60:16-17. II Etym.: See A't&4\. II Sign.: "To be virgin" Could be related to the status of the person, to the canon law and to the penal law.

A't&b.CT&0&4\TH

(subst. f.)-MAD 41, 46 II Etym.: From A'tA"b. = "grand father", "ancestor" (BER, I, pp. 471-2; Vasmer, I, p. 494; Skok, I, pp. 411-2) II Sign.: "Heritage", "inheritance", Gr. KA1lpovo~ia, Lat. "patrimonium". (Institutii feu dale, p. 145)

A'tAHH4\

(subst. m.)-Syn. Pal.78 II Etym.: From A'tA"b. = "grand father" (BER, I, pp. 471-2; Vasmer, I, p. 494; Skok, I, pp. 411-2) II Sign.: "High heretic (bogomil) religious leader", "heretic bishop" The comparison with bishop is unavoidable, not only considering the appellation "grand-father" with which bishops are addressed (in order to designate a position higher than that of "father"), but also because it is present in the Synodicon, which includes an anathema against the "dedets of Sredets" This suggests the regional connection of the position, linked to a diocese. (Angelov D., Bogomilstvoto v Bulgarija, 3d A'tAb.U.b.

GLOSSARY

65

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) A~O

(subst. neutr.)-N 73; MN 45 (4), 58 (2), 80 bis, 98 bis, 101, 111, 113. II Etym.: Derivative from the Indo-European "*dhe-" with the suffix "lo" Related to the Lithuanian "deti" = "to put", "to find room for", Old High German "tuon", German "tun", English "to do", Gr. 'ti9run ="to put", Lat. "facio"= "to do", Avestan "dadati" ="put" (BER, I, pp. 338, 351; Vasmer, I, p. 497) II Sign.: "Affair", "work", "activity" (Minceva A., "Entstehungswege der friihesten christlichen Terminologie bei den Slaven", Orpheus, 8 (1998), Georgiev Memorial Volume, p. 58) A'tTe.l\1:. (subst. f.)-K 70:23-24 factor"

II

Etym.: See A't.l\0.

II Sign.: "(Bene)

A'th\HH!e (subst. neutr.)-AH 200 (see 201-verb C'll.A'th\TH); K 66:910. II Etym.: See A't.l\0.11 Sign.: "Deed", "act" 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 and epee~>.. II Sign.: "Heretical" Related to the canon law and to the penal law.

EfE'T'H"'b.CIC'l>

(subst. neutr.)-K 1:14-17, 15:7, 67:19-21. EfE'T'HI~'l> and EfECb.. II Sign.: "Heresy".

EfE'T'H"'b.C'I'Ro

II

Etym.: See

68

CHAPTER ONE

m~HA (subst. f.)-AH 202 (four citations); N 53 (wife); K 13:7-10, 19:26, 26:10-12, 39:1-2, 39:22, 40:1-2, 43:5-6, 43:21-22, 44:9-11, 58:13-15, 58:15-17, 59:2-4, 59:6-9, 59:12-13, 59:13-15, 59:16-18, 60:21-23, 61:1-2, 61:2-3, 61:3, 61:3-4, 61:9, 61:15-17, 62:5-6, 65:12-14, 65:1415, 65:15-17, II Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic *zena, related to the Old Prussian "genno", Gothic "qino" ("woman") and "qens" ("wife"), Armenian "kin", Greek yuvfi, Avestan "g~na, y~na, yna" ("woman"). (BER, I, pp. 535-6; Vasmer, II, p. 46) II Sign.: Here we present only the meaning of "married woman", "wife" They are related to the matrimonial law. It is to stress the continuous combination m~Hm noHMATH (="to marry", "to contract a marriage"). (see Davidov, p. 101). m~HHT&A

(subst. f.)-K 27:7-9,43:1-2,60:1-2,60:14-16,62:1,63:18-19. Etym.: From m~HA = "woman, wife" (see!). II Sign.: "Marriage", "nuptials", "contraction of a marriage" (Institufii feudale, pp. 85-7, 192-3)

II

m~HHTH /CIA/ (verb)-K 26:12-14, 27:1-4, 60:20-21, 61:7-9, 61:19-20, 61:23-24,64:1-311 Etym.: See m~HA and m~HHTRA. II Sign.: "To marry", "to contract a marriage". (Institufii feudale, pp. 85-7)

(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) mHTArb

(subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 50, 58 II Etym.: From mHTO (see mHTAfb!). Translation of the Greek term o"t'tapKia. II Sign.: A requisition and compulsory supplying in kind for the needs of the army or a required buying up at fixed prices. (Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 491-2; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 361-4)

mHTAfbCT&o

(subst. f.)-N 7. II Etym.: From mHTO (see mHTAfb). Related to the Palaeoslavic "*zita" that is of the same root with ")IU1B" ("alive") and ")I(MBeH"("to live"). The localizator "-H-" is added to the theme and

mHTbHHLI,A

GLOSSARY

69

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. (adj.)-Virg. 101 58 II Etym.: An adjective that derives from (see mHTb.fb.!). II Sign.: "Cereal", Gr. cri:tou, Lat. ''frumenti" The juridical signification of the word is related to the grain tax. mHTb.H'll. mHTO

mo~nb. (subst. f.)-Virg. 74 II Etym.: The word has two meanings: an administrative-territorial unit, and "mine" (especially salt mine), "nest", "cell" We are only interested in the first meaning, probably derived from the word mo~nb.H'll. (cf. below). The etymology is problematic and not quite clear. (BER, I, p. 559; Vasmer, II, pp. 65-66) II Sign.: "Zupa (or zhupa)", administrative-territorial unit in some Slavic and Central European countries. It probably existed in the First Bulgarian Empire. We have no available data that it was used during the Second Empire, and there are reasons to believe that it had fallen into disuse. Mention of it is made only in the Virgino Charter, which followed the text of a Serbian document of 1300. It should be noted that there are data indicating the existence of zupa in Serbia. (Wasilewski T., "Zhupa i zhupanija u juzhnite slavjani i ljahnoto mjasto v organizatsijata na srednovekovnite darzhavi", in: Wasilewski T., Bulgarija i Vizantija (IX-XV vek), Sofia, 1997, pp. 84-92) mo~nb.H'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 3, Bra. 1; N 21; MN 44 (1). II Etym.: The etymology is not clear. We must reject the idea that the term is derived from mo~nb. with the addition of the suffix -b.H'll.. The prevailing view is that it IS of Turkic origin, for similar words exist in the languages of the Steppe peoples. The initial meaning was evidently a chief or commander of some group or military unit. (BER, I, pp. 559-60; Vasmer, II, p. 66) II Sign.: The zupans (or zhupans) institution did not exist in Bulgaria during the Second Empire, but there is ample evidence it existed during the First Empire. It was widespread in the western parts of the Balkan peninsula, among the Romanians, and in Central and Eastern Europe. Until the beginning of the thirteenth century "great zupan" was the title of the Serbian ruler. In the letter of tsar John Sratsimir an institution of the same name is mentioned as existing in the city of Bra~ov (Kronstadt): the title was used for one of the leaders of the city, called "judex" in the documents in Latin, and "Richter" in

70

CHAPTER ONE

those in German. (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; Grachev V. P., "Terminy 'zhupa' i 'zhupan' v serbskikh istochnikakh XII-XIV vv. i traktowka ikh v istoriografii (K izucheniju politicjeskoj organizacii v srednevekovoj Serbii)", Istochniki i istoriografija slavjanskogo Srednevekov'ja. Sbornik statej i materialov, Moscow, 1967, pp. 3-52; Dobrev Iv., "Praslavjanskoto *zupa 'xropa', starobulgarskoto m~nb.H'Z.., starobulgarskoto m~neArz. '9e'iov', m~nH4-Je ·~vfl~a', srednobulgarskoto m~neAeRHHb. '9u£A.A.a"', Konstantin-Kiril Filosof ]ubileen sbornik po sluchaj 11 00-godishninata ot smyrtta mu, Sofia, 1969, pp. 383-7; Malingoudis Ph., «Die Institution des Zupans als Problem der fri.ihslavischen Geschichte (Einige Bemerkungen) », Cyrillomethodianum, II, Thessalonique, 1972-1973, pp. 61-76; Institutii feudale, pp. 239-40, 260, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 266ff.; Philippi M., Die Burger von Kronstadt im 14. und 15. ]ahrhundert, Koln/Wien 1986, p. 131; Gavlikova L., "Transformatsija, retseptsija i adaptacija vizantijskoj voenno-politicheskoj terminologii v slavjanskoj srede", Vizantijskij vremenik, t. 50, 1989, pp. 62-3; Holzer G., «Zur Sprache des mittelatrelichen Slaventums in bsterreich. Slavisch unter bairischen Einfluss», Wiener Slavistisches ]ahrbuch, Bd. 48, 2002, pp. 57-63; Havlova E., «K publikovanYrn. i nepublikovanYrn. pradm Ant. Matzenauera», Studia etymologica Brunensia, 2, 2003, pp. 24-7; Cleminson R., "Brashovskaja gramota tsarja Ivana Sratsimira", Arheografski prilozi, vol. 20, 1998, p. 370; Mihaljcic, Vladarske titule oblasnih gospodara, pp. 77-87). mb.~Arz.

(subst. m.)-K 24:12-14,24:14-16,24:17-19.11 Etym.: Related to the Old High German "kegil", German "Kedel" ="pillar", "stake, post" as well as Icelandic "geisl" ="stick", Swedish "gissel" ="scourge", Old High German "geisala" = "scourge", Gr. xa'ioc; = "shepard's crook", "rod" Probably the word was created on the basis of the Greek word crJcilxtpov. (BER, I, p. 531; Vasmer, II, p. 40) II Sign.: "Scepter", a royal insigne of power (see Psalms 22:4-fi pa~ooc;).

ml:fb.U.b. (subst. m.)-K 14:22-23, 15:6-7, 14:11-12, 14:12-15, 14:16-

17. II Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic "*zrhti" = "to sacrifice, to offer to god", related to the Prussian "girtwei", Lithuanian "girti" and Lettish "dzirt" = "to glorify, to praise", Sanskrit "grmhi" = "to summon, to

GLOSSARY

71

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.

II Etym.: See IWF\Ab.. II Sign.: "To mislead", "to delude", "to deceive" Could be related to the penal law.

~AIWF\AHTH (verb)-K 26:9-10, 42:11-14.

(subst. m.)-K 9:11-12, 55:15-16, 72:3-5 II Etym.: Related to the verb "BeTaM" (the same origin as the word "c'bBeT" = "council"). Related words Lithuanian "waitenu" = "estimate", "suppose", Old Prussian "waitiamai" ="speak", Avestan "wae9-" ="to issue a verdict, a judgement" and "wae9a" = "verdict, judgement" (BER, I, pp. 138, 574; Vasmer, II, p. 72) II Sign.: "Contract", "promise", "testament", "legacy", "order", "commandment" The word is related to the civil, administrative and the church law. (Institufii feu dale, pp. 153-6, 469) ~u~T'll.

II Etym.: See Sign.: "Bequeath", "to leave by testament" Could signify "to deliver/to hand over property". Related to the civil law. ~AR~4-JARATH/~AR~4-JATH (verb)-N 59; K 10:16-17 ~AR~T'll..

II

II Etym.: From ~AKOH'll. II Sign.: "Legislator", Gr. "vo~o9k11~"

~AKOHOAATeAb. (subst. m.)-K 75:20-22.

"law") + ~4\I~OH'll.

AATH

(="to give").

(=

(subst. m.)-Vatop. 21, Dubr. 11, MAD 34, 37, 37-38, 46, 47, 48, 105, Ril. 12; AH 200 four citations, 201, 202 bis, 203 tris, 204 hisin this text the word means "law" as well as "the Holy Scripture"; K 11:7-8, 16:5-6, 20:10-12, 20:12-14, 20:14-15, 21:1-2, 21:3-4, 22:810, 31:14-16, 43:2-4, 46:15-16, 48:8, 52:13-14, 53:9-10, 55:13-15, 55:15-16, 56:7-9,60:17-18,62:5-6, 63:14-16, 63:19-21, 64:15, 66:2-4, 74:8-9, 74:10-11. 75:20-22, II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*za-kon-o" = "principle", "consuetude", "usage" The word is adopted in Greek as ~a.K6vt. The most ancient citation is in the text of Constantine Prophyrogennetus-~/Krz.. (subst. m.)-Virg. 15, 97, Vit. 8 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term KacrtpoA.a~ = "castle guardian" II Sign.: Local military institution, commander of a garrison of a fortress or a town (Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 313-4). KATenA/Ho/Hrz.. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 9, Mr. 2811 Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term Katm6.vro ="who is above" (from Kat'bt6.vro).ll Sign.: Provincial military institution. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 309-13)

KA'I'O~HI:.CK'l> (adj.)-Virg. 60 II Etym.: Adjective from "KaTYH" ="camp of Gipsies or other nomads" The word is adopted in Bulgarian from Greek Kata6vo'i, but there from the Romanian word "ditun" (from the Lat. "canton") meaning "settlement". (BER, II, pp. 277-8) II Sign.: The word is related to the organisation of the nomadic minorities and then to the law. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 118; Institufii feudale, p. 133) l~e.I\Afb (subst. m.)-MN 44 (1). II Etym.: from Greek KeA.A.6.ptO'i, KeAAclP"l'i· The Latin word "cella" passed in Greek as KeAAtOV and the suffix -ap is added to the latter. See Ke.I\H~! II Sign.: "Kelar" a monastic service.

~ee.I\H~ (subst. f.)-MN 118 (1); K 49:5-6, 51:8-10 II Etym.: transliteration of the Greek word KeAAtOv that comes from the Latin "cella" (BER, II, p. 363; Vasmer, II, p. 222) II Sign.: "Cell" The word is related to the canon and to the penal law.

~eecj>MH~ (subst. m.)-Virg. 42, Vit. 6, 8; N 72. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word Ke<paA.fi = "head" II Sign.: provincial governor in the late mediaeval Bulgaria. (Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 286-92; Institutii feudale, p. 95)

GLOSSARY

81

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.

(subst. M.)-AH 202; K 74:1-3. II Etym.: See KAe&err~. Sign.: "Slanderer", "calumniator", "accuser", Gr. Ka'tftyopoc;, Lat. "accusator" There is a variant KAe&err~p~:.. The meaning "slanderer" is out of our interest although it is related to the law. On the contrary, the meaning "accuser" is especially important in the procedure. It is present in the classical lexical corpus (before the twelfth century) and corresponds to the Greek Ka'tftyopoc;. We would stress the quotation in the Codex Suprasliensis (441,12), where ICA.e&err~p H Oru\H'lHTeAI:. correspond to Ka'tftyopot Kat £4not. The word is related to the procedure and to penal law. Related words: AOC~AHTeAI:., KAe&err~p~:., o&~AHTt\AI:., O&AH'lHTt\AI:., f't'li:.HHK'b, w~:>n'bTI:.HHK'b. (Sreznevskij, Materialy, I) KAe&eTI:.HHK'b

II

KAHCO~f~ (subst. f.)-Dubr. 8, 10 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word wum6pa (from Lat. "clausura") = "closed mountainous area" (BER, II, p. 459) II Sign.: The word exists in Modern Bulgarian as a geographical term. Its juridical signification is as appellation of an administrative-territorial unit in the mountains. (Biliarsky, "Les circonscriptions administratives", pp. 183-5) 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

"Curse", oath as a malediction and oath as an act of taking an oath. The legal meaning of the term is connected with concluding of contracts and assuming duties, but also with the structure of certain imperial acts, which contain curses or threats as an element of the stipulated penalties. In both cases there is some danger involved, which is either undergone or referred to as a threat against others. (Institufii feudale, p. 26lff.) l~h\'l'H

(verb)-MAD 7, 52, 56, 105; N 4; MN 31, 40, 41, 48 (4), 51 (1) bis, 61, 93, 102, 117; K 48:3-5. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*kl~ti, klbnq" = "curse, swear", probably related to the word "*klan'b" = "incline", Lat. "in-clino", Gr. KAtVOJ.Lat = "bend", "twist" (BER, III, p. 191; Vasmer, II, p. 260) II Sign.: "Swear", "curse" The juridical meanings are two: "to swear" (as a confirmation of a contract or of testimonies) and "to curse" (as a penalty). (subst. m.)-N 61 bis; MN 8 (7) II Etym.: From "*kovati" (IndoEuropean "*kow-" = "beat", "strike", "cut"> "kau-" = "kill", related to the Lithuanian "kauti" and Lettish "kaut" ="beat", "strike", "cut", "kill", Old Prussian "cugis" ="hammer", Old High German "houwan", German "hauen" and Latin "cudo" ="beat", "strike", "coin money", Irish "cuad" = "beat", "fight") and the suffix -A 'I. About the mythological signification of the morpheme "*kav-" among the Slavs-see Ivanov V. V., Toporov V. N., in: Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie, VII Mezhdunarodnyj s'ezd slavistov. Doklady sovetskoj delegatsii, 1973, pp. 156-9. (BER, II, pp. 506-9, 510; Vasmer, II, pp. 270, 402) II Sign.: "(Black)smith", the juridical meaning of the word is linked to the status of the person. KO&A"'b

II

Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek I~O~MHK'l> (subst. M.)-MN 99. word KOcrJ.LtK6~, derivative of KOcrJ.LO~ ="world", "cosmos, Universe".

II

Sign.: "Lay man". Juridical meaning related to the status of the person. (subst. neutr.)-MN 98.11 Etym.: From the Indo-European root "*kwel-" = "to turn" The meaning of "knee" derives from there. The meaning "stock", "clan", "tribe" could be adopted from the Greek word y£vo~ = "family, tribe" < y6vu = "knee"; the same in Latin "genus" = "family"< "genu"= "knee". (BER, II, pp. 565-6; Vasmer, II, p. 289). II Sign.: "Knee", "family, tribe", "origin" The word is related to the family links and is a special term of the heritage law. I~ONimo

GLOSSARY

83

KOMHC'l> (subst. m.)-Virg. 99, Vit. 10 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term 11:6~11~ that origins from the Latin "comes, -itis" The Slavic form keeps the nominative suffix. (BER, II, p. 572; Vasmer, II, p. 302)11 Sign.: Local military institution, probably related to the cavalry; Gr. 11:6~11~; Lat. "comes" See also K'l>Mb.Tb. in the Glossary of the terms of Law for Judging the People! The form I~OMHT'l> is also present is some text of Bulgarian origin: in the Chronicle of John Malalas the Greek word cruyKA1l'ttK6~ is translated as GOA!b.fHH'l> KOMHT'l> with a variant of c BapMaHT GOA!b.fHH'l> KMeTrz..-see Istrin V. M., Khonika Joanna Malaly v slavjanskom perevode, Moscow, 1994, p. 182. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Institutii feudale, pp. 111-3, 398; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 317-9; Wasilewski T., "Proizkhod i administrativna organizatsija na komitatite v srednovekovna Bulgarija", in: Wasilewski T., Bulgarija i Vizantija (IX-XV vek), Sofia, 1997, pp. 48-54; Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 66) KOMOA'l> (subst. m.)-Vatop. 13, 20, Virg. 101, Mr. 31 II Etym.: Probably this is an abbreviated form of oiKo~Mhov. II Sign.: Fiscal institution. 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 byzantine», Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, 80 (1956), pp. 625-31; Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija, pp. 310-4; Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 91-95; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 42-3; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 103-4; Andreev, "Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", p. 90; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 82-3) I~OM'l>Kb.HHie

(subst. neutr.)-K 8:24-25 bis, 9:18-21, 10:7-10, 11: S-6, 11:14-16, 11:17-18, 11:23-24, 12:1-3, 63:1-2.11 Etym.: See KOM'l>Kb.TH. II Sign.: Related to the canon law, the repentance and the penitence. I would like to note the term &'l>Cil\,t\'1> (with probable meaning of"Holy communion"), which is lost in the modern languages. (Vasica, ZSL, p. 162; Cibranska, ZSL, pp. 199-200; Minceva, "Entstehungswege", p. 57; Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 90)

84

CHAPTER ONE

~eourz..~a.TH (verb)-N 38.11 Etym.: From the Latin "communico". (BER, II, pp. 573-4; Vasmer, II, p. 303). II Sign.: "To receive Holy Communion" (Minceva, "Entstehungswege", p. 57) KOHbCKrz.. (adj.)-Virg. 86, Mr. 37 II Etym.: Adjective from KOHb = "horse" (BER, II, pp. 578-80; Vasmer, II, p. 316) II Sign.: As a juridical term one finds it in the combination KOHbCK'l>l Tb.T'l> (= "horsestealing").

(subst. M.)-MN 8 (10) II Etym.: From KOfb.&rz.. < Greek (= "ship") < Kapa~o~ = "vessel", "pot", "container" (BER, II, pp. 626-7; Vasmer, II, pp. 321-2) II Sign.: "Sailor" KOfb.&bHHK'l>

Kapa~wv

KOCHTH (verb)-Virg. 102-103 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic verb "*kasiti" ="to cut" (BER, II, p. 668) II Sign.: "Mow", "cut grass" The juridical meaning is linked to the corvees to furnish hay for the army (cavalry) and other traveling state officials. It could be related also to the taxation of the hay production. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 124; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 95) KOWb.fb4-JHHb. (subst. f.)-Virg. 101 II Etym.: From KOW'b (="basket"), "Komapa" (="/sheep-, cattle-/pen", "fold"), Gr. ~avopa, Lat. "caulae" (Palaeo slavic "*kaSer'b ", "*kaSera") maybe the Latin and Slavic forms are linked by the form "casula" The cited term is a loan translation of the Greek ~avopta'ttK6v < ~avopa = "/sheep-, cattle-/pen, fold" (BER, II, pp. 692-3; Vasmer, II, p. 360) II Sign.: Right to use the mountainous pastures and folds for which there was a fee. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 75)

!Cfb.ro~h\fb (subst. m.)-Mr. 29, Vit. ll,Ril. 56 II Etym.: From "Kparytf" = "falcon" and the suffix -b.fb· The word has a Turkic root to designate rapacious birds. (BER, II, pp. 703-4; Vasmer, II, p. 363) II Sign.: Employee, charged with the organisation of the ruler's hunting with predatory birds. Probably the same was responsible also for the corvees related to the breeding and training of the birds. (Cvetkova, "Sokolarstvoto", pp. 66-82; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 374-9) Kfb.m# (subst. f.)-Virg. 86 II Etym.: from the Indo-European "*kra(u)-" >related to the Palaeoslavic "*kryti, *kryjq" ="to hide" and

GLOSSARY

85

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" ~fAHI.J.Ie (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 46-47,4711 Etym.: from the Palaeoslavic "*krajt/, "*krajq" with the primary meaning of"piece" and then "end"; see Avestan word "karana-" ="country" as well as the Persian "karan" (BER, II, pp. 707-9; Vasmer, II, p. 364) II Sign.: The citations from the document mean "area" but in some later Serbian and Ottoman documents this word is the Slavic counterpart of the Turkish term of "uc" or "w;:" = "arrow", "peak", "region" This was an almost autonomous region in the Ottoman state system under the power of an uc beg. In this sense the term could be lexically identical with nf'tArt.Arz.. in the Bulgarian mediaeval administrative system. This does not mean the two terms are identical in their character. The term ~f~HI.J.Ib.HH~b. is present in the Serbia and means "the governor of the region". Later it is used for the uc beg, i. e. as a Slavic translation of the Ottoman term. (Biliarsky, "Les circonscriptions administratives", p. 197; Biliarsky Iv., "Pismo na sultan Bajazid II do kral Matias Korvin ot 1487 g.", Ricerche slavistiche, XLIV, 1997, pp. 79-81; Institutii feudale, 127) ~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 Hungarian "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.

l~fMb.CTRO (subst. neutr.)-MN 44 (1). II Etym.: See l~fMb.. II Sign.: "Kingdom", the state under the power of a king, Lat. "regnum" ~pAuo.A~ (subst. f.)-Zogr. 55, 63

II

Etym.: From the Bavarian word "karmala" = "quarrel", "discussion", "rebellion" (BER, II, pp. 714-5; Vasmer, II, pp. 365-6) II Sign.: "Quarrel" In the cited case the word signifies "contestation of the imperial document" ~fMTH (verb)-K 64:21-23.11 Etym.: See "~r~mA~".II Sign.: "To steal".

86

CHAPTER ONE

KfMTHTH I

CA (verb)-AH 202 (his); K 17:14-16, 31:4-5, 31:10-12, 32:5-6, 62:16-17. II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*krbstiti", derivative of "*krbst'b" The latter is adopted from Germanic "Crist/Krist" (= "Christ") that originates from Greek :x;ptcr-c6c; (= "anointed" /Hebrew "mashiah"/) via Latin "christus" (BER, III, pp. 50-6, 58-60; Vasmer, II, p. 374) II Sign.: "Baptise" A sacrament, related to the status of the person and his belonging to the Church. (Minceva, "Entstehungswege", pp. 58-61)

!Cfb.I.J.IeHHie (subst. neutr.)-AH 201 (TpM II'bTM); K 31:4-5, 32:3, 32:3-5, 67:21-23. II Etym.: See KfMTHTH.II Sign.: "Baptism", a sacrament. See !epMTHTH. (Minceva, "Entstehungswege", pp. 58-61) ~ep-tnoCTb. (subst. f.) -Zogr. 60; N 45. II Etym.: From K£-tnrz. = "fortress" See Palaeoslavic "*krer'b-k'b" < Indo-European *kre-pu-" It is related to the Old Icelandic "hf~~::fa" ="stand, endure", "bear", "suffer". (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"

KTHTOfHLV- (subst. f.)-N 51. II Etym.: See KTHTOf'll.· founder (benefactor) or the wife of the ctitor.

II

Sign.: Female

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 created 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. "commercium").ll Sign.: "Duty, customs", "tax on the trade". In the Horismos 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 reglementation du commerce de l'Etat medieval bulgare», La pratique commerciale (= Mediterranees, No 30/31, 2002), p. 99ff.; Institutiifeudale, pp. 490-2).

GLOSSARY

KO\j'nAh\

87

(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 ' 'Y Lat. " emere, tra de, , Gr. o.yopo.~:~etV, 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. I~O\j'fA (subst. neutr.)-Mr. 32, Ril. 66

II Etym.: From 1~o~prz.. ="cock,

rodster" The word origin of the sound of the song of the oird. It developed in two directions: 1) everything linked to the poultry and this race of domestic birds and 2) "penis", "male sexual organ" (BER, III, pp. 142-3; Vasmer, II, p. 422) II Sign.: "Chick, chicken" The cited case means the obligatory furniture and requisitions for the army and passing state officials. In the Rila chrysobull we read "not to kill chicken" that eliminates the possibility to see in the word a sign of some taxation on the poultry. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 124). 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). K'l..HHP~

(subst. f.)-MAD 30, 33, 50; AH 203; MN 3 (1) bis, 17 bis, 30, 31 four citations, 32 (1), 38 (2), 40 bis, 41 bis, 43 bis, 44 (1) tris, 45 (3), 47 tris, 48 (4) bis, 50 (2), 51 (1), 53 bis, 54 tris, 56 (1), 58 (2), 59, 60, 61, 65 four, 66,67 (1), 68, 71 (1), 71 (2), 71 (3), 74, 80 six citations, 83 (1), 86 (1) five, 88, 89 bis, 90, 96 98, 101, 106 bis, 108 (3), 108 (4), 117 bis, 118 (2)-it is to note that in all the citations of the

88

CHAPTER ONE

word in the marginal notes and colophons it never reveals a special juridical meaning; K 3:15-16, 7:5-8, 7:13-14, 7:15-17, 8:3-5, 10:1-2, 10:5-7, 16:6-8, 17:2-3, 17:3-5, 17:8-10, 17:21-22,28:14-15, 39:10-11, 44:16-18, 48:10-11, 52:13-14, 56:2-4, 58:7-9, 62:19-21, 72:3-5, 72:912, 74:7-8, 74:9-10, 74:13-14, 78:8-9, 79:16-18. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic l~'l..HHrrz..l (f. pl.) = "letters", "written symbols", "books" This must have been an old loanword from the languages of the steppe peoples (Huns, Avars, Bulgars). There are parallel words in Uralic languages: in Mordovian "konov" ="paper", and in Hungarian "konyv" ="book". Some authors renewed the Bulgar word "*kiin'ig" > "*kiiniv" > "*k'bn'ig~>" There are theories stating the word is of Iranian origin and offering parallels for it in Persian, Armenian, and Ossetian. The basic meaning is always connected with written symbols and books. (BER, II, pp. 496-8; Vasmer, II, pp. 262-3) II Sign.: "Book", "written symbols" In the text of the treaty with Dubrovnik, dating from 1253, the word signifies "document", "official act" This meaning is not exceptional; according to some authors it is how the word for certain Byzantine imperial acts was translated. K'l..Hh.mb.C'J'Ro (subst. neutr.)-1) MAD 25, 29, 34, 52 II Sign.: "Principality", state, Republic of Dubrovnik and its territory. 2) MAD 52 II Sign.: The mandate period of a K'l..Hh.~b., the head of the Republic of Dubrovnik. II Etym.: See l~'l..Hh.~b. with suffix. The term is not a part of the Bulgarian political and juridical nomenclature of the Middle Ages. The phenomenon existed in other states and especially in Dubrovnik as it is in the cited case.

K'l..Hh.~b. (subst. m.)-1) Virg. 3; AH 201 (bis); MN 1 (five citations), 65; K 15:19-21, 23:8-10, 23:10-11, 23:11-12, 23:15-17, 23:20-21, 37:1617, 68:3-4. II Etym.: From "Konig" -very ancient adoption from the Germanic languages. (BER, II, pp. 495-6, 499; Vasmer, II, p. 266) II Sign.: "Prince", Gr. liPXrov, Lat. "princeps";-2) Virg. 15, 99, II Sign.: "Head of a local community, provost", Gr. &fJJ.Lapxoc;, 7tptJ.LJ.LtKUptOc;, Lat. "primicerius"-3) MAD 4, 25, 33, 51, 55, 58, 85, 93, 94, 104 bis II Sign.: One of the supreme institutions of the Republic of Dubrovnik. (Institutii feudale, pp. 108-10; Mihaljcic, Vladarske titule oblasnih gospodara, pp. 88-103)

(subst. f.)-Mr. 15-16; MN 47, 69, 83 (1), 106. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word A.aupa = "narrow road", "street" (BER,

Atl\Rftl\

GLOSSARY

89

III, p. 267; Vasmer, II, p. 445) II Sign.: Large idiorhytmic monastery. Its origins are related to the tradition of Palestinian monasticism. AHKA,I\4\ (subst. f.)-MN 48 (4). II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word A.t~6:oa. (BER, III, pp. 389-90; Vasmer, II, p. 493) II Sign.: "Meadow". Related to the property.

AHT~frH~

(subst. f.)-K 9:1, 11:13-14, 11:14-16, 11:17-18, 11:18-19, 11:19-21, 11:22-23, 34:15-16,63:9-11.11 Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term ABttovyia, from A.a6~ (= "people") and epyO).UXt (= "to work"). (BER, III, p. 433; Vasmer, II, pp. 503-4; Nichev, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", pp. 62-3) II Sign.: "Liturgy", "Eucharist divine service", the basic ecclesiastical ritual, ruled by the canon law. (subst. neutr.)-K 27:22-23, 73:18-19. II Etym.: Derivative of AH:Xrz. ="uneven, odd", "excessive", "evil", ''brave", "abundant" and ~TH = "to have". Could be created on the basis of the Greek term 1tAeove~ia. (BER, III, p. 437, see pp. 435-6; Vasmer, II, pp. 504-5) II "U sury" , "money- Ien d"mg" , G r. 1tM::OVe~ta. 'l~· . S1gn.: AH:XOHMbCTKO

AH:XOHM~HH!e (subst. neutr.)-K 64:25-27.11 Etym.: See AH:XOHMb.CTKo.ll

Sign.: "Usury", "money-lending", "avarice" (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)

AOKH4Je

(subst. m.)-MN 89 bis. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word A.oyo9eTrJ~ from A.6yo~ = "word" and ti9rt~t = "to put", "to place" Only this form of the term has been registered in Bulgaria, but in Walachia and Moldavia we also come across its loan translation forms CAOKocrz.nHCb.TeAb. and CAOKonoAomHTeAb.. It is more natural for the words to have arisen in a Slavic linguistic environment, but we only have data of their occurrence in these two principalities. (BER, II, p. 453) II Sign.: "Logothete" was a high-ranking official, head of the imperial chancellery. The name comes from the placing of the imperial seal and the preparation of the imperial golden-sealed text, the AOro-e-errrz.

90

CHAPTER ONE

chrysobull, as well as other documents. The form AOrocj>er was adopted in Romanian through Russian influence. (Guilland R., "Les logothetes", Revue des etudes Byzantines, XXIX, 1971, pp. 5-16; Institutii feudale, pp. 277-9; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 221-39) (verb)-K 65:3-5. II Etym.: See Ab.CTI:.. II Sign.: "To deceive", "to mislead", "to lie", Gr. axa'taro. The verb can be related to penal law.

Ab.CTHTH

(subst. f.)-K 22:4-6, 36:10-12, 40:12-14, 54:14-17. II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*lbstb" adopted from the Gothic word "lists" (German "List") ="dodge, trick", "wile" (BER, III, pp. 560-2; Vasmer, II, p. 487) II Sign.: "Delusion", "fraud, deceit, deception" Related to the penal law.

Ab.CTI:.

(subst. m.)-K 41:5-6. fraud", "tempter, seducer"

AMTI:.U.b.

II Etym.: See AMTHTH. II Sign.: "Cheat,

(subst. neutr.)-AH 201, 202; K 1:12-14, 14:1-4, 58:15.11 Etym.: composed word of Akl&'ll.l (="love") and A'th\TH (="to do", "to make"). II Sign.: "Adultery", "fornication", Gr. xopvei.a. The word is related to the penal and to the canon law. (Institutii feudale, pp. 4-5; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 91-2)

Akl&OA'tHCT&O/Akl&OA'th\HHie

Akl&OA'tHU.~

(subst. m. or f.)-AH 201 (Akl&OA'tH); K 59:9-10.11 Etym.: See Akl&OA'tHCT&o. II Sign.: "Lewd", "fornicator I -tress", "whore" (Institutii feudale, pp. 4-5)

(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" -.

II

Sign.: "To beg

OTrz..no'rC'l'HTH (verb)-AH 202; MN 51 (1) his. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pustlti" ("release") < "*pust'b" ("deserted", "empty", "abandoned"). Exact translation of the Greek &.1toA:6ro. (BER, VI, pp. 5-8) II Sign.: "Release" (in the cited text), "remit" The citation from AH is taken from a context of the matrimonial law and means "leave", "abandon" (the wife).

(subst. m.)-Virg. 77, 78, Mr. 23; N 74 (OT7fOKORU.HM4\). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*at(u)raku" ("*rekq" ="to say", "to call", "to make order") with the original meaning of "who is not allowed to speak" These were the people who were under a family power-the children and the slaves. (BER, IV, pp. 973-4; Vasmer, III, pp. 172-3) II Sign.: "Boy", "slave", Gr. BouA.o'i, Lat. "servus" In a text of Theophylact of Ohrid (Theophilacti Achridensis Epistulae, ed. P. Gautier, Thessaloniki, 1986, No. 12, 1. 22) we find the word Cl'tpffi-tl;tVa that should signify a type of tax, probably similar (but not identical) with the Byzantine 1tapoueta'tuc6v. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 118; Solovjev, Masin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 475; A. Leroy-Molingen, "Trois mots slaves dans les lettres de Theophilacte de Bulgarie", Annuaire de I'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves de I'Universite de Bruxelles, 6 (1938), pp. 116-7; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 83; Blagojevic M., "Meropsi i otroci-bastinici i posadnici i grbaljskom rukopisu Dusanovog zakona", Glas SANU, CCCXCVI (2004), pp. 21-60; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 199-200) OT'l>fOKrz..

(subst. m.)-AH 200 his, 201, 202; !Seal I.lOA p. 126; MN 17, 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, 4:2224, 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.: Palaeoslavic "*atbcb", created by the third palatalisation of "*atbko" (see Russian "oTeK" ="father" and "6mK" ="male"). From the Indo-European

OTI:.U.I:.

107

GLOSSARY

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.AMH4-Je (subst. neutr.)-Vit. 11 II Etym.: Palaeo slavic "*padala" < "*padati" = "to fell" The word "rrap;aJio" = "encampment", "low-lying place by the road", "a place where travellers stop to rest or spend the night" It has multiple other meanings that do not concern us. The Serbo-Croatian word "rra~aJUfmTe", which occurs in some Bulgarian dialects, means "camp of Gypsy nomads" In this case the word is probably a translation of the Greek word K6.9tcrJ.UX.. (BER, IV, p. 999; Vasmer, III, p. 184) II Sign.: The word is mentioned in the Vitosha Charter with reference to the officials who must not trouble the monastery; this means the reference is to a place, but it is not the name of an official duty. I believe it refers to exempting the population from the obligation of providing and maintaining an edifice for the needs of the local administration, a place that would serve as headquarters for that official during his stay at the place in question. In the Byzantine Empire, an identical obligation was called K6.9tcrJ.UX.. (Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 94-5, see different in Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 117) 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"

nMHL.J.b. (subst. f.)-K 24:14-16,24:17-19.11 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*palica" < "*pala" = "stick", ''baton", "pole", "rod". Probably related to the Old German "spaltan" = "to split, to rive", "to break" (BER, V, pp. 27-8; Vasmer, III, p. 193) II Sign.: "Scepter". A symbol of power. nb.Hb.rHfb. (subst. m.)-Virg. 16, 30 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word 1tO.V'l'JyUptOV (from 1tO.V- ="all" and ayupo Old German "folk", Goth. "*fulks">"fulcus", Anglo-Sax.

GLOSSARY

111

"folc" = "detachment, contingent", "army" (BER, V, p. 370; Vasmer, III, p. 311) II Sign.: "People", "campaign", "army in campaign" (Institutii feudale, p. 361). no&Hfb."'HH (subst. m.)-Mr. 30, Ril. 57 II Etym.: See &Hf'l>K'l>. II Sign.: Fiscal official. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 368-70).

(adj.)-MN 45 (4) II Etym.: The word is an exact loan translation of the Greek Vt1CI'(

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 < Palaeoslavic "*mil'D" < Indo-European root "*mei-1-", "me-l-"; related to the Lithuanian "mylas" = "dear", "beloved", Lettish "mils" and Prussian "mils" = "dear", Gr. ~eiA.wv ="pleasant gift", Sanskrit "mayas" ="pleasure", "joy", Lettish "mitis" = "gentle", "kind", Irish "moith" = "tender", Albanian "mire" = "good", "nice" (BER, III, pp. 787-9; Vasmer, II, p. 622) II Sign.: "To have pity/mercy", "to reprieve", "to pardon/to forgive" (Institutii Jeudale, pp. 229-30). noMHAOK~HHK'l> (subst. m.)-Syn. Pal.19 II Etym.: See noMHAOK~TH. II Sign.: "He who has God's mercy", "reprieved by God". In the concrete

115

GLOSSARY

text of the Synodicon this refers to a heresiarch, who preached unjustly and claimed to have the grace of God upon himself. The word corresponds in Syn. Dr. to "anointed", but does not refer to a ruler, at least not in the concrete text cited here. (Popruzhenko, Sinodik, pp. LXXVIII-LXXIX, No. 64) noM04Jb.HH~'ll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 96, Mr. 4 II Etym.: From noM04Jb. = "help, aid" (< M04Jb. = "power, force, strength" with the prefix "no-"). The word means "helper, supporter" (BER, V, p. 512; Vasmer, III, p. 323) II Sign.: This is the holy man-supporter and intercessor of the ruler (related to the theory of power); Gr. ~0'1196c;, Lat. "auxiliator" 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~'I~HHie (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 3, Zogr. 25

II

Etym.: Related to the meaning "care, concern". From the verb non~4JH c.~>.= "to care". (BER, V, p. 524) II Sign.: "Cure", "care, concern", Gr. IH (adj.)-MN 16. II Etym.: Partially translated and parti~l(y transliterated from the Greek nopq)'l)poyevvrrto~. II Sign.: "Porphyrogennetus", the appellation of the sons of the basileus, born after he had obtained the power. nopb.Rb.HOR~TH (verb)-Virg. 4, Mr. 13 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*rbVbn'b" "zealous, ardent" (BER, V, pp. 528-9; VI, pp. 199-200; Vasmer, III, p. 455) II Sign.: "To continue", "to imitate", "to mimic" "to be zealous to continue"; Gr. ~u~e'icr8m, Lat. "imitari" nopli\'I~TH/nopli\'IHTH (verb)-Bra. 2; K 36:13-14, 44:16-18, 75:4-6, 76:1-2, 77:2-4,79:1-2.11 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*parqciti" ="to order"< from fli\~ = "hand" (BER, V, pp. 534-5) II Sign.: "To entrust", "to care", 'to order" This is the word, used by tsar John Sratsimir in his letter to the city of Bra~ov/Kronstadt to describe the privileges for its merchants.

noc~r~TH/noc~rHii\TH (verb)-K 60:20-21, 61:7-8, 61:14-15, 61:17-19 bis, 61:19-20, 61:23-24, 62:3-4, 62:6-7, 62:8-10. II Etym.: The prefix no- added to the Palaeoslavic verb "*s~gti" Related to the Lithuanian "segti" = "to tighten", "saga" = "button" and Lettish "segt" = "to cover" as well as Sanskrit "sajati" = "to fit, to suit" (Vasmer, III, p. 825) II Sign.: "To marry, to get married", "to copulate, to have sexual intercourse", Gr. ya~e'iv. Related to the matrimonial law. (Davidov, pp. 223-4).

nocHAHie (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 7811 Etym.: From CHA~ ="force, strength, power" and the prefix no-. (BER, IV, pp. 523-4) II Sign.: "Violation" Achievement to a result by force and violation that is generally illegal. (Institutii feudale, pp. 441-2).

117

GLOSSARY

nocH.I\HTH (verb)-Ril. 90 II Etym.: See nocH.I\He.ll Sign.: A verb describing the action of violence in order to reach to a result. 11:7-8, 13:20-21, 77:6-7. II Etym.: From < "*sluxeti" related to the listening and the hearing), related to the Avestan "sraosa-" = "hearing", "obedience", Anglo-Sax. "hleor" ="cheek", "face" and Old Icelandic "hljr" = "cheek" as well as Old Icelandic "hl0r" = "eavesdropping" (Vasmer, III, pp. 678-9, 680). II Sign.: "Witness", Gr. ~6.p'tu~, -upo~. In some Serbian documents the word could have double meanings: "obedient one" (more vernacular) and "witness" (as a juridical term). (Institutii feudale, pp. 283-4; Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 100-1; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 202-3). noc.l\~xrz. (subst. m.)-K

C.I\~W~TH = "listen" (Palaeoslavic "*slusati"

noc.l\0\fW~HHie (subst. neutr.)-MN 47.

noc.l\"'fXrz.).

II

II

Etym.: From C.l\"'fW~TH (see Sign.: "Obedience", "submission"

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"

II

Etym.: From C.l\"'fW~TH (see noc.I\~Xrz.).ll Sign.: "Novice", a person who prepares to become monk. (Instilutii feudale, 371; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 40-1).

noc.l\0\fWI:.HHKrz. (subst. M.)-MN 54.

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/themselves)" 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. "auxiliator" 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

C'T'UHTH (the morpheme "-st-") ="to put" (Vasmer, III, p. 742) II Sign.: "To put" The meaning of the word is the same but it developed in three directions: 1) a prohibition of intervention and even entering ("to step in") in the possessions of the monastery (Virg. 83, 90, Mr. 30); 2) promotion and enthronisation of the tsar by God (Virg. 105); 3) "to appoint", "to nominate" somebody at some position, "ordain" somebody at some ecclesiastical position. noC'T''l> (subst. m.)-AH 201. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*past~>", related to the Old German "fasto", Goth. "fastan" and German "fasten" = "to fast" See also German "fest" = "solid", "hard", "firm"; "Festung" = "fortress", "stronghold"; Armenian "hast" = "solid", "hard", "firm" The meaning derives from "to stay firm", "to abstain" > "respect the fasting" (BER, V, pp. 543-5; Vasmer, III, pp. 340-1) II Sign.: "Fast", a period of abstention ruled by the Church canons aiming a repentance, penitence. (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 97). noC'T'b.HHK'l> (subst. m.)-Syn. Dr.1, Syn. PaLl II Etym.: See noC'T''l>. II Sign.: "Faster", "who fasts", "hermit", Gr. amcftTrJc; (the original word in the Greek text of the Synodicon). noc'l>MTH/noc'l>IAb.TH (verb)-Virg. 97, Zogr. 40, Mr. 27, Ril. 59 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "pa-" and "*s'blati", related to the Goth. "saljan" = "to sacrifice" and Old Icelandic "selja"= "to redirect", "to sell" Could be related to the Albanian "sflljem" ="to go in", "to run, to run away" and Armenian "slanam" = "to go in", "to run, to run away", "to fly" (Vasmer, III, p. 667) II Sign.: "To send" One of the meanings is "to send (diplomatic) missions" (Virg., Mr. Ril.); other meaning is "to appoint, to nominate state officials" (Zogr.). The word could be used to designate the sending of official correspondence, the appointment or nomination of state officials or the exile as punishment for criminals. (Institutii feudale, pp. 189, 461-2). nOTRfbAHTH/nOTRfbJKAb.TH (verb)-Virg. 106, Mr. 44, 45, Ril. 98 II Etym.: From no- and TRf'bA'l>. "To make something harder" (Vasmer, IV, p. 32) II Sign.: "To confirm, to corroborate", Gr. E1ttn-tr~ (subst. f.)-AH 202. II Etym.: There are two proposed etymologies: from the verb TeTH and from the verb &'tr~TH. The word bears the idea of"division", "chase, pursuit". (BER, I, pp. 106-7; Vasmer, I, p. 143) II Sign.: "Divorced woman" (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 41-2).

noxO'J'I:. (subst. f.)-AH 202 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pahatb" noxO'I"tTH, noxol.f.lii'\. (BER, V, p. 564) II Sign.: "Lust", "carnality" The word has its juridical sense in the text of the AH, where the carnality is cited as a cause of illegal acts related to the matrimony. nr~RH.I\0 (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 7, 9, K 52:13-14, 63:17-18. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pravidla" < from the verb "praviti" = "to make straight, set upright", "to correct, to rectify", "to rule, to govern" (BER, V, p. 582; Vasmer, III, p. 352). Related to the Greek Kavrov = Latin "norma"= "plummet, plumb line", "vertical level" The roots are linked to the Palaeoslavic "*prav'b" ="right, straight"< Indo-European "*prowa-s" (prefix "*pro-") meaning "before", "in front of, facing", "right", "straight, direct", "vertical" (BER, V, pp. 577-81) II Sign.: "Rule",

120

CHAPTER ONE

"norm", "statute", Gr. Kavrov, Lat. "norma", "regula" (Institufii feudale, p. 375). 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.RHTH (verb)-K 44:16-18, 66:14-16. "To rule", "to execute", "to respect"

II Etym.: See npb.RHAO. II Sign.:

npb.ROR'tfH!e (subst. neutr.)-MN 16 II Etym.: From npb.R'll. (= "right", "straight") and R'tfb. (= "faith"); loan translation of Greek 6p9ooo~ia. II Sign.: "Orthodoxy", belief that is not heretical or heterodox. Could be related to the status of the person and to penal law. 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" npb.Rb.,L\4\ (subst. f.)-MAD, 3, 36, 50, Zogr. 7, 45, Mr. 9; AH 203 (Henpb.Rb.Ab.); K 12:6-7,22:15-17,52:14-15 bis,65:6-7.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pravbda" ("truth", "justice") < "*prav-o" ("right", "straight") < Indo-European "*pro-wo-s" ("before", "right", "straight, direct", "vertical". (BER, V, pp. 581-2; Vasmer, III, p. 352) II Sign.: "Justice", "right", Gr. OtKatocr6vr\. OtKaiov, Lat. "iustitia", "ius". Probably this is a translation of the Greek word OtKaiov. In the cited cases: 1) in Zogr. the meaning is "goods"; 2) in Mr. "justice", "right". (Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 115-6). npb.Rb.Ab.H'll. (adj.)-Mr. 45, Ril. 103; AH 199, 200; MN 45 (4).11 Etym.: See npu~:..,L\4\.11 Sign.: "Righteous, fair, honest", Gr. OtKa tOe;, Lat. "iustus".

GLOSSARY

121

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 appellation of the officials in the local administration; 2) in all the other documents 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).

npe~&Hrreprz. (subst. m.)-N 28, 85 (3); MN 2, 15, 17; K 79:11-13. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek npecr~u-repoc;. II Sign.: "Presbyter", "priest"; an exact ecclesiastical degree. (Institutii feudale, p. 393).

npHG'l.IT'l.Krz. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 5, Zogr. 56, 64, K 76:9-10. II Etym.: From npHG'l.ITH (prefix npH- and the verb G'l.ITH) = "arrive". Probably a loan translation of the Greek np6croooc; = "income". (BER, V, p. 694) II Sign.: "Income, revenue"; Gr. x:epooc;, Lat. "lucrum". (Institutii feudale, pp. 163-4; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 58). npHG~r~TH/nfHG~rHmTH (verb)-MAD 12, K 45:15-17, 46:17-19. II

Etym.: From the verb G~r~TH/~rHmTH (= "run away") and the prefix npH-. The word is a loan translation of Greek npompeuyetv and corresponding of the Latin "confugere" (BER, V, p. 698; Vasmer, I, p. 143) II Sign.: "To request asylum/refuge" The juridical meaning is related to the asylum. (Institutii feudale, pp. 32-3). npHRH.I\erH~ (subst. f.)-MAD 51 II Etym.: From Latin "privilegium" probably through Italian. In the cited text the word is Gf~R'tAerH (pl.) (Vasmer, III, p. 363) II Sign.: "Privilege". (Institutiifeudale, pp. 384-5).

npHK""fnrz.(subst. M.)-K 56:1-2.11 Etym.: SeeK""fnHTH.II Sign.:"Buying" 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)

"f""~nA~TH (verb)-AH 202. II Etym.: Derives from the verb "nem1" and the prefix "rrpH-" > the meaning "to stick, to adhere", "to link" From the Palaeoslavic "*lepiti, lepjq" "to oppose", "to resist" > "to discuss", "to participate in controversy" (BER, V, pp.

812-3; Vasmer, III, p. 392) II Sign.: The term means "intercessor"-an institution of the Republic of Dubrovnik (nfb.U.H Pfb.Ab.U.b.). In older Bulgarian texts the word could signify "the participants in a discussion/controversy" or "the two controversial participants in a civil trial" One of the significations of the word "b.f~ is "lawsuit", "trial", Latin "causidicus" (Dujcev, SBK, II, 336; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 57-8). np "senatus" in their institutional implications. II Sign.: "Elder", "head", "leader" (Institutii feudale, p. 453). n'~fi:.U.I:. (subst. m.)-MN 83 (1), 106 tris.ll Etym.: See n'~f'kHWHH~.II

Sign.: "Starets, geron", a monk with a special position in the monastery, Gr. yeprov. In Romanian the form developed to the meaning "hegoumen", "abbot", "head of a monastery" n'MI:. (subst. f.)-Vatop. 4, Mr. 25, Ril. 17, 48, 69, Vit. 611 Etym.: Borrowed from the Greek mam~. II Sign.: "Property", "possessions", "patrimony" (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.: "Stolnik", 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. (subst. m.)-MN 45 (4). II Etym.: From C'A- (="with") and npAII'\r"A (Palaeoslavic "*pr~g9" = "to harness, to put to harness"). The

word is a loan translation of the Greek cru~uy61ttK6v.ll Sign.: "Typicon", "statute"; book with Church and monastic rules. TOni.J..IHia.Arz. (subst. m.)-Virg. 15, 99 II Etym.: Unclear etymology. II Sign.: Official with functions of judiciary and police character. (BiHarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 335-6). Tf~RI:.HHH~ (subst. f.)-Virg. 10111 Etym.: From "*trawa/trewa", related

to the meaning "eat", "consume", "to empoison" "Grass" with the suf-

fix. (Vasmer, IV, pp. 91-2) II Sign.: A fee for using the mountainous pastures or right to use them, Greek evv6j.!tOV, from vo1-1fi ="pasture", "grass", "fodder, forage". (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 72-6). Tprz.roR~TH (verb)-Bra. 3

II

Etym.: See Tprz.rrz.. (Skok, Etimologijski rjecnik, III, pp. 499-500) II Sign.: "To trade", "to do commerce"

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

"tregtar" (="merchant"). It may possibly have roots in the Mediterranean languages from the time before the arrival of the Slavs in the Balkans. Some researchers find a connection with the Assyro-Babylonian "tamgaru" (="merchant")> Aramaic "taggara" >Armenian "tadZir" (Skok, Etimologijski rjecnik, III, pp. 498-9) II Sign.: "Market", "fair", Gr. &yop&, Lat. "forum" Derived words may mean "city" in some South Slavic languages and in Romanian. (Porch.\ "Povelja kralja Stefana Dusana dubrovnicanima", p. 95; Popovic, "Povelja bana Tvrtka I Kotromanica Dubrovniku", p. 155) Tb.Mb.HHU,~ (subst. f.)-Virg. 102; N 35; K 22:15-17,49:7-9 bis, 70:2-4.11

Etym.: Derived from Tb.M~ = "darkness" and connected with the Irish word "temel" which had the same meaning and the Latin "tenebrae" (pl.). The meaning ofTb.MbHHLJ.b. (=prison) is derived hence. (Vasmer, IV, pp. 133-4) II Sign.: "Prison", Gr. /or pAHHrurz../ (subst. m.)-Bra. 1 II Etym.: Unclear etymology, probably of Hungarian origin. II Sign.: It may refer to a family name. It has also been suggested this may be an institution of the commune of Bra~ov (Kronstadt)-its roots are sought in the Hungarian word "fali.igyel (subst. m.)-N 30.11 Etyrn.: Transliteration of the Greek

term xap'tOptK6v < Kt>ptaK6v ="Lord's (place)" (Vasmer, IV, p. 300) II Sign.: "Church" (all meanings 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"

(subst. m.)-MN 44 (1), 47, 48 (4); K 11:12-13, 12:1-3, 12:3-6, 15:12-14, 33:19-20. II Etym.: From the verb 'IHHHTH = "to dispose", "to put in order", related to the Sanskrit "cinoti" = "to dispose", "to collect", Avestan "cayeiti" = "to choose" and Greek 1tOtero = "to do" (Vasmer, IV, pp. 362-3) II Sign.: "Degree", "order", "rang", Gr. 'ta~~, Lat. "ordo" (Institutii feudale, p. 100) 'IHH'll.

'lfb.PO~&'ll.l.l\~ (subst. m.)-N 31. II Etym.: Composite term "ichirgou boila", consisting of "boila", the name for the top class of Bulgar aristocracy, and "ichirgou", which defines the second part. It has been said to derive from the Old Turkic root "ic", signifying "interior", "inside", or anything related to interior or centre. The cited inscription is the only case in which this term occurs in a Slavic text: we usually encounter it in Greek and some Latin ones. II Sign.: Superior state dignitary in the time of the First Bulgarian Empire. "The boila of the interior", "the boila of the Internal Area", "internal boila". The second in rank

153

GLOSSARY

dignitary in the state, immediately below the boila kaukhan. (Gjuzelev V., "Ichirgu boilite v Pyrvata bulgarska dclrzhava (VII-XI B.)", Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet. Filosofsko-istoricheski Jakultet, 65, 3, 1973, pp. 123-81). 'lfb.PO~&'l..IAI.C'I'Ro (sub st. neutr .)-N 31. II Etym.: See 'lfb.PO~&'l..IA!b.. Sign.: Appellation of the service of the ichirgou boila.

II

'lfb.HOfH~b.U.b. (subst. m.)-N 31; MN 1, 74. II Etym.: From 'lf.b.H'l.. = "black" and fH~4\ ="shirt"; "who is dressed in black clothes" II Sign.: "Monk"

(subst. m.)-Mr. 3611 Etym.: From 'lfb.H'l.. ="black" and C'1'4\fb.U.b. = "old man, starets" II Sign.: "Monk (who is starets)", Gr. ~ovax6~, Lat. "monachus" 'lfb.HOC'l'4\fb.U.b.

(subst. m.)-ISeal V.3 p. 81; N 33; MN 2, 17, 54; K 43:1213, 49:3-5, 49:5-6, 51:18-19, 52:1-2, 53:1-2, 53:6, 53:13-14, 54:6-8, 56:21-22, 55:13-15, 56:21-22. II Etym.: From 'lfb.Hrz.., related to the colour of the clothes of the monks. II Sign.: "Monk" (TsibranskaKostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 37). 'lfb.Hb.U,b.

'lfb.Hb.'lb.CK'l.. (adj.)-K 52:13-14. "Monk's", "monastic"

II

Etym.: See

II

'lfb.Hb.U,b..

Sign.:

'lfb.Hb.'li.C'I'RO (sub st. neutr.)-K 43:6-7,43:11-12.11 Etym.: See 'lfb.Hb.U,b..ll Sign.: "Monasticism" 'lfb.Hb.'li.C'I'ROR4\'I'H

(verb)-K 57:17-18.

II

Etym.: See

'lfb.Hb.U,b..

II Sign.:

"To be monk" 'lfb.'l'orrz.. (subst. m.)-MN 45 (4) II Etym.: Very ancient Bulgar borrowing from Old Persian-"cartak" (from "car"= "four" and "tak" = "highest part of the home/house", "balcony"). (Vasmer, IV, p. 348) II Sign.: "Palace"

'lb.C'I'b.H'l..IH/&ce'li.C'I'b.H'l..IH/np~'li.C'I'b.H'l..IH (adj.)-MN 31, 65.

II

Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*cbstb" > the verb 'lHC'l'H = "to honour"; related to the Sanskrit "dtti( = "thinking", "understanding", "intention", Avestan "cisti-" = "thinking", "knowledge", "understanding" and Old Icelandic

154

CHAPTER ONE

"cetati" ="to show consideration for", "to observe", "to think". (Vasmer, IV, p. 350) II Sign.: Epithet for the ruler and some other high officials. (Institufii feudale, pp. 342-3). (subst. f.)-AH 200; N 74,85 (2); MN 45 (4), 48 (4), 59; K 17:1012.11 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" "'AAb.

Wb.n"ATb.HHK'A (subst. m.)-K 74:1-3. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*sopotb", "*S'bpotati" = "whisper, murmur" and "to whisper" (Vasmer, IV, pp. 428-9) II Sign.: "Slanderer", "accuser, prosecutor"

(subst. m.)-MN 101. II Etym.: Indo-European "*ang'h-y-" > Palaeoslavic "*oz-jo-" meaning "to tie", related to the Greek &rxro and Latin "ango" (= "to tie"). The same is the origin of the word "B'b)Ke" (= "rope", "cord") and the Russian word "ysHMK" (from ~mb.HHK'A = "prisoner"). (BER, I, p. 202, Vasmer, I, p. 374, IV, pp. 152, 154) II Sign.: "Relative", "family member", Gr. tJ'\)"f'Y£VTlc;, Lat. "consanguineus" The meaning derives from the kin ties. (Khristova B., Karadzhova D., Uzunova E., Belezhki na bulgarskite knizhovnici X-XVIII vek, t. 1 (X-XIV vek), Sofia, 2003, pp. 101, 178; TsibranskaKostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33). ~mHia./~mb.HHK'A

~fOAb.CT&O (subst. neutr.)-K 7:10-12.11 Etym.: From ~fOA'A ="freak",

"deformed creature" that derives from fOA'A = "kin", "family" (see) with a negative particule; Greek ~rop6c;, imePJ1<pavoc;. The idea of the meaning is linked to "kinless", "who has no family" and then the other meaning of "feak" (Vasmer, IV, pp. 168, 534) II Sign.: "Foolishness", a type of monastic practice; Gr. ~ropia. W.~'AIK'A

(subst. m.)-1) Zogr. 14; AH 203; MN 62; K 2:18-20,66:10-11, 68:8-10.11 Etym.: Palaeo slavic "*j~zy-h" peasant farmer. In modern Bulgarian the word is "mayor", the head of a municipality. The other view on the etymology of the term is that it is derived from Greek Kro~fl't'll~~tOUvtrov £v6cre~, 4) m>votKemov ("marriage, matrimony"). II Etym.: The word is a very ancient borrowing from the Germanic languages, created by addition of the word meH~ ="woman" to the Old German word "mahal", "m~l" ="matrimonial contract or union" (German word "Gemahlin" ="wife"). (Vasmer, II, pp. 562-3) II Sign.: "Husband/wife", "spouses" Some authors find that the word is of Moravian origin and that it entered Bulgarian via Ochrid. It is present in some very early texts (in Rila folios of XI century). (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 94) MMrz..meHrz..

(subst. f.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 = E. XVII. 41 pa9u~ia.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*muditi" < "*mauditi" from the IndoEuropean "*mon-d" >Sanskrit "*manda-" (= "slow"). See the Russian "Me):\JieTh" (BER, IV, pp. 301-302 "MYAH"; Vasmer, II, pp. 590-1) II Sign.: "Slowness", "slothfulness", "negligence", "carelessness", "clumsiness", "inability" Some authors define the word as one of Moravian origin. (Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 94-5) M'l..,I\1:.1\0C'I'b.

Mb.~~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 = E. VIII. 2 ~tcr96~ ("salary"). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*mbzda" < Indo-European "*mizdh6"; related to the Sanskrit "*midha" ("booty", "trophy"), to the Avestan "mizda" and to the Goth. "mizd6" ="remuneration", "reward, recompense" (BER, IV, p. 379; Vasmer, II, p. 618) II Sign.: "Salary", "reward".

GLOSSARY

167

MI:.~I:.HHK'A (subst. m.)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 =E. VIII. 2J..Licr9wpicrKro ="to find, to discover" (BER, IV, p. 754, Vasmer, III, p. 107) II Sign.: "To obtain", "to find"; related to civil exchange. O&f'kCTH

OKf~AeH"AIH

(subst. m.)-Ust. 25, Nov. 27, Vars. 27 (OKf~AeHot..t~ =E. XVII. 12 t>1tOJ..L£tvav·tt TJiv KAoxftv.ll Etym.: See !CfMTH.II Sign.: Who was object of a theft", "a person whose things were taken away".

170

CHAPTER ONE

0.1\'ATI\fb. (subst. m.)-Ust. 28, Nov. 30, Vars. 30 bis = E. XVII. 15 9umacr-rfipwv. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*aWiro", borrowed via Old German "altari" from the Latin "altare" < "altus" = "high", "elevated" (BER, IV, p. 864; Vasmer, III, p. 136) II Sign.: "Altar", a sacred place in a temple. (Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 96-7) 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. (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" OCII\AHTH

(verb)-Ust. 21, Nov. 23, Vars. 23 =E. XVII. 6 a1tapveOJ..Lat. II Etym.: From Rl\fTHTH = "to turn, to rotate" < Indo-European "*wer-t-" = "to turn, to rotate" The word is related to the Lithuanian "verciu" = "to turn" and "virsti" = "to become", Lettish "verst" = "to turn", Old Prussian "wirst" = "to become", German "warden", Latin "verto" ="to turn", Sanskrit "vartate" ="it turns, it is around" (BER, I, pp. 212-3, IV, pp. 957-8; Vasmer, I, p. 301) II Sign.: "To turn away", "to turn from", "to avert", in the citation it means to abandon the Christian faith that could be related to penal law. OT'ARf'ti.J.IH

(verb)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 =E. XVII. 5 EK1tt1t'tro.ll Etym.: From nMTH = "to fall" The word is a loan translation of the Greek EK1tt1t'tro. II Sign.: "Fall away", "drop off" OT"An4\,I\4\TH

(verb)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 (release of a duty)-no; Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 (for the matrimony)= E. II. 9. 1 a1toA:6ro.11 Etym.: See in the general glossary. The word is a loan translation of the Greek a1tOA:6ro. II Sign.: "To forgive", "to absolve", "to release". Related to the obligations and to the status. OT'An"'rCTHTH

OT'ACII\AHTH (verb)-Ust.23,Nov.25, Vars.25=E.XVII. 8Ka'taOtKa~ro.ll

Etym.: See Cli\AHTH in the general glossary. pass judgment", "to resolve a contest".

II Sign.: "To sentence", "to

GLOSSARY

171

n.l\'tHb.HH~'ll. (verb)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 = E. VIII. 2 eil£u9epo).lt, ).lt"(Vt>).lt, Lat. /Ch./

174

CHAPTER ONE

"misceo", Old Irish "mesc(a)id", Anglo-sax. "miscian" (="Mec.R:"). The idea derives from "mixture", "to get together" (BER, V, pp. 761-3, 779; Vasmer, II, pp. 606-7) II Sign.: A criminal sexual act without violation. The mutual action is underlined. The verb in passive voice could signify "to intervene in someone else's place" but this seems as an overinterpretation. It is to note again that the word is maybe created after the Greek cruyyiyvo!J.at. nyHcHO~&AraTH

(verb)-Ust. 30, Nov. 32, Vars. 32 ("to appropriate, to embezzle") = E. XVII. 17 u7tovo9euro. II Sign.: "To /mis/appropriate", "to embezzle" nyHcA..rA. (subst. f.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1 bis-no; Ust. 7a bis-no. II Etym.: From the verb nfHCA..LJJH = "to swear", "to vow" < Palaeoslavic

meaning "to tighten", "to cover", "to fit" (Vasmer, III, pp. 367, 825) II Sign.: "Vow", in this citation the word means some type of pagan ritual.

"*s~gti"

nrHT'l>KHmTH (verb)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2 ("adduce" witness)-no. II Etym.: From "npM-" and "TbKHa", the sense is related to "introduce", "to drive in", "to knock in" (Vasmer, IV, pp. 64, 130) II Sign.: "To adduce", "to present" (witness but also proofs, testimonies, evidences in general). V. Prochazka advanced the idea that in Moravian /Pannonian/langiage the word means "to testify". It is related to the word nfHT'b'lA = "proverb" in its original sense of "something adduced to testify". (Prochazka V., "K historickopnivnimu vyznamu csl. prit11knqti a jeho parafrazi z ruskych pramenu", Slavia. Roc. XXVI, 1957, pp. 336-40; Skok, III, p. 40; Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 92-3) 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. nyoAA.TH (verb)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1 (to be sold in slavery)-no; Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4 = E. XVII. 217tmp6m.:ro; Ust. 5, Nov. 6, Vars. 6-no; Ust. 9, Nov. 11, Vars. 11-no (nfOAATH cA.); Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12-no; Ust. 24, Nov. 26, Vars. 26 (to be sold in slavery) = E. XVII. 10 X€tpOK07t'tro (= "to cut the hand", another type of punishment); Ust. 26, Nov. 28, Vars. 28 (to be sold in slavery) =E. XVII. 13 X€tpOK07t'tro (= "to cut the hand", another type of punishment); Ust.

GLOSSARY

175

27, Nov. 29, Vars. 29 (to be sold in slavery)= E. XVII. 14 xetpoKlm-rro (= "to cut the hand", another type of punishment); Ust. 28, Nov. 30, Vars. 30 (to be sold in slavery)= E. XVII. 14 'tt> "who belongs to other country. (Vasmer, III, pp. 768, 771) II Sign.: "Foreigner", "adversary", "foe, enemy" (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 48) CTI:.M~b.

(subst. m.)-Ust. 5, Nov. 6, Vars. 6 =E. XVII. 22 v6~tcr~a; Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10-no; Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21-no.ll Etym.: Borrowed from the Germanic languages-"*skillings" >"Schilling" (Vasmer, III, p. 642) II Sign.: "a coin" Variants: c~I:.M~b., I.J.IA~~b., I.J.II:.MP'll.. Sometimes it corresponds to the Greek v6~tcr~ but in other the latter correspond to ~A~THU,~, ~A~THH~, ~A~THH~'ll. (a golden coin). (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 97) 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 (adj.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 =E. XVIII. 1 ~ot>Aet>ttK6c;.ll Etym.: See crz..R~Trz..! II Sign.: "Related to the Council" crz..R~Trz.. (subst. m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 =E. XVIII. 1 crt>J..L~Ot>Aia.

II

Etym.: Loan translation from the Greek O'UJ..L~oUAtOv. (Vasmer, III, p. 705) The verb "BeTaM" ="to promise". (BER, I, p. 138) II Sign.: "Council", a collective organ of power or consultative one. (Institufii feudale, pp. 438-40) crz..'lb.T~HHte (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 (about the matrimony) = E. II. 9. 1 O'U~t>yia. II Etym.: See C'l>'lb.T~TH! II Sign.: See C'l>'lb.T~TH!

crz..'lb.T~TH (verb)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 (about the matrimony) = E. II. 9. 1 ~e:6yvt>J..Lt. II Etym.: From "co-" and "qern" ("group", "detachment", related to the Lithuanian "caterva" and Irish "cethern" ="detachment", "crowd") ="to create a group". (Vasmer, Ill, p. 730, IV, p. 351) II Sign.: "To combine", "to gather", in the citation this is the beginning of a matrimony.

II

Cli\nl~fb.HHI~rz.. (subst. m.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2-no. Etym.: See Cli\nl~fb. in the general glossary! See also nb.f!b. ="discussion" Sign.:

II

The participant in a trial/ procedure. 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;. Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Enemy", "adversary", "foe".

II

GLOSSARY

179

(subst. m.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17-no. II Etym.: Related to the Sanskrit "samsat(-d)" = "assembly", "society", "royal court", "court" or "samsadas" = "society", "company" The general meaning of the word originally is "the people belonging to one community" (Vasmer, III, p. 726) II Sign.: "Neighbour" Cli'\C'kA'l>

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) TfIH ce ~~~~oHrz.. Afb.meij.liHMb.), but we have no such master 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 Moraviad. X.. Ilwracnru;9Ti (Papastathis) To voJlolknrrov EfYYOV rij~ 1(1)p!UoJle8o6uxvfi~ {epwrocnoMj~ MeraA.n Mopa{J{f!, eecmaA.ovt 202 13-14> 202 39-2031> 20319-20> 2041,4· 22

198

CHAPTER TWO

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 marriage, 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. 4

Thus, we see that the mediaeval Slavonic texts provide a good foundation 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. Nevertheless, 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, customary 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

26

Papastathis I X. IIwta<mX9Tt To voJloOenrrov efYYOv Til~ rropzA.MJ1e6o6uxvfi~ ev Mera.A.11 Mopa{J{f!, Sroaa:A.oviK'Tl, 1978, pp. 40-2, 103-5.

{epwrocnoA.f;~

LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY

199

is present as a model of behaviour, protected by a certain organised force (i.e. "power"). The norm is exactly this model but not the practice of this model. That is why it should be stressed that the indicated normative text of a legal custom, as any other text, not only can be written down but quite often is written down and systematised. The mentioned "law" of Albanian vendetta is only one example of this. The main difference between "written law" and "custom" is not so much in the form as in the source of the normative text, for which the form is only a supplementary and secondary feature. In the case of custom, the norm derives from the existing and sufficiently long practice of the community. Thus, this practice has been formed by the routine life itself and has established its "correctness" and "justness" in life. In this sense customary, or let us call it "normal" (i.e. "corresponding to the norm"), behaviour abides by the established practice, which is transformed into a norm existing both in social and in individual consciousness. When this norm is accepted, sanctioned, and protected (and maybe even "written down") by some power (whether it be social, community, or state power) it is transformed into "law" For its part, "written law" expresses the will of a power, usually state power, given in a specific form and imposed upon the society on which that power has certain competencies (jurisdiction). The form is usually written, but this is not always an obligatory condition. We have sufficient information about cases of the reverse. The essential difference is in the very act of expression of will and its relative "novelty", not in its form. I repeat that the important fact as regards our study is that the norm, the rule of conduct, always exists in people's minds in a linguistic form. This fact is determined by the very nature of human thought, which is possible only in a language. Thus, we find that the particularity of a language, which is an essential element of the culture of every society, has a direct impact on the norms of that culture, which are expressed in a specific way. We may illustrate this with Roman law and the Latin language, which are among the most important characteristics of European civilisation both before and after the conversion to the Christian faith.27 The Latin language determined the way

27 They are precisely the topic of the first volume of Valentin Georgescu's study on legal philology (Etudes de philologie juridique et de Droit romain, I, Les rapports de Ia philologie classique et du Droit romain, Bucarest-Paris, 1940).

200

CHAPTER TWO

Roman law penetrated into various societies and its reception during the Middle Ages (in the Latin, Greek and Slavic tongues) and in modern 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, particularly the sphere of law. This includes not only special terminology but also the special meanings of words that are otherwise part of a common vocabulary, and also the particular constructions and formulations characteristic for legal language down to this day. It is evident, for instance, that in aiming for clarity and avoiding ambiguous meanings, 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 customary 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 written law. It is an important trait that could provoke certain misunderstandings. 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 creative 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.


201

Nevertheless, this "sacralisation" of the past does not exclude "novelty" It is evident that when a foreign legal system is received, the argument in favour of this reception, in favour of the choice of this particular system, the argument as to its "quality", comes from a more or less remote past. The "novelty" in this case does not lie in the inner character of the norms but in the act of the will of the state whereby these particular norms are imposed on this particular society. Such an act is "new" and "creative", because through it one establishes a new juridical situation that is usually a part of a general cultural change. The reception of a foreign legal system also takes place through a declaration of will aimed at achieving such a result. Reception is part of the accession of a society to an already formed civilisational community, and is a clear sign that this accession has occurred. Here we see the enormous importance of the reception of Roman law in Europe during the Middle Ages as well as during the Modern times so during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries. It is so significant that Europe itself as a civilisation can be defined through Roman law. 28 Thus in mediaeval Bulgaria the construction of the Bulgarian Christian culture that started with the Conversion and was modelled on the Byzantine Christian culture, went hand in hand with the reception of Byzantine law. We are not talking about parallel processes but about a single one, which finally led to the creation of mediaeval Bulgarian culture in the bosom of the Byzantine Commonwealth. We may trace the process not only in the purely religious sphere, in the sphere of law or state organisation and ideology, but also in practically every single sphere of culture: literature, language, art, everyday life, and mentality. I would like to focus special attention on the language. The great achievement of St. Cyril and St. Methodius did not lie in the invention of the graphic system for writing down the Slavic language, but in the creation of a culture that actually aimed at spreading Christianity among neophyte peoples. Their mission was neither "cultural" in the narrow sense of the word, nor "legislative", nor "political", but evangelical and salvational, and the latter two characteristics integrated all the other ones without setting them in opposition to one another or prioritising any one of them. This mission was fulfilled by the creation of a literary language that, whatever the particular Slavic speech it was

28

Hattenhauer, Europaische Rechtsgeschichte, 4. Auglage, Heidelberg, 2004, pp. 135-40.

202

CHAPTER TWO

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) Commonwealth, 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 widespread 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-


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 stantinople, but also a basileus of the Rhomaioi, meaning of the Romans, and thereby indicated the universal character of his power. In the specific 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 present 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.

29 D. Naydenova (Naydenova D., ,Pravnite pametnitsi v Parvoto bulgarsko tsarstvo", 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

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 1. THE SUPREME STATE POWER AND ITS REGULATION IN THE

SYSTEM OF BULGARIAN MEDIAEVAL LAW

By definition, power in the state is regulated by law. In our times and in modern times in general, this is something self-evident and is effectuated by means of constitutions or other kinds of statutory laws. This is how the fundamental principles and functioning of supreme organs of government are regulated. However, essentially, this whole public legal sphere is strictly regulated either through ordinary (nonconstitutional) laws, or with other acts. This situation was not so evident in pre-modern times and especially in periods of the formation of statehood. Usually it took place through a gradual shift from tribal and social power to state power, this whole process being based on traditions or concrete decisions. As for societies with despotic or absolutist governance and pre-modern oligarchic republics, in them there is likewise some kind of regulation of supreme power. As regards the regulation pertaining to the institution of ruler, it was determined by tradition. Even the practice of exalting the ruler's will as something absolute and completely unrestricted was a kind of rule. From here on the ruler himself works out-systematically or not-the rules of functioning of the state organs under his power. Early in the Middle Ages, as a result of the struggle between the king and the higher aristocracy, normative texts of a statutory kind were achieved, such as the English Magna Charta Libertatum of AD 1215, which, in fact, is still in effect today in the United Kingdom. The appearance of parliaments or various sejms, diets, or states general, i.e. of social class assemblies, led to some degree of restriction of the king's power. They were created by the king himself in connection with the self-taxation of the population, but at a certain point turned against the monarch's power and came to rival it. It seems that in mediaeval Bulgaria there existed no written legal act regulating the power of the ruler or defining the structure of the

206

CHAPTER THREE

supreme state offices. No such has been preserved, but most probably no such existed. Power relations were regulated by tradition and, during 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. 2. ORIGIN AND BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEGAL VOCABULARY INCLUDED IN THE GLOSSARY AND DESIGNATING THE SUPREME STATE POWER AND RELATIONS CONNECTED WITH IT

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 understandable, 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 transliterated, are also about fifty, and an equal number of words are calques from Greek. About thirty words are translations from Greek. About fifteen 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 largest 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 referring 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

The fewest in number-twelve-are the words serving as other appellations of people in power, their epithets, or some objects related to them. The names are eight, of which five Slavic, two Greek, and one translated. The epithets are three, of which one is Slavic and two are calques of Greek words. The last category includes only one word, palitsa, (meaning "sceptre", "stick", "staff', a symbol of disciplinary authority), which is of Slavic origin. The smallness of this last category is due to the fact that most words here are examined elsewhere-in the section dealing with institutions. The third group, comprising appellations of state power and activities related to it, is quite large-53 words-but is rather amorphous and not well defined. Both among the names and the activities, words of Slavic origin are predominant, which can be explained by the general matter treated here, which rarely consists of specific terms. Words of everyday speech, not part of the legal jargon, have been included here. 3. DEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF CONCEPTS AND VERBAL FORMULAE FROM THE SPHERE OF THE SUPREME STATE POWER AND OF THE TERMS USED TO EXPRESS THEM

The concept of state power in mediaeval Bulgaria underwent a radical change after the conversion to Christianity. The barbarian society of the conquering tribe of Bulgars gradually turned into a Christian state, which, after the first years of the reign of tsar Symeon, laid claim to the imperial legacy of Constantinople. Although it preserved the basic institutions of the pagan period until the end of the First Empire, in ideological terms Bulgaria was part of the Byzantine Commonwealth, and its claims were not to territory or spoils of war, but to the Roman universalism in its Christian Byzantine interpretation. The change of the title of the Bulgarian rulers from "khan" ("kan", "kana", or whatever its exact pronunciation was-here I shall use the traditionally established variant of the word, but a choice of word makes no difference for the nature of the institution or its civilisational background), to "tsar", entailed an overall change of the concept of state power and of the terms in which this concept was expressed. During the Second Bulgarian Empire "Byzantinism" had permanently put down roots in the county, and Bulgaria had become, to quote Nicolae Iorga, "Byzance hors de Byzance" or "Byzance ac6te de Byzance", imitating the Empire;


209

in saying this, we must take into account the proper down-sizing of the phenomenon, which is inevitable when comparing the centre of a civilisation with its periphery. This historical context of the terminology provides the researcher with the cultural framework in which the expected research results should be looked for and expected. Among the terms related to power and political and state ideology, we see the prevalence of the Byzantine tradition, which finds linguistic expression here. If, out of the total number of units in the glossary, we set aside those with a more distinctly legal character of the terms, our conclusion will become even more obvious. Here we shall examine the basic terms related chiefly to the monarchic institution, but likewise to other supreme state power orders in mediaeval Bulgaria, which should enable us to reach conclusions that would give us a picture in the perspective of terminology. 3.1. Names and titles of rulers in the mediaeval Bulgarian legal

vocabulary 3.1.1

The term K'l>Hh.~b. ("knjaz" = "prince") is of remote Germanic or LatinGermanic origin. Knjaz is a Palaeoslavic loanword from the Germanic languages, and its origin is in the word Konig. The Slavic word, though, came as a result of the cultural exchange between the Slavic and Germanic tribes, which lived close to one another in their pre-state period, and is not a sign of Germanic influence on the legal terminology of the mediaeval Bulgarian state. Moreover, the term entered the Slavic languages so organically, that it is not perceived as a loanword, which it is in fact. Apart from this, there is the issue of whether 'knjaz' was a ruler's title in mediaeval Bulgaria. It has been claimed for three rulers that they possibly carried this title: Boris-Michael, and his sons Vladimir-Rasate and Symeon. 1 The rulers prior to these are usually called "khans" by historians, while those after Symeon are called "tsars" Thus, in the view of some researchers, knjazes were only the first rulers of Bulgaria after the conversion to Christianity and before the assimilation of the

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 arkheologicheski institut, V, 1928/1929, p. 161.

210

CHAPTER THREE

Byzantine imperial ideology. Nevertheless, we may raise several other questions: was it imperative to change the title of the ruler after the conversion to Christianity? Did the official Slavic language necessitate a change of the ruler's title? If such a change did take place, when, how and why did it occur? I shall discuss the arguments of the latest author to have written on this topic: G. Bakalov. He directly claims that Boris "gave up the Bulgar title of'khan' and substituted it with 'knjaz', so that this act should be his and not that of his son Symeon"; "in any case, this happened before the council of 893."2 However, the thesis regarding the giving up of the title of khan seems entirely unacceptable to me. This was not necessitated by religious motives or by the official Slavonic language. The language comprised many Bulgar words related to institutions and the administration, as made evident by the sources. We know of the title of "khagan" used by the Russian rulers. 3 We have no data showing that the title of "khan" was among these words, but that does not mean it was dropped and that a significant change took place in the institution of ruler, which would be mandatory in case the appellation of the monarch were changed. This is an emblematic act such as cannot be carried out by coincidence or at a whim. In my view, the Bulgarian rulers Boris-Michael and Symeon retained their title of khan until the latter of the two was proclaimed tsar, and the occurrence of the title of knjaz in some sources4 can be explained by the fact that that is how the Bulgar term "khan" was translated into the Slavic language in Bulgaria after the conversion to Christianity. The sources themselves testify to this. In the "The list of rulers", the pagan rulers are called "knjazes". 5 They clearly did not bear this title, but it was how the title of khan was rendered into the Slavic language. A similar case is the mention of pagan Bulgarian rulers' names in the Bulgarian translation of Constantine Mannasses' Chronicle. The pagan khans Kardam, Krum, Omurtag, as well as Boris-Michael himself, are called "knjazes" in the Slavic text. 6 However, the rulers coming after

Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel, pp. 141-2. Golden P. B., "The Question of the Rus' Qaganate", In: Golden, P., B., Nomads and their Neighbors on the Russian Steppe, Ashgate (Variorum), 2003, VI, passim. 4 The most significant among them is the marginal note of Tudor Doksov, dated AD 907.-Khristova, Karadzhova, Uzunova, Belezhki, I, p. 25, No 1. 5 Moskov M., Imennik na bulgarskite khanove (Novo talkuvane), Sofia, 1988, pp. 19-21. 6 Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii, pp. 229-31. 2

3


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 translation of the old Bulgar appellation. 3.1.2

The term U.b.fb. (tsar) comes from the Latin Caesar and in this formU.~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 untenable 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 (without abbreviations and titles) in the Codex Suprasliensis, which obviously 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 BZilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", pp. 42-4.

212

CHAPTER THREE

camp, the soldiers fled, crying "~e~et'te, ~e~et'te, T~acrap" (which should correspond phonetically to "&-tmHTe, &-tmHTe, U.'tC4\fb. ").U This testimony is of particular interest, for it not only provides data on the pronunciation of the tsar's title in Bulgaria, but also indicates that is how the Bulgarians called the Byzantine basileus. This is yet another proof that the title was understood as being the same as that of the emperor in Constantinople. That is why I would like to explicitly point out that, whatever the pronunciation of the word may have been in early times (I believe it was U.b.fb. [tsar] by the time of the Second Empire), it was identical (as Ivan Bozilov points out), with that of the Byzantine basileus, and different from the appellation of the kesar, as a separate title in the hierarchy. I should note that this is a side-problem with respect to the present study, which is focused not so much on the phonetic aspect but in the origin and meaning of the term. We see that the term "tsar", used for the imperial title in the Slavic language, is not an instance of the influence of the Byzantine Empire on the legalpolitical vocabulary of the Bulgarians, although the term is part of the Roman imperial heritage of Europe. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the title of tsar in Bulgaria, even though different in name, has all the basic characteristics of the basileis in the Byzantine Empire. The different name in this case does not signify a different legal nature of the institution, which was received in its entirety but without the Greek term for it. The two ruler titles were understood as being completely the same, as we shall see confirmed by other data, especially by epithets and the way power was legitimised. In this connection, I should like to indicate a particular point connected with the sacred fundament of power during that age. According to the mediaeval concept of power, the ruler, the tsar, was a figure corresponding to the Celestial King, to Whom belongs all power in the visible and invisible world. The tsar had power over the terrestrial realm, for he had received it from the Heavenly King, or, more precisely, he was serving the power of the Almighty in the visible world. In early pagan views, power and the person of the ruler were directly sacralised. The ruler appeared as the king-god, or more precisely, the king-high priest-god. This aspect is not a topic of this study, for Christianity does not allow such an element of polytheism. Monotheism cannot accept the divinisation of the tsar, but does accept the idea of the divine origin of royal power.

11 Skylitzes-Cedrenus, Historia, ed. Bonn. P. 466 13 _14; Dujcev, "Vlirkhu njakoi bulgarski imena i dumi u vizantijskite avtori", p. 341.


213

Thus, the ruler is seen not as a god, but as corresponding to Him, as the image of God. The ruler is a link in a chain in history, starting from God, passing through the model of power embodied in the kings of the Chosen People, and reaching the concrete ruler. All these held the same title: the Celestial King (the term used in Greek is "basileus" and in Slavic "tsar"); the kings of the people of Israel are also called "basileis/tsars" in the Greek version of the Holy Scripture; finally, the current ruler also held the title of basileus/tsar. The problem stems from the fact that Byzantium was heir to the Roman imperial traditions, which had republican roots. The basileis represented a continuation not only of the kings of the People of Israel, but of the pagan Roman emperors as well. Thus, the Greek term basileus signifies "king" in the sense meant in the text of the Holy Scripture, but also "emperor" in the Roman meaning of the word. The Slavic term "tsar", corresponding to "basileus", is completely identical in this respect. I point this out, because such is not the case in the Latin language, and hence in the Western European languages, in which the Roman imperial-republican legacy is strictly distinguished from the biblical heritage. The term imperator can be used neither in reference to the Heavenly King nor to the Old Testament kings of Israel and Judah. For the latter, the old Latin term rex is used, which was the title of the pagan king-high priest in Rome before the Republic, and was later preserved only in the sacred field of rex sacrorum. This was also the title of the Barbarian kings and other rulers of the Mediterranean region. Unlike imperator, the word rex did not bear any heritage from the Republican tradition and therefore could be applied not only to institutions with a more distinct claim to monarchy but also to sacral institutions, such as Celestial King and the kings of the Chosen People. Thus, we see how the Greek and Latin tradition parted ways, while the Slavic one unswervingly followed the Greek model, walking in the steps of the Eastern Empire. Hence, the term tsar did not come from the Greek original version of the title, but it did follow all the main characteristics of the Greek term, both imperial and sacral. 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

it is worthy of attention, it is not an example of the influence of the Germanic (or Frankish) political terminology in Bulgaria, although it testifies to the powerful attraction of the personality of Charlemagne. Moreover, the title of king, although it was present in the vocabulary of the Bulgarians, was never (neither in the Middle Ages nor in modern times) part of the institutional terminology of the Bulgarian state in reference to the strictly Bulgarian institutions. That is why we shall not deal with it in detail here. It should only be mentioned that it corresponds to the word rex in the Western tradition, and among the Serbs king (kral) became the basic title of their rulers during the greater part of the Middle Ages. 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 independence 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, original 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 abovementioned examples, in mediaeval Bulgaria the term had the precise Roman/Byzantine meaning, indicating that the basileus "holds by himself" the entire power of the Oecumene, being placed by the Celestial

12

Ostrogorsky G., "Avtokrator i samodriac", pp. 95-187.

13

I nstitufii feudale, pp. 443-4.


215

King Jesus Christ to rule the visible world and prepare the Salvation of people. This conclusion is consistent with the whole tendency of mediaeval 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 institutional 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 inscription. 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 Kunstgeschichte Bulgariens. Bd 6]. Linz, 2007, pp. 443-500). 15 Zaimov J., Bitolski nadpis na Ivan Vladislav, samoditrzhets bulgarski. Starobulgarski 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

(usually of a foreign state) without designating a concrete institution of the Empire. No doubt, the concept of "domination" and of the person who effectuates it could have arisen independently in different societies, which would entail the appearance of a corresponding term. Nevertheless, I would propose a different view. It is true that in the Empire aMevt'll~ simply meant "lord" and was used to designate those rulers of other states whose own titles were not recognised by Constantinople. The word in this sense could not have had a particular institutional meaning, inasmuch as it did not refer to any part of the Empire's own institutional system. The title of a ruler, and specifically its appellation, usually reflected the country's own traditions, even in cases where there was a prevailing Byzantine influence (as we saw in the case of the title of tsar in Bulgaria). Usually (though with some minor exceptions to this rule) these local traditions did not enter into the Greek language of Constantinople, and the Romans would call such a foreign ruler simply "lord", unless they had recognised some higher title of his. Therefore I believe that the abandonment of local appellations such as "knjaz" or "grand zhupan" in Serbia, or "voevoda", inherited from Hungary, which was retained only as a personal title of the ruler and his family in Walachia and Moldavia, was the result of the influence of the Empire and the adoption of its way of designating the ruler of a foreign land. Thus, this term too can be associated with the Byzantine legacy, although the issue in question is not part of the language of Bulgarian public law, inasmuch as rom.lAHHrz./ rocnO#fb. was never the appellation of the ruler in Bulgaria. 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 legitimised 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.


217

served relevant to this conception in Bulgaria, the epithets and appellations of the ruler represent one of the chief sources of information on ideology regarding the tsar. The terms R'tfi:.H"A, Rc-tR'tfi:.H"A, &A~roR'tfi:.H'A ("faithful" and "allfaithful") are among the most important in the ruler doctrine of Byzantium and hence of mediaeval Bulgaria. The two terms are identical and the importance of the first is simply intensified, thereby deflecting it from the Byzantine original (xu:n6~ ="staunch" or "faithful"). In this case, we are talking about the ethical meaning of the word, which should be translated as "faithful", not the epistemological meaning of "true" The definition faithful was reserved for the ruler alone, indicating his being part of God's work of salvation in the world, a work in which the Empire played a special role. As much as they may have otherwise resembled the Emperor's, the titles of various rulers never included the term "faithful" in the Empire or in mediaeval Bulgaria. We see this in the formulations used for rulers in Morea, who bore the personal title of"despot" This indicates once again the importance of the attribute "faithful" in the power ideology of the Byzantine commonwealth; it may be said to be a marker. In the glossary text, I have indicated the origin of the epithets and of their Greek counterparts, and I do not feel they need be repeated here. I shall only add a few remarks about certain words and offer some systematisation. Some of the words are essentially not loanwords from Greek (meaning that they originated independently in the history of the language), but evidently are such in their specific usage with reference to the head of state. One example of such a word is the adjective nf'tR'AICOK'A (highly placed), which, as attached to the tsar (and not as a general term), is a translation of U'lftAO'ta:to~ and is thus a loanword from Constantinople. Such also is the case with the adjectives "chosen", "supremely merciful", etc. The epithets used with respect to the ruler may be divided into several groups. One of these groups indicates Divine Providence with regard to the ruler's predestination for his special mission in the world. Here we may indicate epithets such as soroH~"'I:.f'I'~H'A (divinely ordained), &oroH~fe'leH"A (divinely called), H~&f~H"AH"AIH (chosen) and CRATOfOAI:.H'A (holy-born). Another group of epithets indicates that the tsar receives his power from God: &1\~roR'tHI:.'I~H'AIH (crowned by God). And finally there is a group of epithets referring to the nature of the person of the tsar and his power with respect to the Almighty: &1\~POR'tfi:.H'A, &1\~PO"'I:.CT'AIR'A (pious), &OPO&Oh\~HI:.H'A (God-fearing),

218

CHAPTER THREE

&oroAkl&H&'l> (God-loving), &AAPO&<tpb.H'l> (faithful to God), &orocnMb.H'l> (protected by God, the latter is related especially to the capital city as the place of the tsar and is derived from the idea of the special protection granted to Constantinople in AD 626), np (highly placed), no& (all-merciful), np (Christ-loving), etc. All these words originated in the language of the Byzantine Empire, whence they were borrowed together with the reception of the institution of ruler and the ideology linked to him. They reflect the idea of the divine origin of power and are of enormous importance for the study of its ideology, as well as being directly relevant to our topic regarding the terminology of power and public law.

3.3. Vocabulary related to the inheritance of ruler's power and the

legitimisation of inheritance The problem of succession of power in mediaeval Bulgaria cannot be considered definitively solved. Before all else, we should note that it was different in the First and Second Empire. During the pagan period, the traditions of the Bulgars, brought over to the Balkans from the Eurasian Steppe, were evidently observed. It is not quite clear what these traditions were, but, no doubt, particularly important in them was the divine charisma of the ruler's family, believed to be heir to the divine Ancestors-Creators. This is evident by the frequent citing of the family of the ruler in the List of the Bulgar Princes. 17 Of course, the Dulo clan is of particular importance here. We know the title kanartikin (again, I use the traditional name, which is derived from the Greek transcription Kavap'ttKeivo~, and not the newly discovered and difficult to pronounce Kava llP'tXtvo~ or Kave tp'txtvo~), carried by the heir to the throne, but we can say nothing more concrete about the institution or the way in which the person to carry it was chosen. 18 In itself, the term is very interesting, although it lies outside our scope of discussion. I shall only point out that P. Georgiev broke it down into

Moskov, Imennik na bulgarskite khanove, pp. 19-21. The title is familiar to us from Constantine Prophyrogennetus and several seal rings: c£ Constantini Prophyrogeniti imperatoris De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae libri duo, Bonnae, 1829, p. 682: "1tro~ exouc:nv 0 Kav&ptt KElVO~ Kat 0 BouA.ia~ ·mpK6:vo~ oi uioi 'tOV EK eeov lipxov'to~ BouA.yapia~ Kat 'tU AotJta IXU'tOV 'tEKVa;". For a general overview and older literature on seals, cf. Jordanov, Korpus na pechatite, No IV.1, IV.2 pp. 69-74. 17

18


219

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 religious 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 Symeon'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 passing 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 (= Istorija 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 Shishman 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 parallels with practices in other states and cultures. Here we shall not consider the Old Testament tradition, which generally views monarchy 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 Ottoman 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; BZilov lv., "Belezhki vil.rkhu bulgarskata 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.


221

There was an entirely different reason for the lack of a rule for succession 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 viewpoint 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 respective 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 dynasties and a way of thinking in terms of dynasty, there were charismatic families. During the First Empire, this way of thinking partially originated in the importance-traditional for the Steppe-of clans, as very clearly displayed in the List of the Bulgar Princes. This attitude persisted 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 possessed above all by the Asen dynasty, which dominated the political life

222

CHAPTER THREE

of Bulgaria during the 13th-14th centuriesY In a recent article, Ivan Bozilov specifically traces the formation of the dynasty in comparison with the Nemanjids in Serbia. 28 All this tends to the conclusion that Bulgaria was also following the road already paved by Constantinople. Here I shall present some specific observations. Since the problem of the lack of fixed rules for succession to the throne in Bulgaria was not seriously raised until recently by historians, the co-opting of sons has not provoked special interest among researchers. Nevertheless, we have multiple data about the emergence of the institution of co-ruler. Obviously, this was the position of the first Asen dynasty rulers, but there the case was made more complicated, for the purpose was not to ensure succession. Going on from there, we see that the tsar Constantine Tich Asen associated to his power his son Michael as co-tsar/9 while tsar John Alexander bestowed tsar titles to all his male offspring. Here I shall not enumerate concrete cases, but I believe it has been made clear that the co-ruler institution has a place in the state structure of the Second Empire. Viewed in the political and historical context of the times, this practice can only be understood as being yet another proof of the permanent influence of Byzantine practices on the political and state system of Bulgaria. This is also the sense in which we should assess the lack of data about a definite rule of succession to power in our country. This provides us with the historical framework for studying legal terminology in this legal sphere. The vocabulary in the glossary related to succession and legitimisation of power consists in merely a few words, but they are of great importance, both ideological and legal. This vocabulary can be divided into two groups: the first is related to the idea of divine legitimisation of power, in other words, the special charisma of the ruler; the second represents the idea of continuity, which concentrated charisma within a particular family or clan; included here are certain means of determining who shall be heir.

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 porodice-dve dinastije", Stefan Nemanja-Sveti Simeon MiritoCivi. Istorija i predanje (Naucni skupovi Srpske Akademija nauka i umetnosti, kiL XCIV, Odelenja istorijskih nauka, kiL 26), Belgrade, 2000, pp. 47-52. 29 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t I, p. 515 ff.; BoZilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No 24 J1 25, pp. 115-9.


223

The first group consists of the words ventsodatel (= crown giver) and pomazanie/pomazan (= unction/anointed) and their derivatives. "Crown giver" obviously refers to God as source of power. God hands over the wreath to the ruler and it is from Him that the particular quality of the ruler is derived. The crown giver can be none other but the Creator, Saviour, whose mission on earth is fulfilled by the ruler who has received power from Him. The term pomazanie (=unction) is a translation of the Greek word xpicr~a and has an essentially liturgical meaning. Its political meaning is connected with the anointing of the ruler. 30 The origin of this concept is, in any case, foreign to Bulgaria. Its roots lie in the Old Testament, and it was first applied in Western Europe. It refers to a special ritual of anointment of the ruler with holy oil, an act that has a transitional effect of passing on to him, and not only grants him the protection and grace of God, but imparts a new quality to him: that of king and God's anointed. This transitional effect does not apply to the monarch's power, but it is directly related to his religious and legal status and, hence, directly concerns public law. The concrete term was translated from the Greek, because the concept of anointment itself came to Bulgaria together with Christianity, and the anointment of the ruler in particular, if it was at all practiced in our country, also came from Rome. The other group includes three terms and their derivatives. Two of them-nr<M.TH and H4\CNtA0&4\TH (=obtain and inherit)-have a clear meaning and do not need to be specially interpreted. I would like to focus more attention on the terms &4\Pf'tHOfOAb.H'I. and norcJ>HfOfOAb.H'I. (=born to the purple), which are identical and represent a calque and semi-calque of the Greek word 1tOpA.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 Stojanov, 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

~Ab.Tone'lb.'l'b.Hrz., which is a calque of the Greek :x,pucro~ouMtol ur'ie MiArH s.iwm. H I

I

,

X'

,

A'

1i'""

I~HH1::Z.1 MHW~'l>l HC~HC~W~. COAOMW,.. nyt~m r'l> ~'E !!A 'I~ &'l>C'E

rl

'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~

t;

I~H~. A. -f.~ nj'EAAHH '&'EWm;. WfH~e*e , er~'l''HI~~· Cmi.J.Ie, .~C'l'~.&H; &'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.

cTro~H. 11rr.iAwe. 11 ~~HHr'l>l n.i'le &'bee i\kl&iAwe·:·"!-. 68 Ivan Bozilov correctly points out that we can hardly imagine tsar Symeon playing on a harp, but the image of the lover of books is most striking.69 Likewise striking is the comparison or the context in which the author mentions the Bulgarian ruler: he refers to David and Solomon, the biblical kings and prophets. However, what did David's love of books consist in? This biblical king of Israel was famous as the author of several books of the Old Testament. However, by no means can we call these the literary creation of an author. The books of the Holy Scripture was the work of the prophets, one of whom was king David, but they were not authors of the text, which is a Divine Revelation. They are only the path along which the Lord's revelation has come down to us. Thus, in this comparison as well, the Bulgarian ruler is glorified

68 Jatsimirskij A. I., "Melkija zametki", Izvestija otdela russkago jazyka i slovesnosti 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 Jatsimirsky. 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 manuscript belonged to the Saint Nicholas' scete of the Condrita monastery in the Bessarabian 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 miniature depicting tsar Symeon as king David.


245

as a disseminator of God's Word, and not merely for his knowledge and literacy, as embodied in "books" That is why Gregory Presbyter and Monk called tsar Symeon a "lover of books" prominently in the foreword to his translation and choice of Old Testament books, which were perceived as forerunners of the Word of Christ. 70 It is noteworthy, that in the Second Glorification contained in the London Gospel, when love of books is presented as a characteristic of the ruler, no comparison is used similar to that made about Symeon. True, the idea of love of books is present, but through the iconic images in one of the miniatures, that of Ptolemaeus, depicted before a table with books bound in golden bindings. The ruler is in a sitting posture, reading during the night, while an attendant holds lit candles behind him.

3.5.2.5 Also associated with love of books is the image of the bee that we find in the glorification of tsar Symeon: ~K"AI &'b'H\A~ Ato&OA or CHrKAHTrz... The translated word "Savet" can be found in Serbia. 74 We also come across it in Walachia and Moldavia, where it exists together with the Persian word divan, borrowed from the Osmanlis. 75 This once again confirms the thesis that in Bulgaria the Byzantine models were followed with greater precision, even at the terminological level, than in neighbouring countries. We can hardly say anything more concrete, except that the Synklit was probably something like an advisory organ attached to the ruler. In this sense, the question can be raised as to how membership in this organ was related to the function of advisor to the tsar, about which I have written elsewhere. 76 Tsar's advisors are known to us from the Vita of Saint Sava by Theodosius of Chilandari, who relates that the Bulgarian ruler sought advice from the patriarch and from "his advisors" when the Serbian king arrived and asked the tsar to hand over the relics of the saint. 77 Given the available sources, we can hardly expect any definitive or unquestionable solution to the problem about the character of the Synklit. One possible question is whether this was at all an institution or rather simply a designation of people close to the tsar from whom he sought advice.

73 Kaluzniackl., Werke, p. 25; Zlatarski V. N., "Zhitie i zhizn prepodobnago ottsa nashego Teodosija", Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija, nauka i knivnina, t. XX, 1894, p. 20. 74 See Zhitie na Stefan Dechanski ot Grigorij Tsamblak, Sofia, 1983, p. 96. 75 Institufii feudale, pp. 162, 438-40. 76 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 186-8. 77 Zivot Svetoga Save, napisao Dometijan, ed. B. Danicic, Belgrade, 1860, pp. 204,

206.

248

CHAPTER THREE

Nevertheless, I should say that the institution of advisor is familiar to us from the principalities north of the Danube, where the influence of the Southern Slavs was especially strong. In Walachia we come across a consularius in a Latin document from December 27, 1391, while the Slavic form np'll.&OC'll.R:tTHHK'll. (= prime advisor) occurs in a document dating from October 2, 1492.78 In Moldavia, such an official is mentioned for the first time in a document from July 12, 1434. In the texts, the forms "advisor" and "prime advisor" occur together as late as the 17th century, when the second ofthese ceased to be used. It occurs for the last time on a document from March 10, 1641. According to contemporary Rumanian historians, during this period the term advisor, both in Walachia and in Moldavia, meant member of the Council (i.e. of the respective organ, the Synklit or the Senate) but also meant advisor to the ruler. 79 This inclines us to assume a similar solution in Bulgaria and implies the Synklit had a specific nature as council of the tsar or advisory body. However, one cannot be certain of this. The question also arises as to the function of the Synklit at times when the throne was vacant-in particular, did this institution have some part in the election of a new sovereign? Above all I would like to point out that, even assuming a positive answer to this question, it would have played such a role only at the practical level, for we have no data allowing us to assert that the choice of tsar was supposed to be made by this council. Possibly the most interesting data in this connection are provided by the crisis in the middle of the 13th century, and especially Constantine Tich Asen's accession to the throne. 80 However, the sources for this event are likewise so scanty and contradictory that any conclusion would be arbitrary. Such an option remains open but not proven. Certainly, the most interesting mentions of the Synklit are in translated (especially historical) documents and in the specification of the corresponding words in the original text. First of all I would like to discuss the citations in the Bulgarian compilation from the beginning of the lOth century, based on the chronicle by Sextus Iulius Africanus, George Synkellos, Theophanes the Confessor, where the words used with reference to the Senate and senators are old and vary rare ones:

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.


249

(senator) and the plural Afb.PORe (= Senate). 81 Apart from this text, the word occurs only in the Mihanovich's Minaeum, dating from the 16th century, and in the Vita of Saint Clement. This is a Bulgarian word and was not familiar to the Russian copiers. The etymology of the word is not quite clear, and the publisher of the text does not assert a definite view regarding the origin. The word might have come from the Latin "drungus" (= "detachment", through the Greek BpO'Uyyoc;, connected with the institution of "droggarios"). Nevertheless, if the root of the word is domestic, it should be related to Afb.P-/ AfbJK-. The meaning of the term as used in the chronicle is not particularly problematic: it denotes Senate, the council of elders, or in general some separate collective organ. We come across it eight times in the text, twice with reference to biblical events,82 and the other times, with reference to the Roman Senate. 83 In the Slavic translation of the chronicle of John Malalas, mention is made a number of times of the Senate and senators, and the words LU"f1CA1l'toc; or O"U"fKA1lnx:6c; are usually translated as &oMye, &o~ye or &O~f7.1. 84 Similarly, in the Slavic translation of George Hamartolos' Chronicle, Synklit is usually translated as C'l.&Of'l. or specified as Afb.P'l.

&OAAfCIC'l.IH C'l.&Of'l., &OMfCIC'l.IH "'HH'l., &OAAfe. 85

Among the later works we may examine Constantine Mannasses' Chronicle in its Slavic translation. The term "Synklit" appears eleven times there, and in all cases the reference is to the Roman Senate. 86 I should draw attention to two of these quotations. In the section on the reign of Phocas, toward whom the writer had a definitely negative attitude, at the description of his atrocities, it is written: H&W &OA~f'l. R6AHIC'l.IH]( H~U.HH W CHHICAHT~ •••• 87 Here too we see that the idea of a senate and the order of senators is connected with the term "boyar". Further on in the text, in the section on Leo III, belonging to

w

Totomanova, Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, pp. 643-4. Totomanova, Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, p. 98 (=438b 22), p. 458; p. 116 (= 447b 9_10), p. 483. 83 Totomanova, Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, p. 152 (=465b 13 ), pp. 549-50; p. 157 (=468a 25_26 ), pp. 552-3; p. 158 (= 468b 15_16), p. 553; p. 162 (= 470b 8), pp. 555-6; p. 182 (=480b 1), p. 565; p. 190 (= 484b 14), p. 569. 84 Istrin, Khronika Joanna Malaly v slavjanskom perevode, pp. 415-6. 85 Istrin V. M., Khronika Georgija Amartola, vol III, Petrograde, 1930, p. 172. 86 Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii, p. 139 (1871 ff.), 152 (2555 ff.), 157 (2853 ff.), 160 (2999 ff.), 167 (3460 ff.), 170 (3611 ff.), 175 (3885 ff.), 178 (4109 ff.), 186 (4538 ff.), 213 (6023 ff.). 87 Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii, p. 170. 81

82

250

CHAPTER THREE

w

H~K'I'O &AropoAeHoz. Evidently, this term had a CmijJi'HXOZ. WCHHI(AH'I'A, nA'I'p'iK'ie different meaning in Bulgaria than in Rome, and in the Middle Ages than in Antiquity. Still, it becomes clear that the Synklit is connected with a high social position and belonging to a certain social group. However, I do not feel that the more or less permanent lexical link of Synklit with the term "boyar" justifies the conclusion that the Roman senatorial order-even in the form it had in Constantinople and the Middle Ages-was identical with the Bulgarian boyars as a category. During the First Bulgarian Empire, the boilas and bagains were social rather than institutional categories. The case was probably different as regards those connected with Constantine Prophyrogennetus, grand, inner and external boilas (1t&~ £xoucrtv oi £1; BoA.uioe~ oi 1-Ler&A.ot; 1t&~ £xoumv Kat oi A.omol. oi £crro ~otA.6.8e~ Kat £xro ~otA.6.8e~ ... );89 the issue has never been resolved, which is understandable in view of the available sources. We may only surmise whether the "internal boilas/boyars" made up something like a ruler's council, called Synklit during the Second Bulgarian Empire. Regarding this later age we may claim with certainty that the boyars were not institutionalised into some kind of membership (in the Synklit or some other organ), nor into an order (i.e. "a legally regulated social group"). They were more probably representatives of the upper crust of Bulgarian society, marked by their high position and, probably, wealth, whatever these might have meant in that age and cultural environment, in which there was no distinct aristocracy or military category such as the bellatores in the West. In conclusion, we may say regarding the Synklit that in Bulgaria it was certainly modelled after the corresponding institution in Constantinople. The Byzantine Synklit was the heir of the Roman Senate both in practice and form. Soon after the new capital was established, St. Constantine and his successors strove to bring descendents of the Roman senators to the shores of the Bosphorus. Nevertheless, we can assert that during the Middle Ages the potential and position of the Sygkletos in Constantinople were only a shadow of the Senate of clasthe Senate is associated with nobility:

Mmm &w

CAHOMOZ.. 88

Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii, p. 175. Constantini Prophyrogeniti imperatoris De ceremoniis, ed. Bonn, I, pp. 681-2; Zlatarski V. N., "Koi sa bili vatreshni i vllnshni boljari?", Jubileen sbornik v chest na S. S. Bobchev, Sofia, 1921, p. 45 (= idem, Izbrani proizvedenija, t. I, Sofia, 1972, p. 298). 88

89


251

sical times. Most probably, the situation in Bulgaria was even further from the original. Given the lack of all traditions of collective management or of the idea of magistracy similar to the Roman one, the Bulgarian Synklit was probably only some copy of the one of Constantinople. 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 various 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 politicheskija zhivot na pyrvata bulgarska dlirzhava", Istoricheski pregled, 1971, 4, pp. 96105; Petrova G., Istorija na bulgarskata darzhava i pravo, pp. 77-8. 91 Naydenova D., "Istoricheskata dostovernost na Leksikona 'Suda' kato iztochnik :za :zakonodatelstvoto na khan Krum", Starobulgarska literatura, t 35-6, 2006, pp. 167-80. 92 Andreev, "Narodnite slibori", p. 97.

252

CHAPTER THREE

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 Bulgaria resembling a national assembly, much less a "veche"

~ 3 Theophani Confessoris Chronigraphia,, ed. C. de Boor, Lipsiae, 1883, p. 433. See Zlatarskl, Istorija, I /1, p. 284 ff.; Andreev, "Narodnite siibori", pp. 97-8. 94 Nicephori archiepiscopi constantinopolitani Opuscula historica, eel. De Boor, Lipsiae 1870, pp. 69-70. ~ 5 Here it is worth mentioning the idea suggested in passing by V. G. Vasilevsky, that the word KO~v-tov is of Pecheneg origin and designates some specific council among this people (Vasllevskij V. G., Trudy, I, Sanct Petersburg, 1908, p. 15, note 1)-cf also Moravcsik Gy., "Komenton-pechenezhkoe ili russkoe slovo?", Acta antiqua Academiae Scienciarum Hungaricae, I, 1951, pp. 225-31. Also of interest are two other mentions of Ko~v'tov, available to us. Leo Diacon uses this word for the council convoked by prince Svetoslav in Drustur (T6te oe i\Ott 1havwxo-6CJTJ~ i!)lipaaElM~~ 'tWV apimcov EKa9~ev, i]v Kat lCOJlMOV Tfi acpe't£pcp ouxl.incp cpamv-Leonis Diaconi Coloensis Historiae libri decem, rec. C. B. Hasii, Bonnae, MDCCCXXVIII, lib. IX.7, p. 15021 _23), and one century later this was the name used by Ioannes Scylitzes for the council of the Pechenegs, sent to Asia Minor against the Seldjukid Turks (... Kat 1:cp A.qo)livcp AaJ!«l1:pui: 1tpooeyyiaaV't~ e1teaxov "titv 1t0peiav, Kat mlivt~ E1tt Tf\~ o&ro croJ113·


253

The events of AD 893 are specific, because they were subsequent to the evens connected with the removal of the ruler who had violated the command of his father, and were related to a great religious, political, and cultural change in Bulgaria. 96 However, they cannot serve as an argument that some special extraordinary (obviously not regular) organ resembling a national assembly was convened. Basically, this assertion leans only on the information from, again, a foreign, west European source, the Chronicle of the abbot Regino, who was certainly not familiar with the details of Bulgarian institutions. It is written there that, after dealing with his son, the khan Boris-Michael "convened the whole kingdom" (convocato omni regno),97 an act for which it is far from "obvious" (as Vassil Zlatarski writes) that we should interpret it as a convening of a national assembly. Much less can we consider this was a special Bulgarian institution. Two other events are indicated, related to the convening of a "national assembly": the conversion to Christianity in AD 864 and the events of AD 917. 98 I believe that the argument in support of their relevance can only be the importance of what occurred then, or what some claim occurred. The recognition of Peter Deljan as leader of the movement for the restoration of the Bulgarian state in 1040 was also viewed as a national assembly. 99 Unlike the previous two cases, defined as "ecclesiastic-popular councils", the latter case, according to Jordan Andreev, was an assembly of the army alone. The source texts in themselves cannot convince me that this was a separate institution (moreover of an unexciting state). We rather see the imposition of an overpowering influence and the making of a collective decision. However, there is a long distance separating such acts from their institutionalisation. Let us return to the terminological level and examine the two words: R~ij.le/R~lJe and C'l>Hb.U'l>. As noted in the basic glossary, the word R~4-Je is derived from the words for "speak", "know", and it means "counsel", which, actually, is of the same root. It might or might not have been a concrete institution. Among the Serbs, this word was common mostly in the western

96 Zlatarski, Istorija, 1/2, p. 251ff. (especially after p. 256); Andreev, "Narodnite s!1bori", pp. 100-1; BoZilov, Tsar Simeon Veliki, pp. 38-40. 97 Reginonis Chronicon, p. 580. 98 Andreev, "Narodnite s!1bori", pp. 98-100, 101-2. 99 Andreev, "Narodnite s!1bori", pp. 102-3.

254

CHAPTER THREE

regions, connected with Bosnia and Dubrovnik!Ragusa, starting from the 13th century. 100 There is no doubt, as the concrete quotation in the glossary shows, that in the Dubrovnik republic this was one of the fundamental institutions. There are many Russian studies concerning the veche. In them, especially in view of its mention in the manuscripts, it is considered to be a council of city elders that has the features of a special institution. 101 A more complicated question is that of the presence of the veche in translated or other texts that are not part of the Russian chronicles. V. Lukin gives several examples of this; I shall not specially dwell on them, but will instead quote this author's view that we usually come across the word in the sense of "assembly", "council", usually referring to a council of the Hebrews, or as a "gathering of rebels", "rebellion", which, in my view, is thematically connected with the afore-mentioned. 102 I would like to direct attention to one of the examples in the referred to article: the use of R-tij.le in the sense of "sentence", "verdict"; the author rejects this interpretation, and sees a connection of the word with the verb "to speak", "to augur", from which it undoubtedly stems. 103 Nevertheless, the idea that it may have such a meaning seems interesting to me, inasmuch as similar words are related to meanings connected with "tribunal", "court" and "justice", "jurisdiction" I am referring to the words R'tij.lb.HHU.b. (= court building, government building) and R'tij.lb.HH"'b.CK'l.. (= judicial). 104 For all that, we must come back to the Bulgarian material, inasmuch as our topic is not connected with the presence of some specific institution in mediaeval Bulgaria and mainly during the First Empire. The word that we are dealing with, R-tij.le, rarely occurs in the classical manuscripts before the 12th century: we find it used once in the Codex SuprasliensisY)5 There the phrase Hb. RAb.A'l..IKm R'tWTe TROfb.T'l.. fb.&i corresponds to the Greek Ka'tn 'tou Oemt6'tou cr'tacrui~ot>crtv ol. oouA.ot. In this case, it means "revolt", "mutiny" This single mention of the word was the reason why Phaedon Malingoudis defined the term as

Sreznevskij, Materialy, I, col. 499-500. Zavadskaja, "0 'startsakh gradsklkh"', passim; Granberg, Veche, passim; Likin, "0 tak nazyvaemoj mnogoznachnosti ponjatija 'veche"', passinL 102 Lukin, "Rannye neletopisnye upominanija vecha", pp. 58-60. 103 Lukin, "Rannye neletopisnye upominanija vecha", p. 59. 104 Slovn ik jezyka staroslovenskeho, t. VII, P raha 1963, p. 383. 105 Supraslski ill Retkov sbornik, eel. J. Zaimov, M. Capaldo, Sofia, 1982, p. 424 25; Slovnik jezyka staroslovenskeho, t. VII, Praha 1963, p. 383. 100 101


255

a hapax legomenon, 106 a definition I consider unacceptable. The word is known to occur in texts of that age that are outside the circle of manuscripts upon which the quoted dictionary is built. In the same article, this Greek scholar states the view that the word had fallen into disuse-at least in Bulgaria and according to the Bulgarian lexical norms-with the disappearance of the practice of national assemblies after the 9th century and the establishment of a more authoritarian monarchy. This is a separate issue, which must not be neglected, but before that I should give several examples of the word as used in historical works. First of all, I shall cite the already mentioned compiled chronicle based on the original chronicles by Sextus Iulius Africanus, by George Synkellos, and byTheophanes the Confessor, and compiled in Bulgaria probably at the beginning of the lOth century; the work was recently published by Anna-Maria Totomanova. 107 In it, the word &'tLJJe occurs twice. The first time is in the biblical account of the rape of the concubine of the Levite from mount Ephraim and the destruction of the whole tribe of Benjamin (Judges 19-21). 108 There veche is the word used for the assembly oflsrael in Mizpeh after the defeat of the tribe of Benjamin. The second occasion is in the account of the capture of the Ark of the Covenant by the Philistines and their gathering to decide where to set it after the events in the shrine of Dagon ( 1 Samuel 5). 109 Clearly, in both stories the reference is to some sort of assembly, which at least for the Hebrews was institutionalised. A foreign thing is called by a familiar name, but this does not mean we have here an indirect reference to a Bulgarian institution. C'll.Hb.M'b is the other word that may be used to designate a national assembly or council. It has been preserved in modern Bulgarian as "coHM" and is derived from the old Slavic combination of *son(= "with") and *j((ti (= "to take", "to seize"), 110 which produces the meaning of "council", "assembly" In the extant translated texts 111 the

106 107

Malingoudis, "Zu einigen Verfassunstermini", p. 200. Totomanova A.-M., Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, Sofia,

2008. 108 Totomanova, Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, p. 61 (= 420a 21 ), 428. 109 Totomanova, Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, p. 63 (= 421a 19_20 ), 429-30. 110 Vasmer, III, p. 717. 111 Slovnik jazyka staroslovenskeho, t 40, Praha, 1987, p. 314.

256

CHAPTER THREE

word usually corresponds to the Greek (J"\)VayOl"ffl, although we see it used as a translation of Iuveopwv, ~ouA.f(, c:rUv'tay~a etc. It usually designates the Hebrew prayer meetings or councils of the Nation of Israel, for instance the Temple council, the Synedrion. In the Christian context, it may simply mean "council" or merely the liturgical assembly for prayer, i.e. people present at the Eucharistic divine service in the church. I would like to draw attention to an interesting lexical development, which clearly indicates the direct influence of the Greek language in the field we are focused on. In the Glossary a participant (or member) in the Veche is called (at least in Dubrovnik) a &e~I:.HH~I:., which is derived from the name of the assembly/council, i.e. of the institution itself. For its part, the word Crz..H~:>urz.. produces the derived crz..HI:.UI:.HH~rz.., meaning "participant in the Council". In the Codex Suprasliensis however, we twice encounter a word similar in meaning-crz..crroAI:.HH~rz... 112 Thus, in the Vita of St. Isaakios, the word crz..crroAI:.HHI~rz.. corresponds to c:rUveopo~ in the original Greek text. 113 In the Vita of St. Artemios the term crz..crroAI:.HH!a. ~HAm~ corresponds to 'taU (J"\)"(l'a9£opou 'tou ~~:6~'l'J't0~. 114 I shall not discuss in detail the meanings and usages, but should not that the word is a calque that completely matches the Greek original (from tJ'\)V- = "with" and ~~:a9{~ro = "sit", whence likewise the meaning of "chair", "table"), although the suggestion of the Slavic word might seem to be slightly different, for instance crz..rrp~ne~HHI~ (=table companion). Coming back to the term crz..HI:.M'l>, we see that in the Codex Suprasliensis this word corresponds to cr6vtayJ..u:x, 115 but in the given context, this fact cannot lead to concrete conclusions about the existence of institutions. In the above-mentioned Bulgarian compilation of the chronicles of George Synkellos, Sextus Iulius Africanus, and others, the word crz..H~:>urz.. occurs several times. The first occasion is in connection with the story of Nehemiah and the restoration of Jerusalem: that is what the Hebrew council is called there. 116 The next case refers to the time after Christ and the destruction of the synagogues, which

112

113 114 115 116

Slovnik jazyka staroslovenskeho, t. 40, Praha, 1987, p. 339. Supraslski ill Retkov sbornik, t. I, p. 189 20 _21 • Supraslski ill Retkov sbornik, t. I, p. 234 I· Supraslski ill Retkov sbornik, I, p. 96 27. Totomanova, Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, p. 106

(= 442b 12), 469.


257

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 discussing 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

.

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-cannot 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 transitional 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 completely different cultural environment; what the chroniclers wrote was addressed to their own public and cannot accurately reflect the reality in south-eastern Europe. H

117

Totomanova, Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, p. 141

(= 460a 22), 545. 118 Totomanova, Slavjanskata versija (= 461a 2), 545-6. 119 Totomanova, Slavjanskata versija (= 473b 16), 560; 196 (= 487b 13), 573; 197 120 Totomanova, Slavjanskata versija (= 4816 23-24). 566tf.

na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, p. 143 na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, p. 168

(= 488a 2), 573.

na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, p. 184

Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii, p. 126 (vers. 1079). ConstantiniMannasses Compendcium chronicum,Patrologiagraeca, vol CCXXVII, col 260 vers 1079. 121

122

258

CHAPTER THREE

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 narrow 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 represent 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 democracy" 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 removing the khan from power .125 I think this is untenable when considering 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 situation similar to the position of the Goktiirk (= «celestial Turks") or

123 124

125

Andreev, "Narodnite sabori", p. 97. Andreev, "Narodnite sabori", pp. 103-4. Andreev, "Narodnite sabori", p. 97.


259

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 Constantinopolitan 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

As I already pointed out, the terms related to power and presented in this chapter encompass what is in some cases very heterogeneous material, so that it would be hard to make a generalisation about it as a whole. We should also point out that a large part of them are words somehow related to power-invariably or only in some of their special meanings. This means they do not possess the characteristics of terms, and, though constituting part of the specialised language in this

126 Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi, H. Delehaye, Bruxellis, 1902, col. 415; Besevliev V., Parvobulgari. Istorija, Sofia, 1984, p. 139.

260

CHAPTER THREE

sphere, they do not always provide a clear idea as to the development, logic, and tendencies of that language. A comparatively more coherent group is that of the words related to the ruler's institution; this was why it was presented in greater detail in the above discussion. The study of this group demonstrated that, overall, the words fully reflect the Byzantine imperial doctrine and its assimilation in mediaeval Bulgaria. This adoption had an impact on the actual politics of Bulgaria, 127 on the country's official title system/28 on the ideological sphere, and likewise on the words used to express all of these. Nevertheless, here we find a specific aspect that I would like to highlight once again. The name of the ruler institution-"tsar"is not a direct loanword from the terminology of the Empire. The remote Latin-Gothic roots of the word are lost in time and the word has become well integrated into the Slavic languages, no longer being perceived as a loanword. Yet it demonstrates-though not directlythe influence of the Roman imperial doctrine on the formation of the idea of Universal Empire among the Slavs (and specifically in Bulgaria), and the construction of the respective appellations connected with this idea. I believe that the other lexemes related to the supreme power were to a far greater degree directly influenced by the Greek language of Constantinople. We have before us the vocabulary that represents the ideological and cultural basis on which the notion of power was constructed in the Bulgarian mediaeval state. This vocabulary was not an isolated phenomenon but part of the integral processes taking place in mediaeval Bulgarian culture and, thence, in the area of law, of political life, in literature and art. I believe that what we have here is a tendency that will likewise be present in the results of the study of vocabulary and of the other spheres of law.

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

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY 1. THE STATE INSTITUTIONS IN THE SYSTEM OF MEDIAEVAL BuLGARIAN LAW

This chapter presents the vocabulary pertaining to institutions. It encompasses the administrative system, the central government, and the provincial offices, as well as everything related to their organisation, their origin and function. Here I have included all we know about the army, its command, its organisation, various subdivisions and kinds, all of which are certainly part of the governance of a specific state activity. In this section are presented the honorary titles and court services, which, according to our present-day understanding, ought to be excluded from the sphere of public law, but which were part of this sphere in all states during the Middle Ages. Comprising all these components, the content of the chapter is an essential part of the public law vocabulary of the mediaeval Bulgarian state. Along with this, I would like to point out that the fiscal offices and the officials that took care of the organisation of various corvees, parangariai, mandatory supplying, and other duties of the population, are examined in a separate part devoted to the fiscal system. The exercising of state power and administration are certainly activities strictly regulated by law, and we hardly need to adduce arguments that the vocabulary connected with this sphere is part of the present study. Nevertheless, I would like to devote a bit more attention to the above-mentioned honorary titles and court services, which are part of the institutional system of the state. To these problems, I have devoted a special book 1 and here I shall only sketch the basic conclusions. Unlike the administrative service, directly connected with the exercise of state power or the support and organisation of power,

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 worthiness. 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 Universal 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 family 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 countries 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 working 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

2

3

Biliarsky, Hierarchia. L'Ordre sam!, pp. 20-2. Biliarsky, Hierarchia. L'Ordre sam!, p. 89 ff.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

263

served the person of the basileus, i.e. they were not part of the administration. 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 connected 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 functioning of power. Here we see one instance of the great importance of court services in the public legal sphere of the mediaeval state. 2. ORIGIN AND BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEGAL VOCABULARY PERTAINING TO THE SPHERE OF INSTITUTIONS AND PRESENTED IN THE GLOSSARY

2.1

The origin of administrative terminology in mediaeval Bulgaria, as presented 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 numerical 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 Constantinople, 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 specialised 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 processes 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


265

of these words are terms. Among them, I have included the word primmikirios/primmicerius, which is of Latin origin but undoubtedly came into the Bulgarian administrative vocabulary through the Greek language. 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 continuity in Bulgarian statehood before and after the Conversion to Christianity. 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

5

Biliarsky, "Pismo na sultan Bajazid II do kral Matias Korvin", pp. 79-81.

266

CHAPTER FOUR

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 Hungarian 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 Transylvania. 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. 3. DEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BASIC CONCEPTS IN THE SPHERE OF BULGARIAN MEDIAEVAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE TERMS DESIGNATING THEM

Before continuing with my presentation, I would like to specify that the present work is devoted to the legal (in this case the administrativelegal) vocabulary of mediaeval Bulgaria, which includes both the First and Second Empires. The study is based on domestic sources and focused on the Slavic language, the official language of the state and the language of Bulgarian culture down to this day. Thus, understandably, institutional designations that have reached us through texts in other languages have not been included. In this excluded group, regrettably, are nearly all Bulgar institutions of the First Empire. Only some of them have been presented in the study, in cases when they occur in Slavic inscriptions and written documents. This somewhat cuts down the scope of the study, but in all cases makes it more unified and coherent. Along with this, I should point out that, exceptionally, there are terms that have come down to us only in a foreign language (for instance, the Greek c'protovestiarios" and the Latin c'comestabulus") and which are examined in the systematic presentation of the institutions further on in this chapter. These exceptions are because


267

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 present 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 comprise terms that have nothing to do with the Bulgarian practice of governance. 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 mentioned 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 community 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 institutions 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 structure-defining function in the contexts of the general Byzantine understanding 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

6 Biliarsky 1., « Some Observations on the Administrative Terminology of the Second Bulgarian Empire», Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Birmingham, 25 (2001), pp. 69-89.

268

CHAPTER FOUR

this place and there is no need to be translated, for the appellation as sign is sufficient. The issue would not be the same if some offices in the state apparatus were borrowed. In that case, we would have an instance of assimilation of a type of state activity, and that might create a problem of comprehensibility for the name of the office. Thus, the designations are constructed in different ways, through translation or through calques, as we shall see done in Bulgaria in the assimilation of various administrative, and especially fiscal, designations. 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 appellations 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 appellations 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, Gramoty, 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 gramota, p. 37; Gjuzelev V., "Nadpisa ot krepostta", Bozhenishki Urvich, Sofia, 1979, p. 43; Petrov P., "0 titulakh 'sevast' i 'protosevasf v srednevekovom bolgarskom gosudarstve", 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


269

sented my opinion in this discussion further on in this study, in the part where I have systematically presented the Bulgarian institutions. 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 special 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/curopalates, 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 "distinguished 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; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 119 tf, 125tf. Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 90-2. 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. 9

10

270

CHAPTER FOUR

this casts a serious doubt on the detailed theses of K. Maksimovich, but due to the purely philological nature of those theses, we shall not try to review them thoroughly. 3.1.5

As for the Turkic terms, it is hard to distinguish those among them that are of domestic origin from the foreign loanwords. It may be claimed with a relative degree of certainty that terms such as "bagain", "boliar/in/", "san" and "chergubylia" are of domestic origin. We cannot be fully certain about the origin of "ban", "vatah", "zhupa", "zhupan", the origin of which should perhaps be sought in the traditions of the Eurasian steppe. Certainly, the military-administrative appellation "serdar" is a foreign loanword that came into the Bulgarian nomenclature from or through the Ottomans. 11 I believe these loanwords should be considered in the context of the early penetration of foreign, and specifically Turkic, vocabulary in Constantinople, when the Seldjuks first settled in Anatolia. Such, for instance, was the office of the "grand favu~" in the capital of the EmpireP

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 translated 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,

Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 323-5. VerpeauxJ., Pseudo Kodinos. Traitedes offices, Paris, 1966, pp. 138, 154, 174, 300, 302, 305, 307, 309, 320, 334, 344, 347. 11

12


271

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 derivatives 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 demonstrates the general approach that was used for the building of the

13 E. Kaluiniacki, Werke, p. 96; Biliarsky Iv., « Les institutions de la Bulgarie medievale: tainik-mystik.os », Byzantinoslavica, LIII, 1 (1992), pp. 53-6; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 237-9. 14 Oik.onomides N., Les listes de preseance byzantines de IX' et x• siecles, Paris, 1972, 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 Function 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

administrative vocabulary: the exact term, name of a certain institution was directly assimilated, while the general non-institutional appellation was translated. I believe that the words vlastel, nachalo, nachalnik should be presented together, for they come from a word rich in meanings, O.pxfl, which means both nachalo ("a beginning", in the sense of "a start", "reference point", but also "principle"), and vlast (= power). Vlastel should be taken as derived from lipxrov (archont); both words do not have an exact institutional reference. I do not thereby claim that they designate exactly matching positions in the translated texts. On the contrary, the two words have an independent existence in their various contexts. Nachalnik (= head, boss, leader) also in fact corresponds lexically to lipxrov, although the meaning of the term in Bulgarian society was entirely different. This is also true for the word nachalo, which I examine here only in its meaning of principle (Lat. principium), "leadership" and, in general, things concerning power and the exercise of power. I would like to consider briefly the term "vlastel" and the question what it designates. There has been considerable research done on it, based mainly on Serbian materials and sources. Decades ago, Str. Lishev wrote on the topic of vlastels in Bulgaria. In his study, which had a strong ideological emphasis, devoted to the "emergence of feudalism in Bulgaria", he asserted that words like "vlastel" designated persons with political power: state officials, dignitaries, functionariesY Such words are thus set in contrast with terms like rocnOAHH'b or wcnoA~fb., which designated a locallandowner. 18 Without putting in doubt the conclusions of the author, which are based on concrete texts, I should say that the second group also designates empowered persons, though in a different position. The words gospodin/gospodar (= lord, master), gospodstvuvam (= dominate) and their related words come from the Greek ai>eevtrtc;, au9evteuro or (less probably) from ri>p( we;)) lCUpu:X.pmc;, lCUpu:X.pxro, although they are not calques but translated in meaning. We should note the manner in which different terms were created and used in a similar way as the Greek words were used.

17

18

Lishev, Za genezisa na feodalizma, pp. 151-6. Lishev, Za genezisa na feodal izma, p. 156 ff.


273

The group including rabotnik, rabotati (= to work) is of interest to us only in its administrative meaning; the word was used to generally designate people who serve the ruler ("rabotniki of My Empire /of My Majesty/"). As I have indicated in the glossary, these words come from rob(= slave)] and thus contain the idea of"work", "slavery", and finally of the penalty that was meted to humankind after the fall into Original Sin. Here I should point out that, in the sense that concerns us and in their general sense as words that have nothing to do with law and the administration, this group of lexemes fully matches the meanings of the Greek o0'6A.o~, oouA.€:6etv and related derivatives. I believe we are justified in thinking that these Bulgarian terms have their distant origin in the corresponding Greek words; this is quite normal, considering the way in which the literary Slavic language was constructed in the early Middle Ages. Finally, I should mention the words nastoinik, nastoiati, namestnik (= substitute, lieutenant), nastolnik, which have a completely different meaning but a similar structure. In my opinion we should see here the creation of lexemes on the basis of the Greek verb Eimruu or E1ttcrta'tero and its derivative E1ttcrta't1l~ with the related similar meaning of"stand upon", "stand above", "to lead". Of course, I do not claim that the precise technical terms in Greek match the lexemes based on which the Bulgarian terms were constructed. 3.3

The purely Slavic words in the administrative vocabulary usually have a closer connection with colloquial language, do not always have a precise 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.

Finally, I shall give two examples that, in my opinion, are an excellent illustration of the mechanisms by which was constructed the administrative vocabulary of mediaeval Bulgaria during the First and Second Empires: the institutions of protospatharios!chigot/mechenosha and those of epikernios/chvanchi. The notable thing in these two institutions, to be presented in detail at their proper place in the systematic presentation of the institutions of mediaeval Bulgaria, is that through them we can trace the development of the legal vocabulary from the Bulgar Turkic term to its later forms that display the influence of the Byzantine Empire. 21 We observe that, in cases of reception of a specific state function and the office related to it (for instance "cup-bearer of the tsar), the first word coined was a Bulgar Turkic one based on the Greek original borrowed from Constantinople; this was later replaced by a Slavic word (a calque or translation from the Greek) or by a transliteration of the Greek word itself. Thus, the assimilation of the institution and the functions related to it in management and service was accompanied by the corresponding assimilation of the vocabulary designating these. 4. SYSTEMATIC PRESENTATION OF BULGARIAN INSTITUTIONS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY

4.1. Honorary titles

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., IH, which fully matches the Greek cUcrc~ft~. As in the above-mentioned case, we have full reasons to assert that this variant originated in Bulgaria. M

55 56 57

58

Biliarsky, "Dva narachnika za pittakia", pp. 2872o,2s, 28829, cf alsop. 266. Biliarsky, "The Despots", pp. 142-3; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 40-2. B. Angelov, Iz starata, II, pp. 143, 146. Khristova, Karadzhova, Uzunova, Belezhki, I, p. 56 No. 77.

H


293

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. Regrettably, 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 Svetoslav. 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 minting 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 instituta, t. IV, 1956, pp. 93-103. 61 On the coins of despots, cf. Biliarsky, "The Despots", pp. 145-6 H Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 44-7.

294

CHAPTER FOUR

Rather, it reflected the practical position of the person. In this respect, we should not forget that the title of despot was borne by the rulers (or sovereigns) of Serbia in the 15th century. Despot Jacob Svetoslav was almost independent ruler in the northwestern Bulgarian lands, and he would constantly shift his orientation from Bulgaria to Hungary and back, even appropriating unlawfully the title of tsar. The extant coins confirm this. The type of portrayal on them points to western regions and is not fully congruous with the practice in Balkan countries. Moreover, it demonstrates his imperial pretensions rather than his title of despot. Hence, we should not see here the start of a Bulgarian tradition of coin minting, but simply the expression of the self-confidence of a powerful local ruler. The situation in Dobrudja (Scythia Minor) is similar. Dobrotitsa can only nominally be considered a Bulgarian despot. His lands lay outside the boundaries of the Bulgarian state, he received his title from Constantinople, and his entire policy was oriented to the Byzantine Empire. As for the coins, they are not merely those of a despot who mints them in the capacity of despot, but are those of a ruler who dominated nearly the entire western coast of Black Sea. All this, I believe, provides no reason to argue that there was an essential difference between Bulgarian and Serbian despots and the Byzantine ones because the former minted coins. Here I shall not offer the prosopographical part devoted to the Bulgarian despots of the 13th-14th century, for I have presented it elsewhere.62 I shall only quote their names: despot Alexis Slav, despot Jacob Svetoslav, despot George Terter, despot Kuman, despot Eltimir, despot Michael Shishman, despot Voisil, despot Michael, despot Sratsimir, despot John Alexander, despot Vladislav, despot Constantine, despot Dobrotitsa, despot John Terter. 4.1.2

The title of sebastocrator also followed the Byzantine archetype with no significant deviations at all. 63

Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 47-84; Biliarsky, "The Despots", pp. 146-61. FerjanciC, "Sevastokratori u Vizantiji'', pp. 141-90; Ferjancic B., "Sevastokratori i cesari u Srpskom carstvu", Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu, t. XI, 1 (1970), p. 255 ff.; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 96-9. We should express disagreement with the untenable theses of E. Kojceva (Savceva), who follows the line traced earlier by P. Petrov: Kojceva (Savceva) E., "The Office and the Title ofSebastocrator in Bulgaria", 62 63


295

4.1.2.1 Origin. The title in the Empire and in Serbia The origin of the title of sebastocrator is closely connected with the dynastic policy of Alexis I Comnenos. Coming to power in 1081, he initiated an overall reorganisation of the hierarchic system of the Empire. The bestowing of titles upon the closest relatives of the basileus led to the creation around the throne of a narrow circle of dynastic aristocracy, which would play a future role in the governance of the state. In the book Alexias by Anna Comnena we learn that Nicephorus Melissenos was promised the title of caesar even before Alexis I mounted the throne. Along with this, the eldest of the Comnenoi, Isaac, was to receive a higher title. In order to satisfy their claims, the basileus created a new title, that of sebastocrator, and put it highest in the hierarchy. Thus, he demoted the caesar and assigned to him the third place in official court glorifications. 64 Particularly interesting is the etymology that Anna Comnena herself offered of the term, related to the basic characteristic of the title. Here are the words of the author: "... the basileus Alexis Comnenos formed a new word and called his brother sebastocrator, a compound word consisting of two parts: sebastos and autocrator, and thus made Isaac something like a second basileus."65 Ie~amo>, 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].


303

Empire) served to designate the emperor. In Rome, the title gradually underwent a considerable decline and gave way to augustus. In Diocletian's tetrarchy the title designated the junior emperor, subordinated to the Augustus, in each part of the Empire-Eastern or Western; after Constantine the Great it acquired the specific features with which we are concerned here, i.e. it becomes a title in the hierarchy. 85 For a long time this title was reserved for the closest circle of the ruler's relatives and remained first in the ranking. It was only under Alexis I Comnenos that it went to second place after sebastocrator, and later to third after despot. Although very depreciated, the title of caesar retained its imperial character, which is evident by its place, insignia, and forms of address, which we learn about from the treatise of Pseudo Kodinos.86 The extant sources provide information likewise about caesars in 14th-century Serbia: Preljub, Vojhna, Hreljo, etc. 87 It is quite problematic whether this title existed in mediaeval Bulgaria. 88 Some authors assume that it was present in the rank system of the country, but do not ground their assertion. 89 In fact, the only data on caesars in Bulgaria come from the prayer for promotion of despots, caesars, and other dignitaries, preserved in several manuscript copies. This work, of course, is of Byzantine origin, but I should emphasise that at least the heading is not an exact translation from Greek. The original is called Ei>xh btl1tpOXetpicret ~~:aicrapoc;, vm~eA.tcri~ou (~~:al) ~~:oup01taA.6:tou. 90 The text closest to this is that contained in the Synodicon: MATRb. Hb. no;rb.Rl\eH'i'e, KECAfb.. ce me H Hb. nocTb.Rl\eH'i'e ;l\fb.HHTeNt noAb.Txo/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 disappeared towards the end of the 12th century. The curopalates occurs only in the text of the Synodicon copy. We shall discuss the latter further 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 citation 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 positioning: 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 objection 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 Synodicon. 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.


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 mentioned 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 information, 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 Butgars 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 Stephen 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 possible upon them alone to build some notion of the title. Essentially,

94 Nicephori archiepiscopi constantinopolitani Opuscula historica, p. 42; Zacos G., Veglery A., Byzantine Lead Seals, t. 1/3, Basell972, No 2672, p. 1441; Zlatarski, Istorija, t. Ill, pp. 226-9. 95 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 391, 392; Ferjancic B., "Sevast i protosevast Pribo", Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu, t. XV-1, Spomenica Ivana Boiiea, Belgrade, 1985, pp. 91, 96; Popruzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, No 132, p. 90.

306

CHAPTER FOUR

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, 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·


315

nocT4\RAeHie )(fb.HHTe.l\-t no.I\4\T-t, Hme r.l\err~ ~~rono.I\4\THCI:.. 131 The text is a translation of the Greek prayer meant for the same occasion, called: Ei>xn btl1tpOXetpicret Kaimxpoc;, Nro~eAtcrcrtJ..LOt>, Kot>p01taMtou. 132 We see that the title of nobelissimus is absent from the Slavic title; it does not appear in any of the transcripts known to us. This might mean that the translator strove to adapt the purpose of the ecclesiastic ordo to the Bulgarian realities. This too may be the reason why the curopalates was presented in a specific way: first a Slavic translation of the name of the institution was given-)(fb.HHTe.l\1:. no.I\4\T't, set in the genitive case, followed by the Greek term (borrowed, for its part, from a Latin term) in the nominative, together with the suffix): ~~rono.I\4\THCI:.. This strange approach is not in keeping with the established practice for loanwords from the Greek, and I am inclined to believe that the translated term was the one functioning in Bulgaria, inasmuch as the other one remains highly untypical. The office of the curopalates was certainly of Roman origin. We should look for its roots in Late Antiquity, in the institutional system of the Later Roman Empire. The word KOt>p01taAatrtc; comes from Latin and consists of parts derived from cura, curare and palatium. This linguistic analysis leads us to conclude the word refers to care for the court. As for the earlier period, the problem there is to find whether it is distinct from or identical with the institution of cura palatii, already documented in the Notitia Dignitatum. There is no doubt the terms are not of the same origin, but this does not mean one of them does not stem from the other. On the contrary, studies have shown the opposite to be true. 133 The differences are indeed significant: cura palatii is an official who looks after the maintenance of the buildings, the construction of new ones, and their decoration. He has the rank of spectabilis, while the curopalates was one of the highest-ranking functionaries of the Empire, chief of the court guard, often the second in rank after the ruler himself, and a relative of the

131 Popruzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borisa (1898), p. 80; Biliarsky, « Le rite de couronnement », p. I06 (note 2I5). 132 J. Goar, 'Euxo/Jrywv sive rituale Graecorum ... (Venetiis MDCCXXX) 730; M. Arranz. « Couronnement royanl et autres promotions de cour », p. 103ff. 133 Bury J. B., The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century, London, 1911, pp. 33-4; Martroye M. F., "L'origine de curopalate", Melanges offerts a M.

Gustave Schlumberger a ['occasion du quatre-vingtieme anniversaire de sa naissance

(17. X. 1924), Paris 1924, t. I, p. 79 ff.

316

CHAPTER FOUR

latter.B4 The very fact that this title was held by Justin II, and subsequently 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 administration. 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 curopalates 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 curopalates 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 corresponding 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", 2 (1970), pp. 187-249. Guilland, "Le Curapalate", pp. 187-90. Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance, p. 97. Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 17520 _22•

Bu~avnva, 135 136 137


317

given by the basileus personally. 138 In addition, the title-holders had the right to ride in a green carriage. The most ample data about the age of the Palaeo logos dynasty are contained in Pseudo Kodinos' treatise, which reflects the situation by the middle of the 14th century. Writing about the insignia of the curopalates, the author refers to those of the pincerna. Thus, after the respective comparisons are made, the following picture emerges: a golden red skiadion and a silk kabbadion, like those of the great dux; his skaranikon was of silk and peach-coloured, embroidered with gold thread; this skaranikon was covered with images of the basileus made of coloured glass-in a standing posture on the front side, and a sitting posture on the back side of the garment; the curopalates did not have a sceptre (dikanikion). 139 The epithet used with reference to the curopalates was ~eyaAe1tt<j>a vecna'top01taAa't'11p01taA.a't'fJcrcra. His chancery was the KOt>p01t<XA<X'ttlKtOV. The title of curopalates was one of those whose existence in mediaeval Bulgaria is problematic. It is mentioned only once in the sources, in the title of a prayer for appointment of the highest dignitaries; the prayer is included in the manuscript of the Synodicon: U.I\TR~ H~ ~ocrr~RMHi'e Kec~r~· ce me " "~ nocrr~RMHi'e .Xf~HHTeNt no.l\~'l"t. Hme r.l\eTA\ KvponoMTHCb.. In my opinion, this ordo is a historical source. Its presence in the ritual practice during the Second Bulgarian Empire provides us with exceptionally valuable information regarding the titular system. I assume that the curopalates did exist in mediaeval Bulgaria, however the name for them may have been not the borrowed Greek word but the translation of that word figuring in the translated prayer title. In other words, the Bulgarian title was perhaps not "curopalates" but the Slavic appellation ,Xf~HHTe.l\1:. no.l\~'l"t (i. e. "palace curator"), where the other forms are present only by way of clarification. For the purposes of our research, it would be interesting to present comparisons with other Balkan countries. Long ago Stojan N ovakovic proposed the view that the court managers (which were registered under different names in mediaeval Serbia) and the Moldavian dvornics

.

138 139

140

Oikonomides, Les listes de preceance, p. 97. Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 156 (v. et pp. 153-5). Guilland, "Curopalate", pp. 196-196.

318

CHAPTER FOUR

were identical with the Byzantine curopalates. 141 Should we consider this view still acceptable today? In a Bosnian charter of 1454 there is reference to ... H4\WeP4\ AROfCKOP4\ KHe~4\ /4\AH"'b. KOnHeRHK4\ •••• 142 This was the final one in a line of mentions o this title, which began at the end of the 14th century. This was undoubtedly a high dignitary, one of the closest to the ruler, and who probably was entrusted with care of court life and management. In the Serbian state, a term that draws our attention is AROfOAf~HLI,4\. 143 This appellation occurs several times in the sources, but it seems to me that, unfortunately, the connection here with the Byzantine curopalates is too remote and hypothetical. It seems partially discernable in the name alone. The data on dvornics I vornics in Walachia and Moldavia are considerablyampler. The name used for them in the southern principality was AROfHHK'b or, in the 17th century, occasionally ReAHKi'H AROfH'biH CBAi'4\; in the Latin documents it was iudex et palatinus curie nostre, palatinus, dvornic ... sive iudice, pro visor curie, iudex curie, iudex generalis. 144 In Moldavia, the title occurs as AROfHHKb. and, rarely, ROfHHKb., while in the Latin-language charters it is marscalcus, magnus provisor, supremus provisor, provisor curie, supremus iudex curie. 145 The institution appeared in both principalities as early as the 14th century: we first encounter it in Walachia on September 4, 1389; in Moldavia, in a Polish text dated 1387, and an internal text dated November 18, 1398. The competencies of the office of the Romanian dvornic are well known. 146 Undoubtedly, the name of the office comes from the Slavic word "dvor" and is connected with the need to administrate life in the palace, the palace revenues, and the domains of the prince. However, the foremost obligation of the dvornic was to administer justice. This dignitary appears as the chief judge at central state level, whose juris-

Novak.ovic, "Vizantijski clnovi i titule", pp. 264-5. Novak.ovic, "Vizantijski clnovi i titule", p. 252. 143 Novak.ovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 520, 751; Novakovic, "Vizantijski Cinovi i titule", pp. 265-6. 144 Stoicescu N., Sfatul domnesc fi marii dregiUori din Tara Romaneasca fi Moldova (sec. XV-XVII), Bucure~ti. 1968, p. 186. 145 Grigo~ N., Institufii feudale din Moldova, vol. I, Organizarea de stat pana la mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea, Bucure~ti. 1971, p. 255; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, p. 193. 146 G. Duzlnchevici. "Vornicia moldovaneasci1 p~nA Ia 1504", Cercetari istorice, aiL V-VII (1929-1931), pp. 216-52; Balan Th., "Vornicia in Moldova", Codrul Cosminului, aiL VII (1931-1932), pp. 6-204; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 185-204; Grigor~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 255-263; Institufii feudale, pp. 511-2. 141

142


319

diction covered civil lawsuits (even those involving large inheritance among the aristocracy), financial, and penal cases. In the 14th and early 15th century, his function was limited by the many privileges that various secular lords and monasteries enjoyed, but during the second half of the 15th century, the dvornic could try cases from the whole territory of the respective principality. The dvornic's competencies for administration of justice were very clearly indicated in the name of his office in the Latin-language documents. In the northern principality, this dignitary had military functions as well, especially in the initial period. The office was duplicated in both principalities, but it is to note that this was a trend originating in Moldavia. There the great dvornics of the Upper and Lower Land resided in their regions and, in many respects, acted as true governors; but this was from the beginning of the 16th century at earliest. These remarks give no reason to make direct comparisons between the Byzantine institution and that in Walachia and Moldavia or Serbia. This is the general opinion of contemporary Romanian historiography as well. In this sense, the Romanian dvornics, though with a Slavic name for their office, seem to have been more similar to the Hungarian palatinus, than to the Byzantine curopalates. What can we safely claim about this institution in Bulgaria? The single extant domestic source affords no possibility for generalisation, but we could indicate a few things. Above all, we should consider the appellation itself. The problem is that we know the office only from the text in the Synodicon, i.e. the heading of the ordo, where there are two designations for it. I should say at once that, in my opinion, the more acceptable one appears to be Xf~HHTe.l\1:. no~T'k ("palace curator"). It is included in full in the title of the ordo, while the other appellation, ~eo~ponM~THCb., is placed only for clarification and is given in its Greek nominative case form, as mentioned above. It is to stress two points: first, this dignitary was included in the translation of the Byzantine prayer that refers to the caesar, nobelissimus, and curopalates; second, that the Bulgarian translator and copyist of the text deemed it necessary to clarify explicitly the position of the Bulgarian dignitary in terms of the Byzantine curopalates. This fact certainly implies that the two institutions matched. Therefore, the view that the archetype of the Bulgarian "palace curator" is to be found in the Byzantine curopalates is proven by the source itself. In addition, it should be stressed that the name itself, xr~HHTe.l\1:. no.I\~T'k, is a calque of the Latin term through the Greek loanword

320

CHAPTER FOUR

KOt>pom:xMXTrJ mauA.ou that is most suitable for seeking a similar Bulgarian institution. This office corresponds to the trend of assimilating certain older Byzantine archetypes. A useful comparison could be with the great comes in Walachia and Moldavia, who starts appearing in sources in the 15th century. In the southern principality, he is mentioned for the first time in a charter from June 10, 1415; and in Moldavia, a little later, April 14, 1435. In both principalities the nature of the office of the great comes

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 connection, 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 Bulgarian 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 agazonum, 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 comestabulus 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 preserved 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.


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 raising 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. 4.3. Officials in the central administration. The imperial chancery The ruler's chancery is one of the main centres of power in many states in the premodern age. It is the prototype of the modern government or the council of ministers, as best illustrated by the German term Kanzellariat. The importance and weight of this administration is directly dependent on the degree of monarchisation of government. Thus, it appeared in Rome in the 1st century AD, and this fact is connected with a serious shift of competencies, or rather the actual management of the state, from the senate to the emperor. This tradition was preserved throughout the thousand years of the existence of the Byzantine Empire. The real power and exercise of power were concentrated in the chancery of the basileis, and this did not depend on the fluctuations of court life. Unfortunately, we must again say that direct data are missing as regards the organisation of the tsar's chancery in Bulgaria. We must make inferences based on preserved data about some of its officials and from the acts prepared there. They give me reason to believe that in

340

CHAPTER FOUR

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 borrowing 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 transmissions of state power, none of these functionaries gained a particularly 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 Byzantine 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. Working in them required quite a good education and knowledge of diplomatic 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 Byzantine 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,


341

headed by an official called "reisulkUtab" The scribes played an important role in these offices, and had the opportunity to make a very good career, reaching as high as the post of ni$anct or even great vizir, but they had to pass through all the degrees of teskerect and reiskUtab. The head of the Bulgarian chancery was the "great logothete" Of the other officials, we know of the logothete, the tainik, and the grammatiks. They will be discussed separately further on. Also part of the imperial chancery were probably many of the persons referred to as "copyists" in various documents and inscriptions, but due to the lack of direct data about their concrete office and the nature of their activity, they will not be included in this presentation. 4.3.1. The great logothete and other logothetes The office of the great logothete is mentioned only twice in the sources: from the text of the Synodic on we know of the great logothete Dobromir,206 and the great logothete Mita is mentioned as having been a patron of the arts in the 14th-century donator's note to the collection of orations by St. Gregory the Theologian. 207 1he other logothetes are mentioned in two places208 in the mediaeval texts: the logothete referred to in the rather vague note to the Psalter of tsar John Alexander, dating from 1337,209 and the logothete Peter, who took care of certain estates in Nicopolis. 210 Unfortunately, this last piece of information comes from the unauthentic Kaliman charter, and this makes it doubtful. The office of the great logothete and of logothetes in general was borrowed from the institutional system of the Empire. The term itself is also Greek. It is a compound noun consisting of Myoc; and tierun; in translation it signifies "word setter", "a person who sets the word" (in this case, sets the seal). This already provides some research orientation and suggests we look for some functions in the ruler's chancery.

Popruzhenko, Sinodik, p. 90 § 137. Tsonev B., Opis na rakopisite i staropechatnite knigi v Sojijskata narodna biblioteka, t. II, Sofia, 1923, p. 200; Kotseva E., "Pripiska 1350-1360 g. v sbornike Pyrvoslava", Byzantinobulgarica, t. VI, 1980, p. 253. 208 The logothete, husband of Zoe was not a Bulgarian but a Walachian dignitaryPopruzhenko, Sinodik, p. 90. 209 Kodov Khr, Opis na slavjanskite rakopisi v bibliotekata na BAN, Sofia, 1969, p. 15. 210 Ivanov, BSM, p. 606. 206

207

342

CHAPTER FOUR

From the very beginning of its existence, the office of logothetes in the Byzantine Empire was related to finances. Initially these were fiscal officials charged with the task of supervising the precision of accountancy in the various administrations, controlling state payment to hired workers, etc., as well as with tax collection. In the 7th century, the logothete became the top controller of public finances. 211 Of course, we should note that, from the very start, this was not a single unified office, though in time the divisions in it became clearer. The office of the great logothete (o ~ya~ A.oyo9e't11~)2 12 in the Empire was created during the administrative reforms of Alexis I Comnenos under the name of A.oyo9e't11~ 't&v creKpkrov. The idea was to have a coordinator for the various offices in the capital during the time when the basileus was away. In the 13th-14th century, the great logothete was chief of the diplomacy and a genuine chancellor of the sovereign. In Pseudo Kodinos' treatise, the author states that the great logothete prepares the prostagmata and chrysobulls sent by the basileus to kings, sultans, and toparchs, which is his function proper. An interesting point is that, of alllogothetes mentioned by the author, only the great logothete preserved his office and did not become a mere bearer of a title that would ensure a place in the hierarchy for him. During the period in question, he was one of the top-ranking functionaries in the Empire. We have sufficient data on the logothetes in mediaeval Serbia as well. Here the problem is whether there was any internal differentiation ("great logothete" and "other logothetes") in the office. Stojan Novakovic asserted categorically that there was no differentiation, that there was only a great logothete, but as there were no other officials under that appellation, he was called merely "logothete". 213 Yet there is a text relevant both to Serbia and Bosnia in which there is explicit reference to "great logothete" and "great logothetstvo" (= logothetehood, the office of a logothete): the document is a charter of King Stephen

Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 254-5; Guilland, "Les logothetes", pp. 5-8. Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, 1378, I74; Brehier, Les institutions, pp. IOI-3, 276-7; Guilland, "Les logothetes", p. 5-I6; Oikonomides, "Organisation administrative (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 (velikog logoteta) u staroj srpskoj driavi, Belgrade, I886. 211

212


343

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 chancery. Grounds for this conclusion are provided by the multiple indications 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 findings 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 documents 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 second 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 century, 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

214

Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 343-5.

Stoicescu, Sfotul dommesc, pp. 170-84; Grigor~, Institufiifeudale din Moldova, pp. 244-54; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domneasca, pp. 125-9; Institufii feudale, pp. 277-8. 215

344

CHAPTER FOUR

fees for issuance of documents-in some cases this was a considerable sum. The performance of the office required very good knowledge of the Slavic language and diplomacy, which implies that only educated people among the high circles of the boyars held the position. The whole chancery of the ruler was subordinated to the great logothete: the other logothetes, the diaks, the grammatiks, etc. In Moldavia, the office of the great logothete is mentioned for the first time in a document from January 7, 1403. His functions were identical with those of the respective Walachian functionary, but here he occupied a higher rank among the dignitaries of the principality. The data for Bulgaria only supply the name of the institution, but this is sufficient reason to view it in the general Balkan context. That is why we should distinguish great logothete from ordinary logothetes. Modern Bulgarian historiography has not disregarded the dignity of great logothete, but historians have not sought the difference between him and the other logothetes; as for him, he has been defined as a prime minister or chancellor of the tsar. 216 Of course, this characterisation has been to a considerable degree adapted to a modern view, but is essentially not far from the truth. The available data allow us to see in the great logothete a high ranking dignitary: Dobromir was included in the text of the Synodicon, Mita was a patron of the arts in the capital Ta.rnovo and called «all-honoured among the nobles of the Bulgarian empire", while Philip, who, in my opinion, was a great logothete, was one of the leaders of the coup against tsar John Stephen. For conclusions that are more concrete, we must chiefly rely on comparisons with neighbouring countries. In this sense I feel I should insist that in Tarnovo the great logothete was foremost the head of the tsar's chancery. He probably kept the imperial seal and issued the basic documents of the ruler. The other logothetes, grammatiks, and other employees in the chancery were subordinated to him. The remarks about this office in the Byzantine Empire, Serbia, and Walachia and Moldavia are probably true for the respective Bulgarian dignitaries, but direct data about this are lacking. 4.3.2. Tainik

(TAHHHK'b)

In his account of the translation of the relics of Saint Philothea to Tarnovo, patriarch Euthymius wrote: «In the morning, after the divine

216

Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 149; Istorija na Bulgarija, t. III, p. 258.


345

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. Linguistically 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 orientation 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 treatise 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

217 218 219 220 221 222

Kalu:iniacki, Werke, p. 96. Biliarsky, "Les institutions de la Bulgsrie m&lievale: tainlk-mystikos", p. 53 ff. Olkonomides, Les listes de preseance, pp. 24931> 2711s· Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 138, 300, 305, 309, 321, 335, 344, 347. Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 160. Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 179.

346

CHAPTER FOUR

opinions among historians. Thus, Rodolphe Guilland, and, following him, Leon-Pierre Raybaud believe that mystikos was a kind of private secretary of the basileus. 223 The indicated grounds for this view are that the mystikos was someone particularly close to and trusted by the basileus, which enabled this official to wield a much greater influence in political life than his place in the hierarchy normally allotted him. Most probably, this office was a very good starting point for a career in the administration. Yet the place of the office of mystikos as part of the chancery of the Byzantine basileis is not beyond dispute. Nicholas Oikonomides argue a completely different view. 224 He denies that we have any data showing that the mystikos was a secretary of the emperor. There can be no doubt that he was in the confidence of the ruler, but there are no indications that he prepared acts of the emperor. On the contrary, we know that he headed one of the secrets (court offices) that had a judicial administration function. This is what gave the author reasons to define the mystikos as a jurist, an officer of justice. The observations of the eminent Greek scholar have certainly enriched our knowledge about the institution, but it is hard to reconcile them with the assertion of Pseudo Kodinos that the official duties are evident from the appellation itself. Paul Magdalino touches upon some other aspects of this office. 225 Without denying the mystikos had judicial competencies, this author specially emphasises the responsibilities for the court and public treasury, especially for payment of salaries. This functionary also took care of the property of some monasteries, which is why Magdalino defines him as "minister of the ecclesiastical patrimonium in the time of the Palaeologos dynasty" What can we say about the institution in mediaeval Bulgaria? The first question should be whether it would be correct to draw conclusions based on parallels between the Bulgarian tainik and the Byzantine mystikos. Elsewhere I have already ventured stating the view that the word "tainik" is a calque of the Greek ~ucr'ttK6~. 226 Linguistically the two terms fully match each other. These inferences lead to the

223 R Guilland, "Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de I'Empire byzantin Le mystique, b JI.UcrttK6~", pp. 279-96; L.-P. Raybaud, Le gouvemement, p. 227. 224 Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance, p. 324. 225 Magdalino, "The Not-so-secret Function of the Mystikos", pp. 235-7, 240. 226 Biliarsky, "Les institutions de la Bulgarie medievale: tainik-mystikos", p. 55.


347

conclusion that the two institutions, Bulgarian and Byzantine, also matched. The archetype is the Latin "secretarius", which was essentially the same term. The observations made so far justify the conclusion that the Bulgarian institution of the tainik was identical, or almost identical, with the Byzantine mystikos. This permits some generalisations as to the position in the court in Tarnovo. The tainiks in Constantinople and in Bulgaria alike were officials in the ruler's chancery. They enjoyed the exceptional confidence of the sovereign, were very close to him, and had great influence, although not a very high rank in the honorary table. They probably had some judicial duties as well. Regrettably, the office of tainik did not exist in other neighbouring countries, and a parallel with them is impossible. The only institution presenting at least some similarity is that of the logofat de taina among the Romanians, but the scarce information about him does not permit a firm assumption as to whether this was the same type of official, especially as the two names do not fully coincide. The word "tajnik" still exists in modern Croatian and means "secretary" 4.3.3. Grammatik (Pf4\M4\THK'1>)

We know this institution of the mediaeval Bulgarian empire from several inscriptions and marginal notes. 227 Some difficulties arise when trying to clarify its nature, due to the scarcity of sources but also the large differences in the meaning of the term in different ages. It is to note at the beginning that we have no extant text supplying direct information on the position and duties of this official in the state and court apparatus. The only data are the indication of the term itself, "grammatik", with or without reference to a concrete person. Due to this, we must again turn to the neighbouring Balkan countries in order to see what opportunities the drawing of parallels has to offer. The Byzantine Empire is the basic centre emanating influence, and the Greek origin of the term definitely directs our search to Constantinople. The Byzantine grammatikos was scribe who took part in

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 administration. 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 administration 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 person 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 principalities 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 paharnic 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 Bulgaria does not exclude but, on the contrary, gives ample grounds for drawing conclusions based on similarity with the corresponding Byzantine 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 Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 166-7; MaksimoviC, Provincijska uprava, p. 107. Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 145. 230 Georgescu V., Bizantul ~i institutiile romanqti pana la mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea, Bucure~ti 1980, p. 145, n 117; Institufiifeudale, p. 209. 228

229


349

in the capital but in the chanceries of provincial governors as well. I dare presume that probably nearly all of the persons known to us were connected precisely with the provincial administration, especially considering the location of most of the inscriptions. 4.4. Military offices 4.4.1 I shall start the presentation of military offices and commanders with an institution that provides a very good opportunity to study the terminology, for it permits tracing its inner development: protospathar-

ios/chigot/mechenosha. 4.4.1.1 There is no unanimity in the Bulgarian historiography on the institution of chigot/in/ ('IHPOT/HH/'1.). 231 It occurs several times in various translated and original domestic texts. In his Chronographia, Theophanes the Confessor informs that khan Telerig cme (Tal. f. 83v). The term is also to be found in the Great Reading-Minaeum, which contains several Vitae dating from the time before Symeon Metaphrastes' reform of hagiography, and obviously translated in a time and environment when many Bulgar lexemes were still in use. I shall adduce some examples from the Vita of Saint Nicetas, dating from April 2. 238 There we come across the phrase H'kKoro liHPiYI''l>, which in its Greek original corresponds to nva &.1to mta9apirov. 239 I would like to point out another piece of information about the chigots found in an original Bulgarian text, albeit apocryphal (not referring to a Bulgarian reality). The text is the Narration of Isaiah-an 11th century apocryphon. 240 The "tsar Chigochin", mentioned there in a rather legendary perspective, is usually identified with the Varangian leader and future king of Norway Harold Hardrada. He had the title of spatharocandidatos, but later attained higher titles. 241 There are two more registered cases of use of the word liHPiYI''l. in Sreznevsky's Dictionary (val. 3, page 1715). One is in the Vita of St Gregory of Agrigento; there the lexeme is also used as a translation of the Greek mta96:ptac;.

w

w

w

Besevliev, Parvobulgari. Istorija, p. 205 note 20. Tikhova, "Zamjana na prabulgarsklite dumi", p. 300. 237 Tikhova, "Zamjana na prabulgarsklite dwni", pp. 300-1, 306-7. 238 Velikie minei cheti, April, col. 82. 239 A.AS Apr. I (3rd ed..), p. XXV. 240 Mlltenova A., Kajmakamova M., "Nelzvestno bulgarsko letopisno si!.chinenie ot XI vek", Palaeobulgarica, 4 (1983), pp. 52-73; Mlltenova A., Kajmakamova M., "The Uprising of Pati!.r Deljan (1040-1) in a New Old Bulgarian Source", Byzantinobulgarica, VIII, 1986, pp. 227-40; Mlltenova A., Tapkova-Zaimova V., Istorikoapokaliptichnata knizhnina vav Vizantija i v srednovekovna Bulgarija, Sofia, 1996, pp. 150, 155. 241 Cf. the article on this topic, including a bibliography of all the newer literature, in Eyrrorc.Mmm6uro rrpoawrraypat/Jzrc6 ~uc6 fJv~avnV'Iic; unop{ac; rcaz rroA..znaJtoV, 't'. r, A9i]va, 1998, pp. 134-8. 235

236


351

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 Bulgarian 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 Bulgarian 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

242 Mlltenova, Kajmakamova, « The Uprising>>, p. 235; Drevnetjurkskij slovar', Moscow-Leningrade, 1969, p. 147. 243 Trifonov, "Ki!.m vil.prosa za starobulgarskoto boljarstvo", p. 16; Stanchev St., "Nadgrobnijat nadpis na cMrgubilja Mostich ot Preslav", in: Nadpisyt na chilrgubilja Mastich, Sofia, 1955, p. 13. Cf. also the articles, quoted above, by A. Miltenova and M. Kajmakamova. 244 Venedlkov Iv., Voennoto i administrativnoto ustrojstvo na Bulgarija prez IX i X vek, Sofia, 1979, pp. 51-3. 245 Stanchev, "Nadgrobnijat nadpis na chi!.rgubilja Mostich ot Preslav", p. 13; Jordanov, Korpus na pechatite na srednovekovna Bulgaria, p. 142 (IV.9 No. 183). 246 Moskov M., "Omonimi ot bulgarski proizhod", in: Protobulgarica et mediaevalia

europensia. Materiali ot jubilejnata nauchna konferentsija v chest na 100-godishninata

352

CHAPTER FOUR

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 customs 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 convincingly 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 cannot 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 article by the same author: Jordanov St., "Tremini za oboznachavane na probodnosechashti omzhija u prabulgarite", 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.


353

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 (presuming 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 Bulgarian institutions under the influence of the Byzantine Empire since the early time of the Bulgarian state when it constructed its administrative 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 literary 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 institutional system, and the presence of the term attests the adapting of the Bulgarian terminology (Bulgar/Turkic or Slavic) to the administrative

251

Jordanov, Korpus na pechatite na srednovekovna Bulgaria, p. 142.

354

CHAPTER FOUR

language of Constantinople. The development of the term itself is also indicative: first, a Bulgar/Turkic term is coined based on the Greek word, and then a Slavic word is created; this course follows the path of Bulgarian mediaeval culture in general. Since chigots are documented in the Chronography of Theophanes the Confessor as early as the 8th century, we see how early the Empire began to exert its influence on the Bulgarian state. This was the age before the Conversion, after which the Byzantine culture became entirely predominant in Bulgaria. 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 Constantinople in Bulgaria. In the Byzantine Empire, the protostrator was a military figure among those of the basileus' entourage. The first information on Byzantine 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 staulocomites. 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.


355

larly high place in the hierarchy, but it rose subsequently. The protostrator 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 identify 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 mentioned 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 Constantinople. 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

centred mainly in the military sphere. In view of the insufficient information about such a high-ranking figure, we may only suppose that this institution was only a temporary one for Bulgaria. I would not risk claiming anything more concrete about it than this. 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 different 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>, p. 147; Verpeaux,

Pseudo Kodinos, 1373, 167; Guilland, Recherches, vol. I, p. 535ff.; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 210ff. The only mention in Bulgaria of the "great dux" is in the inscription of the duka Vrana-cf. Ivanov, BSM, p. 47. 259 Ivanov, BSM, p. 30; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 27; Malingoudis, Die Kyrillische Inschriften, p. 47. 260 Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 140-1; R. Guilland, "Le drongaire de Ia flotte, le due de Ia flotte, le megaduc", Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XLIV, 1951, pp. 212-40; Oikonomides. "Organisation administrarive (1025-1118)", p. 147; Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 134. 261 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 583.


357

Considering these remarks, I should stress that any direct parallels with the situation in the Byzantine Empire or the Serbian lands are unacceptable. We are fully justified in believing that the Bulgarian institution was quite different from the Byzantine one of the same name. We have hardly any data from this period regarding a Bulgarian navy, and we have no grounds on which to make any assumptions about a possible connection between navy forces and the office of the great dux in Bulgaria. However, it remains quite probable that this institution was somehow related to military command. In summing up, I would like to repeat that, in my opinion, the Bulgarian great duces were military functionaries in the central administration. No doubt, the dignity had some titular value as well: we must not forget it bears some Byzantine influence, if only in the name. Any more concrete assertions would be arbitrary. 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>, p. 190ff. 268

l:uJ111Et!cra: 'toU 'Ivcrmo-&rou

360

CHAPTER FOUR

presented in the glossary-are translations of the corresponding Byzantine territorial-administrative designations. For its part the word oblast (o&AMTb. = region) is a calcque of the Greek word e1tapxia. In any case, the vocabulary presented in the glossary makes it evident that the entire territorial organisation in Bulgaria used terminology borrowed from the Empire. 4.5.1.3

As I said, here we shall not deal thoroughly with the nature of the separate administrative-territorial units. For the sake of greater comprehensiveness however, I would like to merely point out some differences that I consider more important. First, it seems that Bulgaria had a complex division and some regions were subdivided into smaller units. Thus, among the large districts we may count the chora, the strana, the zemlya, the oblast and, presumably, the predel. The typical designation, at least in the first half of the 13th century, was chora. It also seems that the designation zemlya was connected, at least in the case of the only one of which we know, Arbanashka (=Albanian) zemlya, with some ethnic differentiation as well. 270 Of the small units, we only know of the kleisourai, which were in the mountainous regions and cities (the latter were called grad or mesto). Now we can move on from the territory to the people who governed it. 4.5.2

Governors of provinces differed in different epochs and in different provinces. Below I shall present the main ones. 4.5.2.1

First is the voevoda (Ro~tROA~), who evidently had military characteristics, but was also connected with the provincial territorial governance. 271

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 mittelalterlichen 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 secolul 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.


361

Some fragmentary information272 gives us reason to argue there existed an office of the great voevoda in Bulgaria during the Second Bulgarian Empire. I should first point out that this was a separate office, with a special place of its own in the structure of state management. It was not some internal rank within the title of voevoda. It is also evident that the two institutions shared a common origin, as they did a common designation. In other works, and in keeping with the information in dictionaries, I have subscribed to the view that the term is a calque of the Greek cr'tpo:'t1l"f0~, 273 which in turn may be a composite of the noun cr'tpo:'tta, cr1:po:1:6~ ("army") and the verb ayro ("to lead"). Following this model, most probably in Bulgaria or Great Moravia, the word in question was formed as a calque: &Oie&OAA from &Oil\ ('army') and the verb &OAHTH ('to lead'). Thus, the designation of a leader of the army was created in the same way the word Herzog was formed in a German environment. Undoubtedly, the term "voevoda" appeared quite early in a Slavic environment. We find it in the Law for Judging the People,274 dated by all scholars as being from the 9th century, and in Constantine Prophyrogennetus' De administrando imperio, who designates the tribal leaders of the Magyars by this Slavic word transcribed in Greek letters. The erudite basileus wrote that a certain Lebedias was the first leader of the Magyars to carry the title of "voevoda", and then all after him. I shall not dwell on this piece of information in detail because it is important for us here only as confirming that the word was an early calque of the Greek word strategos in Slavic languages and was even used by the Magyars. 275 We find proof of the continuation of this tendency in the comparison with other translated texts, discussed by me in my book about the institutions of the Second Empire, and which I shall not repeat here but will only refer the reader to them. 276 Considering that the basic place of contact between the Greek-language

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 (iiPXrov is translated as K'l>ttS'l> or &Ohl&o,.v.). 275 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik et R J. H. Jenkins, Washington D. C., 1967, p. 170; Gy Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, vol. II, Budapest, 1943, p. 91. 276 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 270-3.

362

CHAPTER FOUR

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 assuming 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 translation 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 Bulgarian public law. The institution of strategos as military commander and provincial 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 Giannis/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 Christians. 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 conquered 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 Personennamen 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)


363

the great persecution of Christians undertaken by the pagan Bulgar authorities. These observations provide some reference points. Above all, we may infer that the strategoi of Byzantine origin were already in the service of the Bulgars before the khan lost confidence in them. It is to stress that the Hambarli inscription, besides containing a military order and indicating the organisation of the army, also contains the earliest known information about the administrative-territorial division of the Bulgarian state. Hence, an exceptionally important fact is that the strategoi are present in the text, these being officers who combined military command with civilian administration duties in the province. This situation was the same as in the Byzantine Empire during under the thematic organisation after the Barbarian invasions. Of course, I do not state that the highly developed Byzantine administration was identical with the incipient Bulgarian one. Nevertheless, there was an impact of the first on the creation of the latter. Obviously, even in its pagan period, the Bulgarian state assimilated-probably in a very rudimentary form-some of the basic principles of the Byzantine provincial governance, probably including the institution of the strategos as military commander who assumed civic governance functions as well. 280 In this way conditions were created for coining the term voevoda on the basis of the Greek crtpatrty6c;, the prototype of the office. Here it is not necessary to examine in details the characteristic features of the voevoda institution, for I have examined it in detail elsewhere. I shall only note that it was very widely disseminated, not only in the Balkans but also in central and eastern Europe, and carried over through the Ottoman Empire, in the Near East and North Africa. Voevodas still exist today in the adminstrativeterritorial system of Poland. Finally, I would like to highlight a very interesting piece of information, which seems to put in doubt the conclusion stated above and is particularly significant with regard to the designation of institutions. I am referring to a passage in the treatise of Kekaumenos, where, writing about the events connected with the movement of Peter Deljan in AD 1040, the Byzantine author explicitly states that in the Bulgarian language the "strategos" was called "chelnik" (... crtpatrtroc; tft t&v

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

BouA:y6.prov ouxAeK'tcp 't~eAvh.:oc; Akyetat .... ). 281 Scholars noticed this mention of the term long ago. The first Bulgarian historian to touch upon it was D. Matov, in the 19th century. He connects the term with the Greek word 'tcreA.irrac;, which means a leader of shepherds among the Walachians in Macedonia and Epirus; the term ultimately comes from the old word 'U\AHHI~b., which, in turn, is supposed by the author to come form "'leM" (= forehead). 282 V. G. Vasilevski and V. N. Zlatarski noticed this information but did not devote particular attention to it. It is worth considering what Ivan Dujcev wrote in his special article on Slavicisms in Kekaumenos. The eminent Bulgarian scholar did not contribute anything essentially new to the study of the word and only quoted the existing opinions, emphasising above all that of D. Matov. 283 Finally, we should point out the commentary proposed by G. Litavrin in the latest edition ofKekaumenos' treatise. The Russian scholar mentions what was written on the topic by previous authors and says that the word "chelnik" is probably derived from "'leAO" bearing the sense of"chief", "leader"; he also indicates that Franz von Miklosich defined the chelnik as a praefectus. 2PA There is general unanimity that the word cited in the Greek text must have been "chelnik", but the connection of the word with voevoda has not been interpreted. The office of the chelnik existed in mediaeval Serbia and was well documented in the sources. 285 The office seems to have been in a good position within the administration, but later became widespread and was mixed with other such offices. In the time of despot Stephen Lazarevic, the institution of great chelnik, a supreme administrative management, was created, as well as chelnik of the treasury, a high official of the fisc. It is important to point out that the term acquired multiple meanings and became part of popular speech; its continued usage passed into the times after the Ottoman conquest. Thus, besides its strictly institutional meaning, it carries a number of other connotations, all evidently related to leadership, management, exercise of some kind of power.

281 Kekavmen, Sovety i rasskazy. Pouchenie vizantijskogo polkovodtsa XI veka, ed. G. G. Litavrin, St Petersburg, 2003, p. 188 30 _31 • 282 Matov D., "Gmtsko-bulgarski studii", Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija, nauka i

knizhnina, t. IX, 1893, pp. 83-4. 283 284 285

Dujcev, "Njakolko belezhki ka.m Kekavmen", p. 197. Kekavmen, Sovety i rasskazy, p. 417. NovakoviC, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", p. 195ff.


365

I am inclined to agree with what D. Matov, I. Dujcev, and G. Litavrin have written regarding the origin of the word, but will add one specification, which focuses attention on the term HA"M\AHHKrz.. The word is likewise derived from "'eAO (= forehead), which comes from the verb HALJ.Mo, HA"'A\.TH, HA"'b.Hm, probably a calque of the Greek word liPXrov. 286 In Bulgaria, the term chelnik seems to have not existed as an administrative designation. Thus, we come to the question of explaining what Kekaumenos wrote. The word he used was evidently not a precise translation of the term voevoda and I am inclined to think it was probably a citation of a word from popular speech, in which the "strategos" was designated as "head" of a fortress, city, or district. It was thus that the connection was made with /na/chelnik; we shall not discuss here how this word was created. I shall propose an interpretation as part of the discussion. In the Vita of St Sabbas of Serbia, it is written that, when the saint died in Till'novo, the patriarch Joachim came to the burial together with the bishops, abbots, and leaders of the city (HALJeAH'I.IUH PfAA4\). 287 Might there be some connection with this way of using the word "nachalnik"? We have to say that the historical context was completely different, and there can generally be no direct connection. The only help this quotation can provide is to assist us in tracing a way the terms were thought of and used in the spoken language, which probably has something to do with the situation connected with the citation from Kekaumenos.

4.5.2.2 The institution of zhupan (~o~nAHrz.) is among the most enduring public law terms of the Middle Ages in the Balkans. There is relatively good evidence of it from the time of the First Bulgarian Empire, when it was present in the institutional system of the country. We find it in Greek-language Bulgar inscriptions/88 as well as in the Slavic inscription of zhupan Dimiter of Dobrudja. 289 There is reference to zhupans

286 287 288

BER, vol 4, pp. 572-3. Ztvot Svetoga Save, 1860, p. 202; Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 294-6. Be8evliev, Parvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 200, 231, 234, 250.

289 Com~a E., Popescu D., "Cercetari arheologice pe trascul canalului DunareMare 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 (Serbian, 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 etymology 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 produces 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 military 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 inscriptions, 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, "Transformatsija", 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.


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 (XcrouvoaA.ai, who supervised considerably larger territories. 320 The kephalia enjoyed full civil and military authority in the territory under his responsibility. Foremost he had to maintain the law, order and defence of the district. In this sense, he was both the commander of the fortress garrison and the civil governor. In the later period, the main army was under central command and no longer attached to territorial structures, as it used to be under the themes organisation. Thus, what remained under the leadership of the kephalia were only the local territorial armed forces, and no large military units. That is why the civic functions of this official came to the fore; the latter, it would appear, were much wider than his military functions. We have data about the participation of kephalias in the administration of justice. In the Vitosha charter of tsar John Shishman, the kephalia is directly connected with Sofia, i.e. with a specific territory or city, and is put in charge of the entire provincial administration in the region. All provincial officials are called "his servants" It is worth thinking about this passage in the text, for it probably indicates the difference between the apparatus subordinated to the centre and the locally subordinated one. In conclusion, one can say that the study of the evidence contained in the sources leads to the conclusion there was almost complete similarity between the Byzantine, the Serbian, and the Bulgarian kephalias. They were provincial governors with general competency, placed at the head of the basic administrative-territorial units. The office took shape in the Byzantine Empire during the 13th century, and it may be assumed it spread amongst the neighbouring Slavic countries in the following century. Perhaps the only difference was in the name of the administrative units that the kephalias governed. These units in Bulgaria are not known to have been called katepanikion, but no other designation for them is known either. 4.5.2.4. Dux (AO~!\) The designation of this official occurs in several sources for mediaeval Bulgarian history. In the Vatopedi, Virgino, and Mraka chrysobulls, the dux always comes immediately after the sebastos in the enumeration

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 commanders subordinated to the strategos of the theme, but they later headed certain administrative territorial units. 324 The battle of Mantzikert, which dealt a heavy blow to the thematic system, had an impact on this institution as well. The duces became provincial governors 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 mediaeval 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; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 1939. 322 Angelov B., Iz starata, vol. II, pp. 215-6. 323 Stara bulgarska literatura, vol. II, p. 236. 324 Guilland, "Drongaire", p. 222; Ahrweiler, Recherches sur !'administration, 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, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie", p. 12; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 152; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, pp. 152-4; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 292-4.


375

nitely relate him to the provincial administration. It appears that this official was gradually replaced by the kephalia in the last decades of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Some problems arise in connection with data for cases when the two offices happen to coincide in time. Actually there is only one such case, documented in the inauthentic and antedated Virgino chrysobull. Excluding it, the mentions of kephalias are concentrated after the middle of the 14th century and do not occur at the same time as mentions of duces. Nevertheless, it is to point out that the substitution of one institution by the other did not happen all at once but gradually. An interesting process can be observed in the course of this change: Bulgaria was under the strong influence of the Empire, but it did not borrow ever the Byzantine institutions, as they currently existed in Constantinople. In the interaction between the two countries, we can observe a belated living out of the Comnenos dynasty age in Bulgaria. That is why the substitution of the dux by a kephalia in Bulgaria took place not before the 14th century. Perhaps in its subsequent development the office of dux followed the development of its Byzantine archetype and was centred on the fiscal sphere, but there is no data on this and any assertion would be arbitrary. 4.5.3. Military offices in the provinces 4.5.3.1 (l~b.Tenb.HO)

is mentioned twice in sources dating from the Second Empire: in the enumerations in the Vatopedi chrysobull and in the Mraka chrysobull (pl. l~b.Tenb.HH). 328 The term is once again of Greek origin: Ka'tm6.vro. The word is compound and consists of the preposition Ka't6. and the adverb €1t6.vro (through Ka't' €1t6.vro); as a noun it should be translated literally "he who is above/at the head of' There is no etymological connection here with the Latin word caput (though such a connection is suggested by the forms capitaneus, capitanus, existing in many modern languages). 329 In the Byzantine Empire, this office was of the military sphere in the provincial administration. In the lOth century, the katepano emerged

Katepano

328 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 28 ; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 59; Andreev Vatopedskata gramota, p. 1939• 329 A. N. Jannaris, "Ka;·n:1t(xvco-Capitano-Capitain", Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2

(1901), p. 204.

376

CHAPTER FOUR

as an official of high rank in the provinces330 and reached his highest position-governor of a large territorial unit-at the time of the Macedonian dynasty, until the battle at Mantzikert in AD 1071. Some authors link the office with the military naval sphere. In any case, there is no doubt it was a part of the themes organisation. During the later period, it depreciated considerably and was an ordinary employee in the provincial administration, no longer in charge of such large units. Michael Laskaris' view that the katepano was head of the katepanikion has been categorically rejected in recent studies. Based on the available data, it would be hard to draw parallels between the Bulgarian and Byzantine office of this name. It would be out of the question to make comparisons for the lOth -11th century. It is worth turning our attention to some data contained in Serbian sources. Here we must stress that the institution in question was not common for Serbia. Not even the name occurs there. We have data about similarly sounding words capitaneus (capitanus, capitano) and KAn~'I'AHb. 331

In the principalities to the north of the Danube, it is to pay attention to the institution of the great captains and captains. 332 Although Romanian historians have not neglected it, they have avoided parallels with the situation in the lands of the Southern Slavs. It is hard to make a categorical judgement as to how acceptable and correct any conclusion might be when based on comparisons between the Bulgarian and Romanian institutions. Therefore, it can be stated that katepano in mediaeval Bulgaria was relatively high functionary in the provinces, whose authority was markedly related to military, police, and judicial functions. In both of the above-mentioned tsar's charters, they are placed immediately after the duces in the enumeration, and (assuming the sebastos first in rank) they hold the third place. What the relation between dux and katepano

' ' 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, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 152; Maksimovic, Provincijska 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.


377

was cannot be claimed with any certainty. According to V. N. Zlatarski and I. Dujcev, the two officials were the same in their duties but different in rank. 333 It should be explicitly pointed out however, that we can make such a comparison only if it is based on data about the situation in the Byzantine Empire (as V. Zlatarski has done), but such an approach would add an element of uncertainty as far as conclusions regarding Bulgaria are concerned. 4.5.3.2. Kastrophylax The designation of this office in the form KMTfopH.I\4\Kb. (plural KMTfopHMU.H) is cited in two imperial charters: the Vatopedi and Vitosha chrysobulls. 334 The term is Greek (Kacr-rpo<j>uA.a.l;) and literally means "protector/guardian/ of a fortress" Initially this was a commandant of a fortified point, and later he became first assistant to the kephalia on military matters. 335 The data about the kastrophylaces in Serbia are relatively scarce. They are cited in the charter of the king Stephen Milutin dating from AD 1300. 336 In this document, we find a complete coincidence with the text and ranging of the Virgino chrysobull: sebast-praktor-knez-kastrophylax. This suggests certain ideas about the significance of the official we are discussing here, but also gives rise to suspicions that the inauthentic Bulgarian chrysobull was prepared in order to serve as grounds for the act of the Serbian king, which largely duplicates the Virgino chrysobull's text. In one other document, dating from the time of king Stephen Dusan, there is mention of kastrophylax Dragoman. 337 In conclusion, I would like to state that the office of the kastrophylax undoubtedly had a place in the administrative system of the Second Bulgarian Empire. In view of the doubtful nature of the Virgino chrysobull (as far as its dating is concerned), we may presume that the office appeared in the Bulgarian governance structure in the 14th century in some connection with a possible reorganisation of the administrative territorial divisions and with the consolidation of new units headed by kephalias.

m Zlatarski. Istorija, II, p. IO; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 322. Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 15 14-5, 18 98-9, 29 7-8. 335 Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 342; MaksimoviC, Provincijska uprava, p. 106. 336 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 609. 337 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 670. 334

378

CHAPTER FOUR

4.5.3.3. Desetnik (AeCh\THHK'll.) In the Vitosha chrysobull of tsar John Shishman, in fourth place following the kephalia, praktor and kastrophylax, come the Aech\THHU,H. 338 This Slavic term evidently refers to one of the relatively top-ranking people in the provincial administration. Regrettably, the source base is scarce and parallels with neighbouring countries cannot be made. A similar term is desetnici, found in the Romanian principalities,339 but this has nothing to do with the Bulgarian institution. The Romanian office refers to collectors of tithe and is closer to the desetkars of Bulgarian sources. From the text of the Vitosha chrysobull, it becomes clear that the desetnik was an official serving the kephalia, and not subordinate to the central administration. Most probably, this office was related to military organisation and defence of the district. In Bulgarian history, there are no known military ranks formed thus, with a numeral root, as is for instance the Latin centuria. One may ask whether in this case the word was a calque. However, as the sources are insufficient, nothing more concrete than this can be inferred. I would not even commit myself to any opinion about the size of the military detachment commanded by the category of officer in question. 4.5.3.4 Alagators (M~r~TOf'll.) are mentioned in two charters of tsar John Shishman, the Rila and Vitosha chrysobulls. 340 The term is of Greek origin; it comes from &A.oyov (= "horse"). 341 Undoubtedly, this too is a loanword from the administrative structure of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine service itself is well presented in the sources. The alagator commanded an alagion, an army unit indicated in the Taktikon of Leo VI. During the 13th-14th century the basileus' guard consisted of two alagions-a cavalry and an infantry alagion, both armed with swords; they gradually took the place of the former imperial spatharioi. The word itself always retained its ordinary meaning of army unit, squadron. The two alagions, each headed by an alagator, were

338 339 340

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 8· DRH, ser. A, vol. I, No. 195, p. 175 etc.; Institufii feudale, p. 149. Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 2754, 299; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 5254.

341 Duridanov Iv, "Byzantino-slavica. Po sledite na edno srednovekovno administrativno naimenovanie", Izvestija na lnstituta za bulgarski ezik, kn. VIII, 1962, p. 182.


379

commanded by a single protalagator, who was under the command of the great primmicerius. 342 The office of the alagator existed in mediaeval Serbia as well. Stojan Novakovic discussed it; according to this author, the alagator was a part of the mail service, more specifically the change of horses at the stations. 343 There is data on alagators (lagators) in the Ottoman administrative system as well, which appeared in the Balkans after the region was conquered. That was the name of the person entrusted with the governance over privileged groups of Christian population performing some military functions. 344 The lagator was a head of vojnuk, doganct, derventct groups, etc., who organised the performance of the obligations of the population; he served annually for a certain period in the sultan's stables (in cases when he was head of a konar group). One of his basic obligations was to supervise the discipline of his subordinates and to catch soldiers (vojnuks), who had deviated from their duties. In remuneration for their service the lagators of vojnuks were exempted from taxes, as were the other vojnuks, and in some cases they had a timar. Based on these data, we can make certain inferences about the nature of the Bulgarian mediaeval institution as well. Undoubtedly, it was a part of the provincial administration. I think we also have reasons to maintain that this was a military office. The above-mentioned views of Stojan N ovakovic, according to whom these were postal officials, have no source basis and no other author confirmed them. On the contrary, the opinion is almost unanimous that this was a commander of a squadron of the territorial armed forces. 345 342 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 commandants 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, 1955, 6, p. 84; Duridanov, "Byzantino-slavica", pp. 184-5; Petrov, Grozdanova, "Mittelalterliche Ba1kaniimter", p. 100; 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. 112-3; Beldiceanu N., « Le Valaques de Bosnie ala fin du XV• siede et leurs institutions », Turcica, VII, Paris, 197 5, pp. 125-30; Biliarsky, I nstitu tsiite, pp. 315-6. 345 Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 383; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie", 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 cavalry, 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 document. 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 14th15th. 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 differences 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

346 347

Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1899-Ioo. Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 10; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 5256•


381

called comi$el. 348 We should focus greater attention on these twelve in particular. Their office was likewise to care for horses and provision of fodder for them. The twelve were subordinated to the great comes and worked in the capital and in the province. Throughout the whole country, they formed particular bands under the command of a vataf ( vatah). In Walachia, the vatah was in command of the comi§el at the ruler's court, while those in the province were under the leadership of usba$t of the comi§els and of captains of the comi§el. It is also important to note the duties of care and supervision over mowing, transporting, and storing hay exercised by these officials. In addition, they all accompanied the horses that the principality owed to the Ottoman court. We can also find data on the comes with horses in mediaeval Serbia, but it appears he remained untypical for the administrative system in that country. His designation occurs in the well-know chrysobull of King Stephen Milutin, dating from AD 1300. 349 In this case, we must remember that the document concerns Macedonia, a land recently conquered by the Serbs, and it is quite possible that the institution was under the influence of the Bulgarian or Byzantine administration in place at the time of the conquest. Thus, I believe we may assert that the Romanian institution was identical, or nearly identical, with the one of mediaeval Bulgaria. 350 This provincial official took care of the horses in the respective region and was responsible for supplying the court with horses and fodder. Inasmuch as the Bulgarian vatah is also mentioned in the Virgino chrysobull, we have to look for a connection between the two services. Following the assertion of Iv. Dujcev the comes was commander of the cavalry in his region. 351 I believe this is not in contradiction with our conclusions. He was a provincial official of middle rank, as evidenced by the position (13-14) at which he is mentioned in the enumeration of officials in the charters.

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 military 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 represented 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 neighbouring 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 institution, 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 responsible 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 titulature et de prosopographie byzantines. Le protostrator», Revue des etudes byzantines, VII, 1950, p. 156; Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 132-33; Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance, 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 gramota, p. 65; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 162.


383

newly conquered country at that time) there was an institution with designation of an office that by that time had already fallen into disuse in the Byzantine Empire. This may be explained by the general lag in assimilating certain features of Byzantine civilisation in the neighbouring countries. However, more important, we must pose the question as to what extent the Byzantine strators as an institution can be compared with the Bulgarian ones. It is to stress once again that in Byzantium this was a purely honorary court service (i.e. a service in the capital city) which became increasingly titular in nature. In Bulgaria, the term "strator" referred to a provincial official who stood at the bottom of the enumeration list in the charters. Certainly, this was not the same institution in different countries. It is also beyond dispute that the origin of the Slavic word is Greek and probably has some relation to the Byzantine court office. Regrettably, we do not have sufficient data about the organisation of the court in Tolrnovo and cannot give with conviction an affirmative or negative answer to the question as to whether the Bulgarian tsar had his strators guard as the emperor in Constantinople. If such an office did exist, it might have been duplicated in the province, as was the case with hunters, comites, falconers, etc. However, this is merely a conjecture. In conclusion, I believe it is to accept, although with reservation, the need to make comparisons with the respective court institution in Constantinople. 356 In this sense, I would agree with the already proposed interpretation that the strator was a person related to the cavalry service in the respective territorial unit. This was a military rank not particularly high on the scale. The strator occupies in ninth place in the enumeration in the Virgino chrysobull, in fourteenth place in the Rila charter, and in fifteenth in the Vitosha chrysobull. 4.5.3.7

The only mention of varars (pl., R~f~pe) is in the Vitosha chrysobul1. 357 The meaning of the term is not quite clear. The word is formed by adding to the base "R~p-" the suffix forming masculine nouns, "-~( This suffix produces words that designate persons according to their profession. In the earlier period of the Slavic language, the newly formed words were motivated entirely by nouns, but in later times, words motivated by verb bases also appeared.

356

Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 319-21.

357

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29u.

384

CHAPTER FOUR

In my opinion the proposed interpretations of the word as meaning "cook" or "builder" 358 should be abandoned. This inevitably raises the question as to the relation between the office of the varnichi and that of the varar. Since both terms occur in documents that were issued very closely in time, all during the rule of tsar John Shishman, the difference in the word might be due either to these being different offices or to a mistake of the copyist. Since the latter is less probable, we may assume that the varar was a guardian, while the varnichi was more probably a mason or an officer responsible for construction. The word varar derived from the verb Rb.fORb.TH c~, Rb.fHTH ("to anticipate", "to guard") and hence an interpretation would lead to the meaning of "guard, sentinel". 359 It is hard to say what the office of varar-guards precisely was. We can only assert with a comparative degree of certainty that, by their position in the enumeration in the charter, they were not highly placed in the hierarchy. The varar's duties were probably related to the corvee called "surveillance for the city", which was the obligation to guard fortresses, prisons, etc. I believe that these data give us sufficient reason to identify the varar as one of the commanders of the guards, who was probably responsible for the population's guard duties. 360

4.5.3.8 The serdar (cepAb.fb.) is an office that is referred to only in the Vitosha chrysobull of tsar John Shishman. 361 The term evidently has an oriental (Persian through Ottoman Turkish) origin. The content of the office can be clarified only by means of comparison with other countries from which it was borrowed. The fact that the institution of serdar occurs only in the Vitosha chrysobull points it appeared in the Bulgarian administrative system in the last decades before the Ottoman conquest. One may add some historical arguments connected with the penetration of Turks from Asia Minor into the Balkans. These facts are of special importance in resolving the issue as to where this institution was borrowed. In my opinion, we should exclude any older Turkic influence. We have no

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. Bapapb, rroBapb", Ricerche slavistiche, XLI, 1994, pp. 100-2. 360 Biliarsky, I nstitu tsiite, pp. 321-3. 361 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 u·


385

data on such a Bulgar Turkic institution, or a similar one, and it could not suddenly appear at the end of the 14th century without having previously left some traces. On the other hand, we should also exclude the possibility of influence from other Turkic peoples and states that had penetrated into the Balkans, such as Cumans, Pechenegs, etc. The assumption of such influence could be acceptable only if there were some proofs or at least slight data for it. Since there is no data, I believe it unacceptable to build such hypotheses. Hence, the only admissible solution remains that the Bulgarian serdar is an institution borrowed early in time from the military organisation of the Turks of Asia Minor, most probably from the early Ottoman state. This assertion now defines the direction of our further search. Clearly, it is only by means of comparisons that we can attain some knowledge about the Bulgarian institution. The Ottoman sources provide rich material in this respect. The linguistic interpretation of the word shows that it is compound one of Persian origin. It means "head or leader of the army" Serdar is one of the designations of the commander-in-chief in specific cases, and the word is at times identical to serasker. It is to pay attention especially to the so-called "Janissary Serdars" They were appointed by the aga of the janissaries and were responsible for the soldiers in a certain territory-the janissaries, the topp, etc. At times of war, the janissary serdars headed there detachments during the military campaign. 362 The search for traces of this institution in the Balkan Christian countries would also be of particular interest. There is no data on such an office in Byzantium, although there are some very old loanwords from the Turkish language, for example ~avu~. There is evidence of a military officer of the same designation in the Romanian principalities.363 In Walachia, the office of serdar appeared in the first half of the 17th century: on July 27, 1646, under the rule of Matthew Basarab, the future prince Constantine ~erban was appointed serdar, which is the first known mention of this office in documents. The institution had military functions that predominated over the political, administrative, and judicial ones. In Moldavia, the office of serdar was created

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 Moldova, 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 comparable 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 Koledarov 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 argumentation 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.

Koledarov, "Le titulariat des boyards", p. 199. Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 120; Dujeev, SBK, II, p. 394, Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 156-7; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 162, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 323-5. 364

365


387

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 position 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 financial matters. G. Ilinsky is more inclined to interpret the term as meaning 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 watacha 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 languages, 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 noninstitutional 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" Elsewhere the emphasis is on the meaning 'fishermen's artel', which will

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 15 t5· Ireeek, Istorija na bulgarite, p. 445; Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 120; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, pp. 159, 253, 255. 368 Dicfionarul limbii romane literare contemporane, vol. IV -ea, Bucur~ti 1957 (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. 366

367

388

CHAPTER FOUR

not concern us except as a derivative. The proper attention should be paid to the old Ukrainian word "&4\T4\M4\H'A" (vataman), which denotes an elected village elder who represents the village in dealing with the authorities. In modern Ukrainian the word "vataga" means "group of people", "fishermen's cartel", "band", or "flock of sheep", while "vatag" is a leader of a vataga. 370 The meaning of the word generally tends to that of 'leader' or chief of a group of people, and all the indicated languages are close to this. Its history passes through the Old Russian &4\T4\r4\ (= "tent") which comes from the Turkic root meaning "tent", "room", "home", "family", "clan", from which the meaning "gang", "pack", "group of people" is derived. It has also been suggested that the Romanian word vata~ (="guard") should be linked to the Turkic vattas (="shepherd"), but this has been disputed by some authors. All these remarks suggest that the functions of this official were military ones, but a more definite opinion can only be reached after a study of similar terms in the neighbouring Balkan countries. Thus, in the statute of the city of Budva we find a rather unclear term, vataco, which denotes a low-ranking judicial officer. 371 Unfortunately, the historical and documentary context of this use of the term does not permit seeking direct connections with the Bulgarian term. Sources of Romanian history are of far greater interest. There the meaning of the term is perfectly clear and definite, and can be traced through the sources. The Romanian vatafs (vatah, vcltav, vata~) were officials whose functions were fiscal, administrative, judicial, and military. 372 In Walachia, they are mentioned in sources dating as early as the 15th century (15. I. 1467), while in Moldavia the dating is later (1532). An interesting office was that of the great vataf, which we find in 16th century sources. Although quite varied, their functions seem to have originated from military duties. All indications are that these officials performed the functions of chief of the local police, ensured the collection

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.


389

of taxes, and imposed certain punishments. Their offices were similar to those of the elders and parccllabs, but they were of lower rank than the latter. In the 18th century, the great captains assumed the office of the great vataf. It is to note that there were different vatafs attached to the separate offices. All indications point to the assumption that the functionary to whom they were attached determined the duties of these vatafs. Therefore, in order to make clear what the character of the Bulgarian institution was, it is inevitable to resort to a parallel examination of the respective institution in Walachia and Moldavia. 373 Unfortunately, the Virgino chrysobull does not provide much information. It is certain that the exercise of this service could somehow trouble the population and this is the reason to include it in the enumeration of the document. It can be claimed that the office had certain judicial powers. Apparently, the vatahs occupied some position in the penal justice system. The Romanian sources also confirm that these officials had a considerable variety of obligations. All indications point to a similar position of the office in Bulgaria. As evidenced by the origin of the word, most likely, the vatafs were initially military functionaries who later, as in Walachia and Moldavia, additionally received certain administrative and police power, and hence judicial power. It is hard to assert anything at all about their position in the hierarchy of the provincial administration, except that they were in fifth place in the enumeration. I would likewise not risk giving a definitive opinion as to when and how this institution, obviously non-Byzantine in origin, came to Bulgaria and how long it managed to last. 4.5.3.10 The topshtikal, as an official in the provincial administration, occurs only twice, and only in the Virgino chrysobull: rromt.JHK4\Ab.. 374 I am not aware of any data on such an institution in Serbia-neither in the chrysobull of King Stephen Milutin, dating from AD 1300, nor anywhere else. As the word is not Greek, we have reason to believe that it was included in the text after being borrowed from some other Bulgarian document that has not been preserved. The concrete functions of this official are rather unclear. Regrettably, we can learn almost nothing from the verbal contents of the term. That

m 374

Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 333-5. Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1514-IS• 189a-99·

390

CHAPTER FOUR

is why authors who have written about it are hesitant. 375 Konstantin Jirecek believed that the topshtikals had judicial and financial functions. Ivan Dujcev was also inclined to define this official as a lowranking 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 possibility to make a generalisation on the topic. In any case, the participation 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

Thus, to generalise about the institutional and administrative terminology, we may draw several conclusions, which I shall present below. 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 determining 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 terminology 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, Istorija, pp. 159, 253, 255; llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1514-15· 376 Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 335-6.


391

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 Bulgarian 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

in the administration. The lower-ranking officials, on the other hand, who were in direct contact with the population, and especially part of the fiscal offices, had Slavic designations. There is also an observable distribution in time: during the 14th century part of the Greek designations were substituted by Slavic ones. As these were usually based on the Greek terms that had preceded them, we find that the "Slavicisation" of terminology in the later period is no evidence of a drawing away from the Byzantine influence; on the contrary, it indicates how Byzantine terminology was assimilated into a Bulgarian environment and in the framework of the Slavic language.

CHAPTER FIVE TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

1. THE BULGARIAN FISCAL AND TAXATION LEGAL VOCABULARY WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF BULGARIAN MEDIAEVAL LAW

Taxes are one of the characteristics of state organisation and they mark that a state has been established in place of the previous tribal organisation of society. The state is a much more complex and highly organised structure, one that undertakes a greater number of tasks requiring specific resources for implementation-tasks such as community protection, internal order protection, infrastructure maintenance, organisation of economic activities on various levels of intervention, as well as redistribution of goods. 1 It is apparent that all these relate to the differentiation between personal and collective duties. 2 In premodern societies, the resource for implementing all these activities would have been provided only through spoils obtained by attacks on neighbouring countries or from the local population, which is either taxed to deliver some state titles or bound to perform certain activities and obligations in favour of the state. These taxes and corvees are precisely the subject of the following exposition. The imposition of taxes and obligations on the population could be made possible only through the exercise of power. 3 Essentially, power is an imposition of will and, ultimately, coercion exerted by the state government. 4 This coercion involves intervention of the state in the private sphere of the physical or legal taxpaying entities and it becomes lawful and even mandatory only by means of statute. 5 With the development of estate assemblies (such as the Diet, Cortes, Landtag,

Kuchev, Finansovo pravo, pp. 43-5. Stojanov Iv. G., Danachno pravo. Obshta chast. Danachen protses, Sofia, 2001, p. 9. 3 Here I do not include the decision for taxation made by the population or its representatives, 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. 1

2

394

CHAPTER FIVE

Sejm, Etats generaux) the idea was adopted that the ruler only proposes, 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 representation, 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 management, 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 taxation 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; Stojanov Iv., Danachno pravo. Obshta chast. Danachen protses, pp. 18-9. 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. 6 7

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

395

either necessary or not, and therefore we cannot reduce it to a common denominator. In any case, this redistribution leads to acquisition of goods by some people at the expense of other people through the exercise of political power. This activity is not exploitation in the meaning the term has in Marxist economics, but in the social aspect it is close to appropriation of values or product. Taxation and taxation systems in Bulgaria in the Middle Ages can be discussed in the context of the final formation of the state system. In the first decades, after khan Asparukh's Bulgars settled in the Balkans, the earnings of the emerging state most probably were coming from outside: either from spoils obtained through raids on the rich territory of the Byzantine Empire or from payments received from Constantinople for maintaining peace along the borders. Specific data on the fisc in Bulgaria during the First Empire is very scarce. According to the Bulgarian Apocryphal Chronicle, dating from the 11th century, people owed one tow of wool, a spoon of butter, and one egg per year. 9 Obviously this information is quite legendary and depicts an idyllic reality, for no state could support itself on such revenues. According to Ioannes Scylitzes, at the time of tsar Samuel the Bulgarians paid a modion (25 kg) of wheat per zeugarion. 10 Actually, the main sources for studying Bulgarian finance during the First Empire are the charters of Emperor Basil II for the Archbishopric of Ochrid, which generally confirm privileges that presumably were inherited from the Bulgarian state. 11 However, it should be recognised that after the conquest by the Empire, the Bulgarian territories fell under the jurisdiction of a much better organised state with a far more elaborate fiscal system. In this sense, I would like to point out that data from the charters of Basil II should not be taken indiscriminately. They could serve as a source regarding the situation in Bulgaria only if the data have in some way been recorded, or are implicit, or are at least an admissible assumption. Moreover, the fiscal system of Bulgaria during the early Middle Ages cannot be perceived as something complete and preserved during the whole of these nearly four centuries-there was one kind of the situation in the 7th and 8th century, when the emerging state could have hardly had a well-organised fiscal system at all, a different kind in

Tllpkova-Zaimova, Miltenova, Istoriko-apokaliptichnata knizhnina, p. 196. loannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed I. Thurn, Berolini-Novi Eboraci 1973, p. 412. 11 Ivanov, BSM, pp. 547-62 and especiallyp. 555. 9

10

396

CHAPTER FIVE

the 9th century, especially after the conversion to Christianity, and yet another in the 1Oth-llth century, within the increasingly Byzantinelike 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 chapter. I have tried to follow the definition of fiscal in its broadest possible sense, taking the risk to include words that some readers might consider 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. 2. ORIGIN AND MAJOR MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEGAL TERMS IN THE AREA OF FINANCIAL AND FISCAL LAW INCLUDED IN THE GLOSSARY

For obvious reasons, the fiscal terminology is most widely covered in the charters of the Bulgarian rulers of the Middle Ages and, also for obvious reasons, it is absent from the Law for Judging the People, which does not regulate issues relevant to this subject matter. Several groups of phenomena are introduced in this glossary: designations of taxes, charges and other state titles (about thirty in number); designations of corvees and related terms (about twenty); designations of various fiscal services and institutions (about twenty); designations of categories of population. Other designations related to the fisc are few in number. Some of them overlap and the groups can be neither strictly differentiated nor separated. Based on their origin, the lexemes can be grouped as follows: the largest number are words borrowed directly from the Greek language, one term is Latin (privilege, but here we should also add ~~~~Merbl~'ll., which is also of Latin origin but is borrowed through the Greek language), and another two are of Turkic origin (E.Hr'll.l~'ll. and its derivative n~E.Hr'll.'IHH, but here we should also mention KrAr~~~arb, which also has distant Turkic roots); the rest are Slavic. Such a classification however, could be misleading, since part of the Slavic lexemes are derived from Greek roots. I should only say here that the remaining approximately fifty verbal units are either translations or loanwords from the Greek-language term. Here we could include terms such as:


397

brodnina, gornina, tithe, dimnina, zhitarstvo, mostnina, etc. There are also terms such as volobershtina, that are neither a translation nor a loanword from the Greek-language term designating the relevant state title but are obviously based on it (in this case there is a transition from the notion of a couple or pair of draught animals to their nameoxen). We find that a larger part of the words included in the glossary are in one way or another related to the fiscal system of the Empire and to the local Greek language. Here one should take into account a peculiarity that we shall discuss further on-the strengthening of the Slavic component in the terminology during the last decades of the existence of the Bulgarian state in the Middle Ages is not in contradiction with the idea of an increased Byzantine influence; on the contrary, it adopted the Byzantine elements to an even greater degree, for the terms were borrowed but translated and further complicated in parallel with the growing complexity of the general fiscal system in the later period. This complexity was not due to a moving away from the Byzantine models but to their wider reception. 3. SYSTEMATIC EXPOSITION OF THE FISCAL RIGHTS AND RELATIONS IN BULGARIA. DEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF CONCEPTS IN THE FISCAL SPHERE

The regulation of the organisation of economic life and the provision of funds for the functioning of the sphere of public law is an exceptionally sensitive area and usually needs a well-developed mechanism for maintaining and not disrupting the activities in which it intervenes. Ultimately, it is the result of a long cultural development of each society. Taxes, by their type, nature, structure and administration, are so linked to each individual type of state that it is impossible for a completely different taxation system to exist within the framework of that particular society. In this sense, we need to reiterate what was said already regarding law per se: each civilisation at some universal point of development establishes a certain type of state and a certain type of legal system. The state, for its part, establishes the structures, which implement the various lines of its activity, the state authorities, other institutions (public or otherwise), legal institutions, etc. The common characteristics of these phenomena in the various civilisations are usually due to acceptance on the part of the periphery of what has been achieved in some centre of the respective civilisation. This, however,

398

CHAPTER FIVE

is not necessarily so, because even if something is created locally, it cannot be fundamentally different from that which has been received from outside. The natural civilisation centre of the Byzantine Commonwealth, or the Orthodox cultural circle, was Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, and that is where Bulgaria found inspiration for state and law in general and for its fiscal and economic system in particular. However, this process has some specific features. I mentioned already that we know very little about economy and taxes during the First Bulgarian Empire; our data refer mainly to the Second Bulgarian Empire. Between them lies the period of Byzantine domination, when Bulgaria was within the territory of the Byzantine Empire and subject to the Byzantine administration and taxation system. The latter were inherited in a natural way after the movement of the Asenides, seemingly with no evident discontinuity. Thus, Bulgaria not only accepted the established Byzantine taxation system but fully adopted it after the restoration of the Empire. The same happened also as regards the fiscal vocabulary. The latter will be presented further on in this discussion, but I would like to make some initial remarks. The earlier preserved charters from the 13th century contain more Greek terminology, at least as a percentage of the total number. During the 14th century there was an evident process of extension and complication of the fiscal terminology, accompanied by a certain Slavicisation of the vocabulary. This tendency is not very hard to explain. Firstly, during the early period we observe a simple continuation of the established fiscal structure, and a preservation of the vocabulary. On the contrary, during the later period there is a process of adoption of the already existing structure and a building of terminology that does not resist the Greek influence but adopts it even further by loan-translating of terms. This is the outward aspect of a process of even greater Byzantinisation of the Bulgarian mediaeval administration. We can trace the specified processes in the individual spheres of the taxation system. 3.1. Terms designating state taxes and various rights Here are included all terms that are known and contained in the glossary designating fiscal rights of various kinds. Some refer to taxes (poll taxes or taxes on production); others to fees (incomes in exchange for services), related or not to the taxation system; still others might be of a penal kind; in any case, their common feature is that they were all


399

collected by the fiscal administration-at least that is what the extant data indicates. The terminology in this area is diverse, but first I would like to focus on the general concepts of tax and other state titles, and later go on to discuss their specific designations. I would like to state in advance that there is no ground to differentiate the general terms for tax, fee, etc., since the available sources do not allow it. The major word that is used-Ab.Hb. ('dan~-is Slavic and is a derivative of the verb A~TH = 'to give'. In the Vatopedi chrysobull it is found twice in the combinations ... RMnpHet..t~TH A~HH ... and ... HH A~HH R~h.TH ... , describing the nature of the fiscal officials' activities. 12 Exactly the same combinations we find also in the Mraka chrysobull of tsar John Alexander,U while in the Rila chrysobull the word is found once and also designates a general designation for taxes. 14 In the treaty between tsar Michael II Asen and Dubrovnik the term is quoted five times; in the first three cases it designates a general designation for taxes while in the other two it is a designation for judicial fees. 15 In the construction of this term I cannot see any loanword from the Byzantine fiscal terminology. The emphasis is on the obligation of the population to give taxes to the state and on the other hand the operations of the fisc are described as 'receiving' or 'taking in', which is a replying action to 'giving. The same term was used also in mediaeval Serbia and again designated a general designation for the taxes payable to the state. 16 The designation used in Walachia and Moldavia has a similar root ('dare' in the Romanian language)P The term 'birk' (&Hf'l..Krz..), which is found in the Virgino chrysobull, has a more interesting background. It refers to an interdiction for the state officials to trouble the monastery and collect any revenue, stating that all earnings and lawful incomes shall be collected by the church: , ... RC~Koi AOX.WAOK'l.. H &HfOK'l.. ~~KwH'HoiH # CH g'~HM~ ujKR~ .... 18 The text is clear and the problem that could be raised is whether this refers to a specific tax or to a general designation for financial state title. In a study published some twelve years ago, when discussing the 12 13 14 15

16 17 18

Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 8,13· Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 28, 31· Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 sP· Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 156 n. 24, 27, 15734, 36· Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 392, 580, 607, 707. Institufii feudale, pp. 139-41. Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 16 44·

400

CHAPTER FIVE

term 'pobirchia', I put forward the idea that that 'bir' and 'birk' were church titles, 19 but my position now need re-evaluation and correction. 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 preservation 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 different 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 compulsory payments by the population is AO"f,.OA"b.l, 1m£pn:upov) is the name for a coin in the Byzantine 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. Perper ("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 information, there is mention of perperaks, i.e. the officials collecting this tax,

Ivanov, BSM, p. 555. Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed. I. Thurn, Berolini-Novi Eboraci 1973, p. 412. 107 Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption fiscale, p. 83. 108 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 23 49, s?, 6s· 109 Ilinskij, Gramoty,p. 18 88 • On the contrary, online93 ofthe document is quoted the name of the coiiL 105

106


415

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 procedure 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

Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 27 54 , 29 9; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 54 • Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 49 note 3. 112 Angelov, "Prikhodi", p. 403; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 147. 113 Andreev, "Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", pp. 91-2. 114 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 145. It should be taken into 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 the Ottoman financial system and is known as a tax named harac. 116 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 680. 110 111

416

CHAPTER FIVE

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 institution 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 transcription6tp&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 connection 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 elementelor romdne~ti, p. 173. 118 I nstitufii feudale, p. 355, for the coin itself, see p. 359. 119 Theophylacti Achridensis Epistulae, no. 12, I. 22; Leroy-Molinghen, "Trois mots slaves", pp. 116-7; Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 106; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 83. 120 Litavrin G. G., "Krestjanstvo Zapadnoj i Jugo-Zapadnoj Bolgarii v XI-XII veke", Uchenye zapiski Instituta slavjanovedenija AN SSSR, t. XIV, 1956, p. 337. 121 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 106 note 129.


417

of tax imposed on paroikoi or not. 122 It is obvious that the designation of the afore-mentioned tax originates from paroikos-aktemon (ft.JctfuJ.(oV ), and it is evident that the latter refers to a person not possessing an ox (or any other livestock) which is different from paroikos-zeugaratos (who possesses a pair of oxen) or from paroikos-boodatos (who possesses a single ox). 123 It is hard to say anything more about the Bulgarian otrotzina than to confirm the fact that, like the oikomodion, it was a tax whose name also passed into the Greek language and was some kind of levy related to serfs. 3.1.1.8 Koumerk (~O'rMEfb.~'b) is mentioned in three mediaeval documents; one of the citations is of special interest from a legal and historical perspective, for it indicates the existence of a special Law for the koumerk. This reference is found in the Dubrovnik Charter where it is said: "If anyone harms them (the people of Dubrovnik) in any way at the kleisourai, at the market-places or anywhere, in violation of the Law for the koumerk ... "124 The issue here is how to read the 'Law for the koumerk': whether as a law for customs duties or as a law regulating trade. Iv. Dujcev is explicit that it refers to the more general meaning of 'trade'. 125 The term is mentioned several times in the treaty between tsar Michael II Asen and Dubrovnik. All three quotations refer to customs duty and not to commerce, and the latter two of them speak also about a special law for customs duties on salt between the king of Serbia and Dubrovnik. 126 And finally, koumerk is also found in the Rila chrysobull; according to this document, the monastery people were exempt from paying koumerk, diavato or anything else on the whole territory under his power. 127 It is beyond doubt that the reference here is to customs duty as a certain type of state title. Koumerk and koummerkiarioi are mentioned also in a Venetian document describing events in Messembria in 1268. 128 It should be

122 Olkonomides, Fiscalite, p. 83 v. notes 143-4. 123 Olkonomides, Fiscalite, p. 68 and ff. 124 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 13 u· 125 Dujcev, SBK, II, pp. 329-30. 126 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 156 27, 15746• 1584s· 127 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 28 74; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 53 74· 128 Gjuzelev V., Venetsianski dokumentiza Bulgarija i bulgarite otXII-XIV vek, Sofia, 2001, p. 47 No. 12; Istorija na Dobrudzha, vol. 2, p. 335.

418

CHAPTER FIVE

noted that the document refers to Byzantine officials who imposed on a merchant of Venice a Byzantine tax but not a Bulgarian one. However, the information is interesting inasmuch as it describes a practice implemented on a territory that was part of the Bulgarian state and, very likely, was influenced thereby. The literature on the issue does not present a serious discord in the authors' positions; they are unanimous that 'koumerk' is a state tax of the nature of a customs duty. 129 Here we should also quote the above-mentioned view of M. Lascaris that it is identical with perper. 130 G. Tsankova-Petkova specifies that it refers to internal customs duties and charges for participation in fairs. 131 Regardless of the existing differences, the common opinion in historiography is that the Bulgarian koumerk is a customs duty on the trade. As evident in the designation, the Bulgarian koumerk undoubtedly originated from the Byzantine KOJ..lJ..lEPKtOV, which was a type of levy on trade usually collected for the organisation of fairs from those wanting to take part in such. 132 This state fiscal title was known also in mediaeval Serbia, where it was of the same nature. 133 A similar duty existed likewise in the Romanian principalities but there the word mainly used was of Magyar origin-'vama'.U4 The study of the term koumerk is certainly a part not only of research on the customs duties and the financial system but also on trade in mediaeval Bulgaria. 135 In such a study one cannot restrict oneself only to the documents examined here. The Agreement of AD 716 should

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.


419

be included 136 as well as the letter of tsar John Alexander concerning the Venetians 137 and the treaty between despot John Terter and the Genoese of Pera. 138 In various ages specific customs duties and charges were regulated, their imposition and collection was bilaterally decided upon. However, all this is a subject for a separate study. Here we are focusing on the terminology. In this particular case it presents us with definite clues. The word 'koummerkion' from which the Bulgarian 'koumerk' was borrowed originates from the Empire where it was borrowed from the Latin term commercium (=commerce): this indicates that it referred to a tax imposed on commerce and exchange. 3.1.1.9

Tsarina (U.~fHH~) is a state title which should also concern the levy on commerce and trade as well as the 'koumerk' described above. It is mentioned only in the Virgino chrysobull: "(nor) tsarina shall take from a man of St. George ... "139 It is worth noting that in line 14 of the same document the word is used in the sense of 'tsar's' or 'imperial' as an adjective, which we shall not discuss. Only G. Danailov takes a view that defines tsarina not as a duty but as a corvee. He believes that it was compulsory work of the population on the tsar's estates. 140 I would not support this opinion, because on one hand it remains isolated and on the other it contradicts the text of the document. Evaluating the term, one usually proceeds from its meaning in the modern Serbian language. Practically all authors accept tsarina as a kind of customs title. 141 The only question that could arise in this case is whether tsarina is the same as 'koumerk'. Most of the authors tacitly or not, accept it is identical. I do not think there are grounds for denying it is. The two terms cannot be found together in

136 See: Kutlkov VL, "Bulgaro-vizantijskijat dogovor ot 716 g. Pravo-istorichesko izsledvane", Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet, Juridicheskifokultet, t 65, 1974, No.1, p. 69 ff. m Gjuzelev V., "Les relations bulgaro-venitiennes durant la premiere moitie duXIV• siede", Etudes historiques, t. IX, 1979, p. 72 ff. 138 de Sacy baron Sylvestre, "Memoire sur un traite fait entre les G~nois de Pera et un prince des Bulgares", Histoire et memoires de 11nstitut Royal de France, Academie des inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, t. VII, Paris, 1824, pp. 292-326; Andreev, Kutikov, "Dogovor1l.t", passim. 139 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 103 ; Popovic, "Povelja bana Tvrtka I Kotromanovica 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 Milutin's chrysobull of AD 1300. Was this not a purely Serbian fiscal institution, 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 3.1.2. Fees, charges and various rights

Unlike the taxes, which are required titles of for the state without any reverse prestation, fees are due for some service or for the general good, supplied and supported by the state. Here I shall present those about which we have acquired information. 3.1.2.1

The travnina (TfUb.HHHb.) mentioned in the Virgino chrysobull is a right whose nature is not clear. In the text of the document it is the first among various state rights and revenues that the monastery and its property were exempt from or the collection of which was transferred to the monastery in its favour. These were rights and titles that apparently could cause inconveniences to those favoured by the chrysobull and therefore they enjoyed the privilege of exemption from them: the officials vested with the power of collecting them were forbidden even to enter the monastery estates. Of the exact nature of this seemingly fiscal right one can judge only by its name and its counterparts in some of the countries neighbouring with Bulgaria. The designation 'travnina' derives from 'treva' = 'grass' and indicates that it is a word related to pasture and, generally, food for the livestock. Led by this view, most of the Bulgarian researchers who have worked on this

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, 618 LIII, 619 LXII, etc. 144 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 15 14• 18 79, 93·


421

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 mountainous 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 difference 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 governed 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 information 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

Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 146. Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 162-3. 147 Pro£ Petko Stojanov (Danachno pravo, p. 24) it is explicitly indicated that the state fees (berii) are not taxes in their legal nature regardless that they are payable to the state. 148 Angelov, Andreev, Istorija, p. 146; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 79, 116. 149 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 221-2. 150 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 310 VIII, 436 XI, 448 VII, 453 IV, 455 X, 456 IV, 467 II, 512 X, 514 XXI, 531III, 614 XXXII, 618 LVII, 620 LXXVII, 670 XXXVII, 671 VI, 680 XXI, 681 XXVI, 694 CXXIX, 699 CLXXIX, 703 VIII, 704 XVI, 759 IX, 767 XIV (travnina ovcha = sheep's travnina). 151 See Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 453 IV. 152 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 618 LVII (whoever uses the church mountain shall pay travnina according to the law), 681 XXVI (the mountain belongs to the church and anyone who begins forcibly to shepherd or spend the winter shall pay travnirla accordirlg to the law), 767 XIV (sheep's travnina). 145 146

422

CHAPTER FIVE

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 increasingly 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 beneficiary 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 reason to believe it was related to various kinds of liabilities the monastery 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 vladara, 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·


423

two terms cannot be used by analogy to clarify the nature of gornina as they differ from each other: gradozidanie is a type of corvee while zhitarstvo is some kind of requisitioning of part of the grain production. Probably because of the presence of gradozidanie, G. Ilinsky defines it as a type of ore-mining corvee, adding that V. Vasilevsky might be right in defining it as a fee on the livestock feeding on the mountain pastures. 158 The opinion that it refers to an ore-mining corvee remains marginal in the follow-up studies but the second opinion develops in different directions. D. Angelov defines gornina as a levy on the use of mountain pastures and confers the same meaning as the Serbian n.I\4\HHATH~o, which could be found in two documents of the time of tsar Stephen Dusan. 159 In this connection it is worth examining the term 'planina' (= "mountain"), which is included in the glossary. Our interest is not in the geographical concept but in its legally relevant meaning of a type of property. It is found in the Virgino chrysobull160 and in a marginal note in the John Oliver's Menaion, a book that was destroyed during the air-raids over Belgrade in the Second World War. 161 It is also found in a document of king Stephen Decanski of May 6, 1328 AD and in a document of tsar Stephen Uros of AD 1356162 It is among the listed taxes the rulers exempted the monastery people from or transferred them in favour of the holy monastery. In the older document the fee is connected with staying the winter in the mountain and apparently using it for livestock breeding. Rade Mihaljcic also touches upon this term, describing 'planina' as an economic term and not as a type of fiscal one. He notes that 'planina' is described in the Banja chrysobull as a place where one "neither ploughs nor digs", and in the Decani chrysobull as a place where one "neither ploughs nor mows". 163 Thus, it becomes obvious that it refers to land-insufficiently reclaimed from an agricultural aspect-intended mainly for pasture stock -breeding. This gives us some indications concerning the state revenue in question and its nature. However, one should take

llinskij, Gramoty, p. 124. Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 222; Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 310 (VIII), 40 I (XII). 160 The term can be found also in the Rila chrysobull oftsar John Shishman but the meaming therein is purely geographical, not related to property: Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 36; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 36· 161 Khristova, Karad.zhova, Uzunova, Belezhki, t. I, no. 48, pp. 43, 158. 162 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 310, 401. 163 MihaljCic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 200-1. 158 159

424

CHAPTER FIVE

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 monastery of Iviron, 169 and in many other places. It is noteworthy that the word nA.avwft is quoted also in the Greek-language documents published 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, welldescribed 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,

vol. I, No. 44line 55. 168 169 170

Actes de Vatopedi, vol. I, No. 38line 14. Actes d'lviron, vol. III, No. 54 et 74. Solovjev, Mosin. Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, No. II line 110, No. VII lines 24,

35, No. XXXI line 189, see also p. 482. 171 BoZilov, Bulgarite vav Vlzantijskata imperija, p. 39.


425

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 pastures therein. The specified theses are based mainly on the interpretation 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 Bulgaria. 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 meanings: 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

Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 146. Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 146, 162-3. 174 It is notable that, as regards the order oflisting the various state titles in the formula of protection, the Bulgarian chrysobull follows the example of the Byzantine one (cn Ap!levo1t0'61..ou, Srocral..oviKTJ, 1951, p. 189. 318 319


457

val Serbia again provides more data on the hunting-related obligations of the population. The data concerns the dogs more than the hunting birds. In three documents of the time of king Stephen Decanski and of tsar Stephen Dusan there is mention of a charge on the dogs (OAI:. nc~), which most likely was a corvee related to the hunting. 321 A few acts dating from the 13th-14th centuries are of even greater interest for the definition of this obligation, for they tell us that the authorities could take, temporarily or permanently, some animals from the population; dogs are explicitly cited (HH KOH~, HH nc~ = neither horse nor dog). 322 It is also possible however, that they were made to participate with their animals in the tsar's hunt as it was in the case with the transportation corvees. Apparently, the seizure of dogs could be justified only in view of hunting and not of some other activity. Seizure of guard dogs-especially temporary-is hardly likely to have been the case, as the watch animals had to undergo special training and had to have a special relationship with their owner. Even more specific data on services related to hunting could be found in several documents of the time of king Stephen Uros II Milutin and tsar Stephen Dusan. They attest that the population, or a special part of it, had the obligation to breed and deliver dogs for service at the court. The exemption from this obligation is worded as: "... nor shall they feed dogs ... " (HH n~:.e~:. .Xf~He). 323 Obviously this obligation is quite similar to the office related to hunting birds and I consider it to be one of the main in the field of hunting. Surely, the greatest amount of data we have today is those regarding the obligations and the organisation of hunting in the Ottoman Empire; this data can be helpful, for it confirms the preservation of the Byzantine traditions in the field. As regards the care for the hunting dogs, it was part of the obligation of the janissary corps and in particular of segbanlar or seymenler 24 (a designation for 'those leading the dogs', which is probablybased on the Byzantine term 1CUV1'\y6~). Theyconstituted thirty four divisions within this corps; in addition to their obligations with respect to the sultan's hunting, they also accompanied him in times of war and served as his personal guards at any time. There were also services in charge of hunting in the provinces.

321 322 323 324

Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 415, 582, 696. Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 395, 420, 590, 628. Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 580, 614, 707. Shaw, The History of the Ottoman Empire, p. 123.

458

CHAPTER FIVE

The Byzantine influence over the Ottoman practice is even more clearly noticeable in the organisation of hunting using hunting birds. 325 The services related to this will be discussed below. Here I shall only mention that these services had military ranks and disposed of huge staff, numbering, in the capital and the provinces, about 3 500 people by the year 1564.326 There is no doubt that the specific obligations of the population regarding the tsar's hunting were located in the provinces rather than in the capital. There was a differentiation between those who took care of the birds on one hand, and the hunters and bird trainers on the other. 327 The former were called either 'bazdar' or by the names of various hunting birds: doganct, ~ahinct, ryaktrct, balabanct etc. Those who captured and trained the birds were called atmanct. They could also be divided into nesters (i.e. who took the birds from the nests during the reproductive period) and fowlers (i.e. who caught adult birds). In later periods, both groups were involved in bird training. In performing their activities they had the right to trouble the population and to prohibit certain economic activities in the nesting and hunting areas of the rapacious birds. In the description of the structure of the Ottoman Empire by Ali 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 accompanied 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 provincial officials. Earlier in the exposition I already discussed records on hunting corvees and some kind of taxation on dogs, which probably comprised taxation on hunting. I think the special features of the psar's service should be identified and studied mainly along this line.

442 llinskij,Gramoty,pp.18 100,25 29 ,27 57,29 11 ;Laskaris, Vatopedskatagramota,p. 5 9_10 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 57· 443 Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 193 9-lo· 444 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 138 22, 162 4 _7; Brehier, Les institutions, p. 150, Guilland, "Sur quelques grands dignitaries", pp. 192-3. 445 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 310, 401, 407, 410, 411, 424, 448, 456, 467, 470, 486, 507, 515, 609, 620, 653, 660, 680, 704, 767 etc. 446 Shaw, The Ottoman Empire, p. 123.

482

CHAPTER FIVE

It concerned organising the hunt and corvees related to this. Collecting taxes on dogs seems less probable to me, though I cannot deny it completely.

4.6.2. Officials in charge of supply of provisions for passing troops or representatives of the administration and responsible for providing support to their transportation 4.6.2.1 The mitat (UHTb.Trz.) is mentioned in the Rila chrysobull of tsar John Shishman as some kind of state officials.447 Earlier in my exposition I discussed the term of the same name designating the obligation of the population to provide accommodation to camping troops for comparatively longer periods, also found in other imperial documents. In the case in question, however, it is not about some kind of obligation, but rather about a state official, who was one of the mentioned "all boyars and workers of My Empire" As the case stands, it seems reasonable to associate the official with the similarly named duty of the population, from which the monastery and its people were exempted. It is hard for me to judge whether he was part of the military officials or belonged to the fiscal administrationthere are grounds for both assertions, however direct evidence is lacking. He was by no means a particularly high-ranking figure and his responsibilities coincided with performing the mentioned obligation.448 4.6.2.2 The zhitar (mHTb.pb.) is mentioned in the Rila and Vitosha chrysobulls449 of tsar John Shishman among some of the officials who are prohibited to disturb the monastery possessions. As supporting evidence we can use the mentioning of mHTb.fCTRO (zhtarstvo) in the Zographou charter of tsar John Alexander. 450 I believe we have every reason to assert that the service of the zhitar was related to the obligation called zhitarstvo and its nature should be analysed along this line. I have mentioned earlier that the zhitarstvo was not a basic tax but rather some kind of requisition or obligatory buy-up on behalf of the state at fixed prices. This comes to amend the different opinion I shared

447 448

449 450

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27

56; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 56· Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 372-4. Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 27 54 , 29 9; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 23 5o, 5B·

54·


483

in my book devoted to institutions.451 In my present view, the zhitar would be an official in charge of supplies, requisitions or obligatory buy-up of corn for the needs of the state and the army. This interpretation is a result of relating the institution with that of zhitarstvo. Due to the delicate nature of the series of assumptions we have to accept, we need to look for their verification in the fiscal systems of neighbouring countries. We find records on corn tithe in Serbian documents,452 but their identity with corn-trade has been rejected. Of greater interest are records from Walachia and Moldavia where we find two services with similar names-jitnicer and jitar. The jitnicer is a typically Moldavian institution,453 which we meet for the first time in 1558 r. in the inscription of "Carstea, jitnicer of Suceava". 454 In the 16th century it was still among the so-called category of sluga-i.e. underservants-and it occupied a higher position in the 17th century, when Dimitrie Cantemir ranked it 7th in the Divan (Council) of the ruler, a fact that gives reason to include it among the court dignitaries holding positions in the central state administration. His responsibilities were related mainly to the provision, storage and distribution of grain. He was assisted in his duties by second and third jitnicer and by camara$ and diac of the granary. 455 In Walachia this service appeared later, evidently under Moldavian influence, and did not last long. The Moldavian jitnicer was a higher official in the central administration and cannot in any way be compared with the Bulgarian zhitar, who was minor provincial official. Probably in any case their service was some kind of similar care for the granary, but as regards corntrade we cannot say anything. The difference in this case is clear: it is either taking care for provision of grain to the court, or possibly taking care for some kind of indispensble deliveries. It is interesting that Evliya 'i) OtKaiuo, Athens-Komotini, 1984. Tsankova-Petkova G., Za agrarnite otnoshenija v srednovekovna Bulgarija XI-XIII v., Sofia, 1964. Tsibranska-Kostova M., Formirane i razvitie na starobulgarskite leksikalni normi v tsarkovnojuridicheskata knizhnina, Sofia, 2000. Tsonev B., Opis na rakopisite i staropechatnite knigi v Sofijskata narodna biblioteka, t. I- II, Sofia, 1910-1923. Uspenskij B. A., Tsar' i imperator. Pomazanie na tsarstvo i semantika monarshikh titulov, Moscow, 2000. Vasic M., "Martolosi u jugoslovenskim zemljama pod turskom vladavinom", Akademija nauka i umetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, djela, knj. XXIX, Odelenje istorijsko-jiloloSkih nauka, knj. 17, Sarajevo, 1967. Vasica J., "L'Origine cyrillo-methodienne du plus ancien code slave dit "Zakon sudnyj ljudem", Byzantinoslavica, 12, 1951, pp. 154-69. - , "Anonimni homllie v rukopise Clozovl! po strilnce pravne", Slavia, 25, 1956, Nv 2, pp. 221-33. - , Literarni pamatky epochy velikomoravske 863-885, Praha, 1966. Vasllevskij V., "Materialy po vnutrennej istorii Vi:zantijskogo gosudarstva", Zhurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosveshtenija, t. CCX, July 1880, pp. 98-170.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

537

-,Trudy,. I-III, Sanct Petersburg, 1908 ff. Vasmer M., Etimilogicheskij slovar'russkogo jazyka, vol I-IV, Moscow, 1986-1987. Venedikov Iv., Voennoto i administrativnoto ustrojstvo na Bulgarija prez IX i X vek, Sofia, 1979. Verpeaux J., "Hierarchie et preseance sous les Paleologues", Travaux et memoires, I, 1965, pp. 421-38. Virtosu E., Titulatura domnilor ~i asocierea Ia domnie in Tara romdneasca si Moldova (pina Ia secolul al XVI-lea), Bucure~ti, 1960. Wasilewski T ., "Proizkhod i administrativna organizatsija na komitatite v srednovekovna Bulgarija", in: Wasilewski T., Bulgarija i Vizantija (IX-XV vek), Sofia, 1997, pp. 48-54. - , "Zhupa i zhupanija u juzhnite slavjani i tjakhnoto mjasto v organizatsijata na srednovekovnite darzhavi", in: Wasilewski T., Bulgarija i Vizantija (IX-XV vek), Sofia, 1997, pp. 84-92. Watkins C., "Studies in the Indo-European Legal Language, Institutions and Mythology", Indo-European and Indo-Europeans, Philadelphia, 1970, pp. 321-54. Wojciechowski Z., L'Etat polonais au moyen Age. Histoire des institutions, Paris, 1949. Xanalatos D. A., Beitriige zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Makedoniens im Mittelal-

ter, hauptsiichtlich auf Grund der Briefe des Erzbischofs Theophylaktos von Achrida, Mi.inchen, 1937. Zakythinos D., Le Despotat grec de Moree, t. 1-11, London, Variorum Reprints 1975. Zavadskaja S. V., "0 'startsakh gradskikh'i startsakh ljudskikh' v Drevnej Rusi", Vostichnaja Evropa v drevnosti i Srednevekov'e, Moscow, 1978. Zlatarski V. N., Istorija na bulgarskata darzhava prez srednite vekove, t. I-III, Sofia, 1918-1940.

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES abbot 27, 29, 76, 138, 253, 257, 410 Abraham 234 accusator 81 accuser 81, 154 acolyte 60 Ac~ 293, 300,444a 261 Adriatic 9, 41, 188, 467, 512 adulterer 126 adulterium 126 adultero 126 adultery 90, 126, 139-140, 156, 166 adversarius 143 aedificare 75 aedifitio 75 Aegean Sea 374 aerikon 410-411 aes 411 Africa 363, 515 aga 385 agazonum et stabuli praefectus 338 agazonum magister alias co miss 338 ager 100 aktemonitikion 416, 492 alagator 378-380, 455 alagion 378 Albania 188-189, 322 Albanian 39, 92, 114, 118-119, 144, 171, 177, 188-189, 199, 360, 467 Alexander, sebastocrator 279, 281, 298, 302 Alexander eel Bun/Alexander the Good (prince of Moldavia) 323, 468 Alexander the Great 238, 239 Alexandria 108, 238, 239, 504 Alexandrine Library 243 Alexias 295, 300, 309 Alexis, sebastos from Stenimachos 312 Alexis I Comnenos, emperor 276, 295-296, 300, 303, 306, 309, 326, 342, 356 Alexis III Angelos, emperor 296 Alexis Slav, despot 24, 54, 104, 149, 151, 229, 279-282, 292, 294, 334, 407, 433 Ali 29, 514 A.fXHC'I'fA.'I'Hr'l> 29

1>.1!:1!:.\

A.EfHKOC

29,225-226 30 RA.rf'IIHH11.A. 30, 225-226 RA.rf'IIHOfOAb.H'l> 30, 223 RMWA. 356 RA.H'l> 31 RA.IJIHHA. 31 RG~A.KOHb.HHK'l> 31 RG~A.KOH b.H'l> 31 RE~RI»Kb.H'l> 31 RE~rf'IIW b.H'l> 32 RE~~HCA'l>H'l> 237 RGC'I'~Ab.H'l> 32 RGC'I' Ab.C'I'B:O 32 RGC% b.H'l>IH 32 REC'l>B:'IIA 'II'I'EAb. 140 REC'l>B:'IIC'I'b.H'l> 32 RGC'l>'l"l>IJIG'I'A. 155 RGIJIHHA. 32 RGIJIHHHif 33 REIJIHHb.HHK'l> 155 REIJIHHb.HH11.A. 32, 155 RGIJib.C'I'B:OB:A.'I'H 33 RGIJib.C'I'Hif 33 RHfOK'l> 399 RHf'l>K'l> 33, 111, 265, 396, 399, 477 RHfb. 400, 477 RAA.ro 33 RAA.roB:'IIHb.~A.H'l>IH 34, 217 RAA.roB:'IIfb.H'l> 34, 217-218, 236 RAA.I'OAA.'I'b. 34 RAA.rOA 'lltb.H Hlf 34 RA.rA.HH'l>

RA.rf'l>

I

RA.r'l>f'l>

RAA.roH~B:OAGHHif RAA.rOCAOB:GC'I'B:H'I'H RAA.rOCAOB:H'I'H

34 34

34

34 34 RAA.ro~ b.C'I'Hif 35 RAA.ro~b.C'I'HB:'l>IH 35, 217, 292 RAMIEH'l> 123 RA~H'I'H 35, 139-140, 155 RA~'l> 36,71 ~b.HHK'l> 36 IWI'\ltiAEH Hlf 36 RAIOC'I'H 35, 459 RO rA.'I''II'I'H 37 ROrA.'I'H~HIJib. 36 ROrA.'I"l> 36-37, 102 ROrA.'I'b.C'I'B:O 37, 156 &oroiH'l> 29 ROroRO~Hb.H'l> 37, 217 ROroB:'IIHb.~A.Hb.H'l>IH 37, 236 ROI'OAA.H'l> 37 ROroAIORHB:'l> 37, 218 ROroHA.fG~GH'l> 37, 217 ROroHM "'f'I'A.H'l> 37, 217 ROrOHOCb.H'l> 37 &oroC'l>nA.Cb.H'l> 38, 218 &oroo~rOAb.HO 38 ROr'l> 31, 36, 37-38, 102 ROliiH 356 ROA'IIfHH'l> I ROA'IIf'l> 38, 249, 289 ROA'IIfKA. 38 RO~HH'l> KUG'I"l> 83 RO~HH'l> KOUH'I''l> 83 RO~E, ROI"b.j)'l>l 249 ROtb.'I'H 37 RfA.K'l> 38, 39 RfA.H H'I'H 38, 48 RfA.H b. 38, 156 RfA.'I'H 33, 38, 400 RfA.~b.Hb. 39 RfOMfHHA. 429 RfOAH'I'H 39 RfOA'l> 39, 429 RfOAb.HHHA. 39, 429 Rf'IIB:'IIAErH 121 R'l>~EAA. 245 R'l>~EAA.fb. 129 R'llrA.'I'H 119, 121 RAA.rOCAOB:AifHHif

RAA.ro'I'B:OfH'I'H

572 111!,A.o\

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX 39

I!:A'l>eHII'\TH

39, 111

111!,A.HTH, ll'tiii, G'IIAb.IH G'IIAb.U,b.

39 39 39, 512

39, 383 40, 111, 384 1!:.\j)OI!:o\TH 384 1!:.\j)THTH 170 1!:.\j)'l>l!:o\f'l> 40 l!:b.fb.HH~HH 40, 488 1!:1\To\ro\ 388 l!:o\To\Uo\H'l> 388 l!:o\To\)l:'l> 40, 387 I!:GICb.HHICb. 40, 256 1!:.\j)HTH

I!:GAHICH I!:HeTi.\j)

370

370

318 323, 468 I!:GAHIC'l> 40, 46, 63, 150, 233, 234, 237, 356, 386 I!:GAHIC'l> I!:Oifi!:O,A.o\ 46 I!:GAHIC'l> A""rli 356 I!:GAHK'l> eGfAb.fb. 386 I!:GAH~b.eTI!:O 40 I!:GAb.H 41 I!:GAb.UII'\lll'l> 41 I!:GA"'ITH 41, 46, 72, 111, 156 I!:G~G 40-41 I!:GIJib. 42, 156 I!:H,A,GTH 100, 133 I!:HHo\ 42, 99, 156, 169 I!:HHb.fH~b.fb. 484 I!:HHb.fH~H IKHHo\j)H~BA'l> IKHHb.fH% 484 I!:HHb.fb. 42, 484 I!:HHO 42 I!:HHOrfA,A,'l> 156 I!:HHb.H'l> 42 I!:HHb.H'l>IH Ho\UGTb.ICb. 484 I!:HOOIC'l> 43, 299 I!:HeTH~HHIC'l> 323, 468 I!:HeTH~ I I!:Heb.~b. 43, 323, 468 I!:AA,A.Mb.U.b. 43, 101 I!:AA,A.o\HHG 43 I!:AA,A.'l>I!Co\ 43, 156, 233, 237 I!:AA,A.'l>I~HU.o\ 43 I!:AA,A.'l>l~b.eTI!:Hif 43, 44 I!:AA,A.'l>l~b.eTI!:O 44 I!:AA,A."'ITH 44, 125 I!:AAeTGAHH'l> 44 I!:AAeTGAb. 44 I!:AAeTH 44 I!:AAeTb. 44, 101, 156, 312 I!:GAHK'iH ,A,I!:OfH'l>IH es,A,'io\ I!:GAHK'iH eb.Kj)OI!:HWHHICb.

44 44,45 I!:A'l>Wb.Go\ 45 I!:O,A.HTH 45, 95, 112, 361 I!:Olii,A,b. 45 I!:OHHo\ 157 I!:OHHOI!:O,A,b.U.b. 45 I!:OHHb.eTI!:O 45-46, 312 I!:OHH'l> 45 I!:OHeiCo\ 45 I!:OAHTH 77 I!:OAOGGfb.IJIHHo\ 45, 405 I!:OAb.H'l> 46 I!:IWA. 46, 77, 157 I!:OfHHICb. 318 1!:~ 361 I!:Oifl!:o\TH 46 I!:OIIii!:O,A.o\ 46, 157, 165, 360, 361 l!:fb.r'l> 46-47 l!:fb.lllb.Ao\ 47, 157 l!:fo\lllb.,A,GGHHIC'l> 157 l!:fb.Ho\ 356 l!:fb.THTH 48, 158 l!:fb.~"' 47 l!:fG,A,HTH 157 l!:f"'IA'l> 47, 157 l!:eG~b.eTb.H'l>IH 153 l!:e"'ll!:"'lfb.H'l> 217 l!:'l> I!:AMTb. G'l>ll!:o\~ 156 l!:'l.,A,o\TH 48 l!:'l>lllo\ro\TH 157 l!:'l>~o\ICOHHTH IK'l>~o\ICOH~TH 48, 158 l!:'l>~Gfo\HHTH I l!:'l>~Gfo\H~TH 48 l!:'l>~l!:fb.THTH 158 l!:'l>~l!:f"'IIJI H 48 l!:'l>~I!:HSo\TH I l!:'l>~I!:HrHII'\TH 48 l!:'l>~f~HTH 48 l!:'l>~"'II!:HTH 158 l!:'l>~HUo\TH 48-49, 158 l!:'l>~AOliiGHHif 49 l!:'l>~AOliiGHHif fii'\K, 49 l!:'l>~HGeTH 49 l!:'l>K3no&Olllb.H'l> 49 l!:'l>K nonf"'leTOAb.H'l> 49 l!:'l>K noeAo\l!:b.H'l> 49 l!:'l>U H~TH 50 l!:'l>nHeo\TH 50, 463 l!:'l>eGAGHMIC'l>IH 50 l!:'l>eGHb.fO~HT'l>IH 292 l!:'l>enf"'ITHTH I 1!:7>enf111Jlb.TH 50 l!:'l>enfHbO.TH 50 I!:~ITHTH IK'l>e)('l>IIJio\TH 50 I!:A'l>)l:l!:'l>

1!:.\j)b.fb.

I!:GAHICH 111\Hb. KfMGI!:eiCH

44

I!:A'l>)I:I!:OI!:o\HHif

1!: 'l>eii'\A'l>

83

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX

125

lt'l.ICOK'l. ltb.AOitb.

I

rf'IIWI>H'l.

ltb.AOitHLI,b.

ltb.~&ArOHb.fOqH'J''l.IH

51 ltb.~lt'llfb.H'l. ltb.~Afb.iKH'I'GAb. ltb.~n0%'1'~H'l.IH

51 292

51 52, 162, 168, 177 52, 72, 98, 140, 168, 177 &'IIAb. 51 lt'IIHb.U,OAb.'I'GAb. 51,52,225 lt'IIHb.LI,b. 37, 52 lt'IIHb.qb.'f'H 120, 158, 311 lt'llfb. 51-52, 98, 217 lt'llfb.H'l. 246, 251, 253 &'llqG 41, 246, 251, 253-255 lt'II4JG 52, 98 lt'II4JHLI,b. 254 lt'llijlb.HHLI,b. 254 lt'II4Jb.HH%CK'l. lt'IIAb.'I'H

rA~~.~tb.

rAO&b.

53, 455, 478

52 53

57 57 53 ro&'IIHHh1 77, 160 rOHH'I'H 53, 422, 425 roy11. 56 rOfH'I'H 53, 422 rOfb.HHHb. 53, 54, 158, 215-216, 356 rocnoAA.fb. 53-54, 158, 215-216, 272 rocnOAHH'l. 54 rocnOAb. 54 rocnOAb.C'I'&Hh1 I rocnOAb.C'I'&o 292 rocnOAb.C'I'ItO MH 54 rocn OA I>C'I'&O&b.'I'H 309 rocnOAI>C'1'&8104JHH 158 rocn OlKA. 54 rocn OJKAA. 54 roc'l'l> 55, 176 rfb.&H'I'H 55, 487 rfb.A"'f" 55, 487 rfb.AH'I'H 55 rfb.AH4JG 460 rfb.AO&AIOAGHHG 55, 75, 450, 487 rfb.AO'J,HAb.HHG 35, 55, 103, 159, 161, 356, 365 rfb.A7. 35 rfb.A'l. &AIOC'I'H 451 rfb.A7. ~b.Ab.'I'H 56, 347 rfb.Mb.'I'HK'l. 56 rf'II)COiti>H'l. 32, 56, 93, 140, 159 rf'II)C'l. 56 rf'IIWHHI>C'I'ItO 56 rf'IIWI>HHK'l. rH'IIItH'I'H rH'II&'l.

56 57

244 57 57, 399 Ab.HI> 57 Ab.f01tb.H HG 57, 112 Ab.f7. 57 AMKM'l. 57 Ab.'I'GAb. 37, 48, 51, 57-58, 71, 112, 123, Ab.'I'H 126, 159, 163, 165, 399 58 Ab.t&.'I'H 48 A&HrH"''I'H 58, 98 AltHlKHI.A'l. 58, 230 A1t0f7. 318 A1tOfHHK'l. 318 A1tOfOAf1>lKHLI,b. 318 AltOfCKHH KHG~I> 58, 230 A&Of'l. 325 AGMOCHOH'l. 58, 462 AGMOCHt&. 415 AGCG'I'I>K'l. lKH'I'I>H'l. 58 AGCnO'I'HLI,b. 58, 292 AGCnO'I''l. 59, 431 AHb.ltb.'I'O 59 AHA.AHK'l. 60, 225 AHb.AHI.Ab. 131 AH&'l. 475 AHlKI.Ab. 475 AHlKMb.fl> AH~Mb.fC'I'ItO 404 415 AHMHHHb. 60, 462 AHMOCHOH'l. 60 AHt&.K'l. 60, 159 AA'l.r'l. 60, 159 AA'l.lKI>HHK'l. 60 AA'l.lKI>H'l. 60 AO&'l.l'l"l.K'l. 161, 159 AOit'l.A'II'I'H 61 AOM'l. 159 AOC'I'OH'I'H 81 AOCb.AH'I'GAI> 61 AOC'I'Ot&.H HG 61, 399-400 AO)COA'l.K'l. 62 AfA.r'l. 62, 112 62, 230 AfO lKHHb. 233 b.&AHit'l.IH Af 233 Af'l.lKb.ltH'l.IH 62, 224 Afl>lKb.&b. 62, 102, 104, 133, 140, 224 Afl>lKb.'I'H 62 Afl>lKb.lti>H'l. 231, 249 Afl>ro&G

Ab.&HA'l.

51 51

ltb.~nf'llnOAO&b.H'l.

rGfb.Kb.fb.

rO~AH'I'H

573

Ab.HHh1

Aflr'l.

574

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX

.·

~~'I!;~;;;~: A

a

A

Wb.

370

373-374 63 A'l> H 159 A'l>IU'l> 63, 408 A'l>IUb.HHH.\ 63, 408 A 111!'..\ 64, 158-159 A111!'.HI1..\ 64, 160 A111!'.H~b. 64 A111!'.b.C'I'I!'.O 64 A 111!'.b.C'I'I!'.OI!'.M'H 64 A'I!AHH.\ 64 A'IIA'l> 64, 510 A'IIAb.11.b. 64, 510-511 A11KOH7> 60 A'IIAO 65 A11'1'1"A.'I'H 160 A11'1''-\b. 65 A 'lltA.H Hlf 65 A'litA.'I'H 75, 90, 126, 162 G~HK'l>

154 65 eU'M'I'I!'.O 65, 401 eHrb.fenCA'I'H 66, 433 GHrb.fHb. 66, 433 GH,A,HK'I'HOH'l> 77 GH,A,HK'I"l> 77 GAb.f)\l> I eKCAf)(7> 65 enHKefHel!'.'l> 66 enHKefb.HHH 66, 328, 330, 332, 334 en HCKOnH.\ 66 GnHCKOn'l> 66-67, 510 en HCKOnb.CK'l> 67 en HCKOnb.CTI!'.O 67 GfeCb. 67 GfG'I'HK'l> 67,244 GfG'I'H~b.CK'l> 67 'fe'I'H~b.C'I'I!'.O 67 '-\HH'l>

68, 91, 160, 166 68 IKGHH'I'H 68, 98 IKH'I'b.fb. 68-69,439,482 IKH'I'b.j'b.C'I'I!'.O 68, 439, 482 IKH'I''-\b. 128 IKH'I''-\b.C'I'I!'.O 166 IKH'I'H 128 IKH'I'O 68, 69 IKH'I'b.HH11..\ 68 IKH'I'b.H'l> 69 IKeH.\

IKGHH'I'&.\

76

1Kfb.'I'Hif

IKan.\ 69. 366 IK n.\H'l> 69, 160, IK

n'-\7>

IKb. A'l> 1Kb.fb.11.b.

365, 366, 370

366 70, 225 70, 76

~b.IWI'\AH'I'H ~.\1!'.11'1'7>

71

71

~.\1!'.114Jb.'I'H

I

~.\roHeHHif

~.\1!'.114Jb.I!'..\'I'H

71

160 160

~.\NHH'I'H ~.\KOHO,A..\'1''-\b.

71 31, 48, 71-72, 98, 158, 161, 175, 194-195 ~.\KOHb.H'l> 72, 399 ~M11~.\'I'H 161 ~.\U/1'\lK'l> 161, 167 ~.\nG~.\'1'.\H'l> 72 ~.\nG~.\'1'.\'I'H 72 ~.\nOI!'.'I!Ab.'I'H 72 ~.\nO&'I!Ab. 72, 161 ~.\nOI!'.'-\1111'..\'I'H 72 ~b.nf11'1'H'I'H 72 ~b.nf114JGHHG 72 ~.\~'l>K'l> 72 ~.\CTII'\nAGHHif 72 ~.\CTII'\n HHK'l> 72-73 ~.\'I'I!'.OfH'I'H 73 ~.\'I'I!'.Of7> 73 ~.\'I'I!'.Ofb.HHK'l> 73 ~e&rb.fb. 46, 73, 405 ~ei!'.~He 73 ~eUAtA. 73, 159, 161, 172, 356, 359 ~G'I'CK.\ 356 ~HUOI!'.H4JG 74 ~A.\'1'.\fb. 74 ~A.\'I'HI1..\ 74, 177 ~A.\'1'0 74, 161 ~A.\'I'OnG~.\'I'b.HOG CAOI!'.O 74, 137, 149 ~A.\'I'OnG~.\'I'b.H'l> 74, 228, 230 ~O&b. 75 ~'l>M 75,311 ~'l>AO&.\ 162 ~'l>AOA11i"A.'I'H 75 ~'l>AOA11bO.H 75 ~'l>AOCA.\I!'.b.H'l> 75 ~b.,A,.\'I'H I ~HAb.'I'H 55, 75, 450, 451, 459 ~b.,A,.\HHe 75 ~b.,/!J,.\'1""-b. 75 ~b.,A,.\'I'H 75,450-451 ~.\KOH'l>

HI'O'J'UeHOI!'.'l> H""'j'UeH'l>

76 76, 514

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX HAOAOIKfb.'I'H~ HAOA'b

76

H~'KiHA'b

KMK,'I'Afb.

244

76 H'fAf)C'b H'fOI.A OHA)C'b

76, 514 162 H~GfAH'bH'bl H 76, 217 76-77 H~KOAH'I'H 77 H~KOA~HH~ 77 H~POHb.~HH 162-163 H~HCKA'I'H 163 H~AGO'I'A'I'H 77 HKOHOM'b 77, 163 HM11.HH~ 48-49, 65, 77, 158, 163, HM11.'1'H I HI.AA'I'H 171 77 HHAHK'I'HOH'b 77 HHAHK'I''b 77 HHOK"Il.fb.H'b 78, 135, 514 HHOK'b 78 HHOnMM,Hb.HHK'b 66, 330 HnHK'f'bHH 78 HCKA~A 162 HCKA'I'H 78, 162 HCKO!nH'I'H 78, 162 HCKO n'b 78 HCnA OC'I'H'I'H 78 HCnOK11.AAHH~ 78, 162 HCnOK11.AA'I'H 78 HCnOK"Il.Ab. 79 HCnfAKH'I'H 79 HCnfMMHH' 162 HCn'bi'I'AH H~ 162-163 HCn'bi'I'A'I'H H~'H 79

HlfiA11.H,'I'H

KA~A'I'H

79,96,163 79, 163 356 KMOiWAHH'b 79 KM1'P'fHU,A 79 KM1'P'fOK'b 79, 514 KMO\fP'f'b 376 KAn,fAHb. 113 KAfti>.'I'H 80 KM'I',A'b KA~Hb.

KM'I'focfHAA;!'b

I

KM'I'focfHAAKb.

80, 375 80 KA'I',Hb.CK'b 80, 357-358, 514 K~Afb. 80, 514 K~Htl>. 211, 303, 317, K'CAfb. K~MHtl>. 80, 271, 311, 371 81 KHfA 81 KHf'b

KA'I',nAHO

81, 163 81 81, 163 KMK,'I'b.HHK'b 81, 359 KAHCO\ffA 81 KAb.KATH 81 KAIOim 357 KAIO~Afb. 357 KAIO~HHK'b 82 KOKA% K~MHK'b 82 82 KOA11.HO 234 KOAti>.HOC'blllm'l''b 412 KOI.A.\AA 83, 336-338, 380 KOI.AHC'b 336, 380 KOI.AHC'b Cb. KOHb.MH 83, 412 KOMOA'b KOM'bKAHH~ 83 83-84 KOM'bKA'I'H 338 KOHO)CfAHH'I''A 84, 455 KOHl> 84 KOHb.CK'b 154 KOHb.U,b. 338 KOHIOW'b 84 KOfAG'b 84 KOfAGb.HHK'b 237 KOf'H11. 145 KOfH'I'H 84, 142, 485 KOCH'I'H 84, 427 KOWAfA 84, 426 KOWAfb.4JHHA 84, 396, 455, 478 KfAPO\ftl>.fb. 84-85, 164 KfAJKAA 85 KfAH4J' 85 KfAH4J b.H HKb. 309 KfAA~KC'I'KO MH 85,213 KfMb. 85 KfAI.AOAA 85, 164, 169, 179 KfM'I'H 234 KfMb.H'b 356 KfHU,VKA 86, 159 Kf'b 4J'H H~ 164 Kf'bi'I'H 86 Kfb.C'I'H'I'H 86, 164 Kf11.nOC'I'b. 86 Kf11.n'b 86 K'I'H'I'OfHU.A 86 K'I'H'I'Of'b 86, 396, 417 K,M,fb.K'b 66 K,nAfb. 78, 87, 105, 121, KO\fnH'I'H I KO\fnoKA'I'H 162, 164 87 KO\fnAtl>. 87 K1'nb.U,b. 319 KO\ffOnMA'I'HCb. KMK,'I'A

76

80, 377

575

576

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX MOr~'l'b.

87

KO\ff'Z>

K'1.f..i~'I'H4J~ K'1.1.1~'1''1. K'l>I.IO'I'fo\

164 265,269

1.10/\H'I'KA

83, 16 87-88,228,243 244 K'l>HHrO/\IO&~LI,b. 273 K'1.H'Il7,'1. ~n~'l'fo\ 165

K'l>HHro\

I

K~yonMo~>.'I'HCI>

303, 315

81

88, 514 89 165 /\H'I'fo\ 89 /\H'I'O\ffrHtn 1\o\Kfo\

1\HKb.Ao\

hH)(O~I.I'IlHHhl

I 1\H)(OHI.Ib.C'I'KO 89

89 165 /\HLI,~ MKH4J~ 89

/\H)('l>

Mr~'l''l>

I

Mrocp'"''l>

89, 90, 370

100 101 h7>ro~>.'I'H 90, 114, 126 /\b.C'I'H'I'H 90, 165 1\b.C'I'b. 90 1\b.C'I'b.LI,b.

MlKH'I'H

I 1\to&O,A.'lliAHHhl I 1\to&O,A.'llH 90

/\10&0,6. 'llHC'I'KO /\10&0,6. 'llHLI,o\

91, 93, 514 91, 93 237 MOH.)(MIO&HK'l> 93, 514 MOHo\)('1. 146, 180 MOfH'I'H 146 1.10f7> 93, 453 I.IOC'I"1. 93, 453 MOC'I''l>HHHo\ 115 M04Jb. 94, 166 M7>Ab.hOC'I'b. 94,166-167,496 Mb.4Ao\ 167 l.lb.4Ab.HHK'1. 94 1.1 b.C'I'H'I'~/\1> 94, 105, 167 Mb.C'I'b. 167 Mb.C'I'b.HHK'l> 50 M'llHIA'I'H 94, 115, 167, 359 M'llC'I'O 167 1.1~ Hb.A'l>

MM'1.lK~N'1.

I.IM'l>lK~HC'I'KO

90

I.I~JKAA 91 91 1.1~'1'~)( 91, 351 I.I~~OHOWo\ ~..~~~'1.1 1.11>~'1. 91 237 I.IHMC'I'HK'l> 92, 356 MHMC'I'b. 114 MH/\'1.

95 97

96,493,496 96 96 No\Ko\:l,A'I'H 96, 441 Ho\1.1 ~'1''1.K'1. 161, 167 Ho~>.f~%Nb.Ho\o\ 96 Ho\fOA'l> Ho\fO~ H'l' H 167 96-97 NMH/\Hhl

No\HMb.NHK'l> No\Ko\:l,AHHhl

514

I

95

HAKO,A.H'I'H

/\10&'1.1

MM'l>lK~No\

257

NAK'iHH'l>, IHCO\fC'l>

1\to&O,A. 'llhb.No\

Mo\r~NHLI,o\

MONM'I"1.1f'1.

MONM'I"1.1fb.CK'1.

K'l>l.lb.'l'b.

K~f'l>

I

MONM'I'Hf'l>

1 K'l>I.IO'I'r 87, 165

Kvyonoho~>.'I'HCI>

93 303

166, 197

HM/\'Il,A.H'I'H

I

NMh'll,A.OKo\'I'H

97 97 NM'I'AKHHK'l> 97 NM'I'O/\b.NHK'l> 97 NM'I'OIA'I'H 97 Ho\)(0,6.1>NHK'1.

NM/\'Il,A.b.HHK'l>

No\~~N'l>II.IH rfol>.,A.o\ 97, 154, No\~b.N~ H~&f'lllK~NHhl

97

1.1 Hfb.CK'l>IH

97-98 H~&f'll4JH 168 N~K'Il,A. 'llNHif

I.IH'I'o\'1''1.

N~K'IllK,A.b.C'I'KHhl

MHf'l>

138

92 92,434,482 93, 510 I.IH'I'fOnO/\H'I"1. 93 MHH)('l> 56, 93 MNOrOrf'llWb.N'l> 41 MOI'ih

N~K'Ilfb.HHK'l>

N~K'Ilfb.H'l> H~K'IlC'I'o\

98

98 98

H~,A.KHlKHM'l>

365 365

98

98

96-97, 223

577

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX

98 99 99 N'" OKH N'l.N'b N'nOfO~I>N'b 99 120 "'"fb.KI>Ab. 99, 168 N'nf111t>.:Z,NI> 127 "'"f1lC'I'mni>N'l. 99 N'n 1>4J,Kb.'l'l1 168 N'fb.:Z,Am~HM'b 168 N'fb.:Z,Am%N'bll1 49 N'C'I'H 100, 168 NHKb. 100 N117,/\0lK 11'1'11 168 NI14JI> 91 NOCI1'1'11 100 N,AH'I'H 168, 173 NlAI>MH 100, 169 N JKAb. 370 N1l 0'

157

N':Z,b.KONI>N'b

ori>N'l.

N'O'M.HAI\teM'b

OAfb.lKb.N lite

104 169 170 01\'l.'l'b.fb. 104 0 nfb.K b.Ab.'I'll 103 On'l.KHNCKH 102 Oni>KHNb. 104 OfrHti>. 104, 228 OfH:Z,MO 104 OCKO&OJKAb.'I'H 104 OCKKfb.NI1'1'11 272 wcnoAA.f"

OKfb.A'N'l.IH

OC'I'b.KI1'1'11

I

OC'J'b.Ki\11>.'1'11

O&b.,6.11'1''1\l>

O'l''l.Am~b.'I'H

0&11,6.b.

O'l"l.M I>C'I'I1'1'11

81 100, 169 100 O&HAI\HK'b 100 O&HA1l'1'11 169 0&11NOKb.'l'l1 100 0&11'1'1ll\1> 100 0&11'l'b.'l'l1 100, 127 O&l\b.,6.b.'l'l1 100 O&l\b.,6.0Kb.'l'l1 101, 360 0&1\b.C'I'b. 0&1\H~b.'I'H

I

0&11.11~11'1'11

O&I\11%NI1te 0&1\11~11'1',1\1>

0&1\'l.rb.NIIte O&NOKMNHte o&orA.'I'H'I'H

I

O'l''l.Am~H'I'H

O'l''l.nfOCI1'1'11

105 170 105

onnO'fC'I'H'I'H

I

105, 176

onn,4JA.'I'H

106, 129,

170' O'l''l.fOK'b

106, 416, 490, 494 170 106

O'l''l.IW.AI1'1'11 O'I'I>IJ,I>

101, 169

107, 443 107 78, 107, 141 nb.KOC'I'I> 107, 225 nMHU,b. 107 nA.NA.rHf" 108, 510 nA.nb. 108,492-494 nb.fHK'b 108 nb.f11%CK'b 108 nMH4J' 108, 170 nM'I'H 108, 512 nM'l"l.lf" I nM'I'O~)C'l. 109, 510 nA.'I'fHA.f.X'l. 250 nb.'l'fHKi' 66, 331-333 nb.)Cb.fNHK'b 109 "'fHKOI\'b 415, 473 "'f"'fb.Kti>. 109, 47 3 n 'f'l.n 'fb.K'l. 109, 414-415 n'f'l.n'f'l. 299 "'"'f'b "'~b.'l"l. 72, 109, 228 109 nHCb.NHte 109-110, 113, 129-130,471 nHCb.'I'H 110, 463, 471 nHCI>IJ,I> 331-332 nH~'fNHK'b nb.,6.MH4J'

101 81 101 101 o&orA.4Jb.'I'H

I

O'l''l.nb.,6.A.'I'H

nb.KOC'I'I1'1'11

I

102 102, 169 0 &fOK'b 102, 122, 169 O&f1lC'1'11 102 O&f1l4Jb.'l'l1 102 O&'z.Afl>lKb.'I'H 102-103 O&'b4JI1Nb. 103 O&'b4JI1NI>CK'bll1 103 O&'b4J I>N HK'b 103 O&'bti>.KMNHte 515 O&'bi'I'MI> 103 O&'bl~b.H 103 O&'bi%N'b 103 0&1l'1'0Kb.NI1' 103 0&1l'l''b 103 0&1l4Jb.NI1te 103 0&1l4Jb.'l'l1 I O&,~b.'I'H 103 orfb.Ab. 311 wrN1lNI> O&fb.:Z,'b

105

105 170 OC'I'f114JI1 105, 170 01W.AI1'1'11 105 Ocm!K,6.b.'l'11 105 OcmJKA'NHte 170 O'l"l.Kf1l4J11 10 5 O'l''l.KO'f n'l. OC'I'b.Ki\teNHte

osorA.'1'1l'I'H

102

578

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX

nAAHHA'I'HKO

nOHOC~

nAAHH Hoi.

non~%HHh1

423 110

nAA'I'H'I'H

I

nNbK'l>

110

nAA4JA'I'H

110, 122

171-172 111, 218 no&Hf~ H~ 477 111, 396 no&Hf'l>~HH 111, 218 nO&'Il,l>.OHOC~H'l> 237 nO&'Il,l>.OHOC~LI,~ 171 no&'ll,l>.A'I'H 111, 486 no&Af~ Ill no&HHO&A'I'H 171 no&HH~H'l> Ill no&~~HHh1 Ill no&~~'I'H 228 no&~tl\ 112 norAHHK'l> 112 norAH~H'l>IH 171 norAH~CK'l> 140 nory~wH'I'H 112 nOAMHHh1 112 nOAMA'I'H 112 nOAAHHh1 112 nOAAfO&AHHh1 112 nOAAfO&AH~H'l> 112 nOAAfO&A'I'H 112 nOAA'I'H 112 nOAAti\'I'H 127 nOAO&H'I'H 127 nOAO&~H'l> 112 nOAfll'j'rA 112 nOAf,111Hh1 112, 447 nOA'l>&OAA 113 nOA'l>nHCA'I'H 68, 171 noHMA'I'H I noHM~'I'H 113 nOKAfti\'I'H 113 nOKAti\H Hh1 113 nOKAti\'I'H 113, 171 nOKO\fCH'I'H noAo~.h 303, 312, 314-315, 317, 319, 320 172 nMOH'l> 114 nM~C'I'H'I'H 114 nOIAA7,AHHh1 114 nOMA7,AH'l> 114 nOMA7,AH~HHK'l> 114 nOMA7,A'I'H 114 noi.I~'I'Hii\'I'H 114 nOIAHM&AHHK'l> 114, 127 nOIAHM&A'I'H 115 noM04J~ 115 nOM04J ~H HK'l> 115 noM~C'I'~H'l>IH

nA~H~HHK'l>

no&'ll,l>.OHOC~H'l>

448

115 115 113 nonHCA'I'H 115, 497 nono&~HHH'l> 115 nono&~C'I'&O 322, 467 nonwof 115, 172, 512 non7> 116, 172 noyo~.&O'I'H'I'H nOfOK'l> 99 nOfO~~H'l> 99 nOf'I'Af~ 514 116, 223 nOfcfHfOfOAH'l>IH 30 nof<J>'rfA noy~&~HO&A'I'H 116 116 nofli\~H'I'H I noyli\~A'I'H 116 noco~.r~>.'I'H 116 noco~.rHii\'I'H 116, 117 nOCH/\Hh1 117 nocH/\H'I'H nOCA~IIIH'I'H 137 117, 172 nOCA )(b 117 nOC/\0 WAHHh1 117 noCA3WA'I'H 117 noel\ W~HHK'l> 117 noco& "'~"~ 117 noc'I'MH'I'H 303, 314-315, 317 noc'I'MMH'i~ 118, 172 nocn 118 noc'I'~HHK'l> 118, 172 nocMA'I'H 105 nOCii\IIIA~HHh1 118 nO'I'&f~H'I'H 118 nO'I'&f~AA'I'H 119 nO'I''l>KA 119 no'l'~n~ro~. I no'l'~n~:t,A 119 noxo'l'~ 119 noxo~'I'H n'I'MOIA~H 242, 244 119, 120 nfMHM 120 nfA&HHA 120 nfMH'I'H nfMO&~fHh1 120 120 nyo~.&o&~f~H'l> 120, 235 nfMOC/\M~H'l> nfA&O)COA~LI,'l> 234 120 nfM7> 104, 120, 173, 195 nfM~AA 120 nyo~.&~~H'l> nyo~.nfli\AA 30 121, 470 nfA)C'I'Of7> 124 nfA4JA'I'H 121 nf~7,&H'I'~f7> 121, 173, 179 nfH&~rA'I'H I nfH&~rHii\'I'H non~4JH

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX nfHR'IU"AI 173, 179 nfHR'biT'l.K'b 121, 173 nfHIUtA&rHa.

121

nfHKO\j'n'b 121 nfHAGlkb.HHif 121,

173 122 nfHAOlKH'I'H 173 nfHA'IInAtt>.'I'H 121 nfHMHKIOf"' 122, 326 nfHM'IIWb.'I'H 173 n f HOR f'IIC'I'H 122 nfHnAa.'l'a. 122,402 nfHC&AH'I'H 122 nfHC&AH~b. 122,435 nfHCNO\j'RAti>.'I'H 174 nfHC'I'b.KI>HHK'b 123 nfHC'I'fOH'I'H 171 nfHCI>HO 123 nfHCI>HORAa.IKGN'b 123 nfHCI>H'b 123 nfH'I''bKHifi'I'H 174 nfH'I''b~b. 174 nfH%'1"1. 123, 512 nfHbi.'I'H 127 nfORil,b.b. nOICAHCb.fl> 448 fl. 282, 487 nfORil,b.'b 448 nfll,b.b.Rb.'I'H 123 "f0Aa.1Kb. 174 "f0Ab.'I'H 123, 174-175 nf~H'I'H 105, 124-125 nf~H'I'H 124-125 nfO'I'&r,A.HK'b 124 nfO'I'HK'bN'b 124 nfO'I'HKI>NHK'b 124 nfO'I'O+fON'bH'b 125, 225 nfO'I'ORHC'I'H~f"' 322-323, 467 nfO'I'OKHC'I'H~f"' nonWOf 322, 467 nfO'I'OK&A'iO'I'HH'b 357 nfO'I'Ona.na.C'b 124, 512 nfOWGNHif 125 nf04JGNHif 125 nf'bKOnf'IIC'I'OA'bH'b 125, 225 nf'bKOC'bK'II'I'HHK'b 248 nf'bK'b 125 nf'brb.fH 128 "f"~" rf¥."~" 125 "f"~" 125 nf'IIKAA,A.'II'I'H 125 nf'IIK'biOOK'b 125, 217-218, 235-136 nf'llrf'IIWI>N'b 56 "f'IIA'IIA'b 85, 126, 359 nf'IIAb.HHif 126 "f'IIAb.'I'&AI> 126 nf'IIAb.'I'H 126 nfHA'IInA~H

579

nf'IIAf~o~Ka.'I'H

62 237 126 nf'IIAIOR'bl 126 nf'IIAIORil,b.'IIH 126 nf'IIKfO'I"bK'b nf'IIAI>C'I'H'I'H

126 126 nf'IIAIORil,b.~'I'H 126 nf'IIUHA~'I'HK'biH 127, 218 nf'IIORAA,A.b.'I'H 127 nf'llnll,b.ORI>NOM"'~&NHK'b 127 nf'llnll,b.ORI>H'b 127 nf'IICAb.KI>H'b 127, 218 nf'IIC'I'..,.nH'I'H 127, 175 nf'IIC'I'"'nAifHHif 175 nf'IIC'I'"'ni>HHK'b 127 nf'IIC'I'"'n~oN'b 127 nf'IIC'I'OA'b 125, 127, 225 nf'II'I'H'I'H 72 nf'II~I>C'I'I>H'biH 153 n rra.,.. 128 n C'I'OWHif 128 n C'l''b 128, 131, 515 n C'l''biHH I n~C'I''biH~ 128, 514-515 n CT'l.IHI>HHK'b 128 n CT'l.IHI>HOlKH'I'&AI> 128 n C'l''biHI>H'b 128 n 4Jb.'I'H I nO\j'C'I'H'I'H 129, 131 n 4J&HH~b. 129 .. 129 50 ""f~ 125, 175, 178-179 n1>Cb.f1> 129-130, 455, 480 ni>Cb.'I'H 109, 113, 129, 463 n~oc'b 129-130, 457, 481 n~>ei>H 130 n~oe~o~K'b 129 nf'IIAIORil,b. 'IIHC'I'KO nf'IIAIORil,b.~HHif

""f"'

130, 175 130-131, 163, 172, 175-176, 421,489 fb.RO'I'b.'I'H 130, 163, 489-490 fb.RO'I'NH K'b 130, 489 fb.RO'I'I>N'b 130 fb.R'b 116, 130, 175, 489 fb.R'biH~ 131 fA,A.H~I> KOnH&KHKI> 318 fb.7,ROH 64, 131 fb.7,ROHHH K'b 131 f.\7,rfb.RAHiHHHi 176 f~f'IIWH'I'H I f~f'IIWb.'I'H 131 f~f'IIW&HHif 131 fb.~H'I'H 48 fb.~~~b.'I'H I fb.~~~H'I'H 131, 176 fb.Rb. fb.RO'I'b.

580

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX CAOKOnOAOIIIH'I'~Ab.

89 89 137, 428 CAOHOKI>ijJHHb. 137, 350 CAO~Pb. 138 CA,IIII>&b.

131 131 176 132 fb.'J'b.HHK'b 176 fb.'J'b.H'b f~A'b 132 fH~b. 153 fH~b.HHU,b. 325, 462 132, 144, 409 fHKOCb. 130 fO&'b 132 fOI"b 176 fOAHK'bWHH 132, 176 fOAH'I'~Ab. 134 fOAH'I'H 132, 154, 176 fOA'b

fMKOA'b

CAOKOC'bnHCb.'I'Mb.

fMn,cn 132, fb.'l'b.

137 CA~III~HH~ 137 IIIH'I'~AI>

CA

CA

234

13 3 81 133 133 116

f'bi'I'Of'b f11.%HHK'b fmPb.'I'H fmr'b fmKb.

Cb.MOKHAb.U,b.

133 133, 356 133 133, 214, 236

Cb.MOAfb.lllb.Kb.H'biH Cb.IAOAfb.IIIHU,b. CM.IOAfb.lllb.U,b.

133 133 133 Cb.H'b 176 CKb.'l'b.&b. 104, 133-134, 176-177 CKO&OAb. 176 CKO&OAb. 177 CKO&OAb.HHK'b 134, 490 CKO&OAb.H'b 134 CKO&OAb.H11. 237 CK11.'l'OH0Cb.H'b 237 CK11.'l'b.A'b 135 C~Kb.C'I'OKfb.'I'OfHU,b. 135, 299 C~Kb.C'I'OKfb.'I'Ofb. 135, 311 C~Kb.C'I"b 135 C~AH4J~ 122, 135-136 CMO 136, 384, 386 C~fAb.fb. 96, 116, 177 CHAb. 136 CHHOf'b 136 CHf'biH 104 CKKb.fH'b 136, 225 CKHn'l'fO 461 CKO'I'b.HHU,b. 137 CAM.\ 127 CAb.Kb.H'b 246 CA.\A 'bK'b 96 CA~AH'I'H CAOKO 74, 137, 149, 177, 228

Cb.IA'b

Cb.IA'b~HH

137

lllb.&i>HHK'b

CAO Wb.'I'H

?6,

fll\j'I.AIAH HOAO&f~b.%H'b

IIIH'I'H

138 117 237 CA11.Hi>U,~ 138 CM Hf~HI>H'biH 415 COKit>. 244 COAOMWH'b 335 C'l'b.KHAI>U,I> 118, 146 C'l'b.KH'I'H 138 C'J'b.AO 138 C'l'b.f'b 138 C'l'b.f11.HWHHb. 138, 153, 515 C'l'b.fb.U,I> 138 C'l'b.CI> 159 C'I'OH'I'H 138, 334-335 C'I'OAHHK'b 127, 138-139, 334 C'I'OA'b 97 C'I'Oit>.'I'H 139, 460 C'l'f.\1111> 139, 177, 195, 359 C'l'fb.Hb. 177 C'l'fb.HI>H'biH 139, 382 C'l'fb.'I'Ofl> 139, 146 C'l'fOH'I'H 139 C'l'fOit>.HH~ C'l'f"AI> 246 139 C'l'f11.4JH C'I'O~A'b 32 73 C'l'mnH'I'H 143 CO\j''I'I>&HHb. 139, 514 CJ(fii.II>HHK'b 139 C'b&AmAH'I'H 140, 249, 257, 510 C'b&Of'b 140, 245 C'b&b.fb.'I'H 177 C'bKf'bC'I'b. 140 C'bKfi>WH'I'~AI> 140, 177-178 C'bK'!IA11.'1'MI> 178 C'bK'!IA 11.'1'MI>C'I'KOKb.'I'H 140, 177 C'bK'!IA 11.'J'H 32 C'bK11.C'I'b. 32 C'bK11.C'I'I>H I> 178 C'bK11.'1'AHK'b 178 C'bK 11.'l''b 140 C'bPf11.Wb.'I'H 140 C'bPf11.W~HH~ 140 C'bPf11. W H'I'H 140-141 C'bAf 1>111.\'I'H 141 C'bAf1>111H'I'MI>

CA

581

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX

65 141 141 C'bU~Wb.'I'H C'bN~M'b 246,251,253,255-256 256 C'bH~U~HHK'b 141 C'bn.l.KOC'I'H'I'H 38 C'bnM.l.'I'H I C'bn.l.C'I'H 141 c'bnymr'b 256 C'bC'I'O/\~H HK'b 156, 160 C'b'I'KOfH'I'H 256 C'b'l'fb.n~7,NHK 178 C'beii\A'b 178 C'b%'1'

Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria

Power Excel and Word

Bulgaria

Test Your Word Power

Word Power Made Easy

Bulgaria

Test Your Word Power

Bulgaria

Caves And Speleology in Bulgaria

Bulgaria (Nations in Transition)

Mediaeval Trade and Finance

Word Power in 15 Minutes a Day

Mediaeval Trade and Finance

Truth and consequence in mediaeval logic

Grandhotel Bulgaria

Being and Knowing (Papers in Mediaeval Studies)

Grandhotel Bulgaria

Religion, politics, and historiography in Bulgaria

Religion, Politics and Historiography in Bulgaria

Grandhotel Bulgaria

Mediaeval Latin and French bestiaries

Mediaeval Thought-Experiments - The Metamethodology of Mediaeval Science

Collins Good Punctuation (Collins Word Power)

The Soul (Mediaeval Philosophical Texts in Translation)

Sojusznicy Luftwaffe Bulgaria

The Secret Power of Speaking God's Word

Orality: The Power of the Spoken Word

2 Corinthians: Power in Weakness (Preaching the Word)

Bulgaria (Eyewitness Travel Guides)

Graceful Reason (Papers in Mediaeval Studies)

Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria

Power Excel and Word

Bulgaria

Test Your Word Power

Word Power Made Easy

Bulgaria

Test Your Word Power

Bulgaria

Caves And Speleology in Bulgaria

Bulgaria (Nations in Transition)

Mediaeval Trade and Finance

Word Power in 15 Minutes a Day

Mediaeval Trade and Finance

Truth and consequence in mediaeval logic

Grandhotel Bulgaria

Being and Knowing (Papers in Mediaeval Studies)

Grandhotel Bulgaria

Religion, politics, and historiography in Bulgaria

Religion, Politics and Historiography in Bulgaria

Grandhotel Bulgaria

Mediaeval Latin and French bestiaries

Mediaeval Thought-Experiments - The Metamethodology of Mediaeval Science

Collins Good Punctuation (Collins Word Power)

The Soul (Mediaeval Philosophical Texts in Translation)

Sojusznicy Luftwaffe Bulgaria

The Secret Power of Speaking God's Word

Orality: The Power of the Spoken Word

2 Corinthians: Power in Weakness (Preaching the Word)

Bulgaria (Eyewitness Travel Guides)

Graceful Reason (Papers in Mediaeval Studies)

Recommend Documents