Biliarsky, I. - Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria, 2011 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), 1959-

Word 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 father-
Alexander Biliarsky
CONTENTS
Foreword ix
Introduction The Bulgarian Legal Vocabulary during the

Middle Ages: Outlining the Problem. Objectives and Tasks
of the Study 1
Abbreviations 15
Chapter One Glossary of Mediaeval Bulgarian Legal

Vocabulary 17
Chapter Two Law, Language, and Identity 183
Chapter Three Legal Vocabulary Related to the Supreme

State Power 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 prob-
ably always been interested in what lies concealed within words, in
the unsuspected depths and secrets hidden even in the most common
word. We can delve into countless layers beneath it and-as in some
romantic picture of archaeology-come upon all sorts of wonders, dis-
cover hidden ancient meanings that we never even imagined had any
connection with the present-day meaning of the word. We suddenly
perceive that those remote meanings are very relevant, that they dis-
close the modern meaning more amply. We rediscover the path of our
ancestors that led to this little word "of ours"
Of course this interest-which some may call "childish" -is only
a remote precondition for undertaking a concrete research. I believe
it obvious that this study actually began with my first doctoral thesis,
which dealt with institutions. I understood even then that, in Bulgaria,
the available sources are of such a kind that we can not study a phe-
nomenon without first dealing with the question of its name. And in
some cases a name is all we have-nothing else. Reflecting on appel-
lations, I came to one other conclusion: in some cases they are a testi-
mony not only to the antiquity of a word and its long historical path,
but also that the society where it was used belonged, in cultural terms,
to a broader civilisation. For, perhaps, the ancestors in question did
not create a given word by themselves, but simply borrowed it, "con-
structed" it (an apt way of referring to the formation of words) on the
basis of a foreign one. In the case of mediaeval Bulgaria, its entire cul-
ture, and especially its law, testifies to its affiliation to the great Eastern
Roman Empire, to the New Rome, Constantinople.
The concrete work on the topic began with an article I prepared as
a fellow at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland; the text was later
published in Birmingham, in the collection Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies. But I began systematically working on my investigations
during 2003-2004, a time I spent as fellow in the New Europe College
in Bucharest, the specific topic of my project being the legal vocabulary
in Bulgarian mediaeval documents. This was an exceptionally fruitful
period for me, and I now take this opportunity to thank the college
for the possibility it provided me then. In 2006 I was summer fellow in
X FOREWORD
the Centre for Byzantine Studies, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.,

working on the same topic; my stay and research there proved deci-
sive 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 dur-
ing 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 investiga-

tions 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 con-
text 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 Chris-
tianity 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 protec-
tion of the community's identity, built upon them. In various epochs,
law has had varying degrees of importance as a component of the nor-
mative system: in some societies customs were predominant; in others,
various religious prescriptions, and morals invariably played an enor-
mous 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 impor-
tant 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 func-
tion 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. Regret-
tably, information about many of the legal institutes or state insti-
tutions 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 institu-
tion 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 cor-
responding institutions in contemporaneous neighbouring countries,
mainly in the Byzantine Empire, but also in Serbia and the two princi-
palities of Walachia and Moldavia, for which there are abundant data.
But before we can pursue such research, we must first fulfil two con-
ditions: 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 institu-
tions 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 "Byz-
antine 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 ideol-
ogy, 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 inher-
ited 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 com-
paratively large amount of legal vocabulary and which are represen-
tative for the official language of the Bulgarian Middle Ages in the
First and Second Empire. Translated works have been left out: this
means that the study excludes texts translated from the Greek, but also
compilations based on Byzantine texts. Regrettably, these translated
works comprise all the extant laws of mediaeval Bulgaria, for written
law after the conversion to Christianity was entirely adopted from the
Byzantine Empire. However, I have made one exception to the rule of
not using translated works here: in a separate glossary I have presented
the vocabulary pertaining to the Law for Judging People (abbreviated
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 deal-
ing with this problem: I. Biliarsky, "Some Observations on the Administrative Ter-
minology of the Second Bulgarian Empire", Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies,
Birmingham, (25) 2001, pp. 69-89.
4 INTRODUCTION
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 inclu-
sion 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 lan-
guage 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 restric-
tion 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 con-
cur that, whatever the explanations, a study based on all mediaeval
Bulgarian texts and which takes into account the manuscript tradition
as well, would be the richest and most comprehensive, and would lead
to the most precise conclusions. But collecting such a large amount of
material cannot be the work of a single scholar-it could be done by a
comparatively large team working over a considerable length of time.
That is why I have taken the liberty of restricting the scope of texts
used for the study. In doing so, my purpose has been to set the start
of a future, more wide-ranging investigation in which other research-
ers from Bulgaria and other countries would take part. I believe that
a comprehensive presentation of the legal language of Orthodox Slavs
5 Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, ed. M. N. Tikhomirov, Moscow, 1961;
Ganev V., ZAKOHZ eoyAHZIH AIOAbMZ, Sofia, 1959.

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 includ-
ing 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 argu-
ment 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 ver-
bal 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 typi-
cal 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: par-
ticularly 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 lan-
guage 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 cat-
egorically 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 every-
day, or at least non-specialised, speech.
This problem becomes quite evident when considering the glos-
sary 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 "techni-
cal" one-connected with the inclusion of translated texts, and espe-
cially of laws. It is related to the situation regarding extant publications
of mediaeval Bulgarian legal texts. Of all of them for which indubitable
or doubtful claims have been made that they were part of the legal sys-
tem of the mediaeval Bulgarian state, the only one that has been truly
critically edited is the Law for Judging People. All the others, including
the Ecloga (the critical edition of which has, to my knowledge, been long
since prepared by Y. Shchapov, but has yet to come out), are used from
old editions, mostly Russian ones of the Nineteenth century, which never
take into consideration the historical development of the text and the dif-
ferences in the copies made, though these differences could be particu-
larly significant for research such as this. These considerations would
imply the need for working with manuscripts, a procedure that would
change the nature of the research process. And here the issue arises as to
how accessible these manuscripts are for a Bulgarian researcher.
2.2
As I already mentioned, we have at our disposal quite a limited num-
ber of mediaeval documents or legal written records that have indubi-
tably been present in the Bulgarian state of those times. Of course, the
exact number would depend on what texts are placed in this category,
but even in the broadest range, they are quite few. Here I shall pres-
ent a brief overview of the texts that have been taken as a basis for the
proposed study and in which the presence of a specific lexeme war-
rants inclusion in the glossary and, thus, in the set of words on which
this study is based.
2.2.1
Inasmuch as all mediaeval Bulgarian legal texts are either translated or
compiled, Bulgarian documents of that age hold a major place in the
study. As I already pointed out, the Law for Judging People is included
here exceptionally, but the material it contains is presented separately
from that drawn from the local Bulgarian written records.
2.2.1.1
When drawing on the documentary heritage of mediaeval Bulgaria for
the study of legal vocabulary, we should first of all answer several ques-
tions: what is to be done with the inauthentic or false documents; with
those not enacted only by a Bulgarian ruler but representing bilateral
agreements or treaties to which that ruler was a party; with the docu-
ments representing acts of Bulgarian mediaeval rulers, but published
or preserved only in a foreign language. The approach in these several
cases cannot be the same, so I shall discuss each of them separately.
As regards the inauthentic or false documents come down to us, it
should be said that the approach to them cannot be the same in all cases.
By definition a document embodies some statement of intention-that
of a state organ or a private individual. The declaration in a false docu-
ment is untrue, in some cases inexistent, but this does not signify that
the document has no value as a source. It lacks value only as regards
the substance of the statement of intention and its capacity to provoke
legal consequences, but not as regards the form of the text or the ele-
ments it contains, etc. Obviously, any fake document prepared in the
respective historical age, in order to have been usable, would have had
to contain all the characteristic features of an authentic document. If
we are interested not in the concrete legal relation but in that type
of relation and in the acts whereby it was realised, a fake document
would serve as a completely valid source of information.
This is the case as regards the so-called Virgino Charter attributed
to tsar Constantine Asen. 6 The document is obviously a replica of the
charter of the Serbian king Stephen Uros II Milutin issued in AD 1300.7
It was specially created to justify and provide some historical grounds
for the Serbian king to issue his own charter seemingly confirming
the rights and goods donated to the St. George Monastery by the
6 On this issue there is no single and common opinion shared by all historians.
Some scholars claim that the charter is authentic. This has no bearing on the present
study, for I have included it in the Glossary in any case; but in order to be honest
to my colleagues, I shall point out some major publications on the issue: Balaschev,
G. "Sashtinski li e khrisovulat na tsar Konstantin Tikh (1257-1277)", Minalo, II,
kn 5-6, 1911, pp. 178-87; Petrov P., "Kam vaprosa za avtentichnostta na Virginskata
gramota i dostovernostta na sadatzhashtite se v neja svedenija", Godishnik na Sofijskija
universitet. Filosofsko-istoricheski fokultet, I, 2, 1958, p. 171ff.; Gorina L., "K voprosu o
podlinnosti Virginskoj gramote", Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie, 1965, 5, p. 171ff.
7 R Grujic, "Tri hilandarske povelje", Zbornik za istoriju juzne Srbija i susednih
oblastima, Skopje, 1936, pp. 5-24.
8 INTRODUCTION
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 impor-
tant of the latter is the letter of despot Jacob Svetoslav to the metro-
politan 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)
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 mon-
astery. 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 regu-
lated. 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.
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 occa-
sions, such as graffiti. Without doubt, inscriptions are one of the rich-
est sources of lexical material for a study such as this one.
2.2.2.1. Inscriptions on stone, on mural paintings, and on fabric
We pointed out that inscriptions do not represent a uniform group,
not only in regard of their formal traits but also of their textual con-
tents. Indubitably, some individual inscriptions are of the nature of
acts and practically represent official texts come down to us in stone
or as mural paintings. The medium in no way changes their charac-
teristics as official acts. We should remember that even the legal texts
of Antiquity are known to us only from inscriptions. Falling in this
category of epigraphic documents would be all orders, agreements,
16 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 26-8; Ivanov, BSM, pp. 594-600; Iv. Dujcev, Rilskata gra-
mota na tsar Ivan Shishman ot 1378 g., Sofia, 1986.
17 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29; Ivanov, BSM, p. 600-1.
18 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 30; Ivanov, BSM, p. 601-2.
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 gen-
erally 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 declara-
tion of the authorised person, whereby the afore-mentioned character-
istics 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 10th-
15th 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 trea-
tise 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
21 J. Jurukova, V1. Penchev, Bulgarski srednovekovni pechati i monet~ Sofia, 1990.

22 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. 109-
49; MMFH, IV, pp. 199-204; Va8ica J., "Anonimni homilie v rukopise Clozovl! po
strance pravne", Slavia, 25, 1956, No 2, pp. 221-33.
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 chap-
ter, there will be a separate chapter presenting general observations
regarding law and the system of normative regulation of society as a
whole and a society's culture. I shall present my views on problems
such as law and identity, law and values, law and language.
The main treatment will be given in several chapters presenting the
legal vocabulary in separate branches of public or canon law. My first
idea was to prepare a research on the entire legal vocabulary of the
Bulgarian Middle Ages. That is how it all began, and the glossaries for
all branches of law are practically ready. In the course of writing, how-
ever, I reached the conclusion that such a presentation would result
in too voluminous a work, and one that would be greatly misbalanced
with regard to the representativeness of the sources, with which I was
working. While the selected texts are highly representative of state
institutions and public legal relations as a whole, this is not true as
regards civil and penal law and procedure. I believe the study of these
latter fields requires enhancing their representation by the inclusion
of more legal texts. I have already explained why I believe this to be
unfeasible at the present stage.
ABBREVIATIONS
BER Bulgarski etimologichen rechnik, t. I-, Sofia, 1971

DRH Documenta Romaniae Historica, ser. A
(Moldova), ser. B (Tara Romaneasca)
Dujcev, SBK, t. I-II Dujcev Iv., Iz starata bulgarska knizhnina,
t. I-II, Sofia, 1943
ESS]a Etimologicheskij slovar' slavjanskikh jazykov.
Praslavjanskij leksicheskij fond, rec. 0. N.
Trubachev, t. I-, Moscow, 1974-
Ivanov, BSM Ivanov J., Bulgarski starini iz Makedonija,
Sofia, 1931
Jurukova-Penchev Jurukova J., Penchev Vl., Bulgarski
srednovekovni pechati i moneti, Sofia, 1990
MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica
MMFH Magnae Moraviae Jontes historici, t. IV, Brno,
1971
P. K. I-II Popkonstantinov K., Kronsteiner 0.,
Cmapo6MzapcKu Haonucu/Albulgarische
Inschriften, vol. I-II (Die slawischen Sprachen,
Bd. 36, 1994; Bd. 52, 1997)
RESEE Revue des etudes sud-est europeennes, Bucharest
SBL, t. III, IV Stara bulgarska literatura, t. 3, Istoricheski
sachinenija, Sofia, 1983; t. IV, Zhitiepisni tvorbi,
Sofia, 1986
S]SS Slovnik jezyka staroslovenskeho, t. I-, Praha
SSK] Slovar slovenskega knjiznega jezika, t. I-V,
Ljubljana, 1970-1991
CHAPTER ONE
GLOSSARY
OF MEDIAEVAL BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY
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 glos-
sary are not only terms in the strict sense of the word, but likewise all
words related in some way to law and to the linguistic expression of
legal acts, institutes, persons, institutions, objects, etc. Included in the
glossary are verbs expressing certain actions of a legal nature as well as
adjectives related to the sphere of law. I am fully aware that coherence
may thus be forfeited, and that the presence of many of the terms and
other words might be questioned, or simply rejected, by some readers.
Nonetheless, I prefer to err on the side of being excessive in expanding
the number and scope than in restricting them.
1.2
What remains is to present the structure of the separate units. At the
beginning, of course, is the word itself: I have written out in full, with-
out the diacritical titles and other abbreviations occurring in the texts.
The words are arranged in alphabetical order. Following the lexical
unit, I have indicated in brackets its morphological characteristic-a
noun, verb, adverb and so on; for nouns the gender is also given, and
the number, where necessary.
Then follows an indication of the places in the glossary's basic
texts where the word may be found-an abbreviation designates the
text (the name under which the document is known and indication
whether it is an inscription, marginal note, or another kind of text),
followed by a number indicating the page or line in the respective edi-
tion I have used.
18 CHAPTER ONE
After these indications, I have attempted to supply a brief clarifica-

tion 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 fol-
lowing this part.
Finally, I offer a historical and juridical interpretation of the respec-
tive 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 nar-
rowly specialised. Together with this, the meaning of the word is clari-
fied 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 pre-
sented 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 Kon-
stantins V., herausg. L. Burgmann (= Forschungen zur byzantinis-
chen 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 iju-
dem. 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 Vladis-
lav, 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, Silis-
trenski 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, Starobul-
garski 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 cen-
tury)
• 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 nad-
pis 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 starob-
ulgarski 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)
P. K., I, p. 55 (X century)
P. K., I, p. 57 (X-begin. XI century)
P. K., I, p. 57 (X-begin. XI century)
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 monu-
ments 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)
(X century)
• N 17-Inscription (4) from Murfatlar (Romania): N 14, P. K., I, p. 81
(X century)
(X century)
(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., Pope-
scu 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)
• N 23-lnscription on a lead plate-amulet from Oreshak (Varna dis-

trict): 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 dis-
trict): 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 Bul-
garija, Sofia, 2001, p. 142, No 183; P. K., I, p. 132 (X c.)
• N 26-lnscription on a lead plate from Pernik: "Epigrafski pamet-
nitsi", 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 nad-
pis ot s. Teke Kozludja", Izvestija na bulgarskata arhealagicheska dru-
zhestva, 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 arkhea-
lagicheskija 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., "Khris-

tijanskie 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 arkheo-
logichesko 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, Istoriko-
filologicheski fakultet, 1935, p. 31 (10), 7; Galabov 1., Nadpisite kam
bojanskite stenopisi, Sofia, 1963; Dobrev lv., "Kam talkuvaneto na kti-
torskija nadpis v Bojanskata tsarkva", Godishnik na Sofijskija univer-
sitet, 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, mono-
grami, 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-
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., "Nja-
kolko 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. Kaluge-
ritsa", 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
istoriko- jilologicheski 33, 1945, pp. 65-85; Mladenov St., "Njakolko
dumi za Krichimskija nadpis", Spisanie na BAN, 70, klon istoriko-
jilologicheski 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", Archaeo-
logia, 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., "Sred-

novekovnite 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 sta-
robulgarski 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): Popkonstan-
tinov 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 (XIII-
XIV 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 (XIV-
XIII 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 srednove-
kovni bulgarski nadpisa",Archaeologia, 1982, 3-4, pp. 55-6; Smjadovski
St., "Epigrafsko-textologichni dobavki varkhu tri starobulgarski nad-

pisa", 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 (Ser-
bia): 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 Kala-
tina", 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: Jurukova-
Penchev,pp. 100-1.
NM 5-Copper coins of the tsar Theodore Svetoslav Terter: Jurukova-
Penchev, 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): Jurukova-
Penchev,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 Cher-
ven (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): Juruk-
ova-Penchev, pp. 166-9.
26 CHAPTER ONE
NM 15-Billon coins of the tsar John Shishman (type I-II): Jurukova-

Penchev, pp. 170-2.
NM 16-Copper coins of the tsar John Shishman (type I-II): Juruk-
ova-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 num-
ber 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, 1988-
MN = Marginal note or colophon (the texts are arranged and num-
bered 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
ARRA (subst. m.)-N 12. II Etym.: From Hebrew through Greek &~~a.
(Vasmer M., Etimilogicheskij slovar' russkogo jazyka, vol. I, Moscow,
1986,p. 58) II Sign.: "Father", "abbot". Abbot (head) of a monastery. The
word could be used as address to God-Father. (Slovar' drevnerusskogo
jazyka (XI-XIV vv., t. I, Moscow, 1988 pp. 71-2; Institufii feudale din
fdrile romane. Dicfionar, Bucure§ti, 1988, p. 1)
MAPATOfb. (subst. m.)-Ril. 54, Vit. 9. II Etym.: Transliteration of

the Greek word &A.aya'tmp. II Sign.: Military institution in the prov-
inces 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)
AHArHoCTrz. (subst. m.)-N 34. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek

word &vayvffi<Tt'll~· II Sign.: "Anagnostes", reader in the Church. An
ecclesiastical degree. (Slovar' drevnerusskogo jazyka, I, p. 85; Tsibran-
ska-Kostova M., Formirane i razvitie na starobulgarskite leksikalni
normi v tsarkovnojuridicheskata knizhnina, Sofia, 2000, p. 74)
AnOAO.XATOf'll.(subst. m.)-Vatop. 10, Virg. 100, Mr. 29, Ril. 55, Vit.
10 II Etym.: Obviously this is a transliteration of the Greek word
&noooxa'tmp but the latter is not found in any original Greek text.
II Sign.: Fiscal institution. The appellation comes from &noo<)xwv
(= "storehouse for grain") and ooxet:ov (= "store"). One can define
the apodochator as a "responsible for the storehouses, where the col-
lected taxes in grain were stored up" (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gra-
mota, pp. 40-1; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Biliarsky, Institutsiite,
pp. 370-2; Bozilov Iv., "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare ot XIII-XIV
v.". Palaeobulgarica, XXX (2006), 2, p. 48)
AnOAO.XHA (subst. f.)-Vatop. 14, II Etym.: Transliteration ofthe Greek

word &noo6xwv. II Sign.: "Storehouse for grain" It is linked to the
fiscal duties in grain and their preservation. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata
gramota, p. 44; Andreev M., "Sur certains traits sptkifiques du sys-
teme fiscal de la Bulgarie medh~vale en conparaison avec le systeme
28 CHAPTER ONE
fiscal byzantin", Etudes balkaniques, 1978, 4, pp. 89-93, p. 90; Bozilov,

"Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 48)
4\nO~fHCHh\f'A (subst. m.)-Vatop. 10 II Etym.: Transliteration of the

Greek word axoKptcruipwc;. II Sign.: Employee in the communication
service; "envoy". (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 38-9; Biliarsky,
Institutsiite, pp. 389-91; Institutii Jeudale, pp. 448-9)
4\fH~o (subst. neutr.)-Vatop. 20.11 Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek

word aeptK6v.ll Sign.: A fiscal duty. There is no unanimity among the
scholars concerning its character: Fr. Dolger and the Bulgarian schol-
ars define it as a fine, penalty; J. Tornarites and J. Haldon-as taxation
in money; in the most recent study ofN. Oikonomides it is classified as
a supplementary taxation on the cattle. I agree with the latter. (Dolger
Fr., "Das aeptK6v", Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXX (1929-1930), pp.
450-7; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 46-48; Tornarites J. Ch.,
"To a'tvty).UX toU ~t>~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 etimo-
logichen 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", "prel-
ate", 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 <lPXtJ.LavopiTrJc;. From
J.L<ivopa ="/sheep/pen, fold", "dairy", "byre, stable" (BER, I, p. 17; Vas-
mer, I, p. 91) II Sign.: Ecclesiastical degree and service. Usually this is
the degree of the abbot of a monastery.
Af,XHCTfATHr'll. (subst. m.)-N 22; MN 44 (1) his, 48 (4) his, 51 (1), 54.
II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word apxtcr'tpany6c;. (Vasmer,
I, p. 91) II Sign.: "archstrategus", head commander. In that case this is
the Archangel Michael.
&ArAHH'll./&oroiH'll. (subst. m.)-N 42. II Etym.: An honorary title of

Bulgar (Turkic) origin. It exists in other Turkic languages as "baya"
K. Menges links it to the Mongol title of "bajan" and according to
him ~ayaivo" should be read as "bagajnos" W. Tomaschek links it to
the Turkic "bagh", from which derives the Ottoman-Turkish "beg". In
any case it is clear that the term is the appellation of the second rang
of the Bulgar nobility after the boilas. It is part of the appellation of
many titles of the Bulgar aristocracy during the First Bulgarian Empire
(Thomsen V., Inscriptions de l'Orkhon, Helsinki, 1896, p. 131, 15;
Thomsen V., "Alttiirkische Inschriften aus der Mongolei", Zeitschrift
des deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, 78 N.F. 3, 1924, p. 163;
Ramstedt G., "Zwei uigurische Runeninschriften in der Nord-Mon-
golei", Journal de Ia Societe Finno-Ougrienne, 30, 1913, H. 3, pp. 3-9;
Malov S. E., Pamjatniki drevnetjurkskoj pismenosti. Teksty i issledo-
vanija, Moscow, 1951, pp. 61.6, 65.7; Ajdarov G., ]azyk Orkhonskikh
pamjatnikov drevnetjurkskoj pismenosti VIII veka, Alma Ata, 1971,
pp. 326.6, 354.3, 356; Tomaschek W., in Archaologisch-epigraphische
Mitteilungen aus 6sterreich-Ungarn, Wien, 17, 1894, p. 208; Marquart
J., Die Chronologie der altturkischen Inschriften, Leipzig, 1893, p. 40,
note 1; Menges, K. H. "Altaic Elements in the Proto-Bulgarian Inscrip-
tions", Byzantion, 21, 1951, p. 95).11 Sign.: "Bagain", the second class
of the Bulgar tribal nobility. In the case of N 42 we found it as ocrryo
&oroiH but I cannot settle if this is a composite title or a rest of the
30 CHAPTER ONE
name of the person. (Besevliev V., Parvobulgarski nadpisi, Sofia, 1992,

pp. 66-67; Istorija na Bulgarija, t. II, Sofia, 1981, pp. 170-2).
&4\')'~HHU.b. (subst. f.)-Syn. Dr .93, Syn. Pal.110 II Etym.: From &4\P'll.f'll. =

"red colour", "purple" According to an older view, this word is
derived from the Indo-European word "*bhogh-ro-" the initial mean-
ing of which was "to dip", "to wet"; this meaning has been preserved
in certain Bulgarian dialects. It is similar to the Dutch word "bagger"=
"sludge", "mud". A modern Bulgarian verb which developed from this
word is "BancBaM" (= to paint, to dye), akin to the Greek ~a1ttil;m,
which initially meant "to dip", "to wet", and later acquired the mean-
ing of "baptise" The immersion and wetting are certainly related to
"painting", "dyeing". Max Vasmer sees its meaning as connected with
the purple shellfish from which that colour was obtained. According
to another scholar the word is of Turkic Bulgar origin, and is similar
to the word "6aKbp" (=copper). It comes from &4\Pf'll.-nor<J>'I'fb.-
nrb.nfli'\Ab., and basically designates the respective colour; &4\')'~HHU.b.
is a derived word, coined in a Slavic environment. The meaning rele-
vant to our discussion is that of the colour purple, which suggests that
the term itself was built on the basis of its Greek original. (BER, I, pp.
24-5; Vasmer, I, p. 103; Kirilo-Metodievska entsiklopedija, t. III, Sofia,
2003, p. 248) II Sign.: "Porphyra", Gr. 1tOpql'6pa. A special emperor's
and royal garment. The word is cited in the Codex Suprasliensis and
in the patriarch Euthymius' panegyric to Saints Constantine and Hel-
ena (Kaluzniacki E., Werke des Patriarchen von Bulgarien Euthymius
(1375-1393), Wien, 1901, p. 121) as well as in the Chronicle of Con-
stantine Mannasses (several times).
&4\')'~HOfOAb.H'll./G.b.rfOfOAb.H'll.IH (adj.)-N 67; MN 57. II Etym.: A loan

translation of the Greek word 1topqropoyevvrtto<;. See &4\')'~HHL.J.b..
II Sign.: "Porphyrogennetos", "born in purple", appellation of that
emperor's descendants who are born after his accession to power. A
type of legitimating of the imperial and royal succession. (Dagron G.,
«Ne dans la pourpre», Travaux et memoires du Centre de recherches
d'histoire et civilisation de Byzance, 12, 1994, pp. 105-42; Andreev J.,
"Titulat 'bagrenorodni' na bulgarskite prestolonaslednitsi pri Vtorata
bulgarska darzhava", VTU 'Xiril i Metodij", Slavistichni prouchvanija
v chest na VII mezhdunaroden slavistichen kongres, Sofia, 1973, pp.
305-12).
GLOSSARY 31
&~H'b (subst. m.)-MAD 104 II Etym.: The origins of the word are
linked to the Steppe peoples. A possible connection could be estab-
lished to the Bulgar word ~oeavoc; ="lord" that is cited by Constantine
Prophyrogennetus. In Mongol "bajan" = "rich", "wealthy", "strong,
powerful". (BER, I, p. 30; Bezlaj F., Etimoloski slovar slovenskega jezika,
Ljubljana, 1976, t. I, p. 11; von Miklosich Fr., Die tUrkische Elemente
in der sudost- und osteuropaischen Sprachen, t. I, Wien, 1884, p. 11)
II Sign.: An institution, which was well spread in Central and Eastern
Europe and in the Balkans. A high official in the local administration.
It was a part of the administrative system of the First Bulgarian Empire
but not at all in that of the Second Bulgarian Empire. (Institufii feudale,
pp. 34-5, 39; Biliarsky Iv., «Les institutions de Ia Bulgarie medievale:
y avait-il des bans en Bulgarie d'avant Ia conqu~te turcque? », Bulgar-
ian Historical Review, 1992, 1-2, p. 89ff.; Popovic R., "Povelja bana
Tvrtka I Kotromanovica Dubrovniku o slobodanu od carini", Stari
srpski arhiv, 5 (2006), p. 153).
&Mf.IHH~ (subst. f.)-N 76.11 Etym.: From "6am;a" (="father in Modern

Bulgarian; from Palaeoslavic "*bat-(i)-ja" = "father"). The word signi-
fies "patrimony" and could be created by loan translation on the basis
of the Latin word "patrimonium" (BER, I, p. 37) II Sign.: "Property",
"inherited property", "patrimony", corresponding to the Russian word
"BoTtiHHa" It appears more commonly in Serbian than in Bulgarian
sources. There is also a Greek transliteration: ~arrttva. (Institufii feu-
dale, p. 38, 336).
&e~~~OHb.HH~'b (subst. m.)-K 4:14-16 II Etym.: See ~~~OH'b to which

the negative particle &e~- is added. The word derives from the adj.
"&e~~~OHb.H'b" II Sign.: "Who has no law", "who does not respect the
law"
&e~~~~OHb.H'b (adj.)-MN 71 (3); K 22:4-6, 67:21-2311 Etym.: "~~~OH'b"

to which the negative particle &e~- is added. II Sign.: "Who has no law",
"who does not respect the law", "Lawless"
&e~&omb.H'b (adj.)-MN 49 (1), 71 (3); K 8:21-23,9:2-311 Etym.: From

&or'b (="God") with the negative particle &e~-.11 Sign.: "Atheist", "who
has no god" The juridical signification of the word is linked to the
state repression against the heretics and not-Christians.
32 CHAPTER ONE
&~rp-tw~:>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<;. II Sign.: "Sinless" The juridical signification of the
word could be linked to the problem of the responsibility, repentance
and penitence in the Canon law.
&ec'll.R'tC'J'I:.H'll.(adj.)-K 74:1-311 Etym.: From C'll.R'tC'J'I:. (="conscience")

> C'll.R'tC'J'I:.HI:. with the negative particle &e~-. II Sign.: "Unscrupulous",
Gr. acruv9£to<;. The juridical signification could be linked to the prob-
lem of responsibility.
&ecTO~AI:.H'll. (adj.)-K 13:21-22, 24:19-21, 35:14-17 II Etym.: From

C'J'O~A'll. = aiox6vn, "shame" The original meaning is "cold/ness/"
and from it-"shame" Probably the word is a loan translation of the
Greek word avaicrxuvto<;. (Vasmer, III, pp. 786-7) II Sign.: "Shame-
less" Could be linked to the problem of responsibility.
&ecTO~AMTRO (subst. neutr.)-K 64:25-27, 79:18-21 II Etym.: See

II
&ecTo~ AI:.H'll.. Sign.: "Shamelessness", Gr. aicrxp6trt<;.
(adj.)-MN 21 (7). II Etym.: Prefix/particle &e~- added to

&ec"'I:.C'J'I:.H'll.IH
the word (="honour"). It is linked to the Palaeoslavic "*cbstb" <
'II:.CTI:.
'II:.Tii'\, 'IHC'I'H kindred to the Sanskrit "dttis", Avestan "cisti-" ("think-
ing", "knowledge", "understanding") and Sanskrit "cetati" ("respect",
"think"). Probably the word is a loan translation of the Greek word
&tt)lO<;. (Vasmer, IV, p. 350) II Sign.: "Dishonourable"
&e4-JHH~/&e4-JHHO'r (adverb.)-K 56:10-12, 56:12-15, 56:18-20 II Etym.:

From the word <IHH'll. with the particle &e~-· II Sign.: In the combination
&e4-JHH~/&e4-JHHO'r ,XOAHTH = "outrageously", "behave outrageously",
"scandalously", Gr. ataKtm<;. (Davidov A., Rechnik-indeks na prezviter
Kozma, Sofia, 1976, p. 29).
&e4-JHHI:.HHLI,4\ (subst. f.)-AH 201.11 Etym.: From 'IHHHTH ="arrange",

"put in order", "do", related to the meaning 'IHH'b = "order", "har-
mony", "rang", Gr. ta~t<; (Vasmer, IV, 362-363). II Sign.: "Outrage",
"something outrageous", in the cited case it means "transgression of
some moral and religious norms. K. Maksimovich defines the word as
of Moravian origin. It is to be stressed that it can be discovered in Bul-
garian texts too. (MMFH, 181; Vasica J., "Origine cyrillo-methodienne
GLOSSARY 33
du plus ancien code slave dit «Zakon sudnyj ljudem))", Byzantino-

slavica, 12, 1951, p. 169; ProMzka VI., "Le Zakon sudnyj ljudem et Ia
Grande Moravie", Byzantinoslavica, 28, 1967, p. 362; Cibranska M., Le
ZAKOH'll. ~ AH'll.IH AlilAb.U'll. du point de vue de Ia lexicographie histo-
rique)), Etudes balkaniques, 3-4, 1998, pp. 200-1; Maksimovich K. A.,
Zakon' soudnyi ljud'm'. Istochnikovedenie i lingvisticheskie aspekty
juridicheskogo pamjatnika I= Maksimovich, ZSL /, Moscow, 2004,
p. 89).
&eij.lb.C'I'RORATH (verb)-K 17:12-14 II Etym.: See &eij.lb.C'I'Hie. II Sign.:

"To dishonour", "to desecrate", "to abuse" Could be related to the
penal law. (Davidov, p. 29).
&eqJHHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 73:13-16,74:11-12.11 Etym.: From 'IHTHTH

="arrange", "put in order", "do", related to the signification of 'IHH"b =
"order", "harmony", "rang", Gr. t&~tc;. (Vasmer, IV, 362-363)11 Sign.:
"Dishonour", "outrage", "sacrilege", Gr. O.ta~{a, &a£~em. (Davidov, p.
29; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 53-4).
&Hf'll.K'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 44 II Etym.: This term and its variants can
be found in almost all Slavic languages. It is adopted from the Tur-
kic languages (BER, I, p. 49) and has its meaning of "tax" The word
does not derive from the verb &fb.TH (="to take", "to give/bear fruits",
"pregnant") but from the Turkic root of "biiri, baru" = "gift, offer-
ing, present" and then "tax" It is to stress also the relation with the
Turkic-Tartar word "bojorowcy" = "ruler, sovereign" and the Turkic
one "bujurudzu" ="boss, chief, person in charge" (Vasmer, I, p. 167).
It is possible it to be a part of the Bulgar heritage in the Bulgarian
and other Slavic languages. II Sign.: "Tax". (Institufiifeudale, pp. 42-4,
44-5).
&Ab.ro (subst. neutr.)-AH 203; K 38:3-5, 75:8-11, 22:15-17 II Etym.:

From the Palaeoslavic "*bolg"b", probably related to the Lettish
"balgans" ("bright", "luminous", "white"), Sanskrit "bMrgah" ("bril-
liance, lustre"), Greek <p'Al:yro ("to burn"), Latin "fulgor"("lightning")
and "flagro" ("to burn", "to flame", "to glow"). The original meaning is
linked to the light and brightness and then to the meaning of "good"
(BER, I, pp. 52-3; Vasmer, I, p. 171) II Sign.: "Good", "welfare", Gr.
aya96v. (Davidov, pp. 29-30).
34 CHAPTER ONE
GA4\POR<tHb.'I4\H"AIH (adj.)-Mr. 49 II Etym.: Loan translation of the

Greek word of eucrte<paVO<; I eUO"'te<pavouv. II Sign.: Epithet for the
ruler. (Biliarsky Iv., "Dva narclchnika za pittakia ot Kclsnoto Sred-
novekovie", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog institute u Beogradu, t.
XXIX-XXX (1991), p. 262).
&1\4\POR'tfb.H'b (adj.)-MAD 4; Virg. 4, Mr. 51, Ril. 112, Vit. 23; N 47,
60, 68, 69, 70, 8~; MN 15, 53, 54 his, 56 (1) his, 57, 58 (2), 59 tris, 80
tris, 89,95 (2), 98.11 Etym.: The word is created as a loan translation of
the Greek epithet for the ruler euxtcrt6<;. II Sign.: Epithet for the ruler,
corresponding of the Greek xtcr't6<;, see also Latin "fidelis". In the early
texts it corresponds to eucre~it<; as well. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p.
63; Biliarsky, "Dva narclchnika za pittakia", p. 262).
(subst. f.)-K 14:7-8, 11:9-11, 12:19-20, 36:21-22, 71:1411

&1\4\POAI\Tb.
Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek word (eil)xapi<;.ll Sign.: "Grace"
(Davidov, p. 30).
&1\4\POA<th\HHie (subst. neutr.)-K 29:14-17, 47:8-9 II En1M.: Loan

translation of the Greek word euepyeTrJ).UX (or in relation to the verb
aya9oepyecria). II Sign.: "Benefaction" (Davidov, p. 30).
(subst. cp)-MN 42 II Etym.: From "som!" ("will").

&1\4\POH~RO.I\eHHe
Loan translation of the Greek word euooKia = "good will" II Sign.:
"Good will", "favorable decision"
&1\4\roc.l\oRHTH(verb)-N 39; MN 17, 20 (1), 21 (6), 43, 54, 74; K 9:8-9

(GA4\roc.l\o&ecTRHTH), 44:19-21, 60:8-11 (GA4\POC.I\ORHCTHTH) II Etym.:
Loan translation of Greek verb euA.oyet:v. All three verbs cited above
have the same meaning. II Sign.: "To bless" The word could have
juridical meaning related to the canon law. (Davidov, p. 30).
GA4\roc.I\OR.I\IeHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 36:6-711 Etym.: Loan translation of

the Greek word eilA.oyia. II Sign.: "Blessing", Gr. euA.oyia, Lat. "bene-
dictio". (Davidov, p. 31)
&1\4\POTROfHTH (verb)-K 36:16-18 II Etym.: Loan translation of the

Greek word aya9oxot€tv. II Sign.: "Confer benefit", Lat. "benefacio/
benefacere/".
GLOSSARY 35
&AAPO'II:.C'I'HR'l>/&AAPO'II:.C'I'HRb.H'l> (adj.)-Zogr. 5, 19, 44, 70, 73; Mr. 1,

49, Ril. 1, 7-8; N 47, 49, 74; MN 45 (4), 77 (for a despot). II Etym.:
Loan translation of the Greek word eucre~f!<;. II Sign.: Epithet for, and
part of the address to different dignitaries.
&AAPO'Ib.C'I'Hie (subst. neutr.)-MN 45 (4); K 37:7-9 II Etym.: Loan

translation of the Greek word eucre~eia. II Sign.: "piety", "devotion"
The word can have some juridical meaning in canon law.
&AklCTH (verb)-Virg. 102 bis, K 2.21-22, 4:1-3, 14:12-15, 15:25,

22:4-6,27:16,29:17,30:7-9,32:5-6,40:16-17,41:5-6,42:1-3,50:14-17,
57:21-22, 65:9, 75:22-2411 Etym.: The origin of the word is related to
"be awake", "wake", "brisk, alert" and from there somes the meaning
of"to guard, protect, safeguard". (Vasmer, I, p. 178) II Sign.: "Guard",
"safeguard", Gr. 1tapa'tnpe'iv, <pUAacrcretv. It is to stress the citation of
HH PfAA'l> GAklC'I'H, HH TeMHHLI,'t &AklC'I'H in the Virg. In that case the
juridical signification of the word is related to the corvee to guard a
city or a jail. (Davidov, pp. 32-3).
GM.Ab. (subst. f.)-Syn. Dr.33; K 2:4-7, 2:14-16, 22:11-12, 32:14-15,

33:13-14, 42:4-7, 74:13-14, 74:16-17 II Etym.: From Indo-European
*bhlendhn = "sleepiness", "laziness" and from it derives the meaning
of "wander", "roam", "rove" and "to be ashamed"; in the Germanic
languages this arrives to the meaning ''blind", ''become blind" (BER,
I, p. 57; SDR]a, I, pp. 234-5; Vasmer, I, p. 180). II Sign.: "Lie", "fab-
rication", "myth", "lie", "delusion", "heresy", "lewdness", "lechery",
"debauchery". Gr. 7tAacrJ..La. The term is related to the canon and penal
law concerning the heretics and the transgressor of the norms of the
sexual behaviour. (Davidov, p. 33, SDR]a, I, pp. 244-5, Popruzhenko
M. G., Sinodik tsarja Borila, (= Bulgarski starini, VIII), Sofia, 1928, p.
CXXXIV).
&AACTH (verb)-Syn. Pal.lll; K 2:4-5, 5:25-26, 17:19-21, 22:8-10,

63:14-1611 Etym.: See GM.,t\b..11 Sign.: "To lie", "to indulge in debauch-
ery", "fornicate". See GM.Ab. (Davidov, p. 33).
IWI'\,t\H'I'H (verb)-AH 201; K 60:7-8. 60:20-21 II

Etym.: See GM.,t\b..
(BER, I, p. 57, SDR]a, I, pp. 234-5; Vasmer, I, p. 180) II Sign.: "For-
nicate", "to indulge in debauchery" The juridical signification of the
word is related to the canon and penal law. (Davidov, p. 33).
36 CHAPTER ONE
~'ll. (subst. m.)-K 60:14-16, 67:19-21, 73:18-19 II Etym.: See

GM.Ab.. IISign.: "Fornication", "debauchery", Gr. 1tOVllpia. The term
has its juridical signification in the domain of canon (penitence) and
penal law.
~b.HHK'll. (subst. m.)-K 4:14-16, 24:1,60:4-7,65:1-311 Etym.: See

GM.Ab.. II.
S1gn.: "D ebauc hee ", "lecher ", "l'b
1 er t'me ", "c1ormca
. t or ", G r.
1t6pvo~. The term has its juridical signification in the domain of canon
(penitence) and penal law.
IWiVKAeHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 14:1-4, 27:22-23, 28:8-10, 60:13-14,

61:1-2,64:25-2711 Etym.: See GAAAb.·ll Sign.: "Fornication", "debauch-
ery", Gr.1topveia. The term has its juridical signification in the domain
of canon (penitence) and penal law.
&or~THTH CA (verb)-K 47:8-9 II Etym.: See &or~T'll.. II Sign.: "To

enrich", "to get richer" Could be related to the civil law.
&or~TH'IH4-Jb. (subst. m.)-K 31:24-25 II Etym.: See "sor~rr'll." II Sign.:

"A young rich man", "son of a rich man". See sor~T'll..
&or~T'll. (adj.)-MN 25 (3), 71 (1); K 29:14-16, 45:5-7, 48:10-11,

48:13-15,53:7-9,54:6-8,67:26,69:12-15,69:15-16,69:16-18,70:8-10,
70:11, 70:18-19, 72:3-5 II Etym.: Some scholars proposed an etymol-
ogy related to the Palaeoslavic word "*bog~>" = "property", "estate",
"richness", "wealth"; other scholars proposed a relation to the word
&or'll. = "God", "divinity" (with the original Indo-European meaning
of "lord", "who has portion", "who gives or distributes /food/"); so
we arrive to the meaning of "who has god in himself", "protected by
god". (BER, I, pp. 60-1; Vasmer, I, pp. 181-3) II Sign.: "Wealthy", "rich
man" (substantive), Gr. 1tAoumo~. In the Middle Ages wealth was a
category related to property and economic activity, but also to eth-
ics, and may have had different value connotations. I should specially
indicate the etymology of this word, as proposed by the Byzantine
author Kekaumenos, who defined the rich person as "similar to God"
(Kekavmen, Sovety i rasskazy. Pouchenie vizantijskogo polkovodtsa XI
veka, ed. G. G. Litavrin, St Petersburg, 2003, p. 136 and 137 note 19;
Dujcev Iv., "Njakolko belezhki k<lm Kekavmen", in: idem, Prouch-
vanija varkhu srednovekovnata bulgarska istorija i kultura, Sofia, 1981,
pp. 197-8).
GLOSSARY 37
&orATb.C'J'Ro (subst. neutr.)-K 2:18-20, 18:4-5, 29:14-17, 31:24-25,

35:19, 47:6-8, 47:11-12, 54:18-20,65:1-3,69:8-911 Etym.: See &oPATrz..
II Sign.: "Richness", "wealtiness", Lat. "patrimonium", Gr. 1tAoU'to~.
&orA~TH (verb)-K 50:11-12 II Etym.: See &oPATrz.. II Sign.: "Become
rich, wealthy"
&oro&o~~Hb.Hrz. (adj.)-MN 57. II Etym.: From ~orrz. (= "God") and

&O~TH (= "to fear", "be afraid of"). (BER, I, p. 71; Vasmer, I, p. 203,
204) Loan translation of the Greek word 9eo<p6~o~. II Sign.: "God-
fearing", "God-abiding" The word is one of the epithets for the ruler
that stresses the divine origin of the power.
&oroR-tHb.'IAHb.H'll.IH (adj.)-MN 56 (1) bis. II Etym.: From ~orrz.

(="God") and R-tHb.'IATH (="to crown"). Loan translation of the Greek
word 9e6cr't£1t'tO~. II Sign.: "Crowned by God" This is an epithet for the
ruler that has direct relation to the divine origin of the power.
&OPOMH'll. (adj.)-K 63:14-16 II Etym.: Composite word, created by

&orrz. (= "God") and MTH (= "give"). The word is loan translation of
the Greek "9e60o'to~" II Sign.: "Given by God" In the concrete cita-
tion the word is related to the Mosaic law.
&OPOAiil&HRrz. (adj.)-Zogr. 5 II Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek

word 9e6<pt.A.o~. II Sign.: "Who loves God" Usually this is an epithet
linked to the divine character of the power. In the concrete citation it
is an epithet for a high dignitary. (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i
razvitie, p. 92).
&oroHA'Ifb.TAHrz. (adj.)-Mr. 12 II Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek

word 9eox6:paK'to~. II Sign.: "Designed by God". An epithet, related to
the divine character of the power.
&oroHOCb.Hrz. (adj.)-Vit. 19; MN 69. II Etym.: Loan translation of the

Greek word 9eO<p6po~. II Sign.: "Who brings God", an epithet usually
used for the bishops, who participated in the First Ecumenical Council
in Nicaea.
(adj.)-Zogr. 7311 Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek

&oroHAre'leHb.Hrz.
word 9eo1tpOptcr)leVo~. II Sign.: "Termed by God", "foretold by God",
"dedicated to God". Epithet for the ruler.
38 CHAPTER ONE
&oroc"AnMI:.H'A (adj.)-N 70 (Tclrnovo); MN 52 (Tclrnovo), 57 (Tclrnovo),

65 (Serres), 77 (Lovech).ll Etym.: From ~or"A (="God") and c"AnM'l'HI
c"An~c~'l'H (="to save"), loan translation of the Greek word 9eocr{OO"'t6c;.
II Sign.: "Saved by God", "protected by God" This is an epithet for
Constantinople and then for Tclrnovo and other capital cities. It had
an exceptional importance for the ideology of state and power, related
to the idea of its divine protection.
&oroo~POAI:.HO (adverb.)-Mr. 1 II Etym.: Loan translation of the

GreeK word eeo&pemoc;. II Sign.: "Pleasant I convenient to God" In
the concrete citation it concerns the act of donation in favour of the
monasteries.
&OA'tfHH'A (subst. m.)-Mr. 26, 27; Ril. 58; N 73; MN 45 (4), 76 (3);
K 35:12-13, 35: 14-17 II Etym.: A word of Bulgar (Turkic) origin:
from "boilar", which is plural form of "boila" (= a person of the upper
class of Bulgar nobility). (BER, I, p. 66; Vasmer, I, pp. 203-4).11 Sign.:
"Boyar", "representative of the high aristocracy" During the Second
Bulgarian Empire this term was a general appellation for dignitaries
and nobles, and did not refer to a specific institution. It had an identi-
cal meaning in Serbia, Lithuania, Walachia, and Moldavia. In Russia
the boyars were mostly members of the old hereditary aristocracy, in
contrast with the new "p;BopHHe" (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 119; Institutii
feu dale, pp. 52-4, 499; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare",
p. 48).
&OA<tf~ (subst. f.)-N 56.11 Etym.: See &oA<tfHH"A.II Sign.: "The wife of
a boyar", "a woman-boyar" (Institutii feudale, pp. 52-4).
Gf~K'A (subst. m.)-K 60:4-7, 60:11-13, 60:13-14 II Etym.: From

Palaeoslavic "*brok'b" from the verb Gf~'l'H with original meaning of
"to tage", "to snatch". (BER, I, p. 73; Vasmer, I, p. 206) II Sign.: "Mat-
rimony", "marriage", "nuptials"
Gf~HH'l'H (verb)-K 31:17-1811 Etym.: See Gf~H~:..II Sign.: "forbid I pro-

hibit", "put obstacles", "put interdict", Gr. KroA:6ro.
&f~HI:. (subst. f.)-N 45, 73; MN 45 (4).11 Etym.: From the Indo-Euro-
pean *bhor-ni-s = "quarrel", "encounter", related to the "6opH ce" =
GLOSSARY 39
"to fight" (BER, I, p. 73; SDR]a, I, pp. 304-5; Vasmer, I, p. 207) II

Sign.: "Battle", "encounter", "war"
&f4\0U.Hb. (adj.)-K 63:18-19 II Etym.: See &f4\~'ll.. II Sign.: "Matrimo-

nial", something related to the matrimonial links.
&fOAb.HHH4\ (subst. f.)-Virg. 29-30 II Etym.: From &fOA'll. ="ford (of a

river)" with suffix -HHH4\. Related also to the verb &fOAHTH = "to rove
I roam I wander" (BER, I, p. 80; Vasmer, I, p. 216) II Sign.: A fee to
cross a river by a ford, Gr. xoptK6v The term could be a translation
of oux~&-rov. In the Romanian principalities it is cited as "brudina"
(Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, pp. 63-4; Institutii Jeudale, p. 60).
&~AI\ (subst. f.)-N 45; K 5:16-18, 46:8-10, 48:5-6, 50:3-4, 52:5-6 II

Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic "*beda" < Indo-European "*bhoidh-"
Related to the Lithuanian "beda" and Lettish "bcrda" ="anxiety", "trou-
ble", "pain", Gotth. "bajdjan" and old German "beitten" = "to force I
to impose"; Old Albanian "*bhoidha" = "curse I malediction", Lettish
"fides" = "faith I believe" and Gr. xei9ro = "to convince I to persuade"
(BER, I, p. 39; Vasmer, I, p. 142) II Sign.: "Misfortune", "calamity",
"pain", "cause", "necessity" The term is related to the Serbian &~A&4\
with signification of a supplementary obligatory work. (Mihaljcic R.,
Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama (pravni propisi, prevodi, uvodni
tekstovi i obja5njenja), (= Izvori srpskog prava, XIII), Belgrade, 2006,
p. 184)
&~AHTH (verb)-K 24:17-1911 Etym.: See &'kA4\.11 Sign.: "To force I to

impose", "to oblige somebody to do something"; "persuade"
&~Ab.H'll. (adj.)-K 70:21-22 II Etym.: See &'kA4\. II Sign.: "Poor I

deprived", "hard I difficult"
&'tAb.U.b.(subst. m.)-K 53:1-2 II Etym.: From &'tl\b.IH = "white",

opposed to 'lefHb.L.J.b., 'lefHOfH~b.U.b. (from "black") = "monk" (Slovar'
drevnerusskogo jazyka, Moscow, 1988, T. I, p. 364) II Sign.: "Layman"
or "priest (but not monk)"
R4\f4\fb. (sub st. m.)-Vit. 11 II Etym.: From the morpheme "var-" and
the suffix "-ar". Related to the remote Iranian roots (meaning "to
40 CHAPTER ONE
guard") of the Hungarian word "varas" = "city", "citadel". Related to

the verb "R~fHTH" with the meaning of "outrun", "anticipate", "wait",
"guard", "safeguard" II Sign.: The term means "guardian I sentinel"
Institution linked to the military and police functions. (Biliarsky Iv.,
«Trois institutions meconnues de Ia Bulgarie medievale: sapHMqiM,
sapapb, rrosapb», Ricerche slavistiche, XLI, 1994, pp. 100-2; Biliarsky,
Institutsiite, pp. 321-3; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp.
62-4).
R~fi:.HH"'HH (subst. m.)-Ril. 57. II Etym.: From the morpheme "var"

with the meaning of "to boil", "seethe up", "hot" through the word
"eapHut{a" (="lime-kiln") and with the Turkic suffix -"'HH for the mas-
culine nomina agentis. II Sign.: "Employee responsible for the lime (pit,
kiln)". Probably this was an employee of the military or/and fiscal staff,
charged with the organisation of some corvees connected to the build-
ing needs of the army. (Biliarsky, "Trois institutions meconnues", pp.
98-100; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 383-4).
R~f'l>R~prz.. (subst. m.)-MN 49 (1); K 6:16-1711 Etym.: Transliteration

of the Greek word ~ap~apo<; with signification of"foreigner" and then
od "barbarian" (BER, I, p. 119; Vasmer, I, p. 274) II Sign.: "Pagan",
"Barbarian". Related to the status of the person.
R~T~;x:rz.. (subst. m.)-Virg. 1511 Etym.: The word has its Turkic origins
and come from the peoples of the Eurasian steppe. In the (Old) Rus-
sian speech "eamaza" = "tent", "home", "family", "clan" From this
derives the meaning "head of the clan or of some group in general",
"leader, commander". (Miklosich, Turkischen Elemente, II, p. 185; Vas-
mer, I, p. 278) II Sign.: Military institution, a commander with military
or police functions. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 120; Institutii feudale, pp.
495-6; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 333-5).
Rei~I:.HH~CI:. (subst. m.)-MAD 4, 64, 71, 87 II Etym.: See ReLJe. II Sign.:

"Member of the ReLJe I of the Assembly/" This is not a Bulgarian insti-
tution and the word is not a part of the Bulgarian nomenclature.
RM.H"'I:.CTRO (subst. neutr.)-MAD 40, K 69:8-9 II Etym.: From Palaeo-

slavic Re.I\H~Crz.. = "big, great", "strong" See Lettish "vala" = "force",
Tocharic "wal" or "walo" = "king", Greek (F)<i.A.t<; ="enough", Latin
"valeo" et "validus" (BER, I, pp. 131-2; Vasmer, I, p. 289) II Sign.:
GLOSSARY 41
"Majesty" Address formula to the ruler. In the cited text this is the
Bulgarian tsar but that formula is not quite typical for the mediaeval
Bulgaria-it is result of a Western influence, which came to Bulgaria
via Serbia and is to become predominant in the Modern times. In
the text of Cosmas the Presbyter, the word means the "magnificence,
splendor of the dignity"
ReJ\b.Mii\m'll. (subst. m.)-Zogr. 5; MN 45 (4), 65, 89. II Etym.: The term

is created before the Eleventh century by the junction of the word
"veli" (Palaeoslavic &eAb.H) = "big, great" to the verb uorll\ = "can, to
be able" (but not the word ull\m'll. = "man"). (BER, I, pp. 131, 132;
Vasmer, I, p. 290) II Sign.: The word means "dignitary", "notable"
ReJ\~'I'H(verb)-AH 199, 202 his; K 13:2-4, 14:12-15, 14:17-20, 16:9-

11, 28:10-13, 35:13-14, 38:11-14, 38:16-18, 38:18-19, 39:22, 40:1,
45:8-9, 48:10-11, 56:2-4, 62:8-9, 68:11-12, 71:9-10, 75:4-6 II Etym.:
From the Indo-European *wei-, *wl- = "want", "desire" > "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"
&e"'e 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~, Indo-
European "ueku". (Skok P., Etimologijski rjecnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga
jezika, t. III, pp. 589-90) II Sign.: "Senate", "assembly", Latin "Sena-
tus", "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 sec-
ondary 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
42 CHAPTER ONE
letopisjakh. Domongol'skoe vremja", Neischerpaemost istochnika.K

70-letiju V. A. Kuchkina, Moscow, 2005, passim; Lukin P. V., "Ran-
nye 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. 406-
10; Vasmer, I, pp. 309-10) II Sign.: "thing", naT. "res", Gr. xp&y~,
"act, action" (see 2:23-25). "Thing" or "belonging" is related to the real
law and the latter could be used to describe some action relevant to the
law domain. (Popruzhenko, Sinodik, p. CXXXV; Tsibranska-Kostova,
Formirane i razvitie, p. 56).
RHH4\ (subst. f.)-Zogr. 4, K 17:1-2, 19:2-3, 48:1-3, 51:14-17, 52:13-

14, 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,
RHH4\fb. (subst. m.)-Virg. 99; Mr. 29, Ril. 54, 55, Vit. 9 II Etym.: The
term is created on the basis of the word RHHO (="wine"). II Sign.: Fis-
cal employee, charged with the collection of the taxation on the wine.
Probably he was correspondent to the Byzantine oiv6~e'tpo~. (Dujeev,
Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Institutii feudale, pp. 494-5, 501-2; Biliarsky,
Institutsiite, pp. 364-6).
RHHO (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 Ger-
manic 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).
RHHI:..H'l.. (adj.)-K 73:1-3, 78:18-19 II Etym.: See RHH4\. II Sign.:

"guilty".
GLOSSARY 43
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 "vesti-
arium" 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 insti-

tution 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 Palaeo-

slavic "*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. "some-
body with power" It corresponds to the Greek &p:x;rov. (Ilinskij, Gra-
moty, p. 119).
RAb.Ab.HHe (subst. neutr.)-MAD 8 II Etym.: See RAb.AMb.L.J.b.. II Sign.:

"domain"
RAM,'l>IKb. (subst. m.)-AH 199, 200, 203 tris; MN 38 (2), 42, 51 (1),
56 (1) bis, 58 (2), 65, 102, 117; K 3:24-25, 19:19-21,30:23-25,37:9-11,
44:1-2, 46:3-5, 67:12-14, 76:12-16 II Etym.: See RAb.AMb.L.J.b.. II Sign.:
"Ruler", "who has the power" (prelate or lay powerful). (Tsibranska-
Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33).
(subst. f.)-Zogr. 2; N 1; MN 38 (2), 43. II Etym.: See

RAM,'l>llJHU.b.
Translation od the Greek word o£mtowa. See also the
RAM,Mb.L.J.b..
Latin word "domina" II Sign.: Appellation of Our Lady, Mother of
God.
RAM,'l>llJb.CTRHie (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).
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-" <Indo-European "*wold(h)-". See &A~C'l'b.. (BER,
I, pp. 160-1; Vasmer, I, p. 326). II Sign.: "To dominate, to rule", Gr.
E~OU<JUl~£lV, aU9£V't£lV.
&A~C'l'e.l\1:../ R.I\~CTe.I\HH'll.
(subst. m.)-MAD 12, 104, K 31:14-16, 35:11-
12,37:9-11,37:13-15,37:15-16, 44:13-15; Virg. 94 R.I\~CTe.I\HH'll.-MAD
20, 57 K 23:6-8, 23:10-11, 23:15-17, 37:17-18. II Etym.: From R.I\~CTb..
Probably a loan translation of the corresponding Greek word &pxrov. II
Sign.: General appellation of the local seniors or state officials. (Ilinskij,
Gramoty, p. 119; Lishev Str., Za genezisa na feodalizma v Bulgarija,
Sofia, 1963, p. 151ff.; Institutii feudale, p. 281, 508; Bozilov, "Doku-
menti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 48).
&A~C'l'H (verb)-Virg. 16, 81 II Etym.: See R.I\MTb.. II Sign.: "To rule,

govern, dominate", Gr. Kt>pteuew, Lat. "dominare"
&A~C'l'b. (subst. f.)-Vatop. 6, Mr. 30, 34, Ril. 44, 50; AH 200, 201; K
6:8-11, 24:1-3, 24:4-5, 37:6-7, 39:3-4, 56:15-16, 61:20-23; MN 16. II
Etym.: Indo-European "*wold-ti-s" meaning "power" (BER, I, p. 163;
Vasmer, I, p. 327) II Sign.: "Power", Gr. €~oucria, Lat. "potestas". (Ilin-
skij, Gramoty, p. 119).
&A'll.XROR~HH!e (subst. neutr.)-Syn. Dr. 79, Syn. Pal. 102 II Etym.:

From the verb &A'bCHii'\TH = "to speak", "mumble", "charm, mumble
incantations". It is related to the practice of the verbal magic. (BER, I,
p. 166; Vasmer, I, p. 346) II Sign.: "Magic practice", "practice of incan-
tations" The word is cited in Patriarch Euthymius' Panegyric for Sts
Constantine and Helena (Kaluzniacki, Werke, p. 115). The term could
be related to the penal and penitential law. (Popruzhenko, Sinodik,
p. CXXXV).
&A'll.XR'll. (subst. m.)-K 80:6-9 II Etym.: From the verb &A'bCHii'\TH. See
&A'll.XROR~HH!e. (BER, I, p. 166; Vasmer, I, p. 346) II Sign.: "Pagan priest",
"magician", "augur", "diviner" The term could be related to the penal
and penitential law. (Institutii feu dale, pp. 514-6; Tsibranska-Kostova,
GLOSSARY 45
RA'll.Wb.&~ (subst. f.)-K 14:1-4.11 Etym.: See RA'll.,XR'll..ll Sign.: "Magic",

"magic practice", Gr. <pap).UXKeia. The term could be related to the
penal and penitential law. (Institutii feudale, pp. 514-6).
ROmAb. (subst. m.)-MN 65; K 75:24-25 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic

"*vodib" ("leader", "chieftain") < Indo-European "*wodh-jos" From
the verb ROAHTH ("to lead"). (BER, I, pp. 170-1; Vasmer, I, pp. 330-1,
332) II Sign.: "Leader", "chieftain", Gr. Mhy6~, ilye).J.&v, Latin "dux"
ROHHOROAM.J.b. (subst. m.)-MN 45 (4) II Etym.: Composite word of

ROHH'll. ("warrior") and ROAHTH ("to lead"). II Sign.: "Leader of war-
riors", "military commander" The word is not appellation of any con-
crete institution.
(subst. m.)-MN 45 (4). II Etym.: Composite word

ROHHOH~'Ih.Ab.HH~'ll.
ohoHH'll. ("warrior") and H~'lh.Ab.HH~'ll. ("head"). II Sign.: "Head of war-
riors", "military commander" The word is not appellation of any con-
crete institution.
ROHHI:.CTRO (subst. neutr.)-MN 45 (4). II Etym.: Fron Indo-European

"*wei-", "*woi-" = "chase", "hunt" > Indo-European "*woju-s" >
Palaeo slavic "*wojb" The signification is related to the warfare and
hunting. (BER, I, pp. 172, 173; Vasmer, I, pp. 334-5) II Sign.: "Army",
"host". (Institutiifeudale, pp. 324-30,452-3, 510; Tsibranska-Kostova,
ROHC~~ (subst. f.)-N 73. II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*vojbsko", see

ROHHI:.CTRO. (BER, I, pp. 173-4; Vasmer, I, p. 335) II Sign.:" Army", "the
military forces of a state"
ROAO&efb.I.J.IHH~ (subst. f.)-Virg. 88, 101 II Etym.: The term is cre-

ated on the basis of Gr. ~evyoMywv and ~euyapattKtOV. II Sign.: The
name of a tax imposed on agricultural produce. It concerned the
paroikoi and their zeugars. The term passed into the Ottoman fiscal
system as "fiftltk" and its derivatives, this being a loan translation of
the Greek term. As such it was adopted into Modern Bulgarian as
"qM<l>TJH:IK" (from "fift/ttuifjm" = "pair"), as well as in Walachia and
Moldavia. (Dolger Fr., Byzanz und europaeische Staatenwelt, Ettal,
1953, pp. 256-8; Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, pp.
46 CHAPTER ONE
442-4; Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija, pp. 320-1; Tsankova-Petkova G.,

Za agrarnite otnoshenija v srednovekovna Bulgarija XI-XIII v., Sofia,
1964, p. 105; Andreev, "Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", pp. 91-2;
Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 84; Institutii
Jeudale, pp. 99-100; (see ~e&Pb.fb).
ROA~ (subst. f.)-MN 42; K 3:18-19, 4:22-24, 7:17-19, 17:6-7, 19:11-

14, 21:6-7, 21:15-16, 23:20-21, 24:8-10, 25:1, 36:14-16, 38:3-5,
51:6-7, 51:8-10, 52:1-3, 52:5-6, 55:11-12, 56:4-5, 61:20-23, 64:15-16,
67:12-14, 67:14-16, 74:4-5, 74:21, 76:17-19 II Etym.: Related to the
verb &eA<tTH (see!) and with Lithuanian "valia" ("will"), Lettish "vala"
("force", "power"), German "Wahl" and "wollen", Sanskrit "vara-"
("desir, wish", "choice"), Avestan "vara" ("will", "selection"). (BER, I,
pp. 175-6; SDR]a, I, pp. 472-4; Vasmer, I, pp. 347-8) II Sign.: "Will",
"freedom", "goodwill", Greek 9V..ru.ux.. (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane
i razvitie, p. 56).
&OAbH'l> (adj.)-K 57:3 II Etym.: See ROA~. II Sign.: "Free", "voluntary",

"released"
(verb)-K 54:10-12 II Etym.: See &OHHbCT&o. (BER, I, p. 177;

&ole&4\TH
Vasmer, I, p. 332) II Sign.: "Wage war; be at war", "to fight"
&Oie&OAI\ (subst. m.)-N 52, 74 &eAHI~rz.. &Oie&OA4\;

MN 45 (4), 48 (1)
II Etym.: Loan
&eAH~rz.. &Oie&OA4\, 48 (4) five citations ReAHI~rz.. &OieROA4\.
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 institu-
tion, "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., "Woi-
wode 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).
(subst. m.)-MAD 9, 10, 12, 14; MN 45 (4), 71 (3), 94 (8); K

Rfb.P'l>
1:9-10, 2:18-20, 2:22-23, 3:14-15, 4:8-9, 4:10-11, 21:13-14, 22:7-8,
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, homi-
cide" (Gr. <p6vo~, Lat. "homicidium"). (BER, I, p. 180; SDR]a, I, pp.
480-1) II Sign.: The juridical meaning of the word is ''homicide" or a
type of fee as punishment for a homicide. The meaning of the word
in the text of Cosmas the Presbyter is general (hatred, odium) and
has no direct relation to the law. (Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim
ispravama, pp. 188-9).
Rfb."'b. (subst. m.)-MN 91 (1). II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*v('n)

r-acb" It is related to the Old Russian verb RfM'H = "to speak", "to
murmur", "to lie, to tell a lie" (BER, I, p. 183; Vasmer, I, p. 361). II
Sign.: "Medical doctor" The juridical meaning is linked to the status
of the person. In the note these are the Unmercenary Saints Cosmas
and Damian.
RytA'll. (subst. m.)-K 15:21-22,29:1-211 Etym.: From Indo-European

*werdho- ("protrude", "grow up"), Sanskrit "vardhati" ("grow up"),
Lettish "ap-virde" ("furunicle"). The Palaeoslavic word *verd'b passed
in feminine in the modern languages. (BER, I, p. 184, SDR]a, I, pp.
489-90; Vasmer, I, p. 295) II Sign.: "Damage", "harm" The tern could
be related to the penal as well as to the civil law. (Institutii feudale,
p. 349).
Rf~Mh\ (subst. neutr.)-AH 202 II

Etym.: From the Indo-European
"*wert-men" < "wert-" = "to turn" the suffix" -men" added. Related to
the Sanskrit "wartman-" ="road", "groove, rut, track" See the Latin
"annus vertens", "mensis vertens", "anniversarius" Related to the
cyclic conception of the time. (BER, I, p. 185; Vasmer, I, pp. 361-2)11
Sign.: The word means "time", but this is not the meaning that inter-
ests us. With regard to the legal vocabulary we must note the cases
when it can mean "cause", "guilt". Apart from the Anonymous homily,
48 CHAPTER ONE
such also is the meaning in the Law for the Judging of People. There
is no etymological connection between the two meanings, this being
merely a specific use of the word.
&'AAI\TH (verb)-K 39:8-10 II Etym.: From the verb N-TH with the
&'A-. II Stgn.:
prefi x . "C on1er
c , , " gtve
. ,
R'A~~KOHHTHI R'A~~KOH~TH (verb)-MN 14 bis, K 27:7-9. 32:3-5,

43:11-12, 52:6-7 (&'A~~KOH~TH). 60:1-211 Etym.: See ~~KOH'A. (SDR]a,
I, pp. 525-6) II Sign.: "Legalise", "to make legal" (Institutii Jeudale,
pp. 273-4).
R'A~G.f~HHTHI&'A~G.f~H~TH (verb)-K 27:1-4, 38:11-14, 38:15-16, 54:6-

8, 59:9-10, 64:1-3. 69:2 II Etym.: See G.f~HHTH. II Sign.: "To prohibit",
"to ban", "to forbid", Gr. KmA:6ro.
&'A~Rf'ti.J.IH (verb)-K 69:2-3 II Etym.: From the Indo-European

"*werg-" > Rf~THTH = "to turn" (BER, I, pp. 212-3, Vasmer, I,
p. 355) II Sign.: "To reject", "to make over"
&'A~&HrHII\TH (verb)-K 59:2-4 II Etym.: From the verb ARHrHII\TH

(= "to move") with the prefix &'A~-. The general meaning is "to move
up" (BER, I, pp. 325-6; Vasmer, I, p. 487) II Sign.: "To undertake,
launch", "to establish", "to define" The citation in the text of Cosmas
the Presbyter is related to the penitential practice.
&'A~&HS~TH (verb)-K 27:14-16, 39:9-1111 Etym.: See &'A~&HrHII\TH.

II Sign.: "To provoke, incite" (27), "to preach" (39).
R'A~r~~HTH (verb)-K 29:7-8 II Etym.: From r~~HTH = "to cut I to
clip" The root "*arz-" < Indo-European "*ure-g'h-" is related to the
meaning "beat", "brake", "divide". (BER, I, p. 204, VI, pp. 147, 206-10;
Vasmer, III, p. 434) II Sign.: "To object I to raise objections", "to dis-
prove", "to refute"
&'A~HM~TH (verb)-K 15:2-3, 53:20-21, 74:26-27 II Etym.: From the

prefix &'A~- and the verb HM<tTHIHM~TH < Palaeoslavic "*imamb, *imati"
<from the root "jbmo", "j~ti". See Modern Bulgarian "eMBaM", related
to the Lithuanian "imu", Old Prussian "imam", Latin "emo", Gothic
"niman", German "nehmen" = "take". See also the Greek word ve)lm
GLOSSARY 49
= "partage", "obtain a part". (BER, I, pp. 494-5, II, pp. 69-70; Vasmer,
II, pp. 128, 129) II Sign.: "To take" (53, 74), "to deprive" (15).
R'A~.I\omeHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 13:1-2 II Etym.: From the prefix R"A~
and the Palaeoslavic root "*log" Linked to the meaning of "to lie I
to stay I to be positioned" "Put something to lie on" (BER, III, pp.
268-9, 454-5; Vasmer, II, p. 445) II Sign.: In the expression R'A~.I\OmeHHie
fii'\Ko~ meaning "ordination I consecration", which is a loan transla-
tion of the Greek word xetpo'tovia.
R'A~H«TH (verb)-K 8:11-13, 32:9-10, 66:16-17, 77:17-18 R'A~HeCTH

c~>.-K14:6-7, 31:20-22, 71:1-3, II Etym.: From the verb HeCTH (= "to
bring") and the prefix R'A~-. The word is a loan translation of the Greek
word Ct.va<pepro.ll Sign.: "To ascent" "to promote", "To help somebody
to prosper", Greek "uw6ro"
R'A~ATHIR'A~HM4\TH (verb)-K 3:8-11, 24:17-19, 38:3-5, 76:9-10 II

Etym.: Created from the suffix R'A~- and the verb ~THIHM4\TH = Mod-
ern Bulgarian "eMaM", "eMBaM" ("xBa~aM") = "to have", "to take I
to catch"
• »
II Sign.: "To take", "to catch I to seize", "to obtain", "to
receive
R'A~ATH!e (subst. neutr.)-K 43:17-18 II Etym.: See R'A~ATH. II Sign.:

The juridical meaning is "claim" There are other that are not pre-
sented here.
R'AK~no&omb.H'A (adj.)-Syn. Dr.40 II Etym.: Loan translation of the

GreeK. word o~68eo~.11 Sign.: "Monotheist", "who has only One God"
The citation concerns the unity of the divine and human nature of
Lord Jesus Christ. The word does not exist in the Palauzov's copy of
the Synodikon. (Popruzhenko, Sinodik, p. CXXXV).
R'AK~nonp<kcTO.I\b.H'A(adj.)-Syn. Dr.39 II Etym.: Loan translation of

the Greek word o~69povo~. II Sign.: "Having one throne", "who sit
on the same throne" The text describes the Holy Trinity. The word
does not exist in the Palauzov's copy of the Synodikon. (Popruzhenko,
Sinodik, p. CXXXV).
R'AK~noc.I\4\Rb.H'A (adj.)-Syn. Dr.39 II Etym.: Loan translation of

the Greek word o~60o~o~. II Sign.: "Homodox", "who glorifies or is
50 CHAPTER ONE
grolified in the same way" This is the Holy Trinity. The word does not
exist in the Palauzov's copy of the Synodikon. (Popruzhenko, Sinodik,
p. CXXXV).
(verb)-K 39:7-8 R'Z.M'NHil\'I'H CA-K 59:6-9, 64:25-27 II

R'Z.M'NHil\'I'H
Etym.: From the verb M'NHil\'I'H (="to exchange"). The general mean-
ing is "exchange of responsibility, of guilt" (BER, I, p. 166) II Sign.:
"To compare", "to relate" In the passive voice can be "be cause of
something" The main signification is "to be charged as guilty", "to
make somebody guilty, to make hin responsible", "to be able to be
responsible"
(verb)-Ril. 101-10211 Etym.: The juridical (fiscal) meaning

ROZ.nHCA'I'H
of the term is a loan translation of the Greek word eyyp&<pctv.ll Sign.:
The juridical meaning is "inscribe somebody in the fiscal cadastre"
(verb)-K 80:3-6 II Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic "*prijati"

Roz.cnpH!h.'I'H
(see Modern Bulgarian "npMHTeJI" = "friend" and "npMHS'bH"), related
to the Sanskrit "priyas" = "dear", "darling", Avestan "frya" ="dear",
"beloved", Gothic "frijon" = "to love", Greek xpa;')~ = "kind", "quite"
(BER, V, p. 749; Vasmer, III, pp. 369-70) II Sign.: "To receive", "to
obtain"
R'z.cnp-N'I'H'I'H I R'z.cnp-NLjJA'I'H (verb)-K 13:14-15,69:3-411 Etym.: From

the Palaeoslavic "*pertiti", which has no Indo-European conterparts.
It could be also from np-N'I'H, m,pli'\ = "to scold", "to quarrel", "to dis-
pute" (BER, V, pp. 680-1; Vasmer, III, p. 361) II Sign.: "To restrain",
"to hinder"
ROZ.C,XOZ.I'I'H'I'H I ROZ.C,XOZ.ILjJA'I'H (verb)-K 37:4-5, 68:18, 75:14-1711 Etym.:

The prefix R'Z.~- to the verb meaning "to catch", the Palaeoslavic form
of which is "*hytiti" > Modern Bulgarian words "noxMTH/noxM~aBaM"
(= "to abduct"), "xM~HMK" (= "predator", "rapacious") and so forth.
(BER, I, p. 205; Vasmer, IV, pp. 230, 239) II Sign.: "To ravish", "to
rob", "to plunder" (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 53).
R'Z.CM~HI:.CK'Z.IH (adj.)-MN 14 bis. II

Etym.: Loan translation of the
Greek word oiKoU~cVtK6~. (BER, I, p. 195; Vasmer, I, p. 363) II Sign.:
"Universal" "Ecumenical /council/" -the supreme institution and the
visible head of the Church.
GLOSSARY 51
R~-.AORA (subst. f.)-MN 45 (4); K 78:3-5 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic

"*Vbdova" ="widow", related to the Sanskrit "vidhava" ="widow" and
"vidhu-" = "widower", Avestan "vioava", Latin "vidualviduus", Old
Prussian "widdewu", Gothic "widuwo", Old High German "wituwa"
= "widow"/"widower" as well as the Greek iti9eo'i ="unmarried I sin-
gle". (BER, I, p. 125; Vasmer, I, pp. 281-2) II Sign.: "Widow" The word
is related to the matrimonial law. (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i
razvitie, p. 33).
(subst. f.)-K 61:6-7, 62:3-4, 62:8-10, 78:10-11 II Etym.:

R!-.AORHI..I,b.
See Rb.AORA. II Sign.: "Widow". (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i raz-
vitie, p. 33).
Rb.CeR'tfb.H'l.. (adj.)-Dubr. 1, 911 Etym.: See R'tfb.Nrz...ll Sign.: Epithet for

the sovereign, Gr. xto"tO'i, Lat. "fidel is"
Rb.CeApb.mwreAb. (subst. M.)- Virg. 110; Mr. 211 Etym.: Loan translation
from the Greek word xav'toKpa'trop. II Sign.: Appellation of the Lord
God.
c~:.eeocRh.4-JeHrz.. (adj.)-Syn. Pal.113 (used for the patriarch); MN 43, 53,

54, 57 bis (used once for a metropolit and once for patriarch in the
same text). II Etym.: Loan translation from Greek xavcirw'i, xavarfl'i,
xaviepo'i·ll Sign.: Epithet, used for high ecclesiastical dignitaries (patri-
archs, metropolits). The term appears in Patriarch Euthymius' Vita of
St Paraskeva-Petka (Kaluzniacki, Werke, p. 71) in reference to Mark,
Metropolitan of Great Preslav.
c~:.eeno"'I:.TeNrz..IH (adj.)-MN 89 IIEtym.: Loan translation of Gr.

xav'tt~O'i· II
Sign.: "Very honorable", epithet for high dignitaries, in
the cited case for a logothete.
Rb.cenp-tnoAO&b.H'l.. (adj.) -Syn. Dr .10, Syn. PaLlO II Etym.: Loan trans-

lation from Gr. xav6crtO'i· II Sign.: "Very reverand", epithet for a saint
I hosios.
R'tNb.U.OAb.'l'eAb. (subst. m.)-MN 45 (4) bis. II Etym.: Composed word

from R-tNb.U.b. (="crown", see) and Ab.'I'H ("to give", see). Probably this
is a loan translation from Greek. II Sign.: "Cown giver", "who crowns
the sovereign" The term concerns the divine origin of the ruler's power.
52 CHAPTER ONE
R<kHb.U,b. (subst. m.)-MN 101; K 36:4-5, 53:20-21, 76:19-20 II Etym.:

from the Palaeoslavic "*venbcb" < Indo-European "*woiniko-s" <
""woi-no-" with the signification of "to curve/to bend" The word
is translation of the Gr. me<powo~ (from the verb crt£<pro = "curve",
"encircle/surround") and ot6:&ruJ.(x (from the verb ouxoero = "curve",
"make a circle"). It was created on the basis of those latter. (BER, I, pp.
133-4; Vasmer, I, p. 291) II Sign.: "Crown", Gr. crt£<pavo~. In MN 101
we have a description of the tsar's crown.
R<kHb."'~TH (verb)-MN 45 (4) bis; K 24:11-12 R<kHb."'~TH CA-K

22:17-18 R<kHb."'U~TH c~>.-K 60:3-4 II Etym.: See R<kHb.U,b.. II Sign.:
"To crown", "to promote", "to be promoted" See also the word
R<kHb."'~TeAb., which is cited in the Palauzov's copie of the Synodicon.
(Popruzhenko, Sinodik. p. CXXXVII).
(adj.)-MAD 3; Virg. 114, Zogr. 74; AH, 201, 203, 204 (bis);
R<kfb.H'l>
!Seal I.lOA p. 126; N 45, 48, 73, 83; MN 94 (8); K 17:22-25, 27:1-4,
42:8-10, 58:17, 80:6-9 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*wjara" The Indo-
European roots of the word have the signification of "truth" and then
"fidelity/ faithfulness" (BER, I, pp. 217-8; Vasmer, I, pp. 292-3). II
Sign.: Epithet for the ruler. "Faithful", Gr. 1ttcrt6~, Lat. "fidelis"
R'ki.J.IHU.~ (subst. f.)-N 22 bis. II Etym.: From R<kAb. = "knowledge",

"magic", "charm" from verb R<kA~TH = "to know" Related to the
Sanskrit "veda", Gr. oloa, Gothic "wait", Old Prussian "waist" = "to
know", "to see". It is to be underlined the relation to the Old Prussian
"*waidl6tojis" = "/pagan/ priest" The word stressed the knowledge as
a way to have power, even magical. (BER, I, pp. 140-1; Vasmer, I, pp.
284-5) II Sign.: "Witch", "sorceress". Can be related to the ecclesiasti-
cal penitentials and to penal law. (Institufii feudale, pp. 514-6).
rA~R~ (subst. f.)-K 65:12-14, 65:23-24 II Etym.: Related to the Lith-

uanian "galva", Lettish "gafva", Old Prussian "gallu" and Armenian
"glux" = "head" (all of them). Some scholars propose a relation to
the Modern Bulgarian word "ron" (= "nude", naked") and thence to
the Old High German "calua" = "calvities", "baldness", Lat. "calva" =
"cranium", "skull" and "calvus" = "bald". (BER, I, pp. 244-5; Vasmer,
I, p. 429) II Sign.: "Head". Here, we are not interested in the meaning
of "head" as a part of the body. The secondary meaning is "chief",
"leader", "commander".
GLOSSARY 53
repl\~4\fb. (subst. m.)-Virg. 100 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek

term l.epaKaptO<; = "falconer". II Sign.: An employee, charged with the
care for the hunting birds of the ruler and with the corvees related to
their breeding and to hunting with them. (Cvetkova B. "Sokolarstvoto
v severna Bulgarija prezXV -XVI vek", Godishnik na muzeite v Severna
Bulgarija, kn. IV, Varna, 1978, pp. 66-82; Biliarsky, Institutsiite,
p. 374ff.).
r.l\o&4\ (subst. f.)-Virg. 15, 43, 85, Mr. 36-37, 38 his, Vit. 12 II Etym.:
Unclear etymology. The original meaning is "to take a bit", "oppress"
and from there "sadness", "sorrow" and "pain". Related to the Palaeo-
slavic TAro&~\ = "suffering, hardships", "corvee". See also the greek verb
yMi<pro (BER, I, p. 250; Etimologicheskij slovar' slavjanskikh jazykov, t.
6, Moscow, 1979, pp. 131-4) II Sign.: Administrative and penal pun-
ishment, linked to the loss of property (mainly money but also cattle
and so forth), Latin "mulcta" (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123; Institutii feu-
dale, pp. 13-4, 207-8).
ro&-tHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 40:1-2, 63:18-19 II Etym.: Related to the

Latin word ''faveo" ="deign", "have mercy", Old Icelandic "ga" (from
"*dawi()o") ="to respect", "to stand in awe", "to revere". Some claim it
is adopted from the Gothic "gaweihan" ="bless", "devote", "dedicate"
(BER, I, p. 258; Vasmer, I, pp. 423-4) II Sign.: "Humbleness", "humil-
ity", "repentance", "obedience". (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i raz-
vitie, p. 53).
ropb.HHH4\ (subst. f.)-Zogr. 50, 58 II Etym.: A word, created on the

basis of rop4\ (= "mountain", related to the Greek word opo<; = "moun-
tain", Indian "giris" ="mountain", Lithuanian "giria" = "forest", Prus-
sian "garian" ="tree") with the suffix -HHH4\. Most probably, created as
a translation of the Greek word opt!di (BER, I, pp. 264-5, Vasmer, I,
p. 438) II Sign.: Fee for use of the alps (upland pastures) or for the
rights to exploit the timber in the mountains. (Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke
povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 474, 482; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 84;
Institutii feudale, pp. 208-9; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispra-
vama, pp. 200-1).
romOAHH'll./romoA4\fb. (subst. m.)-MAD 32, 33, 38, 54; Bra. 1, 3 his;

AH 203, 204; N 60, 74 tris, 8~; MN 1, 35, 48 (4) his, 65; K 35:13-14,
46:12-13. II Etym.: The term is actually identic with romoA'll. (Lord
54 CHAPTER ONE
God). II Sign.: General appellation for "lord" or "ruler" Correspond-

ing word to the Greek au9eVTrJ<;. In the Greek testament of Paul Clau-
diopolites, metropolite of Melenikon the word is used for the despot
Alexis Slav, the ruler of the Eastern Macedonia (called even <X:yw<; ~ou
au9ev't'J1<;). (Actes de Vatopedi, I, No 12 lines 3, 5, 10, 11, 14, 19, 22,
24). (Institutii feudale, pp. 168-72; Lishev, m genezisa na feodalizma,
p. 156ff.; Popovic, "Povelja bana Tvrtka I Kotromanica Dubrovniku",
pp. 153-4; Mihaljcic, Vladarske titule oblasnih gospodara, pp. 104-13
/rocnOAHH'll./, pp. 114-24/rocnoA~f'll./).
rocnOAI:. (subst. M.)-AH 202, 203 bis, 204; N 41 tris; K passim (mean-
ing "Lord God") 36:18-19, 37:9-11, 38:1-3, 38:3-5, 38:5-7, 65:18-
19, 76:4-5; MN 16, 19 (2, 3) 21 (6). II Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic
"gast'pad'", created by the junction of "gast" ="guest, visitor", "home
lord" to the "pat-" = a morpheme with signification of "to can, to
be able", "to rule, to possess" Identical with Gr. 1C6pto<; or au9evtrt<;
and with Latin "dominus" (BER, I, pp. 267-8; Vasmer, I, pp. 446-7).
II Sign.: The meaning "Lord God" is basic but the word means also
"secular ruler" In the Gospel citations it corresponds to the Greek
words of 1C6pto<; and oecrn6trt<;.
rocnoAI:.C'J'RHie (subst. neutr.)-K 6:8-1111 Etym.: See rocnoAI:.·II Sign.:

"Rulership", "sovereignty", "power", Gr. K'Upt6-tt'te<; (pl.).
rocnOAI:.C'J'RO (subst. neutr.)-MN 14. II Etym.: See rocnOAI:.. II Sign.: A

formula for address to high dignitaries (despot, sebastocrator), identi-
cal with Gr. Oe0'1tO't6: ~ou /crou/.
rocnOAI:.C'J'ROR~TH (verb)-Virg. 42 II Etym.: See rocnOAI:.. A deriva-

tive verb from rocnOAI:.. (BER, I, pp. 267-8) II Sign.: "Dominate", Gr.
K'Upteuetv, Lat. "dominare"
rocnom~ (subst. f.)-N 3, 844; MN 48 (4). II Etym.: See rocnOAI:.. II

Sign.: "Mistress, lady" (Institutii feudale, pp. 162-3).
roC'J'I:. (subst. m.)-Dubr. 1, 10 II Etym.: Fran the Indo-European

"*ghosti-s" We find similar words in all the Slavic languages, in Latin
"hostis", as well as in German "Gast", in English "guest" and so on.
(BER, I, p. 268; Vasmer, I, pp. 447-8).11 Sign.: The general meaning of
the word is "guest", "foreign (merchant)", "enemy, foe".
GLOSSARY 55
rr~GHTH (verb)-K 13:14-15 II Etym.: Related tithe Lithuanian word

"grobti" = "clutch, grip, grasp", Sanskrit "graMyati" = "make some-
body to clutch" and "grabM-" ="wisp", "hollow of the hand". Related
to the Modern Bulgarian words meaning "dip up, scoop up, shovel",
"grave" (BER, I, p. 269; Vasmer, I, pp. 449-50) II Sign.: "Clutch, grip,
grasp". Related to penal law.
II
rr~N\fb. (subst. m.)-Virg. 100; Mr. 29, Ril. 57 Etym.: From the verb
rr~AHTH ="build", "construct", "create" and the suffix -~r~:...ll Sign.: A
state employee, charged with the organisation of the corvees related to
the building. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Biliarsky, Institutsiite,
pp. 382-3). See C'bl.IlO rr~AO~HN\HHe.
rr~AH4-Je (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 55, Ril. 33 II Etym.: From rr~A'll.

(="town", city") and rr~AHTH (= "to build"). (BER, I, pp. 270-1) II
Sign.: "Fortified settlement", Gr. Kacrtpov, Lat. "castrum"
rr~AO~HN\HHe (subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 50, 58 II Etym.: The word is loan

translation of the Greek word KacrtpoKttcria. II Sign.: A corvee that
consisted in the obligation to take part in the building and mainte-
nance of fortresses. The person in charge of this was usually the local
military commander, but there were also specific officials (kastrok-
tistai) who controlled and organised this obligation of the popula-
tion. Some of these officials were sent by the central government in
particularly important cases and had emergency authority. (Solovjev,
Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 452-3; Tsankova-Petkova,
Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 160; Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, pp.
196, 198; Troianos S., «KacrtpoKttcria. Einige Bemerkungen i.iber die
finanziellen Grundlagen des Festungsbaues in byzantinischen Reich»,
Bv~av·nva, 1 ( 1969), pp. 39-57; Bartusis M., «State Demands for
Building and Repairing Fortifications in Late Byzantium and Medi-
eval Serbia», Byzantinoslavica, 49 (1988), pp. 205-12; Andreev, "Traits
specifiques du systeme fiscal", pp. 90-1; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp.
110-1) See also ~HA~TH.
rr~A'll.(subst. m.)-Dubr. 8; MAD 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19 bis, 20,

22, 25, 26, 27, 37 bis, 39, 41, 49 bis, 51, 55, 104, 105; Virg. 6, 13, 75,
97, 102, Ril. 27, 40, 68; Vit. 7; N 1, 44, 62, 69, 70 bis, 73, 79; MN 12
(1), 14, 17 bis, 41, 44 (1), 45 (4) four, 59, 61, 65 bis, 77, 101 (Vidin-a
great and very populated city); K 12:20-22, 43:2-4, 45:17-19, 47:1-2,
56 CHAPTER ONE
56:7-9, 57:7-9 II Etym.: Related to the Indo-European signification of

"house, home" In the Slavonic language the meaning of the word is
"city, town", Gr. acrTU /1tOAtc; I Kacrtpov, Lat. "castrum" (BER, I, pp.
270-1; Vasmer, I, p. 443). II Sign.: City, settlement and administrative
inite, Gr. &mu, 1tOAtc;. (Institufii feudale, pp. 91-5, 343-5).
Pfb.Mb.THI~'A (subst. M.)-N 10, 59, 65, 71; MN 8 (2, 6, 11), 16, 17, 20
(1), 93. II Etym.: Transliterated from Greek ypa~~ux:ttK6c;.ll Sign.: This
could signify simply "literate person" but could be an institutional
name for an official in the chancellery, a scriptor. (Institufii feudale,
p. 209; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 240-8).
ryt_xo&I:.H'A (adj.)-K 55:6-7, 75:2-411 Etym.: See Pf't,X'A.II Sign.: "Sin-

ful", Gr. &vo~oc;.
Pf't,X'A (subst. M.)-AH 203; N 18; MN 25 (3), 31 bis, 32 (3), 41, 42,
51 (1), 65, 71 (1), 71 (3), 76 (4), 80; K 1:7-9, 1:12-14, 1:14-17, 2:13-
14, 3:21-22, 9:3-5, 9:17-18, 13:17-18, 14:11, 15:2-3, 15:3-5, 15:7,
19:16-18, 23:12-15, 24:17-19, 25:16-18, 27:14-16, 29:1-2, 37:15-16,
39:4-5, 38:13-15, 39:18-19, 40:2-4, 41:8-9, 42:11-14, 44:22-24,
46:3-5, 46:8-10, 50:17-19, 51:1-4 59:6-9, 59:10-12, 60:7-8, 60:14-16,
60:16-17, 66:14-16, 67:3-4, 67:16-18, 67:21-23, 74:7-8, 75:18-19,
78:11-12, 78:18-19 II Etym.: Most probably the word derives from the
verb POfHTH (= "to burn"), related what sinners could expect in Hell.
(BER, I, pp. 290-1; Vasmer, I, pp. 456-7) II Sign.: "Sin", "peccadillo",
"offence", Gr. &~ap'tta; "guilt", "crime", "condemnation", Gr. Kp'i~,
eylCA.n~a.
rytWHHMTRO (subst. neutr.)-MN 38 (2). II Etym.: See Pf't,X'A. II Sign.:

"Sinfulness", "impiety". A substantive designating the status of a person.
Pf'tWI:.HHI~'A (subst. m.)-MN 22 (7, 8), 51 (1), 71 (1) bis, 76 (7); K

42:11-14, 77:1211 Etym.: See Pf't,X'A. II Sign.: "Sinner"
rytWI:.H'A/t..mororytWI:.H'A/nf'tPf'tWI:.H'A (adj.)-N 5, 35; MN 17, 22 (1),

25 (1, 2), 29, 30, 31, 33, 38 (2), 39 (1), 40 tris, 41 bis, 44 (1), 47, 51 (1)
bis, 51 (4), 51 (5), 58 (2), 60, 70, 73 (3), 74, 77, 80, 83 (1) bis, 92 (1, 2),
98, 103 (6, 7, 9), 106, 107 (1), 117, 118 (1); K 9:14-16, 15:6-7, 15:9-10,
18:16-17, 18:20-23, 19:16-18,44:22-24,46:8-10, 51:1-4, 59:12,67:11-
1211 Etym.: See Pf't,X'A. II Sign.: "Sinful", "guilty".
GLOSSARY 57
r"'fAHTH (verb)-K 67:11-12 II Etym.: The basic meaning of the

word is related to producing loud sounds, "cry", "make noise", "play
an instrument" The meaning that interests us is secondary. (BER, I,
p. 293; Vasmer, I, pp. 470-1) II Sign.: "To abuse", "to slander, to calu-
minate", "to vilify"
rH~RHTH (verb)-K 60:1 II Etym.: See rH~Rrz... II Sign.: "Make/get

angry"
rH~Rrz.. (subst. m.)-MAD 53, AH 202, 203; K 37:18-20, 50:8-9,64:20-

21, 65:3-5, 73:13-16, 74:11-12 II Etym.: One finds the word in the
Slavic languages but with unclear parallels out of them. Some claims
certain relation with the verb "rHMH" (= "rot", "decay") and the noun
"rnoti" (= "pus", "matter"). (BER, I, pp. 256, 257; Vasmer, I, pp. 420,
421-2) II Sign.: "Anger", "fury", "rage"
A4\HH!e (subst. neutr.)-K 29:5-611 Etym.: See ,1\4\HI:.. II Sign.: "The act
of giving", "gift"
A4\HI:.(subst. f.)-Vatop. 8, 13, MAD 23, 24, 27, 34, 36; Mr. 28, 31, Ril.
59 II Etym.: From the verb ,1\4\TH ="to give". (BER, I, p. 318; Vasmer, I,
p. 484) II Sign.: "Tax, duty", Gr. -reA.o~, Lat. "vectigal". (Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, p. 63; Institutii feudale, p. 135ff.)
Ab.poR4\HHe (subst. neutr.)-Ril. 98 II Etym.: See ol\4\f'l... II Sign.: "Gift",

"tafent"
Ab.f'l.. (subst. m.)-Virg. 5, Mr. 2; AH 203 his; K 13:1-2,29:5-6,49:1-3,

64:11-13,66:5,66:9-10,66:10-11,66:14-16, 71:10-13 his, 80:3-6; MN
16, 24 (2). II Etym.: From the verb A4\TH (="to give"). Meaning "gift",
"talent", Gr. o&pov, Lat. "donum", "donatio" (BER, I, pp. 319-20;
Vas mer, I, p. 484) II Sign.: "Gift", a result of a contract of donation or
of a ruler's benefaction. (Institutii feudale, p. 124, 136ff.).
AMKMrz.. (subst. m.)-MN 41 (1). II Etym.: Transliteration of the

Greek word OtoamcaA.o~.ll Sign.: "Teacher", the term is related to the
/professional! status of a person.
A4\TeAI:.(subst. m.)-K 71:1 II Etym.: See A4\TH. II Sign.: "Donor, con-

tributor", Gr. OO't11~·
58 CHAPTER ONE
N-TH (verb)-K 5:16-18, 8:16-19, 16:5-6, 19:11-14, 22:1-4, 23:5-6,

23:6-8, 24:1-3, 28:15-17, 29:7-8, 30:7-9, 33:23, 36:3-4, 36:6-7, 36:12-
13, 41:15-16, 43:11-12, 48:15, 50:8-9, 51:8-10, 54:18-20, 56:15-16,
64:5-8, 64:20-21, 71:19, 73:7-10, 75:1-2, 76:1, 76:9-10, 78:1-3;
AI\~TH-K 9:2-3, 9:5-6, 10:11-14, 14:7-8, 18:5-6, 29:14-17, 37:6-7,
47:6-8, 49:1-3, 49:6-7, 55:15-16, 62:8-10, 64:21-23, 70:23-24, 74:4-5
II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic *do- and *dav-. The first for is from the
Indo-European *do and the second from *dou-. (BER, I, pp. 310-12;
SDR]a, II, pp. 433-9; Vasmer, I, p. 485) II Sign.: "To give", "to pro-
vide", "to allow"
ARHmHt..trz. (adj.)-Zogr. 7 II Etym.: From the verb ARHr~TH CA = "to

move". (BER, I, p. 325; Vasmer, I, p. 487) II Sign.: The juridical mean-
ing of the word is related to the domain of the real law: the conception
of the "movable property" that comes from Latin term "mobilis" via
the Greek term Ktvrrt6c;.
ARoprz. (subst. m.)-Ril. 66; K 16:3-4, 42:8-10 II Etym.: Related to the

Avestan "dvarem" ="door, gate", "court"; Sanskrit "dvaram" ="door,
gate" and Russian "ABepb" ="door". (BER, I p. 327; Vasmer, I, p. 487)
II Sign.: "Court, courtyard"= "the space around the house", "this space
as real estate", "(royal) court" (Institutiifeudale, pp. 131-3, 181)
Aet..tocH~ (sub st. f.)- Vir g. 93 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek

word &r,~6crux = "public taxes/duties, tributa publica". II Sign.: "Taxes"
(pl.). (Solovjev, Masin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 419)
AecnOTHL.V- (subst. f.)-MN 56 (2).11 Etym.: See Aecnorrrz..ll Sign.: Col-

loquial form to entitle the wife of a despot, "despotess" This is not an
official institution I title but a derivative of "despot"
Aecnorrrz. (subst. m.)-N 83; NM 18; MN 14, 48 (2), 54, 56 (2), 65 bis.
II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term oecr1t6't'llc; with the original
meaning of "lord" (Prellwit, Etymologisches Worterbuch der griechi-
schen Sprache, Gottingen, 1905 p. 112; Hofmann J. B., 'E'tt>~oA.oytKov
Ae~tKOV Tile; aPXaiac; eMrtvtJcilc;, EV A.9flvatc; 1989, p. 64; BER, I, pp.
347-8; Vasmer, I, p. 507) II Sign.: The rank of despot was the highest
of the three "imperial" titles (together with sebastokrator and Caesar,
kesar) that derived from the imperial titling. Created in the twelfth cen-
tury for designating son-in-law heirs, it developed into a "pure" title,
GLOSSARY 59
which had nothing to do with administrative obligations and functions

in the governing apparatus. In Bulgaria, it was typical for the four-
teenth century. (B. Ferjancic, Despoti u Vizantiji i u juznoslovenskim
zemljama, Belgrade, 1960; lv. Biliarsky, "The Despots in Mediaeval
Bulgaria", Byzantinobulgarica, t. IX, Sofia, 1995, pp. 121-62; Biliarsky,
Institutsiite, pp. 17-84; Institutii feudale, pp. 150-1)
AeCh.T'l..~fb. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 9, Virg. 100, Mr. 29, Vit. 10, Ril. SSII
Etym.: From AeCh.Trz..~erz.. (= "tithe") and the suffix -4\fb.. II Sign.: A fiscal
employee related to the collection of the tithe. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata
gramota, p. 38; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Biliarsky, Institutsiite,
pp. 357-61; Institutii feudale, p. 158)
AeCh.Trz..~erz.. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 14-15, Mr. 32 II Etym.: A loan trans-

lation of the Greek word OeKa'teia. Derives from AeCh.Tb. = "ten"
(BER, I, pp. 346-7; Vasmer, I, pp. 507-8) II Sign.: "Tithe" A tax on
the production (sheep, pigs, honey and so forth). (Laskaris, Vatoped-
skata gramota, pp. 45-6; Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija,
p. 161; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 118; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 322;
Angelov D., Agrarnite otnoshenija v Severna i sredna Makedonija prez
XIV vek, Sofia, 1958, pp. 208-11; Andreev, "Traits specifiques du sys-
teme fiscal", p. 90; Institutii feudale, pp. 149, 158-60; Oikonomides,
Fiscalite et exemption fiscale, pp. 74-6; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bul-
garskite tsare", p. 49).
AeCh.Tb.HHKrz.. (subst. m.)-AeCh.Tb.HHU,H (Nom. pl.) Vit. 811 Etym.: From

AeCh.Tb. = "ten" and suffix -HHI('A. Probably translation of the Greek
term OeK6.pxo~, which derives from the Latin "decurio, -onis" (BER, I,
pp. 346-7; Vasmer, I, pp. 507-8) II Sign.: "Foreman", commander of a
small military detachment. (Biliarsky, Institutsiite, 314)
AHUb.TO (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 103, Ril. 74 II Etym.: Transliteration

of the Greek word Ot6.~a'tov (Ota~anK6v) from the verb Ota~aivro
= "cross through" II Sign.: Fee for crossing a river by a brifge, ford
and so on. (Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 419-20;
Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, pp. 63-4).
AHb.AHKrz.. (subst. m.)-MN 35. II Etym.: From the Greek words

OtaOtKero > OtaOtK6~. II Sign.: "Person who judges", "judge".
60 CHAPTER ONE
AH~AHM~ (subst. f.)-Ril. 4, 74 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek

word oux&ru.ux ="diadem", "crown". (BER, I, p. 380; Vasmer, I, p. 512)
II Sign.: Ruler's (imperial or royal) insigne, symbol of power.
AHMOCHoHrz. (subst. m.)-Virg. 79.11 Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek
term &r!~6crtov ="public (revenue, profits, place, work)".ll Sign.: Pub-
lic fine, penalty. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123).
AH~Krz. (subst. m.)-N 36 (A~KoHrz., K. Popkonstantinov reads ~~KoHrz.

and defines it Bulgar proper name); MN 28, 40, 41 (in MN 40 one
finds the form AH~KoHrz. in the same text with the form AH~Krz.), 71
(1); K 12:17-19, 13:10-11 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term
ouh.:ovoc;. (BER, I, p. 472; Vasmer, I, p. 560) II Sign.: "Deacon", "aco-
lyte" (the lowest church level) or "diak" (employee in the chancellery).
(I nstitufii feu dale, p. 153; Popovic, "Povelja bana Tvrtka I Kotromanica
Dubrovniku", p. 154).
,Aj\rz.rrz. (subst. m.)-Virg. 76, 77 74; K 71:7-9 II Etym.: From the

Palaeoslavic "*dblgo" ="debt", Gr. (xpeiA.ru.ux, Lat. "debitum". Related
to the Gothic word "dulgs" and Irish "dligit" = "debt" (BER, I, p. 455;
Vasmer, I, p. 524) II Sign.: "Debt, duty, obligation", Gr. xpeoc;, oavetov,
<'xpeiA.11~a, Lat. "debitum"
,Aj\'I.mb.HHKrz. (subst. m.)-K 71:8-9 II Etym.: See ,Aj\rz.rrz.. II Sign.:

"Debtor", Lat. "debitor", Gr. (xpetAeT!lc;.
,Aj\rz.m~:.Hrz.
(adj.)-AH 200,201 bis, 202 bis; N 19; K 32:3,39:5-6,44:22-
24, 53:15-17, 53:17-18, 58:1-3, 60:16-17, 61:2-3, 62:22-24, 64:11-13,
65:15-17, 71:4-711 Etym.: See ,Aj\rz.rrz.. II Sign.: "Indebted", "obliged",
"bound", "necessary"
AO&rz.lrrrz.~erz. (subst. m.)-MAD 22, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 47, 85; Ril. 71 II
Etym.: From the meaning of "):lo6MBaM" (= "acquire", "obtain") that
derives from "6MBaM"/ "&rz.ITH" =infinitive of"to be". Could be related
to the Indo-European "bhulijo-" and Greek <puro = "to bear, to give
life", "to augment". (BER, I, pp. 401-2; Vasmer, I, p. 521) II Sign.: "The
one who exists", "the one who augments", the juridical meaning is
related to the signification "the one who brings goods, money", Gr. 'ta
{mapxoV'ta, Lat. ''facultates". In the text of the treaty with Dubrovnik
GLOSSARY 61
of AD 1253 the word signifies "patrimony, goods", "property" This

is the predominating meaning in Serbian language. (Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, 64; Institutii feudale, 163-164; PorCic N., "Povelja kralja
Stefana Dusana dubrovnicanima o carini sluge Babiziva", Stari srpski
arhiv, 5 (2006), pp. 95-6).
AO&b.Nt'I'H (verb)-AH 202. II Etym.: From meaning "BoJur" = "will"

<from the Indo-European root "*wel-", "*wl-" ="want", "desire" The
origin of "Bemr(M)", "rroBeJIJIBaM" is the same. Related to the Lithu-
anian "valia" ="will", Lettish "vaJa" ="force", "power", Old High Ger-
man "wala" = "choice", German "Wahl" = "choice", Sanskrit "vara-"
. ", Avestan "vara- " = "Wl"11" , " ch otce
. ", "ch 01ce
= "destre . " (BER , I, pp.
132-3, 175-6, 404-405; Vasmer, I, pp. 288, 347-8, 521) II Sign.: "To
be sufficient", "to be satisfied", "satisfy"
AOM'l> (subst. m.)-Zogr. 4, 9, 17, 26-27, 33, 51; Mr. 7; MN 83 (1); K

12:11-13, 13:7-10, 18:14-15, 30:15-17, 32:1-2, 35:2-5,41:2-5,43:4-5,
43:7-9,44:9-11, 46:12-13, 55:20, 58:1-3, 58:17,62:8-10, 67:26, 79:14-
15 II Etym.: The word has old Indo-European roots. Related to the
Greek OO)lO~, Latin "domus", Sanskrit "dama-" = "home", "dwelling"
(BER, I, pp. 410-11; Vasmer, I, pp. 526-7) II Sign.: In the cited case
the word signifies "church (temple)", "home of God", Gr. £nA.ncria,
Lat. "domus", "ecclesia"
AOC'I'OtMlHE (subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 27, 33, Ril. 80, 83-84, 92, 93; Vit. 4;
K 66:6-711 Etym.: Related to the word "AOCTOeH" ("honest", "reliable",
"honorable"). In use mainly in the ecclesiastical speach. (BER, I, p. 415)
II Sign.: "Possession", "property, goods", Gr. KATlPOVO)lt<X, Lat. ''facul-
tas". (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 115; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64).
AO'f..OA'l>K'l> (subst. m.)-Virg. 15, 31, 42, 43, 44, 74, 82, 83, 8511 Etym.:
From AO- and 'f..OAHTH = "to walk", "to go". Identical with the French
word "revenu" and English "revenue, income" The term is a calque
of the Greek word cicr6ow~, cicr6on)l« or 1tp6crooo~ or of the Latin
"obventio". It is to relate to the Greek term <popoA.oyia (BER, I, p. 415)
II Sign.: "Revenue, income" General designation for the incomes of
property (lines 31, 42) or of taxes and other public revenues (lines 15,
43, 44, 82, 83, 85). (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 122; PorCic, "Povelja kralja
Stefana Dusana dubrovnicanima", p. 96).
62 CHAPTER ONE
Ap~r'b (adj.)-K 36:4-5 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~mHH~ (subst. f.)-MAD 30, 32; K 44:1-211 Etym.: From Af~r'b =

"different", "other", "comrade", "companion". In the Codex Supraslien-
sis 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) II Etym.: See Afb.m~TH. II Sign.:

"Related to the state", "important"
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 insti-
tution is called AO~~~~ ReAHI~'ll. ("great dux") but this is not the Byz-
antine megas doux. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Biliarsky,
Institutsiite, pp. 292-4; Institutii feudale, p. 180).
A,W~ (subst. f.)-K 37:13-1511 Etym.: From "*dux'b" (from the Indo-
European "*dhouso-s", related to the Lithuanian "dausos" ="air" and
"dvase" = "spirit", Gothic "dius" = "game, wild animals" and "tior" =
"animal", German "Tier" = "animal"). (BER, I, pp. 451-2; Vasmer, I,
p. 558) II Sign.: The basic meaning of the word is "soul", and it is of
a religious-anthropological connotation. These cases are not cited
here. We are only interested in its legal meaning, as "man", "indi-
vidual", i.e., a subject of law. This is the meaning that has been calqued
from Greek, in which 'lfl>Xft may signify "dependent person" (cf. 'lfl>xal
&v9proxrov = "slaves").
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; Vas-
mer, 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 Steuerge-
meinde 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 agrarno-
pravnykh 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 sys-
teme fiscal", pp. 91-2; Institutiifeudale, pp. 201-2; Oikonomides, Fis-
calite, 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).
A't&HL.I,4\ (subst. f.)-K 23:17-20, 61:14-15, 61:17-19. II Etym.: See

A't&4\. II
Sign.: The same as A't&4\. (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane
i razvitie, p. 33).
A't&H'U. (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 Supraslien-
sis 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&b.CT&o (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&0&4\TH (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'tAHH4\ (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. "patri-
monium". (Institutii feu dale, p. 145)
A'tAb.U.b. (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 posi-
tion, linked to a diocese. (Angelov D., Bogomilstvoto v Bulgarija, 3d
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 II Etym.: See A't.l\0. II Sign.: "(Bene)

factor"
A'th\HH!e (subst. neutr.)-AH 200 (see 201-verb C'll.A'th\TH); K 66:9-

10. 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<; = "exarch".ll Sign.: "Exarch". Eccle-
siastical institution. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 122)
e.I\HH'll. (subst. m.)-K 19:22-23. II Etym.: From Gr. £U,v. II Sign.:

"Pagan" Could be related to the penal law and to the status of the
person.
et..ti:.CTRO (subst. neutr.)-MAD 3611 Etym.: Related to the verb HM4\TH

= "to catch, to take"; akin to the Lithuanian word "imu" and the Old
Prussian word "imma" ="to take", Latin "emo" ="to take", "to buy",
the Gothic "nimam" and the German "nehmen" ="to take", as well as
the Greek ve)lm = "to divide", "to receive a part" (BER, I, pp. 494-5;
Vasmer, II, p. 19) II Sign.: "Claim or takings (of certain taxes)" A
different interpretation was advanced by Ivan Dujcev (Dujcev, SBK,
II, p. 335) who defines the word as "quarantee", "judging", Lat.
"vadimonium".
66 CHAPTER ONE
eHr~penc~TH (verb)-Vatop. 15, Virg. 104, Mr. 33, Ril. 63 II Etym.:

Transliteration of the Greek verb ayyapeue'tv = "to charge with a cor-
vee" (BER, I, p. 11) II Sign.: Related to the corvees as a obligatory
prestation of public work. "To impose a corvee" (Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, p. 64)
eHr~r"~ (subst. f.)-Vatop. 20 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek

word ayyapeia = "corvee, service, service as courier/messenger". Orig-
inates from the Persian word that passed in Greek as &yyapoc;. Ini-
tialy meaning this was the appellation of the royal couriers in ancient
Persia that became later a necessary service for the state. (BER, I,
p. 11, A. Bailly, Dictionnaire grec-franfais, p. 7) II Sign.: "Corvee". Any
obligatory public work, for which the state had the right to requisi-
tion labourers, animals, or other required resources. (Jones A. H. M.,
The Later Roman Empire, Oxford, 1964, p. 831, Ferrari della Spade G.,
Immunita ecclesiastiche nel Diritto Romano imperiale, Venezia, 1939,
p. 124ff.; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 48-9; Litavrin, Bolgarija
i Vizantija, pp. 202-4; Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija,
p. 159; A. Stauridou-Zaphraka, "'H ayyapei.a U'tO K6:9tcr~a Bu~6:vno",
Bv~avnva, 11 (1982), pp. 21-54; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 105ff.;
Institutii feudale, p. 15)
enH~epHeR'll. (adj.)-MN 8811 Etym.: See enH~efHHH. II Sign.: "Related to

the epikernios /cup-bearer/", "cup-bearer's"
enH~'-""" (subst. m.)-Syn. Pal.131; !Seal IV.S p. 140 (HnH~ef'll.HH);

N 69.11 Etym.: Direct adoption of the Greek term bttKepvwc;/1ttyKepv'I'Jc;.
Derives from the verb bttKep6:vvu~t = "to stir", "to mix" II Sign.: A
high ranked official in the tsar's court, called "'~WHH~'ll. (=cup-bearer)
in other Slavic countries and in Moldavia. The full form of the name
of this institution has been preserved only in Bulgaria, while in the
Byzantine Empire the abbreviated form 1ttyKepv'I'Jc; was used. In other
Slavic countries, and in Walachia and Moldavia the purely Slavic terms
"'~WHH~'ll., ~an~p~:., n~x~fHH~'ll., etc. were in use (Biliarsky, Institutsiite,
pp. 167-77; Institutiifeudale, pp. 130,350,354,361, 365)
enHc~onH~ (subst. f.)-MAD 50 II Etym.: See enHc~on'll.. II Sign.: "Bish-

opric", "the see of a bishop", "the diocese of a bishop" In the text of
the treaty of AD 1253 the word is cited as nH~o~n~:.e (pl.).
GLOSSARY 67
enHc~eom.. (subst. m.)-Virg. 82; Virg. 83; MN 1, 17, 54; K 12:3-6,

12:17-19, 13:7-10, 13:17-18,23:17-20,40:8,44:9-11,44:12-13, 74:26-
27, 75:4-6, 75:6-8, 77:2-4, 77:4-6, 78:1-3, 79:1-2, 79:3-5. II Etym.:
Transliteration of the Greek term btimcoxo~ (the translation of this
composite word should be "supervisor"). (BER, I, p. 502; Vasmer, II,
p. 21) II Sign.: "Bishop", Lat. "episcopus", Gr. En:imcoxo~. The highest
level of ecclesiastical degrees. (Institutii Jeudale, pp. 135-6)
EnHc~eom~cK'l> (adj.)-K 75:19-20 II Etym.: See EnHc~eon'l>. II Sign.: "Epis-

copal", "bishop's"
EnHc~eom~C'J'RO (subst. neutr.)-K 44:8-9.11 Etym.: See EnHCKon'l>.ll Sign.:

"Bishopric", "Episcopal see/diocese"
EfECb.(subst. f.)-MN 89; K 2:3-4,2:7-9,21:16-19,22:15-17.11 Etym.:

Transliteration of the Greek word aYpem~. (BER, I, p. 504; Vasmer,
II, p. 24) II Sign.: "Heresy", unorthodox doctrine, a deviation of the
Church dogmas. The term is related to the canon law and to the penal
law.
(subst. m.)-N 4 bis; K 1:0, 3:1-2, 4:12-13, 4:17, 5:1, 5:2-

EfE'T'HK'l>
3, 5:3-7, 5:10-12, 5:12-14, 5:14-16, 5:18-20, 6:3-4, 6:20-21, 7:8-9,
7:13-14, 8:19-21, 8:21-23, 9:2-3, 9:18-21, 10:7-10, 11:5-6, 12:14-17,
13:4-5, 13:19-20, 13:21-22, 14:5-6, 14:16-17, 15:6-7, 15:7-9, 15:9-10,
16:5-6, 15:23-24, 16:19-21, 17:8-10, 18:10-11, 18:25, 19:22-23,20:12-
14, 21:1-2, 21:4-5, 21:11-13, 21:13-14, 23:6-8, 23:10-11, 24:1, 24:22-
23, 25:1-4, 26:1-2, 27:7-9, 28:10-13, 30:12-14, 30:17-19, 30:23-25,
31:20-22, 32:7-8, 33:23, 34:14, 35:9-11, 35:14-17, 38:10-11, 39:19-21,
40:10-12,40:18, 57:9-10, 62:13-14, 62:16-17. II Etym.: Transliteration
of the Greek term aipe'ttK6~. See EfECb.. II Sign.: "Heretic", "adept of a
heresy". related to the status of the person and to the canon law and
to the penal law. (Institutii feudale, pp. 187-8)
(adj.)-K 1:4-7, 15:15-16, 30:3-5, 36:10-12, 39:11-13,

EfE'T'H"'b.CIC'l>
39:16-18, 41:6-8, 42:1-3, 58:3-5, 75:17-18.11 Etym.: See EfE'T'HIC'l> and
epee~>.. II Sign.: "Heretical" Related to the canon law and to the penal
law.
(subst. neutr.)-K 1:14-17, 15:7, 67:19-21.

EfE'T'H"'b.C'I'Ro II Etym.: See
EfE'T'HI~'l> and EfECb.. II Sign.: "Heresy".
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, 65:14-
15, 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 matri-
monial 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.

IIEtym.: From m~HA = "woman, wife" (see!). II Sign.: "Marriage",
"nuptials", "contraction of a marriage" (Institufii feudale, pp. 85-7,
192-3)
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)
mHTArb (subst. m.)-Ril. 54, Vit. 9 II Etym.: From the word mHrro
(= "corn", "cereals", related to the meaning of "bread, food", "life")
with the suffix -Apb. (BER, I, pp. 548-9; Vasmer, II, p. 57) II Sign.:
The legal meaning of the term is in the sphere of taxation. This was
an official charged with collecting taxes on grain production. It was
probably translated from the Greek word oTtaPXo~. (Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 361-4; Institutii feudale, pp.
231, 255-6)
mHTAfbCT&o (subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 50, 58 II Etym.: From mHTO (see

mHTAfb!). Translation of the Greek term o"t'tapKia. II Sign.: A requisi-
tion 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)
mHTbHHLI,A (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
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.
mHTb.H'll.(adj.)-Virg. 101 58 II Etym.: An adjective that derives from

mHTO (see mHTb.fb.!). II Sign.: "Cereal", Gr. cri:tou, Lat. ''frumenti" The
juridical signification of the word is related to the grain tax.
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 prob-
lematic 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 Bul-
garian 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 fol-
lowed 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 organi-
zatsijata 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 com-
mander 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 isto-
riografii)", Uchenye zapiski institute slvjanovedenija, t. XXIX, Mos-
cow, 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)", Istoch-
niki i istoriografija slavjanskogo Srednevekov'ja. Sbornik statej i mate-
rialov, 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"', Kon-
stantin-Kiril Filosof ]ubileen sbornik po sluchaj 11 00-godishninata ot
smyrtta mu, Sofia, 1969, pp. 383-7; Malingoudis Ph., «Die Institu-
tion 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. ]ahr-
hundert, 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. Slav-
isch 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.
~AIWF\AHTH (verb)-K 26:9-10, 42:11-14. II Etym.: See IWF\Ab.. II

Sign.: "To mislead", "to delude", "to deceive" Could be related to the
penal law.
~u~T'll. (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)
~AR~4-JARATH/~AR~4-JATH (verb)-N 59; K 10:16-17 II Etym.: See

~AR~T'll.. II
Sign.: "Bequeath", "to leave by testament" Could signify
"to deliver/to hand over property". Related to the civil law.
~AKOHOAATeAb. (subst. m.)-K 75:20-22. II Etym.: From ~AKOH'll. (=

"law") + AATH (="to give"). II Sign.: "Legislator", Gr. "vo~o9k11~"
~4\I~OH'll.
(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 his-
in 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, 22:8-
10, 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-~<iKavov. (BER, I, p. 592; Vasmer, II, p. 75) II
Sign.: "Law", Gr. v6~o~, Lat. "lex" Could be used for a typicon (stat-
ute) of a monastery as well as in its religious meaning of "faith", "Holy
Scripture" (the latter related to the Jewish concept of Revelation as
Law. (Institufii feudale, p. 273)
72 CHAPTER ONE
~~KOHbH'I. (adj.)-Virg. 19, 22, 24, 27, 31, 35, 44, 70; AH 200; K 7:15-
17, 10:5-7, 17:2-3, 17:3-5, 27:7-9, 43:1-2, 61:24, 6219-21. II Etym.:
See ~~KoHrz.. II Sign.: "Legal, lawful", Gr. £vvo~oc;, Lat. "legitimus"
~~ne'I~T~Hrz. (adj.)-MAD 55 II Etym.: From the verb ~~ne'I~T~TH (=

"to seal"). See ne'I~Trz. (= "seal"). II Sign.: Related to the sealing, con-
firmation of an act.
~~noReNtR~TH (verb)-Zogr. 5411 Etym.: From the verb ReNtTH ="to

tell, to order" (BER, V, p. 402; Vasmer, I, p. 288) II Sign.: "To /give/
order", "to command"
~~noR<tA~TH (verb)-K 32:5-6 II Etym.: See ~~noR-tAb. II Sign.: "To I

give/ order", "to command"
~~noR-tAb (subst. f.)-K 1:1-2, 1:2-4, 3:18-19, 10:11-14, 37:20-22,

53:3-4, 54:1-2, 64:5-8, 67:12-14, 67:14-16, 69:6-8. II Etym.: From
the Palaeoslavic *za-pa-vedb, which is derivative of *ved-, R'tAb (=
"knowledge"). (BER, I, p. 603) II Sign.: "Order, command" An admi-
nistrative act.
~~nf'tTHTH (verb)-AH 201; N 2.11 Etym.: From the verb nf'tTHTH =

"to prohibit", "to forbid" (BER, I, p. 605; V, pp. 680-1) II Sign.: "To
prohibit", "to forbid"
~~nf't4-JeHHe (subst. neutr.)-Dubr. 9, Virg. 83, K 37:6-7.11 Etym.: See

II
~~nf'tTHTH. Sign.: In the cited document the word means "prohibi-
tion", "interdict"
~MeArz.~erz. (subst. m.)-Virg. 25,68-6911 Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic

"*sela" = "home, house", "dwelling" or "*sedla" from "*sed-" = "sit
(as position)" with the prefix ~~- and a suffix with locative func-
tions. (BER, VI, pp. 602-4) II Sign.: "Dwelling place"; "a place where
some people dwell". In the cited document the word is opposed to the
word "village" that means it describes some neighborhood out of the
village.
~~CTii\nAeHHie (subst. neutr.)-MN 45 (4).11 Etym.: See ~MTii\nHHKrz.. II

Sign.: "Intercession".
GLOSSARY 73
~M'I'Ii\nHHKrz. (subst. m.)-MN 19, 45 (4), 65. II Etym.: From C'l'li\nH'I'H,

related to the Greek word cr'te~~ro ="treat on, trample on", "mistreat",
"maltreat" and Old Icelandic "stappa" = "treat on, trample on" (Vas-
mer, IV, p. 788) The word is a result of a loan translation. II Sign.:
"Intercessor"
~b.T&oprz. (subst. m.)-K 55:11-12. II Etym.: From the verb ~b.TROfH'I'H

("to close"). II Sign.: "Prison, jail", "cell"
~b.'I'ROfb.HHKrz. (subst. m.)-K 55:11-12. II Etym.: See ~b.'I'Roprz.. II Sign.:
"Prisoner", the word can be used also for a monk with a special vow.
~e&rb.pb. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 16, Ril. 62 II Etym.: Transliteration of

the Greek term ~euycipwv (Lat. "iugum"). II Sign.: "Pair of oxen"-
the juridical signification of the word is related to the agrarian tax.
The term passed in the Ottoman fiscal system as "s;ifthk" that is a
loan translation of the Greek term and than in Modern Bulgarian as
"tiH<l>Tm1K" (from "tiH<l>T"/"s;ift" ="pair") and in Walachia and Molda-
via. (Dolger, Staatenwelt, pp. 256-8; Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija, pp.
320-1; Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 105; Dujcev,
Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 84; Institutii feu-
dale, pp. 99-100; see "~e&reAHe").
~e&reAHe (subst. neutr.)-Mr. 21 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek

term ~euy£A.wv ="pair of oxen". II Sign.: "Pair of oxen" -the significa-
tion of the term is related to the agrarian tax (see ~eRPb.fb.).
~euA~ (subst. f.)-1) yil, regio; Dubr. 3, 6, Virg. 3, 5, MN 54 bis-2) yil,

terra; MAD 2, 3, 8 his, 12, 18, 19, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
his, 40, 41, Virg. 91, 92, 105, Mr. 41, Ril. 81, 89; AH 199; N 73, 74; MN
14 his, 44 (1), 47, 54, 56 (1), 65 his, 71 (3), 106 (the state), 113, 117 his;
K 2:5-7, 2:7-9, 3:16-18, 12:3-6, 19:11-14, 23:12-15, 26:5-6, 35:17-18,
37:20-22, 43:7-9, 46:8-10, 46:10-11, 52:6-7, 55:15-16, 57:21-22,
60:8-11,64:11-13, 73:4-6, 79:11-13.11 Etym.: The word exists in all Slavic
and Baltic languages. It is related to the Avestan and Old Persian word
"zam-", Latin "humus", Phrygian ~~£Am = "goddess-mother Earth",
the same goddess in Thracian language is Ie~A'I'(. (BER, I, pp. 634-5;
Vasmer, II, p. 93) II Sign.: Here we shall deal only with the juridical
(administrative) meaning of the word that is cited as 1) and that we
74 CHAPTER ONE
find in the horismos for the Ragusan merchants of AD 1230 and in the
Virgino chrysobull. The term entered the administrative terminology
of the Second Bulgarian Empire as a translation of the Greek term yft
in its juridical sense. In the Treaty of tsar Michael II with Dubrovnik
of AD 1253 the word designated the entire state: either Bulgaria or
Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik). The same meaning appears in West-
ern and Central Europe. For example, in Transylvania the Latin word
"terra" may refer to an administrative district (Institufii feudale, p. 161).
Having in mind the juridical signification of the word we should stress
the meaning of "real estate", "land property" (see K 26:5-6). (Biliarsky
Iv., «Les circonscriptions administratives en Bulgarie au 13e siecle)),
Symmeikta, 13, 1999, pp. 180-3; Institufii feudale, p. 480)
~HMORH4-Je (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 26, 29, 35, 5711 Etym.: The Indo-Eu-
ropean roots of the word are related to the meaning of winter I "sMMa"
(see Avestan "zya -", "zimo" = "coldness", "winter"; Sanskrit "hemas"
= "winter"; Greek XctJ.La = "winter") and the localisation suffix -H4-Je.
(BER, I, pp. 640-1; Vasmer, II, p. 97) II Sign.: A place for the wintering
of the flocks. The juridical signification is related to the goods and the
fiscal system. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 116)
~AA.TAfl:. (subst. m.)-N 61 bis. II Etym.: From ~AA.TO (=gold) and the
suffix -A.fl:. to create nomina agentis. II Sign.: "Goldsmith", the juridical
meaning of the word is related to the status of the person.
~AA.THLI,A. (subst. f.)- Vir g. 79 II Etym.: OT ~AA.TO. (BER, I, pp. 644-5;

Vasmer, II, pp. 103-4) II Sign.: A golden coin, Gr. VOJ.LtcrJ.La, Lat. "soli-
dus"
~AA.TO (subst. neutr.)-MAD 24, MN 56 (1) bis; K 19:1-2, 13:7-10,

44:9-11, 45:23, II Etym.: Indo-European word, which derived from the
yellow or "golden" colour of the valuable metal. (BER, I, pp. 644-5;
Vasmer, II, pp. 103-4) II Sign.: "Gold", Gr. xpucr6~. The signification is
related to the importance of the gold for the civil exchange.
~AA.Tone'IA.TI:.H'l>(adj.)-Zogr. 46, 53, 61, 71, Ril. 14, 45, 68, 73, 88,
101, 108; MN 48 (4). II Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek term
xpucr6~ouA.A.o~ = "with golden seal" II Sign.: In the combination
~AA.Tone'IA.TI:.Hoe CAO&o = xpucr6~ouA.A.o~ A.Oyo~ = an imperial act/docu-
ment/ of highest degree. Late, such a document was issued even by
GLOSSARY 75
some ruler who had no imperial title. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64;
Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 38ff.)
~0&1:. (subst. f.)-Mr. 3211 Etym.: The Indo-European roots of the word
are related to the meanings of "food", "mouth", "chew" or "break to
pieces" (BER, I, pp. 650-1). II Sign.: "Grain provender (for the ani-
mals)" The juridical meaning of the term is related to the obligatory
supply or requisition of food for the animals (horses, oxen and so
forth) used by the passing officials or army.
~MOA'k~TH (verb) I ~MOA'k~H (m. subst. participle)-K 36:14-16,

37:18-20 II Etym.: Composed by ~Mo (= "evil") and A'k~TH (= "to
do, to take action"). Probably the Slavic verb is a loan translation of
the Greek verb KaKoxotero. II Sign.: "To do something bad/evil", in its
substantive form= "malefactor", "offender". Related to the penal law.
~MOCA~&I:.H'll. (adj.)-Syn. Dr.93, Syn. Pal.110 II

Etym.: The word is
probably created after the form and as opposition of "Orthodox"/
,npaBocJiaBeH" Probably a loan translation of the Greek word
KaK60o~oc;. II Sign.: "Not Orthodox", an epithet for the heretics. We
find the word in various works of Patriarch Euthymius (Kaluzniacki,
Werke, pp. 49, 53, 141, 182, 201, 228) in various texts. (Popruzhenko,
Sinodik, p. CXXXVIII).
~I:.A~HHe (subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 14 II Etym.: See ~I:.A~TH/~H#TH. II

Sign.: In the concrete citation the words means creation of monaste-
ries in Mount Athos; Gr. oiKooo~fl, Latin "aedifitio"
~I:.A~TeAI:. (subst. m.)-Zogr. 12 14 II Etym.: See ~I:.A~TH.II Sign.: Lord

God as Creator of the Universe; Gr. xM<Tt'llc;, Latin "creator"
~I:.A~TH (verb)-Virg. 102, K 9:21-22, 36:13-14. II Etym.: This verb

exists in all Slavic languages and the morpheme is the same in the
Baltic ones. Its Indo-European roots are related to the meaning "to
make something of clay" The meaning of the word is "to build", "to
mason", "to construct", "to erect" (BER, I, p. 639; Vasmer, II, p. 89,
96-7) II Sign.: The juridical meaning of the word is related to the build-
ing corvees and especially to the KacrtpoKttcria = rp~o~HA~HHe =
"fortress building" Gr. oiKooo~iiv, Lat. "aedificare" (Troianos,
76 CHAPTER ONE
KacrtpoKttcria, pp. 39-57; Bartusis, "State Demands for Building", pp.

205-12; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 110-1)
Hro~MeHOR'A (adj.)-Virg. 76, 78,9211 Etym.: See HPO'J'MeH"A.II Sign.: An

adjective derivate of the term "Mr)TMeH" ="abbot", "hegoumenos". He
is a monastic institution, the head of a monastery.
Hro~MeH"A (subst. m.)-Vatop. 19, 20, Virg. 72-73, 76-77; MN 44 (1)

his, 47 four citations, 48 (4) his, 88, 108 (3); K 51:4-6, 51:7-8, 51:8-10,
55:13-15. ero~MeH"A (subst. m.)-Vit. 16 II Etym.: Transliteration of
the Greek word ilr0'6~evo~ = "abbot", "head of a monastery" (BER,
II, p. 10; Vasmer, II, p. 117) II Sign.: "Abbot, hegoumenos". Monastic
institution, the head of the monastic brotherhood. (Institutii Jeudale,
p. 183)
HAOAOmfi:.THie (subst. neutr.)-K 75:20-22. II Etym.: Composite word

of HAOA'A (Gr. e'toroA.ov ="idol") and ;Kfi:.TH!e (see ml:.fi:.U.I:.). Loan trans-
lation of the Greek word eiOroA.oA.atpeia. II Sign.: "Idolatry", "pagan
worship" The term could be related to penal and canon law.
Her~f)("A (subst. m.)-N 47; MN 57. II Etym.: Transliteration of the

Greek word iep«iPXrt~· II Sign.: "Prelate", "bishop", high ecclesiastical
dignitary.
HefOMOH~)('A (subst. m.)-MN 15, 24 (2), 41 (2), 44 (1) bis, 88, 106, 107
(1, 2), 114, 117.11 Etym.: transliteration of the Greek word iepo~6vaxo~.
II Sign.: "Hieromonk", a monk who is priest, presbyter. A monastic
degree.
H~Gf~HI:.H'AIH (adj.)-MN 45 (4) his. II Etym.: from the Indo-European

root "*bher-" The primary meaning is "to collect" Related to the
Lithuanian "beriu" and Lettish "beru" ="pour", Goth. "baira", English
"bear", Sanskrit "bharati", Avestan "baraiti", Gr. <pepro, Lat. "fero" =
"to bring" and German "ge-baren" = "to bear/to give birth to", "to
produce fruits", related to the Bulgarian "6peMe" = "burden" (BER, I,
pp. 42-4; Vasmer, I, p. 159) II Sign.: "Chosen" The term is related to
the legitimating of the ruler's power.
H~ROAHTH (verb)-Virg. 105, Ril. 94; N 68; MN 73 (4), 73 (5), 80; K

19:11-14, 23:15-17, 28:7-8, 53:12-13. II Etym.: Created by the prefix
GLOSSARY 77
H~- and the verb ROAHTH < ROA~, ROM~ = "will/desire" (BER, I, pp.
175-6; II, 22; Vasmer, II, p. 121) II Sign.: "To desire", "to have benevo-
lence" The word is related to the founder law and the royal/imperial
goodwill.
H~ROAieHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 36:3-4. II Etym.: See H~ROAHTH. II Sign.:

"Will", "desire", "decision"
H~POHb'IHH (subst. m.)-Virg. 100, Mr. 30 II Etym.: The prefix H~- added
to the verb roHHTH and the suffix -'IHH. Probably a loan translation of
the Greek word axoKptcrt6:pwc;. II Sign.: Employee in the communica-
tion service, "herald I messenger", Gr. a1tOKptcrt6:pwc;, Lat. "nuntius"
(Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 391-2)
HKOHOM'l>. (subst. m.)-Syn. Dr.50, Syn. Pal.43; N 38; MN 44 (1). II

Etym.: From the Greek word o{Kov61-Loc; < OtKOVOj..LID = "economy",
"house holding". (BER, II, pp. 62-3; Vasmer, II, p. 125) II Sign.: Eccle-
siastical degree in the presbyterial rang. Could be also a monastic insti-
tution. (Institutii feudale, p. 228)
HU<kHHie (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 2, Zogr. 7; N 31; K 25:7-8, 38:11-14,

56:24, 71:3-4, 77:7-9. II Etym.: From the verb HU<kTH = "have" The
term is created by the same way as the French "avoir", the Lat. "habi-
tus", the Gr. £~tc;.ll Sign. "Goods", "property", "wealth". (Ilinskij, Gra-
moty, p. 115)
HHAHKTHOH~/HHAHKT'l>./EHAHKTHOH'l>./EHAHKT'l>. (subst. m.)-Zogr.

72-73, Mr. 50, Ril. 111; N 6, 44, 47, 52, 60, 70; MN 17, 43,45 (4), 54,
58 (2), 61, 65. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word tVOtK'toc;,
which derives from the Latin "indictio, -onis".ll Sign.: This is a Roman
term of antique origin and exists as a sign of the continuity of the
imperial ideology and the Roman legacy. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota,
p. 64; Shchepkin V. N., Russkaja paleografija, Moscow, 1967, p. 154.
(adj.)-Syn. Dr.46, Syn. Pal.36 II Etym.: Loan translation

HHOR'kfb.H'l>.
of the Greek term hep60o~oc;. II Sign.: "Heterodox", "who belongs to
another religion or confession". The term is related to canon and penal
law.
78 CHAPTER ONE
HHOI('l> (subst. m.)-Zogr. 5, 62; N 3, 8; MN 45 (4), 51 (1), 61, 65, 106.

II Etym.: From HH- ="one", "alone", "isolated" and the suffix -ol(rz... The
word is a loan translation of the Greek flOVax6c; = "monk" (BER, II,
pp. 80-1; Vasmer, II, p. 135) II Sign.: "Monk", Lat. "monachus"
HHOnMMeHb.HHI~rz.. (sub st. m.) - Virg. 6-7 II Etym.: Loan translation of

the Greek term aA.A.&puA.oc;. II Sign.: "Foreigner, alien", Lat. "aliegena"
(Institutii feudale, pp. 457-8)
HCI(~~~ (subst. f.)-K 21:16-19. II Etym.: From H~- and I(~~HTH (the
latter of the Palaeoslavic verb "*kaziti" to designate the causal; related
to the Palaeoslavic "*cezn'!ti" = "expire", "perish", "disappear" (BER,
II, pp. 31-32, 135-6; Vasmer, I, p. 160, IV, p. 323) II Sign.: "Damage",
"injury" The term is related to civil and penal law.
HCI(~nHTH (verb)-MN 38 (2). II Etym.: see I(O~nHTH. II Sign.: The

word could be used in the direct sense ("buy back , "buy everything"),
which is related to civil law. It has an allegorical sense too ("expiate",
"atone", "redeem") and it is related to canon or penal law.
HCI(O\fnrz.. (sub st. m.)-K 56: 1-2.11 Etym.: See 1(0\fnHTH.II Sign.: "Ransom"
Hcn~I(OCTHTH (verb)-Mr. 30, 33 II Etym.: See n~I~OCTb.. II Sign.: In the

cited case the word is related to the prohibition the state officials from
damaging the people and the goods of the monastery under benefac-
tion. Gr. ec;Jl1to~HI;etv, Lat. "impedire"
HcnOR<to~V-TH/HcnoR<tA<tTH (verb)-AH 203; K 32:10-12, 39:13-15,

42:4-7, 52:12, 57:3, 57:14-16,66:17-19,67:7-9, 79:5-6.11 Etym.: Loan
translation of the Greek verb e~OflOAoye'iv. II Sign.: "To confess" The
word is related to canon penitential law.
HcnoR<to~V-HHie (subst. neutr.)-MN 1, K 39:16-18. II Etym.: See

HcnoR<to~V-TH. II Sign.: "Confession" but mostly the word could signify
a formula or definition of the faith.
HcnoR<tAb. (subst. f.)-K 39:19-21,55:16-17.11 Etym.: See HcnOR<to~V-TH.

II Sign.: "Confession".
GLOSSARY 79
HcnfARH'I'H (verb)-Virg. 12 (part. pas.); MN 40 his, 41.11 Etym.: From

the Palaeoslavic "praV'b" = "right" (BER, V, pp. 584-6; Vasmer, III,
p. 352) The verb is created by the same way as the Latin one "cor-
rectus" or the Greek Otop9oilv. II Sign.: "To correct", "to make right
I just", "to repair" I would like to mention here the institution of
"ispravnic" on Walachia and Moldavia. (Institufii feudale, pp. 237-9)
HcnfARAeHHe (subst. neutr.)-Ril. 77 II Etym.: See HcnfARH'I'H. II Sign.:

"Repair, mending", Greek Ka:t6p9rocr~.
HlefeH (subst. m.)-Virg. 83; MN 41 (1); K 12:1-2, 12:14-17, 30:3-5.

II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term iepe6<; = "priest" (BER, II,
pp. 100-1; Vasmer, II, p. 117) II Sign.: Ecclesiastical degree and institu-
tion, "priest", "minister", Gr. iepd><;, Lat. "sacerdos"
I~A~A'I'H /ch./ (verb)-Virg. 17, K 1:4-7, 27:14-16 49:16-18, 67:14-16,

67:16-18,75:22-24,80:6-9, II Etym.: from Palaeoslavic "*kaznti, kazq" =
"to say, to tell" with primary sense of "to rumble, to roar, to thunder",
"to scold, to rebuke", "to punish". (BER, IV, p. 477; Vasmer, II, p. 159)
The word is practically identical with the Greek word 1tatoeuetV. II
Sign.: "To teach, to instruct", "to preach, to discipline", "to punish,
to chastise, to penalise" (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie,
p. 39)
~A~Hb. (subst. f.)-K 74:10-11. II Etym.: See ~~~A'I'H. II Sign.: "Punish-

ment", "penalty"
~Mo~refHLV- (subst. f.)-MN 76 (4). II Etym.: See ~Mo~rep'b. II Sign.:

A member of a female monastic sisterhood, "nun"
~Mo~repoR'b (adj.)-Virg. 72 II Etym.: Adjective from ~Mo~rep'b. II

Sign.: Concerning the monks. (Institufii feudale, pp. 81-2)
~MO\j'ref'b (subst. m.)-N 20; MN 41 (1), 99. II Etym.: Translitera-

tion Mthe Greek term Ka.Myepo<; ="a good old man", "monk", Latin
"monachus". (BER, II, pp. 176-7; Vasmer, II, p. 170).11 Sign.: "Monk"
(Institutiifeudale, pp. 81-2; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie,
p. 74)
80 CHAPTER ONE
(subst. m.)-MAD 16 II Etym.: From the Latin word "cas-

KM'I'e.l\rz..
trum" > diminutive "castellum" through the Italian word "castella"
and Modern Greek one KacrteMo. (BER, II, p. 264) II Sign.: "Castle",
"fortress" In the cited text the Serbian "fortresses" are opposed to
the "cities" The word is use in Dubrovnik should have been directly
adopted from Italian without any Greek mediation.
la.cTpocj>H.I\A/!l'l>/Krz.. (subst. m.)-Virg. 15, 97, Vit. 8 II Etym.: Transli-

teration of the Greek term Kacrtpo<p{>A.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.: transli-

teration 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.: Translitera-

tion of the Greek word Ke<paA.fi = "head" II Sign.: provincial gover-
nor in the late mediaeval Bulgaria. (Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 286-92;
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.
KAe&eTI:.HHK'b (subst. M.)-AH 202; K 74:1-3. II Etym.: See KAe&err~.

II 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:. corre-
spond 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)
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 cir-
conscriptions 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).
KO&A"'b (subst. m.)-N 61 bis; MN 8 (7) II Etym.: From "*kovati" (Indo-

European "*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", Ger-
man "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.
I~O~MHK'l> (subst. M.)-MN 99. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek

word KOcrJ.LtK6~, derivative of KOcrJ.LO~ ="world", "cosmos, Universe". II
Sign.: "Lay man". Juridical meaning related to the status of the person.
I~ONimo (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.
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 gra-
mota, 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.: Prob-
ably this is an abbreviated form of oiKo~Mhov. II Sign.: Fiscal insti-
tution. This was an annual obligation in kind, which was neither a
basic tax on production, nor a tax for land measurement, nor a tax for
weighing grain produce and determining the tax on the latter. We first
come across it in the charters of Basil II for the Ochrid archbishopric,
which gives us reason to conclude that this was a Bulgarian tax of
the time of the First Empire, introduced to Byzantium after Bulgaria
was conquered in AD 1018 and became part of the Empire. (Dolger,
Staatenwelt, pp. 251-6; Bompaire J., «Sur trois termes de fiscalite byz-
antine», Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, 80 (1956), pp. 625-31;
Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija, pp. 310-4; Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrar-
nite otnoshenija, pp. 91-95; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 42-3;
Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 103-4; Andreev, "Traits speci-
fiques du systeme fiscal", p. 90; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 82-3)
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 Commu-
nion" (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 juridi-
cal term one finds it in the combination KOHbCK'l>l Tb.T'l> (= "horse-
stealing").
KOfb.&bHHK'l>(subst. M.)-MN 8 (10) II Etym.: From KOfb.&rz.. < Greek

Kapa~wv (= "ship") < Kapa~o~ = "vessel", "pot", "container" (BER,
II, pp. 626-7; Vasmer, II, pp. 321-2) II Sign.: "Sailor"
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; Oikono-
mides, 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 mountain-
ous 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 desig-
nate 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 cor-
vees 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 docu-
ments 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 Hun-
garian "kinlly" and in Greek KpclA'l'J~· (BER, II, pp. 712-3; Vasmer, II,
pp. 333-4) II Sign.: "King", Lat. "rex", Gr. Pill; The term is not a part of
the Bulgarian juridical and political terminology and was in use only
for foreign rulers, in that case the Serbian one.
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, "Entstehun-
gswege", 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. = "for-
tress" See Palaeoslavic "*krer'b-k'b" < Indo-European *kre-pu-" It
is related to the Old Icelandic "hf~~::fa" ="stand, endure", "bear", "suf-
fer". (BER, II, p. 735; Vasmer, II, p. 372) II Sign.: The word can signify
"fortress, fortification" but in the cited case it means that the tsar is
decided to protect the privileges he instaured with his document; Gr.
icr:x;uc;, Kacr-cpov; Lat. "robur", "castrum"
KTHTOfHLV- (subst. f.)-N 51. II Etym.: See KTHTOf'll.· II Sign.: Female

founder (benefactor) or the wife of the ctitor.
I~THTOf'll. (subst. m.)-Zogr. 11; N 46, 50, 85 (2); MN 54, 70. II Etym.:
Transliteration of the Greek word K't'fi-crop = "benefactor", "who cre-
ated something", "founder" The Greek word originates from the verb
K'tt~ro = "to build", "to create" (BER, III, p. 70; Vasmer, II, p. 393;
Nichev Al, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", Ezik i literatura, 35 (1980),
2, pp. 59-60) II Sign.: "Benefactor", "founder", "donor"
KO~Mepb.1~'1>. (subst. m.)-Dubr. 11, MAD 27, 46, 48, Ril. 74 II Etym.:
Transfiteration of the Greek word KO'Uj..l.j..I.EpKtOV (from the Lat. "com-
mercium").ll Sign.: "Duty, customs", "tax on the trade". In the Horis-
mos for Ragusan merchants the is citation of the "Law of Koumerki"
(Andreev, "Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", 92; Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky Iv., «Quelques observations sur la reglemen-
tation du commerce de l'Etat medieval bulgare», La pratique commer-
ciale (= Mediterranees, No 30/31, 2002), p. 99ff.; Institutiifeudale, pp.
490-2).
GLOSSARY 87
KO\j'nAh\ (subst. f.)-Dubr. 2, 3, MAD 27, Ril. 7211 Etym.: See Ko~nHTH.
II sign.: "Commodity, merchandise". (Dujcev, Rilskatagramota, p. 64).
~eo~nHTH I KO\j'nO&~TH (verb)-Dubr. 7, 9, MAD 23, 24, 26, Ril. 72 II
Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*kupiti" = "to buy", which is adopted from
the Germanic languages ("*kaupjan", Goth. "kaupon" = "to buy, to
trade"). (BER, III, p. 142; Vasmer, II, pp. 420-1) II Sign.: "To buy", "to
tra de, , Gr. o.yopo.~:~etV,
' 'Y Lat. " emere,
Ko~m~u,b. (subst. m.)-MAD 21, 26, 27, 29 bis, 31, K 76:9-10.11 Etym.:
See Ko~nHTH. II Sign.: "Tradesman", "merchant" The word is cited
only in the treaty with Dubrovnik of AD 1253 and probably was more
familiar to the Serbian than to Bulgarian usage.
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 deve-
loped 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 pas-
sing 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 taxa-
tion 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 cita-
tions, 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, 72:9-
12, 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 Mor-
dovian "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 mean-
ing 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.: "Princi-

pality", 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, 37:16-
17, 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 gos-
podara, pp. 88-103)
(subst. f.)-Mr. 15-16; MN 47, 69, 83 (1), 106. II Etym.: Trans-

Atl\Rftl\
literation of the Greek word A.aupa = "narrow road", "street" (BER,
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 ser-
vice", the basic ecclesiastical ritual, ruled by the canon law.
AH:XOHMbCTKO (subst. neutr.)-K 27:22-23, 73:18-19. II Etym.: Deriva-

tive 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
.
S1gn.: "U sury" , "money- Ien d"mg" , G r. 1tM::OVe~ta.
'l- ~·
AH:XOHM~HH!e (subst. neutr.)-K 64:25-27.11 Etym.: See AH:XOHMb.CTKo.ll

Sign.: "Usury", "money-lending", "avarice"
AOKH4Je (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 26, 30, 41, 54, 56, 50, 60, 69, 90, Mr. 25,
Ril. 4711 Etym.: Nomen loci from "*laVb" ="hunt" The Indo-European
roots of the word are related to the signification of "award, prise",
"booty, loot" (BER, III, pp. 449-50; Vasmer, II, pp. 508-9) II Sign.:
Related to the hunting right, Gr. lCUVtyemov, Lat. "venatus" (Ilinskij,
Gramoty, p. 117)
(subst. m.)-MN 89 bis. II Etym.: Transliteration of the

AOro-e-errrz.
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 transla-
tion 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 impe-
rial seal and the preparation of the imperial golden-sealed text, the
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)
Ab.CTHTH (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.
(subst. f.)-K 22:4-6, 36:10-12, 40:12-14, 54:14-17. II Etym.:

Ab.CTI:.
From Palaeoslavic "*lbstb" adopted from the Gothic word "lists" (Ger-
man "List") ="dodge, trick", "wile" (BER, III, pp. 560-2; Vasmer, II,
p. 487) II Sign.: "Delusion", "fraud, deceit, deception" Related to the
penal law.
AMTI:.U.b.(subst. m.)-K 41:5-6. II Etym.: See AMTHTH. II Sign.: "Cheat,

fraud", "tempter, seducer"
Akl&OA'tHCT&O/Akl&OA'th\HHie (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 feu-
dale, pp. 4-5; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 91-2)
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"
AklAHe (subst. m. pl.)-Vatop. 4, 17, 21, MAD 19, 20, 21, 25, 31, 33,
35, 39, 47, Virg. 12, 76, 81, 87, 98, Mr. 20, 21, 24, 31, 34, 37, 39, 40,
48, Vit. 6, 7, 12, 14, 17 Ril. 34, 49, 52, 60, 64-65, 70, 89, 102, Bra. 2, 3;
AH 200, 203; MN 2, 65 his; K 19:8-11, 19:16-18, 35:9-11, 40:19-20,
75:12-13, 78:18-19, 79:5-6, 80:9-10. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ljud'b,
ljudbje" <Indo-European "leudh-,*leudheies" meaning "people", "free
men" (BER, III, pp. 577-8; Vasmer, II, p. 545) II Sign.: "People",
"men". (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 118; Institutii feudale, p. 280; Tsibranska-
Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 37-8)
MM'll.meHCT&o (subst. neutr.)-K 58:5-7.11 Etym.: The word is an adop-

tion from the Germanic languages: it is composed of the Old German
GLOSSARY 91
word "mahal", "m~l" = "matrimonial contract, matrimonial union"

(see German "Gemahlin" ="wife") and the Slavic word meH4\. (Vasmer,
II, pp. 562-3). II Sign.: "Marriage"
M4\HM'l'Hf'll. (subst. m.)-See MOHM'l'Hf'll.
M4\HM'l' Hfb.CK'll. (adj.) -See MOH4\C'l'Hf b.CK'll.
uemA4\ (subst. f.)-Mr. 22 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*medja" <

Indo-European "*medhja-, *medhio-" ="middle", "which is between",
"which is at the border" (BER, III, pp. 714-5; Vasmer, II, pp. 591-2)
II Sign.: Border, boundary between the real estates in the agriculture
field, Gr. ~e96pwv. (Misic S., "Povelja kralja Stefana Urosa III manas-
tiru Hilandaru", Stari srpski arhiv, 5 (2006), p. 78)
MeTe,X4\'l'H (verb)-Vatop. 23, Virg. 14, 39, 42, 82 84, Mr. 38, Vit. 5, 7
II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek verb ~'texro = "participate, own
a part" (BER, III, p. 768) II Sign.: "Make obstacles", "make obstruc-
tions/difficulties", "intervene, interfere" A formula to prohibit the
state officials to interfere in the privileged monastery's affairs and to
make obstacles for the benefits and rights set by the charter. (Ilinskij,
Gramoty, p. 119; Nichev, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", p. 65)
Me'l'O,XH~ (subst. f.)-Vatop. 12, Virg. 84, 88, Ril. 16; MN 48 (4). II
Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word ~£'tQxtOV I ~E'toxfl = "com-
munity", "participation", "part" (BER, III, pp. 771-2; Vasmer, II,
p. 611) II Sign.: Possession/patrimony of a monastery. A small mon-
astery. (Nichev, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", p. 65; Misic, "Povelja
kralja Stefana Urosa III manastiru Hilandaru", p. 78)
Me'l'O,X'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 7, 29, 23, 24, 34, 59, 61, 98, Ril. 20, 39. II
Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word ~'tQxtOV I ~e'toxft. II Sign.:
See Me'l'O,XH~. (Nichev, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", p. 65; Institutii
feudale, pp. 294-5; Misic, "Povelja kralja Stefana Urosa III manastiru
Hilandaru", p. 78)
ue'IOHOW4\ (subst. m.)-ISeal IV.9 p. 142 (=H 25). II Etym.: Composite

word of r.te'l'll. = "sword" (probably of Gothic origin; maybe related to
the Latin "macto" and Irish "machtaim" = "to kill": BER, III, p. 775;
Vasmer, II, pp. 612-3) and HOCH'l'H ="to bring" The meaning is "sword
92 CHAPTER ONE
bringer" and the word is created under the pattern of the Greek term
mta96.pto~. II Sign.: The spatharioi were part of the imperial guard and
then became a title without any service in the administration or army.
The cited text is the unique evidence for the institution in Bulgaria. It
was better known in Walachia and Moldavia. (Institutii Jeudale, pp.
449-50)
MHAOCTb. (subst. f.)-Dubr. 12, Virg. 66, 104, Zogr. 22; !Seal ILl
p. 130, II.2 p. 132; N 46; MN 38 (1), 48 (4); K 11:7-8,30:10-12, 36:7-8,
54:8-10,67:16-18, 77:9-11.11 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*milasttJ" <"*mil'b" =
"dear", "beloved", "darling" and the suffix "*-asttJ". (BER, III, pp. 787-9,
795; Vasmer, II, p. 622) II Sign.: "Mercy", "benevolence", "benefac-
tion" (Institutii feudale, pp. 27-8; Popovic, "Povelja bana Tvrtka I
Kotromanica Dubrovniku", p. 154)
MHfb.CK'l.IH (adj.)-MN 106. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*mir'b" < Indo-

European "*mei-" (="dear", "darling"). Related to the Lettish "miers" =
"peace", "serenity", "silence", Lithuanian "mieras" ="dear" and Alba-
nian "mire" = "good" Could be related to the Sanskrit "mitra-" =
"friend, friendship" and Avestan "mi9ra" = "contract" The latter is
also the name of the god Mithra. The meaning "world" is secondary.
(BER, IV, pp. 110-2, 118; Vasmer, II, p. 626). II Sign.: "Lay", opposed
to "monastic" (Iv. Biliarsky, "Un cosmopolitisme entre la beaute et
la saintete", Guerre et paix dans l'Orient mediterraneen, (= Mediter-
ranees, No 29), 2001, pp. 39-50)
MHT~Trz. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 13-14, Virg. 101, Mr. 31, Ril. 56 II Etym.:
Transliteration of the Greek term ~'ll't&:tov. II Sign.: Fiscal institute. The
term designates a specific obligation of the population, but also the
official charged with ensuring its fulfilment. In the Byzantine Empire
this obligation was for the benefit of the military in the tagmata: tem-
porary requisitioning of part of the homes of the population for accom-
modating commanders or soldiers during a relatively long period of
time. This obligation does not involve providing food, which should
be ensured by the state or be bought by the military. (Ferrari della
Spade, Immunita ecclesiastiche, pp. 158-9; Jones, The Later Roman
Empire, I, 249-253; Ostrogorsky, Steuergemeinde, pp. 60-1; Laskaris,
Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 43-4; Solovjev, Masin, Grcke povelje srp-
skih vladara, pp. 466-7; Cvetkova, "Influence exercee", pp. 252-3;
Bartusis M., "State Demands for the Billeting of Soldiers in Late Byz-
GLOSSARY 93
antium", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog institute u Beogradu, t. XXVI

(1987), pp. 115-23; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Andreev, "Traits
specifiques du systeme fiscal", p. 90; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 91-3;
Institutiifeudale, pp. 517-8; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 372-4; Bozilov,
"Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 48)
MHrrponoAHT'l> (subst. m.)-ISeal 111.6 p. 136, 111.8 p. 137; N 54 bis,

70; MN 16, 43 bis, 57, 65, 68, 101 bis. II Etym.: Transliteration of the
Greek word !lrttp01tOAt'fll<;. (BER, IV, p. 139; Vasmer, II, p. 629) II
Sign.: "Metropolitan", high ecclesiastical dignity, metropolitan bishop.
uHororytWb.H'l> (adj.)-MN 20 (1 bis), 24 (2), 53, 58 (2), 60, 94 (1), 105,

110 (1), 117.11 Etym.: See rp-t.X'l>· The word is a loan translation of the
Greek term 1tOAUct.)lap'flltO<;.II Sign.: "Very sinful" The word is related
to canon law and to penitentials.
uor..,.Tb. (subst. m.)-K 35:17-19. II Etym.: From the verb "Mora" =

"can" II Sign.: "Powerful man"
MOHMT'l>lf'l>(subst. m.)-Vatop. 1, 6, 13, 17, 22, MAD 50, Virg. 5,Zogr.
54, 57, 65, Mr. 18, 20, 26, 31, 34, 35, 39, 40, Vit. 2, 5, Ril. 14, 15, 50,
52, 51, 65, 83, 87, 89, 76, 79, 107; N 46 bis, 80; MN 44 (1), 47, 48 (4),
88; K 45:5-7, 45:15-17, 47:12-14, 46:17-19, 49:5-6, 51:4-6, 51:18-19,
52:1-2.11 Etym.: transliteration of the Greek word )lOVa.crtnpwv. (BER,
III, pp. 636-7; Vasmer, II, p. 649) II Sign.: "Monastery". (Institutiifeu-
dale, pp. 287-9).
(adj.)-Mr. 37, 39, Vit. 6, Ril. 20, 28, 30, 39, 69, 71, 76,
UOHMT'l>lfb.CK'l>
K 55:13-15. II Etym.: See MOHACT'l>lf'l>· II Sign.: Adjective from "mon-
astery"; "monastic"
MOHA,X'l>/MHH,X'l>(subst. m.)-MN 16, 35, 44 (1), 45 (4), 47, 60, 70, 77,
78, 83 (1), 84 (4), 86 (1), 106. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek
word ).!Ova.x6c; < )l6voc; ="alone". (BER, IV, p. 233; Vasmer, II, p. 649)
II Sign.: "Monk"
uocrrb.HHHA (subst. f.)-Virg. 30, 103 II Etym.: From uocT'l. ="bridge"
(Old Slavic "*mastt1" akin to the Indo-European verb "*mot-tos"= "to
set", "to through", "to shift"; something that connects two points in
94 CHAPTER ONE
space) and the suffix -HHH~. The word seems to be a translation from
the Greek ye<pupromc; (BER, IV, pp. 254-5; Vasmer, II, p. 662) II Sign.:
Corvee, related to building and maintenance of bridges, which existed
in the Empire from ancient times. (cf. I. et P. Zepos, Ius graecoro-
manum, I, Athtmes, 1931, p. 23, Basiliques, V, 1.4 = Cod. lust. I,
2, 5 et Basiliques, V, 3, 6 = lust. Nov. 131, p. 5). It usually occurs
cited together with the obligation of building roads (Mocrtprocria,
ooou Kat6.macric;. 606mpromc;). The expression may also be ye<pupac;
avaK'ttcrt<; or ye<p{>pac; oiKOOO~ft Kat avaverocrtc;. This was an excep-
tional (not regular) obligation of the population in cases when the
state was hard pressed by circumstances. (Ferrari della Spade, Immu-
nita, pp. 137-8; Karayannopoulos 1., Das Finanzwesen des fruebyz-
antinischen Staates, Mi.inchen, 1958, p. 181; Oikonomides, Fiscalite,
p. 109; Institutii feudale, p. 366)
(subst. f.)-AH 203.11 Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*muditi"

M'l>AI:.AOC'T'b.
< "*mauditi", related to the Indo-European "*mon-d" > Sanskrit
"*manda-" ("slow"). Russian "Me):\JieTb" (BER, IV, pp. 301-2 "My):\H";
Vasmer, II, pp. 590-1) II Sign.: "Slowness", "clumsiness", "ineptness",
"carelessness" Some scholars define it as a "moravism" (Maksimo-
vich, ZSL, pp. 94-5)
Mb.~~ (subst. f.)-K 75:20-22. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*mbzda" from

the Indo-European "*mizdho-", related to the Sanskrit "midham" =
"prise, award", Avestan "mizdam" = "prise, award", "gain, profit",
Ossetian "mizd" = "prise, award", Greek ~tcr96c; and Goth. "mizdo" =
"salary, income", "prise" as well as Old German "mieta" = "prise,
award", "rent". (BER, IV, p. 379; Vasmer, II, p. 618) II Sign.: The juridi-
cal meaning is "ransom" (only these cases are cited here).
Mb.CTHTeAb. (subst. m.)-K 37:18-20. II Etym.: See Mb.C'T'b.. II Sign.:

"Avenger, revenger", Greek EKOtKO<;.
Mb.C'T'b. (subst. f.)-K 57:18-21. II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*mbstb",

"*mbsta" < "*mbt-tb", "*mbt-ta" ="mutual reward"< Indo-European
"*mi-t(h)" (="to recompense, requite"). (BER, IV, p. 431; Vasmer, II,
p. 608) II Sign.: "Retaliation", "vendetta", "punishment", "pain"
M'kCTO (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 38, 51, MAD, 28, Mr. 7, 15, 19, Zogr.
12, 13, 70, Ril. 15, 36, 47; N 14, 22; MN 48 (4), 54 /in the meaning of
GLOSSARY 95
"city"/; K 2:3-4 (only the meaning of "country", "region" in cited), 61

("countryside", "place"). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*mesta" < "*moit-to"
Its meaning is akin to "fortified", "standing straight", "column, post",
and "place". According to some views, the meaning of "city" in west-
ern Slavonic languages is a loan translation from the German word
"Stadt", which then passed into the Russian language. This meaning
of the word exists in the South Slavic languages as well, where it may
have been a calque from the Greek -t6n:o~. (BER, IV, pp. 446-7; Vas-
mer, II, pp. 607-8) II Sign.: "Place", "city", Gr. -t6xo~, Lat. "locus". As a
legal term: "city" (cf. especially Mr. 15, 19), which is both a settlement
and an administrative unit. (Biliarsky, "Les circonscriptions adminis-
tratives", p. 190)
UMO (subst. neutr.)-Mr. 32 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*m~sa" < Indo-

European "*memso-", related to the Indo-European "*memsro-" (in
Greek ~11p6~) = "leg, round", "thigh", "thigh bone" Related to the
Latin word "membrum"= "member" and Irish "mir" ="morsel, bite,
bit" (BER, III, p. 759) II Sign.: "Meat" The juridical meaning of the
word is related to the requisition and obligatory furnishing in favour
of the army and passing state officials.
Mi'I\~ATHU,A (subst. f.)-K 62:3-4. II Etym.: From "Mi'l\~'1.." = "man" II

Sign.: "Married woman"
Ui'l\la. (subst. f.)-MN 54; K 11:9-11 (only the special meaning of the
word is cited here). II Etym.: From the Indo-European root "*monk-",
"*menk- " = "press, squeeze", ''break to pieces" This meaning is in
the basis of the words "to knead", "to mix", "to squeeze, to kneed"
(see Russian "MYJ<a" = "dough, pastry"), related to Greek ~acrcrro and
Sanskrit "m<kate", "mancate" ="break to pieces". (BER, IV, pp. 381-3;
Vasmer, III, pp. 6-7) II Sign.: "Punishment"
Mi'I\"'EHHI~'l..(subst.m.)-K33:11-12.II Etym.:SeeMif\la-.11 Sign.:"Martyr"
Ui'I\"'HTH (verb)-K 4:21-22, 36:20-21, 39:3-4, 76:12-16. II Etym.: ee

Ui'I\KA. II Sign.: "To torture", "to punish, to penalise" The latter is
related to the penal law.
HAKOA'l> (subst. m.)-1) impetus-Virg. 6; 2) praetensio; Virg. 86 II

Etym.: From the verb KOAHTH = "to lead, to guide" (HAKOAHTH = "to
96 CHAPTER ONE
bow, to incline; to fetch"). Pretension that is "brought, imposed" by

somebody. (BER, IV, p. 460; Krys'ko V., "Russko-tserkovnoslavjan-
skie rukopisi XI-XIV vv. kak istochnik po istorii staroslavjanskogo i
russkogo jazykov: novye dannye", in: Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. XIII
Mezhdunarodnyj s'ezd slavistov. Ljubljana, 2003. Doklady rossijskoj
delegacii,Moscow,2003,p. 340) II Sign.: "Pretension", "claim", "petition"
Hb.HMbHH~'b (subst. M.)-K 75:14-17. II Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic

"*j~ti"(related to the meaning "to have") and the prefix Hb.-. (BER,
IV, pp. 472-3) II Sign.: "Hired labourer", "mercenary", Gr. J..Ltcr90YC6c;.
(Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, p. 208)
Hb.~~b.HH!e (subst. neutr.)-K 30:23-25, 38:1. II Etym.: See ~b.~b.'I'H.

II Sign.: "Punishment", "penalty", "precept", Gr. vot>9ecria. (Institutii
feudale, pp. 355-8).
Hb.~b.~b.'I'H (verb)-K 5:1, 16:5-6, 44:4-6, 75:4-6; MN 16. II Etym.: See

~b.~b.'I'H. II Sign.: "To punish", "to instruct" In the Synodicon (Syn.
Pal. 63) we find the meaning "to teach, to educate" (Gr. ~hM.crKro) and
in same in a text of patriarch Euthymius (Katuzniacki, Werke, p. 141,
160). The origin of both meanings is the same but the sense developed
in different directions.
Hb.Me'J''bl~'b (subst. m.)-Virg. 101 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*mesti",

"*metati", "*metajq" = "to cast", "to throw" with the prefix Hb.-. The
verb is "throw on" (BER, IV, pp. 447-50; Vasmer, III, p. 41) II Sign.:
A type of (probably) additional, supplementary tax.
Hb.fOA'b (subst. M.)-K 2:25-27, 32:16-17, 69:5-6. II Etym.: Derivative

of fOA'b ="family, clan" (see). (BER, IV, pp. 512-3; Vasmer, IV, p. 45)
II Sign.: "People", "folks"
HMHAH!e (subst. neutr.)-Ril. 64, 65, K 50:9-10, 52:12. II Etym.: From
CHAb. ="force, strength". (BER, IV, pp. 523-4) II Sign.: "Violence, out-
rage, coercion", Gr. ~ia, Lat. "vis". (Institutii feudale, pp. 441-2)
HMNkAORb.'I'H/Hb.CNkAH'I'H (verb)-Mr. 46, Ril. 105; AH 202; K 78:13-

14.11 Etym.: From CAeAH'I'H ="to follow". (BER, IV, p. 528, VI, p. 862)
II Sign.: "To inherit", "to obtain heritage", "to succeed", Gr. KA:rtpovoJ..Letv,
Lat. "hereditare" (Institutii feudale, pp. 305-8)
GLOSSARY 97
HM.I\'tAb.HHK'A (subst. m.)-Mr. 41, K 69:16-18. II Etym.: See

HM.I\'tAOR~TH.II Sign.: "Heir", "inheritor", "successor", Gr. KA.npov6J..Loc;,
Lat. "heres" (Institutii feudale, pp. 309-13; Tsibranska-Kostova,
Formirane i razvitie, p. 33)
H~CTUHHK'A (subst. m.)-MN 65 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic verb "*nas-

taviti" = "to instruct", "to advise", "to teach", "to direct" (BER, IV,
p. 535) II Sign.: "Tutor, mentor, preceptor"
H~CTO.I\b.HHK'A (subst. m.)-K 79:1-2. II Etym.: From Ha- = "on" and

"cTon" = "table" and "cTem!" = "spread, cover" "Who is at the table"
and from that the meaning "main, primary, major" (adj.) is developed.
(BER, IV, p. 540) II Sign.: "Lieutenant"
HMTO~TH (verb)-K 29:9-11,44:1-2,46:8-10.11 Etym.: From the verb

CTO~TH = "stay" and H~A'A ="on, over"; probably loan translation of
the Greek verb e<picrtrtJ..Lt. II Sign.: "Stay, be above", "be head", "gov-
ern", "stay, be ahead"
H~,XOAb.HHK'A (subst. m.)-Ril. 5711 Etym.: From the verb ,XOAHTH; the
primary meaning is "to find", "to find something in the road" (BER,
IV, pp. 569-70) II Sign.: Communication officer, imperial messen-
ger, Gr. 1tpecr~uc;, Lat. "nuntius", "legatus" (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota,
p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 392-3)
H~lJh..l\0 (subst. neutr.)-K 6:8-11, 6:13-14, 17:7-8, 60:8-11, 67:7-9. II

Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic verb "*nac€(ti" = "to begin", "to start"
(H~lJh.TH, H~lJb.H~) < Indo-European root "*ken" = "to set in", "to
begin, to start" Probably created on the pattern of the Greek word
Ct.PXIl. (BER, IV, pp. 573, 575; Vasmer, III, p. 51) II Sign.: "Beginning",
"principle", "power", "government"
H~lJh..l\b.HHK'A (subst. m.)-Virg. 15, K 57:18-21, 76:19-20.11 Etym.: See

H~lJA.I\0; H~lJh.TH, H~lJb.H~. Probably the word is a loan translation of
the Greek lipxrov. (BER, IV, pp. 572, 573) II Sign.: "Head", "leader"
"superior"
He&p-tmeHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 49:13-15. II Etym.: See He&p-ti.J.IH. II

Sign.: "Negligence, carelessness", Lat. "negligentia". A form of guilt.
98 CHAPTER ONE
He&p'k4-JH (verb)-K 18:10-11. II Etym.: From He- 11 "*bergb". Eastern

Slavic word related to the Goth. "bafrgan" = "to hide" and Old Ger-
man "bergen"= "render save". (BER, IV, pp. 582-3; Vasmer, I, p. 153,
III, p. 54) II Sign.: "To neglect", "do not care" (Tsibranska-Kostova,
Formirane i razvitie, pp. 60-1).
HeR<kmAbCTRHie (adj.)-AH 203. II Etym.: From R<kAb (see R'k4-JHLJP.).

II Sign.: "Ignorance" The term is related to the problem of the
guiltiness.
HeR'kfbH'A (adj.)-MAD 8, Virg. 17; K 16:14-15, 27:10-12, 80:9-10. II

Etym.: See R'kfbH"A.II Sign.: "Unfaithful"-in the treaty with Dubrovnik
(AD 1253) the word is used for the common foe, the king of Serbia.
In the Virgino chrysobull the meaning is "who transgress the imperial
order, set by that document"
HeR<kpbHH~'A (subst. m.)-MAD 8, 9 II Etym.: See R<kfbH'A. II Sign.:

"Unfaithful", "who is not Christian", Muslim or heretic.
HeR<kCTb. (subst. f.)-MN 38 (2).11 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*nevesta" (prob-

ably from the negative particle "He" and the root "ved-" ="to know").
i.e. "unknown", thought to be connected with the rite of maintaining
silence on the part of the bride and addressing her as an unfamiliar
person in the first days after marriage. There is also an opinion that
the word is not composite but is derived from "*nevos" = "new" and
Indo-Euroean "*nevistha" = "the youngest woman" and, ultimately
"unknown by a man" (BER, IV, pp. 587-9; Vasmer, III, pp. 54-5) II
Sign.: "Bride", "recently married woman". It is related to matrimonial
law.
HeARHmHM'A (adj.)-Zogr. 7, 28 II Etym.: See ARHmHM'A. Probably

the word is a loan translation of the Greek aKtVIl'tO<; (the latter is from
the Latin "immotus"). II Sign.: Real estates, immovable, immovable
property.
He~b.~oHbHo (adverb.)-K 22:17-18.11 Etym.: See ~4\~0H"A.II Sign.: "Ille-

gally", Gr. ~'h vo~i~ro<;.
HeomeHHR'AI CA (particip.)-K 61:15-17. II Etym.: From meHHTH I CA =

"to marry, to get married" but negative. Probably the verb is created
GLOSSARY 99
in the basis of the Greek word aya~oc;.ll Sign.: "Who is not married",
Gr. li-ya~oc;.
HeOT'M!MAet..trz./HeOT'MMb.Hrz. (adj.)-Vatop. 6, Zogr. 28, Ril. 44, 50

HeOTrz.eMAeMO (adv.)-Gr. avaqlatpe'troc;; Zogr. 47, 55 II Etym.: From
"eMBaM, eMHa", related to the Latin "emo" ="to take", "to buy", Greek
ve~ro = "to distribute", "to share, to divide" (BER, I, pp. 494-5; IV,
p. 616). II Sign.: "Irrevocable (right)", Gr. avaqlatpe'toc;.
Heno&HHrz.Hrz. (adj.)-AH 203.11 Etym.: Negative form from &HH~. II

Sign.: "Innocent".
Henopo"'b.Hrz. (adj.)-K 13:7-10,42:14-16.11 Etym.: Negation ofnopo"'b.Hrz.

(nopoKrz.-derivative of no- M poK < "peKa", "HapMqaM" = "to tell", "to
call"). (BER, V, pp. 531-2, Vasmer, III, p. 331) II Sign.: "Sinless",
"immaculate". related to the penitence and the canon and penal law.
HenpHh\~Hb. (subst. m.)-AH 203. II Etym.: A negation of the Palaeo-

slavic "*prijaznb" < "*prijati" with the suffix "*-znb" Related to the
Sanskrit "*priya" = "dear, worthy", Avestan "frya" = "dear, beloved",
Goth. "frij<"ln" = "to love", Gr. xp&oc;, xpae'ia, xpa-ti = "kind, mild"
(BER, IV, p. 618, V, pp. 749-50; Vasmer, III, p. 369) II Sign.: "Enemy,
foe", "devil" (Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 95-97, Khristova-Shomova I.,
"Kam vaprosa za proizkhoda i znachenieto na dumata neprijazn", in:
Ada Palaeoslavica. vol. 2. In honorem professoris Angelinae Minceva,
Sofia, 2005, pp. 161-71).
HenMt.Je&~TH (verb)-Syn. Dr.1, Syn. PaLl. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic

"*p'btj-" (probably the primary meaning was "do not expect, not be
certain"), related to the Latin "puto" ("suppose, guess") and Tocharian
"put-k" ("to judge", "to distinguish", "to distribute"). Corresponding
Greek term is imoA.a~~&vro and Latin "aestimo". (Vasmer, III, p. 64) II
Sign.: "To think", "to judge", "to recognise". In the Synodicon the text
is not clear. The word can be found in the texts of Patriarch Euthy-
mius. (Kaluzniacki, Werke, pp. 34, 42, 47, 121, 156). (Popruzhenko,
Sinodik, p. LIV)
HeCRh.4-JeHHKrz. (subst. m.)-Syn. Dr.22, Syn. Pal.. II Etym.: See

CRh.4-JeHb.Hrz.. The word is a negative form of C&A4-JeHHK'I. = "priest" II
Sign.: "Who is not priest", "who is not part of the clergy".
100 CHAPTER ONE
HHRb. (subst. f.)-Virg. 39, 92, Ril. 48, K 2:1-3, 56:1-2. // HHRHe (pl.)
-Gr. &poupa, Lat. "ager"; Virg. 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27bis, 28, 29, 34,
40-41, 51, 54, 55, 57-58, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63bis, 69, 71, Mr. 24, Ril. 28,
30, 6111 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*niva" meaning "plain", "basin", "depres-
sion (geological)" < Indo-European "*nei-" = "down", "under"; Gr.
vet6c;. (BER, IV, p. 636; Vasmer, III, p. 72) II Sign.: "Field, cornfield",
immovable property, Gr. xrop&qnov, Lat. "ager" (Ilinskij, Gramoty,
p. 116)
HH~,i\OmHTH (verb)-MN 45 (4) his. II Etym.: Composite of HH~- =

"down, downward" and AOmHTH = "put" "Put down" Loan transla-
tion of Greek Ka-ra-rierun. II Sign.: "Depose", "remove (somebody of
his position)"
HoRonpocRAij.leH'Z..H'l>IH (adj.)-MN 61, 89. Syn. Pal.113-HoRoCRA4JeH'b II

Etym.: Created under the pattern of Greek ve&pu-roc;. II Sign.: "Neo-
phyte"; who was baptised not long ago.
H~AHTH /eM (verb)-K 68:18.11 Etym.: See H,mAb..ll Sign.: "To vio-
lat~ (somebody)", "to force (somebody)"
HO'rmAb. (subst. f.)-MN 65 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*nudity", "*nudj<(,

related to the Sanskrit "nodayati" = "to force, to oblige (somebody)"<
Indo-European "*neud/dh-", "noud/dh-", "nu-d/dh-" (BER, IV, pp.
700-1; Vasmer, III, pp. 88-9) II Sign.: "Need"
o&HAb. (subst. f.)-K 65:21-23. II Etym.: From "*ab-videti" (RHAeTH =

"to see"), related to the Latin "invidia" = "envy". (BER, IV, pp. 741-2;
Vasmer, III, p. 100) II Sign.: "Offence", "injury"
o&HA'kTH (verb)-AH 201, 202 (o&HAJ\HR'l>); K 78:10. II Etym.: See

o&HAb.. II Sign.: "To offend", "to hurt"
o&H'I"kAb. (subst. f.)-N 67; MN 54, 68; K 51:13-14. II Etym.: From

o&HTb.TH < "*ab-vit-ati" (= "to live permanently somewhere"),
related to Latin "vita" (BER, I, pp. 153-4, V, pp. 744-5; Vasmer, III,
p. 101) II Sign.: "Monastery"
O&A.b.AORb.TH/O&MAb.TH (verb) -Vatop. 5, 18, Mr. 26, Zogr. 61; AH 203;

MN 15; K 76:17-19. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ob-vladati" (bv > v); see
GLOSSARY 101
RAb.AMb.L.J.b.. II Sign.: "Hold", "possess", "to rule, to reign", Gr.liPXetV,

E1t6:p:x,etV, Lat. "imperare"
O&AM1'b. (subst. f.)-1) £~oucria, potestas; Virg. 82, Ril. 49, 69, 78, Vit.
12, 13; MN 111; K 76:17-19.; 2) E1tap:x,ia, provincia; Virg. 16, 34, 40,
Mr. 20, 48, Ril. 72, 76; MN 44 (1), 48 (4). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ob-
vlastU" (*bV>*b) = "power" (see RAM1'b.). (BER, IV, p. 747; Vasmer,
III, p. 102) II Sign.: The primary meaning is "power" The meaning
"region, county, administrative territorial unit" is secondary. In the
note of the Stanislav's synaxary (see MN 44 (1)) the word is opposed
to "chora" -the cited oblast of Ovchepole is a part of the Zletovo chora.
(Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 118; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65; Biliarsky,
"Les circonscriptions administratives", pp. 186-7; Institufii feudale,
pp. 481-2)
OGJ\H'I~1'H/O&AH'IH'T'H (verb)-K 2:23-25, 8:21-23, 13:16, 22:11-12,

29:9-11, 65:7-9, 79:18-21. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*lik-b" = "face"
The relation to the Irish "lecco" and Prussian "laygnan" (= "cheek")
in uncertain as well as that to the Indian "linga-" = "distinguishing
mark" "Make something known, visible". (BER, III, pp. 397-8, 438-9;
Vasmer, III, p. 103) Possible relation to the Greek word £1;eucovi~ro
with the same meaning. (Saturnik Th., Pffspevky k Sffenf bymntiskeho
prava u slovanu, V Praze, 1922, p. 168) II Sign.: "Expose", "unmask",
"accuse"
O&AH'IeHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 2:18-20. II Etym.: See O&AH'I~1'H. II Sign.:

"Accusation"
O&A'br~HH!e (subst. neutr.)-K 62:8-10. II Etym.: From A'll.P~1'H = "to

lie, to tell untruth" with the prefix oG- < Palaeoslavic "*l'bgati" <Indo-
European "*leugh" Related to Goth. "liugan", Old German "liogan",
German "li.igen", Anglo-Sax. "lyge" and Swedish "ljuga" Another
opinion related it to the Indo-European root "*legh" = "to put", "to
lay" (BER, III, pp. 541-4; Vasmer, II, p. 469) II Sign.: "Vilification",
"aspersion", "calumny" Could be related to the penal law.
OGHORAeHHie (subst. neutr.)-Ril. 10 II Etym.: Probably a loan transla-

tion from the Greek Ct.vaKaivrom<;. See also Latin "renovatio" II Sign.:
"Renovation" The idea of"perpetual renewal" is crucial to understand-
ing the political ideology of the Eastern Roman Empire and, hence,
102 CHAPTER ONE
of the entire Orthodox world. It is connected with the very mission

of the Empire in the world and in history. This is an eternal return
to the religious roots of power, action, which makes the basileus similar
to the Lord Jesus Christ and His mission of Salvation. He descended
into the world, was incarnate in order to renew Humanity, to return
it to its state before the Fall.
osor~THTH/osor~ij.I~TH/osor~T~TH (verb)-Virg. 5, Zogr. 6, K 29:14-17,

52:7-10. II Etym.: The verb derives from the word sor~T'A (= "rich"),
which in turn comes from the Old Slavic "*bogt>" (the initial meaning
of which was "property, heritage", "wealth", "good") or from the word
GOP'A (= "god" > "he who carries God within himself", "protected by
God"). (BER, I, p. 61; Vasmer, I, pp. 182-3) II Sign.: "Enrich", Gr.
7tMt>'ti~c.tv, Lat. "ditare"
osp~~'A (subst. m.)-K 53:2-4 (here only the special meaning of

"degree", "taxis", "order" is cited). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ab-raZ'b" <
the verb "pe)l(a" = "to cut" < Indo-European root "*ure-g'h-", related
to Greek (<p)P"lyvt>~u ="to beat", "to break" (BER, IV, pp. 751-3, VI,
pp. 206-10; Vasmer, III, p. 106) II Sign.: The general meaning of the
word is "face", "visage", "example" We are interested in the special
one: "degree", "taxis"-"angelic taxis"
oG~CTH/OGf~4-J~TH (verb)-AH 200, 202, 203; MN 51 (1), 51 (4), 51

(5), 73 (2), 83 (1), 83 (2), 117. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ab-retati" <
the root "ret-" with the meaning "to find", "to walk", "to travel", "to
shake" (BER, IV, p. 754; Vasmer, III, p. 107) II Sign.: "To obtain", "to
acquire" The word OGfOK'A (= "vow", "votive offering") in its primary
meaning signifies "salary", "reward" (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane
i razvitie, p. 58)
OG'bAfb.m~TH (verb)-MN 44 (1), 48 (4), 51 (1).11 Etym.: See Afb.m~TH.II

Sign.: The meaning is "hold (the power)"
OGb.ij.IHH~/onb.KHH~ (subst. f.)-MAD 2, 4, 47, 51, 54, 104, 10511 Etym.:

Palaeoslavic "*abbtjina" < "*abbtjb" ="common". (BER, IV, pp. 760-1;
Vasmer, III, p. 110) II Sign.: "Commune", "community" This is not a
part of Bulgarian legal terminology. In the Ragusan nomenclature its
designs the republics (as Dubrovnik, Venice, etc.). (Institutii feudale,
pp. 333-5)
GLOSSARY 103
o&b.4-JHHb.CI('AIH/om.. I(HHCI(H (adj.)-MAD 55,7711 Etym.: See o&'A4-JHH~! II

Sign.: "Communal". Adjective, derivative of O&b.4-JHH~ = "commune"
O&'Ah\RAeHHie (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 95 II Etym.: From h\RHTH (Palaeo-

slavic "*aviti" = "/make/ appear, make something visible" < Indo-
European "*avfh" = "visible") with the prefix o&rz..-. (BER, IV, p. 762;
Vasmer, IV, pp. 540-1) II Sign.: "Announcement", in the cited case
"promulgation (of a chrysobull)", Gr. <paveprocrt<;, Lat. "manifestatio"
O&<kT'A(subst. m.)-MAD 52, O&<kTOR~HHe MAD, 55, 56, O&'k4-J~HH!e

MN 51 (1) II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*abetb" < "*abvetb" that originates
from "ab-" H "vetb" (= "contract", "counsel"). (BER, III, pp. 740-1;
Vasmer, III, p. 99) II Sign.: "Vow", "oath", "swearword linked to a
contract"
o&'k4-J~TH/o&e'I~TH (rJiar)-MAD 711 Etym.: See o&<kTrz...ll Sign.: "Swear"

at the conclusion of a contract.
(subst. M.)-MN 86 (1). II Etym.: From "o6n( = "com-

o&b.4-Jb.HHI('A
mon" < Palaeoslavic "*abbtjb" = "all around" (BER, IV, pp. 760-1;
Vasmer, III, p. 110) II Sign.: "Cenobitic", "monk belonging to a ceno-
bitic monastery" The word is related to the monastic regulations and
to the status of the person.
o&rz..I'I~H (subst. m.)-AH 201; K 25:16-18, 31:8-10, 53:2-4. II Etym.:

See O&'AI'Ib.H'A. II Sign.: "Custom", "habit". Related to the formation of
the rules of the law. (Institutii feudale, pp. 330-2)
(adj.)-Mr. 49, Ril. 110 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ab-vyeaju"

o&rz..l'lb.Hrz..
(from "*ab-vyk-nati", *bV>*b) related to the Indo-European root
"* -uk-" The first meaning is "do something by habit" > "do something
to be tranquil"> "like to do something". See also the verb o&'AII(Hii'\TH =
"to like, to love" (BER, IV, pp. 743, 745; Vasmer, III, p. 112) II Sign.:
"Customary", "common /law/", Gr. crt>vfi9rt<;, Lat. "consuetus". Related
to the sources of the law, of the Common law.
orp~M (subst. f.)-Zogr. 62 II

Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ograda" (see
"rp~Arz..") II
Sign.: "Fence", "boundary marker", related to the bound-
aries of the real estates.
104 CHAPTER ONE
OAfb.~HHie (subst. neutr.)-Mr. 20, 47 II Etym.: From the verb

AfbJKb.TH ="to hold" (see!). II Sign.: "Possession", "to hold the power",
Gr. Ka'tacrxem'i, Lat. "occupatio" (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 119).
onpb.&b.,I\4\TH (verb)-K 78:10-11. II Etym.: See npb.&b.A4\. II Sign.: "To

justify", "to intercede"
oprHh\ (subst. f.)-Vatop. 23, Dubr. 12 II Etym.: Transliteration of the

Greek word 6P"ff1 ="ire, rage, fury". (Vasmer, III, p. 149) II Sign.: "Ire,
rage, fury, anger", Gr. oprfl, Lat. "ira" The juridical meaning of the
word is related to the sanction in the tsar's document. (Laskaris, Vato-
pedskata gramota, pp. 15-7)
opH~r..to (subst. neutr.)-Dubr. 1, Ril. 91 II Etym.: Transliteration of the

Greek word 6ptcrJ.L6'i from the verb opi~ro ="define", "delimit".ll Sign.:
A type of imperial documents: optcrJ.LO'i· This is the meaning we find
in the Dubrovnik charter. In the Rila chrysobull the meaning is "defi-
nition", "order", "command" The word is cited also in the testament
of Paul Claudiopolites, metropolitan of Melenikon of AD 1216-a
document deriving, created in the state of despot Alexis Slav (Actes
de Vatopedi, I, No 12 pe):l 9, 19). In this case it is used in its general
meaning of "order", "definition" but not as the special appellation of
"hosrismos" (as a type of ruler's document). (Dolger Fr., Byzantinische
Diplomatik, Ettal, 1956, p. 39ff.; Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih
vladara, pp. LXXVIII, LXXX, LXXXIVff.; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota,
p. 65; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", pp. 39-40).
OCRO&OmAb.TH (verb)-Vit. 3-411 Etym.: See CROGO,I\4\.11 Sign.: "To free",

"to make somebody free"
oc&A4-Jb.TH (verb)-K 67:3-4. II Etym.: From c&AT'l.. (see CRA4-Jb.TH!). II

Sign.: "Consecrate", "sactify". Related to the canon law.
oc&A4-JeHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 56:22-24. II Etym.: See OCRA4-Jb.TH. II

Sign.: "Consecration", "sanctification"
ocKRfb.HHTH I c.~>.. (verb)-K 27:10-12,27:19-22,28:1-2,39:1-2.11 Etym.:

From CKRbfH'l.. < Palaeoslavic "*skVbrn'b", related to the Greek crK&p,
crKa't6'i. (BER, VI, p. 738; Vasmer, III, p. 637) II Sign.: "Desecrate".
GLOSSARY 105
ocTUAIM'H/ocTUH'I'H (verb)-AH 202; K 71:7-9, 71: 9-10 (only the

meaning "to forgive" is cited). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*a(b)staviti" <
"*a(b)stati", related to the morpheme "-st-" and the meaning "to stay"
(BER, IV, pp. 945-6) II Sign.: "To forgive", "to release, to discharge"
(for sins or debts). The quotation from AH is related to the matrimo-
nial law and the meaning is "to leave", "to abandon"
OC'I'~&AieHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 9:3-5. II Etym.: See OC'I'~&A~'I'H.II Sign.:

"Forgiveness, pardon", Gr. li<pecrt.~.
OCmAH'I'H Ch./OCmm~'I'H (verb)-AH 202; K 4:7-8, 12:8-9, 15:5-6,23:8-

10, 27:7-9, 30:15-17, 30:23-25, 33:4-6, 57:11-12, 62:16-17, 65:20-21.
II Etym.: See cmAHTH. II Sign.: "To condemn", "to judge"
ocli'\mAeHHie/nocmmAeHHie (subst. neutr.)-AH 202 (nocmmAeHH!e), 203;

K 2:14-16, 32:23-25, 35:5-6, 35:9-11, 36:14-16.11 Etym.: See CmAH'I'H.
II Sign.: "Condemnation", "verdict" (35:5-6), "penalty, punishment"
(36:14-16).
OT'll.~o~nrz..
(subst. m.)-MN 65. II Etym.: See ~O\j'nHTH with the prefix
rl
Sign.: "Ransom", a manner to avoid the responsibility, espe-
0'1''11.-.
cially the penal in the framework of the vengeance.
O'I'Mm'I~TH/OT'll.Am'IH'I'H (verb)-Vit. 20, K 44:18-19, 58:5-7, 73:3-4.11

Etym.: From Am'IH'I'H (Palaeoslavic "*lqk" ="something curve", "bow").
The verb is an exact translation of the Greek rmoA:uro. (BER, III, pp.
529-30; Vasmer, III, p. 171) II Sign.: "Remove, eliminate", "excommu-
nicate", Gr. a<popi~ew. (Institutii feudale, pp. 9, 15, 188)
O'l''ll.MbC'I'H'I'H (verb)-MN 54. II Etym.: See MbC'I'b.! II Sign.: "To /take/

revenge". Related to vengeance and to penal law.
OT'll.Hh.'I'H (verb)-MN 70. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*atbn~ti" (created

of "*atb-" = "from" and "n~ti" = "have"). (BER, IV, p. 966) II Sign.:
"Deprive"
OT'll.npocHTH (verb)-Zogr. 58, 66 II Etym.: From the verb npocHTH

(Palaeoslavic "*pra.Siti", "*pra.S( < Indo-European root "*prok'" I
"*prek'-" "*prk'-" = "to want", "to pleade", "to beg") and the prefix
106 CHAPTER ONE
(BER, V, pp. 780-2; Vasmer, III, pp. 377-8)

0'1''1>-. II Sign.: "To beg
(and obtain something)"
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

OT'l>fOKrz..
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, Thessalon-
iki, 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 pov-
elje 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 Brux-
elles, 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)
(subst. m.)-AH 200 his, 201, 202; !Seal I.lOA p. 126; MN 17,
OTI:.U.I:.
21 (7), 28, 30, 31, 32 (1), 35, 40 his, 42, 43, 44 (1)-four citations, 48
(4) his, 51 (1) his, 54, 60, 61, 69 his, 78, 80, 83 (1), 84 (3), 84 (4), 86
(1), 98, 106 his, 108 (1), 117; K (father) 1:2-4, 1:14-17, 1:19-20, 4:22-
24, 22:8-10, 23:2-3, 23:20-21, 26:9-10, 30:20-23, 30:25-26, 31:8-10,
32:5-6, 32:22-23, 32:23-25, 34:10-12, 34:12-13, 37:20-22, 45:10-12,
48:5-6, 51:13-14, 54:18-20, 59:13-15, 64:9-11, 65:17-18, 67:7-9,
67:14-16, 69:19-21, 71:7-9, 77:13-15, 80:11-14; (priest) 2:1-3, 2:4-5,
11:12-13, 15:12-14, 33:11-12, 49:16-18, 52:2-3, 56:21-22, 58:7-9,
63:9-11, 70:13-15, 79:3-5, 79:9-11, 79:16-18, 79:21. II Etym.: Palaeo-
slavic "*atbcb", created by the third palatalisation of "*atbko" (see Rus-
sian "oTeK" ="father" and "6mK" ="male"). From the Indo-European
GLOSSARY 107
root "*atta-" = "mother", "elder sister" > Goth. "atta", Hittite "attas"
and Greek li:mx related to the meaning of "father", "leader" The word
comes from the children language and replaced the Indo-European
"pater" = "father" (BER, IV, pp. 960-1; Vasmer, III, p. 170) II Sign.:
"Father", "priest" The latter is derivative and secondary. Related to
matrimonial law.
nb.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 mon-
astery; 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 "*pal-

ica" < "*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<; = "gathered").
108 CHAPTER ONE
(BER, V, p. 37) II Sign.: "Holyday with a big market", "fair", Greek

1tavrry6ptov, Latin "feria"
n4\n4\ (subst. m.)-MAD 53; Syn. Dr.41, Syn. Pal.61; N 37. II Etym.:
From Latin "papa", related to the Latin "pater" (Vasmer, III, pp.
200-1) II Sign.: "Pope", the bishops of Rome and of Alexandria.
n4\fHKrz. (subst. m.)-Virg. 54, Mr. 23 II Etym.: Transliteration of the

Greek term 1t6.potKO~ (from 1tap6. and oi11:6~ = "who lives nearby,
around"). (BER, V, p. 70) II Sign.: Paroikos, a peasant with a specific
status, independent but attached to the land. An interesting compari-
son is with the meaning of the term "colibaf in Walachia, where this
was a category of dependent peasants; the name is obviously of Slavic
origin and comes from "coliba"/"Kom16a" (= hut, cabin), which could
be connected with the term that concerns us here. (Ilinskij, Gramoty,
pp. 117-8; Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 479;
n4\fH"'MKrz. (adj.)-Vir g. 39, 50-51 II Etym.: Adjective of n4\fHKrz. (see!).

II Sign.: "Related to the paroikoi"
n4\CH4-Je (subst. neutr.)-MN 48 (4). II Etym.: From the verb n4\CTH =
"to graze", "to pasture". II Sign.: "Pasture, meadow", related to the real
law and the property as well as to some corvees.
n4\CTH (verb)-Virg. 91, K 21:16, 30:1-2, 40:8, 40:14-16, 76:17-19. II

Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pasti", "*pasq" < Indo-European "*pa-" = "to
guard", "to eat", "to feed, to nourish", "to eat grass/to graze", "care for
the grazing cattle". (BER, V, pp. 80-2; Vasmer, III, pp. 215-6) II Sign.:
"Care for the cattle", "have right to graze the cattle in the pasture in
the mountain", Lat. "pascere" The verb could signify "to lead", "to
govern". Related to the corvees.
n4\CT~)(rz. (subst. m.)-K 14:22-23, 16:18-19, 74:26-27, 75:1-2, 75:12,

75:22-24, 76:12, 76:19-20, 78:16-18, 79:11-13, 79:16-18. II Etym.:
From the verb "nMTH" = "to graze", "to pasture" II Sign.: "Herd,
herdsman", "pastor, minister" Only the latter is cited here.
n4\CT'll.1fb. (subst. m.)-K 40:9-10. II Etym.: from the verb "nMTH" =

"to graze", "to pasture". II Sign.: "Herd, herdsman", "pastor, minister".
Only the latter is cited here.
GLOSSARY 109
nATfHAf,X'I> (subst. m.)-ISeal II.l p. 130, II.2 p. 132; N 46, 70; MN 14,
15, 16, 45 (4), 52, 57, 101, 105. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek
word 1tO.'tpuiPX'll~· II Sign.: "Patriarch", the highest Episcopal degree,
Gr. 1ta'tpt<XPX'll~· Lat. "patriarcha"
neyH&OA'll.(subst. m.)-Virg. 41, 69, Mr. 24 II Etym.: Transliteration

of the Greek word 1t£pt~6A.wv. (BER, V, pp. 172-3) II Sign.: "Garden,
patch", a type of immovable property. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 116)
ney'll.neyA/ney'll.ner'll. (subst. f.)-Virg. 88, 93, Zogr. 49, 57, 65 II Etym.:

From Greek {mep1tt>pov. II Sign.: A coin and tax. The juridical mean-
ing of the word is related to some taxes bearing the name of the coin.
(Solovjev, Masin, Grtke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 500; Andreev,
"Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", pp. 91-2; Institutii feudale,
p. 359; Porcic, "Povelja kralja Stefana Dusana dubrovnicanima",
p. 97)
ney'll.nefAK'll. (subst. m.)-Ril. 54, Vit. 9 II Etym.: Transliteration of the

Greek term 1t£p1tt>p<iKt~. II Sign.: Tax official collecting the money tax-
ation. (Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 155-6; Andreev, "Traits
sptkifiques du systeme fiscal", pp. 91-2; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota,
p. 64; Institutii feudale, p. 355; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 355-7)
ne'IA'I'b. (subst.m.)-MAD 55 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "pecatt/' < "*pek-

ett/', deriving from "*pekti" ="imprint, stain, brand" The origin of the
word is Caucasian (Kartvelian/Georgian): "betdi" = "ring-seal", "sign,
symbol", "imprint") through Bulgar Turkic language: "*pe,'et" (BER,
V, pp. 212-3; Vasmer, III, p. 255) II Sign.: "Seal", a sign of confirma-
tion of an official or private document. (Institutii feudale, p. 355)
nHCAHHIE (subst. neutr.)-MAD 55 II Etym.: See nb.CATH/nHCA'I'H.II Sign.:

In the citation from the MAD the word means "document", the very
"treaty" between Bulgaria and Republic of Dubrovnik.
nHCUh\ (subst. neutr.)-Mr. 12 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pisbmq" <

"*pbsati", "*pisq" = "draw", "depict" (nHCA'I'H = "to write"). (BER, V,
p. 262; Vasmer, III, pp. 268, 270-2) II Sign.: "Letter", Gr. yp<i~~a,
Lat. "littera". In the citation from Mr. these are the imperial donation
acts.
110 CHAPTER ONE
nHCb.U.b. (subst. m.)-Virg. 100, Mr. 28; MN 14, 54, 74.11 Etym.: Palaeo-
slavic "*pbsati", "*pisq." ="draw", "depict" (then nHc~TH ="to write").
(Vasmer, III, pp. 268, 270-2) II Sign.: Employee, charger with the tax
cadastre, Greek a1toypa<pe:6~ or avaypa<pe:6~. The word can signify sim-
ply "clerk" (see MN 54). (Institutii Jeudale, pp. 120-1).
nMHHH~ (sub st. f.)- Vir g. 18, 26, 27, 35, 41, 50, 52, 53, 70, 89; Ril. 36;
MN 48 (4). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*planina", formed by "*plano", the
initial meaning of which was "empty, bare (with reference to a local-
ity)" and "barren (referring to land, soil)" It comes from the Indo-
European root "*pel-"/"*po-", from which "none" (= field), "rromma"
(= meadow) are also derived. It is akin to the Icelandic "fell"= "moun-
tain", the German "Feld" and the Latin "panus = "field" (BER, V, pp.
302-3) II Sign.: "Mountain" In this case what concerns us is the fact
that the term designates some kind of property. In Serbian documents
"nA~HHHH" are described as a place where "one neither plows nor digs"
or where "one neither plows nor mows" -i.e. this is a word refer-
ring to insufficiently cultivated lands, mostly left to serve as pastures.
(Solovjev, Masin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 482; Gy6ni M., "La
transhumance des Valaques balkaniques au Moyen Age", By:amti-
noslavica, XII, 1951, p. 38; Blagojevic M., "Planine i pasnjaci u sred-
njovekovnoj Srbii", Istoriski grasnik, 2-3 (1966), pp. 3-95; Bozilov Iv.,
Bulgarite vav Vizantijskata imperija, Sifia, 1995, pp. 39, 47; Mihaljcic,
nMTHTH/nAMtJ~TH (verb)-Virg. 79, 87-88 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic

"*platiti" = "to pay" from "*plat'b" = "textile", "fabric", obviously it
derives from the practice to use the textile as means of payment. (BER,
V, pp. 327-8; Vasmer, III, pp. 274-5).11 Sign.: "To pay", Gr. a1tottvetv,
Lat. "luere"
nAeMA (subst. neutr.)-K 17:5-6. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pled-men-",

related to the meaning "rrnog" = "fruit" and then with the meaning
"rroTOMCTBo" = "posterity, progeny" Could be related to the Greek
1tAf19o~ and Latin "plebes" = "crowd" and "plea" = "to fill" (BER, V,
p. 332; Vasmer, III, p. 278) II Sign.: "Tribe", "clan", "family", "stock"
nArz.~erz. (subst. m.)-N 45; K 3:14-15. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*polko",

which is very ancient borrowing from Old Germanic languages:
"*fulkaz" > Old German "folk", Goth. "*fulks">"fulcus", Anglo-Sax.
GLOSSARY 111
"folc" = "detachment, contingent", "army" (BER, V, p. 370; Vas-

mer, 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).
no&<kAOHOCb.H'l> (adj.)-MN 45 (4) II Etym.: The word is an exact loan

translation of the Greek Vt1CI'(<p6po~. Related to "rro6eAa" (= victory)
in the Palaeo slavic verb "*pabediti" < from "pa-" + ''bediti ". &<kAHTH,
&<kmAm = "coerce" > "6eAa", "Ha6eAHBaM, HaKJieBeTHBaM" (="slander
against"), "y6e)l():\aBaM" (="convince"). The initial meaning must have
been "to coerce", "to force to do", "to subject to one's power". (BER, V,
pp. 397-8; Vasmer, III, p. 293) II Sign.: "Victory-bearing", "that which
causes or contributes to victory"
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<kHHie (subst. neutr.)-MAD, 4, Mr. 2; Syn. Dr.62, Syn. Pal.55;

MN 14, 42, 43,44 (1), 45 (4), 48 (4), 50 (1), 52, 80, 89, 101; K 6:18-20,
8:24-16, 37:15-16, 38:7-8, 39:8-9, 66:1-2. II Etym.: From the verb
noReA<kTH (ReA<kTH = "to say"). (BER, V, p. 402; Vasmer, I, p. 288) II
Sign.: "Order", "decree". A general word for the ruler's act. In the text
of the Synodicon it corresponds to np6ma~t~.
noReA<kTH (verb)-Virg. 108, Mr. 53, Zogr. 50; N 73; MN 48 (1), 54,
58 (2); K 11:23-24, 12:20-22, 13:5-7, 14:16-17, 26:10-12, 32:21-22,
38:20-21, 40:9-10, 48:6-7, 60:1-2, 60:8-10, 62:3-4, 72:18-20, 74:12-
13, 77:15-1711 Etym.: From the verb ReA<kTH ="to say" The comple-
tion of the ruler's power by ordering decrees. (BER, V, p. 402; Vasmer,
I, p. 288) II Sign.: "To ordain", "to decree"
nORHHOR~TH Ch./nORHHmTH Ch. (verb)-N 73;K 19:1-2,35:11-12,37:9-10,

36:14-16, 36:18-20, 37:13-15. II Etym.: Related to the Lithuanian
"veju, vft:i" = "to chase", "to pursue", Sanskrit "veti" = "to pursue",
Latin "venor" ="to hunt", Old German "weida" ="hunt, pursuit". The
112 CHAPTER ONE
words "sofma" ("war"), "smm" ("warrior"), "so:tkKa" ("army") have

similar origin. (Vasmer, III, p. 294). II Sign.: "To obey", "to submit"
nor4\HH~'A (subst. m.)-AH 201 (nor4\H'A); K 41:13.11 Etym.: Palaeoslavic

"*pagano" borrowed from the vernacular Balkan Latin "paganus" =
"pagan"< from Latin "paganus" ="rural"< "pagus" ="village", "peas-
ant population", "region", "administrative unit" This is an evidence of
the urban character of early Christianity. (BER, V, pp. 416-8; Vasmer,
III, pp. 294-5). II Sign.: "Pagan", Gr. £9vuc6~.
nor4\Hb.H'AIH (adj.)-AH 201 his; K 16:14-15, 35:1-2, 48:1-3, 80:6-9. II

Etym.: See nor4\HH~'A. II Sign.: "Pagan"
noA4\HHie/noA4\4\HHie/noA4\fOR4\HHie (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 64, 104, Zogr.

57, 65 II Etym.: See noA4\R4\TH/noA4\TH/noA4\fOR4\TH. II Sign.: "Dona-
tion", "gift", Gr. )letaoom~, oropov, Lat. "impertitio", "donum"
nOA4\TH/nOA4\R4\TH/nOA4\fOR4\TH/nOA4\~TH (verb)-Virg. 106, Zogr. 26,

31,42-43,45, K 32:1-2, 38:18-19,65:1-3.11 Etym.: From Ab.f.'A ="gift",
"present, offering", Gr. o&pov and A4\TH = "to give", Lat. 'dare", Gr.
oiom)lt; Palaeoslavic "*da-" ("*dav-") <Indo-European "*do-" ("*dou-
"). The same or similar signification is kept in all Indo-European lan-
guages. (BER, I, pp. 310-2, 319-20; Vasmer, I, pp. 484, 485) II Sign.:
"To give", "to make a donation", Gr. otom)lt, Lat. "donare/dare"
nOA4\fOR4\Hb.H'A (adj.)-Virg. 8 II Etym.: See noA4\RI\TH/noA4\TH/

noA4\fOR4\TH. II Sign.: "Given", "something that is object of donation",
Lat. 'donatus"
noAfO\fmH~e (subst. neutr.)-K 39:6-7; N 85 (2)-noAp~rl\. II Etym.:

From Ap~r"A. II Sign.: "Matrimony, marriage", "wife" (Tsibranska-
nOA'AROAI\ (subst. f.)-Mr. 33, Vit. 11 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic verb

"*padwesti", "*padvedq" (ROAHTH ="guide, lead"). The primary mean-
ing is "to lead a woman as wife". (BER, I, pp. 170-1; V, p. 442; Vasmer,
I, pp. 330-1) II Sign.: The juridical meaning of the word is related to a
transportation corvee: the obligation to provide transportation for the
army or passing state officials. The same corvee is attested in Wala-
chia and Moldavia ("podvadcl" or "podvoadcl"). (Ilinskij, Gramoty,
GLOSSARY 113
p. 124; Institutii feudale, pp. 84-5, 366; on the transportation corvees:

Kazhdan, Derevnja, pp. 160-2; Glykatzi-Ahrweiler H., Recherches sur
!'administration de l'Empire bymntin aux IX-XI siecles, Athenes-Paris,
1960/=Bull. Corr. Hell., 84/, pp. 17, 19, 22; Ahrweiler H., Bymnce et
la mer. La marine de guerre, la politique et les institutions maritimes
de Byzance aux VII•-xv• siecles, Paris, 1966, p. 146; Andreev, "Traits
specifiques du systeme fiscal", p. 90; Lemerle P., The Agrarian History
of Byzantium from the Origins to the Twelfth Century, Galway, 1979,
pp. 175-6; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 119-20).
nOA'll.nHC4\TH (verb)-Ril. 110; nonHC4\TH (verb)-Virg. 112, Mr. 4911

Etym.: From the verb m~c4\TH/nHc4\TH = "to write" and the prefix nOA'll.-.
"Undersign" II Sign.: The act to sign (to write the name) under an
official or private document that materialise the will of the official or
private person; Gr. {moyp6.<petv, Lat. "subscribere"
nOK4\f~TH (verb)-K 37:9-11, 52:14-15, 62:11-13, 65:10-12,

C/lt.
65:12-14. II Etym.: Created by no- J1 K4\f~TH. Palaeoslavic "*kariti" is
a verb derivative of the noun "*karb" ="injury", "reproach" (BER, II,
pp. 625, 651; Vasmer, II, pp. 320-1) II Sign.: "To obey", "to submit"
noK4\~HHie (subst. neutr.)-K 46:3-5. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*kajati

(s(()" <Indo-European root "*kwoj-". Related to the Sanskrit "cayate" =
"to revenge", "to punish", Avestan ''kay-"= "to repent", "to revenge" and
"kaena-" ="vendetta", "feud", "punishment", Gr. 'ttvro ="to repent" and
notvfi = "penalty", "punishment", "repentance" The same origin with
the word "QeHa" ="prise" (see). (BER, II, p. 304; Vasmer, II, p. 216) II
Sign.: "Repentance". Related to the canon law and penitentials.
noKI\~TH C/lt. (verb)-K 2:13-14,42:1-3,53:1-2.11 Etym.: See noK4\~HHie.

II Sign.: "To repent"
no~eo~CHTH /cllt./ (verb)-Vit. 16, 17, Ril. 100; AH 203. II Etym.: Palaeo-
slavic "*pakusiti s( < "*kusiti" (from the Goth. "kausjan" = "to try"
< Indo-European "*geus-" = "to taste", "to try"). "To try" (BER, III,
p. 152; V, pp. 488-9; Vasmer, II, pp. 431-2, III, p. 306) II Sign.: "To
attempt", "to make an attempt" In the concrete text this was a pro-
hibition to attempt to disregard the orders of the tsar, as expressed in
the tsar's document. A general prohibition on attempting to violate
the rules (of the law).
114 CHAPTER ONE
noAb.C'J'HTH (verb)-Syn. Pal. 110. II Etym.: See Ab.CTHTH. II Sign.: "To

seduce". Related to canon and penal law.
nou~~~HH!e (subst. neutr.)-Ril. 7 II Etym.: From nou~~~TH-a verb,

created on the basis of the Gr. ~uprovro = "to anoint" (BER, V,
p. 508) II Sign.: "Unction", "anointment" (in the citation the word
designs the ruler's unction); Gr. xpicr~a, Lat. "unctio". (Bozilov, "Doku-
menti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 46; Biliarsky Iv., "Mutaberis in virum
alium. Observations sur certains problemes juridiques lies a l'onction
royale", Ius et ritus. Rechtshistorische Abhandlungen uberRitus, Macht
und Recht, herausg. von Iv. Biliarsky, Sofia, 2006, pp. 83-125).
nou~~~Hrz. (particip.)-MN 80 II Etym.: See nou~~~HH!e. II Sign.:

"Anointed"
noM~~~Hb.HHI~rz. (subst. m.)-Syn. Dr.25 II Etym.: See noM~~~HHie. II

Sign.: "Anointed", "chosen by God", "who was anointed in the unc-
tion ritual" -this is the ruler. In the text of the Synodicon (Dr.) this is
a leader of a heresy who preached and pretended to have God's mercy.
The word is different in the Syn. Pal. (noMHAOK~HHKrz.)
noMeTH~TH (verb)-Mr. 43, 45, Ril. 100 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*mesti",

"*metati", "*metajq" ="to cast", "to throw" with the prefix "no-". (BER,
IV, pp. 447-50) II Sign.: Juridical meaning of the word is e "to trans-
gress the tsar's will", "to disobey, to contravene the orders set by the
imperial document"
noMHAOK~TH (verb)-N 3, 4, 5, 13, 18, 28; MN 58 (2), 73 (3); K

19:11-14, 50:12-14, 51:1-4, 67:12-14, 69:4-5, 70:13-15, 70:18-19,
70:19-21. II Etym.: From MHA'l> < Palaeoslavic "*mil'D" < Indo-Eu-
ropean 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
GLOSSARY 115
text of the Synodicon this refers to a heresiarch, who preached unjustly

and claimed to have the grace of God upon himself. The word cor-
responds 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. <ppov'tic;, Lat. "cura". In
the cited cases this is the care of the ruler for the Church. Related to
the ctitor law.
nonoRb.CTRO (subst. neutr.)-K-13:1-2. II Etym.: See non'll.. II Sign.:

"Priesthood", Gr. xpc.cr~meptav.
nonoR~HHH'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 82. II Etym.: See non'll.. II Sign.: People

related to clergymen-members of the family or the clergy itself. The
term is quoted in the charter in a way that raises the question whether
the popoviani were not a category of dependent people, similar to
the paroikoi, i.e. paroikoi-clergymen or people connected with them
(probably members of their families). It should be noted that, in the
text, they are distinguished from "popove": mention is made of "pop-
ove and popoviani" These are perhaps the heirs of the former kliritsi.
(Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 122)
non'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 81, 84, MAD, 50, Mr. 39, Ril. 32, 34; N 9, 18,
43; MN 4 (1), 6, 7, 8 (2, 7), 10 (1), 17, 20 (2), 22 (1 his), 23 his, 25 (1,
2, 3), 27 (1), 30, 39 (1), 40 his, 41 tris, 43, 52, 71 (2), 99, 103 (8),112;
K 2:5-7, 12:1-3, 12:3-6, 12:8-9, 12:20-22, 12:22, 13:2-4, 13:13-14,
13:17-18, 13:20-21, 31:10-12 his, 31:13-14, 39:16-18, 40:8, 74:26-27,
116 CHAPTER ONE
75:4-6, 77:4-6. II Etym.: Word of Latin origin, borrowed from the

vernacular Latin in the Balkans. It could be also derivative from the
Greek nmtn&~ = "presbyter, priest" (BER, V, pp. 520-2; Vasmer, III,
pp. 326-7) II Sign.: "Presbyter", "priest", "member of the clergy", Gr.
npecr~{l'tepo~, nann&~, Lat. "presbyter". (Institutii feudale, pp. 368-9).
nop~GO'l'HTH Ch. (verb)-K 51:4-6.11 Etym.: See p~s'l..11 Sign.: "To obey",
"to submit", "to become slave"
noP<f>HpopoAH'l>IH (adj.)-MN 16. II Etym.: Partially translated and par-

ti~l(y transliterated from the Greek nopq)'l)poyevvrrto~. II Sign.: "Por-
phyrogennetus", 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 pre-
fix no- added to the Palaeoslavic verb "*s~gti" Related to the Lithu-
anian "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).
GLOSSARY 117
nocH.I\HTH (verb)-Ril. 90 II Etym.: See nocH.I\He.ll Sign.: A verb describ-

ing the action of violence in order to reach to a result.
noc.l\~xrz. (subst. m.)-K 11:7-8, 13:20-21, 77:6-7. II Etym.: From

C.I\~W~TH = "listen" (Palaeoslavic "*slusati" < "*sluxeti" related to the
listening and the hearing), related to the Avestan "sraosa-" = "hear-
ing", "obedience", Anglo-Sax. "hleor" ="cheek", "face" and Old Icelan-
dic "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,
noc.l\0\fW~HHie (subst. neutr.)-MN 47. II

Etym.: From C.l\"'fW~TH (see
noc.l\"'fXrz.). II 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"
noc.l\0\fWI:.HHKrz. (subst. M.)-MN 54. 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).
noco&HTe.l\1:. (subst. m.)-Mr. 4-5 II Etym.: The word derives from the
pronoun ce&'k = "oneself (my/your/him/her/itself, our/your/them-
selves)" The verb "cnoco6cTB)1BaM" = "to help", "do somebody to
reach certain result by me" (BER, V, p. 542; Vasmer, III, p. 340) II
Sign.: "Helper, collaborator I who helps", Gr. ~on96~, Lat. "auxilia-
tor" In the citation this is the saint-patron of the monastery (in that
case-Saint George) as intercessor and protector of the tsar and of the
imperial power. The juridical meaning of the word is related to the
ideology of the ruler's power.
nocrr~RHTH (verb)-Virg. 83, 90, 105, Mr. 30; AH 204 (to appoint, to
nominate); N 44 (to appoint, to nominate); K 11:19-21, 12:6-7, 12:22,
29:4-5,30:1-2,40:9-10,52:14-15.11 Etym.: The prefix no- and the verb
118 CHAPTER ONE
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" (Vas-
mer, IV, p. 32) II Sign.: "To confirm, to corroborate", Gr. E1tt<Tt'llpi~etv,
Lat. "firmare" The confirmation of the rights by the tsar by his acts/
documents.
GLOSSARY 119
IIO'J''ll.IC4\ (sub st. f.)- Vir g. 80 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "po-t'bk-a" <

"rroThKHa" < "T'bKHa" Comes from the meaning "to drive in; fix a
stake into the ground" (BER, V, pp. 554-5) II Sign.: A sign of pro-
hibition to graze cattle on a certain meadow, placed there usually by
sticking small branches in the meadow. In its wider sense setting a
prohibition sign to enter or perform activities upon a piece of land by
planting stakes into the ground. The word designates the sign itself,
the stake. The term is also used to designate the penalty for viola-
ting this prohibition. In Romanian "potca" means the same: a sign
for the boundaries of a property that must not be trespassed upon. In
Albanian "potke" means "boundary stone" The legal meaning of the
term is related to regulation concerning properties and to the special
penalty for trespassing. There might be a possible connection with the
penalty in the additional meaning of "misfortune", "damage", "magic"
The word exists in Serbia as well, where it designates either the wilful
damage to another's property or the punishment for such damage.
(Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispra-
vama, pp. 203-4).
nOTI:.Il't~~/nOT~:>n-tr~ (subst. f.)-AH 202. II Etym.: There are two pro-

posed 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,
noxO'J'I:. (subst. f.)-AH 202 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pahatb" <the root

"xoT-" = "to want", "to desire" The verb XOT'tTH, XOI.f.lii'\ > 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 "*pro-
wa-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 feu-

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

"To rule", "to execute", "to respect"
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.: Palaeo-
slavic "*pravbda" ("truth", "justice") < "*prav-o" ("right", "straight") <
Indo-European "*pro-wo-s" ("before", "right", "straight, direct", "verti-
cal". (BER, V, pp. 581-2; Vasmer, III, p. 352) II Sign.: "Justice", "right",
Gr. OtKatocr6vr\. OtKaiov, Lat. "iustitia", "ius". Probably this is a trans-
lation 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 appel-
lation of the officials in the local administration; 2) in all the other docu-
ments this is appellation of a special fiscal official; Gr. npaK'trop, Lat.
"exactor" (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 35-6; Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 350-3).
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 corre-
sponding 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" <Indo-European "*loip-, *lep-"
122 CHAPTER ONE
with the general primary meaning of "spreading", "pollution, contami-

nation", "stain" etc. (BER, III, pp. 365-7; Vasmer, II, p. 484) II Sign.:
The word is used in the expression nri.NtnNt~i Cb. nOTb.rl't~'t (to stick
to a divorced woman). The text means the relations between a man
and a separated (after the end of a matrimony) woman in or outside
marriage.
nrHMH~Iilf'b (subst. m.)-Ril. 53-54, Vit. 8-9 II Etym.: Transliteration

of the Greek term 1tpt~~tKftpto~ that derives from the Latin "primmi-
cerius" The first in a group, service, milieu. (BER, V, p. 723) II Sign.:
It has two different meanings: 1) The head of some office in the court,
where, we find, there existed a special position of"great primmicerius",
a person with general competence in the organisation of court life; 2)
Mayor of village or leader of a group of Gypsies or Valach nomads.
(Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 164-6,
304-7).
nrHO&f'tCTH (verb)-Zogr. 69, K 15:11-12. II Etym.: Derives from the

verb O&f'tCTH (="to obtain", "to catch", "to take") and the prefix nrH-.
(BER, V, p. 726; Vasmer, III, p. 107) II Sign.: "Acquire", "obtain"; a
term of the civil law related to the civil exchange of goods.
nrHnA~T~ (subst. f.)-Virg. 1411 Etym.: See the verb nA~THTH. Imple-
mentation of a debt, obligation. II Sign.: Implementation of the obliga-
tion to pay the tax to the state. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123).
nrHceAHU,~ (subst. f.)-Virg. 87 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*sedla" < from

the Indo-European root "*sed-"= "to sit, to remain sitting" (see ceAO)
with the prefix nrH-. Derivative of the verb nrHceAHTH that is a loan
translation of the Greek verb 1tapouce'iv the latter is related to the Latin
"applicatum" (transliterated in Greek as a1tA1lK'tOV). It is to be stressed
that the meaning derives from the Latin original of the word. II Sign.:
It has various meanings: 1) Camping of an army or state officials;
2) The population's obligation to ensure a site for the camp and food
for a short period of time for the passing army or officials. Provid-
ing lodgings was not envisaged, except for cases of passing superior
military commanders or functionaries of the state apparatus. Unlike
"mitaton", this referred to a relatively small group of people and a
short period of camping. (J. B. Bury, "The a1tA1l1Cta of Asia Minor",
Bu~av'ti~, 2 (1911), pp. 216-4; G. Kolias, Peri apliktou (llepl cl1tAftK'tou),
GLOSSARY 123
EEBS, 17 (1941), pp. 144-84; Ostrogorsky, Steuergemeinde, p. 60;

Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 97; Cvetkova, "Influ-
ence exercee", pp. 252-3; Bartusis, "State Demands for Billeting", pp.
121-3; Blagojevic M., "Obrok i priselica", Istoriski Ca.sopis, 18 (1971),
pp. 165-8; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 93-7; Institutii Jeudale, pp.
517-8; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, p. 205).
npHcb.HOGAb.mewll. (adj.)-N 70. II Etym.: From npHcb.HO = "ever", "eter-

nally", Greek ad or npHCb.H'll. = "known", "domestic, familial", Greek
oiKe'ioc;, yvimoc; (Palaeo slavic "*pri -jbstbn'b" from "*es-" = "to be") and
&Ab.meH'll. ="beatific". (BER, V, pp. 732-3; Vasmer, III, p. 366) II Sign.:
"Eternally beatific", Gr. omoc;, Lat. "beatus". InN 70 this is an epithet
for the Bulgarian patriarch -Greek ~aKapuY.ta-coc;.
npHcTb.Rb.HHI~'ll. (subst. m.)-K 75:6-8. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pri-

stav'b" from the verb "*pri-staviti" ="join to". (BER, V, p. 734) II Sign.:
"Governor", "charged with power"
npHch\Pb. (subst. f.)-AH 201 II Etym.: From the verb npHch\ij.IH = "to
swear", "to vow" < Palaeoslavic "*s~gti" meaning "to tighten, to fas-
ten", "to cover", "to fit" (Vasmer, III, pp. 367, 825) II Sign.: "Oath,
vow", in the citation the word means a type of pagan worship ritual.
npH'Ib.T'll. (subst. m.)-MN 45 (4), 47. II Etym.: From "qeTa" (with the
primary meaning of "calculate" passing through "to conform with, to
take in consideration") and "rrpMtieT" ="honour", "respect" (BER, V,
p. 745, Vasmer, IV, pp. 374-5) II Sign.: "Clergy". (Tsibranska-Kostova,
npOAb.TH/npoAb.Rb.TH (verb)-Dubr. 7, 9, MAD 23, 26, 47, Virg. 39,

93, Ril. 72 II Etym.: From Ab.TH = "to give" and prefix npo-. (BER, I,
pp. 310-2; Vasmer, III, p. 372) II Sign.: "To sell"; the verb is linked to
the civil exchange (Gr. 1tro/t.e'iv, Lat. "vendere"). (Institufii feudale, pp.
505-8).
npoiCN\\TH (verb)-Virg. 110, Vit. 18; AH 201 bis; N 4 bis, 60; MN

35; K 2:1-3, 7:15-17, 8:3-5, 10:5-7, 17:2-3, 17:3-5, 38:8-9, 55:7-9,
58:7-9, 58:9-11, 62:19-21, 62:21-22, 62:22-24, 63:1, 63:1-2, 63:2-3,
63:4-6, 63:6-7, 63:7-8,63:8-9,63:9-11,63:11-12, 63:12-14, 63:14-16,
63:16-17,63:18-19,63:19-21,701-2.11 Etym.: Palaeoslavic"*praklinati",
124 CHAPTER ONE
"*praklinajq" ="to curse, to damn, to execrate". (BER, V, p. 755) II Sign.:

"To curse, to damn, to execrate" (Gr. Katap&cr9at, Lat. "exsecrari")-
1) a formula for excommunication (not only Church one); 2) a sanc-
tion (penal) formula in the imperial documents.
npoKM.T"AIH (particip.)-MN 22 (2). II Etym.: See npoKM.TH. II Sign.:

"Accursed, damned"
npocHTH (verb)-Virg. 66, Zogr. 40, 43; MN 103 (2, 4, 6), 104, 108
(2, 3), 110 (1). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*prasiti", "*prasati" (the Indo-
European root "*prok' I *prek'- I *prk'-"). (BER, V, pp. 779-82; Vas-
mer, III, pp. 377-8) II Sign.: "To beg", "to supplicate", "to plead" The
word describes the contact of the common people with the power.
npocTHTH/nfb.I.J.Ib.TH (verb)-Ril. 51; MN 20 (3), 22 (3), 23, 27 (2), 28,

30, 31, 40 bis, 41 bis, 48 (4) tris, 51 (2), 67 (1) bis, 73 (1), 73 (4), 73
(5), 73 (7), 74bis, 76 (4), 76 (5), 85; II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*prastiti I
*prastjati I *prastjajq" (= "to forgive", "to absolve") that derives from
"*prast'b" (= "simple, simple-minded", "who rests/who is before").
The word is created by the prefix "pro-" = "before, previously" and
the morpheme "st-" (meaning "to stay", Gr. Ycrtru..n, Lat. "sto, stare").
(BER, V, pp. 768-70, 803-5; Vasmer, III, p. 380) II Sign.: "To forgive",
"to absolve"
nporrerAHK'b (subst. m.)-Syn. Dr.62, Syn. Pal. 55 II Etym.: Translitera-

tion of the Greek word 1tproteKOtKo~. II Sign.: "Protekdikos" -a Byzan-
tine official and jurist. This is not a Bulgarian institution but Byzantine
presented in the translated part of the Synodicon-the cited person is
"Michael, protekdikos and master of the rhetors"
nporrHRb.HHK'b (subst. m.)-Dubr. 11; AH 202 (nporrHR"AH"A); K 21:13-

14, 75:8-11. II Etym.: A noun, created by the Palaeoslavic "*prativ'b"
(from the Indo-European "*pro-" > "*proti", "*preti") = "against",
"versus", "counter to" (BER, V, pp. 785-8; Vasmer, III, pp. 382-3)
II Sign.: "Enemy", "foe", "antagonist", Gr. 1tOAeJ..LtO~, Lat. "hostis" The
word designates war enemies but also the two parts in a civil or penal
procedure. It is used also in the sanctions of the imperial documents.
nporronb.nb.c'b (subst. m.)-Virg. 85, Mr. 39-40 II Etym.: Transliteration of

the Greek term 1tprot01ta1t&~ = "protopresbyter", "protopriest" II Sign.:
GLOSSARY 125
An ecclesiastical degree: "protopop", "protopresbyter", Gr. nprotoxan&c;,

Lat. "archypresbyter". (Institufii feudale, pp. 392-3).
npOTo-e-poHrz.Hrz. (adj.)-N 70; MN 14 II Etym.: Transliteration of the

Gr. npro'toep6voc;. II Sign.: "The first cathedral city" This is an epithet
of a bishopric. In Serbia this is applied to the metropolitan of Skopje.
(Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke poveije srpskih vladara, p. 489).
npoweHHie (subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 48, 52, 66, 68:15-16. II Etym.: See

npocHTH. II Sign.: "Request", "demand", "petition", Gr. atTrt)la, Lat.
"petitio"
npoi.J.IeHHie (subst. neutr.)-Ril. 52-53, K 19:16-18. II Etym.: See

npocrrHTH. II Sign.: "Clemency", "mercy", "pardon", "forgiveness", Gr.
livemc;, Lat. "remissio"
np~>.&onp<BcrroAb.Hrz. (adj.)-Ril. 11 II Etym.: From nprz.&rz. = "first" and

np<BcToArz. ="throne". Loan translation ofthe Gr. nprotoep6voc;.ll Sign.:
In the concrete citation this is an epithet for the tsars that reigned in
times gone.
np~>.u,b. (subst. m.)-MAD 8311 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*perti/*pbrq", "b.f~

< Indo-European "*(s)per-, *(s)por-, *(s)pr-" that developed the mean-
ing from "to lean", "to repulse", "to kick", "to bar" > "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 discus-
sion/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<BRAAA<BTH (verb)-MN 4211 Etym.: From RAAA'BTH with a prefix. II

Sign.: "To possess", "to have power over", "to dominate"
np<BR'I.ICOK'I. (adj.)-Zogr. 36, 39, 44, 59; MN 16, 45 (4), 47, 48 (4),
50 (1), 53, 56 (1), 57, 59, 89. II Etym.: Prefix nf<S- to the adjective
R'I.ICOK'I.. Loan translation of the Greek t)\JftM'ta'toc;. II Sign.: Epithet
for the ruler. (Biliarsky, "Dva narolchnika za pittakia ot kasnoto Sred-
novekovie", p. 262).
126 CHAPTER ONE
np-to~V-HH!e (subst. neutr.)-MN 14; K 12:1-3, 56:10-12. II

Etym.: See
II
np-to~V-TH. Probably a loan translation of the Greek xapaoomc;. Sign.:
"Tradition", "custom", "rule, regulation", "legacy"
np-t,LV.Te.l\1:. (subst. m.)-Ril. 104-105, K 24:10-11. II Etym.: See

np-to~V-TH. II Sign.: "Traitor", Gr. xpoo&n,c;, Lat. "proditor"
np-to~V-TH (verb) -Virg. 104; Syn. Dr.9; K 3:11-13, 8:3-5, 9:8-10,
10:16-17, 10:20-22, 11:1-2, 11:12-13, 11:14-16, 11:22-23, 15:12-14,
22:8-10, 31:14-16, 32:3-5, 33:4-6, 33:19-20, 51:8-10, 53:4-6, 63:9-
11. II Etym.: From np-t- <"*per-" and Ab.TH (see!). II Sign.: "Betray",
"deliver" (Institutii feudale, pp. 471-5).
np-tA't.A'll. (subst. m.)-MAD 16, 23 II Etym.: From the verb "Aemi" =

"divide, separate" > "A.sm", "qacT" (="part"). (BER, I, pp. 338-9, 472-
3) II Sign.: "Confines" The word could signify "limit", "boundary" but
also "a part of the territory delimited by a boundary" The juridical
meaning is related to the appellation of the administrative unit called
np-tA't.A'll. ("confines") that is a loan translation of the Greek )lepoc;.
(Biliarsky, "Les circonscriptions administratives", p. 190).
np-t.l\b.C'J'HTH (verb)-Syn. Dr.93. II Etym.: See .1\b.CTHTH. II Sign.:

"Seduce" The word is related to the matrimonial and to the ecclesias-
tical penitential law.
np-t.l\kl&OA'tH (subst. m.)-K 60:4-7. II Etym.: See np't.AklGOA't~TH. II

Sign.: "Adulterer", Gr. ~~.otx6c;; related to the canon and to the penal
law.
np-t.l\kl&OA'tHC'J'Ro/np-t.l\kl&OA't~HHie (subst. neutr.) I np't.Akl&'ll.l

(subst. f.)-AH 202; K 14:1-4, 27:22-23, 60:14-16. II Etym.: See
np-t.l\kl&OA't~TH. II Sign.: "Adultery", Gr. )lOtxeia, Lat. "adulterium"
Related to the canon and to the penal law. (Tsibranska-Kostova,
np-t.l\kl&OA't~TH (verb)-K 61:10-11. II

Etym.: From np't.Akl&'ll.l and
A't~TH. II
Sign.: "To commit adultery", "to fornicate", Gr. )lOtX& or
)lOtxe6ro, Lat. "adultero", "!ornico"; related to the canon and to the
penal law.
GLOSSARY 127
nr<tMH.I\OC'J'HR'biH (adj.)-MN 30 II Etym.: See noMH.I\OR~TH! II Sign.:

"/Very/ merciful", "gracious"
nr<to&.I\~N\TH (verb)-MN 4711 Etym.: From the verb 0&.1\~N\TH with

the prefix nre-. II Sign.: "To dominate", "to possess, to rule"
nr<toC&IMJ.IeHb.H'biH (adj.)-MN 14 tris, 31 II Etym.: From C&h.T'b. (see
C&ATHTH!) II Sign.: "/Very/ holy", address formula to a metropolitan.
nr<tnOAOGb.HOMii'\'leHHK'b (subst. m.)-Syn. Dr.10, Syn. Pal.lO II Etym.:

Loan translation of the Greek ocrto~apn>po~. II Sign.: "Hosiomartyr",
"a beatus martyr"
nr<tnOAO&b.H'b (adj.)-Zogr. 5, 61-62; N 78; MN 31, 44 (1) bis, 57,

59, 69, 86 (1), 101. II Etym.: From nr<t- and nOAOGb.H'b (< nOAOGHTH,
o~nOAO&HTH) = "similar", "analogous" II Sign.: "Reverend" (epithet
and address formula for presbyter), Gr. ocrtO~, Lat. "beatus"
nr<tcM&b.H'b (adj.)-MAD 5, 26 II Etym.: From C.I\~Rb.H'b (= "glorious"

from Palaeoslavic "*slava" = "glory" and the verb "*slaviti, *slav?" =
"glorify"). (BER, VI, pp. 829-33) II Sign.: Epithet for the ruler.
(subst. m.)-Virg. 105, Zogr. 22, Mr. 42, Ril. 95; N 22; MN
nf<tCTO.I\'b
58 (2); K 6:8-11. II Etym.: From np<t- ("per-") and CTO.I\'b = "chair"
(BER, V, pp. 676-7; Vasmer, III, p. 361) II Sign.: "Throne", Gr. 9p6vo~,
Lat. "thronus"
nr<tCTii'\nHTH (verb)-K 67:14-16. II Etym.: Loan translation of the

Greek verb 1tapa~aivro. (BER, V, p. 677) II Sign.: "Transgress", "con-
travene"; the action of the transgression of the law, committing a
crime is described.
nr<tcTii'\nb.HHK'b (subst. m.)-K 74:1-3. II Etym.: See nr<tcTii'\nHTH. II

Sign.: "Criminal", "offender"
nr<tC'J'ii'\nb.H'b (adj.)-AH 204 (Henr<tC'J'ii'\nb.H'b).ll Etym.: See nr<tC'J'ii'\nHTH.

II Sign.: "Criminal"; adjective related to the crime (penal law).
nrH~TH (verb)-MN 44 (1) bis, 45 (4), 80. II
Etym.: Palaeoslavic
"*priyeti/*prijbmati" <from "*jem-ti" related to the meaning "to take",
128 CHAPTER ONE
"to acquire" (BER, V, p. 709; Vasmer, III, pp. 369-70) II Sign.: "To
receive", "to obtain" the power.
no~fPb.fb. (subst. m.)-Bra. 2 II Etym.: From the Bavarian word "pur-

gar = German "Burger" (BER, V, pp. 857-8) II Sign.: In the docu-
ments of the Romanian rulers and in other texts one finds the forms
naprb.pH, n'Aprb.pH, np'Arb.pH. The term designs the members of the Coun-
cil of some of the Saxon cities in Transylvania (and in the Balkans in
general); the leaders of the city. This is not a Bulgarian institution,
nor is the term part of the Bulgarian nomenclature. (Institutii feudale,
p. 363).
n~CTOWH!e (subst. neutr.)-K 50:1. II Etym.: See n,CT'AIHH. II Sign.:

"Desert", "hermitage"; the word is related to the monastic practices
and regulations.
no~CT'A (subst. m.)-MAD 54 II Etym.: Comes from the Italian word

"posto", which is derived from "post", a place where the guards are
stationed, a protected place. II Sign.: "Post" (= "position", "office",
"function"). I believe that in the quotation from the Treaty of AD 1253,
the term comes from Dubrovnik and is not Bulgarian.
no~CT'AIHH (subst. f.)-Ril. 45; N 46; K 8:11-13, 32:16-17, 45:15-17,

45:17-19.11 Etym.: From no~CT'A="deserted", "empty", (Indo-European
"*pou-" = "to empty'', "to desert, to abscond, to leave"). As appella-
tion of monastery or of an area, destinated for monastic life the word
is a translation of the Greek €pruw~. (BER, VI, pp. 8-9; Vasmer, III,
p. 411) II Sign.: "Desert", Gr. €p11~o~, Lat. "desertum" The tern designs
"monastery", "hermitage"
n~CT'AIHI:.HHK'A (subst. m.)-K 49:7-9. II Etym.: See n,CT'AIHH. Trans-

lation of the Greek EP1l~tx:6~. II Sign.: "Anchorite", "hermit", "monk"
n~CT'AIHb.HomHTeAb. (subst. M.)-MN 2 II Etym.: From n~CT'AIHH and

mHTH/mHTeAb. (= "to live, to dwell", dweller") = "desert dweller"; loan
translation of the Greek term EP1l~01tOAi't11~· II Sign.: "Hermit", "ancho-
rite", "monk"
no~CT'AIHb.H'A (adj.)-Ril. 79, 10211 Etym.: See no~CT'AIHH.II Sign.: "Des-

ert , "uninhabited".
GLOSSARY 129
n~4-Jb.'I'H (verb)-AH 202 bis. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pustiti"

("release") <from "*pust'b" ("deserted", "empty", "uninhabited"). See
OT'll.n~4-Jb.TH. (BER, VI, pp. 5-8) II Sign.: The meaning that concerns
us pertains to the sphere of matrimonial law. It refers to the aban-
donment of a wife by her spouse for whatever reasons. (Milas N.,
Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, Sofia, 1904, pp. 629ff.; Petrova G., Isto-
rija na bulgarskata darzhava i pravo, t. I, Srednovekovie, Sofia, 2002,
pp. 137ff.)
n~4-JeHHU.b. (subst. f.)-K 61:10-11. II Etym.: Loan translation of the

Greek cmoAeA'U)levrt. II Sign.: "Divorced /left woman"
n"'eAb.fb./&'ll."'eAbfb./ (subst. m.)-MN 99. II Etym.: From "bee"< from

Palaeoslavic "*b'bcela", connected with the verb "6ytia" (=to rumble,
make a rumbling sound) and "6'bKaM"/"r'bM)I(a" (= to abound) or,
more likely, from the Palaeoslavic "*bbcela" from the Indo-European
"*bhei-", connected with the name of the bee in many Indo-European
languages, with the suffix -bf"'· (BER, VI, pp. 27-9; Vasmer, III, p. 416)
II Sign.: "Bee-keeper", "a person who raises bees for the production
of honey" In the text he is mentioned as "the imperial bee-keeper"
Dimiter from Musina, not far from the capital Tilrnovo, which leads
us to think that this was an institution connected with personal service
for the ruler, in subordination, most probably, to the "stolnik". Another
possible explanation is that this was a person charged with collecting
tithe on honey. However, I believe this is hardly likely, considering the
available data on the tithe collectors. (Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke poveije
srpskih vladara, pp. 415-6, 464-5-see the word you~eA.u:x-m.:6v;
Institutii feudale, pp. 11, 295-6).
m:.c.a.pb./ nb.Cb.h\K'll. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 9-10, Virg. 100, Mr. 29, Ril. 57,
Vit. 11 II Etym.: From nb.C'll. (in Indo-European languages this word is
related either to the meaning of "motley" or to "cattle" and "to graze,
to lead to graze") = "dog", with the suffix -.a.p. The word was influenced
by the Greek lC\)Vrt"fO<;. (BER, V, pp. 185-6; Vasmer, III, pp. 248-9) II
Sign.: Fiscal official charged with the obligation to raise hunting dogs
for the court. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 39-40; Dujcev, Ril-
skata gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 379-82).
nb.C.a.TH I nHCb.'I'H (verb)-Vatop. 13, Virg. 112, Mr. 9, 31, 49, 53, Ril.
110, Bra. 2 II Etym.: From "*pbsati", "*pisq" = "to draw", "to write"
130 CHAPTER ONE
("nHC~TH") < Indo-European "*peik-" = "to make signs by cutting out

or colouring", "to boil", "to colour" "To write" (BER, V, pp. 270-2;
Vasmer, III, p. 266) II Sign.: The legal meaning is connected with prep-
aration of a tax cadastre (lists). This is the formula for prohibiting fis-
cal officials from entering the property of the monastery, Gr. yp6.<petv,
Lat. "scribere" (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 41-2).
nbCHH I nll>Cb.H (adj.)-Ril. 42 II Etym.: From nbe'l> (see nb.c,b.!). II Sign.:

"Related to the dog breeding"; an adjective from nb.C'b = dog"
f~&OT~ (subst. f.)-Vatop. 8, Virg. 14, Mr. 28, 32, Ril. 59-60, 62, K
44:1-2, 44:13-15. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*arbata" < from "*arbU" =
"child", "boy", "orphan" (Greek op<pav6<;) and finally po&'b = "slave"
and the suffix "-ata" The meaning "slave" derives from the meaning
"orphan" (Indo-European "*orbho-" ="orphan") because the orphans
were charged with the haviest work in the home. The meaning "ser-
vice", "work" derives from the meaning "slavery". (BER, VI, pp. 132-6,
274-6; Vasmer, III, p. 427) II Sign.: A general appellation of the state
service, Gr. imrJpecria, oouA.et6., Lat. "ministerium" The word could
mean "corvee". (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Tsibranska-Kostova,
Formirane i razvitie, p. 53; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispra-
vama, pp. 206-8)
p~&OT~TH (verb)-Virg. 14, K 35:13-14, 38:1-3, 38:3-5, 53:13-14,

53:14-15, 65:18-19, 67:25-26. II Etym.: See p~&OT~. II Sign.: "To be
slave", "to be state official". (Institu{ii feudale, pp. 411-3).
f~&OTb.HH~'b (subst. m.)-Virg. 96, 97, Mr. 20-21, 27, Ril. 58, 62 II
Etym.: See p~&OT~. II Sign.: "Official", "slave" (Dujcev, Rilskata gra-
mota, p. 64; Institu{ii feudale, pp. 173-5).
f~&OTb.H'b(adj.)-K 1:14-17.11 Etym.:Seep~&oT~.II Sign.:"Subordinated"
p~&'b (subst. m.)-N 5, 6 bis, 8, 12, 15, 27, 28 bis, 29, 32, 33, 52, 55,
56 (f~&~-f.), 57, 82, 85 (2), 85 (3), 85 (4), 85 (5); MN 1, 3 (1), 4 (2),
8 (6), 12 (1), 16, 22 (1 bis), 30, 40, 44 (1), 45 (4), 51 (1), 56 (1), 58 (2)
bis, 91 (1, 4), 108 (3) bis, 110 (1), 117; K 12:9-11, 12:17-19, 35:13-14,
36:16-18, 36:18-20, 37:9-11, 38:1-3, 38:3-5, 45:21-23, 47:2-4, 65:18-
19, 74:21, 76:4-5, 76:8-9, 76:10-11, 80:3-6. II Etym.: See f~&OT~. II
GLOSSARY 131
Sign.: "Slave", "servant", "official", Gr. OoUA.o<;, oh::hrt<;· (Institutii feu-

dale, pp. 411-3).
fA&'AIHil\ (subst. f.)-N 29.11 Etym.: See fAG.OTA.II Sign.: "Female slave",
"female servant", "dependant woman"
fb.~&OH (subst. m.)-Virg. 86, Mr. 37, K 27:22-23, 67:19-21. II Etym.:

Palaeoslavic "*arzbaj" < "*arzbiti" from &HTH (= "to beat") with the
prefix "arz-" > fb.~-· The general meaning of the word is "deprive
something by force" (BER, VI, pp. 148-9) II Sign.: "Robbery", "bur-
glary", Gr. avaipecrtc;, Lat. "latrocinium"
fb.~&OHHHK'A (subst. m.)-K 16:3-4, 23:2021, 75:18-19. II Etym.: See

fb.~&OH. II Sign.: "Robber", "brigand", Gr. A1lcr'tftc;.
fb.~f'tWeHHKl (subst. neutr.)-K 55:16-17, 61:12-14. II Etym.: See

fb.~f'tWHTH Cht.. II Sign.: "Separation, anullment of the matrimony",
"forgiveness", Gr. A.umc;.
fA~f'tWHTH/fb.~f'tWb.TH /cht./ (verb)-AH 200; K 61:12-14.11 Etym.:

From Palaeoslavic "*arz-resiti" from "pas-" and "pema" The verbal
part of the compound word initially meant "to tie"/ "to untie", hence
the meaning of "to free", from which the word that concerns us here
is derived. (BER, VI, pp. 147, 238-9; Vasmer, III, pp. 479-80) II Sign.:
"To dissolve the matrimony", "to divorce", Gr. A.uro. (Institutii feudale,
pp. 149-50).
fb.~Am"'HTH/fb.~AII\"'b.TH (verb)-AH 202, 203. II Etym.: From Am"'HTH.

Probably the word is a loan translation of the Greek OtaA.Uro. (BER, III,
pp. 529-30; Vasmer, III, p. 171) II Sign.: "To divide", "to separate"-
the spouses. (Institutii feudale, pp. 149-50).
fMI~OA'A (subst. m.)-K 2:21-22. II Etym.: From "*arz-" and the verb
"kalti" = "to cut", "to pick" (BER, II, pp. 564-5, VI, p. 154; Vasmer,
Ill, p. 444) II Sign.: "Schism", "split"
fMno~cT'll. (subst. m.)-Mr. 37, Vit. 13.11 Etym.: From no~cTHTH derived
from *poustu" = nsCT'A (= uninhabited), AHR'A (= wild) with the prefix
"arz-" I "raz-". "To free someone", "to unyoke" (BER, VI, pp. 5-9) II
132 CHAPTER ONE
Sign.: "Divorce", "unharnessing", Gr. ou:x.l;{yywv, Latin "divorcium". As

a legal term the word is based on the respective Greek term. In general
the matrimonial terminology in Greek is connected with the harness-
ing together of a pair of animals (oxen) to a plow.
r~Tb. (subst. f.)-Virg. 96, K 8:16-19, 46:10-11, 67:16-18. II Etym.:

Palaeoslavic "*artU" related to the meaning "discussion, contest",
"fight, struggle", "attack, assault", "war", "energy" (BER, VI, p. 189;
Vasmer, III, p. 448) II Sign.: "War", Gr. x6A£~oc;, Latin "bellum"
f~Tb.HH~'A (subst. m.)-K 45:20-21.11 Etym.: See f~Tb..ll Sign.: "Adver-

sary, opponent, rival", "enemy, foe", "warrior"
fH~OCb. (subst. m.)-Ril. 75 II Etym.: Iv. Dujcev proposed the reading

MfH~oc that is acceptable and that is a transliteration of the Greek
&.epuc6v (see ~fHI~o). (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65) II Sign.: Addi-
tional tax identical to the Byzantine &.epuc6v. (see ~fHI(o).
fOI"ll. (subst. m.)-Mr. Bll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ragu" <Indo-European

"*rogh"= "to project", "to protrude", related to the Greek verb liPXro (=
"to be first", "to begin", "to rule") > liPXroV (= "prince, ruler"). (BER,
VI, pp. 281-8; Vasmer, III, p. 489) II Sign.: "Horn", Gr. Kepac;, Lat.
"cornu" The word is strongly charged with religious signification and
then to the theory of power. In some mediaeval text it expresses the
sacral character of the state and power. (Biliarsky lv., "La Demeure et
Ia carne de l'Empire", Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vol. 69/1, 2003,
pp. 179-97).
fOAHTeAb. (subst. m.)-MN 40, 41, 58 (2), 71 (2), 99; K 65:17, 74:1-
3.11 Etym.: See fOA"A·II Sign.: "Parent", "ancestor", Gr. yove.Uc; (Solovjev,
Masin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 415).
fOA'A (subst. m.)-MN 47, 51 (1); K 1:9-10, 6:1-2, 7:4-5, 40:19-20,

42:14-16. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*rado", related to reA'A = "food",
"eating" (Gr. ~p&mc;), Slovenian "rediti"= "to feed", "to care" The
Indo-European root is "*wrodh-" or "*rodh-", "*redh-", related to the
signification "force, power", "fertility", "growing". Related to the Greek
6p06c; ="direct", "straight", "righteous", "true" (BER, VI, pp. 294-7,
298-304; Vasmer, III, pp. 490-1) II Sign.: "Family", "clan", "tribe",
"people", Gr. yevoc;, Lat. "gens" (Institufii feu dale, pp. 316-7)
GLOSSARY 133
(subst. m.)-Syn. Dr.62, Syn. Pal.55; MN 38 (2) II Etym.:

f'll.ITOf'll.
Transliteration of the Greek Pfttrop. II Sign.: "Rhetor", "orator"
(subst. m.)-K 39:21-22. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic fii'\Pb.TH = "to

fii'\P'll.
curse", "to abuse", "to revile" <Indo-European root "*wreng-"/"*wer",
related to the Old Prussian "ranctwei" (= "to steal"), Lithuanian
"israng6ti" and Lettish "ringor" ("*rengor") = "to snarl at", "to snap
at", "to show my teeth to". (BER, VI, pp. 333-4; Vasmer, III, pp. 512-
3) II Sign.: "Reproach", "condemnation" In the Codex Suprasliensis
the word corresponds to 6vetOtcr~oc; (= "assault", "injury", "harm",
"reproach") and to Kata:yeA.roc; (= "mockery").
(subst. m.)-K 10:2-4. II Etym.: From Cb.M'll. (= "alone",

Cb.MORHAM.J.I:.
himself") and RHA<tTH (= "to see"). II Sign.: "Witness", "eyewitness"
Cb.MOAf!:WKb.RI:.H'll.IH (adj.)-MN 47, 53, 57, 58 (2), 59. II Etym.: See

Cb.MOAf!:WKM.J.I:.. II Sign.: "Autocratic", adjective for the tsar.
Cb.MOAf!:WKHLV- (subst. f.)-MN 56 (2). II Etym.: See Cb.MOAf!:WKM.J.I:.. II
Sign.: "female autocrat". Erroneous vernacular form-"the wife of the
autocrat"
(subst. m.)-Virg. 114, MAD 3, Zogr. 74, Mr. 51, Ril.

Cb.MOAf!:WKM.J.I:.
112, Vit. 23-24; !Seal 1.8 p. 117, I.lOA p. 126; N 1, 48, 67, 70, 73;
MN 56 (1), 56 (2), 89. II Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek word
amoKpatrop, created by aut6c; = Cb.M'll. = "alone, himself" and the verb
Kpat& = Af!:WKb.TH ="to possess, to hold" "One who holds the power
alone" (Vasmer, III, p. 553) II Sign.: "Autocrat", "emperor, basileus,
tsar", Gr. autoKpatrop, Lat. "autocrator" (Ostrogorsky G., "Avtokra-
tor i samodrl.ac", Glas Srpske Kraljevske Akademije, drugi razred, 84,
1935, pp. 95-187; Institufii feudale, pp. 419, 443-4).
(subst. m.)-K 12:1-3, 63:16-17, 69:8-9, 79:3-5. II Etym.: Word

Cb.H'll.
of Turkic, probably Bulgar origin. Related to the Old Turkic "sa-n" =
"number", "bill", "honour", "respect" (BER, VI, p. 475; Vasmer, III,
p. 555) II Sign.: "Dignity", "title" The word Cb.M'll."'HH (= "prefect",
"governor"), cited in the Codex Suprasliensis, has the same origin.
CRO&OA4\(subst. f.)-Mr. 47, Ril. 82-83,86,87, 10911 Etym.: Palaeoslavic

"*svabada/svebada" < Indo-European "*swe-/*swo-" (= "proper") with
134 CHAPTER ONE
suffix "* -bho-" M "* -da". Related to the meaning "who exists by him-
self" (Latin "causa sui"); possible relation to the name of the Thracian
divinity "Ia~a~wc;". (BER, VI, p. 561; Vasmer, III, pp. 582-3) II Sign.:
"Liberty, freedom", Gr. €A£u9epia, Lat. "libertas"
CROGOAb.H'b (adj.)-MAD 28, 50, Ril. 91; CROGOAb.HO/CROGOAb.H<t

(adverb.)-Dubr. 7-8, Mr. 40, Ril. 72, 80, 93, Bra. 2, 3; MN 45 (4).
II Etym.: See c&o&OAA. II Sign.: "Free", Gr. €A.e69epoc;/ f.Aeu9eproc;, Lat.
"liber". It is to stress the meaning of the word CROGOA'l. ="person"
CRh.THTeAb. (subst. m.)-MN 45 (4) II Etym.: From CRh.T'b = "saint,

holy" (see CRh.THTH!).II Sign.: "Cleric", "clergyman"
CRh.THTeAb.CTRO (subst. neutr.)-K 40:19-20. II Etym.: See CRh.THTeAb.. II
Sign.: "Priesthood", Gr. tepa'teu~a; related to the ecclesiastical law.
CRh.TOfOAb.H'b (adj.)-MN 48 (4), 59. II Etym.: From CRh.T'b = "saint,

holy" (see CRh.THTH!) and fOAHTH ="to bear, to give birth to" II Sign.:
"Born in holiness", "born by holy/saintly parents". In the citation this
is an epithet for the king of Serbia.
CRh.THTH I CRh.4-JATH /Ch./ (verb)-K 12:14-17, 27:4-6. II Etym.: From

CRh.T'b < Palaeoslavic "*sv~t'b", "*sv~t'bjb" with the primary meaning of
"strong, robust" and then the meaning "holy" develops with the Chris-
tianity. Related to the Lithuanian "svefitas", Old Prussian "swenta"
and Avestan "sp;mta" = "holy" as well as to the Sanskrit "c;:vantas" =
"flourishing" (BER, IV, pp. 541-2; Vsamer, III, p. 585) II Sign.: "To
sanctify", "to consecrate", "to legalise", "to confirm"
(adj.)-Virg. 83-8411 Etym.: Adjective from CRh.ij.I6HHK'b

CRh.ij.I6HH"'b.CK'b
= "cleric" < CRh.T'b = "holy" (BER, VI, pp. 541-2; Vasmer, Ill,
p. 585) II Sign.: "Related to the cleric I to the clergy"
CRb.ij.leHOA<tHCTRHKl, CRb.ij.leHOA'tHCTRO (subst. neutr.)-Syn. Dr.20, 65,

Syn. Pal.58 II Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek tepoupyia. II Sign.:
"Religious rite". (Popruzhenko, Sinodik, pp. CL-CLI).
c&h.4-JeHOA<tHCTRORATH (verb)-Syn. Dr.20, 65, Syn. Pal.58 II Etym.:

Loan translation of the Greek l.epoupyo~m. II Sign.: "Officiate a reli-
gious rite" (Popruzhenko, Sinodik, p. CL).
GLOSSARY 135
CRA4-JeHb.HH~'ll. (subst. m.)-K 40:19-20. II Etym.: From CRAT'll.

(see CRA4-J4\TH!). Probably the word is a loan translation of the Greek
l.epeuc;. II Sign.: "Cleric", "priest", "minister" (Tsibranska-Kostova,
CRb-4-JeHb.HOHHO~'ll. (subst. m.)-MN 53 II

Etym.: From CRb-4-JeHb.HH~'ll.
and HHO~'ll. = "monk"; probably a loan translation of the Greek
l.epo~6vaxoc;.ll Sign.: "Monk-priest", "hieromonk"
ceR4\CT0~4\TOfHL.I,4\ (subst. f.)-N 51. II Etym.: See ceR4\CT0~4\TOf'll.· II

Sign.: The wife of a sebastocrator. The word is not a title by itself but
transfer the husband's title to his wife.
ceR4\CT0~4\TOf'll.(subst. m.)-MAD 22, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35 his; N 47,

50. IIEtym.: Transliteration of the term cre~acrtoKpatrop, created by
cre~acrtoc; and autOKpatrop. II Sign.: Sebastocrator. Empire's highest
title during the eleventh and twelfth centuries and in Bulgaria in the
thirteenth century. The title is usually reserved for the members of
the ruler's family. (Ferjancic B., "Sevastokratori u Vizantiji", Zbornik
radova Vizantoloskog instituta, XI (1968), pp. 141-90; Biliarsky, Insti-
tutsiite, pp. 85-111)
(subst. m.)-Vatop. 9, Virg. 14, 99, Mr. 28, 38, Ril. 53; !Seal
ceR4\CT'll.
IV.10 pp. 142-3, IV.12 p. 143; N 44, 72, 73, 75, 81. II Etym.: Translit-
eration of the Greek word cre~acrtoc;. II Sign.: Ie~acrtoc;. Sebastos was
one of the epiteths of the Byzantine basileus (= Latin "augustus") that
later (in the eleventh century) became a title by itself. It is a "pure title"
without any service in the administration. The title is attested in Bul-
garia and in Serbia as well. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 36-7;
Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 125-35 with
the cited discussion on the character of the title).
ceAH4-Je (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 33, Mr. 21,22 his, Ril. 1811 Etym.: Palaeo-
slavic "*sela/*sedla" (see "ceAO") with suffix of nomina loci" -iSce". (BER,
VI, p. 602; Vasmer, III, p. 596) II Sign.: "Settlement", "dwelling place",
"village" (Institutii feudale, p. 433; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim
ispravama, pp. 208-10; Misic, "Povelja kralja Stefana Urosa III mana-
stiru Hilandaru", p. 78).
136 CHAPTER ONE
ceJ\0 (subst. neutr.)-Vatop. 3, 4, MAD 27, 39, 40 bis, 41, 45, Virg.
17bis, 19, 21, 22 bis, 23 bis, 24, 25, 27 bis, 28 bis, 34, 40, 43 bis, 44,
51, 52 bis, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 67, 71, 72, 75, 84, 87, 89,
98, Zogr. 29, 30, 31, 33, 41, 43, 45, 55, 63, Mr. 31, Ril. 16, 17, 29, 31
tris, 32 tris, 33 tris, 52, 64, Vit. 6; N 10; MN 12 (1), 45 (4) tris, 48 (4);
K 18:15-16, 32:1-2, 56:1-2.11 Etyrn.: Palaeoslavic "*sela" and "*sedla"
(BER, VI, pp. 604-6; Vasmer, III, p. 596) II Sign.: "Village", Gr. xropiov,
Lat. "vicus" (Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp.
210-1; Misic, "Povelja kralja Stefana Urosa III manastiru Hilandaru",
p. 78)
cepN-fl:. (subst. m.)-Vit. 11 II

Etym.: The word is of Persian origin.
According to some authors, it came into the legal language of mediae-
val Bulgaria from the language of the Cumans or the Pechenegs, while
other scholars believe it appeared through the language of the Ottoman
Turks. (BER, VI, p. 617) II Sign.: Military institution of the provin-
cial military command, documented in only one mediaeval Bulgarian
document. The institution also existed in Walachia and Moldavia. It
is highly possible this was a loanword from the Osmanli administra-
tive terminology. (Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 323-5; Institutii feudale,
pp. 434-5).
CHHOf'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 19, 31, 35, 44; MN 48 (4). II Etyrn.: Trans-
literation of the Greek word cruvopov. (BER, VI, pp. 674-5) II Sign.:
"Boundary", "border", boundaries between real estates. (Institutii feu-
dale, p. 282).
(sub st. m.) -MN 45 (4) II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*sir'b" = "orphan",

CHf'll.IH
related to Avestan "sae-" = "to become orphan" and Lithuanian
"seirys" = "widower" (Vasmer, III, p. 627) II Sign.: "Orphan", Gr.
6p<pav6c;; the word is related to the status of the person and to matri-
monial law. (Institutii feudale, pp. 10, 346).
c~e"rrrfo(subst. p. p.)-Mr. 11; N 26; MN 42, 45 (4), 56 (1), 58 (2),

101. I Etym.: transliteration of the Greek mci)1t'tpov (Lat. "sceptrum")
< from the verb mdpt'tro = "to support", "to maintain", "to uphold",
"to lean" (BER, VI, p. 750; Vasmer, III, pp. 639-40) II Sign.: "Scepter",
"rod" (Institutii feudale, p. 429).
GLOSSARY 137
CAOKO (subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 46, 53, 61, 71, Ril. 14, 46, 68, 73, 88, 101,
108; AH 199, 201,202, 203; N 24, 73.11 Etym.: The origin of the word
is close with the word CAUl\ = "glory", "reputation" (Vasmer, III,
p. 673). II Sign.: "Word", "speech", Gr. ').jyyo-,. In the cited cases
the meaning is "imperial document", ~A4\TonelJ4\Tb.HOe CMKO = Gr.
x;pucr6~0'UAAO<, A.6yo-,, Lat. "bulla aurea"
CMHOK1:.4-JHH4\ (sub st. f.)- Vir g. 101 II Etym.: Related to the Indian
"fYI'ayati" and Avestan "srayate" = "to lodge, to give shelter to" (BER,
V, p. 468; Vasmer, III, p. 675) II Sign.: A fee or a right, related to the
shelter of the livestock in the mountains. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 125;
Dujcev Iv., "Ezikovi belezhki kam srednovekovni bulgarski pamet-
nitsi", Izvestija na Instituta za bulgarski ezik, III, 1954, pp. 309-11;
Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 222; Tsankova-Petkova, Agrar-
nite otnoshenija, p. 110 note 160, 146, 163 /proposing two different
meanings/; Andreev M., Angelov D., Istorija na bulgarskata feodalna
darzhava i pravo, Sofia, 1972, p. 146; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgar-
skite tsare", p. 49).
CA,rA (subst. m.)-K 26:12-14, 37:18-20. II Etym.: After some schol-

ars this is a borrowing from the Celtic languages, related to "sluag" =
"detachment" and "*tegosluog-" = "household, family"; after other
scholars Palaeoslavic "*sluga" < Indo-European "*sel-" = "to move",
"to flow". (Vasmer, III, p. 676).11 Sign.: "Servant", "officer, official", Gr.
BouA.o-,, Bt<iKovo-,. (Institutii feu dale, pp. 445-6; Porcic, "Povelja kralja
Stefana Dusana dubrovnicanima", pp. 94-5).
CA~meHHie (subst. neutr.)-Syn. Dr.17, 61, Syn. Pal.54 II Etym.: See

CA,Pb.. II Sign.: "Service", "civil service", Gr. im:npecria.
CA~mHTH/nocM'(mHTH (verb)-MN 58 (2); K 13:11-12. II Etym.: See
II
CM~rA. Sign.: 'To serve"
CAO\j'mHTeAI:. (subst. m.)-Mr. 35; MN 57. II Etym.: See cM~rA = "ser-

vant" II Sign.: "Official", "employee"; in the cited case this is a cleric.
(Institutii feudale, pp. 445, 446-7; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i
razvitie, p. 33).
138 CHAPTER ONE
C.l\o~mi:.GI\
(subst. f.)-MAD 54; Syn. Dr.49, CJ.m, ITan. 42; MN 32 (1);
K 14:1-4, 44:18-19, 52:1-2, 65:21-23, 66:5-6, II Etym.: See C.I\O'J'r~! II
Sign.: "Service", "state service", Gr. Um,pecria; the word is related to
the administrative law. (Institutii feudale, p. 446).
C.l\0\f;KI:.G.I:.HHK'l.. (subst. m.)-MN 44 (1), 48 (4) his. II Etym.: See C.l\o~r~.~~

Sign.: "Liturgikon", "missal", a liturgical book. The word could signify
also "servant", "state official" (MN 48 /4/).
cr..mpeHI:.H'l..IH (adj.)-MN 68. II Etym.: See r..mprz... Translation of

the Greek word -raxetV6~. II Sign.: "Humble" Self denomination of
some ecclesiastical dignitaries (usually metropolitans) in the corre-
spondence or in rhetoric prose. (Biliarsky, "Dva nanlchnika za pit-
takia", pp. 242-3).
n'~AO (subst. neutr.)-MN 14 his, K 16:1-2, 30:1-2, 40:19-20, 74:26-

27, 75:22-24, 76:17-19, 77:2-4.11 Etym.: Derives from the Indo-Euro-
pean root "*sta-" ="to stay", related to the Icelandic "st6~", Anglo-Sax.
"st6d", Old German "stuod" = "herd, flock" (Vasmer, III, p. 743) II
Sign.: "Herd, flock", "congregation", "people" The word is related to
property law as well as to canon and ecclesiastical law.
n'~~HWHH~ (subst. m.)-MN 45 (4); K 35:12-13, 75:13-14, 76:1-2.

II Etym.: From n'~rrz.. = "old", related to the Greek yeprov and Latin
"senex" > "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 mon-
astery, 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.: Bor-
rowed from the Greek mam~. II Sign.: "Property", "possessions", "pat-
rimony" (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65).
n'O.I\I:.HHK'l.. (subst. m.)-ISeal IV.8 p. 141 (=H 77).11 Etym.: From CTO.I\'l..
(see!); loan translation of the Greek obtl 'til~ -rpaxe~rt~· II Sign.: "Stol-
nik", an official, charged with the care about the tsar's table. (Institutii
feudale, p. 456; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 177-81, 465).
GLOSSARY 139
C'I'OA't.. (subst. m.)-MAD 17, Ril. 8, 12; MN 14 bis, 80, 89; K 14:12-15,
14:17-20, 14:20-22 bis. II Etym.: Related to the Palaeoslavic "*stati",
"*stojc/ = "to stay", "to become" (Indo-European morpheme "-st-").
"Chair" (Vasmer, III, pp. 764-5, 788) II Sign.: "Throne", Gr. 9p6vo<;,
Lat. "thron us"
cTpb.mb. (subst. m.)-K 30:1-2. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*storzb" <from

the verb "*stergti" (C'I'f't4-JH and Russian "CTepery") = "to guard", "to
safeguard", "to defend", related to the Gr. mepyro ="to love", "to like"
(Vasmer, III, pp. 768, 770) II Sign.: "Guard", "sentinel", Gr. <pUA.al;, Lat.
"vigil". (Institufii feudale, pp. 456-7, 501).
C'l'fb.Hb. (subst. f.)-Virg. 48, Ril. 24, 40; N 44 (country, state); MN 45

(4) bis (region, territorial unit), 65 tris (countries, states), 80 (state); K
28:5-7, 32:5-6, 35:1-2, 56:2-4, 60:4-7. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*strona",
related to the sense "space", "to stretch, to spread, to extend" (Vas-
mer, III, p. 768) II Sign.: "Country", Gr. xropa, Lat. "pars"; appellation
of an administrative territorial unit. (Biliarsky, "Les circonscriptions",
pp. 185-6).
C'l'fb.'I'Ofb. (subst. m.)-Virg. 100, Ril. 56, Vit. 10-11 II Etym.: Translit-
eration of the Greek word a'tpa'trop < from mpa't6<; = "army". (Hof-
man, 'EWj.LOAoytK6v A.€.1;tK6v "til<; etPXaia<; eAA1lVtKf\<;, p. 407) II Sign.:
In Constantinople this is the appellation of the soldiers of one of the
imperial guards. In Bulgaria this is a military officer in the provincial
cavalry regiments. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65; Biliarsky, Insti-
tutsiite, pp. 319-21).
C'l'fOh\HHie (subst. neutr.)-K 44:13-15. II Etym.: From the verb

C'l'fOH'I'H. In Codex Suprasliensis the word C'l'fOH corresponds to the
Greek otKOVOj.Lta in the original; this is the general order in the Uni-
verse created by God. (Vasmer, III, p. 780) II Sign.: "Instaured order",
"order", "harmony"
C)(HMb.HHI('t.. (subst. m.)-MN 41 (2) II Etym.: From Gr. axftj.La.ll Sign.:

"A monastic degree"
C't..&Aii'\AH'I'H (verb)-K 60:21-23.11 Etym.: See I'Wf\AH'I'H.II Sign.: "For-

nicate", "commit adultery".
140 CHAPTER ONE
C'll.&Aii\mAeHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 59:10. II Etym.: See &Aii\AHTH. II

Sign.: "Sexual intercourse", "adultery"
(subst. m.)-MAD 27, MN 14 his, K 2:1-3, 15:22-23, 58:7-9. II

C'll.&Of'll.
Etym.: From the verb C'll.&bfb.TH = "to assemble, to gather"; prob-
ably loan translation of the Greek cruvayrorfl or cr6vooo~. (BER, IV,
pp. 529-30, Vasmer, III, pp. 703-4) II Sign.: "Council" The supreme
ecclesiastical institution. In the text of the treaty with Dubrovnik of AD
1253 the term means "fair" (Institutii feudale, pp. S-9, 447-8).
C'll.Rfb.WHTe.l\1:.. (subst. m.)-MN 24 (2). II Etym.: From "c'b-" and

"s'bpma" (the latter is derivative of "sp'bx" ="peak", "top", meaning
"to do something up to the top, to the end". (BER, VI, p. 214; Vasmer,
III, p. 705) II Sign.: "Doer, perpetrator", "creator"
(subst. m.)-AH 200 (&ec'll.R<tA<tTe.l\1:..); MN 117. II

C'll.R<tA<tTe.l\1:..
Etym.: From the verb C'll.R<tA<tTH ="to know"< R<tAb. ="knowledge",
"magic"; R<tA<tTH = "to know" The idea is to underline the quality of
knowledge for the witness. (BER, I, pp. 140-1, V, pp. 546-7; Vasmer,
III, p. 577) II Sign.: "Witness"; the word is related to the trial procedure
and to the testimonies and evidences. (Institutii feudale, pp. 283-4,
289-290).
C'll.rf'tWb.TH/C'll.rp<tWHTH/norp<tWHTH (verb)-MN 41 (1), 47, 48 (4),

51 (3), 75 (1), 75 (2), 76 (1), 103 (5), 108 (1); K 13:22-23, 30:23-25,
33:15-16, 36:20-21, 39:1-2, 39:2-3, 47:1-2, 51:1-4, 59:6-9, 60:7-8,
60:17-18, 60:20-21, 61:14-15. II Etym.: See rp<tp. II Sign.: "To com-
mit a sin", "to transgress"; related to the canon law.
C'll.rp<tweHHie (subst. neutr.)-MN 48 (4). II Etym.: See rp<tX'll.. II Sign.:

"Sin"; a term related to the canon law.
C'll.Afb.mb.TH(verb)-Mr. 28, 73:13-16. II Etym.: From Afb.mb.TH

(= "to hold", "to possess"), related to the Avestan verb "*drazaite" =
"to hold", "to bring", "to lead" (BER, I, pp. 460-1; Vasmer, I, p. 503)
II Sign.: "To hold", "to possess", "to contain", Gr. Kpatiiv, Lat. "conti-
nere" The word is related to the law by the signification "to hold the
power or the property" In the cited case these are the officials who
hold the local power.
GLOSSARY 141
C'J.Af~H'I'e.l\1:. (subst. m.)-Mr. 11 II Etym.: See C'AAj'~~'I'H.II Sign.: In

the cited text these are the former ruler who "held the scepter of the
Bulgarian Empire"
C'AKfORHI.J.Ie (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 2; MN 56 (1), 86 (1); K 5:16-18. II

Etym.: From "cKpMBaM", "KpMH" (="to hide") < Palaeoslavic "*kryti"
= "to hide", related to the Lithuanian "krauti", Lettish "kraflt" = "to
heap, to accumulate", Gr. x:poo'tro ="to hide", Old Icelandic "hraukr"
= "heap" and Irish "cruach" = "heap" (BER, III, pp. 15-16; Vasmer,
II, p. 390) II Sign.: In its legal sense the word means "treasury/treasure/
treasure house". In the quoted text, these are the goods, presented as
a gift by the tsar to the monastery; Gr. 9t,craup6<;, Lat. "thesaurus". It
may also mean state treasury. (Institufii feudale, p. 469).
C'AM-tW~'I'H /ch./ (verb)-AH 201. II Etym.: From "MecH" (="to knead,

knead doe or something thick") and "cMeCBaM" (= "to mix two or
more things together in order to make them into one substance") <
from the Palaeoslavic verb "*mesiti, mesq.", which is found in all Slavic
and Baltic languages and having the meaning of "to knead" The Indo-
European root "*meik-" always gives meanings similar to "to knead"
The idea of"mixing", "joining together". (BER, III, pp. 761-3; Vasmer,
II, pp. 606-607) II Sign.: This was a prohibition on marrying or having
any such relations with a godmother or her daughters. (Milas, Pravo-
slavno tsdrkovno pravo, pp. 611-3; G. Petrova, Istorija na bulgarskata
ddrzhava i pravo, t. I, pp. 128-9).
C"An~KOC'I'H'I'H (verb)-Dubr. 10 II Etym.: See n~KoCTMn~KOC'I'b..ll Sign.:

"To damage, to injure" In the cited text this is an order of the tsar
prohibiting to damage the Ragusan merchants.
c"Anftr\r'l>. (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~uy6<; (="who is harnessed in
the same yoke"), similar to the Latin "coniux". (Vasmer, III, p. 805) II
Sign.: "Husband"
C'ATAm~HHie (subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 49, 56, 64-65, K 56:1-2. II Etym.:

From the verb C'A'I'Am~TH. II Sign.: "Goods, possessions", "property",
Gr. K'tfl~a, Lat. "possessio" (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 115).
142 CHAPTER ONE
C'll.TAm4\TeAI:. (subst. m.)-MN 47 II Etym.: See C'll.Th.m4\TH. II Sign.:

"Owner"
(verb)-MN 47 bis [crrAm4\TH]; K 18:4-5. II Etym.: Palaeo-

C'll.Th.m4\TH
slavic root "*t~g- ",related to the words "n1ra" (= "traction") M "Te:>Ka"
(="the weigh". (Vasmer, IV, pp. 139-40) II Sign.: "To own", "to have",
"to possess", "to obtain" The word is related to the civil law and to the
monastic regulation by the vow of the monks not the have property.
c~:.pespo (subst. neutr.)-MAD 24, Zogr. 6-7, K 19:1-2, 76:9-10. II

Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*sbrebro" = "silver", Lithuanian "sidabras", Prus-
sian "sirablan", Lettish "sidrabs", Goth. "silubr" The word is present
in all Slavic languages but only in the Baltic-Slavic-Germanic group of
the Indo-European languages. Probably it has an Asia Minor origin by
the archetype "subau-ro" ="shining". (Vasmer, III, pp. 606-7) II Sign.:
"Silver", Gr. apyup6<;, Lat. "argentum"
c~:.pesp~:>HH~'ll. (subst. m.)-K 76:4-5, 76: 6-7, 76: 12-16 bis. II Etym.:
Substantive of Cbfe&po. II Sign.: "Silver coin", Gr. taA.avtov.
t'tAMHI.J.Ie(subst. neutr.)-K 14:17-20. II Etym.: From the verb

C<tA'kTH.The meaning is "seat" but also "main office".ll Sign.: "Chair",
"throne"; symbol of power.
(subst. m.)-Ril. 56, Vit. 12 II Etym.: Crom C'kHO (= "hay" <

C<tH4\f1:.
Palaeoslavic "*sena") and the suffix -4\p!:.. (BER, VI, pp. 610-12; Vas-
mer, III, p. 601). II Sign.: Officer, charged with the corvee C<tHo~oc'll.
(Lat. "foenarius") or with the furnishing of hay for the cavalry or for
the transport animals. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65; Biliarsky, Insti-
tutsiite, pp. 366-8; Oikonomodes, Fiscalite, p. 95; Institutii feudale,
p. 198; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 211-2).
C<tHO~OC'll. (subst. f.)-Virg. 41, 63, 69, Mr. 22, 24, Ril. 4711 Etym.: From
C<tHO II
="hay" and the verb ~OCHTH = "to mow, to cut" Sign.: This is
appellation of a corvee to furnish hay to the cavalry or administration.
(Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 116; Institutii feudale, p. 198; Mihaljcic, Zakoni
u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 211-2; Misic, "Povelja kralja Stefana
Urosa III manastiru Hilandaru", p. 78).
GLOSSARY 143
Cli\Ab.&HH~/caTb.&HH~ (subst. f.)-MAD 34, 36 II Etym.: From Cli\A"h.. II

Sign.: Following Iv. Dujcev this is the tribunal fee. (Dujcev, SBK,
p. 335).
Cli\AHTH (verb)-MAD 36, Virg. 15, 43, 75, 76, 77; AH 203; N 37;
MN 35, 38 (2), 65; K 12:9-11, 15:5-6,60:4-7, 78:10-11. II Etym.: See
Cli\A"h.. (Vasmer, III, pp. 795-6) II Sign.: "To judge", Gr. Kpivew, Lat.
"iudicare"
Cli\AH~ (subst. m.)-MAD 4, 59, Ril. 54; MN 45 (4) his. II Etym.: See
(Vasmer, III, p. 796). II Sign.: "Judge", Gr. Kpt'tfl~, Lat. "iudex"
Cli\A"h.!
In the text of MAD the word means not only "judge" but one of the
highest institutions of the Republic of Dubrovnik. (Dujcev, Rilskata
gramota, p. 65; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 327-33; Institufii feudale,
pp. 257-9).
(subst. m.)-Virg. 78, 87, 104, Mr. 46; MN 19, 70; K 15:5-6,
Cli\A"h.
18:12-13, 41:1-2, 57:1-3, 58:1-3, 75:1-2, 77:9-11. Cli\AH4-Je (subst.
neutr.)-Virg. 36-37, 109, 110 II Etym.: From "*som-" and Indo-Eu-
ropean "*dhe-" (meaning "to do", "work, deed", "affair"). The initial
meaning of the term is connected with anything that makes for unity,
unites, hence the meaning of "vessel (something containing a certain
volume)"> "measure"> "to measure"> "to estimate, to judge in court"
(Vasmer, III, p. 794). II Sign.: "Tribunal, court", Gr. Kpicrt~, Kpt'tflpwv,
Lat. "iudicium" (Institutii feudale, pp. 11-12, 257ff., 267ff., 460).
Cli\nocT~T"b (subst. m.)-MN 70, 89; K 19:11-14, 23:15-17, 62:8-10,

77:1. II Etym.: From eli\- and "po-stat'b" (the morpheme "-st-" mean-
ing "stay"). Semantically related to the Latin "antistes, -stitis" = "boss,
head" and Gr. av'ttcrta't'll~ ="adversary", "enemy", "foe". (Vasmer, III,
p. 805) II Sign.: "Enemy", "foe"
cli\nb.fb. (subst. m.)-Virg. 10811 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "s(!" (="with", Gr.

rruv, Lat. "cum") and "*perti" = "to beat" The word is identical with
Cli\nb.fb.HHK"b. (Vasmer, III, p. 718) II Sign.: "Adversary", Gr. av'ttOtKO~,
Lat. 'adversarius" The term assigns also the adversary participants in
a trial procedure.
144 CHAPTER ONE
C'rHKeNz. (subst. m.)-ISeal V.3 p. 83 (=H 33).11 Etym.: Transliteration

ofthe Greek cr6yKeAA.oc;. II Sign.: "Syncellus", an ecclesiastical service.
T~TI:. (subst. m.)-Mr. 38, K 15:25, 16:3-4, 42:4-7, 78:1-3. II Etym.:

The Palaeoslavic word is related to and probably borrowed from the
Celtic "taid" (subst. m.) ="steal" and Greek ·trrc6.ro I tat6.ro ="deprive"
(Vasmer, IV, p. 28) II Sign.: "Thief" (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane
i razvitie, p. 33).
T~TI:.&~(subst. f.)-K 27:22-23,48:11-13,67:19-21.11 Etym.:SeeT~T~:..II

Sign.: "Theft"
TR~fHKO (subst. neutr.)-Ril. 7811 Etym.: See ~fHKO and fHKoc. (Dujeev,
Rilskata gramota, 65). II Sign.: Additional tax, identical with Byzantine
&eptK6v. (see ~fHI~o).
Te,XHHT~fl:. (subst. m.)-Mr. 23 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek

t£XV11t6.p1lc; (from texv11 ="art", "craft"). II Sign.: "Artisan, craftsman"
(Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 118).
THnH~erz. (subst. m.)-MN 67 (1). II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek

tt>1ttK6v.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. (BiHar-
sky, 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, Fis-
calite, pp. 72-6).
Tprz.roR~TH (verb)-Bra. 3 IIEtym.: 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 Mediterra-

nean languages from the time before the arrival of the Slavs in the Bal-
kans. 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. <puA.a.Kft~, Lat. "career" The word
may be related not only to penal law but to corvees, some of which
included the duty to guard prisons. The verb used in N 35 is "to sit"
("to sit in prison"). (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 124; Institu(ii feudale, pp.
243-5, 468).
O\j'&HTH/~&HR~TH (verb)-Ril. 66; MN 44 (1), 65 bis; K 1:12-14 II

Etym.: From verb &HTH (= "to beat" <Indo-European roots "*bhoi-",
"*bhi-") and the prefix o~-· (BER, I, pp. 51-52; Vasmer, I, p. 169, IV,
p. 142; Rajkova M., "Sur la terminologie juridique medievale", Revue
des etudes sud-est europeennes, 1-4 (2004), pp. 37-47). II Sign.: "To
kill", "to slaughter", Gr. K'teivew, Lat. "occidere". (Institu(ii feudale, pp.
341-2).
~&HHLJ.b. (subst. m.)-K 7:5-8. II Etym.: See 0\f&HTH. II Sign.: "Killer",

"slayer". (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33)
0\J'&OH (subst. m.)-K 14:1-4, 73:18-19. II Etym.: See o~&HTH. II Sign.:

"Murder", "slaughter", Gr. <p6vo~, Lat. "homicidium"
O\j'G.<kmH4-Je (subst. neutr.)-N 1. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "bezeti", related

td the Lithuanian "begti", Lettish "b~gt" = "to run", "to run away",
"to escape", Gr. <pe~o~at with the same meaning and <p6~o~ = "fear,
fright". (BER, I, pp. 106-7) II Sign.: "Asylum", "refuge"
o~KOfH~Hb.H'l>. (adj.)-AH 201. II Etym.: Derived from KOfHTH from

Phlaeoslavic "*kariti", which is probably a nominal verb from the
146 CHAPTER ONE
Proto-Slavic "*kar" Related to the Lettish "karin~t" ="to annoy", Gr.

KclpV'Il, Lat. "carino"-"to abuse", "to ridicule" and Old Irish "caire" =
"reproach" (BER, II, p. 651; Vasmer, II, pp. 320-1) II Sign.: "Meriting
reproach/punishment", "containing reproach/punishment".It is closely
related to the evaluation of the commission of unlawful deeds.
~M~fHTH/~M~f~TH (verb)-K 7:5-8, 8:16-19 bis, 48:6-7, 51:17.

II Etym.: From M?frz. and MOfHTH < Palaeoslavic "*mar'b" < Indo-
European "*m6ros < "*mer-" with a signification linked to the mean-
ing "death" (BER, IV, pp. 236-7, 250-2; Vasmer, II, p. 651) II Sign.:
"To put to death", "to kill", "to slaughter", "to assassinate" (Institutii
feudale, pp. 341-2).
~CTurz. (subst. m.)-MN 45 (4); K 3:11-13, 58:7-9. II Etym.: From

rl~RHTH <from the morpheme "-st-".From "ycTaHOBHBaM" ="to estab-
lish", "to constitute", "to make something stable", similar to the Greek
cr6vtay).ux and Latin "constitutio" II Sign.: "Statute", "constitution"
~'rcrrpoe~",~ (sub~t. n.eut!.)-MN 86 (1).11 Etym.: See 0\fCTfOHTH.II Sign.:

Order , orgamsatwn
~CTfOH (subst. m.)-K 11:23-24, 57:21-22. II Etym.: See 0\fCTfOHTH. II

Stgn.: "Organisation", "order", "rule"
~CTfOHTH (verb)-K 12:20-22, 26:2-3.11 Etym.: From the verb CTfOHTH =

"to build", related to the meaning "prepare", "put in order", "to build",
"to create" (Vasmer, Ill, p. 780) II Sign.: "To create", "to name, to
appoint"
or'Rfb.AHTH (verb)-MN 45 (4). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*tvbrd'b" =

"liard", "stable" (Vasmer, IV, p. 32) II Sign.: "To stabilise", "to con-
firm", "to validate"
O'r'leHH~rz. (subst. m.)-MN 56 (1).11 Etym.: From o~'IHTH (="to teach",

"t'o learn") < Palaeoslavic "*uciti", related to the verb "*vyknqti" = "to
penetrate, to get acquainted with /a problem/". (Vasmer, IV, pp. 179-
80) II Sign.: "Pupil", "student".
GLOSSARY 147
O\j'"'HTeJ\1:. (subst. m.)-MN 89.11 Etym.: From O\j'"'HTH (seeo~LJeHHKrz..!).ll

S{gn.: "Teacher", related to the status of the person.
cj>AHPHM'l> /or pAHHrurz../ (subst. m.)-Bra. 1 II Etym.: Unclear ety-

mology, 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 com-
mune of Bra~ov (Kronstadt)-its roots are sought in the Hungarian
word "fali.igyel<'S" If we accept this much criticised opinion, then the
cited official would come after the zupan andfolnogin rank. The term
does not belong to the administrative language of mediaeval Bulgaria.
(Cleminson, "Brashovskaja gramota tsarja Ivana Sratsimira", p. 370;
Maslev St., "Brashovskata gramota na tsar Ivan Sratsimir: prinos kolm
nejnoto prouchvane", Palaeobulgarica, XIV (1990), 4, p. 88).
cj>oAHorrz.. (subst. m.)-Bra. 1 II Etyrn.: Probably from the Hungarian

word "f<'Snok" ="commander", "leader of some community" II Sign.:
Institution of the city of Bra~ov (Kronstadt). In the letter-charter of
tsar John Sratsimir this official is mentioned after the zupan. In Tran-
sylvania and Walachia a village institution of the same name existed:
there "f<'Snok " was the leader of the village commune. It probably
came to Walachia from Transylvania. In the cited case, however, the
reference is to one of the leaders of the commune in the Saxon city
of Bra~ov; this leader was called "folnagy" in Hungarian, "villicus" in
Latin, and "Hann" in German. There was no such Bulgarian institution,
nor was there such a term in the Bulgarian administrative or political
vocabulary. It is present here because cited in a Bulgarian document.
(Institutii feudale, p. 199; Philippi, Die Burger von Kronstadt im 14.
und 15 ]ahrhundert, p. 131; Cleminson, "Brashovskaja gramota tsarja
Ivana Sratsimira", p. 370).
cj>opocrz.. (subst. m.)-Dubr. 10-11 II Etyrn.: transliteration of the Greek

word <p6po~. II Sign.: "Fair, market", Gr. <p6po~, Lat. "forum"
cj>o\j'H'l> (subst. m.)-Mr. 37, Vit. 12 II Etym.: Transliteration of the

Grdek word <p6vo~.11 Sign.: "Homicide", Gr. <p6vo~, Lat. "homicidium"
)(AfTocJ>~J\4\fi'l> (subst. m.)-N 30.11 Etyrn.: Transliteration of the Greek

term xap'tO<pUAa~. II Sign.: "Chartophylax" -ecclesiastical service the
name of which derives from the idea "curator of the documents", "of
148 CHAPTER ONE
the archives" The official is something like a Church chancellor. There

were chartophylakes of the Patriarchy, of the metropolitan sees, etc.
,X.Ab.Krz. (subst. m.)-K 61:6-7.11 Etym.: Unclear etymology. All the pro-
posed variants are quite hazardous. (Vasmer, IV, pp. 257-8) II Sign.:
"Unmarried", "single", Gr. liya~o~.
,XNMrz. (subst. m.)-Mr. 32, Ril. 65 II Etym.: Probably a very old

loanword from the Germanic languages (Gothic "hlaifs", Old Icelan-
dic "hleifr") or from Chinese, which is less probable. (Vasmer, IV,
pp. 241-2) II Sign.: "Bread", Gr.lip'to~, wro~iov, Lat. "panis" The legal
meaning of the term is related to the special obligation of the popu-
lation to provide food for passing armies or state officials or to the
obligation to buy up food for this purpose. Some authors connect it
with the duty called wro~o~n~ia in the Byzantine Empire, but the most
recent studies refute this idea. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 44;
Angelov D., "Prinos k~m pozemlenite otnoshenija wv Vizantija prez
XIII vek", Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet, Filosofsko-istoricheski
fakultet, II (1953), p. 43; Cvetkova, "Influence exrecee", p. 251;
Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantii, pp. 327-8; Melovski H., "Kon prasanjeto
za psomozemijata", GodiSen zbornik Filoz. Fakult., 30, Skopje, 1978,
pp. 111-7; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 108-9).
,XOA4\T4\H (subst. m.)-Virg. 96, K 46:5-7, 74:9-10. II Etym.: From the

verb ,XOAHTH ="to walk" (Vasmer, IV, pp. 252-3) II Sign.: "Interces-
sor, intermediator" (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33).
,XOAb.Tb.HCT&O (sub st. neutr.)-Zogr. 1, 22,35,6811 Etym.: See ,XOAb.Tb.H.II

Sign.: "Intercession"
_xopb. (subst. f.)-Dubr. 1, 2, 3, 5 his, 6, Virg. 97-99, Mr. 27, 28; MN 44

(1), 48 (4). II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word xropa = "coun-
try" II Sign.: Chora. An appellation of a territorial unit in Bulgaria
in the thirteenth century. (Biliarsky, "Les circonscriptions administra-
tives." pp. 179-80).
_xopli\rrz.l (subst. f.)-MN 45 (4), 89. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*horqgy" is

a borrowing from Mongol word "orul)go", "orul)ga" = "sign", "flag"
through the Turkic languages. (Vasmer, IV, pp. 268-9) II Sign.: "Ban-
ner", "flag" Evidently, in the case of MN 45 (4) and 89 the reference
GLOSSARY 149
is to an imperial sign. The word occurs in the same sense in the works
of Patriarch Euthymius, and it is known from the letter of pope Inno-
cent III that he, the Pontifex, sent a flag to tsar Kalojan, which was
evidently thought to be highly significant by the Bulgarian ruler .
(subst. m.)-N 28, 46, 47, 66, 70, 73, 842; MN 48 (4) bis, 54. II
.Xfb.M'll.
Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*xormn" = "building", related to the Lettish
"karms" and to the Old Icelandic "harmyan" = "fortress". See also the
Arabic word "haram" = "the holy part of the home"! Maybe related
to the Hittite word "karimmi" = "temple" The general meaning of the
word is related to "building", "security". (Vasmer, IV, pp. 265-6, 273) II
Sign.: "Temple", a sanctuary.
.Xfb.HHTH (verb)-AH 201, 202, 203. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*xorna,

*xorniti", related to the Latin "servo, -are"= "to save", "to keep" and
to the Avestan "haurvaiti" = "to rescue" Thus the word is linked to
the meaning "xpaHa" ="food" too. The general meaning is related to
"guard", "eating", "custody", "maintenance" (Vasmer, IV, p. 266) II
Sign.: "To respect", "to maintain", "to guard" (Tsibranska-Kostova,
Formirane i razvitie, pp. 62-4) .
.XfHCORO~A'll.(subst. m.)-Virg. 96, 104, 106, 108, Mr. 12, 18, 43, 47,
Vit. 1, 15; !Seal I.lOA p. 126; MN 48 (4); .XfHCORO~Ail\ (subst. f.)-Virg.
9 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term xpucr6~ouA.A.ov. II Sign.:
This is an abbreviation of the xpucr6~ouA.A.to<; Myo<; (= ~Ab.Tone'lb.Tb.Hoe
CAORO, Lat. "bulla aurea"), an imperial document of supreme degree.
(Dolger, Byzantinische Diplomatik, pp. 36ff.; Solovjev, Masin, Grcke
povelje srpskih vladara, pp. LXX-LXXVI; Institutii feudale, pp. 60-1,
226; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", pp. 38ff.) .
.XfHCTOAkl&HR'll. (adj.)-Zogr. 10, 19, Ril. 1-2; N 47, 67, 70, 74; MN
31, 47, 50 (1), 51 (1), 53, 54 bis, 56 (1), 57, 58 (2), 80 bis, 98, 106; K
2:25-27, 3:14-15,20:4-7. II Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek word
<ptAQxptcr'to<;.ll Sign.: "Philochrist", "who loves Lord Jesus Christ", Gr.
<ptAQxptcr'to<;, Lat. "philochristus"
U.b.feR'b/LI,b.fHH'll./LI,b.fb.C~'ll./U.b.f!eR'll.
(adj.)-Virg. 14, Mr. 2, 8, 49, Ril. 39,
110; N 46, 80; MN 98, 99, 106; K 39:8-10,40:19-20.11 Etym.: Adjective
from U.b.fb.· II Sign.: "Tsar's", "imperial", Gr. ~acrtA.uc6<;, Lat. "imperia-
lis". In the document of the despot Alexis Slav of AD 1220 the used
150 CHAPTER ONE
term is avaJCtopuc6c; (avaJCtrop = "ruler, sovereign" -Actes de Vato-

pedi, I, No 12 pep;oBe 25, 32).
L.l,b.fHrfb.A'l../U.b.feRrfb.A'l.. (subst. m.)-N 75 (Tarnovo); MN 15, 52,

57 (Tarnovo). II Etym.: From Greek Bacrt4ia n6A.tc;. II Sign.: "Tsar's
city", "imperial city", "capital", related to the imperial ideology.
L.l,b.fHHb. (subst.f.)-Virg. 103 II Etym.: From U.b.fb.· II Sign.: Something

linked to the tsar. In the eastern Slavic languages and in Romanian
the word means "pasture" but in Serbian means "/custom's! duty"
The latter meaning we find in the cited text. (Porcic, "Povelja kralja
Stefana Dusana dubrovnicanima", p. 96; Popovic, "Povelja bana Tvrtka
I Kotromanica Dubrovniku", p. 155)
U.b.fHU.b. (subst. f.)-N 49, 70; NM 6, 9 (type V); MN 16, 38 (2), 45 (4),
56 (1), 56 (2), 59, 61, 80, 89, 117; K 18:1-3.11 Etyrn.: See U.4\fb.· II Sign.:
"Tsarine", "empress", "tsar's wife or mother"
L.l,b.fb. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 28, Dubr. 13, MAD 3, Virg. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10

five citations, 11 five citations, 12, 34, 40, 65, 68, 79, 93, 107, 112, 114,
Zogr. 10, 19, 31, 70, 36, 39, 44, 59, 74, Mr. 8, 11, 44, 51, 53, Ril. 2, 4,
8, 11, 85 tris, 95, 99, 112, Vit. 3, 23, Bra. 1, 8; AH 203; !Seal III.3EB p.
65, 1.3 p. 99, 1.4 p. 101, 1.5 p. 105, 1.6 p. 110, 1.7 p. 113, 1.8 p. 117, 1.9
p. 122, 1.10 p. 126, I.lOE p. 127, IV.5 p. 140, IV.8 p. 141; N 1, 31 his,
44, 45 his, 46 five, 47 his, 48, 53, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69 four, 70,
72 his, 73 four, 74 five, 80, 82, 83, 844, 85 (1)-Re.I\H~rz.. L.l,b.fb.; NM 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; MN 12 (1), 14, 15, 16,
17, 38 (2), 40 his, 42 tris, 43, 44 (1), 45 (2) his, 45 (3), 45 (4) twenty
one citations, 49 (1) his, 50 (1), 50 (2), 51 (1), 53 his, 54 his, 56 (1)
six, 56 (2) nine, 56 (3), 56 (4), 56 (5), 57, 58 (2), 59 his, 61, 71 (3), 80
five, 89 his (once "young tsar"), 91 (1), 94 (8) his, 95 (2), 101 his (once
"young tsar"), 105, 117; K 2:1-3,2:5-7,4:8-9,4:10-11,7:2-4, 15:19-21,
18:1-3, 18:3-4, 35:12-13, 35:13-14, 35:14-17, 35:17-18, 35:20, 36:1,
36:2-3, 36:7-8, 36:14-16. 36:16-18, 37:6-7, 70:4-6, 70:6-7. II Etyrn.:
From Latin "Caesar" The initial form was U.~Cb.fb.> U.b.Cb.fb.> U.b.fb. and
was adopted by the Slavs from the Gothic language (East Germanic)
in the form "* Kaisar", and not directly from Latin or Greek. There
is also a view that the form with "b" in the root of the word repre-
sents an old Latin loanword from the Balkan region. (Vasmer, IV, pp.
290-1) II Sign.: "Tsar", ruler's title of imperial rank; Gr. ~acrtA.euc;, Lat.
GLOSSARY 151
"imperator" The Slavic term is fully identical with the Greek ~acrt.A.€-6<;
as concerns the secular imperial title as well as the titles of the biblical
rulers of Israel and Judea, and also the Celestial King, the Lord Jesus
Christ. This means that, in its secular sense, the corresponding Latin
term would be "imperator", while in the religious sphere (including
the text of the Holy Scripture) the Latin term would be "rex" (Rado-
slavov Tsv., "Titlite na bulgarskite vladeteli", Izvestija na bulgarskija
arkheologicheski institut, V, 192811929, pp. 168ff., 174ff.; Romanski St.,
"Simeonovata titla 'u,'kc~p~:.'", Bulgarski pregled, I, 1, 1929; Dolger Fr.,
"Tsarskata vlast v Bulgarija i imperatorskata vav Vizantija", Rodina,
I, 3, 1938!1939; Angelov D., "Kam vaprosa za tsarskata vlast v sred-
novekovna Bulgarija", Sbornik v pamet na Al. Burmov, Sofia, 1973,
pp. 158-66; Kolarov, "Titulatura i polnomochija vladetel'skoj vlasti v
srednevekovoj Bolgarii", Etudes balkaniques, 3, 1978, pp. 89-101;
Dujcev Iv., "Varkhu njakoi bulgarski imena i dumi u vizantijskite
avtori", in: idem, Prouchvanija varkhu srednovekovnata bulgarska isto-
rija i kultura, Sofia, 1981, p. 341; Bakalov G., Srednovekovnijat bulgar-
ski vladetel (Titulatura i insignia), Sofia, 1995; Uspenskij B. A., Tsar'
i imperator. Pomazanie na tsarstvo i semantika monarshikh titulov,
Moscow, 2000; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", pp. 42-4).
U.~fb.C'I'Rol~fb.CTRH!e (subst. neutr.)-Vatop. 1, 7, 9, 15, 21, 24, MAD

2, 4 5 his, 7, 9 his, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 his, 16, 17 his, 18, 21, 22 his,
26 his, 29, 31, 32 his, 35 his, 36 his, 38, 39, 47 his, 49, 54; AH 202; N
47, 73 his, 79; MN 14, 42, 45 (3), 45 (4), 51 (1), 53, 56 (1) his, 57, 58
(2), 59 his, 80 his, 89, 101, 114; K 4:22-24, 14:4-5, 21:4-5, 31:2-4,
31:17-18, 31:18-20, 36:12-13, 43:18-20, 45:4-5, 46:5-7, 50:17-19,
54:4-5, 63:19-21, 64:17-18, 65:1-3, 68:18, 69:16-18, 72:17, 75:24-25.
II Etym.: See ~p~:..ll Sign.: 1) "Empire", "tsardom", the state under the
power of a tsar; Gr. ~acrkia, Lat. "imperium, regnum" 2) The very
power of a tsar. 3) Address to a tsar-the formula ~fb.C'J'Ro TH I MH =
~amM.ia crou I ~ou (see citations from MAD). In the Greek testament
of Paul, metropolitan of Melenikon (1216 r.) the formulae ~amA.eia
or ixyia au'tou ~amM.ia (Actes de Vatopedi, I, No 12 lines 4, 5, 7, 22,
23, 25) designate the power of the despot Alexis Slav.
U.~fb.C'I'ROR~TH(verb)-Mr. 8, MN 15, 42, 45 (4), 47, 48 (4), 80; K

23:12-15, 35:17-18, 64:5-8, 67:7-9. II Etym.: See U.Afb.· II Sign.: "To
reign", "to rule", Gr. ~amM.uetv, Lat. "imperare/regnare".
152 CHAPTER ONE
Ll.fb.K'll.&b.H'll. (adj.)-Virg. 80, 90, 90-91, 91 ter; MN 44 (1), 45 (4), 48

(4), 106; K 11:12-13, 12:1-3, 12:3-6, 39:16-18, 63:16-17. II Etym.:
See Ll.fb.K'll.l. II Sign.: "Ecclesiastical", "related to the Church"; Gr.
EKKA1lcrtamuc6~, Lat. "ecclesiasticus"
Ll.fb.K'll.l (subst. f.)-MAD 41, 42 tr., 45, 49 bis, 50; Virg. 2, 4, 36, 44,
67, 68, 72, 81, 84, 85 bis, 86, Mr. 1, 4, 8, 10, 15, 39, Ril. 3, 6, 9, 25; AH
202; N 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 30, 40 ('lfb.K'll.&b.), 64, 73; MN 1, 14, 65, 106;
K 3:11-13, 8:21-23, 11:1-3, 11:17-18, 15:12-14 15:15-16, 15:19-21,
15:21-22, 19:3-6,22:8-10,25:9-10,26:5-6,30:1-2,31:14-16,33:19-20,
34:15-16 bis, 36:10-12, 36:13-14, 44:11-12, 65:12-14, 65:14-15,
68:5-6, 68:8-10, 67:26, 71:4-7, 74:13-14, 79:14-15. II Etym.: Very
ancient borrowing from the Goths-Arians-"*kirik6" (= "Church").
The Germanic word has its origins in the Greek Kt>ptK6v < Kt>ptaK6v
="Lord's (place)" (Vasmer, IV, p. 300) II Sign.: "Church" (all mean-
ings of the word), Gr. EKKA1lcria, Lat. "ecclesia, templum" (Institufii
feudale, pp. 45-48; Minceva, "Entstehungswege", pp. 57-8)
U,'tH~ (subst. f.)-MN 14, 15, 31, 117. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*cena",
related to the Lithuanian "k;.Hna" ="price", "profit", Avestan "kaena-" =
"vendetta", "feud", "punishment", Greek 'ttvco= "to repent",Irish "cin" =
"guilt, culpability", "debt" (Vasmer, IV, p. 298) II Sign.: "Price",
"payment"
(subst. m.)-MN 44 (1), 47, 48 (4); K 11:12-13, 12:1-3, 12:3-6,

'IHH'll.
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)
'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 aris-
tocracy, 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 encoun-
ter 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
GLOSSARY 153
dignitary in the state, immediately below the boila kaukhan. (Gjuzelev

V., "Ichirgu boilite v Pyrvata bulgarska dclrzhava (VII-XI B.)", Godish-
nik 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.. II

Sign.: Appellation of the service of the ichirgou boila.
'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

'lfb.HOC'l'4\fb.U.b.
C'1'4\fb.U.b. = "old man, starets" II Sign.: "Monk (who is starets)", Gr.
~ovax6~, Lat. "monachus"
(subst. m.)-ISeal V.3 p. 81; N 33; MN 2, 17, 54; K 43:12-

'lfb.Hb.U,b.
13, 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" (Tsibranska-
'lfb.Hb.'lb.CK'l.. (adj.)-K 52:13-14. II Etym.: See 'lfb.Hb.U,b.. II Sign.:

"Monk's", "monastic"
'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 bor-

rowing 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.

Etym.: II
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". (Vas-
mer, IV, p. 350) II Sign.: Epithet for the ruler and some other high
officials. (Institufii feudale, pp. 342-3).
"'AAb. (subst. f.)-AH 200; N 74,85 (2); MN 45 (4), 48 (4), 59; K 17:10-
12.11 Etyrn.: Palaeoslavic "*c~oo", related to the words H~"'b.H~, H~"'ATH
(= "to begin") and KOHM.J..b. (= "end") as well as to the Greek Kaw6c; =
"new" (and not related to the Old Saxon and Old German "kind").
(Vasmer, IV, pp. 310-1) II Sign.: "Posterity, progeny", "people"
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"
~mHia./~mb.HHK'A (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; Tsibranska-
~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" <Indo-European"* dt;tghu-" =
"tongue". Meaning "people" is secondary. (BER, I, p. 483; Vasmer, IV,
pp. 550-1). II Sign.: "Tongue", "language", "people" We are concern
only by the latter, Gr. £9voc;, Latin "populus" e~HK'A in the MAD 30
bis, 31 bis means "testament" (Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 335)
GLOSSARY 155
GLOSSARY OF THE JURIDICAL LEXIS OF THE

LAW FOR JUDGING THE PEOPLE
Zi\1\0N'll COYAbN'lliH AIOAbM'll
&eC"AT'AI.J.IeT~ (subst. f.)-Ust.15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 =E. XVII. 41 a~fu.tto<;

(&eC'AT'AI.J.IeT'AI TROfHTH = a~fu.ttov 1t0tero); Ust. 22, Nov. 24, Vars. 24 =
E. XVII. 7 a~ft~no<; (&eC'AT'AI.J.IeT'AI TROfHTH = a~ft~tOV 1tOtero); Ust. 25,
Nov. 27, Vars. 27 = E. XVII. 12 7 a~ft~tO<; (&eC'AT'AI.J.IeT'AI TROfHTH =
a~ft~tOV 1tOtero).ll Etym.: From I.J.IeT~ = "damage" II Sign.: "Compen-
sate", "indemnify"
&ei.J.IHHI:.HHL.V- (subst. f.)-Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4 = there is no exact

counterpart in the Greek original: ouxytyvrocrKo~evou 'tou 1tpay~a'to<;.ll
Etym.: From 'IHHHTH ="to put in order", "to do", "to execute, to carry
out", related to the meaning 'IHH'A = "order", "harmony", "rang",
Gr. 'ta~t<;. (Vasmer, IV, pp. 362-3). II Sign.: "Outrage", "something
improper", in this case designating a violation of certain moral and
religious norms. Jurists traditionally believed this was a substantive
for the person who had committed an outrage. In fact this is a pre-
cise translation of the Greek text. K. Maksimovich defines the word a
Moravism, for it does not occur in documents other than those cre-
ated in Moravia. It should be noted that similar forms are to be found
in Bulgarian texts, such as that of Cosmas the Presbyter. (Magnae
Moraviae fontes historici, t. IV, Brno, 1971, p. 181; Vasica, "L'origine
cyrillo-methodienne", p. 169; Prohazka, ZSL, p. 362; Cibranska, ZSL,
pp. 200-1; Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 89)
&ei.J.IHHI:.HHK'A (subst. M.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 = no. II Etym.:

See &ei.J.IHHI:.HHU,~. II Sign.: See &ei.J.IHHI:.HHL.V-.
&Aii'\AHTH (verb)-Ust. 4, Now. 4, Wars. 4 (&Aii'\MI.f.IHH); Ust. 5, Nov. 6,

Vars. 6 = E. XVII. 22 1topveuro (&AO~AAH = 1topve-6rov, "fornicator"). II
Etym.: Indo-European *bhlendhn ="sleepiness", "laziness" developed
in the sense "to roam", "to rove", "to wander" and "to be ashamed";
in the Germanic languages it developed toward the sense of "blind"
or "to blind" (BER, I, p. 57, SDR]a, I, pp. 234-5; Vasmer, I, p. 180) II
Sign. "To fornicate" This is the action, subject of several crimes.
&AACTH (verb)-Ust. 6, Nov. 7, Vars. 7 = E. XVII. 23 1topveuro

= 1tOpveurov, "fornicator"). II Etym. See &1\ii'\AHTH. II
(&AAAO'rtoi.J.IHH
Sign.: S~e &Aii'\AHTH.
156 CHAPTER ONE
&or~TMTRO (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 = E. XVII. 29

eU1tOpoc;. II Etym.: In the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general
glossary.
Gf~Hb. (subst. f.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 = E. XVIII. 1 1t6A.e~oc;. II

Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general glossary.
Re.I\~TH (verb)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2. II Etym.: See in the general

glossary. II Sign. See in the general glossary.
Re4-Jb. (subst. f.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 ("case") = E. XVIII. 11tpay~;

Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 ("case", "casus"); Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19
his ("case", "pretension", "discussion" and then "thing") = E. XVII. 5
1tpay~. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general
glossary. In some texts of the Law for Judging the People the word is
used in the sense of "guilt", "responsibility" (Maksimovich, ZSL, pp.
42, 49)
RHH~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 (with the verb C'ATROfHTH) =
E. XVII. 1 ai-tia. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in
the general glossary. In the Joasaph copy of XVI century the word for
"guiltiness" in the Last member of the Law for Judging the People is
Rf~UA. This is defined by J. Vasica as a Moravian word result of a taboo
on the word about the adultery. (Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 89-90)
RHHOPf~A (subst. m.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 = E. XVII. 41

a~1t€MlV. II Etym.: Borrowing from the Goth. "weinagards", probably
from the contact zone in Crimea: "wigart". (Vasmer, I, p. 317) II Sign.:
The juridical meaning of the word is related to the vineyard-as an
immovable real estate.
R.I\~A'AI~~ (subst. m.)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 (his) = E. XVII. 5

apxftc; and &pxrov. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in
the general glossary. (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33)
(subst. f.)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a; Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 (his)=
R.I\MTI:.
E. XVII. 5 £~oucria and R'A R.I\MTI:. &'AIR~h\ = <iPXo~t. II Etym.: See in
the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general glossary.
GLOSSARY 157
ROHHA (subst. f.)-Ust. 24, Nov. 26, Vars. 26 HA ROHH~ ("during the
war") = E. XVII. 10 £v <pocrmitcp iltot ev EK0"1teOi.tcp ("/being! in the
army or in a campaign"). II Etym.: Indo-European root *wei-, *woi-
= "to chase", "to pursue", "to hunt"; related to the Greek verb te)lat
("to hurry", "to hasten", "to strive", "to aspire"), Lithuanian "vyti" ("to
hunt", "to pursue"), Sanskrit "veti" ("to pursue", "to strive"), Latin
"venor" ("to hunt"). From that meaning comes also the military signi-
fication of the word. (BER, I, pp. 173-173, SDRJa, I, p. 562; Vasmer, I,
pp. 334-5) II Sign.: "War"
(subst. f.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 (in E. XVII. 29 He R'A RO.I\Iil

RO.I\h\
is the translation of the &:yvoi~) Ust. 11, Nov. 13, Vars. 13 R'A RO.I\Iil
A~RHU.H =E. XVII. 32 1tpomp£cret 'til<; K6p11<;. II Etym.: See in the gen-
eral glossary. II Sign.: See in the general glossary. It is to stress the use
of the word "Bom1" ="will" in the translation suggested by K. Maksi-
movich; it has no exact counterpart but corresponds to the meaning
of the context. (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 46)
ROieROAA (subst. m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 = E. XVIII. 1 lipxrov

(k:'AHAS'A H.I\H ROieROAA). II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.:
See in the general glossary.
RfAmi:.AA (subst. f.)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a-no; Ust. 15, Nov. 17,
Vars. 17 = E. XVII. 41 £x9pa. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II
Sign.: See in the general glossary.
RfAmi:.Ae&HHk:'A (subst. m.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17-no. II Etym.:

See RfAmi:.AA. II Sign.: "The executor, perpetrator of some inimical
action"
RfeAHTH (verb)-Ust. 22, Nov. 24, Vars. 24 = E. XVII. 7 ~M~'Tl· II

Etym.: See in the general glossary: RfeA"A. II Sign.: "To damage", "to
injure", "to harm"
R"AmAPATH (verb)-Ust. 14, Nov. 16, Vars. 16 =E. XVII. 40 m>p E)l~6.A.ro
(R"AmAPAh\H = o1t'Bp E)l~aA.c.Ov); Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 = E. XVII.
41 1tup 1ta.Oaoioro)lt; related to the crime of fire; the same concern-
ing or~:.H'A (YeT. 15) = E)l1tP1lO")l6<;. II Etym.: R'A- added to the Palaeo-
slavic *fega, *fefesi; from the root *deg->*geg->*feg-. Related to the
158 CHAPTER ONE
Sanskrit "dahati" ("to burn") and Avestan "d<lZaiti" ("will"). (BER, I,

pp. 529-30; Vasmer, I, p. 38) II Sign.: "To set fire"
&'A~~KOHHTH (verb)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1 VOJ..LO'tieruu.ll

Etym.: See ~~KOH'A ="law" II Etym.: "To legalise", "to legislate"
&'A~Rf~THTH (verb)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 =E. XVII. 5 avaoiOroJ..Lt;

Ust. 26, Nov. 28, Vars. 28 ("to turn back the flock to its owner") = E.
XVII. 13 a1tOJca9icr't11J..Ll. II Etym.: From Rf~THTH, Rf~I.J.I~ = "to turn
back" (BER, I, p. 192; SDR]a, I, p. 484) II Sign.: "To return", "to turn
back", "to give back"; the obligation of the transgressor to give back
the illegally obtained thing.
&'A~~&HTH (verb)-Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12 = E. XVII. 31 KOP1l

(the Greek word "girl" is not an exact translation of &'A~~&h.I.J.IHH
cA). II Etym.: &'A~- and A~&~ (see in the general glossary). II Sign.: "To
become a girl"
&'A~HM~THI&'A~h.TH (verb)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 (bis) =E. XVII 5

xcipro and a<patpero ("to deprive"); Ust. 27, Nov. 30, Vars. 30 =E. XVII
5 xcipro and a<patpero ("to deprive"). II Etym.: See R'A~h.THI&'A~HM~TH in
the general glossary. II Sign.: "To take"
&~p~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 18, Nov. 20, Vars. 20 (HM~TH R~f'AI = "to
befieve") =E. XIV. 2.1-2.11tpocro£xoJ..Lat ("to accept"); Ust. 21, Nov. 23,
Vars. 23 = E. XVII. 6 1ttmt~ ("faith" in the religious sense). II Etym.:
See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Faith"; related to some crimes in
connection with religious beliefs.
rocnoAHH"Airocno~f'A (subst. m.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1-no; Ust. 5,

Nov. 6, Vars. 6 =E. XVII. 22 au9£V't'll~; Ust. 18, Nov. 20, Vars. 20 =E.
XIV. 2.1-2.2 Oecr1t6't11~; Ust. 22, Nov. 24, Vars. 24 = E. XVII. 7 IC6pto~
("lord" or "owner"); Ust. 25, Nov. 27, Vars. 27 = E. XVII. 12 IC6pto~
(this is the lord I the owner of the slave); Ust. 30, Nov. 32, Vars. 32
=E. XVII. 17 IC6pto~ (the lord I the owner of the slave). II Etym.: see
in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Lord" or "owner" (Institufii feudale,
pp. 168-72)
rocnom~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 18, Nov. 20, Vars. 20 ("mistress") = E, XIV.

2.1-2.2-no. II Etym.: See rocnOAHH"AirocnoA~f'A· II Sign.: "Mistress",
"lady" (Institufii feudale, pp. 162-3)
GLOSSARY 159
rr~A"A (subst. m.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 =E. XVII. 411t6At<;; Ust.
21, Nov. 23, Vars. 23 =E. XVII. 6 1tOAt9da (1tOAt9eia corresponds to
~eMA~ H rr~A'A in the Slavic translation). II Etym.: See in the general
glossary. II Sign.: "City", fortified political, administrative and military
centre. see in the general glossary.
rr'kX"A(subst. m.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1-2 ai·tia. II
Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Sin", "crime", "transgres-
sion" (see in the general glossary).
A~TH (verb)-Ust. 9, Nov. 10, Vars. 10-no; Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars.
21 his = E. VIII. 2 1tA1lp6ro and no; Ust. 30, Nov. 32, Vars. 32 = E.
XVII. 17 otoroJ.u. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in
the general glossary.
M'IWKI:.HHK'A (subst. m.)-Ust. 20, Nov. 22, Vars. 22 = E. XIV. 8

'ti<; xpero<ne'iv. II Etym.: See M"Ar'A in the general glossary. II Sign.:
"Debtor", "who has debts"
AORM'kTH (verb)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 ("enough", "to befit", "to

satisfy") = E. XVIII. 1 apKero I apK&. II Etym.: From "BOJI.fl" ="will",
Indo-European root "*wei-", "*w!-" = "to want", "to desire" (BER, I,
pp. 132-3, 175-176, 404-405; Vasmer, I, pp. 288, 347-8, 521) II Sign.:
"Being enough", "being satisfied", "to satisfy"
AOCTOHTH (verb)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 =E. XVIII. 1 a<ptepOJ.Lat (this

is not an exact translation). II Etym.: From AO and the verb CTOHTH.
(BER, I, p. 415; SDR]a, III, pp. 70-1) II Sign.: "Worthy", "must", "being
corresponding"
A'A4-JH (subst. f.)-Ust. 7, Nov. 9, Vars. 9 (A"A4-Jef1:. w CRh.T~ro

Kf"A4-JeHH~) =E. XVII. 25,; EK'tOU liyiou Kai crffi't1lptcOOOt><; ~a1t'ttcrJ.La'tO<;
yevoJ.LeV'll (a bit abbreviated translation of the Greek original). II Etym.:
Indo-European *dhugh~te(r), related to the Greek 9uya't1lp, Arme-
nian "dustr", Avestan "dug~dar- ",German "Tochter" (BER, I, p. 467;
SDR]a, III, pp. 127-8; Vasmer, I, p. 533) II Sign.: "Daughter"
A'kR~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 =E. XVII. 291tap9evo<;; Ust.
9, Nov. 11, Vars. 11-no in E. XVII. 30. II Etym.: See in the general
160 CHAPTER ONE
glossary. II Sign.: "Virgin", "girl", "unmarried woman" (Tsibranska-

Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33)
A'kRHLI,b. (subst. f.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 =E. XVII. 29 KOp1'\; Ust.
9, Nov. 11, Vars. 11 = E. XVII. 30 KOp1'\; Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12 =
E. XVII. 31 <p9ape'icra (this is not a translation: the Greek word means
"violated, raped" and the Slavic-"girl"); Ust. 11, Nov. 13, Vars. 13 bis
= E. XVII. 32 aAAo'tpta J.LV1'\0"Tll and KOP1l· II Etym.: See in the general
glossary. II Sign.: "Virgin", "girl", "unmarried woman" (see in the gen-
eral glossary). (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33)
A'kT~TH (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 13, Nov. 15, Vars. 15 = E. XVII. 35

'teKVov; Ust. 18, Nov. 20, Vars. 20 =E. XIV. 2.1-2.1 'teKVov. (BER, I, pp.
348-9; SDR]a, III, pp. 172-3; Vasmer, I, p. 516) II Etym.: Indo-European
*dh;}i-t-ent- ("suckled", "nursed"), *dh;}-to- from the root *dhei ("to
milk", "to suck", "to suckle, to nurse"), Greek 911/t.ft ("breast"), 9ftA.eux
("woman", "female"). II Sign.: "Child". (Institutiifeudale, pp. 319-20)
meHb. (subst. f.)-Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4 = E. XVII. 21 yuvft ("wife");

Ust. 7, Nov. 8, Vars. 8-no; Ust. 13, Nov. 15, Vars. 15 bis = E. XVII.
35 yaJ.Le'tft ("wife") and yuvaiov ("woman"); Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars.
33 many citations = E. II. 9. 1-2-3 yuvft. II Etym.: See in the general
glossary. II Sign.: See in the general glossary.
mo~nb.H'll.(subst. m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 =E. XVIII. 1 &pxrov (this

is not a translation); Ust. 20, Nov. 22, Vars. 22 =E. XIV. 8 'ta~ouMpwc;
(this is not a translation). II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.:
See in the general glossary.
~4\roHeHHie (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 26, Nov. 28, Vars. 28 = E. XVII. 13

&xeA.acria (~4\roHeHHie C'll.TROfHTH = &xeA.acriav xotero). See in the gen-
eral glossary. II Etym.: See ~4\POHHTH. II Sign.: See ~4\POHHTH.
~4\roHHTH (verb)-Ust. 26, Nov. 28, Vars. 28 = E. XVII. 13 &xe/t.auvro.

The criminal act cited in art. 26. II Etym.: From roHHTH and the prefix
~b.-.11 Sign.: "To guide in", "to chase in to chase together"; it means "to
guide somebody else's flock in own sheep- or cattlefold".
GLOSSARY 161
~~KOH'A (subst. M.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1-no; Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars.

2 his-no; Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4-no; ZSL 6, Nov. 7, Vars. 7-no (in
the Byzantine Ecloga there is no different punishments after the lay
and the Church law); Ust. 7, Nov. 8, Vars. 8 his-no; Ust. 10, Nov. 12,
Vars. 12-no; Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17-no; Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars.
18 = E. XVII. 1 v6~w~ (no ~~KOH~ = vo~i~Oll;; Ust. 30a, HoB 33, Vars.
33 his= 1) E. II. 9. 1 vo~o9ecria, 2Y no. II Etym.: See in the general glos-
sary. II Sign.: See in the general glossary. (Institutii Jeudale, p. 1)
~M'k~~TH (verb)-Ust. 11, Nov. 13, Vars. 13 = E. XVII. 32 'tOU'tO

£y£ve'to (this is not a translation "it happened" in the Greek text cor-
responds to "have sexual intercourse" in the Slavic). II Etym.: The same
origin with "B-JmsaM", "y-mmaM" (="to enter")> Palaeoslavic "*laziti"
from "lesti" < Indo-European "*legh-" "*logh-" meaning generally "to
creep", "to crawl" (BER, I, p. 596, III, pp. 283-4, 348-9; Vasmer, II,
pp. 476-7) II Sign.: "Have sexual intercourse"; related to penal law.
(Cibranska, ZSL, p. 203; Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 93-4; SDR]a, III,
p. 324)
~M.tli\m"A (adverb.)-Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12 (H~reLJeHb.H~~ ~~Mii\m"A =

"engaged to marry", "betrothed", "affianced")-no; Ust. 11, Nov. 13,
Vars. 13 "~reLJeH~ ~~Mii\;K'A = E. XVII. 32 aAAo'tpta ~Vllmfl. II Etym.:
From Mli\m"A ="man", "male" with the prefix~~-. II Sign.: "Betrothed",
"engaged to marry"
~~noR'kAb. (subst. f.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1 ev'toA.fl.ll
~eMA~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4-E. XVII. 21 'tOxo~, htaPXia;

Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 (meaning administrative territorial unit)-no;
Ust. 17., Nov. 19, Vars. 19 ("o6nacT") =E. XVII. 5 't6xo~; Ust. 21, Nov.
23, Vars. 23 = E. XVII. 6 xoA.t9eia (xoA.t9eia corresponds to ~eMA~
H Pf~A'A in the translation); Ust. 26, Nov. 28, Vars. 28 = E. XVII. 13
£~opia. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general
glossary.
~A~To-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 =E. XVII. 29 xpucr6~.11 Etym.: See in

162 CHAPTER ONE
~'l>M&A (subst. f.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 ~AO&'l>l A't~ATH = E. II.
9. 2 E7tt~ouA.curo. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*zolo" ("bad, evil"), related
to the Sanskrit "hvarati", "hvalati" and Avestan "zbaraiti" ("to zig-
zag", "to stumble", "to fell"). (BER, I, pp. 663-6; SDRJa, III, pp. 426-8
Vasmer, II, p. 99) II Sign.: "Evil", "bad"
HmA-tHeTH (verb)-Ust. 13, Nov. 15, Vars. 15 =E. XVII. 35 f.K~hc&Kro.

II Etym.: From ((p;eJI , (= ((to d o ") , (( p;eJio , (= ((work") an d so 10rt
(: h . Th'1s
is a form of "Msp;JIBaM" = "to put out", "to remove, to eliminate". Indo-
European "*dhe-" "to put", Greek 'tieruu ="to put", Avestan "dadaiti" =
"to put", Sanskrit "dadhati" ="(he) puts". (BER, I, pp. 350-1; Vasmer,
I, p. 509) II Sign.: "To chase", "to eliminate", "to put out"; the cited
case is concerning the second wife in the case of bigamy.
H~HCI~ATH (verb)-Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 = E. XVII. 1 l;rrtero. II

Etym.: From HCI~ATH ("to seek", "to search for", "to discover, to find",
"to aspire"); related to the Sanskrit "icchati" and Avestan "isaiti" (he
"seeks", "desires"), Old German "eiskon" ("to seek", "to want") and
Anglo-Sax. "ascian" ("to seek", "to ask"). (BER, II, p. 87; SDRJa, IV,
pp. 9-10) II Sign.: An exact translation of the Greek text meaning a
profound and just investigation of the case in the case of asylum.
HCI~O'fn'l> (particip. of the verb H~l~o~nHTH)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 =

o
E. V!II. 2 &yopaaa~ ("who bought"). II Etym.: See 1~o~nHTH see in
the general glossary. II Sign.: In the concrete citation this 1s the person
who bought the captive that becomes obliged to pay back the amount
given for his freedom.
H~no&-tAATH (verb)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 (to announce the

other for the danger) = E. II. 9. 2-3 Ka'taJ.L'IlVUro. II Etym.: From the
verb no/&<tAATH ("make known", "announce"). See in the general glos-
sary. (BER, II, p. 48) II Sign.: In the text of the Law the word means
"to announce" but it could signify also "to confess" being related to
canon law.
H~n'l>ITAHH~ (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a ("investiga-

tion") = no. II Etym.: See H~n'l>ITATH. II Sign.: "Examination", "proba-
tion", "experimentation".
GLOSSARY 163
H~n7l>IT4\TH (verb)-Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 (bis) =E. XVII. 1 owu.:ero
and ~rrtero (see H~HC~4\TH). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic n'll.IT4\TH is related to
the Indo-European "*peu-" ("to examine", "to be reasonable"). (BER,
V, pp. 265-6; Vasmer, III, p. 421) II Sign.: "To examine", "to investi-
gate", the latter is the meaning in the Law.
H~fi\&0'1'4\TH(verb)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 = E. VIII. 2 1tA1lp6ro

(this is not an exact translation). II Etym.: From f4\GOT4\TH-see fl\&0'1'4\
in the general glossary. II Sign.: In that case the verb means "to work
for the amount payed for him"
HM~HHie (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1 bis-no; Ust. 5, Nov.

6, Vars. 6-no; Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 =E. XVII. 29 U1t6crtamc;; Ust.
9 =no; Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12 = E. XVII. 31 U1t6crtmnc;. II Etym.:
derivative of HM4\TH (= "to have") see in the general glossary. II Sign.:
The patrimony of a person.
HM~TH/HM4\TH (verb)-Ust. 13, Nov. 15, Vars. 15 = E. XVII. 35 £xro

(HM~~H = exrov, "who has, who possess"); Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 =
E. XVII. 5 £xro; Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 bis = E. VIII. 2 eu1top£ro
(4\ij.le HM4\TI:. U,~H, AI\TH) and cl1t0pero (4\ij.le .1\H He HM4\TI:.); Ust. 25,
Nov. 27, Vars. 27 = E. XVII. 12 £xro. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*imamb,
*imati", related to the root "jbmo", "j~ti" Related to "eMBaM", linked
to the Lithuanian "imu", Old Prussian "imam", Latin "emo", German
"nehmen" = "to take", "to buy", see also the Greek ve~ro = "to part",
"to obtain a part" (BER, I, pp. 494-5, II, pp. 69-70; Vasmer, II, pp.
128, 129) II Sign.: "To have", "to own"
~4\~HI:. (subst. f.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2-no; Ust. 7, Nov. 9, Vars. 9 =

E. XVII. 25 and 26 1totvft; Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a-no.ll Etym.: See
the verb ~~4\TH in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Punishment"
~MReT4\ (subst. f.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2-no; Ust. 30a, Nov. 33,
Vars. 33-no.ll Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Calumny",
"slander", "accusation" (see in the general glossary.).
~.1\eReTI:.HH~'ll. (subst. m.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2 ("claimant")-no. II

Etym.: See ~MReT4\. II Sign.: "Slanderer", "claimant".
164 CHAPTER ONE
!CfM'I'H I "'r~fM'I'H (verb)-Ust. 24, Nov. 26, Vars. 26 = E. XVII. 10

KAe1t'tro; Us't. 25, Nov. 27, Vars. 27 <~r~A"'ri.J.IHH) =E. XVII. 12 w1t'tro
(KArn'to<;); Ust. 29 0\f~~C'I'H =E. XVII. 16 0.£n:'tro.ll Etym.: See ~r~mA~
in the general glossary. II Sign.: "To steal"; related to penal law.
~rz..Rb. M~CAI.J.Ie (subst. f. + particip.)-Ust. 12, Nov. 14, Vars. 14 =

E. XVII. 33 a.i~o~iKtat. II Etym.: A direct borrowing from the Greek
word. II Sign.: "To commit incest" (Institutii feudale, p. 14)
~'l..I'I'H (verb)-Ust. 30, Nov. 32, Vars. 32 ("to hide" the criminal action
in the art. 30) =E. XVII. 17 Kpt>1t'tro.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*kryti" ("to
hide"); related to the Lithuanian "kniuti" and Lettish "kraut" = "to col-
lect", "to amass" and to the Greek Kpt>1t'tro = "to hide" (BER, III, pp.
15-6; Vasmer, II, p. 390) II Sign.: The word is not a juridical term but
this is the criminal action in the art. 30 of the Law.
~~noC'I'b. (subst. f.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 = E. XVIII. 1 icrxu<;. II

Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: The general meaning is
"strength", "solidity" and then "fortress", "castle", "fortified city"
(SDR]a, IV, pp. 321-2)
~0\fnH'I'H (verb)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 (to pay for the freedom of
a captive) = E. VIII. Ct.yop&~ro. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II
Sign.: "To buy"; see in the general glossary.
~rz..t..tb.'l'b. (subst. m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3 (~rz..t..terHI.J.Ie), Vars. 3 (~rz..t..te'I'HI.J.Ie)

= E. XVIII. 1 o~eya<; the Greek word does not correspond to the Slavic
~rz..t..te'J'b. in the sense of a local communal head).ll Etym.: "*k'bmetb" is a
late Palaeoslavic loanword from the Latin word "comes, -itis". An addi-
tional meaning of the word developed in the Slavic languages: noble,
high ranking official > respected and wealthy person > rich peasant >
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<; = "villager" (KID~'ll = "village"). There
is also a view that the term is of domestic origin, from the Palaeoslavic
dialect word "*k'bmy" (possessive case "*k'bmene") = "clan" Assum-
ing this view, which is thought to be the most convincing, the origin
of the word should be sought in the contact zone between Latin and
the Slavic languages, which covers not only Central Europe but also
GLOSSARY 165
the Balkans, or at least part of them. (BER, II, pp. 494-5, Maksimo-
vich, ZSL, pp. 58-68, 90-2) II Sign.: "Dignitary", "official", "mayor",
"provost"
~'AHh.S'A(subst. m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 = E. XVIII. 1 &rt!l6crtov

·the Greek word means "state treasury" and does not correspond
to "KHHs" = "prince" In the Ust. 4 &rt!l6crtov corresponds to Ab.TH
HH4-JHM'A = "to give to the poor"), lXPXroV (this term corresponds to
"prince"; the translation is ~'AHh.S'A H.I\H ROieROAb.), lXPXroV; Ust. 4, Nov.
4, Vars. 4 = &pxrov; Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a-no.ll Etym.: See in the
general glossary! II Sign.: "Prince", "ruler", "leader" (Institutii feudale,
pp. 108-10)
~~neTfb. (subst. f.)-Ust. 7 (~~nHTb. po~-obviously the clerk did

not understand the meaning of the word and replaced it by a phoneti-
cally close one), Nov. 8, Vars. 8 (in Nov. and Vars. ~0\fneTp~) = E.
XVII. 25 it EK 'tOU ayiou Kat crro't'llptcOOOt><; ~<X1t'tt<J)l<X't0<; yevO)leV'Il (the
text of the article is not an exact translation of the Greek original) II
Etym.: From the Latin "compater" (BER, III, pp. 124-5, 126; Vasmer,
II, p. 414) II Sign.: "Godmother" The form ~'AMOTf'A < ~'AMOTfb. exist
as well and it derives from the Latin "commater". (Maksimovich, ZSL,
p. 92)
.1\HTfb. (subst. f.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 = E. XVII. 29 A.hpa. II

Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek A.hpa (=Latin "libra") that derives
from the Mediterranean word, probably of Sicilian origin, "*lipra" =
"pound" (BER, III, p. 433, SDR]a, IV, p. 405; Vasmer, II, p. 503) II
Sign.: "Pound" (about 320 g) and then a money currency unit. Its
juridical signification is related to civil exchange. (Institutii feudale,
p. 276)
.1\HU.e (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1xp6crro7tov.
II Etym.: A diminutive form of the Palaeo slavic "*liko" = "face" The
juridical term is created as a loan translation of the Greek word
xp6crroxov. (BER, III, pp. 397-8, 438-9; Vasmer, II, pp. 495-6) II Sign.:
"Person"
.1\b.CTI:. (subst. f.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1 {m69ecrt<;.ll
Etym.: See in the general glossary! II 3aHti.: See in the general glossary!
166 CHAPTER ONE
Akl&OA'th\HH!e (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1

1topvda. II Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Fornication",
"adultery"; related to penal law. See in the general glossary! (Institufii
feudale, pp. 4-5)
AklAH (subst. pl.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 = E. XVIII. 1 A.a6~, ~ucp6~.

II Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "People, men". See in the
general glossary! (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 37-8)
AklAMK'AIH(adj.)-ZSL 6, Nov. 7, Vars. 7-no (in the Byzantine Ecloga

the punishments in this article are not divided between the lay and
the Church law); Ust. 7-no. II Etym.: See AklAH. II Sign.: "Human",
"man's"
MMrz..meHrz..(subst. m.) I MMrz..meH~ (often dual)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33,

Vars. 33 four citations (husband, wife) = E. II. 9; 1) and 3)-no;
2) MMrz..meHOM'A mHTeAI:.CTRO = ya~tKID~ m>~~tOUvtrov £v6cre~, 4)
m>votKemov ("marriage, matrimony"). II Etym.: The word is a very
ancient borrowing from the Germanic languages, created by addi-
tion 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)
(subst. f.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 = E. XVII. 41

M'l..,I\1:.1\0C'I'b.
pa9u~ia.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*muditi" < "*mauditi" from the Indo-
European "*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", "clumsi-
ness", "inability" Some authors define the word as one of Moravian
origin. (Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 94-5)
Mb.~~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 = E. VIII. 2 ~tcr96~

("salary"). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*mbzda" < Indo-European "*miz-
dh6"; 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..Licr9w<;
("hired labourer"). II Etym.: See u~:.w. II Etym.: "Hired labourer"
MI:.CTI:.HHK'A (subst. f.)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 = E. XVII. 5 EKOtKO<;

(translation of the Greek term that demonstrate a good knowledge of
the language) II Etym.: From MI:.CTI:. < Palaeoslavic "*mbstb", "*mbsta" <
"*mbt-tb", "*mbt-ta" ="mutual reward"; related to the Indo-European
"*mi-t(h)" ("to reward"). (BER, IV, p. 431; Vasmer, II, pp. 608-9) II
Sign.: "Revenger"
M'kCTo (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 9, Nov. 11, Vars. 11 (in the general mean-
ing of "place") = E. XVII. 30-no; Ust. 22, Nov. 24, Vars. 24 = E.
XVII. 7 't61to<;. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the
general glossary.
Mli\m~T~h\ (adj.)-Ust. 7, Nov. 9, Vars. 9 =E. XVII. 27 yuvft t>1tavopo<;.

Mli\m~THU.~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12-no.ll Etym.: See in
Mli\m"A (subst. m.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 = E. II. 9. 1-2-3 avftp.
II Etym.: From the very ancient Palaeoslavic word "*mangia-" that
has no exact counterparts in the Indo-European languages; related to
the Goth. "manna" and the Old German "mann" Tacitus cites the
latinised form "Mannus" as the name of the mythic ancestor of the
German. See and Sanskrit "manu~/ manu-, manus-"= "man, human",
"husband" and Avestan "manus-" that derive from the Indo-European
"*man, *mon" (BER, IV, pp. 373-4; Vasmer, II, pp. 670-1) II Sign.:
"Man", "husband"
"~re'leHI:.H~~ (adj.)-Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12 (H~e'leH~ ~~Mii\m"A =

"betrothed", "affianced" from H~fO'IHTH)-no; Ust. 11, Nov. 13, Vars.
13 "~re'leH~ ~~Mii\;K'A = E. XVII. 32 aAA.o'tpia J..LVrtmft. II Etym.: See
H~fO'IHTH II Sign.: "Engaged"
"~fO'IHTH (adj.)-Ust. 22, Nov. 24, Vars. 24 = E. XVII. 7 opi~ro. II

Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*rekti, *rek~( ="to say"; related to the Lithuanian
"rekti" = "to roar", "to cry, to shout", Lettish "rekt" = "to roar, to
shout", Sanskrit "racayati" = "put in order, arrange" and "racanam"
= "disposition, organisation, order", Old Irish "reimm" = "roar".
168 CHAPTER ONE
(BER, VI, pp. 212-5; Vasmer, III, pp. 465-6) II Sign.: "To engage", "to
choose"
HeR<kA<kHHif (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 = E. XVII. 41

n1tetpia. II Etym.: From R<kA~TH (="to know") derivative of "*ved-",
R<kAb. ("knowledge"). (BER, I, p. 603; Vasmer, I, p. 283) II Sign.: "Igno-
rance", "lack of knowledge"; related to the responsibility.
HenfH~~Hb. (subst. m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 =E. XVIII.11tOV1lp6c;;

Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 = E. II. 9. 1 oqnc; (= "snake, serpent"). II
Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*prijaznb" <suffix "*-znb" to the verb "*prijati";
related to the Sanskrit "*priya" ="dear, honourable", Avestan "frya" =
"dear, beloved", Goth. "frij~n" = "to like, to love", Greek 1tp&uc;,
1tpae'ia, 1tpai'3 ="kind". (BER, IV, p. 618, V, pp. 749-50; Vasmer, III, p.
369) II Sign.: "Foe, enemy", "devil". (Khristova-Shomova, "Neprijazn",
p. 161ff.; Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 95-7)
Hef~~~'IHM'l> (adj.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 (epithet of the mat-

rimony) = E. II. 9. 1 aouiA.utoc;. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*lqciti" with
the original sense of "to link, to tie" and then the prefix makes the
contrary sense of"to divide", "to separate", "to split", "to excommuni-
cate" (BER, III, pp. 565-6; Vasmer, II, pp. 537-8) II Sign.: "Undivid-
able", "indissoluble"
Hef~~~'lb.H'l>IH (adj.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 (for the matrimony)

=E. II. 9. 1 aot6:1;et:>KtOc;. II Etym.: See Her~~~'IHM'l>. II Sign.: "Undi-
vidable", "indissoluble" for the matrimony.
HHR~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 =E. XVII. 41 xrop6:qnov. II
Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Field", real estate.
HHI.J.Ib. (adj.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1-no; Ust. 5, Nov. 6, Vars. 6 =E.
XVII. 22 e-6teA.ftc;; Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 = E. XVII. 29 1tEv'llc; and
ave-61topoc;. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*nistj'" related to the Indo-Euro-
pean "*nistya-" ="foreigner" (BER, IV, p. 666; Vasmer, III, p. 77) II
Sign.: "Poor", "unfortunate"
HO~Ab.MH (adv.)-Ust. 9, Nov. 11, Vars. 11 = E. XVII. 30 ~t6:1;ro

= ~tai;6J..Levoc;, i. e. "violation"); Ust. 17, Nov.
(nfM.omHHCh. HO'J'Ab.MH
19, Vars. 19 = E. XVII. 5 xeip (this is not a translation). II Etym.:
GLOSSARY 169
Palaeoslavic "*nudity", "*nudj~", related to the Sanskrit "nodayati" =

"to force", "to impose", "to hurry", "to rush" See also the Indo-Eu-
ropean "*neud/dh-", "noud/dh-", "nu-d/dh-" (BER, IV, pp. 700-701;
Vasmer, III, pp. 88-9) II Sign.: "By force, forcibly", "compulsorily"
Ho~mAb- (subst. f.)-Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12-no; Ust. 16, Nov. 18,
Vars. 18 his (Ho~meto and Ho~m~MH = "forcibly, compulsorily") = E.
XVII. 1 ~ia (Ho'rmeto = ~i~t). rl Etym.: H~ Ab.MH where the consonant
dj > z. II Sign.: "Need", "necessity"; Instrumentalis: "forcibly, compul-
sorily" (Institutii feudale, pp. 441-2)
o&HA~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 16,Nov. 18, Vars. 18 (his)= E. XVII. 1 Ke<p6.A.mov.

II Etym.: In the general glossary. II Sign.: "Injury", "offence"
o&HHOR~TH (verb)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 ("to accuse")-no. II
Etym.: See RHH~ in the general glossary. II Sign.: "To accuse"
OGAH"'HTH (verb)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33-no. II Etym.: In the

general glossary. II Sign.: "To accuse", "to blame"
O&fOK'A (subst. m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 = E. XVIII. 1 p(rya (= "sal-

ary", in the cited case "part of the trophy"). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic
"*ab-rako" < from the meaning "to say" ("/p,a/ peKa"). (BER, IV,
p. 755; Vasmer, III, p. 108) II Sign.: The general sense is "oath", "vow",
something obliging that usually has religious character. In the cited
case this is "stipulated part of the booty" (Institutii feudale, p. 333)
O&f'kCTH CA (verb)-Ust. 7, Nov. 9, Vars. 9 (meaning sexual

relations)-no.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ab-retati" with the root "ret-";
related to the Lithuanian "suresti" = "to understand" and "rasti" =
"to find", Lettish "rast" = "to find", Goth. "wratCin" = "to walk", Old
Icelandic "vrata" = "to find", "to travel", Sanskrit "a-vradanta" = "!
they/ shake", Greek 1tptpP'llcrft~ ="shaking", or el>picrKro ="to find, to
discover" (BER, IV, p. 754, Vasmer, III, p. 107) II Sign.: "To obtain",
"to find"; related to civil exchange.
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 Ger-
man "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.
OCII\AHTH (verb)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a-no; Ust. 15, Nov. 17,
Vars. 17 = E. XVII. 41 Ka'taOtKa~ro; Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33-no.
II Etym.: See Cli\A'A in the general glossary. II Sign.: "To condemn", "to
convict", "to find guilty"
(verb)-Ust. 21, Nov. 23, Vars. 23 =E. XVII. 6 a1tapveOJ..Lat.

OT'ARf'ti.J.IH
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.
(verb)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 =E. XVII. 5 EK1tt1t'tro.ll

OT"An4\,I\4\TH
Etym.: From nMTH = "to fall" The word is a loan translation of the
Greek EK1tt1t'tro. II Sign.: "Fall away", "drop off"
OT'An"'rCTHTH (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'ACII\AHTH (verb)-Ust.23,Nov.25, Vars.25=E.XVII. 8Ka'taOtKa~ro.ll

Etym.: See Cli\AHTH in the general glossary. II Sign.: "To sentence", "to
pass judgment", "to resolve a contest".
GLOSSARY 171
n.l\'tHb.HH~'ll. (verb)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 = E. VIII. 2 eil£u9epo<;

aixJ.uxA.roto<;. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*plen'b" = "captivity", related to
the Latin "panate" = "/he/ buys" and the Greek 1troAero = "to buy"
The basic idea is related to the practice to sell back the captives.
The Greek counterpart in the cited text of the Ecloga derives from
ai:wft = "spear", "lance" and has different origin but it too is related to
the meaning "booty", "trophy", something one gains with one's lance
in war. (BER, V, pp. 333-4; Vasmer, III, pp. 314-5) II Sign.: "Cap-
tive"
(adj.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10-no; Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars.
noRHHb.H'll.
12-no; Ust. 30, Nov. 32, Vars. 32 (noRHHb.H'll. npHC'I'fOHTH) =E. XVII.
17 a1tOKatacrtmn<;. II Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Sub-
ordinate", "obedient"
noR'tAI\TH (verb)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 ("to appeal", "to com-
plain") = E. XVII. 5 1tpomprov£ro. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*beda" < Indo-
European "*bhoidh-"; related to the Lithuanian "beda" and Lettish
"bcrda" = "concern, worry", "pain", Goth. "bajdjan" and Old German
"beitten" ="to force"; Old Albanian "*bhoidha" = "vow, oath", Latin
''fides" = "faith" and Greek 1teiero = "to convince" (BER, I, p. 39) II
Sign.: "To appeal", "to complain"
norb.Hb.C~'ll. (adj.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1-no. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic

"*pagan'b" that is a borrowing from the vernacular Latin in the Bal-
kans "paganus" = "pagan" < Latin "paganus" = "rural" < "pagus" =
"village", "paysant", "district", "region" The word demonstrates the
urban character of the Christian worship in the early centuries. (BER,
V, pp. 416-8; Vasmer, III, pp. 294-5) II Sign.: "Pagan"; the word is
related to canon and penal law.
noHMeTH (verb)-Ust. 7, Nov. 9, Vars. 9 (to try) = E. XVII. 25 1tpO<;

ya)lOV to OOKetV ayay6)l£VO<;; E. XVII. 26 transmits to XVII. 25. II
Etym.: derivative of HMb.TH/ HM'tTH. II Sign.: "To try"
no~O\J'CHTH(verb)-Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 ("to try", "to undertake,
to launch") = E. XVII. 1 ooKt)la~ro. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pakusiti
srr" < "*kusiti" < from Goth. "kausjan" = "to try"< from the Indo-
European root "*geus-" ="to taste" (BER, III, p. 152; V, pp. 488-9;
Vasmer, II, pp. 431-2, III, p. 306) II Sign.: "To try", "to taste", "to
launch", "to undertake".
172 CHAPTER ONE
no.I\OH'A (subst. f.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 =E. XVIII.1 mc6A.ov.ll Etym.:

Palaeoslavic "*peln'b" meaning "merit", "payment" -see n.A<tHI:.HHK"A.
(BER, V, pp. 333-4; Vasmer, III, pp. 314-5) II Sign.: "Booty",
"trophy"
non"A (subst. M.)-Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 =E. XVII. 1 iepe-6~.11 Etym.:
See in the general glossary. II Sign.: "Priest", "presbyter", "cleric"
nopb.&OTHTH (verb)-Ust. 29, Nov. 31, Vars. 31 tris ("enslavement") =

E. XVII. 16 in two of the three case there is no counterpart in the
Greek original and in the third one the verb is xetpOlcOx'tro = "to cut
the hand" that is not a translation but another type of punishment. II
Etym.: See fb.&O'J'b. in the general glossary. II Sign.: "To enslave", "to
yoke", "to become slave"; a penal punishment.
noc.I\~,X'A (subst. m.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2-no; Ust. 7a, Nov.

2a, Vars. 2a six citations-no; Ust. 18, Nov. 20, Vars. 20 (noc.I\~)('A
&'AITH = "to be witness", "to witness" -an exact translation of the
Greek original)= E. XIV. 2.1-2.2 ).UXp'tt>pero; Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21
("witness") =E. VIII. 2 aKpOaTrJ~ ("judge", "auditor"); Ust. 30a, Nov.
33, Vars. 33-no. II Etym.: From c.l\o~p = "hearing", related to the
Avestan "sraosa-" = "hearing", Anglo-Sax. "hleor" ="cheek", "face"
and Old Icelandic "hl)h'" = "cheek" and Old Icelandic "hl0r" = "eaves-
dropping" (Vasmer, III, p. 679) II Sign.: "Witness" (Institutii Jeudale,
pp. 283-4; Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 100-1)
nocrr"A (subst. m.)-Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4-no; Ust. 5, Nov. 6, Vars. 6

bis-no; Ust. 6, Nov. 7, Vars. 7-no; Ust. 7, Nov. 8, Vars. 8-no; Ust.
8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10-no; Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12-no; Ust. 13, Nov.
15, Vars. 15-no; Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17-no.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic
"*past'b "; see in the general glossary. (BER, V, pp. 543-5; Vasmer, III,
pp. 340-1) II Sign.: See in the general glossary. (Maksimovich, ZSL,
p. 97)
(verb)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 =E. XVII. 29 £~opi~ro; Ust.

noc'A.I\4\TH
26, Nov. 28, Vars. 28 =E. XVII. 13xapaxeJ..Lxro (w ~eM.I\H noc"AI.I\4\Ie'l'I:.Ch.
= £~op~ xapaxeJ..Lxecr9ro); Ust. 28, Nov. 30, Vars. 30 = E. XVII. 15
£~opi~ro.ll Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: Word has many
meanings but here it is a type of punishment: "exile", "expulsion",
"banishment" (Institutii Jeudale, pp. 189, 461-2)
GLOSSARY 173
nr~RbA~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1-no. II Etym.: See in the

general glossary! II Sign.: "Truth", "justice"
IIfHG'I.IT'I.K'I. (subst.
m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 =E. XVIII. 1xpocr9111C!l·
II Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Income", "revenue" In
that citation the word is an exact translation of the Greek term. (Mak-
simovich, ZSL, pp. 67-8; Institutii Jeudale, pp. 163-4)
IIfHG'kP~TH (verb)-Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 = E. XVII. 1xpompe{yyro

(the Slavic term is a loan translation of the Greek one). II Etym.: See
in the general glossary! II Sign.: See in the general glossary. (Institutii
Jeudale, pp. 32-3)
(subst./rrpJ!Iq, m.)-Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 = E. XVII.

IIfHG'kP'I.I
1 xpompe{yyrov (a loan translation). II Etym.: See IIfH&'kr~TH. II Sign.:
"The person seeking asylum" (Institutii feudale, pp. 32-3)
IIfHAOmHTH /Ch./ (verb)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 = E. XVII. 29

rruyyiyvo).uxt (nfHAOmHH Ch. < cruvytv6)..1£voc; this is the manner to
describe the action to have a sexual intercursion without violation but
under penal punishment); Ust. 9, Nov. 11, Vars. 11 IIfHAOmHTH /Ch./ =
E. XVII. 30 ~ui~ro (nfoAOmHH Ch. HO'rAb.MH = ~w.~6).1evoc;; in this case
"raping"); Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 1i =E. XVII. 31 <p9eipro (IIfOAO;KHH
Ch. = <p9eiprov; a sexual intercursion with agreement of the girl but
before she has a certain age); Ust. 11, Nov. 13, Vars. 13 =E. XVII. 32
<p9eipro (nfoAOmHH Ch. = <p9eiprov; a sexual intercursion with agreement
of the girl but before she has a certain age). II Etym.: See IIfH.Mm~HHie
in the general glossary! Here the meaning is "to lie down with I at
/somebody/", "to be with /somebody/" II Sign.: This is the verb to
describe the act of sexual intercourse, whether by violence or not, but
that is a crime according to the Law for Judging the People. The verb
has a similar construction with the Greek rruyyiyvo).l(Xt and per has was
created after its model. (Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 76-7)
IIfHM'kW~TH (verb)-Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4 = E. XVII. 21

/Ch./
rruyyiyvo).lat (nfHM'kW~~ Ch. < rruvytv6).1evoc; a criminal sexual inter-
cursion without violation). II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*mesati" < "*mesiti"
with many parallels in the Balto-Slavic languages. The word derives
from the Indo-European root "*meik-" > Sanskrit "mimiksati" (="to
mix "), Avestan "minasti" (= "to mix"), Gr. )..Let"(Vt>).lt, ).lt"(Vt>).lt, Lat.
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 cre-
ated 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
"*s~gti"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.
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 /Pan-
nonian/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 punish-
ment); 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><pMro (="to be blinded",
another type of punishment); Ust. 29, Nov. 31, Vars. 31 (to be sold in
slavery) = E. XVII. 16 xtxp6.crJCro. Obviously this is a change of the
penalty. II Etym.: See npo~TH in the general glossary! II Sign.: In the
adduced citation we are interested in the meaning "to sell somebody
in slavery" About the selling as a civil act to transfer property see in
the general glossary!
npo~CAATH (verb)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2-no. II Etym.: See in the gen-

eral glossary! II Sign.: "To curse", "to execrate"
np~cTII\nHTH (verb)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a (~~KOH'll.

np~cTII\nHTH)-no. II Etym.: See in the general glossary! The text of
the Law for Judging the People confirms that the verb is a loan transla-
tion of the Greek xapa~aivro. (BER, V, p. 677) II Sign.: "To transgress",
"to commit a criminal act"
np~cTII\nAieHHie (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 (to act a

transgression of a law/order) = E. II. 9. 1 xapa~aivro. II Etym.: See
npEcrrli\nHTH! II Sign.: "Crime"
m,.p~A (subst. f.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2 ("dispute", "complaint")-no;

Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a-no. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*perti, *pbn( =
"to dispute"< Indo-European "*(s)per-", "*(s)por-", "*(s)pr-" (BER,
V, p. 813; Vasmer, III, pp. 240-1) II Sign.: "Dispute", "complaint"; see
also TAm~.
p~s~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4 = E. XVII. 21 oouA.n; Ust. 5,

Nov. 6, Vars. 6 tris =E. XVII. 22 o0'6A.n, tris. II Etym.: See in the gen-
eral glossary p~&OT~! II Sign.: "Female slave"
f~&OT~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 25, Nov. 27, Vars. 27 = E. XVII. 12 -re.Aeia

0£0"1tO'teta (slavery); Ust. 29, Nov. 31, Vars. 31 (slavery)-no counter-
II
part in the Greek text. Etym.: See p~&OT~ in the general glossary! II
Sign.: "Slavery", "work", "service"
p~&'ll.
(subst. m.)-Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4-no; Ust. 18, Nov. 20, Vars.
20 =E. XIV. 2.1-2.2 oouA.o~; Ust. 25, Nov. 27, Vars. 27 tris =E. XVII.
176 CHAPTER ONE
12 1) o0'6Ao<; (="slave"), 2-3) oiKkrt<; (="somebody from the house",

"slave"); Ust. 30, Nov. 32, Vars. 32 tris =E. XVII. 17 1) and 3) oiKe'trt<;,
2) oouAo<;; Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33-no. II Etym.: see "r~sOT~" in
the general glossary! II Sign.: "Slave" (Institutii feudale, pp. 411-3)
f~~rf~GAiiHHii (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 = E. XVII.

41 lxpn:a"((1<;. II Etym.: See rr~GHTH in the general glossary! II Sign.:
"Plundering"
f~~Aii'\'IHTH/f~~.l\ii'\'I~TH (verb)-Ust. 7, Nov. 8, Vars. 8 = E. XVII. 25

axootroKro ("illegal" spouses because of the kin relations); Ust. 12,
Nov. 14, Vars. 14 (an incest marriage)-no; Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars.
33 (matrimony)= E. II. 9. 1 om~euyvu~u and A.uro, E. II. 9. 2-3 A.uro. II
Etym.: See 0'1''1>1\ii'\'I~TH, O'J'rz.Aii'\'IHTH in the general glossary! II Sign.: "To
divide", "to separate"; the spouses in a corrupt matrimony. (Institutii
feudale, pp. 149-50)
r~TI:.H'AH (adj.)-Ust. 21, Nov. 23, Vars. 23 = E. XVII. 6 1t0Ae)lt0<;. II

II
Etym.: See r~TI:. in the general glossary! Sign.: "Military") "related to
the war and to the army "
fOAHR'AWHH (particip.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 =E. XVII. 29 yov£-6<;/

yovei<;. II Etym.: See fOA'A in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Parent",
"father or mother"
fOAHTeAI:. (subst. m.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10-no; Ust. 18, Nov. 20,
Vars. 20 = E. XIV. 2.1-2.2 yove-6<;. II Etym.: See fOA'A in the general
glossary! II Sign.: "Parent", "father or mother"
c&~TI:.&~ (adj.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 = E. XVII. 29 cruvaMay)l(l

("echange", "affaire"-not an exact translation); Ust. 12, Nov. 14,
Vars. 14-no.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*svatbba", derivative of"*svatiti",
"*svat'b" that is derivative of "*svajb" = "own" (BER, VI, pp. 534-6;
Vasmer, III, pp. 570-1) II Sign.: "Wedding", "nuptials"
c&OGOAI:. (subst. m.)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 bis = E. VIII. 2

eA.eu9epo<;; Ust. 29, Nov. 31, Vars. 31 ("free man")= E. XVII. 16 crro)l(l
eA.eu9epov.ll Etym.: See CROGO~ in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Free
man" (Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 47-50)
GLOSSARY 177
CROGOAb.HH~'ll. (subst. m.)-Ust. 18, Nov. 20, Vars. 20 =E. XIV. 2.1-2.2
axeA.eu9epoc;. II Etym.: See CROGO~ in the general glossary! II Sign.:
"Free man"; the word could signify also "libertine", "former slave"
(Institutii Jeudale, pp. 180-1, 445; Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 47-50, 77)
CHA~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 =E. XVII. 5 ouvacr-reia. II
Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*sila", related to the Lithuanian "siela" = "soul,
spirit, sense", Old Prussian "noseilis" ="spirit", Old Icelandic "seilask" =
"to endeavour" (BER, VI, pp. 644-5; Vasmer, III, p. 621) II Sign.:
"Force" (Institutii Jeudale, pp. 441-2)
CAORO (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 = E. XVIII. 1 Pfl~a. II

Etym.: in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Word", Gr. Myoc;.
CTf~Hb.H'll.IH
(adj.)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 ("foreign", "alien",
"adversary")= E. VIII. 2 ex9p6c; (="foe, enemy"). II Etym.: See crrr~"~
in the general glossary! The meaning "alien" derives from "country"
> "who belongs to other country. (Vasmer, III, pp. 768, 771) II Sign.:
"Foreigner", "adversary", "foe, enemy" (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 48)
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.: Bor-
rowed from the Germanic languages-"*skillings" >"Schilling" (Vas-
mer, 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). (Mak-
simovich, 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<tA<tTeAb. (subst. m.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2-no; Ust. 20, Nov. 22,
Vars. 22 =E. XIV. 8 ~ap-ruc; (C'll.R<tA<tTeAb CAO\J',X~ = ~ap-rupec; aKofiv).ll
Etym.: The verb C'll.R<tA<tTH < R<tAb. = "know1edge", "magic" and then
R<tA~TH ="to know" (BER, I, pp. 140-1, V, pp. 546-7; Vasmer, III,
p. 577) II Sign.: "Witness" See also noCAO\J',X'll.! (Institutii feudale, pp.
283-4, 289-90; Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 10d-1)
178 CHAPTER ONE
crz..R~A~Te.l\b.C'I'ROR~TH
(verb)-Ust. 20, Nov. 22, Vars. 22 tris =E. XIV.
8: 1) npocr~uxpwpero, 2) no, 3) J..Lapwpero. II Etym.: See crz..R~A~Te.l\1:.! II
Sign.: "To witness", "to testify" (Institufii feudale, pp. 289-90)
crz..R~T.I\HR'l> (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.: "Coun-
cil", 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 mat-
rimony) = E. II. 9. 1 O'U~t>yia. II Etym.: See C'l>'lb.T~TH! II Sign.: See
C'l>'lb.T~TH!
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.
Cli\nl~fb.HHI~rz.. (subst. m.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2-no. II

Etym.: See
Cli\nl~fb. in the general glossary! See also nb.f!b. ="discussion" II
Sign.:
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;.
IIEtym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Enemy", "adversary",
"foe".
GLOSSARY 179
(subst. m.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17-no. II Etym.: Related

Cli'\C'kA'l>
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"
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)
Tf<k&.a. (subst. f.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1 bis-no.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic

*terb- the developed to the signification "work", "obligation", "neces-
sity", "profit" (Vasmer, IV, pp. 95-6) II Sign.: "Sacrifice", "church (or
religious in general) divine service" The meaning of the word is origi-
nally related to the completion of the cultic obligation of the human
toward God.
TAm.a. (subst. f.)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a-no. II Sign.: "Dispute",
"complaint". ForK. Maksimovich the word is identical with m.yh\ but
I cannot accept that opinion because the two words are separated in
the text of the Law. (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 49)
~GHTH (verb)-Ust. 22, Nov. 24, Vars. 24 = E. XVII. 8 avatpero. II

Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "To kill", "to slaughter", "to
assassinate"; criminal act. (Institutii feudale, pp. 341-2)
0\j'&<krrz.. (subst./particip. m.)-U st. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 (who seeks asy-
h1m) =E. XVII. 11tpompeuyrov (see nyH&<krrz..l).ll Etym.: See nyH&<kr.a.TH
in the general glossary! II Sign.: The person seeking asylum.
180 CHAPTER ONE
~UOfHTH (verb)-Ust. 23, Nov. 25, Vars. 25 =E. XVII. 8 oux<p9dpm.ll

Etym.: Indo-European "*m6ros", derivative of "*mer-"; related to the
meaning "death", "to die" (BER, IV, pp. 236-7, 271-2; Vasmer, III,
p. 651) II Sign.: In the text this is killing of a domestic animal belong-
ing to somebody else. (Institutii Jeudale, pp. 341-2)
O~f't~b.TH HOC'b (verb)-ZSL 6, Nov. 7, :rars.: =E. XVII. 23 ptV?K61t'tro;

Vst. 7, Nov. 8, Vars. 8 = E. XVII. 25 ptVOK01t'tro, E. XVII. 26 EK'tO!l'll<;
'til<; ptv6<;; Ust. 11, Nov. 13, Vars. 13 =E. XVII. 32 pwoK67t'tm.ll Etym.:
Exact translation of the Greek verb ptvoK67t'tro. II Sign.: "To cut the
nose"; a type of punishment.
~CTfOifHHif (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 = E. XVII. 5

Cx7tOKa't6.cnacrt<;. II Etym.: See 0\fCTfOHTH in the general glossary! II
Sign.: "Arrangement", "order"
o~c-t~at.TH ue'leU'b (verb + subst. m.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 =

E. XVII. 41 ~t<pet 'ttjlropero. II Etym.: Exact translation of the Greek
expression. II Sign.: "To saber with sword"; a type of punishment.
(Institutii Jeudale, pp. 299-300)
}\fb.U'b(subst. m.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1 ("sanctuary", "church")-no;

Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4-no; Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 (tris all meaning
"building") =E. XVII. 41-1) no, 2) o{Kiov, 3) oiK6<;. II Etym.: See in
the general glossary! II Sign.: "Temple", "sanctuary"
(verb)-Ust. 2, Nov.2, Vars. 2-no; Ust. 3,Nov. 3, Vars. 3=

}\fb.HHTH /CA./
E.XVIII.1 <pt>MXcmro. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*xorna, *xorniti", related
to the Latin "servo, -are" = "to keep" and Avestan "haurvaiti" = "to
protect" The word is linked to the word "xpaHa" ="food" and to the
general meaning of"oxpaHa" ("safeguard", "custody"), "xpaHeHe" ("eat-
ing"), "sarrasBaHe" ("keeping", "protection"). (Vasmer, IV, p. 266) II
Sign.: "To observe", "to keep", "to safeguard"
(adj.)-Ust. 5, Nov. 6, Vars. 6-no; Ust. 6, Nov. 7, Vars.

Ll,fb.K'ARb.H'b
7-no; Ust. 7, Nov. 8, Vars. 8-no; Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12-no; Ust.
15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17-no. II Etym.: In the general glossary! II Sign.:
"Ecclesiastical", "related to the Church".
GLOSSARY 181
U.fb.K'bl (subst. f.)-Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4-no; Ust. 7, Nov. 8, Vars.

8-no; Ust. 16, Nov. 18, Vars. 18 =E. XVII. 1 h.:KA.ncria; Ust. 21, Nov.
23, Vars. 23 = E. XVII. 6 eKKArtcria; Ust. 28, Nov. 30, Vars. 30 = E.
XVII. 15 va6~. II Etym.: In the general glossary! II Sign.: "Church"
U.~Hb. (subst. f.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1-no; Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4

n~fl; Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 his= E. VIII. 2: 1) n~fl, 2) no; Ust. 30,
Nov. 32, Vars. 32 =E. XVII. 17 n~fl.ll Etym.: In the general glossary!
II Sign.: "Price", "cost", "money to pay for something"
lJb.fHb.U.b. (subst. f.)-Ust. 6, Nov. 7, Vars. 7 =E. XVII. 23 ~ov&mpta.
II Etym.: In the general glossary! II Sign.: "Nun". (Tsibranska-Kostova,
Formirane i razvitie, p. 37)
lJtom"AIH(adj.)-Ust. 5, Nov. 6, Vars. 6 = E. XVII. 22 aAA.Otpto~; Ust.

14, Nov. 16, Vars. 16 =E. XVII. 22 aAA.Otpw~; Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars.
19 = E. XVII. 5 aAA.OtptO~; Ust. 23, Nov. 25, Vars. 25 = E. XVII. 8
aAA.Otpw~; Ust. 26, Nov. 28, Vars. 28 = E. XVII. 13 &A.Mtpw~; Ust.
30, Nov. 32, Vars. 32 = E. XVII. 17 aAA.OtptO~. Variant: I.J.IIOmAHH. II
Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*tjudjo", borrowed from Goth. "piuda" = "peo-
ple" Some propose a relation to the Hittite word "tuzzi" = "army"
(Vasmer, IV, p. 379) II Sign.: "Alien", "somebody else's" (Institutii
Jeudale, pp. 457-8)
Wb.n"ATb.HHK'b(subst. m.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2 ("claimant"?)-no.

II Etym.: In the general glossary! II Sign.: "Slanderer, calumniator",
"claimant".
CHAPTER TWO
LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY
When we speak of identity, we usually mean affiliation to some com-

munity with which a person identifies himself. Identity is the qual-
ity of belonging to that community, and it is made evident through
various markers. Among the latter, language holds a special place.
Language is a means of making contact within the community and
thereby becomes the basic way for the creation and maintenance of
that community. In some cultures, the language has been raised to
cult status and has become something far more important than just a
means of communication. This holds true for traditional societies but
also for modern ones. Just as an example we can cite the words used
to designate a foreigner: such as "barbarian", derived from the Greek
word "~a<;p~apo<;", or the Slavic word "nemets" ("HeMe~" < mute).
They both refer to such a person's inability to speak our language,
which is looked upon as an inability to speak any language at all, for
only our language is the real one. Thus, a foreigner is basically denied
the status of an authentic human being. Hence, language becomes the
criterion of belonging not only to a specific community, but also to
humankind in general.
The fundamental, major values the culture is built upon are another
basic marker of identity. These values create a shared way of thinking
among the people belonging to a community. Values also serve as a
basis for building certain social ties and norms, which provide a basis
for the solidarity sustaining the community. Abiding by these norms
is not only compulsory, but it represents an indivisible part of the
quality of affiliation to a community of any kind (a community based
on kinship, a tribal, local, national, or religious community). Iden-
tity is normative. It represents the sum of characteristics that indicate
what someone is and define him as such. A definition 1 is essentially a
The word "definition" ("orrpe,n;eneHHe") is derived from "boundary" ("rrpe,n;en")

and means literally "setting a boundary"; it is an exact loan translation into Bulgarian
184 CHAPTER TWO
normative delimitation meant to show the essence of a phenomenon.

The definition reveals the enduring characteristics of what is defined
and sets it in a stable position. Thus, we find that every identity is
normative or, in other words, conservative, inasmuch as it determines
and shows the permanent and continuing state of the phenomenon.
An identity that was not enduring and continuing at least for a while
would be meaningless, inasmuch as something in a constant state of
change could not be defined, not be identified. Obviously, due its con-
stant mutation, such a thing would be losing its characteristics as soon
as it got defined, and the definition would thus prove untimely.
Here we come to an essential trait of the normative in a civilisation
or culture and their social structures. The normative function of cul-
ture is precisely what builds and preserves the community, while the
function of development renews it and supplies it with a perspective
towards the future. Law is an essential part of the normative sphere, of
the system of normative regulation of a society. In the present study,
we do not aim to clarify the character of law and its essential charac-
teristics, but I would like to point out some aspects of them that need
to be considered in order to achieve the tasks of the study.
Law arose as a sacral phenomenon inseparable from religion, and
remained such for thousands of years. Further, on in this study I shall
adduce some concrete evidence of this. Here I shall only point out
that in our times law is highly, and intentionally, desacralised (at times
needlessly so), yet retains some features of its previous condition. This
is particularly evident in the theory of natural law, which is so close
to the divine law. We can discover such elements of past sacrality in
many features of law activity (meaning both justice and various forms
of jurisdiction and legislation or creation of law in general), which
is highly ritualised and emotionally charged. Thus, law proves to be
linked to the faith of people, to their gods; hence, it appears as one of
the chief values of society. It is a value in itself, a good, and is obeyed
precisely because it is a good. 2 In saying this, I do not deny the impor-
tance of repressive penalties as a preventive motive against eventual
infraction of the law: compared with other normative systems, repres-
sion is most evident in law. Morals and other such norms also have at
of the Latin word "definitio" (directly adopted into English); thus the essence of a
thing is made evident by distinguishing it from similar things and phenomena
2 Ct: a book specially dealing with these issues by the late N. Nenovsky, Law and
Values (Nenovski, Pravo i tsennostl, Sofia, 1983), p. 91 ff; and esp. p. 100 ff.
LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY 185
their disposal certain social-repressive resources, but they are without

an organised apparatus and are not as strictly regulated as law. Behind
law stands the repressive power of the state and the possibility for the
state to intervene is a characteristic feature of the law.
Yet repressive sanctions do not provide sufficient motivation for
abiding by the norms, which is evident in cases when legal systems
break down in the course of severe social crises. Penalties cannot gen-
erally be imposed amidst massive disregard for the law without turning
into a kind of terror exercised by the state. The legal norm is obeyed
precisely because it is considered to be a good that is needed for the
very existence of a society,3 even though abiding by the requirements
of the norm involves inevitable self-restraint in the name of preserving
the balanced condition of a community, in the name of preserving the
very tissue of a society. Every civilisation creates a certain normative
order, which is part of the culture of a society. This order is part of
the system of features (and a support for that system) that defines
a civilisation and distinguishes it from other civilisations, provides it
with an identity, and preserves it. Law is a good, because it is linked to
the fundamental values of a culture. It is one of these values and it is
the way the civilisation preserves and safeguards its values. The latter
are always of a religious (we might call them "ideological") nature, and
this is indisputably true as concerns pre-modern societies, such as the
Bulgarian mediaeval society we are studying.
Some concrete evidence can be adduced to confirm these assertions.

The first example is related to law as a means for forming the identity
of the community to which its norms apply; in fact, this signifies that
law is a means for the creation of the community. The second example
I shall adduce refers to customary law and legal custom as means for
maintaining a community already formed.
3 Law regulates social relations, which are considered to be value: Nenovski, Pravo I
tsennosti, p. 102. It ensures order and organization in society-ibid, p. 102-3. It should
be pointed out that, according to Hans Kelsen, we cannot refer to value in law, a view
that is a logical corollary of his theory-ibid. p. 110 tf. From that type of axiological
perspective, law obtains its characteristic as a value from society and its culture, not
from the norm itself. I strongly believe that the position should be reversed if we take
the position of the absolute values and see in the norms an expression of God's will.
186 CHAPTER TWO
2.1
In a concrete historical context, and taking into account the impor-
tance of ethnic identity, we could characterise the example I shall give
as one of law as a factor of ethnic formation.
The emergence of a people, of an ethnos, takes place in different
historical times and in different ways. Particularly important for this
process in Europe was the time of the early Middle Ages, connected
with the impact of the Great Migration of Peoples. In any case, this is
not a biological process, although ethnicity is more strongly connected
with the tribe and kinship relations than is the nation, which emerged
in modern times. I am referring to the creation of a community with
a shared culture and to the development of shared identity based on
some formal ties, the most important of which seem to be the common
cult and the common political power, as well as-and I should stress
this-the shared normative system. The latter, as already pointed out,
is based on shared fundamental values that it defines and upholds in
imposing rules and thereby creating common and compulsory behav-
iour patterns in everyday life, in economic activity, at the higher levels
of public activity and authority, and even in deviant behaviour.
A particularly telling example in this respect is the text of one of the
Orkhon inscriptions, which I shall briefly present. Of course, it is not
Bulgarian in its origin, but dates back to the time of the great Turkic
(Tiurkiut) khaganate, which preceded the Bulgars (or Turkic-speaking
Prato-Bulgarians). Nevertheless, I believe this text could be taken as
a relevant source for the culture of early mediaeval Bulgarians, for it
is beyond doubt that the Bulgars of khan Asparukh originated from
within the enormous Turkic Empire. The inscription was made on
behalf of a khagan who relates the activity of his father, the preced-
ing ruler:' It states that he had started out with seventeen men. When
the people of towns and mountains heard about his heroic feats, they
gathered about him and so the number of followers grew to seventy.
The Heaven gave them added force, and the warriors of the old khagan
were like wolves, while their foes, like sheep. They continued to be
triumphant and soon numbered seven hundred. It was then that the
khagan organised the people and gave it decrees in accordance with
the rules of the ancestors.
4 Ajdarov, Jazyk Orkhonskikh pamjatnikov, p. 292 ff.; Tariat Tekin, A Grammar of

Orkhon Turkic, Bloomington, Ind., 1968, p. 265.
Patrick Geary offers an interesting interpretation of this text, and

indicates thereby a pattern of identity formation. 5 The text is particu-
larly inspiring for the study of the law that asserts the will of the ruler,
and of an emerging identity. There is a striking combination of tradi-
tion and custom evident in the reference to the "rules of the ances-
tors", and in the "novelty" in the khagan's act whereby these rules are
"renewed", given a new life, actuality, and force. The actualising of tra-
dition in this case is the means for creating a new community, a new
people, over which the khagan, son of the founding khagan, will rule.
As Patrick Geary points out, the prerequisite for this way of forming
a community is military success, which unites the khagan's followers,
but the act itself whereby the community is formed is of a different
nature. The men that are under the power of an individual are trans-
formed into a "people" when they are organised by institutions and
in particular by common legal system to which they are subjected. In
this way the "people" is viewed as a legal or constitutional unity, not a
biological one. Here a researcher might be tempted to say this unity is a
unity of the shared norm, of shared regulation, not of common descent.
The latter could be perceived not only in the biological but also in the
religious sense. This opposition between "religious" and "kin" might not
be quite true, at least in the framework of religious faith, because com-
mon descent ultimately leans on the Ancestor-Creator that "gave birth"
to the people. He is certainly a figure pertaining to the religious sphere,
but one that is usually described in kinship terms. This is a god-creator
or cultural hero who has nothing to do with biological origin in the
modern meaning of the word but he could be represented as Ancestor.
Certainly this "Creator" is also "Organiser", and it is precisely he who
builds the order and the harmony that underlie the community, but
they (the order and the harmony) are inseparable from the normative
and, ultimately, from the law. Here we see the inseparable link between
law and the complex set formed by custom/tradition and religion, a set
that is a decisive factor for the formation of identity.
2.2
The second example I shall refer to is from our time, though it
is strongly rooted in past ages. It is not from Bulgaria, but from a
5 P. Geary, "Barbarians and Ethnicity", Late Antiquity, ed. G. W. Bowersock.

P. Brown, 0. Grabar, Cambridge MA, London, 1999, p. 108 ff.
188 CHAPTER TWO
neighbouring Balkan people with a similar history. I am referring

to the maintenance of custom as a means for the maintenance of an
already created community.
Several years ago, information appeared in the press that the presi-
dent of Albania had personally visited a remote mountain village
in that country in order to express his gratitude to the chieftain of
a local clan, who had renounced seeking blood revenge in a conflict
with another local clan. In fact, the Albanian president, head of state
of a European country, had thus thanked a person for not carrying
out (or not continuing to carry out) illegal and even criminal deeds.
We should have in mind that this renunciation of blood revenge was
the only way to put a stop to killings between two families, since ven-
geance is prescribed by Kanun,6 the common law code of vengeance
that is in effect in the eastern Adriatic coastal region.
Blood revenge is usually applied when a murder has been commit-
ted, i.e. it represents an intervention in a type of social relations that
are strictly regulated by law. Seen in a historical perspective, one of
the paths by which law originated was the assumption by the state of
the function of repression as a substitute for blood revenge. How-
ever, the existence of such a practice today, at the beginning of the
third millennium, raises many questions. We may well ask whether
the duty of blood revenge functions as customary law, given that a
state authority exists that penalises the crime of murder. Whatever
the answer to this question, this is a case of obvious predominance
of customary "law" over the law of the state. Can we say that in this
case "custom" is more powerful than "written law"? Perhaps, but we
should have in mind that the customary code of the Kanun, a bearer
of traditions that were decisive for the formation and maintenance of
solidarity and, hence, for the identity of the population of the Adri-
atic coast, has gone beyond its oral form and exists in writing. It has
even been systematised, published and disseminated as a finely bound
and imposing volume, and been translated into the major European
languages; this is the book that I cited in the previous footnote. The
respect for its prescriptions did not come about as a result of the fail-
ure of the state to enforce laws and prosecute offenders and criminals
6 Le Kanun de Leke Dukagjini, Tract. Chr. Gut, eel. Sht Gje~vi, Dukagjini Publish-
ing House, Peje, 2001.
felons. We should have no doubts that the state power in Albania had
been sufficiently strong for many decades, for it lay in the hands of
one of the most ferocious of totalitarian dictatorships. Far from desert-
ing its repressive functions, the Albanian regime was wont to perform
them most diligently, not only against its political opponents but also
against any kind of behaviour that deviated from the norms of the
regime. The act that starts the chain of revenge (usually a killing) is
certainly such behaviour.
Then what is it that determines the requirement for blood revenge?
Without dealing in detail with the problem, I shall point out some
characteristic traits that are closely related to our topic. Blood revenge
is connected with the kin-based society, and although the practice sur-
vived after tribal society and continues to exist in the pre-state and
early state forms of society, it remains something typical for the tribal
stage. One of the first concerns of the state is to eliminate blood ven-
geance and to substitute it with repression by the state, thus setting
the beginnings of law, specifically of penal law. Contemporary studies
show that the places where vendetta is still practiced are those parts of
the Mediterranean world 7 where strong kinship ties exist. As for the
western parts of the Balkan peninsula, there is an evidently strong and
permanent tendency to retribalisation, to a reversion to a tribe-based
organisation of society, a trend that began in the late Middle Ages and
at the dawn of the modern times, and is still continuing in one form
or another today.
Getting back to the concrete case of the Albanian elders and their
Kanun, we may say that they had been carrying out the duty of blood
revenge not because there is no other power to punish the criminal
and perform the function of social repression, but because this prac-
tice is an inseparable part of the solidarity maintained within their
groups, a solidarity that serves as a basis of their group identity. As
head of the group, the elder is responsible for the community and
must abide by certain norms himself if he is to demand from others
to obey norms in general.
7 Ch. Boehm, Blood Revenge. The Enactment and Management of Conflict in Mon-
tenegro and other Tribal Societies, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1987.
190 CHAPTER TWO
I shall now discuss the following group of concrete examples from

texts, which exhibit an equating of the concept of Law and Faith that
situates both of them at the core of a society's identity-defining values.
Before that, I would like to make some general remarks on the topic
of law and religious faith. 8
3.1
Law is the result of an expression of will that creates certain rules appli-
cable to certain circumstances and requires that these rules be obeyed
under threat of punishment. This expression of will is usually that of
the state, and is made through some state organ. As I already had the
occasion to point out, these rules are always regarded as values and are
related to basic civilisation values of society. It has become evident that
in pre-modern ages law was always connected with the divine, with
the will of gods, inasmuch as the divine lay in the core values of those
societies. For all that, law nearly always contains, to various degrees,
the idea of a pragmatic regulation of social relationships.
There are two big exceptions, which I would like to focus on: the
Jewish religion and Islam, which derived from Judaism. In the societ-
ies based on other religions, including Christian societies, law, though
it is connected to the divine, is the work of the state. In this sense, it
is a human creation and bears the imperfections of the visible world.
However, for the Jews law was an expression of God's will, disclosed to
people through Revelation. This first happened when Moses received
the Tables of the Law on Mount Sinai, and later with the coming into
direct legal effect of the normative texts of the Old Testament and
its interpretations. 9 Thus, law appears as the result of the will of the
Almighty, not an expression of human will. Law therefore possesses
the characteristics of the divine: it is immutable and perfect, not sub-
8 See also Naydenova D., "Die by:zantinischen Gesetze une ihre slavische Dberset-
zung im Ersten Bulgarische Reich", Scripta & e-Scripta, t. 3-4, 2006, p. 242 ff.
9 This power oflaw continues in the present-day state of Israel, and this explains
the specifics of the country's legal system. There the biblical law has direct effect and
is not amenable to amendment or revocation by the Knesset. For its part, the state
does not have a Constitution, for any constitutive law would become the basis for the
rest of the legislation, which would come into direct contradiction with the effect of
the biblical law.
ject to change; law is not subject to the intervention of society not only
as concerns the texts, but also even by their interpretation.
The situation is similar for Islamic religion. The Qur'an, the Revela-
tion of Muslims, is God's word, which comes from the Almighty and
was disclosed to the prophet Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel.
The Qur'an, together with the Sunnah, a supplement to the Qur'an, is
the main source of Sharia, i.e. Islamic law. Once again, we find that
a divine origin is ascribed to law, believed to be a direct expression
of divine will; and the result is similar to what we see in Jewish law:
law is a system of perfect and eternal rules, which are irrevocable and
unchangeable, and which cannot be acted upon by people. The state,
the ruler, society, can only create normative acts of a secondary order,
but these must not contradict in any way the norms of Revelation,
which represent God's requirements towards people.
Judaic and Islamic laws have one other common characteristic,
though it is expressed differently in the two: the direct connection
between obedience to the law and Divine protection or Salvation in the
eschatological aspect. The Jews are God's Chosen People, and as such,
they receive the Law as a result of the Testament with God. God's pro-
tection and the endowment of the Promised Land are contingent upon
observance of the requirements set down in the Testament. The Jewish
people lost God's protection and their land due to their lawlessness, as
the prophets asserted. This was the punishment for disobedience to the
Law; according to interpretations by some contemporary Judaic think-
ers, this punishment will be overcome only in an eschatological per-
spective. For Islam, salvation (which is transcendental and individual
that comes after death, and after the eschatological End of the world)
is directly connected to Sharia law and its observance. The salvation of
people is contingent upon obedience to God's will, equated with the law.
Thus, law proves to be a value not only in a cultural framework but also
for the essential eschatological perspectives of people. Law is not linked
to religion alone, yet is part of religion, and no distinction is essen-
tially made between religious and legal norms. The two are identical.
Amongst the monotheistic religions, only Christianity offers a differ-
ent view on law, making a strict distinction between the secular and the
sacred, as Hans Hattenhauer has argued convincingly and in detail. 10
10 Hattenhauer H., Europiiische Rechtsgeschichte, 4. Auglage, Heidelberg, 2004,

pp. 135-40.
192 CHAPTER TWO
This delimitation is part of the difference between the Kingdom of God

and the Kingdom of Caesar, and it is based on the Gospel text relating
the words of Jesus Christ that we must render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's (cf. Mathew
22:15-21, Mark 12:12-17, Luke 20:20-25). Thus, Christianity locates
the Kingdom of Caesar in this world and assigns pragmatic functions
to it. Of course, Christian law is likewise linked to religion that defines
the basic parameters of all social phenomena, but it is not an integral
part of religion, it is not in itself the road to Salvation. The connection
it has with this road is due to the fact that observance of the norms is
part of the requirements of religious morals, part of the notion of a
righteous life. It represents a general acceptance of the authorities and
subordination to secular rulers, even to the pagan or godless ones, as,
in St. Paul's words, «there is no power but of God: the powers that be
are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1).
I do not mean to cast any doubt on my own view, stated previously,
regarding law as a basis of identity for the Christian cultural envi-
ronment. To the contrary, further on I shall adduce several examples
that confirm the assimilation of the concepts (or at least the words) of
faith and law among Orthodox Christians, although this is not done
through the direct operation of Revelation in the regulation of human
relations.
3.2
The first example is from early Bulgarian history and hence permits
making a connection between the traditions of the Eurasian steppe
and those of the Mediterranean world. I am referring to events that
took place around the time of the Bulgarians' conversion to Christian-
ity, and described by Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, in a continuation
of the Bertiniani annales from AD 861 to AD 882; also to the Response
Seventeenth by Pope Nicholas I to the questions of khan Boris-Michael
I. Archbishop Hincmar gives an account of the motivation of the Bul-
garian ruler, of the rebellion of the boyars against him, and of God's
assistance for overcoming the rebellion and the triumph of the Chris-
tian faith.U This narrative gives us a framework of historical events for
the enormous change in the life of Bulgarians, which ultimately led to
Bertiniani annales, pars III, sub an. 866, Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
SS, t. I, pp. 473-4.
spiritual renewal and accession to a different civilisational community,

but also to a change of identity of the people and the state. The Bul-
garian state ceased to be the "barbarian" state of the conquering tribe
of Bulgars and eventually turned into a Christian state of an imperial
type modelled after the Eastern Roman Empire.
In the context of these events, and in close connection with our
topic, the text of Response Seventeenth of Pope Nicholas Ist is of spe-
cial interestY It is noteworthy that in the text the rebellious boyars
are said to have accused their ruler that he had not given them a good
law. Thus, the Bulgarian nobility used the word "law" to designate the
new religion introduced, to their dissatisfaction, by the Prince. This
term provides information regarding the identity-related significance
of law, of norms in general, as well as the assertion of power in the act
of imposing the "novelty", i.e. the introduction of an old enough norm
borrowed from outside and aimed at affiliation with different mod-
els, a different worldview, a different culture. In his commentary on
the quoted text, historian V. N. Zlatarski pointed out that the change
and the perception of the new religion provoked a hostile reaction
not so much because of its dogmatic aspect as much as its canonical:
what the Bulgar aristocracy refused to accept and what it resisted was
mainly the new organisation and the new rules it was expected to live
by. 13 This view seems unacceptable to me, except in the part where the
new religion is said to propose a new organisation and new rules of
life, new norms. Religion, faith, ritual, are so emotionally charged, that
the problem cannot be viewed as "juridical" in the narrow sense of the
word. More precisely, the problem can be viewed as legal but in the
sense of "law" referred to previously (i.e. the rules that prescribe and
determine a person's life) as representing a justification and as being
part of the system of identity formation. That is how the mission of the
12 D. Dechev, Responsa Nicolai Papae I. ad consulta Bulgarorum, Universitetska
biblioteka, No 16, Sofia, 1922, p. 32-3: "lgitur referentes, qualiter divina dementia
Christianam religionem perceperitis, qualiterque populum vestrum baptizari omnem
feceritis: qualiter autem illi postquam bapti:zati fuere, insurrexerint unanimiter cum
magna ferocitate contra vos, dicentes, non bonam vos eis legem tradidisse. volentes
etiam vos occidere, et regem alium constituere, et qualiter vos, divina cooperante
potentia, adversus eos praeparatl, a maximo usque ad modicumsuperaveritis, et mani-
bus vestris detentos habueritis, qualiterque omnes primates eorum., atque maiores
cum omni prole sua gladio fuerint interempti; mediocres vero, seu minores, nihil mali
pertulerint.. .".
13 Zlatarski V. N., Istorija na bulgarskata darzhava prez srednite vekove, t I I 2,
Sofia, 1971, p. 73.
194 CHAPTER TWO
holy brothers Cyril and Methodius to Great Moravia, and their activity
there in the legal sphere, should likewise be viewed. 14 In this way the
two possible ways of interpreting the term "law" in the papal text-
the religious and the legal way-could be made to coincide. There is
hardly anything more powerfully formative of identity than religion
("re-ligio" comes from "re-ligare", the maintenance and determining
of the ties which create the community and through which an individ-
ual determines, defines himself) and "law" in the broad sense, which
determines the rules of conduct, which, in turn, make it possible for
an individual to be part of the community.
I would like to stress that, in my opinion, both written law and legal
custom have this kind of significance. I would not risk giving priority
to one of them over the other. Tradition, custom, is simply the living
identity transformed into a norm, while the written norm, introduced
by an act of governance in a specific sphere of authority, asserts iden-
tity, creates a new identity (sometimes perceived as a "return back
to our roots"), or imposes affiliation to already existing communities.
Such was the case of the Evangelisation of the Bulgarians at the time
of Khan Boris-Michael I.
3.3
The next text to which I would like to draw the reader's attention pro-
vides a very good opportunity for connecting together the idea of law,
Old Testament images, and the Christian faith. The text is all the more
important as it has a direct bearing on the activity of St. Cyril and St.
Methodius for the dissemination of Christianity and for literature in
the Slavic tongue and the beginnings of Slavic law.
I am referring to the long Life of St. Cyril, where we read: "Rostis-
lav, the prince of Moravia, at an inspiration from God, took counsel
with his princes and with the Moravians and sent [emissaries] to the
Emperor Michael, conveying to him these words: "Our people has
renounced paganism and follows the Christian law (my italics-!. B.;
no xpicTi~HCI~'l>IH ce ~~~~oHrz.. Afb.meij.liHMb.), but we have no such mas-
ter who can teach us in our own tongue the true Christian faith, so
that other lands, when they see this, should do as we have. That is
14 Important in this connection is the work ofPapastates, who puts a special emphasis
on the legal aspect of the activity of St Method.ius and St. Cyril in Great Moravia-
d. X.. Ilwracnru;9Ti (Papastathis) To voJlolknrrov EfYYOV rij~ 1(1)p!UoJle8o6uxvfi~
{epwrocnoMj~ ev MeraA.n Mopa{J{f!, eecmaA.ovt<;KTJ, 1978.
why, lord, send us such a bishop and teacher, for the law that com~
from you is always a good one for all countries (my italics-I. B.; R~ w
GW H~ R'l>Ce C'l'p~H'I.I AOGfb. ~~KOHb. HC)(OAHTb.)'." 15 Further on there is
an account of how the basileus assigned the mission to St. Cyril, who
agreed to go, but only if their language had an alphabet. Michael III
answered that the rulers of Constantinople had long striven to make
one, but had not succeeded, and only a scholar such as him could
achieve this for the victory of the Christian faith. Thus, he undertook
it, and with God's help created an alphabet and started his work by
translating the Gospel words that in the beginning was the Word.
This episode is rich in information and many different interpreta-
tions have been given of it, some of which are about the importance
itself of the mission of the brothers St. Cyril and St. Methodius in
Great Moravia in the context of the Byzantine Empire's cultural and
religious policy towards the Slavs. 16 Our interest here is focused on the
relation between "law" and "faith" -the connection between the two is
demonstrated in an exceptionally interesting way in the quoted text.
Although it seems to be a very clear text, there is no single opinion in
academic literature regarding its interpretation.
For instance, Josef Vasica accepts the narrative without any criti-
cal perspective and literally, believing it shows the holy brothers were
instructed to compile the Law for Judging People, using the Ecloga as
a basis. 17 Of course, this interpretation fits in perfectly with the efforts
of this scholar to prove the Moravian origin of the Law for Judging
People. Moreover, he finds a direct correspondence between the text
of the long Vita of St. Methodius and the text of the Law; he sees a
connection in the part of the text that refers to the epistle sent by
Prince Rostislav to Michael III and including the following words:
"To AO&f'tH RAKo, nocuH T~Krz. u~mb., Hme Hrz.l Hcnr~RHTb. Rb.CK~
nf~Rb.Aof· 18 The similarity to article 1 of Law for Judgi9-g People is
obvious: nreme R'M'tKOh\ nr~RA'I.I AOCTOHHO leC'J'b. 0 GHH nf~RA't
rA~TH" (the quote is from the text of the oldest extant copy of Law for
15 Kliment Okhridski, Stlbrani stlchinenija, t. III, Sofia, 1973, p. 104; Stara bulgarska
literatura, t. IV, Zhitiepisni tvorbi, Sofia, 1986, pp. 56-7.

16 Dujcev Iv., "VAprosAt za vizantijsko-slavjanskite otnoshenija i vizantijskite opiti
za sAzdavane na slavjanska azbuka prez pArvata polovina na IX vek", Izvestija na insti-
tute za bulgarska istorija, t. VII, 1957, pp. 241-63.
17 J. Va8ica, Zakom. sudnyi ljudbm'b-Soudni zakonik pro lid, in: Magnae Mora-
viae Fontes Historic!, IV, Brno, 1971, p. 174.

18 Kliment Okhridski, Stlbrani stlchinenija, III, p. 188; Stara bulgarska literatura,
t. 4, p. 72.
196 CHAPTER TWO
Judging People). 19 Not taking sides in the issue concerning the possible
Moravian origin of the Law for Judging People, I should say I doubt
there is such a direct loan. I also doubt Vasica's other conclusion, that
the Moravians requested from the Empire not so much a preacher
of the Christian faith as a capable legal expert to prepare the laws of
the land. 20
I think it is obvious that, in all these cases, the Christian religion is
designated in the text as "law" This, of course, is not only a reference
to personal faith but also to the comprehensive complex of religious
elements, including a robust ecclesiastical organisation, the liturgy, and
all relevant practices, rules, and norms. Thus, we see that, for people of
pre-modern times, religion, which was their most significant criterion
of identity, was designated in terms of "law", precisely because law was
related to the fundamental values of society.
3.4
All this directs our attention to the oldest Slavic code, the Law for
Judging People, in which we find passages that complement our obser-
vations relevant to our topic. I mean the multiple references to "God's
law" in the text; here I shall discuss some of them.
In article 2 of Law, the phrase "God's law" occurs three times; and
"fear of God", once. 21 This text concerns the regulation concerning
testimonies by witnesses and has no direct correspondence to title 17
of the Ecloga. In the first case, it is said that the lawsuit should not be
heard and decided without witnesses. Turning to the Old Testament,
we see that testimonies by witnesses, in the legal sense, are mentioned
several times there. Asserted in Leviticus is the duty for everyone to
testify to what he knows and has seen (Leviticus, 5:1). More than one
witness is required when a murder is being investigated (Numbers,
35:30). The same rule applies to those who practice a different religion:
for them to be sentenced to death there must be more than one wit-
ness to their crime (Deuteronomy, 17:6). In Deuteronomy, we find the
requirement for more than one witness and the regulation concerning
19 Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, ed. M. N. Tikhomirov, Moscow, 1961,

p. 47.
20 J. Vasica, "Origine cyrillo-methodienne du plus ancient code slave d.it 'Zakon
sudnyi ljudem"', Byzantinoslavica, t XII, 1951, pp. 168-9.

21 Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, pp. 104-5.
punishment for bearing false witness (Deuteronomy, 19:15-19). These

last texts are very similar to the provision of article 2 of Law for Judg-
ing People regarding the plaintiff who fails to present witnesses and
must then be subjected as punishment to the same act as that of which
he is accusing the other person. The third reference to God's law in
Law for Judging People, article 2, concerns what kind of people may
not be witnesses.
"God's law" is also referred to in article 4 of Law for Judging People,
where it is cited in connection with the seven-year penitence imposed
for unlawful sexual intercourse with a female slave. 22 There is no direct
correspondence to this text in Holy Scripture. I believe we should
interpret this rather as the idea of "ecclesiastic law", as mentioned in
the texts of Law for Judging People, for instance in article 7, where
it is set in contradistinction to "human law" This text partially cor-
responds to article 21 of title 17 of the Ecloga. There we find only the
first sentence, while the text itself is missing. 23
The last reference made to "God's law" is in article 33, the last one,
of Law for Judging People ("0 MMmeHO'J'"), which likewise has no
directly corresponding provision in the Ecloga text. 24 The words of
Jesus Christ are invoked here, followed by a quotation from the Gos-
pel. The text refers to God's judgment for human iniquity, and imme-
diately after that it is said that "God's law" should be abided by with
hope in Christ as Universal Judge. There can be no doubt that in this
case "God's law" means the whole set of dogma and norms of Chris-
tianity, and specifically those regulating marriage. I do not believe this
is a reference to any concrete normative act.
3.5
I would like to indicate a few quotations from the so-called Anony-
mous Homily in the Codex Clozianus. "God's Law" or "the holy divine
law of Jesus Christ"25 is mentioned several times, meaning by this, at
least in some cases, Holy Scripture. C. Papastathes points this out, and
emphasises that some of the quotations refer not to specific Bible texts
22 Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, p. 105.

23 Ecloga. Das Gesetzbuch Leons III. und Konstantins V., pp. 232-3.
24 Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, pp. 108-9.
25 Vladykam'b :zeml~ boiie slovo velit'b, in MMFH, t. IV, Brno, 1971, pp. 2004,23,26,
201 3-4> 202 13-14> 202 39-2031> 20319-20> 2041,4·

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 mar-
riage, and especially obstacles to it and its annulment, and also the
relations connected to a ban on pagan practices and prayers. Both cases
fall under spheres directly associated with religion and it is natural that
they find support for their regulations in the Bible. But in any case, we
should not neglect the fact that the Bible itself is called "God's Law" in
the Homily, and this fact is a continuation of the thesis presented in
the Law for Judging People.
Thus, we see that the mediaeval Slavonic texts provide a good founda-
tion for seeking the link between religion, which supplied the basic
values forming identity during that age, and norms, in particular law,
based on those values and aiming to impose and preserve them. From
a historical perspective, having in mind "custom" and "customary
law", the norm first appears as an instituting of the values themselves,
and a way of life based on them, as a rule that is obligatory and leans
on repression but also on the awareness that law is a value. The written
law came later and it replaced custom only to some degree. Neverthe-
less, what is the difference between the two?
On one hand there is an evident difference contained in the name
itself: the specification "written" We may thus reach the conclusion
that the "writing down" of law is the fact that assigns it to "written
law" and distinguishes it from "custom" Obviously, this conclusion
could not lead us to a distinction we are in search of. Of course, cus-
tomary law, just like any other "law", consists of "norms", and every
norm, being a generally valid rule of conduct, has its linguistic form.
I mean it cannot be expressed but in some language. It is a text that
26 Papastathis I X. IIwta<mX9Tt To voJloOenrrov efYYOv Til~ rropzA.MJ1e6o6uxvfi~

{epwrocnoA.f;~ ev Mera.A.11 Mopa{J{f!, Sroaa:A.oviK'Tl, 1978, pp. 40-2, 103-5.
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 prac-
tice 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. "correspond-
ing 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 "nov-
elty", 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 linguis-
tic form. This fact is determined by the very nature of human thought,
which is possible only in a language. Thus, we find that the particular-
ity 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 char-
acteristics of European civilisation both before and after the conver-
sion 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 mod-
ern times, when it was extended not only to Europe but practically to
the whole world in a great variety of languages.
The particularities of a language determine the particularities of the
professional jargons used in all the spheres of human activity, particu-
larly the sphere of law. This includes not only special terminology but
also the special meanings of words that are otherwise part of a com-
mon vocabulary, and also the particular constructions and formula-
tions characteristic for legal language down to this day. It is evident,
for instance, that in aiming for clarity and avoiding ambiguous mean-
ings, legal language is more conservative and includes specific words
and syntactic forms that are not typical for everyday speech.
I already had the occasion to stress that both written and custom-
ary laws represent cultural, civilisational markers. This study will
be focused only on written law in the context of its reception from
Roman/Byzantine law in mediaeval Bulgaria. In this connection I
should go back to the problem of "novelty" as a characteristic of writ-
ten law. It is an important trait that could provoke certain misunder-
standings. Novelty is a quality that is estimated according to the basic
cultural values of the respective civilisation model. Our contemporary
civilisation values novelty, discovery, invention, and the kind of cre-
ative human activity that creates things that did not exist previously.
In the past, such a positive attitude to the new was not always clearly
present. According to the view that the world is the work of a divine
Ancestor-Creator or Cultural Hero, or is the work of divine Providence
in the Judeo-Christian tradition, human creative endeavour is defined
in a different way. It consists of the discovery of already existing real
things that are the fruit of the extra-temporal and extra-spatial activity
in the framework of the cosmogonical myth or of the activity of the
Creator according to the Bible. That is how every "legislative creation"
or "novelty" in law was given meaning. That is precisely what made
possible a given legal system or even a concrete normative text to be
declared a "ratio scripta" (,written reason"), and every "amendment"
to be justified not as a novelty but as a discovery of the authentic will
of the predecessors in the past. Such is the argument when by the
act of imposing the norms of "written law" it is claimed that the true
will of the Creator has been revealed; or when the new law is presented
as part of the cycle of recurrence, of the repeated "occurrence" of the
cosmogonical myth.
Nevertheless, this "sacralisation" of the past does not exclude "nov-

elty" 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 Chris-
tian 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 inven-
tion 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 evan-
gelical 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) Com-
monwealth, and this was an essential feature of its culture and of its
history. The language did not separate it from, but in a way integrated
it with, Byzantine culture. Bulgarian literature consisted of a prevalent
number of translated Greek works, and the literary language followed
the original model in some degree or another. This trend began in
Great Moravia and continued, and even intensified, in Bulgaria, both
in Preslav and in the south-western parts of the state. The Cyrillic
alphabet, which was in fact an adaptation of the Greek alphabet and
came as a substitute for the Glagolitic letters, which were further from
the Greek original, was only an outward mark of this trend.
In the legal sphere the reception was obvious, as was obvious its
political-cultural character. Unfortunately, it is rather problematic for
historical science to ascertain the presence of most mediaeval legal
texts in Bulgaria. I am referring to the fact that they are not very wide-
spread in the manuscript tradition, which has caused some scholars,
mostly Russian ones, to cast doubt on whether some laws were at all
received into the Bulgarian legal system. This is not the topic of the
present study, but I shall make a note concerning the nature of the
reception oflaw in Bulgaria. We may pose the question to what degree
the compiled or translated Byzantine laws were applied in Bulgaria.
This is an exceptionally complicated and delicate problem due to the
lack of sources, and I shall not attempt to give a definitive answer.
I already remarked that the laws are not only a regulator of social
relations but an identity marker, for they are a value that serves to
protect the foundation of a society. These characteristics of law are
expressed in unity, but under specific historical circumstances, they
can be divided. Thus, law is a value and protects society and social
relations in its capacity as regulator, and as such, law is a marker of
affiliation to a civilisation. However, the declaration made by a govern-
ment that it will follow a certain norm could serve as such a marker
regardless of whether the regulation is actually observed in public life.
This could find expression in the promulgation of a law that has a
purely ideological importance regardless of its actual application. It
is much like the minting of jubilee coins, which in practice are not a
means of payment but serve to glorify the rulers or to celebrate some
event. This practice-whether it be purposeful or not-can be found
to exist in past ages and in our times alike (for instance the passing
of certain laws for the purpose of the country's integration into the
European Union or the inclusion of the declaration of human and
civil rights in the constitutions of states with dictatorial regimes, etc.).
Inasmuch as we defined law as a marker of identity, it could be used
precisely as such. With regard to Bulgaria, this may have taken the
form of promulgation of compiled or translated Byzantine laws for the
purpose of affirming or proclaiming the imperial nature of the ruler's
power. This is a characteristic feature of the political and state ideology
of the country during the time of Symeon, who took the title of tsar.
He not only declared himself to be a ruler equal to the one in Con stan-
tinople, but also a basileus of the Rhomaioi, meaning of the Romans,
and thereby indicated the universal character of his power. In the spe-
cific historical context of these events, such a pretension could only be
justified through Christianity and the Roman legacy. Law was certainly
an essential component of this legacy and as such, it penetrated into
mediaeval Bulgaria through the mediation of Constantinople. Thus,
the reception of Roman/Byzantine law was effectuated with a view to
introducing a new regulation of relationships in the renewed society
but also for emphasising the Roman/Byzantine heritage of the power
of the Bulgarian tsars. Of course, this is only one possible explanation
for this reception of law. 29
Therefore, we saw that language and professional jargon, but also
law, are equally identity characteristics of every civilisation. The pres-
ent study aims to clarify this aspect of interrelations between language
and law based on a study of the legal vocabulary of the mediaeval
Bulgarian state.
29 D. Naydenova (Naydenova D., ,Pravnite pametnitsi v Parvoto bulgarsko tsar-
stvo", Istorichesko badeshte, IX, 2005, 1-2, p. 163) advanced the idea that some ofthe
laws could be examined more as literary works than as legal texts.
CHAPTER THREE
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 (non-
constitutional) laws, or with other acts. This situation was not so evi-
dent 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 abso-
lutist 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, dur-
ing the Christian age, likewise by the desire to follow foreign models,
particularly those of Constantinople. The organisation of the supreme
state institutions, their creation and way of functioning, must have
been effectuated according to the will of the ruler, who took into
account these foreign models.
It appears obvious to me that the vocabulary related to power is
relevant to the topic of this study, as likewise that public law belongs
to the legal sphere, and I do not think it necessary to specially justify
the inclusion of the topic in my present research. I think it obvious
that the public sphere was regulated and that its regulation was of a
legal nature. This is implied in the indivisible link existing between
statehood and law. My present historical, albeit interdisciplinary, work
is devoted to the vocabulary of state power and public law in a specific
age and country-mediaeval Bulgaria-and it is quite natural that the
circle of problems related to the institutions of supreme power should
be particularly relevant to this work.
Presented in my discussion are terms and words from this field,
but due to the wide scope of this sphere and its insufficiently precise
definition, the glossary to some degree loses its systematic quality. The
glossary encompasses a wider range of terms as well as many epithets
and verbs, all of them connected with power and the exercising of
power, but with various degrees of concreteness and legal relevance.
This is the cause of a certain amorphousness here, which we shall try
to overcome by systematising the lexemes based on their respective
types. Of course, greater attention will be devoted to terms included
in the legal sphere of state power and to the logic of constructing legal
and professional language in this particular legal sphere.
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 under-
standable, for the Law does not regulate matter related to supreme
LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER 207
power, which is the topic of this chapter. The Slavic terms are more
than fifty in number, the Greek ones, directly borrowed and transliter-
ated, are also about fifty, and an equal number of words are calques
from Greek. About thirty words are translations from Greek. About fif-
teen are of other origin, and of these, two thirds are cited as Germanic
loan words, due to the origin of the word "tsar" and its derivatives.
But this last is a rather tentative grouping, for the term "tsar" has been
completely Slavicised and assimilated as a proper Slavic word into the
Slavic language; in any case it does not indicate any Gothic influence
on the Bulgarian public law vocabulary. We also have two terms that
originated from the languages of the people of the Eurasian steppe:
one is the Bulgar chertog, and the other is from Mongol-horugva.
There is one word of Georgian origin-pechat. These three words are
obviously an exotic set and do not define the mediaeval Bulgarian legal
vocabulary related to supreme state power.
In systematising and dividing the terms included in this chapter into
types we obtain three basic groups: words related to the institution of
ruler in Bulgaria; words designating supreme central state institutions
other than that of the ruler (collective ones or other); words related
to other (not that of tsar or foreign institutions) positions of rule; and
words connected to the idea of power and exercise of power. The larg-
est part of these categories constitutes the vocabulary connected with
the monarchic institution. It comprises about sixty words, which can
be subdivided into four sub-groups. The names of the institution of
ruler are nine in number, of which one is Slavic, two are translated
from Greek, two are calques, and four are royal appellations that we
may tentatively classify as of German-Latin origin. The epithets refer-
ring to the monarchic institution are twenty in number, of which
three are Slavic, three are translated, twelve are calques, and two are
of German origin; there is none of Greek origin. We have nine units
related to inheritance of the throne, which is an essential element of
the monarchic institution. Of them, five are Slavic, one is Greek, and
two are calques of Greek terms. Finally, we have twenty-one words
designating things connected with the power of the ruler. Of them, six
are Slavic, five are Greek, two are translated from the Greek, two other
are calques of Greek words, and six are of miscellaneous origins. Of
these six, three are Germanic in origin but very well assimilated by the
Slavs, one is Georgian, and two come from the Eurasian steppe-one
being of Mongol origin and one most probably of Bulgar origin.
208 CHAPTER THREE
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 activi-
ties 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 gen-
eral 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 what-
ever its exact pronunciation was-here I shall use the traditionally
established variant of the word, but a choice of word makes no differ-
ence 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;
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 terminol-
ogy 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 per-
spective 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 Latin-
Germanic 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 Ger-
manic 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 arkheolo-
gicheski 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 Bul-
gar 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 appel-
lation 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
2 Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel, pp. 141-2.

3 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.
Symeon on the list are called "tsars" The rulers of the pagan period
were obviously not "princes", nor did Boris-Michael have to become
one. The explanation is that this was simply the most appropriate term
for translating the Turkic "khan" ("kan", "kana", etc.), so that is how
the title was rendered in the Slavic texts. 7 In summary, we may say
there was no change of ruler title, while knjaz (prince) is just a transla-
tion of the old Bulgar appellation.
3.1.2
The term U.b.fb. (tsar) comes from the Latin Caesar and in this form-
U.~CAfb.-the Slavs borrowed it from the Goths, probably when they
were living in proximity to them in the Southern Russian Steppes. The
term retained the meaning of emperor's title, which it officially became
for the first time in Bulgaria in the early lOth century, at the time of
tsar Symeon. The Greek pronunciation of the Latin Caesar is Katcrap,
which passed into Bulgaria as l~eC4\fb. (kesar) and is the word almost
uniquely used with reference to the Roman emperors in biblical texts,
or in the special meaning of highest title (but not the ruler's) in the
Byzantine title system until the 11th century. 8
Some language experts believe that the pronunciation of the word as
U.~CAfb. was preserved for a relatively long time in the Slavic language
in Bulgaria-in any case, until the end of the First Bulgarian Empire.
Some believe it continued even during the Second Empire and even in
the time of tsar John Sratsimir. 9 Not counting some obviously unten-
able assertions, which were criticised by Ivan Bozilov,10 we should say
the question remains open. Coming in support of the view that the
word was pronounced U.~C4\fb., is the way it is written out in full (with-
out abbreviations and titles) in the Codex Suprasliensis, which obvi-
ously indicates the use of such a pronunciation; but we should bear in
mind that the dating of the manuscript is of an early age that raises no
debate. This is the sense in which a quotation from the chronicle ofJ ohn
Scylitzes may be understood, in which he writes that, at the unforeseen
attack by the emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonos against the Bulgarian
7 Tsvetan Radoslavov believed that the title of Bulgarian rulers before Symeon was
"khan" or "prince", which are equivalent to the Latin "rex" (Radoslavov, "Titlite na
bulgarskite vladeteli", p. 162).
8 Biliarsky, "Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", p. 54 tf.
9 Daskalova, Rajkova, Gramoti, p. 16.
10 B<>Zilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", pp. 42-4.
212 CHAPTER THREE
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 legal-
political 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 dif-
ferent 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 epi-
thets and the way power was legitimised. In this connection, I should
like to indicate a particular point connected with the sacred funda-
ment 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 bul-
garski imena i dumi u vizantijskite avtori", p. 341.

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 "basi-
leis/tsars" in the Greek version of the Holy Scripture; finally, the cur-
rent 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", correspond-
ing 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 pre-
served 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 insti-
tutions with a more distinct claim to monarchy but also to sacral insti-
tutions, 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 vocabu-
lary 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 indepen-
dence of the ruler from alien power, while in Russia it signifies his
unlimited power within the country. G. Ostrogorsky did not specially
discuss the meaning of the term samodrzhets in the Rumanian lands.
The use of the word there-similar to that in Serbia and Russia before
the 16th century-was in drastic contradiction with its initial, origi-
nal Byzantine meaning. The rulers of Walachia and Moldavia had no
imperial title and hence could not be autocrats. Nevertheless, the term
did exist and was used in those principalities with reference to their
rulers since a very early time (14th to 15th century), before the Empire
had fallen completely into the hands of the Osmanli conquerors. This
means the influence upon the lands north of the Danube was not quite
indirect. This issue is not a concrete goal of our study, so here I shall
only mention that in Walachia and Moldavia the meaning of the term
was probably similar to that in mediaeval SerbiaY Unlike the above-
mentioned examples, in mediaeval Bulgaria the term had the precise
Roman/Byzantine meaning, indicating that the basileus "holds by him-
self" the entire power of the Oecumene, being placed by the Celestial
12 Ostrogorsky G., "Avtokrator i samodriac", pp. 95-187.

13 I nstitufii feudale, pp. 443-4.
King Jesus Christ to rule the visible world and prepare the Salvation of
people. This conclusion is consistent with the whole tendency of medi-
aeval Bulgarian culture, which strove to repeat the Empire not only in
the political field, but also in nearly all areas of the life of society.
In Bulgaria, the title of samodrzhets was particularly widespread
during the Second Empire, but its earliest use is connected with the
age of tsar Samuel and his heirs. 14 It was first mentioned in the Bitolja
inscription of tsar John Vladislav, 15 a fact that testifies to its quite early
reception in Bulgaria. In view of the fact that even in the Empire it
became established as late as the lOth century, the presence of the
word in that inscription of the second decade of the 11th century is
highly significant as regards the culture and political ideology of the
country. In any case, for us the important thing was that, in order to
designate a Byzantine reality and transplant it to the Bulgarian land, a
Greek word was borrowed and a calque of it was formed that not only
repeated the original, but was meant to be comprehensible in a Slavic
speaking environment.
3.1.5
The term "rom.lAHH'I./rocnOAb.fb." [gospodin/gospodar = lord, ruler]
could be viewed as a translation of the Greek term aueeVTllc;, and
in some cases of ri>pwc; or Bc.cr1t6-trtc;, and corresponds to the Latin
dominus. This is because the word had many different usages. It could
simply mean a respectful term with which to address or to designate
a person of high authority, but a term without any concrete institu-
tional connotation. It could also be the title of a ruler. It is as such
that we see it was used in some of the small states in the Serbian lands
as well as in the Romanian principalities Walachia and Moldavia. In
these cases, it had a precise institutional meaning, which the Byzantine
term aueev't'llc; did not, for the latter was used to designate the ruler
14 Here I will not dwell on the issue regarding the stone inscription containing the
term we are discussing and dating from the time of the decline of the First Bulgarian
Empire; there are many and justified suspicions as to the authenticity of this inscrip-
tion. One supporter of its veracity as a source was the eminent Bulgarian linguist and
scholar of mediaeval culture Ivan Dobrev (Dobrev Iv., Dva Tsarsamuilovi nadpisa
[=Altbulgarische Studien. Beitriige zur Kultur-, Literatur-, Sprach-, und Kunstge-
schichte Bulgariens. Bd 6]. Linz, 2007, pp. 443-500).
15 Zaimov J., Bitolski nadpis na Ivan Vladislav, samoditrzhets bulgarski. Starobulgar-
ski pametnik ot 1015-1016 g., Sofia, 1970; Mosin VL, "Bitoljska plocha iz 1017 godine",
Makedonski jazik, Skopje, XVII, 1966, pp. 51-61.
216 CHAPTER THREE
(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 differ-
ent 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 desig-
nating the ruler of a foreign land. Thus, this term too can be associ-
ated 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 legiti-
mised through a religious interpretation according to which he was set
in his position by God and derived his power and authority from the
Heavenly King. Inasmuch as no treatise or other source has been pre-
16 On the praise of the ruler during the Middle Ages and its importance, cf.
E. Kantorovicz, Laudes regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler
Worship, Berkley-Los Angeles, 1946.
served relevant to this conception in Bulgaria, the epithets and appel-

lations 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 "all-
faithful") are among the most important in the ruler doctrine of
Byzantium and hence of mediaeval Bulgaria. The two terms are identi-
cal and the importance of the first is simply intensified, thereby deflect-
ing 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, indicat-
ing 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 com-
monwealth; 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 refer-
ence 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 "cho-
sen", "supremely merciful", etc.
The epithets used with respect to the ruler may be divided into sev-
eral 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 protec-
tion granted to Constantinople in AD 626), np<t&'l>ICOK'l> (highly placed),
no&<tAOHOCb.H'l> (victorious), np<tMHMC'I'H&'l> (all-merciful), np<tcAA&b.H'l>
(supremely glorious), XPHC'I'Mkl&H&'l> (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
17 Moskov, Imennik na bulgarskite khanove, pp. 19-21.

18 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.
three parts (Kava, rtptXt and &uwo), and translated these as "the prince
of tomorrow". 19 If we accept this reading, we shall see it has nothing in
common with the subsequent tradition. After the Conversion the reli-
gious basis of power changed drastically, but I do not believe that the
way the heir in the ruling family was determined also changed. It was
just the way the choice of heir was grounded that became different.
The Second Empire did not inherit the traditions of the First with
respect to the supreme power (except for the title of tsar and Syme-
on's idea of empire) or other institutions but adopted the Byzantine
model. Nevertheless, this is not so obvious in the area of inheritance
of power. In retracing the historical events following the renovation of
the Empire by the Asen brothers, we see a rather confusing picture of
the inheriting of the throne. In any case, the data do not provide a clear
testimony that there was an established order of succession of power
from father to son. The first three rulers were brothers, and while the
case of John I Asen and Peter does not pose a problem due to the
specific circumstances of the event, Kalojan assumed the throne even
though there were living sons of his elder brother. 20 After Kalojan's
death, the throne was assumed by his nephew after a serious internal
crisis in the family, which grew into a war, although Kalojan had a
son named Bethlehem, whose fate is not quite clear for historians. 21
The very fact that nearly all cousins strove for the throne, and two of
the sons of John I Asen escaped toRus', indicates that the succession
was not fully regulated or at least was not clearly determined as pass-
ing from father to son. Here we shall not discuss the sad end of tsar
Boril's reign, but I should point out that the first occasion when power
passed to the son of the preceding, deceased ruler was in the case of
tsar Koloman I.22 Henceforth until the end of the Bulgarian state at the
end of the 14th century, succession from father to son occurred only
19 Georgiev P., "Olovni pechati ot manastira pri Ravna, Provadijsko", in: Izvestija
na Narodnija muzej-Varna, 26 (41), 1990, pp. 103-7. See also Georgiev P., "Titlata i
funkciite na bulgarskija prestolonaslednik", Istoricheski pregled, 1992, 8/9, pp. 3-12.
20 Boiilov lv., Gjuzelev V., Istorija na Bulgarija VII-XIV vek, Sofia, 1999 (= Isto-
rija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. 1), pp. 435-6, 441 ff.; Bo:iilov lv., Familijata na Asenevtsi
(1186-1460). Genealogija i prosopografija, Sofia, 1985, No 1-3, p. 27 ff.
21 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 465-8; Bo:iilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No
10, pp. 94-5.
22 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, p. 501; Bo:iilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No 18,
pp. 104-5.
220 CHAPTER THREE
four times: tsar Smilets was inherited by his son John, 23 tsar George II
Terter inherited the throne from his father Theodore Svetoslav,24 tsar
John Stephen inherited his murdered father tsar Michael III Shish-
man Asen in 1330,25 and tsar John Shishman inherited his father tsar
John Alexander-as he was not the first-born son, this act provoked
an open conflict in the family. 26 To these observations, we may add
certain facts related to the concrete cases, which would bolster the
claim that there was no set rule for father-to-son succession to the
throne, and, probably no firmly established rules for legitimisation
of the succeeding ruler. Apparently, the only rule was connected with
the charisma of the dynasty, specifically of the Asen dynasty. I believe
the most typical variant of procedure among those registered in the
sources was the preliminary co-opting to power of the son or sons
of the ruler while the father was still living. In fact, this was a typical
Byzantine practice.
How should we interpret all this? Is it possible for a state to have no
established rules for succession to power? If this was indeed the case
in Bulgaria, what was the reason?
The search for an answer to these questions leads us to seeking par-
allels with practices in other states and cultures. Here we shall not
consider the Old Testament tradition, which generally views monar-
chy with mistrust, perceiving it as a rival of theocracy and of the direct
power of the Lord God over His people. The order of inheriting power
is practically not regulated in Islamic countries either, inasmuch as in
the Qur'an and in the Sunnah there is no strictly established rule for
this matter. In general, the monarchic order in these countries was
quite problematic from a legal perspective. For this reason the Otto-
man Empire, for instance, never had an established rule of succession
to the throne, apart from the requirement that the heir had to be part
of the Osman family, or, in case the family expired, the heir was to
be from the family of the Crimean Tartar khans, i.e. from the Giray
dynasty.
23 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 540-2; B<>Zilov lv., "Belezhki vil.rkhu bulgar-
skata istorija prez XIII vek'', in: Bulgarski Srednovekovie. Bulgaro-savetski sbornik v
chest na 70-godishninata na prof Ivan Dijcev, Sofia, 1980, pp. 78-81.
24 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 554-6.
25 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 574-5; Bozilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No 26
M 29, pp. 119-34 and 139-42.
26 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, p. 501; Bozilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No 33,
40, 44, pp. 149-78, 197-210, 224-33.
There was an entirely different reason for the lack of a rule for suc-
cession in the Byzantine Empire: there it was assumed de iure that
power was not inherited. Constantinople, the New Rome, never
renounced the traditions of the Old Rome, including its republican
legacy. The Empire never became a real monarchy in the sense of the
term in later ages, but neither can we call it a true republic, at least
not in the modern sense. The power of the basileus from a legal view-
point was not hereditary, and since the aim had always been to ensure
factual succession, various means were found for defeating the choice
made in principle by the Senate, the people, and the army. Since the
importance of the dynasty for legitimising power became increasingly
great, especially after the iconoclastic epoch, co-opting sons into power
became an increasingly important device. The mechanism was very
simple and widely used in early mediaeval Europe: the ruling father
during his lifetime co-opted his son and bestowed on him the respec-
tive imperial or royal title. Thus after the father's death there was no
need to choose a ruler, for there already was one, and all he needed to
do at that point was to gain factual power, inasmuch as he already had
the title. In the Empire, this practice was quite familiar and has been
documented in the sources. Of course, this is merely the technique
for transference of power. The ideal basis of all this lies in the thesis
of the divine origin of the ruler's power. This power actually belongs
to God, Who temporarily cedes it to the earthly vicar. This cession is
always the result of some special grace and charisma, and cannot be
defined by earthly, fortuitous events such as birth. It always occurs at
His will, which is not constrained by facts or actions. The latter have
some importance only as the means by which the will of God is made
evident to the people. This charisma, its reception and transmission,
can be defined in different ways, but its essence was always the same
for the Byzantine political doctrine.
Were things similar in Bulgaria?
There can be no doubt that in mediaeval Bulgaria there were dynas-
ties and a way of thinking in terms of dynasty, there were charismatic
families. During the First Empire, this way of thinking partially origi-
nated in the importance-traditional for the Steppe-of clans, as very
clearly displayed in the List of the Bulgar Princes. This attitude per-
sisted after the Conversion to Christianity not only within the ruling
family in Greater Preslav, but with the Comitopouloi dynasty as well,
and even after AD 1018. During the second Empire charisma was pos-
sessed above all by the Asen dynasty, which dominated the political life
222 CHAPTER THREE
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 histori-
ans, 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 compli-
cated, 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 legitimisa-
tion 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 deter-
mining 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.
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 1tOp<pupoyewrrro~. In forming a loan
translation of the latter of the two, the first word part was not trans-
lated. Evidently, the term originated from the official Greek language
of the Empire and shows Byzantine influence. In Constantinople, it
was used to designate the basileus' sons born after he had ascended
the throne. The term was traditionally considered to be derived from
nopqlUpa, the room where the empress gave birth to her children. The
30 There is a comparatively rich store of literature on the law related to the anoint-
ment of the ruler. Here I will only quote those which present the legal viewpoint by
the literature they refer to: E. Kutsch, Sal bung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und
im Alten Orient, Berlin, 1963; lv. Biliarsky, "Mutaberis in virum alium. Observations
sur certains problemes juridiques, lies a l'onction royale", Ius et Ritus. Rechtshisto-
rische Abhandlungen iiber Ritus, Macht und Recht, Sofia, 2006, pp. 83-125.
224 CHAPTER THREE
use of the word strengthened the position of the emperor's son as

regards their claim to the throne. The term came to be used in politics
and law in Bulgaria likewise and undoubtedly had the same sense, aim,
and purpose with respect of the sons of the ruler in Tarnovo. 31
I believe this usage in our country referred to an important cultural
phenomenon related to the legitimisation of power. Throughout its
entire existence the Empire refused to accept "blood rights" as a way
of legitimising, the power of the basileus, but together with this there
was a constant tendency for power to become, in fact, hereditary. This
contradiction led to the concept of "born to the purple" The power in
the Oecumene and its transmission could not be entrusted to biologi-
cal chance. Power always remains in the hands of God as sole source
and convincing justification. Thus His choice, made while the future
ruler is still in the mother's womb (in the same way that the Old Testa-
ment prophets were chosen, or the pious kings of the People of Israel),
was the only decisive factor in choosing the next ruler. One of the ways
for making this choice was precisely the idea of conception or birth in
the purple. Evidently, this idea was present not only in the Byzantine
Empire, but also in Bulgaria.
3.4. Objects related to the ruler's power

In this part of the study, I shall present the names of various objects
relevant to the power of the ruler, designations occurring in the texts
on which the glossary is based. These consist in various ruler insignia
and other symbols of sovereignty, names of imperial documents, etc.
The terms are quite various, so I shall attempt to differentiate them
into several sub-groups.
3.4.1
The first of these sub-groups refers to the name of the state over which
the ruler's power extends. Here I should mention first of all the term
ArbmMA (drzava = state) itself, which represents a translation of the
Greek Kpho~. The word is derived from the verb ArbmATH, which,
specifically in the legal sphere related to the exercise of power, is a
31 Dagron, "Ne dans la pourpre", pp. 105-42; Andreev J., "Tituliit 'bagrenorodni' na
bulgarskite prestolonaslednitsi pri Vtorata bulgarska darzhava", VTU "Kiril i Metodij",

Slavistichni prouchvanija v chest na VII mezhdunaroden slavistichen kongres, Sofia,
1973, pp. 305-12.
translation of the Greek x:pa'tero/x:pa't&. The verb denotes the act of

exercising power.
Also in this sub-group are terms like knjazestvo (=principality),
kralstvo (=kingdom), tsarstvo or tsarstvie (empire). They are derived
from the ruler's titles already mentioned and need not be elucidated.
3.4.2
The second sub-group includes insignia; here we may place words
like &~Hb.U.b. (wreath), AHb.AHUb. (diadem), mb.~A'l> (sceptre), nytC'J'OA'l>
(throne), CKHrrrpo (sceptre), _xopsr&b. (banner), &b.Pf~HHL.J.b. (bagrenitsa
= purple mantel), as well as the names of other objects not present in
the glossary (the cross, the globe, red shoes, the loros). Apart from
the word _xopsr&b., which may be of Turkic-Mongol origin but is well
assimilated into the Slavic languages, the rest of the words are of the
Slavic-Byzantine set. We may distinguish several couples. For instance,
the crown is designated by two words: the Slavic &~Hb.U.b. and the Greek
oui&ru.1a. In this case, they are completely the same in meaning. It
should be pointed out that the Slavic word venets (= crown, corona)
comes from the Greek prototype: either from the word oui&r!~a or
from crte<pavo~, which is not present in its Greek form in our texts.
Dependent on the concrete text and the way it was created, either the
Greek word directly, or its Slavic derivative, were used. In any case, the
usage was dependent on the similar reality the term designated, which
had its origins in the Empire.
Similar is the case with the words mb.~A'l> and CI~Hnrrpo (= sceptre).
They are identical in meaning, but one is Greek, while the other is
Slavic and was probably based on the Greek word. Here we may add
the word nMHL.J.b. (palitsa), which has multiple meanings, but in its
legal sense of a symbol of power is identical with these two. This is a
particular kind of stick on which the ruler or bishop (as representative
of ecclesiastic power) leans as a sign of his power, more precisely his
disciplinary power.
The word np~cTOA'l> (= throne) stands alone here, but I intend
to consider it together with two other words identical in meaning:
np'l>&onp~cTOA'l>H'l> and nporro-o-poH'l>H'l>. Considering them, we see how
the Slavic term np~C'J'OA'l> proves to be interchangeable with the Greek
9p6vo~, which, transliterated with Cyrillic letters, has the same mean-
ing. We may assume that the very concept of "throne" as a symbol of
power was adopted from the Byzantine Empire into Bulgaria; it was
thus that both the Greek term and its translations came to be used,
226 CHAPTER THREE
as in these two cases. Here we may also mention the word C'tAMHI.J.Ie
(= seat), which was created by the interpretation of the idea that the
tsar sits on his throne.
The bagrenitsa (&4\Pf'tHHLI,4\) is an outermost garment of the tsar, and
we encounter it in many texts, but we build our notion of it mostly
from the depictions of mediaeval Bulgarian rulers. 32 Here we shall dis-
cuss the word as mentioned in tsar Boril's Synodicon. The reference
is to the convening and presiding of the Council by tsar Boril, who
was dressed in a "light-coloured bagrenitsa". 33 The word also occurs
in Codex Suprasliensis, where it is certainly denoted as distinctive to
the tsar, as well as in the translation of the Constantine Mannasses'
Chronicle. 34 Both texts are translations and therefore have no place
in the glossary. In all cited cases in these texts, the reference is to the
apparel of the Byzantine basileus, not the Bulgarian tsar. A similar case
is that of the glorification of St. Constantine and St. Helena by Patri-
arch Euthymius; the expression "light-coloured bagrenitsa" occurs
there as well, this being part of the tsar's apparel. 35 In this text, as in
the Synodicon, there is once again mention of the participation of the
ruler-in this case of the emperor Constantine the Great-in the activ-
ity of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. We should certainly
note that the texts resemble each other and the question arises as to a
possible influence of one text on the other, at least as concerns "light-
coloured bagrenitsa", despite the considerable differences between the
two in other aspects. Such influence may be impossible to prove, but
the fact certainly remains that the bagrenitsa was part of the insignia of
Bulgarian tsars, and-like other insignia-was borrowed together with
the respective word for it from Constantinople. Although the word is
Slavic, it has a precise Greek match and in its lexical formation recalls
the term bagrenoroden (= porphyrogenitus), which suggests the exis-
tence of a formula, a fixed norm of adoption of Greek political and
institutional terms.
Among the imperial symbols, we should mention the horugva, or
banner. Besides the two texts of letters, already mentioned, it also
32 Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel, p. 241 ff.

33 Popruzhenko, Sinodik, pp. 78, 79.
34 Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii v slavjanskikh litera-
turakh, ed. M.A. Salmina, Sofia, 1988, pp. 183, 203, 208, 215, 221, 224.
35 KaluZniacki, Werke, p. 121.
occurs in patriarch Euthymius' Vita of Saint John of Rila; 36 apart from

this, in the correspondence of pope Innocent III it is mentioned that
the pope sent a special banner to tsar Kalojan. 37 Let us consider these
data separately! The banner sent by the Roman Pontifex depicted the
symbol of St. Peter, the two keys, and also a cross. The depiction of
the keys was meant to be an instructive reference to the distinction
between good from evil, and also symbolises power, the ecclesiastical
power that St. Peter, prince of the apostles, received from the Saviour.
As for the cross, it is a symbol of the triumph of Jesus Christ and of
the rulers loyal to Him. This symbolism came down from the time of
the emperor Constantine, who won a victory under the sign of the
cross. Although not explicitly mentioned, it was clear that the banner
was held in special honour in Bulgaria and must certainly have been
emblematic of imperial power. The quotations in the Vita of St. John
of Rila are clearer. It is said in one place that at that time tsar Peter
held the banners of the Bulgarian empire, and elsewhere that tsar
John I Asen accepted the banners of the empire. Evidently, power was
identified by a banner (as well as by a sceptre in another quotation in
the same work). This could not have been a coincidence, especially
coming from an author who was very familiar with matters related
to the capital city. Thus the banner seems to be one of the symbols of
power, though, due to lack of more detailed information, it is impos-
sible to say how official this symbol was and what its relation was to
other insignia such as the crown, the sceptre, the throne, etc.
3.4.3
The third sub-group comprises various acts of the tsar, which are
inseparable from the regulation of the institution, and objects related
to these acts. Most probably, the Bulgarian imperial chancellery fol-
lowed the model of the chancellery of the basileus of Constantino-
ple.38 This is proven by the extant acts, but being extremely few, it is
impossible to draw any particularly detailed conclusions. I know of
36 KaluZniacki. Werke, p. 17; Partriarkh Evtomij, Sachinenija, pp. 50, 55.

37 Dujcev Iv., "Prepiskata na papa Inokentija III s bulgarite", Godishnik na So.fijskija
universitet, Istoriko-.filologicheskifakultet, t. XXXVIII, 3, 1942, p. 53 ff.
38 On this matter, cf: Mo8in VI., "Zur Frage der Abfassung der Chrysobullen bei
den Si.idslaven und in Byzanz", Jubilejnyj sbornik Russkogo areheologicheskogo obsh-

chestva v Korolevstve Jugoslavii k 15-letiju obshchestva, Belgrade, 1936, pp. 93-109;
Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. LXXX.
228 CHAPTER THREE
no other state with such an insignificant number of documents come

down from a not very remote period. Here we shall present the terms
included in the glossary. These are: ~A~Tone"'~TI:.H"A, ne"'~T"A, OfH~Mo
(horismos), CAORO, )(fHCORO~A'A (chrysobull).
Official documents are a topic that gives rise to many questions in
Bulgarian historiography, especially as there is a tradition of rather
non-systematic usage of the terms. Thus, under the influence of older
authors, the word gramota (= charter) is usually used in history texts:
this is not an official term from the sphere of diplomacy and is used
generally for all documents without specification as to the concrete
act it is applied to. Ivan Bozilov recently focused attention on this
question. 39 This is probably because we have very few extant Bulgarian
mediaeval documents, and what we have is of only two kinds: horismos
(only one document of this kind), and chrysobull, bulla aurea (such
are practically all the rest, apart from the international treaties).
I shall begin with the term ne"'~T'A (pechat = seal), because-in
addition to being exceptional by its Caucasian origin-it is present
as a component in some of the next words. Of course, there can be
no question of any Georgian influence on the institutional system or
the legal language of Bulgaria or Slavic countries in general during
the Middle Ages. The word is evidently a very old loanword, which
reflects very ancient contacts of the Slavs with Caucasian languages,
probably occurring through the mediation of Iranian peoples in the
northern Black Sea region. I believe that the mention of the Caucasian
origin of the word is no more than an indication of an exotic case in
etymology.
In declaring their claims to the imperial legacy of Constantinople,
the Bulgarian tsars adopted not only outward marks such as insignia
but also the character of the ruler's acts, and hence the words for it.
This is demonstrated by the next few terms.
The term opH~Mo (horismos) is a direct loan from the institutional
language of the Empire. 40 Franz Dolger classifies it in the prostagma
group. A. Solovjev and V. Mosin define it as a "general command" and
present Slavic terms corresponding to it: KHHr~ (book) and noR<tAh\
39 BoZilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 38 ff.

40 Dolger, "Byzantinische Diplomatik", p. 39 ff., 46 ff; Stojanov V., Diplomatika na
srednovekovnite izvori (Vladetelski doku menti), Sofia, 1991, p. 71.
(decree). 41 This act is of a lesser category of importance than the

ceremonial chrysobulls of the tsar, and signifies "decree", "designa-
tion", "order" It is cited in the Dubrovnik Charter and also in the
Rila Charter;42 in the latter document it designates not some particular
type of document but the decree enacted by the chrysobull. This is a
new proof of the presence of the term in the administrative language
of Bulgaria. Only the Vatopedi document contains no definition of its
character, but it seems that it was likewise a horismos. Iv. Bozilov is
the only author who deals in greater detail with the diplomatic form
of the document written for the traders of Dubrovnik in 1230, and
with the document regarding the Athonite monastery of Vatopedi,
situating them in their proper historical contextY
In the Bulgarian state, we find no document bearing the name of
myiMwv (sigillion), but that is precisely what the document of the
despot Alexis Slav (issued when he was independent ruler of Mele-
nikon) is called. That is why I shall say a few words about it. It is
usually described as a solemn form of the ordinary imperial decree. 44
Even more solemn is the form of the intermediate variant, called
chrysobullon sigillion (xpucr6~ouAA.ov myiMwv = golden-sealed sig-
illion), and also chrysobullos horismos (xpucr6~ouAA.o~ optcr~6~ =
golden-sealed horismos). 45
Now we come to the supreme imperial documents, the chrysobull
(bulla aurea, golden seal word). 46 1he rank of documents was defined
by the kind of seal they bore. As I mentioned, the golden seal indi-
cated the highest rank of document. Thus we return to the term
41 Solovjev, Mosin. Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. LXXXIV, LXXXVIII; Zivojnovic
D., "Hrisovulja cara Stefana Dt!Sana o Lu:iaCkoj metohiji", Stari srpski arhiv, 5 (2006),
pp. 110-l.
42 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 2891 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, pp. 53 9 " 65. See BoZilov,
"Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 39.

43 Boiilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 38 ff.
44 Dolger, Byzantinische Diplomatik, p. 44 ff.; Solovjev, Mosin, GrCke povelje srpskih
vladara, p. LXXXIV-LXXXV.
45 Dolger, Byzantinische Diplomatik, pp. 44-6; Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srp-
skih vladara, p. LXXXV.

46 Dolger, Byzantinische Diplomatik, pp. 36-9; Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srp-
skih vladara, p. LXX-LXXVI. The following ones are the argyrobulls or "silver seal
word" (ajYY'I)poJ3m>A.A.to~ Ahyoc;;), molybdobulls or "lead seal word" (p.o/.;oj30oJ3m>A.A.w~
Ahyo~) and those called cirobulls or "wax seal word (KTJpoJ3m)IJ..~ Ahyo~). See Sto-
janov, Diplomatika, p. 71 ff. Here I will not discuss terms not found in Bulgaria, such
as argyrobulls, molybdobulls, or those with a wax seal. No such documents created in
Bulgaria have been preserved, nor do we have data that they at all existed.
230 CHAPTER THREE
~Ab.Tone'lb.'l'b.Hrz., which is a calque of the Greek :x,pucro~ouMto<;. Such

are practically all preserved Bulgarian acts of the tsars, with the excep-
tion of the Dubrovnik and Vatopedi charters of tsar John II Asen,
dated 1230, and the charter letter by tsar John Sratsimir to Bra~ov. The
term "slovo", which in this specific usage is part of the phrase "golden
sealed slovo", means "document" and is a translation of the Greek
word Myor;. Thus, overall, the combined name of the document does
not depart from the original Greek term.
It is worth mentioning, however, that in Bulgarian Slavic texts we
find no only the calque but also the directly borrowed Greek word
)CfHCORO~Arz. (:x,pucro~ouUwr;, :x,pucr6~ouUou). This indicates an even
closer combination of the two practices and shows the dependence of
the Bulgarian practice on the Byzantine original.
3.4.4
The last sub-group includes words designating the environment in
which power is exercised. This environment is particularly important,
not only in its technical aspects but also ideologically. It is all con-
nected with the specific "imperial religion" of Constantinople and with
the court rituals connected with this ideology. The terms present in
the glossary do not give us the possibility of tracing this rich field of
study, but this is not part of the tasks of this work in any case. Here we
should present the terms AROf'll. (dvor = court), AfO~mHHb. (druzhina =
band, company, group), '1fb.Torrz. (cr'tog= palace), ek. They constitute
an amorphous group formed mainly based on the non-inclusion of
each term in other groups rather than on some logic internal to the
group. It encompasses words related to the dwelling of the ruler, his
home, and his environment. All other terms for palace, retinue, ought
to be included here, but they are modern loanwords from West Euro-
pean languages.
Dvor (= court) is a Slavic word with multiple meanings, but here
we are considering its designating the circle around the ruler, which
is far from the most common meaning of the word. Other words are
derived from it. The concept of "court" was formed over a long period
in Bulgaria, and we can say this formation was completed probably at
the time of tsar Symeon.
Druzhina (=band, company, group) has multiple meanings, and the
connotation of "a group of warriors attached to the ruler" is likewise
derivative. Generally, it signifies a group, solidarity, one kind of which
is a group of warriors. It is worth noting that, although it is Slavic, the
word has the same underlying logic as the Greek e'tatpe{a, in which
the idea of unity, solidarity, comradeship, also passes through the idea
of "otherness" (from E'tmpo<; = "one of two", "other"). In other words,
in order to be united with someone, we must be different, not one
and the same. In the same sense we may indicate the words Afl:.r'll.
(senator) and Afl:.roRe (in plural, meaning "Senate"):~ 7 The etymologi-
cal origin is evidently the same, and the citing of senate and druzhina
as the closest circle of people surrounding the ruler may suggest cer-
tain surmises: whether these persons attached to the ruler were not
the others of the ruler, his alter ego. I believe it is a question worth
thinking about.
The word 'lfi:.Tor'll. (tr'tog = palace) is of Persian origin, but reached
the Slavs through the Steppe peoples, probably through the Bulgars. It
was used to designate the palace of the ruler, but the word is not an
institutional term. It expresses the idea of some fine, luxurious dwell-
ing, rather than having any special institutional meaning.
3.5. Encomia for Bulgarian rulers and verbal formulae and images
used in them
The several royal encomia that have been preserved in old Bulgar-
ian literature are of the greatest importance as indicating the attitude
of contemporaries towards the state power, whether this attitude be
authentic or only formal and feigned. These are works of rhetorical
prose which, in glorifying the person, demonstrate the ideology of
power and the way in which power is expressed in words. Encomia
show most clearly the verbal model used with respect of the ruler. The
oldest extant panegyrics for Bulgarian rulers are those dedicated to
tsar Symeon (893-927), one of which is in verse and included in the
Izbornik of AD 1073, while the other, a prologue supplement to the
translated collection Zlatostruj or Chrysorrhoes, is a mixture of forms.
Importantly, it was Peyo Dimitrov's achievement to define this text as
similar to the Panegyric for tsar Symeon in the Izbornik, and even to
suggest that the author of both works was John Exarch. 48 Typical and
common for both works is that the tsar is lauded not for his military
feats and victories, but for his love of learning and his patronage of
47 Totomanova A.-M., Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, Univer-
sitetska biblioteka, No 474, Sofia, 2008, pp. 643-4.

48 Dimitrov P., "Okolo predislovieto i nazvanieto na Zlatostruj", Ezik i literatura,
t. 35 (1980), kn. 2, p., pp. 17-28.

232 CHAPTER THREE
letters. As we shall see, this is directly connected with Divine Revela-

tion and the dissemination of the latter.
The other extant glorifications of tsars are from the time of tsar
John Alexander (1331-1371)-one of them is an epilogue to the Sofia
Pesnivets (or John Alexander's Psalter), dating from 1337,49 the other
is contained in the London Gospel,50 and the third is a supplement
to priest Philip's copy of the Constantine Mannasses' Chronicle, kept
in the Synodal collection in the State Historical Museum in Moscow
(No. 38). 51
3.5.1
The encomia for tsar Symeon and tsar John Alexander inherited the
fruitful literary tradition of Byzantine court rhetoric. During the time
of tsar Symeon, these texts were connected with the rise of the newly
converted country, which had now become part of the so-called Byz-
antine Commonwealth and was even striving, in the person of the Bul-
garian ruler, to head it. The situation had become different in the 14th
century, when the country was in a state of severe political decline and
about to be conquered by the Ottomans.
3.5.1.1
The encomia for tsar Symeon were focused on lauding him as a books'
devotee. In the context of that age, this signified that he disseminated
the Book (i.e. the Bible and the wisdom it contains) and the Christian
faith. This characteristic determined the verbal formulae of praise used
in the text. Although in our times this ruler is best known for his mili-
tary victories, this was not the main characterisation made during his
reign. How he was perceived by Bulgarian authors in the lOth century
is made evident by the literature and other "cultural" production of
the times, as well as by the encomia, which we shall specially focus on
in the present study.
49 Bakalova E., "The Image of the Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bulgarian Literature and
Art", In: Les cultes des saints souverains et des saints guerriers et l'ideologie du pou-
voir en Europe Centrale et Orientale. Actes du colloque international17.01.2004. New
Europe College, Bucarest. Volume coordonne par I. Biliarsky et R G. Pliun. Bucarest,
2007, pp. 77-80.
50 Dujcev Iv., Iz starata bulgarska knizhnina (=Dujcev, SBK), t. II, Sofia, 1943,
pp. 150-2.
51 Dujcev, SBK, II, pp. 129-30; Dujcev Iv., Miniatjurite na Manasievata letopis,
Sofia, 1964, p. 25.
Presented here are some of the verbal forms of glorification that

can be found in the encomion in verse for tsar Symeon. It should be
pointed out at the start that we should separately discuss some of the
most interesting images whereby the Bulgarian man of letters depicted
tsar Symeon, referring to him as a "new Ptolemaeus" or comparing
him with a bee. Moreover, we should note that the text of the pro-
logue-addition-glorification from the Zlatostruj is not particularly rich
in epithets regarding the ruler; other kinds of images predominate
there. Practically the only significant epithet used is "pious",52 a term
typical for the ruler and constituting part of his title. In this respect,
the text of the Izbornik is richer.
Thus, tsar Symeon is called Re.I\HK'I.IH Rrz. U.I:.Cb.fHP. (great among
the tsars): this is a formula of praise that situates the ruler in his own
environment. It is a loan from the Greek formula ~ya<; f.v ~a<nAc:um. 53
A formula with a similar meaning is Aprz.mb.R.I\HR'I.IH R.l\b.A'I.IKb. (master
of the state), which is connected in general with the use of the epithet
Af'I.mb.RH'I.IH (of the state) and the "holding" of power. It was likewise
borrowed from the Greek x:pancrto<; x:patrop or x:pa'ttO"'tO<; oecrn&rr,<;. 54
I mentioned that the basic image for Symeon in the two encomia
was that of books' devotee. In my view this is a biblical motif and repre-
sents part of the fundamental imperial ideology in Bulgaria, based on
Holy Scripture and, in this case, on Old Testament motifs and images.
That is why this attribute of the ruler, based not only on his learning
and knowledge of books but also on the idea of the mission of salva-
tion ascribed to political power in that age, will be examined together
with other comparisons applied to the tsar in praising him.
3.5.1.2
The encomion for tsar John Alexander of 1337 was written in praise of
his victories in the war with the Empire and specifically the battle of
Roussokastron in the summer of 1332, as well as to mark the crush-
ing of the rebellion of Belaour in Vidin and of the internal opposi-
tion he headed. Of all works, this text proves to be the one richest
in epithets and attributes regarding John Alexander; here the stock
images are developed most widely as regards the physical portrait and
moral essence of the tsar. In the light of new research on this theme,
52 Dimitrov, "Zlatostruj", p. 22.

53 Dujcev, SBK, I, 216
54 Dujcev, SBK, I, p. 216.
234 CHAPTER THREE
it becomes clear that some of the epithets not to be encountered

elsewhere, and the extensive definitions, follow Byzantine models and
literally copy Greek verbal formulae regarding state power.
This glorification provides a very interesting physical and moral
portrait of the Bulgaria ruler, probably highly idealised but indicat-
ing a specific ideology of power. Tsar John Alexander is characterised
by the rarely encountered epithets po~M~H,HOAo&po~p~'lb.H'b, l~fMbH'b,
which demonstrate a contemporaneous view on a specific outward
appearance. Two unique descriptions, not to be found anywhere else,
are I~OA~HOC'b~mT'b ("with bent knees") and npA&oXOAbU.'b ("straight
walking"). Until recently, these details were thought to suggest some
physical disability of John Alexander, perhaps the result of some
malady he had undergone, possibly a form of paralysis that impaired
his movements. Recently Elka Bakalova expressed the view that these
were qualities of a religious nature, typically ascribed to a Christian
ruler. 55 While "ruddy" and "good-featured" are physical criteria, the
"bent knees" suggest a posture of prayer before God, from Whom
the mediaeval ruler draws his power and to Whom alone the ruler
bows during his life on earth. It is in a posture of prayer that the
tsar is depicted in the two miniatures in the London Gospel, together
with the evangelists Matthew (f. 88v) and Mark (f. 134v), sent by God
to give him blessings. In the same way "walking straight" should be
interpreted as synonymous with "orthodox" -he who goes in the right
direction, inasmuch as in other written sources John Alexander is like-
wise characterised as loyal to Orthodoxy. In other words, the epithet
in the description of the ruler should be interpreted as an ideological
religious paradigm, and not in the literal sense of the words used.
Pesnivets (the Psalter) also applies most of the obligatory, stable
epithets for imperial power, among which the most often used is
&eAHK'b (great, grand). The word has biblical roots, for it is used in
reference to the most important characters in both the Old and New
Testaments (such as Moses and Abraham); in the New Testament
this epithet is frequently applied to God and to the Saviour, His Son:
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom
of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19). Other such
55 Bakalova, "The Image of the Ideal Ruler", pp. 45-9.

epithets are: np-t&"AICO~'b (most high), connected with the hierarchic

position of the tsar in the state, and nr~ROC.I\~RH'tHWHH ("most Ortho-
dox"). It is no coincidence that, in the spirit of the Christian under-
standing of the ruler, the latter's power and success are seen as coming
directly from God. The direct legitimisation of power by God is also
supported in the extensive epithets applied to tsar John Alexander:
&ror..n.. &-tH.H'I'tH~ro ("crowned with the wreath of wedlock by God")
and &ror..n.. H~G.f~H·H~ro ("chosen by God"). In the former, the medi-
aeval understanding is apparent that crowning is a rite of marriage to
the empire, i.e. it is likened to a Christian marriage, a sacrament of the
holy Church, which repeats the holy union between Our Lord Jesus
Christ and the Church. The ceremonious act of ascending the throne
is unfolded in the ritual of the imperial coronation. 56 The coronation
of the Bulgarian rulers was modelled after it. The act whereby the ruler
assumed his powers was called "matrimony of Empire" and displays
many common features with the Christian sacrament of matrimony.
The encomion for tsar John Alexander in the Sofia Psalter of 1337
concludes with a series of eulogies for the Bulgarian tsar, starting with
an anaphora of the expression "rejoice", or the so-called hairetisms.
This device was a favourite with mediaeval Bulgarian writers and
became a basic rhetorical means in a number of works. Overall, the
chief credit for creating the stock of epithets for the ruler was that of
the monastic and priestly circles, one of whom, we may suppose, was
the author of the Panegyric in the Pesnivets. The modest ornamenta-
tion of the manuscript supports this assumption.
3.5.1.3
The second encomion to tsar John Alexander, that of the London Gos-
pel, displays an ideological emphases different from that of the first.
The triumphant ruler-warrior and victor, are missing here, and the
description is focused on the model of the Orthodox patron of letters.
One of the layers of information contained in the second encomion
is certainly that pertaining to the intense translating from Greek that
went on during the reign of tsar John Alexander. When the author
refers to "the Gospel as a lamp placed in a dark place and forgotten, set
in disfavour by the ancient tsars", he hardly had in mind the neglect
56 Biliarsky Iv., «Deux ensembles de rites concernant la personne et laRes Pub-

lica: Bapteme/Onction et Mariage/Couronnement>>, Personne et Ia Res Publica, vol. I,
Paris, 2008, pp. 246-52.
236 CHAPTER THREE
for literary life in general, but specifically for the Word of God. The
mediaeval Bulgarian ruler was basically described as an enthusiastic
supporter of learning. Whatever formulations taken from the arche-
type of the Byzantine emperor may have accreted in the portrayal of
the two tsars in question, both being referred to with the ideological
formula "book-lover", there is no doubt that for mediaeval Bulgaria
this element of the image of the ruler was particularly important.
"Love of books" is a religious characteristic linked to piety and grace
as foundations of power, and to the duty of the ruler to care for the
salvation of the souls of his subjects, one of the means for which is the
dissemination of the Holy Scripture, of the Books (the exact transla-
tion of the Greek word Biblia /plural of Biblion/ = the Bible). That
was exactly what khan Boris-Michael and tsar Symeon and tsar Peter
did. The "state power" factor of the development of book learning
and art remained traditionally strong throughout the whole mediae-
val period.
Because in the second encomion no mention is made of the military
victories of the tsar, the epithets here remain mostly within the frame
of the moral model of a pious ruler. They are drawn from the set of the
most persistent, enduring verbal formulae, such as &Ab.roR~fb.Hrz.. (pious),
:XfHCTOAklGHR'l.. (Christ-loving), np~R'l..ICOK'l.. (highest), &oroR~Hb.'lb.H'l..IH
(crowned by God), and the cliche epithet Cb.UOAfbJKb.U,b. (autocrat). In
the end of the encomion, and in keeping with the book being cop-
ied, mention is made of the intercessors and bringers of good tidings,
the four evangelists. Having in mind that the miniatures adorning the
basic text are portrayals of the tsar John Alexander with each of the
four evangelists, we may say that the author was purposefully seeking
unity of the ideal and artistic message of the work and a complete
identity of its verbal and visual signs.
3.5.1.4
The third, brief encomion is actually the several added lines, the original
Bulgarian addition to the copy of Constantine Mannasses' Chronicle
in priest Philip's copy of 1344-1345. According to Ivan Dujcev, this is
a glossP Where the original Chronicle refers to the emperor Theodo-
sius II, the Byzantine chronicler added a glorification for the emperor
Manuel I Comnenos. For his part, the Slavic glasser and translator
57 Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 97.

changed the addressee and added praises that were significant in the
context of the ruler's institution embodied by John Alexander himself.
Since Constantine Mannasses' Chronicle was one of the tsar's man-
uscripts from Tarnovo, such interpolations were justified and quite
in keeping with the style of courtly rhetoric devoted to the tsar. This
gloss strings together with typical pathos the epithets and other liter-
ary devices, and can be viewed not simply as an interpolation but as
a gloss-encomion or glorification of the Bulgarian ruler. In an order
determined only by the will of the glossator, allusions are placed
here to the following ideological components of power: the ruler-
warrior (no&-tAOHOCb.LI,b., RI!AHK'li. RA4\A'li.11~4\); the ruler as the descen-
dent of a good family (KoreH-t CmijJ4\ i'W4\H4\ nr-tH~AijJH4\4\PO); the good
ruler, meaning humane and merciful (nr-tl~rOT'li.K'li., MHAOCTHR'li.); the
ruler showing fervour for things spiritual (MOH4\)I:OAto&HR'li. = monk-
loving). "Light" is indicated here as a general biblical symbol that
serves as a kind of frame for the contents of the encomion. The men-
tion at the beginning of c&-tTb.l\'li. and c&-tTOHOCb.H'li. U.4\rb. is an attempt
to use with reference to the earthly ruler one of the devices for por-
traying Jesus Christ Himself, in His divine nature. The colour white
and the halo of light around the tsar is one of the basic elements in
the Transfiguration of Our Lord, which testifies to the incarnation of
Jesus as Son of God, and the return of the earthly person to God the
Father. The address to the all-dominating ruler represents an antono-
masia for Christ, who legitimises state power in general. At the end of
the encomion, the topos "light" occurs once again, accompanied by a
wish for a long and bright reign: erome Aj''li.mMm CA'li.HU.4\ &e~'IHCA'li.H4\4\
A4\ HC'I b.TmT'li..
Particularly important for the gloss is the mention of Tarnovo as the
new Tsarevgrade (Tsar's city = Basileuousa Polis = Constantinople),
which was completely in the identical tradition, manifested later in
Russia, where Moscow was claimed to be the "Third Rome". Such lit-
erary devices imposed a model of glorification of a city, whereby the
power of the tsar over the capital city was legitimised. This could also
be done following the example of the Bible, where the Celestial Jeru-
salem was indicated as the abode of the Lord; but the most apposite
example is that of the first and only capital of the world, Rome. All
traditions related to capital city derived from there and the Polis of
Constantine the Great was built after that model: the city was officially
called "New Rome" by the Church. The glorification of Tarnovo as the
"New Tsarigrade", in other words a kind of second Constantinople,
238 CHAPTER THREE
and hence a kind of "Third Rome", was one of the characteristic fea-
tures of the ideology pertaining to ruler and state during the Second
Bulgarian Empire. Thus, in these glorifications we see achieved a syn-
thesis of Roman imperial and biblical traditions, which is one of the
characteristic features of the whole early Christian culture, sprung
from the Hebrew religion but "born", just like the Saviour Himself,
on the territory of the Empire.
3.5.2
The glorifications of Bulgarian tsars also contain a specific imagery,
whereby the ruler is delineated as the compiler of the work saw him or
was set the task of depicting him. All comparisons had a religious basis,
although direct references to the Bible are not evident in all cases.
3.5.2.1
The first of the images and comparisons I would like to discuss is that
referring to Alexander the Great: the Bulgarian ruler was called "a sec-
ond Alexander" This was not based on the coinciding of the name,
but on the victories of the ancient ruler, who had united the world in
his time. According to ancient aesthetics, a ruler was to be described
above all in terms of his courage, the highest virtue of a warrior, and
the victory of a courageous, powerful emperor is best expressed by a
series of battles. There is another-! believe significant-element in
this comparison. Alexander the Great was not only an ancient charac-
ter but also a living hero in mediaeval literature. I believe it doubtless
that in 14th century Bulgaria knowledge and representations of him
were taken mostly, or even exclusively, from the book of Alexandria.
Moreover, it must have been the so-called Serbian Alexandria, because
the older Chronograph's Alexandria, which was closer to Pseudo-Cal-
listhenes' original of the "Romance of Alexander", had already been
lost at that time in Bulgaria. 58 This book59 was the work that gave new
meaning to the image of Alexander the Great, setting a biblical code
on it and lending it a different implication than that related to the
ancient heroes. Alexander conquered the world, and this could not
58 Jonova M., Beletristikata v sistemata na starata bulgarska literatura, Sofia, 1992,
pp. 103-17 and especially 112.

59 This work is strongly reminiscent of Christian hagiographic literature (Jonova,
Beletristikata, pp. 129-30), and thus tends all the more to "transform" Alexander the
Great and interpret him in a Christian context
have been achieved without the will, assistance and participation of

God. This fully suited the image of Alexander as forerunner of the
Roman emperors and, even more important, as similar to and a fol-
lower of the Old Testament kings of the Chosen People. The text of the
Alexandria is indicative in this respect, especially in the part concern-
ing the time after Alexander's visit to Jerusalem. It was then that the
Macedonian king became a follower and disseminator of the One God,
continuing the work of Joshua, 60 and was led in this by the prophet
Jeremiah. 61 He possessed morally instructive qualities and, after all,
died at the age of Jesus Christ. In fact, Alexander was a hero with a
mission, and conquering the world was only part of it. He transformed
the world by spreading the faith in the One God. The world was dif-
ferent after Alexander, but this was not due to Alexander himself, but
to the work of God that he was fulfilling. Having in mind the later
legends re-interpreting the image of this great king of Macedonia, we
can well understand the special reverence for him in Constantinople
and throughout the Empire. Here we may add "his ascension" and his
contacts with various characters of the Holy Scripture, as well as the
mention of him in the cycle of Digenis Acritas, where he was obviously
presented as a protector of Christianity preceding the times of Chris-
tianity. This should always be taken into consideration when studying
the uses of the image of Alexander for building the ideal ruler of Euro-
pean Middle Ages. This was what the "new Alexander" -the Bulgarian
ruler-was expected to be like when this comparison was made.
3.5.2.2
The other comparison was with the Roman emperor Constantine
the Great (306-337), an ideal image of the Christian ruler. Constan-
tine symbolised the uniting of the Roman idea of statehood with the
Christian faith. Byzantine cosmopolitanism was thus engendered by
the idea that Constantinople was the centre of the Christian world.
There can be no doubt that, in making this comparison-the most
highly emblematic one for a Christian ruler, the author of the
glorification exalted the merits of John Alexander for Bulgaria to
60 This not only refers to the fact that he acquired the miraculous stone Lychnitarios
with the name of the Lord Sabaoth, the name inscribed likewise on Joshua's helmet
Essentially the image of Alexander is similar to that of Joshua-a victorious military
commander who defeats his enemies with God's assistance-d. Durie V., "Novi lsus
Navin", Zograf, t. 14, Belgrade, 1983, pp. 5-16.
61 Jonova, Beletristikata, pp. 140-1.
240 CHAPTER THREE
the rank of Constantine's merits for the world. It should also be noted
that Constantine was closely associated with the triumph of Christian-
ity. He was head of the militant Church, as we may judge by his por-
trayal in the frescos of the church in Pcltr<luti (Romania), built at the
time of the Moldavian ruler Stephen the Great, who, in turn, adopted
many features of the Bulgarian state, political, and ideological legacy.
The most important element in the devotion to St. Constantine in con-
nection with the triumph of Christianity was the Cross and the sign
that the emperor saw in the sky before the battle of the Milvian Bridge.
This event was the basis for the image of the victorious Christian ruler
who defeats his enemies with the aid of God and with the revelation
of the True Cross. 62
The image of St. Constantine and his mother St. Helena is present in
the encomion contained in the London Gospel, but there the emphasis
is on the dissemination of the Word of God. The two Christian rul-
ers are the prototypes of supporters of the Christian faith, for they
were ascribed the merit of the discovery of the cross on which Christ
was crucified. This was tantamount to the unearthing of a treasure.
Here the author of the encomion used an extensive comparison not
only with the ruler who had become a prototype of Christian piety
and Orthodoxy among rulers, but also with the symbolic gesture: the
discovery of the symbol of Christianity. In the field of Christian reli-
gious literature, the Gospel is the Holy Book, and is as important and
life-giving as the Cross itself, which is a substitute for the presence of
God. In fact, the basic ruler's virtue that is lauded in this encomion is
religious fervour, which is the power-forming ideological element; in
fact, the copying of books that bring salvation is an act of affirmation
of the state itself. The Gospel is not only a work of literature and art, it
is not only an outward object, a set of valuable materials and a palette
of colours, but is the outflow of God's Word, which gives power, just
as the sceptre is the material symbol of power. It is no coincidence
62 This is present both in Slavic countries and in the Byzantine Empire where it
originated. Extensive literature on the subject exists, where the official line of the
Church but also popular beliefs are presented. Cf. Pljukhanova M., Badalanova F.,
"Srednevekovaja simvolika vlasti: krest Konstantinov v bolgarskoj traditsii", Literatura
i istorija. Acta et commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis, t 78, 1987, and Pljukhanova
M., Badalanova F., "Srednevekovaja simvolika vlasti v Slavia Orthodoxa", Godishnik
na Sofijskija universitet, Fakultet slavjanski filologii, t. 86, kn. 2, 1993.
that John Alexander ordered the Gospel to be made "H~ B'l'&f'l>*AeHHe

C&OeM, Ll,rC'I'&,". 63
3.5.2.3
The third image of comparison used in the encomion of the Bulgarian
tsar and his people is that of the People of Israel. This mention is made
in the context of the victorious Cross of the Lord. Thus, the successes
and conquests of the Chosen People were presented as a forerunner
image of those of the Christian rulers. Of course, military ardour is a
quality mostly associated with the Old Testament, not the New Testa-
ment, and the military victories are usually presented in the categories
of the Jewish religion, of the devotion to Lord Sabaoth, rather than
of Christianity; but I believe the emphasis in this case lies elsewhere.
The author intended not so much to describe the military victory of
the tsar or of the people, but to stress that it was achieved with the
help of God and under the revelation of the Cross as a sign of Divine
presence and support. For its part, the Cross has parallels in the Old
Testament, the most important one of which as concerns our topic
is, in my view, the staff of the prophet Moses. 64 That is precisely why
the Children of Israel are referred to: in order to show the continuing
connection between God, the Chosen People, and the victorious king
of that people.
The indication that the tsar is the "righteous judge of orphans and
widows" is essentially a quotation from Psalm 67:6. This biblical text
glorifies the Lord as king of the world who grants victory to His peo-
ple, to Israel. This is a song of victory that completely coincides with
the aim of the encomion to tsar John Alexander from Pesnivets. Two
of the verbs describing the tsar's military campaigns are "to grasp in
hand" and "to put under his feet" -applied first to the Greek king, and
then to the other enemies. Both figures of speech are borrowed from
the Holy Scripture, and mostly from the Old Testament. Formulae
such as "deliver into his hand", "seize in hand", etc., occur very fre-
quently in the books of the Old Testament, and it is hardly necessary
here to point them out: they were a customary device for designat-
ing a victory. Also biblical is the image of the king "trampling under
foot" his enemies. We find it in many places of the Old Testament

64 Dagron G., Empereur et pretre. Etude sur le 'cesaropapisme' byzantin, Paris, 1996,
pp. 114-5, 155, 238.
242 CHAPTER THREE
(Deuteronomy, 33:29; Joshua 10:24; Psalms 109:1; Psalms 17:41-43;

2 Samuel 22:41-43; Zechariah 10:5; Malachi 4:2-3). It is widely pres-
ent in literature and in the plastic arts throughout the Middle Ages,
and has continued to be used down to our times. In any case, this was
an Old Testament tradition connected with the victory of God and
of the Chosen People to which Christians later equated themselves.
The appearance of this motive in the encomion is not unusual, and it
confirms the biblical roots of the imagery of power in this case and the
universal nature of power, connected with its divine origin.
Peace is a value in all religions, and establishing peace is the work
of God, effectuated by the ruler empowered by God. In the Roman
tradition, Pax Romana was the core concept for power in the Empire.
In Bulgaria we find a very interesting example of this in a seal of tsar
Symeon, who calls himself cip1lV01tOto~ ~a.crtAc:u~, meaning "peace-
maker tsar", thus confirming the idea that the tsar is similar to God in
grace and charisma. 65 I think it is obvious that, in this encomion, we
meet with the same idea in the passage where, after the victory over
his enemies, the tsar is said to have "established enduring quietness
in the Universe". It is not surprising that this formula, as well as the
whole idea of peacemaking, in mediaeval culture, has a biblical basis.
The reference to quietness as "peace" can be found in several places
in the Holy Scripture: Job, 34:29; Psalms 106:29; Ecclesiastes, 28:15;
Isaiah 0: 15. Although in most cases this signifies peace of soul, what
is important is that the word "quietness" is used, as in the Panegyric,
not in the literal sense of a lack of noise and sounds.
3.5.2.4
Also of biblical origin is the image of the New Ptolemaeus, which we
find in the imperial glorifications: HO&'b nTOMMt\H (with reference to
the boyars) Ht\ &<tro.m, HO ~MAHH!t\MI:. nb."'tl-this refers to the tsar's
having collected all divine books and filled his palace with them. The
comparison of tsar Symeon to Ptolemaeus is, once again, based on the
Old Testament interpretation of power. What does "new Ptolemaeus"
mean, and how can we explain the comparison with the Egyptian pha-
raoh? Which king of the Ptolemaeus dynasty is being referred to here?
Some authors are inclined to think it is Ptolemaeus I Soter (337-283
Be), the founder of the dynasty, mostly because he also founded the
65 Bozilov Iv., Tsar Simeon Veliki (893-927): Zlatnijat vek na srednovekovna Bul-
garija, Sofia, 1982, p. 113ff.
Alexandrine Library, thus demonstrating his love of books. In the con-

text of the text, however, it is far more probable that the author meant
Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus (283-246 Be), in connection with the
translation of the Bible into Greek by the commission of Seventy and,
thus, with the dissemination of the book throughout the known world
of that time. 66 That was one of the most important events in cultural
history, and I should note that the translation by the Seventy (called,
after them, Septuaginta) would later provide the text of the Holy Scrip-
ture to the Hellenes after their conversion to Christianity, and to the
whole world of Orthodoxy. The encomion explicitly points out that
Symeon was similar to Ptolemaeus in his fervour and diligence, but
was not of the same faith with him, for the Egyptian pharaoh had
remained a pagan, and his diligence was displayed in the dissemina-
tion of the Hebrew Bible. I believe that the glorification thus provides
some important indications of the reason for exalting the Bulgarian
tsar's love of books. This love was not merely a passion for knowledge,
but showed his diligence in disseminating the Word of God.
The prologue-addition to Zlatostruj may lead us to the same conclu-
sions: there the Bulgarian ruler is once again represented as a lover of
books and disseminator of the Word of God. The text is perfectly clear
and leaves no doubt that what the author had in mind not simply the
enlargement of literature and writing, not oven only the work of the
fathers of the Church (such as Saint John Chrysostomos, author of
the discourses in the collection). What the author was thinking of was
Revelation itself, the Holy Scripture: "the pious tsar Symeon, having
studied the Holy Scripture, all the books, old and new, Christian and
pre-Christian ... " (Krz..cA K'l..HHI"AI IWrrz..xrz..~ H HOR'l..l~ R'l..H~Wb.H'l..IA
H R'l..H~Tfb.H'l..l~ GAb.roR~fH'l..IH u,~Cb.fb. CvuewHrz.. &omb.CTRb.Hb.lero
nHCb.HH~ I believe the words "old" and "new" cer-
Hcnrz..l'l'b.Rrz.. ••• ). 67
tainly refer to the books of the Old and New Testaments, as do like-
wise the words "inner" and "external", which have long been known as
designating Christian and pre-Christian texts. I am inclined to admit
that by "external (= pre-Christian) the author has in mind the writ-
ings of the Old Testament, not pagan ones, which could not at all have
been tolerated in the Christian environment of those times. Of course,
the books of the Old Testament are in a different situation not only
66 Boiilov, Tsar Simeon Veliki, p. 163 ff.

67 Dimitrov, "Zlatostruj", p. 22.
244 CHAPTER THREE
because they were interpreted as being allegories of the coming of the

Saviour, but also because they were part of the same Judea-Christian
tradition, though of its earlier stage. We have the same references to
the biblical tradition and to Old Testament models, especially as con-
cerns state power and the position of the tsar.
After having said this, I would like to draw attention to another
glorifying comparison of tsar Symeon, found in a late Moldavian
manuscript of the 17th century: A c'e MHOP'l>l ur'ie MiArH s.iwm. H
, I I 1i'"" A' , X' rl
I~HH1::Z.1 MHW~'l>l HC~HC~W~. COAOMW,.. nyt~m r'l> ~'E !!A 'I~ &'l>C'E 'li\~'1>
&1:. l,eri\M'E ~H&O~,I.J.IH; HC,~HCA ...&W. _.(.• njH'l'~'IH H. (e• n'ECH~."' &I:. ,~HH
1
l~el~l H~'E u.r~· W&~l '0~&0 ~' I~HH , H~&rAHHH ~Wm.,.. W~. Wr H~
nj'EAAHH '&'EWm;. WfH~e*e , er~'l''HI~~· Cmi.J.Ie, .~C'l'~.&H; I~H~. A. -f.~ t;
&'1> nO'l'OnH. H. (A• no* *e. A HCHAW• nOi\8HCIWCK'l>l HCnHCA. tl • I~HH •
A ~'l'Oi\OM~ ~~'l>~HPOi\~&_eu.~:. C'l>~rb. A~· r,H ~~·~HP'bl. § C~Mew' ur~:.
&i\'l>PArCI~'l>l HCnHCA MHWP'l>l I~HHP'bl. _I! IAI~O A&A'l> Ll,rl:. HA ~i\A'l''l>l.
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 play-
ing 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 sev-
eral books of the Old Testament. However, by no means can we call
these the literary creation of an author. The books of the Holy Scrip-
ture 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 Jatsi-
mirsky. The latter indicates that this is a manuscript from the middle of the 17th
century containing discourses and exhortations for the Sundays of Lent; the manu-
script belonged to the Saint Nicholas' scete of the Condrita monastery in the Bessara-
bian region of the Russian Empire; the author had visited the scete in the summer
of 1895.
69 Bozilov, Tsar Simeon Veliki, pp. 164-5. The author has an interesting, but
improvable and merely hypothetical assumption that there might have been a minia-
ture depicting tsar Symeon as king David.
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<tAI:.H~ C'b
RI:.Ch.K~~ro U.R<tT~ n~:.e~HHto C"A&I:f~R'b. The symbol of the bee collecting
honey from the flowers was a familiar comparison used for the book-
lover who collects wisdom from the scriptures. We find this symbol
in Constantine Mannasses' Chronicle , applied to the emperor Theo-
philus: "For the basileus Theophilus, diligent in books, composed out
of them the honeycombs of wisdom, like an industrious bee from the
flowers of the field, he found certain rich and difficult sagas, the values
and secrets of which no one was able to reveal, though many were
renowned for their wisdom". 71 We find the symbol again in a Serbian
annotation dated 1319: "... h\Ko H<t~h\ 'II:.CTI:.H~h\ n'leA~ w
RC<tXI:.
KfMH"AIHXI:. U.R<tTI:.U.I:. CI:.GpUI:. ... ". This is a very long and important
72
note on the statutes closely related to St. Sava (the publication itself
does not give a clear idea), in which multiple Old Testament themes
occur. There are frequent mentions of the prophets Isaiah and Moses,
and of the People of Israel and Jerusalem. The text vividly presents
the idea that the Serbs are the New Israel, the New Chosen People.
When assessing the quotation, this context must certainly be had in
70 Khristova, Karadzhova, Uzunova, Belezhki, II, pp. 117, 294-5, No 489.

71 Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii, p. 193; Stara bulgarska
1itera tura, vol. III, p. 304.
n Stojanovic Lj., Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi, I, Belgrade, 1902, p. 22 No 52. The
author who published the annotation indicates that it is from manuscript No 6 of the
National Library.
246 CHAPTER THREE
mind. The bee is a popular symbol of industriousness and diligence,

and in this case these virtues are ascribed to the tsar. But we must
consider what kind of diligence is referred to here. As I pointed out,
the glorification of tsar Symeon was based on his love of books. The
same is true for the case of the emperor Theophilus. Love of books
in all cases has its archetype in love for the Bible, for the Scripture,
in diligence in studying and disseminating the Scripture. That is why
I believe that, here too, we should look for biblical parallels. The bee
symbol occurs in the Holy Scripture. The bee is said to be industrious
and wise and is given as an example to be followed in Proverbs 6:8.
The small size and strength of the bee is in contrast with the sweetness
of the results of its labour-honey (Ecclesiasticus /Wisdom of Joshua
ben Sira/, 11:3). I see a possible point in common between these ideas
and what is written in the encomion. In both cases there is love for
the Scripture, for the Revelation, and for diligence in disseminating
the latter.
Another interesting comparison is contained in the words b.K'll.l
C'l'fb.Ab. CAb-Alar\ ("like sweet honey /are his thoughts/, which he pours
forth before the boyars in order to impart reason to their thoughts"):
the comparison of the tsar's thoughts to honey is a continuation of
the theme of the bee and of the Scripture (cf. again Ecclesiasticus,
11:3). This dissemination, an imparting of the sweetness of the tsar's
thoughts, is compared with the fruit of the labour of the bee. This is
an important figure of the tsar as teacher, which certainly leads to the
David's and Solomon's paradigms of power and the presentation of
the ruler as a king-prophet, familiar to us from the Old Testament.
This king is granted the ability to "hear" and utter the Revelation,
sweetest of all words.
On two collective supreme organs and their importance: The Senate

(C~ri(AH'J''ll.) and the Popular Assembly (K'E'I(\/K<Eij.l(\, C'll.Hb.M'll.). Both
words are practically not reflected in the Glossary, even more so as the
very existence of such institutions in that age may be questioned.
4.1
The Synklit or Senate is mentioned in the sources only sporadically
and in connection with official events; no clarification at all is given
as to the nature of the institution. The essential point is that it is not

mentioned in any of the preserved imperial documents of the Bulgar-
ian Middle Ages; the ruler never invokes the Synklit, not even as wit-
ness or guarantor to an act. Such a practice existed in Walachia and
Moldavia, whereby the importance of this collective organ was better
defined, and confirmed in other sources as well. In Bulgaria, men-
tions of it are limited to several indications in narratives about the
translations of relics, stories that are included in the hagiographies of
some of the saints. 73 Of course, there are more numerous mentions in
translated texts, especially historical ones.
At the terminological level it is clear that in our country the Greek
name of the Roman Senate was used, transliterated into Cyrillic as
C~r~<AHT'l> 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 advi-
sors" 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 influ-
ence 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 advi-
sor, 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 connec-
tion 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 trans-
lated (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.
Afb.P'l.(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 prob-
lematic: 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 ref-
erence 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 Hamarto-
los' Chronicle, Synklit is usually translated as C'l.&Of'l. or specified as
&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 nega-
tive attitude, at the description of his atrocities, it is written: H&W 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
81 Totomanova, Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, pp. 643-4.

82 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.
250 CHAPTER THREE
the Senate is associated with nobility: H~K'I'O &AropoAeHoz.

Mmm &w w
CmijJi'HXOZ. WCHHI(AH'I'A, nA'I'p'iK'ie Evidently, this term had a
CAHOMOZ.. 88
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 Con-
stantinople. 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 clas-
88 Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii, p. 175.

89 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).
sical times. Most probably, the situation in Bulgaria was even further
from the original. Given the lack of all traditions of collective man-
agement or of the idea of magistracy similar to the Roman one, the
Bulgarian Synklit was probably only some copy of the one of Con-
stantinople. The sources provide a quite amorphous idea of it; most
probably the institution in reality was equally so. It must have been a
council of the ruler, and its functions could hardly have consisted in
decision making. Only in case of grave crisis and vacancy of the throne
could it have had some say as to the choice of the next ruler, and this
authority must have been dictated by the needs of the situation, and
not by any specific rights of the Synklit.
4.2
The presence in the Glossary of the word for national assembly, veche
(or vece, &-t'le/&'t4-Je, C'll.HI:.M'll.), and of the related word "vecnik", is
related only to the institutional system in the Dubrovnik republic; it
has nothing to do with Bulgaria. Nevertheless, we should give some
attention both to the institution and to its name, for some authors
claim it existed in the country during the First Bulgarian Empire. 90
This claim is connected basically with several cases: in deposing vari-
ous khans, especially khan Sabin in the 8th century, in the case of the
so-called Khan Krum's Laws, in the conversion to Christianity, in the
deposition of Khan Vladimir-Rasate in AD 893, etc.
I do not intend to deal with issues related to Khan Krum's Laws; it
seems that basically there was no such code at all. It would be enough
to refer the reader to the article by D. Naydenova, which has treated
of this problem thoroughly. 91
Jordan Andreev, the only author who has written a special article
on the problem of the veche, discerns the first such in the national
assembly for deposing khan Telets after the latter lost the battle with
the Byzantines. 92 Before expressing any opinion, I shall note that this
problem should be considered and decided only in the general context
90 Zlatarski, Istorija, 1/2, Sofia, 1971, p. 257; Andreev J., "Narodnite slibori v poli-
ticheskija zhivot na pyrvata bulgarska dlirzhava", Istoricheski pregled, 1971, 4, pp. 96-
105; Petrova G., Istorija na bulgarskata darzhava i pravo, pp. 77-8.
91 Naydenova D., "Istoricheskata dostovernost na Leksikona 'Suda' kato iztoch-
nik :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 Bul-
garia 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 coun-
cil 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 inter-
est 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!)lipa<; ~ooA.itv 0 lApev&>aElM~~ '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<roA.itv 1tpreti9roav, i].'tu; 1tap'm'>-to~ Ko)liV'tov
c.Ov6Jl!XCf1:at: Joannis Skylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed I. Thurn (= Corpus fontium
historiae byzantinae, series berolinensis, vol. V), Berolini-Novi Eboraci MCML:XXIII
p. 460 4-6>·
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, politi-
cal, 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 insti-
tutionalisation.
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 institu-
tion. 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 fun-
damental 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 pres-
ence 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", "coun-
cil", 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 "jus-
tice", "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, inas-
much 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
100 Sreznevskij, Materialy, I, col. 499-500.

101 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.
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 his-
torical 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 con-
cubine 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 Malingoudis, "Zu einigen Verfassunstermini", p. 200.

107 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.
(= 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 assem-
bly 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 how-
ever, 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 Supraslien-
sis 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 con-
nection 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 Slovnik jazyka staroslovenskeho, t. 40, Praha, 1987, p. 339.

113 Supraslski ill Retkov sbornik, t. I, p. 189 20 _21 •
114 Supraslski ill Retkov sbornik, t. I, p. 234 I·
115 Supraslski ill Retkov sbornik, I, p. 96 27.
(= 442b 12), 469.
are designated precisely by this term. 117 The same meaning of the word
occurs in other cases as well. 118 In certain quotations, the meaning
is that of an ecclesiastic counciP 19 or of a liturgical prayer assembly. 120
All these examples confirm the general observations concerning the
lexeme and fail to convince us it referred to an institution. In fact, the
thing coming closest to an institution is connected with regulations of
the People of Israel, which we find in a later historical source, which
we shall now examine.
In the Constantine Mannasses' Chronicle the word we are discuss-
ing occurs once, and refers to the assembly of the People of Israel in
the time of Joshua. It is notable that it stands together with the word
C'b 6op'b: n )CII
0 IIIIW\I'CeH me
N~RIHH'l..
.. .. 1..
CH'l.. C , HMh.ACTROR~ C'l..G.OfOU
.
H o&A~ e&peHCKHu' crz..Huourz... 121 In the Greek original the word is
crJ.Lftvoc;, 122 which simply means "a multitude", its original meaning
being "a swarm of bees"
I believe the indicated examples-both historical and lexical-can-
not convince anyone there was in Bulgaria a special institution of a
"National Assembly". Actually, the very claim there was such is rooted
either in faulty comparisons with Western Europe or in ideological
motives connected with the idea of a "military democracy" as a tran-
sitional period toward the establishment of a state. Our knowledge
about at least two of the assemblies for which such claims are made
is derived from West European sources: the archbishop Hincmar
of Reims and Pope Nicholas 1st regarding the events related to the
Baptism; and abbot Regino on the events of AD 893. This creates the
preconditions for transferring the idea of assemblies of people of a
specific category, as they occurred in the west of Europe, to a com-
pletely different cultural environment; what the chroniclers wrote was
addressed to their own public and cannot accurately reflect the reality
in south-eastern Europe.

(= 460a 22), 545.
(= 461a 2), 545-6.
(= 473b 16), 560; 196 (= 487b 13), 573; 197 (= 488a 2), 573.
(= 4816 23-24). 566tf.
Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii, p. 126 (vers. 1079).
121
ConstantiniMannasses Compendcium chronicum,Patrologiagraeca, vol CCXXVII,
122
col 260 vers 1079.
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 nar-
row meaning, and was something always connected with a rebellion.
Here is a quotation: «Rebellion was a phenomenon that in most cases
accompanied the National Assembly and seems to have been the only
means by which the Assembly succeeded in imposing its will and
bringing the purposed changes to life". 123 This assertion is essentially
ludicrous: according to it an obviously illegal act, a revolt, proves to be
the only means for implementing the decisions of such a high organ as
the «National Assembly" is claimed to have been. I believe the author
himself sensed the weakness of his thesis and sought for a way to rep-
resent the factual circumstances of the revolt as some sort of regulated
means for effectuating the supreme legal acts.
I believe the main reason for the assertion that national assemblies
existed in Bulgaria is to thereby support the idea of a «military democ-
racy" and the remnants of a tribal organisation. Incidentally, this idea
does not fit in with the events at the time of Khan Boris-Michael and
tsar Symeon. To be honest, this contradiction was acknowledged in
the article by Jordan Andreev, who noted that in the 8th century this
institution served as a tool of the aristocracy to be used against the
ruler, while in the 9th-10th century, on the contrary, it was used to
affirm the power of the ruler. 124 Thus, even the authors who support
the belief that such «democratic" political organs existed, are aware of
how problematic the thesis is. I cannot accept the assertion that the
National Assembly was an organ able to make the decision of remov-
ing the khan from power .125 I think this is untenable when consider-
ing the sacralisation and all-encompassing scope of power during the
period in question.
Here I would like to unexpectedly reverse the issue: I claim that it
was precisely this sacralisation of power during the pagan period that
could serve as an argument for the possible removal of the khan in
cases when he was found religiously unfit to be a ruler. This is a situ-
ation similar to the position of the Goktiirk (= «celestial Turks") or
123 Andreev, "Narodnite sabori", p. 97.

124 Andreev, "Narodnite sabori", pp. 103-4.
125 Andreev, "Narodnite sabori", p. 97.
the Khazar khagans of the Ashina clan, for whom it was believed their
deficiencies might harm the nation, so that the rule was they were
to be removed from their position by being put to death. Vesselin
Besevliev claims such a practice existed in Bulgaria as well; he states
this in connection with events at the end of the reign of one of khan
Krum's heir, known as Ditsevg, as documented in the Constantinopoli-
tan synaxarium. Having very cruelly persecuted the Christians and put
to death Manuel, the archbishop of Hadrian opolis, Ditsevg was struck
by blindness, and therefore removed from power. This and most other
important disabilities made the ruler unfit from a religious perspective
to be head of the state, and this led to his being slain and substituted
by someone else, someone not deprived of the protection of the pagan
deities. In the Synaxarium it is said that, due to his blindness, Ditsevg
«was put to death by his own men, and Mourtagon/Omourtag assumed
power". 126 It seems a wonder no one has yet claimed these events were
part of a National Assembly! Someone evidently made the decision
to remove the unfit ruler from power, but it is not given us to know
what organ made it. To claim this was a National Assembly would be
forcing the sources; but for that matter, so would any other concrete
claim or assumption. In any case, here we are treading on issues more
relevant to the power of the ruler than to that of the «people". I simply
believe there is no reason to claim that there were in Bulgaria some
kinds of national assemblies existing as regular organs; we must leave
the rest to romantic historiography.
5. CONCLUSION
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 spe-
cial 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 Berolin-
ensi, 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 directly-
the influence of the Roman imperial doctrine on the formation of the
idea of Universal Empire among the Slavs (and specifically in Bul-
garia), 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 medi-
aeval 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 organi-
sation, 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 spe-
cific 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, manda-
tory 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 activ-
ities strictly regulated by law, and we hardly need to adduce argu-
ments that the vocabulary connected with this sphere is part of the
present study. Nevertheless, I would like to devote a bit more atten-
tion 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 worthi-
ness. Personal virtue was the reason for belonging to the hierarchy
(the principle of sacredness), i.e. to the holy order which structures the
world. In its political aspect, this order was the Ecumenical Univer-
sal Empire, organised in the likeness of the celestial hierarchies, and
hence similar to the Kingdom of God. 3 Affiliation to the hierarchy was
a personal achievement based on merits and qualities, not on fam-
ily origin. This was the great difference between Constantinople and
Western Europe. The Empire was the image of the Celestial Kingdom
in the visible world; this concept was an essential characteristic of the
political ideology of the New Rome, and hence of the other coun-
tries of the Byzantine Commonwealth. This political ideology reflected
in the state structures and in public law, and it certainly made titles
an essential characteristic of the institutional system of the Empire,
though not investing them with specific state functions.
The same is true for the various court offices and the officials work-
ing for them. In general, these were not state services in the proper
sense of the word, but offices pertaining to the state, inasmuch as they
2 Biliarsky, Hierarchia. L'Ordre sam!, pp. 20-2.

3 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 admin-
istration. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we should not evaluate the
phenomena of public power thousands of years ago in terms of the
present day. The personal serving of the basileus is not defined as a
kind of administrative activity, but neither is it simply the kind of duty
a servant performs. The activity of the court services is closely con-
nected with the imperial ritual of the Palace, which, in turn, is a visible
expression of the doctrine of the Universal Empire and the only space
where we may see, perceive with our senses, the hierarchical order of
dignities as a reflection of Celestial Hierarchies. Thus, we learn that
many of those responsible for serving the person of the Tsar were
actually fulfilling predominantly ritual functions. In this connection,
the function of the eunuchs stands out particularly vividly, and surely
grotesquely-yet most services in the court were reserved for eunuchs
only. The duties of the eunuchs in court were mostly ritual. As 'sexless'
beings, they represented in the various ceremonies Divine messengers
from the Celestial Army of angels, which are likewise sexless.4 In fact,
the presence of eunuchs in the court was above all a sign of the divine
nature of the ruler's power. No doubt, such a function was directly
connected with justifying power and justifying the mechanism of func-
tioning of power. Here we see one instance of the great importance of
court services in the public legal sphere of the mediaeval state.
2. 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 pre-
sented in the glossary, confirms the conclusion drawn when studying
terminology in other legal spheres. We observe a prevalence of terms
that have their origin in Byzantium or are somehow connected with it.
The glossary words connected with administration and titles are more
than a hundred and sixty, of which one hundred and ten are Slavic.
In the general glossary, we have thirty-three Greek words. The words
4 Guilland R., « Les eunuques dans l'Empire byzantin >>,Etudes byzantines, I, I 943,
passim; Biliarsky, Hierarchia. L'Ordre sacre, pp. 17-20.
264 CHAPTER FOUR
of Turkic origin are eleven; the Latin words are four; one word is of
German origin, one or two are Hungarian (which are designations
not of Bulgarian institutions, but of institutions of the city of Bra§OV/
Kronstadt); and two are words of an origin that remains unclear to
me. Some words figure in both glossaries. At first glance, the numeri-
cal prevalence of the Slavic vocabulary is so obvious, that it might lead
us to question the conclusion I drew initially. Nevertheless, I would
like to point out certain circumstances that might change this first
impression.
It is to stress that, in referring to vocabulary connected with the
Empire, I do not mean only that which is purely Greek in origin. We
are thinking about the integral influence of the legal system of Constan-
tinople, which had accumulated in itself the traditions of Roman law.
Hence, some of the Latin words also represent this influence, as do some
of the Slavic words, the roots of which are to be sought in calques and
translated foreign vocabulary. In examining the accumulated material,
we find that at least thirty-six of the Slavic words (considered as specia-
lised terms) are of an origin connected to Greek vocabulary and show
the unquestionable impact of the Byzantine administrative system. In
addition to this, there is at least one word of Latin origin ("desetnik"),
which can be said to have come into the Bulgarian vocabulary from the
military-administrative language of the Byzantine Empire. Out of the
total number of Slavic words, we should also not count a number of
words that belong to the Dubrovnik administrative terminology, and
which in fact have nothing to do with Bulgaria, yet are present in the
glossary, because they have been taken from a text that is included in
those on which the glossary is based. Such words are "vechnik", "veche",
"obshtina", "obshtinski", which, at least in the text from which they
were drawn, have nothing to do with Bulgarian realities.
We thus see that the purely Slavic vocabulary is lesser in number.
As noted at the beginning of this study, the glossaries include not only
terms but also a wide range of vocabulary. If we examine separately
only that part of the terminology that definitely better reflects the pro-
cesses we are concerned with, we shall see that the relative weight of
the Greek lexical units grows even greater.
2.2
An appreciable percentage of words are ultimately of Byzantine origin,
and their importance is made greater by the fact that the vast majority
of these words are terms. Among them, I have included the word prim-
mikirios/primmicerius, which is of Latin origin but undoubtedly came
into the Bulgarian administrative vocabulary through the Greek lan-
guage. I believe we could add to this category the term kastel/castle, also
of Latin origin. The situation of the term katun is specific. It is likewise
of Latin origin but came into the Balkans from colloquial Latin, and we
cannot categorically ascribe it to the Byzantine influence in Bulgaria.
2.3
Among the words of Latin origin included in the glossary, we should
focus special attention on the word Krz..uerrrz.. (kmet), and I have done so
further on in my presentation. We see that the Latin vocabulary is not
widely present in the Bulgarian administrative language: this is quite
understandable in view of the cultural affiliation of the country.
2.4
The Turkic terms are of special interest for our study, for some of
them derive from the Bulgar heritage and the problem of continu-
ity in Bulgarian statehood before and after the Conversion to Chris-
tianity. More than ten such words are present in the glossary, but we
must not view them all in the same way. According to origin, they
may be divided into several groups, the largest of which is that of
Bulgar origin, including, in all, six words: bagain, boliarin, boliarka,
san, chergubylia, chergubylstvo. Four terms we can generally connect
by origin to the steppe peoples (Bulgars included): ban, vatah, zhupa,
zhupan. The etymology of most of them is much disputed, and there
is no prevalent opinion on the matter. Last, I would like to add the
term serdar, the appearance of which in the Bulgarian administrative
nomenclature is the result of a loan from the Osmanli Turks in the
time when these were conquering the Balkan Peninsula.
Also in this number are two terms which are ultimately of Turkic
origin: kraishte and pobirchia. The term "kraishte" is a translation of
the Turkic word "uf" (which initially meant "mount", "arrow", and
hence, "end", "marginal territory"), as some of the territories newly
conquered by the Osmanli were called, territories under the power of
the Uf-beyi I uc-beg. 5 The term pobirchia derived from &Hf'l..Krz.., which
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 Hungar-
ian language (and especially to the word faliigye/6 = "somebody in
charge with something", "administrator") or to a Saxon dialect spoken
by a large and politically dominant part of the population of Tran-
sylvania. The term does not belong to the Bulgarian administrative
vocabulary but to that of the Saxon city Bra~ov (Kronstadt).
Among the Germanic terms I have not included knjaz (= prince),
which is also of a remote Germanic origin but was already borrowed
in the Palaeo slavic language and does not represent a case of Germanic
influence in mediaeval Bulgaria.
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 administrative-
legal) 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, understand-
ably, 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'comestabu-
lus") and which are examined in the systematic presentation of the
institutions further on in this chapter. These exceptions are because
these terms are part of the general context of the reception of names
during the Second Empire, unlike the names of Bulgar institutions,
which derive from an entirely different culture and had nothing to do
with the processes that took place later.
Several years ago, I devoted a special article to the administrative
terminology in mediaeval Bulgaria, in which I presented the basic
findings of my research on this problem. 6 The main differences in this
presentation consist in the range of documents in the basis of the pres-
ent study and the inclusion of a wider set of administrative terms.
That is how some of the follow-ups of the various studies took shape.
The administrative terms not present in the range of documents on
which the glossary was built are not included in it, but it does com-
prise terms that have nothing to do with the Bulgarian practice of gov-
ernance. One such term is "knez", used to designate the institution of
the Dubrovnik Republic. It is present in the Bulgarian administrative
vocabulary but with a meaning that has nothing to do with the men-
tioned Ragusan institution. This is also true for the other Dubrovnik
terms already mentioned. Of course, furthest away from the practice
in Bulgaria are the terms designating the leaders of the Saxon commu-
nity in the city of Bra§OV (Kronstadt), who had their own German or
Hungarian appellations that had nothing in common with the terms
used in mediaeval Bulgaria.
Finally, I shall group the terms according to their origin in order to
attempt to infer some dependency between the character of the insti-
tutions and the origin of their name.
3.1
Words transliterated from Greek and other languages usually comprise
the high-ranking dignitaries, courtiers, and higher institutions. Such
are practically all titles, and this is easily understandable. A title in the
Byzantine institutional system had an important ideological and struc-
ture-defining function in the contexts of the general Byzantine under-
standing about the world. In this sense, its inclusion in the Bulgarian
institutional system signifies a borrowing of this concept and of the
place of the entitled person in the universal order. The title designates
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 appella-
tions with hardly any change and demonstrate the transplantation of
the Byzantine political doctrine to Bulgaria. We shall deal with them
in detail further.
3.1.2
The other two "pure titles" known to us in the Bulgarian mediaeval
institutional system also bear names directly copied from the Greek.
These are protosebastos and sebastos. 7 The two titles are similar and do
not pose different kinds of problems; these are obviously Greek appel-
lations and one originated from the other with a specification for the
higher rank. In the relevant literature, there is no unanimous view as
to the nature of this institution in Bulgaria and Serbia, and there is
debate as to whether that was an office or a "pure title". 8 I have pre-
7 The title of the protosebastos is known to us from the Hilendari charter, dating
from 1300, of the Serbian king Milutin and from Tsar Boril's Synodicon (Novakovic
St, Zakonski spomenici srpskih driava srednjego veka, Belgrade, 1912, pp. 391, 392;
Popruzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, p. 90, No. 132). The title of sebastos is cited in
several Bulgarian charters (those of Vatopedi, Virgino, Mraka, Rlla)-cf llinskij, Gra-
moty, 15 14, 18 98 _99, 25 28, 38, 27 53; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 59, as well as in
the Stenimachos and Bozhenitsa inscriptions: Zlatarski V. N., "Asenevijat nadpis pri
Stanimaka", in: idem, Izbrani proizvedenija, voL II, Sofia, 1984, p. 405; Mutafchiev P.,
"Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", in: iden. Izbrani proizvedenija, vol. I, Sofia, 1973, p. 493.
8 Mutafchiev P., "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", pp. 494-5; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gra-
mota, p. 37; Gjuzelev V., "Nadpisa ot krepostta", Bozhenishki Urvich, Sofia, 1979,
p. 43; Petrov P., "0 titulakh 'sevast' i 'protosevasf v srednevekovom bolgarskom gosu-
darstve", Vizantijskij vremenik, t. XVII (1959), pp. 52-64; Andreev M., "Sluzhbite na
provintsialnoto upravlenie na srednovekovna Bulgarija i na srednovekovna S!lrbija
spored gramotite na bulgarskite i sr!lbskite vladeteli ot XIII-XIV v." Godishnik na
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 spe-
cial interest for this study. Even from a cursory review of the extant
approximately fifteen appellations, including those not given in the
glossary, we see that eleven are directly transliterated from the Greek
(protovestiarios, vestiarios, grand primmicerius, protostrator, grand
dux, protokelliotes, grand logothete, logothete, grammatik), while four
are calques/translated from the same language (palace curator/curo-
palates, stolnik, voevoda, tainik). The addition of the modifier "great",
which could be a translation of the Greek word J.l.eym; or else added
in the Bulgarian version of the term, does not change matters, for the
title is nevertheless formed by the basic term.
3.1.4
So far, the terms discussed were Greek, such is not the case with the
word ~'ll.MeT'll. ("kmet"), specifically in the sense, claimed for it, of "dis-
tinguished person", "noble" This word has already been the focus of
attention and (excessive) interpretations in some studies; it has been
adduced as an argument in support of the Western Slavic origin of the
Law for Judging the People. 9 The thesis of K. Maximovich is far from
generally accepted and has been criticised with good reason by certain
scholars, Russian ones included. For instance I. Dobrodomov expresses
disagreement with views on the meaning of the word put forward as
early as the 19th century, and defines it as "landlord, husband"; he
rejects both the view that it was of Moravian origin and that it came
directly into Russia together with the Law for Judging the People. 10 All
Sopjijskija universitet, Juridicheskifakultet, t. 58,2 (1967), pp. 11, 16, 19, 26-7; Biliar-
sky, Institutsiite, pp. 119 tf, 125tf.
9 Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 90-2.
10 Dobrodomov I. G., "Iljuzornaja sem.antlka v ruskikh istoricheskikh slovarjakh i
ee posledstvija (na primere slova K'bMemb)", Drenjaja Rus', 3 (21), september, 2005,
pp. 26-7.
270 CHAPTER FOUR
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 can-
not be fully certain about the origin of "ban", "vatah", "zhupa", "zhu-
pan", 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 nomencla-
ture 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 trans-
lated word is tainik (TAHHHK'l>.); it is not present in the glossary, for we
find it in the text of the Vita of St. Philoteia by patriarch Euthymius,

12 VerpeauxJ., Pseudo Kodinos. Traitedes offices, Paris, 1966, pp. 138, 154, 174, 300,
302, 305, 307, 309, 320, 334, 344, 347.
which is not one of our base sources. 13 It was calqued from the Greek
~umuc6~, which, in turn came from the Latin secretarius. 14
Practically all designations of Bulgarian administrative-territorial
units, except the directly assimilated ones chora and kleisoura, are
translated, or calqued, from Greek, and, ultimately, were borrowed
from the administrative system of the Empire. 15
3.2.1
Finally, I would like to consider several groups of terms that are not
exactly appellations of institutions but are certainly relevant to the
institutional system and, precisely in this connection, were borrowed
through calques or translation from Greek. These are vlastel, glava
(= "head"), gospodin!gospodar (= "lord", "master") and their deriva-
tives nastolnik and nastoinik, together with words connected with
them, nachalo and nachalnik, rabotnik and rabotati (=to work), chin
(= ordo, degree) and their respective derivatives.
The word glava (= head) is related to ''being at the head of" and
exercising power, without exactly being the name of an institution. In
my opinion, it was a precise translation of the Greek word Ke<j>aA:ft.
The latter was of the nature of an administrative term designating a
district governor who headed the late-Empire administrative-territorial
unit called katepanikion. 16 This term was transliterated, not translated,
into Bulgarian as ~e<j>MHh\ (kephalia), the word presented here in
the glossary. For its part, glava (head) remained a very general name
for the leader's function, and not a specific institution. This dem-
onstrates the general approach that was used for the building of the
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 Func-
tion of the Mystik.os »,Revue des etudes byzantines, XLII (1984), pp. 229-40.
15 On this issue, cf. Biliarsky, « Les circonscriptions administratives », p. 190tf.
16 Mutafchiev, "Bozhenishkijat nadpis", pp. 495-6; Dujeev, SBK, II, p. 345;
Maksimovic, Provincijska uprava, p. 71tf.; Ostrogorsky G., Serska oblastposle Du5anove
smrti, Belgrade, 1965, p. 94; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provincialnoto upravlenie",
pp. 15-6; Institufii feudale, p. 95; Biliarsky Iv., "Belezhki W.rkhu institutsionnata
sistema na Vtoroto bulgarsko tsarstvo: kephalia", Tarnovska knizhovna shkola, voL V,
Veliko Ti!.rnovo, 1994, pp. 553-562; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 286-92.
272 CHAPTER FOUR
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 pre-
sented 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 vari-
ous 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. princi-
pium), "leadership" and, in general, things concerning power and the
exercise of power.
I would like to consider briefly the term "vlastel" and the ques-
tion 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 feu-
dalism in Bulgaria", he asserted that words like "vlastel" designated
persons with political power: state officials, dignitaries, functionar-
iesY 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 Lishev, Za genezisa na feodalizma, pp. 151-6.

18 Lishev, Za genezisa na feodal izma, p. 156 ff.
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 E<!>imruu or
E1ttcrta'tero and its derivative E1ttcrta't1l~ with the related similar mean-
ing 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 pre-
cise institutional reference, and often designate persons of lower rank.
3.3.1
First of all I should cite the widely used word knjaz/knez (KH~~rz.
from KHi\\Srz.), although this is a Common Slavic loanword from the
Germanic languages. 19 Its meaning can vary widely. Initially it meant
"prince", "leader", i.e. the military leader of the tribe; later this was to
19 The citations from the charters have been indicated in the glossary. See also the
interesting case of the citing of "local knjazes" in the Vita of St Joachim of Osogovo:
Ivanov, BSM, p. 412. Regarding knjazes in mediaeval Serbia, see: Novakovic, Zakonski
spomenici, pp. 105, 107, 108, 109, 177, 182, 255, 260, 310, 312, 389, 424, 453, 455, 456,
471, 473, 494, 601, 614, 616, 620, 662, 680, 683, 704, 720, 759.
274 CHAPTER FOUR
turn into a monarch's title. In Bulgaria, this meaning does not exist as
a concrete title or administrative appellation but simply as a general
name for a high-ranking person or rulers. As a technical term, the
word is present in the Bulgarian nomenclature with the meaning of
village leader or leader of a small community. 20
3.4.
Finally, I shall give two examples that, in my opinion, are an excellent

illustration of the mechanisms by which was constructed the adminis-
trative 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., << Mittelalterliche balkanamter und Titel im osmanis-
chen Orts- und Selbsverwaltungssystem »,Etudes balkaniques, 1978, 4, p. 95 ff.; Bil-

iarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 296-303.
21 I have devoted a special article to this topic, to which I refer the reader: Biliar-
sky Iv., "Primeri za ranno vlijanie na Imperijata varkhu formiraneto na bulgarskata
publichnopravna terminologija: voevoda, chigot, chvanchij, Istoricheski pregled, 5-6,
2008, pp. 16-27.
essary phonetic changes. The clearest case is that of the direct loan
from Greek of the appellations for the so-called "imperial titles" (Ct.~iat
to£ ~acrtAl~): despot, sebastocrator, and caesar. The data for all three
are from the period of the Second Bulgarian Empire, which means
they were the result of the strong political and cultural influence of
the Empire.
4.1.1
The title of despot was characteristic for Bulgaria in the 14th century;
it was the highest title and certainly remained a "pure title" (i.e. not
connected to service in the administrative apparatus) and reproduces
the basic characteristics of this title in the Byzantine Empire without
significant deviation. 22
4.1.1.1. Origin of the title
The term oemt6tTl<; is of Greek origin, but has an old Indo-European
root. It can be broken down to oecr and -1tot'll<;· The part oecr- (from
oe~cr-) is an old genitive form of oro, oro~ = "home", while -1tot1l<;
(in Latin, potest, potestas) comes from a root related to the idea of
"ability", "mastery", "might", etc. 23 The literal translation and initial
meaning of the word was "master of the house", "lord of the house",
but early on, in antiquity, it acquired the general meaning of "mas-
ter" In the pagan period the word oemt6t'll<; = Latin "dominus" had
no special meaning. After Constantine the Great, two Greek terms
very close in meaning-Jd>pto<; and Oemt6tTl<;-came to be commonly
used in popular speech as a designation of the emperor. 24 Later the
term "despot" was used to address high-ranking clergymen, i.e. in
the sense of "bishop" in modern Bulgarian. According to Procopius
of Caesarea, Justinian was the first to introduce it as a designation
for the emperor. It became established and was in usage until the
22 Regarding the rank of despot, see the classical research by Bozidar Ferjancic
(Ferjancic B., Despoti u Vizantiji I u juznoslovenskim zemljama, Belgrade, 1960), and
an earlier study by Rodolphe Guilland (Guilland R, Recherches sur les institutions
byzantines, vol. II !=Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten, Bd. 35, 2/ (Berlin-Amsterdam
1967), pp. 1-24 (=Guilland R, Recherches sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire
byzantin: le despote, REB, XVII, 1959, pp. 52-89). Concerning despots in Bulgaria,
see: Biliarsky 1., "The Despots in Mediaeval Bulgaria", Byzantinobulgarica, voL IX,
Sofia, 1995, passim; idem, I nstitutsiite, pp. 17-84.
23 Prellwit, Etymologisches Warterbuch der Griechischen Sprachen, Gottingen, 1905,
p. 112.
24 Guilland, "Despote", pp. 52-3; Ferjancic, Despoti, p. 3.
276 CHAPTER FOUR
12th century. It remained in use longest of all on coins, where we find

it used as a designation for the emperor up to the fall of the Empire in
1453. Despite its generally precise institutional use, the word "despot"
always retained its meaning of "lord, master"
A despot title with special meaning, separate from that of the ruler's
title, was created by Manuel I Comnenos in 1163 for his son-in-law,
the Hungarian prince Bela-Alexis;25 the word was connected with the
basileus' plans for a future unification of countries. Bela was the heir
to the throne of his country and had the title of Urum ( Uron); through
marrying the daughter of the basileus, he became, in addition, a pos-
sible heir of the latter; that is the occasion on which his particular
title of despot was created. What is interesting in this case is that the
Hungarian term Urum means "my lord" and matches the meaning
of the Greek "despot". 26 This is a rare phenomenon: the creation of a
title in the Empire (albeit for a particular occasion), that matches the
traditions of a different state, in this case Hungary.
Bela-Alexis soon parted with his title of despot,Z 7 but the title
retained its meaning of"son-in-law-heir to the throne" until1204. The
very fact of its creation displayed a new way of thinking about dynasty,
and we can trace the development of this thinking and its impact on
the hierarchic system starting from the end of the 11th century and
the reforms enacted by Alexis I Comnenos. Until the conquest of
Constantinople by the Crusaders, despots retained their characteristic
of son-in-law-heir to the throne. 28 After 1204 and especially after the
restoration of Byzantine power in Constantinople in 1261, the title
underwent a major development. That was when it became a high
court title not connected with any functions or with inheritance of
the throne.
The title of despot was familiar likewise in the mediaeval Serbian
system of titles. 29 There we can retrace the basic characteristics of the
original in the Empire, but there are nevertheless some specific fea-
25 Joannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab Joanne et Alexia Comnenis gestarum, p. 125;

Ostrogorsky G., "Urum-Despotes. Die anfange der Despotewi.irde in Byzanz", BZ,
XLIV, 1951, p. 449; Guilland, "Despote", p. 53; Fe.rjanciC, Despoti, pp. 27-8.
26 Ostrogorsky, "Urum-Despotes", p. 454.
27 Joannis Cinnami Epitome, p. 287.
28 Ostrogorsky "Urum-Despotes", pp. 458-69; Guilland, "Despote", pp. 56-7;
Wirth, "Die Genesis", pp. 421-6.
29 Novakovic St., "Vizantijski Cinovi i titule u srpskim zemljama XI-XV veka", Glas
Srpske Akademije, t. XXVIII, 1908, pp. 237-44; FerjanciC, Despoti, pp. 156-204.
tures. The first information about despots in Serbia dates from before
the imperial coronation of Stephen Dusan, and this shows the title was
received from abroad, from Constantinople or Tolrnovo. The bearers
of this high title in the second half of the 14th century, John Oliver,
Dejan, Vukasin, John Uglesa, John Dragas, etc., received it from the
Serbian Tsars.
The 15th century brought specific features to the title. There was no
longer a Serbian Tsar, and the title was received from Constantinople
and borne by the rulers of the country: Stephen Lazarevic, George
Brankovic, Lazar Brankovic, etc. As we shall see, this is no reason to
refer to a "Serbian Despotate"
4.1.1.2. Titular characteristic of the title of despot
The thesis that the characteristic of despot was purely titular, not related
to any function, is undisputed in foreign historiography. In this respect
Pseudo Kodinos was categorical: '0 oecrx6trtc;, cre~acrtoKpatrop Kat
Ka'icrap oUOeJ..Liav {m·npecria £xoucrtv, £av J..L'h taxe&mv eic; itreJ..Loviav. 30
The despot, as well as the sebastocrator and Caesar, performed no
office in the state apparatus. They could be entrusted by the basileus
de; ft'Y£J..LOviav, which meant to head a military expedition in strictly
defined cases. In fact, this was hardly the only kind of state activity with
which a sovereign could entrust a despot. What is important is that the
activities were not connected necessarily to the institution in a way that
would make the bearer of the latter part of the state apparatus.
As for the participation of the despot in the court ritual, it would
be hard for us to refer the Byzantine sources to Bulgarian conditions.
Although the tsars in Tarnovo strove fervently to imitate the basileus,
their court could hardly have implemented the complex and expen-
sive practices of Constantinople. Moreover, there is no evidence of
the existence in Bulgaria of most of the titles that were part of the
Byzantine court.
4.1.1.3
The "despotates" problem. We may say that the rejection of the view
that the title of despot was related to an office is not a topic of any
considerable debate. However, the same is not true for the issue of
the so-called "despotates", for which scholars have claimed, it was
not an official's title but the title of a ruler over a certain territory. A
30 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 167.

278 CHAPTER FOUR
significant amount of literature on this problem has accumulated, but

mostly on the situation in the Byzantine Empire and Serbia. I shall
add a few words of clarification about the situation in Bulgaria. 31 Else-
where, I have dwelt in detail on this problem. 32 I shall only say that
there are no data pointing to the existence of despotates in Bulgaria.
The existence of such is not confirmed either by disputable mentions
or by the concrete history and institutional and public law relations in
the territories claimed to have been political formations.
Yet the term "despotate" does exist. It is not a creation of contempo-
rary historiography, but occurs multiple times in the available sources
of the 13th-14th centuries. We need not dwell in detail on its presence
in the Western sources. It is very widespread there but reflects an out-
sider's view on the situation in the Balkans. These Latin sources were
the cause for the concept to pass into Greek and the Slavic languages.
Its long history of use in documents of Western origin with reference
to Epirus and Morea inevitably must have had an impact in the course
of contacts. Of special interest for us is the occurrence of this concept
in Greek and Slavic texts. We find it in John Cantacuzene, George
Sphrantzes, in the Chronicle of Morea, in the Chronicle of Ioannina,
in the title of Tsar Stephen Dusan. In many cases, it designates a
specific geographic entity, Epirus, without investing it with any special
political or legal meaning. Occasionally "despotate" could mean not a
territory, but a title. For instance, among the titles of the Serbian tsar,
"despotate of the Western lands" designates simply Epirus, which at
that time was a part of the territories of his state. The presence of the
similar term "despoteia" in certain Greek charters of the Serbian rulers
did not refer to some political territorial entity.
We see that the extant material does not allow us to claim there
existed separate territories connected in such a way with the titles
of their rulers as to be mutually determining. Nevertheless, the term
"despotate" is a linguistic fact in the sources of the period with which
we are concerned here. Evidently it was used mostly colloquially and
could have designated (in addition to the above-mentioned cases) sim-
ply the "territories over which the despot rules", without being a strict
legal term. That is how we too should read it.
31 I think it is superflous here to dwell in detail on the situation in the Empire

and in Serbia, especially as it has been discussed elsewhere-Blliarsky, "The Depots",
p. 126 ff.
32 Blliarsky, "The Despots", pp. 126-33; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 22-6.
4.1.1.4 Specific problems concerning the title of despot in Bulgaria.

The history of the title of despot in mediaeval Bulgaria, although it
reproduces the Byzantine title tradition, raises some specific queries.
Foremost is the question as to how this title first appeared in the Bul-
garian state. The first Bulgarian to have carried the title was Alexis
Slav. In connection with him, the question arises as to how his title
fitted in with the Bulgarian title system. Alexis Slav received his title
from the emperor Henri, his father in law and suzerain. 33 However, he
also figured in the Synodicon, together with the tsar's brothers Strez
and Alexander, they bearing the title of sebastocrator. This gives us
some justification to assert that after 1230, when John II Asen took
hold of most of the former territories of Theodore Comnenos, includ-
ing the lands of Alexis Slav, the Bulgarian tsars acknowledged his title,
and it became part of the life of the Bulgarian empire.
The title of Alexis Slav raises additional problems. As mentioned,
until 1204 "despot" was the designation of son-in-law heirs to the
throne. The Latin emperors of Constantinople strove to maintain the
traditions of the Eastern Empire and continued to bestow high Byz-
antine titles. For instance, after 1204, despots were the dodge Enrico
Dandolo, and after him, Marino Zeno. We see that some significant
changes had taken place in the political and state meaning of the title,
for neither of the two was son-in-law-heirs to the throne. The next
despot of the Latin empire known to us was Alexis Slav. He was son-
in-law of the emperor, but we could hardly say he was heir to the
throne, especially as he was married to the illegitimate daughter of
Henri. Thus, we see the earlier meaning of the title had been lost at
that point. We could not look for this meaning in Bulgaria. During the
Second Empire, there were two despots known to history who were
son-in-laws of tsars. The first was Eltimir, ruler of Kran, but we cannot
claim with certainty about him that he had received the title in this
capacity. The second was the despot Constantine, mentioned in the
London Gospel. Neither of them were heirs to the throne. In general,
the sources leave hardly any grounds for speculating about the despot
titles of the imperial sons-in-law in Bulgaria.
The next Bulgarian local lord who bore the title of despot was Jacob
Svetoslav. His title also raises certain questions. As to where it came
33 Georgii Acropolita Opera, t. I, Lipsiae, 1903, p. 39; B<>Zilov, Familijata na Ase-

nevtsi, pp. 96-7; Biliarsky, "The Despots", p. 147; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 50.
280 CHAPTER FOUR
from, we shall only say that he probably received it from Constanti-

nople. This, in my opinion, does not refute the presence of the title in
the political life of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian hierarchic system. This
conclusion is confirmed by domestic sources, in which we come across
the name of Jacob Svetoslav designated as despot: I am referring to
his letter to the metropolitan of Kiev and the Obituary Register from
Bojana. 34
The case of this boyar is a typical example of some interesting prob-
lems involved in the title of despot in 13th century Bulgaria. As we
know, he was not content with this title and appropriated the title of
tsar, with which he is designated in certain Hungarian royal documents
but also in the obituary registers. In theory, the relation between Jacob
Svetoslav's titles of despot and of tsar is clear: this was a powerful Bul-
garian local ruler who, after winning some degree of independence for
the northwestern margin of the country, proclaimed himself tsar with
or without the direct cooperation of the Hungarian king. However, the
question appears somewhat different against the backdrop of the whole
history of 12th century Bulgaria, and put in perspective with the pur-
pose of the despot's title in the Byzantine Empire before this title depre-
ciated there. The very logic of its appearance and establishment shows
that it was linked with the sovereign's institution. Moreover, who were
the bearers of the title of despot in Bulgaria in the 13th century? They
were Alexis Slav, Jacob Svetoslav, and George Terter. The first of these
was a descendent of the first Asenides and pretender to the throne, the
second was a powerful local ruler who had unrightfully appropriated
the title of tsar, and the third was the strong man in T.:Unovo, who
later took possession of the throne. The first of these three received his
title from the emperor Henri, the second from Nicaea, and the third
got it, if not directly from the basileus, at least with his assistance. This
guaranteed to a great degree a strong and independent position for the
despot with respect to the Bulgarian ruler. Thus formulated, the ques-
tion merits attention. It appears that in the first century of the Second
Bulgarian Empire the title of despot stood in opposition to that of tsar
and, in a certain sense, duplicated it. Regrettably, the sources do not
allow anything more than conjectures.
34 Angelov B., Iz starata, vol. II, p. 143; Ivanov J., "Pomenitsi na bulgarskite tsare
i tsaritsi", in: idem, Izbrani proizvedenija, t. I, Sofia, 1982, p. 146; Stancheva M.,
Stanchev St., Bojanskija pomenik, Sofia 1963, p. 28.
This problem appears even more interesting when related to the the-
sis advanced by B. Ferjancic that the Bulgarian tsars began to bestow
despot titles late in time, only starting with Eltimir. 35 It is hard either
to support or to reject this assertion. There can be no doubt that the
title, whatever its origin, was present in Bulgaria during the 13th cen-
tury. Even denying the case of Alexis Slav, at least Jacob Svetoslav and
George Terter were certainly despots on Bulgarian territory. On the
other hand, it seems this title remained somewhat alien to Bulgarian
reality: we say this because of the discussion above and in view of the
obvious intermeddling of foreign powers in all three cases.
Indeed, during the 13th century the title of despot was apparently
somewhat displaced by that of sebastocrator. Over approximately half
a century, we see there were four sebastocrators, who were quite pow-
erful in political terms: these were Strez, Alexander, Peter and Kala-
jan. Moreover, the first two were brothers of the ruler and the third,
albeit only a son-in-law of his, seems to have dominated the political
life of the state around the year 1253. We must not forget the great
importance attached to the degree of kinship in the Byzantine system
of titles. Of course, in saying this, I do not mean to cast doubt on the
hierarchic ranking of the titles despot and sebastocrator in Bulgaria;
but we stress once again that the title of despot seems to have been
alien to the court in Tarnovo during the first century after the restora-
tion of the Bulgarian state, which may have been due to a general delay
and belated reliving of the preceding epoch.
Also of interest for our topic is how the mutual relation between
these two titles developed subsequently. It seems that during the 14th
century the title of despot replaced that of sebastocrator. The number
of Bulgarian despots known to history increases, while we have no
data about a single sebastocrator. This fact is indirectly confirmed by a
little-used source: "Prayer for the Entitlement of Caesar and Despot",36
in which the second in rank title is not mentioned. Although it is hard
to believe the title of sebastocrator dropped from the hierarchy, the
lack of it bespeaks that it had become untypical for Bulgaria and alien
to the court in Tarnovo.
35 Ferjancic, Despoti, p. 155.

36 Blliarsky Iv., « Le rite du couronnement des tsars dans les pays slaves et promo-
tion d'autres axiai », Orientalia Christiana Periodica 59, 1 (1993), pp. 106-7, 126-7.
282 CHAPTER FOUR
The question also arises as to the kinship relations of the bearers of

the title in the 13th century with the ruling tsar. The Byzantine sources
explicitly indicate that, as far as the Empire was concerned, only the
closest relatives of the basileus held the title there. This was important
above all for the bestowing of the title. In Bulgaria things stood differ-
ently, for most probably the title was bestowed here by Constantino-
ple. Nevertheless, the titles of Alexis Slav, Jacob Svetoslav and George
Terter were recognised and respected in Tarnovo, which raises the
question as to the connections with the Bulgarian court. Compar-
ing data on all three Bulgarian despots of the 13th century, we see
they were in kinship relations with both reigning families, that in the
Bulgarian capital and that in Constantinople. Alexis Slav received his
title from emperor Henri, whose son-in-law he was, but he was also a
nephew of the first Asenides. Jacob Svetoslav received his title after he
married the daughter of Theodore II Laskaris, but in this same line,
he was also a relative of Constantine Asen, who was married to the
sister of that daughter. George Terter was a brother-in-law of John III
Asen, and thereby became related to the Palaeologos dynasty. In this
case, the importance of kinship was specially emphasised by bestow-
ing the title of despot, for George Terter was forced to divorce his
first wife.
As for the relation between tsar and despot in mediaeval Bulgaria,
here again we encounter some specific problems. Receiving a title in
itself places the bearer under the sovereignty of the giver, at least in
terms of hierarchy. In our case, the situation is even more confusing,
for the persons involved received their title from a foreign power. Its
obtainment affiliated them to the Byzantine hierarchy, at the top of
which was the basileus in Constantinople. The question is purely theo-
retical, because both Alexis Slav and Jacob Svetoslav often changed
their masters, and some of the latter did not even have the title of tsar.
Which supreme state power these two recognised and what the nature
of their relations with the respective ruler was is a practical question
that has nothing to do with titles.
Regarding the 14th century, some specific problems arise. For in that
century the title of despot became closer to Bulgarian reality. However,
in referring to despots in Bulgaria, I shall mean not only those entitled
so by Bulgarian tsars, but those too whose part in Bulgarian history is
such as to warrant their inclusion in our topic. Nevertheless, the recep-
tion of the title from Constantinople became something not typical for
the Bulgarian boyar elite in the 14th century.
Why did Bulgarian tsars start bestowing despot titles at the end of
the 13th and beginning of the 14th century? We could glean some
suggestions as to the cause from the charters, which give information
about the overall increased complexity of the institutional system. The
most probable explanation is that the relatively late assimilation of
this practice in n.rnovo was due to the general delay in the process of
reception of Byzantine culture in Bulgaria.
One of the basic differences compared with Byzantine practice was
in the circle of people honoured with a title. In the time of the Palae-
ologos dynasty, there was a rule whereby the eldest son and heir to the
throne would bear the imperial title ofbasileus, while the younger sons
were despots. 37 All this was in connection with the ruler's dynastic
policy, aimed at ensuring the inheritance of the crown and preserving
the highest titles for the ruling family. In Bulgaria, this practice can-
not be identified as something established. Of the Bulgarian despots
known to us, only one was the son of a tsar-Michael, depicted in the
murals of the church in Dolna Kamenitsa. It seems that such exactly
was the case: Michael III declared his elder son John Stephen tsar;
and at least one of his younger sons, despot. In general, the Bulgarian
rulers were not strangers to the practice of declaring the heir to the
throne tsar: this is what Constantine Asen, George I Terter and nearly
all 14th century rulers did. Nevertheless, these events were not con-
nected with the Byzantine practice of bestowing the title of despot on
the younger sons. In this respect, the cases of Michael III and John
Alexander provide the most interesting material.
Of the two marriages of Michael Shishman, the only offspring
known to us are the four sons he had by king Milutin's daughter. Of
them, John Stephan carried the title of tsar while his father was still
alive. John Cantacuzene, who devoted considerable attention to the
other son, Shish man, does not mention any title of the latter, and he
would hardly have overlooked a title if there had been one. The only
mention of the other son, Ludovic, is in a Neapolitan document, and
there is no indication of his title there. The only one left is Michael,
known by his title of despot.
What is particular about tsar John Alexander is that all his sons
carried the title of tsar, an unprecedented case in Bulgarian mediaeval
history. While some of them, Michael Asen, John Stratsimir, and John
37 Guilland, "Despote", p. 61.

284 CHAPTER FOUR
Shishman, were heirs to the throne, this is not true for the other two,
both called John Asen. All this suggests a purposeful policy in this
respect pursued by John Alexander. Of course, in such a case, there
were no despots among the direct heirs.
Evidently, the single example of Despot Michael cannot convince
us that the Byzantine practice of entitling the younger sons as des-
pots was observed in Bulgaria. On the contrary, we may assert that
such a tradition never existed in our country. An interesting fact in
this respect is that, when bestowing this title, the Bulgarian tsars did
not limit themselves to the closest relatives, such as sons, brothers,
and sons-in-law. We already discussed the sons. No data are avail-
able regarding brothers, for Eltimir did not receive his despot title
from George I Terter, his brother, and Voisil did not get his from his
brother, tsar Smilets. Despot Constantine and Eltimir were the only
son-in-law. The degree of kinship was quite remote. According to the
Dubrovnik historian Giacomo di Pietro Luccari, Michael Shishman
was a cousin to Theodore Svetoslav Terter, but this was a rather distant
and even artificial relation by the second marriage of tsar George I
Terter. If we assume that despot Sratsimir received his title from the
same tsar, the "kinship" must likewise have been along the line of his
wife, and if he received it from Michael Shishman, in that case he was
related as brother-in-law. John Alexander was nephew to Michael III,
from whom he probably received the title. Dobrotitsa and his son John
Terter had no kinship with the Bulgarian ruler's family. Their policy
was mostly oriented to Constantinople.
We have before us a rather extensive circle of relatives who bore
the highest court title. This inclines us to believe that, in bestowing
it, the Bulgarian tsars pursued a different policy from that of the
basileis. The title of despot somehow lost its dynastic feature in Bul-
garia (and in Serbia as well).
In connection with the practice of bestowing the title of despot in
Bulgaria in the 14th century, another interesting issue is the entitling
of foreigners. The Empire widely used this practice in order to attract
powerful rulers to its policy. The question as to whether it was used
by Bulgarian tsars as well is of special interest, for it would reflect
on the overall assessment of their foreign policy and would provide
a new characteristic of their political doctrine. The awarding of the
highest court title, especially to foreigners, was a vivid manifestation of
the imperial idea, with which all Orthodox countries became involved
eventually.
The only country in which we may look for titles bestowed by Bul-
garian tsars is Serbia. In my opinion, it is untenable to presume Byz-
antine leaders were entitled as despots by Tclrnovo. Since we find no
despot titles during this period in Walachia and Moldavia, the only
country left is Serbia. What complicates the situation is that, after
1346, Stephen Dusan was tsar and could have granted such titles him-
self. Therefore, the answer to our question should be sought in the
preceding period. The sources afford us just one possibility, connected
with despot Dragoslav. We shall agree with B. Ferjancic that this des-
pot most probably got his title from Tclrnovo and not from Constan-
tinople.38 It seems the practice of bestowing despot titles to foreigners
did exist, but further data are lacking.
4.1.1.5. Insignia
In order to understand correctly the title of despot and the rights and
position of the bearer, we should devote the proper attention to insig-
nia. Every element of apparel and other attributes of the despot, rang-
ing from the crown to the colour of the horse-collar and the tent, were
emblematic and indicated his place in the hierarchy. Byzantine sources
make this sufficiently clear. Regrettably, we should point out from the
start that the study of despot insignia is not clearly a part of this study,
which is devoted to the language of power. This is because we do not
have available to us a description of insignia in Bulgaria, and can only
judge by the extant depictions, which are not numerous either. There
is the wall painting in the church in the village of Dolna Kamenitsa
and the picture of despot Constantine in the London Gospel. There
is one other depiction, that of despot Jacob Svetoslav upon his coin.
He is portrayed frontally, dressed in armour, with loros and stemma. 39
However, the image is such that we can hardly get a thorough idea
about the insignia and the institution that concerns us. The image is
mostly related to Western models and mainly indicates the imperial
claims of the lord of Vi din rather than his title of despot.
In view of the scarcity of domestic sources, we shall once again have
to turn to a foreign original. The treatise by Pseudo Kodinos con-
tains quite a comprehensive presentation, which enables us to form
an image of the garments of Byzantine despots around the middle of
38 Ferjancic, Despoti, pp. 157-8.

39 Jurukova, Penchev, p. 178.
286 CHAPTER FOUR
the 14th century.40 The skiadion of the despot is entirely covered with
pearls and bears his own name, embroidered in gold threads. The pen-
dants are those of a basileus but without knots and palms. The tunic is
red, like that of the basileus, with embroideries, but without military
insignia. The tamparion is red, with braids. The stockings are red and
the shoes are two-coloured, violet and red, with pearl-embroidered
images of eagles. The spurs are like those of the basileus, while the
straps are two-coloured. The saddle is also two-coloured with embroi-
dered eagles upon the similar two-coloured covers of the horse. The
despot's tent is white, covered with red eaglets. It is specifically indi-
cated that the children of the despot do not wear their skiadion in
court. The skaranikon of the title bearers is decorated with precious
stones, and the kabbadion is violet or red, embroidered with pearls if
the wearer desires.
Unfortunately, we can find no such description of the despots in
any of the countries neighbouring the Empire, and the uniforms in
the courts of Tarnovo or Skopje were hardly so exquisite. In any case,
as additional source material for our study we could draw upon the
available portrayals of Serbian despots. Nevertheless, we should use
this data very cautiously. There are undoubtedly differences compared
with Bulgaria, especially as concerns the 15th century, when the Ser-
bian rulers usually had the rank of despots.
Of course, even the data from the two depictions of Bulgarian des-
pots do not allow us to make a full description, like that in the treatise
by Pseudo Kodinos. That is why we shall touch upon some of the most
important elements among the insignia for which we have data. To
start with the crown of the despot, we see that despots Michael and
Constantine wear rather different crowns. This is how D. Panayotova
describes the crown on the wall painting in Dolna Kamenitsa: "Despot
Michael has upon his head a crown which consists of a metal band
combined with a top of thick, hard material. At the base of the crown,
upon the metal band, are precious stones (rubies and emeralds), held
by small metal clamps, and all this strewn with pearls. In front the
metal band raises in a rectangular shape (kamara), upon which is a
shining stone typical for the crown of a despot. Two pearl pendants
40 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 141-7.

hang from the crown in front of the ears."41 The Yugoslav scholars
M. Corovic-Ljubinkovic and R. Ljubinkovic note that this is a rather
archaic model crown. According to them, early Byzantine, Bulgarian,
and Norman rulers wore similar crowns, but not the same. We find
no such crown worn by any Balkan despot in the 14th to 15th cen-
tury.42 The crown of despot Constantine is of a completely different
kind. It has a gold rim with plates in front and on the sides, a large
red precious stone (ruby) attached to each plate. The entire crown is
decorated with pearlsY
What determined the difference in crowns? The treatise by Pseudo
Kodinos indicated a distinction between the despot sons and despot
son-in-laws of the basileus. In our case, precisely this was the difference
between Michael and Constantine. Not least, the two lived about half a
century apart in time, an interval that might be of some significance.
Another interesting element is the sceptre. Both despots are por-
trayed holding sceptres. The same object is found in Serbia, but is not
mentioned in the treatise of Pseudo Kodinos. Despot Michael was por-
trayed holding in his right hand a cross, decorated with pearls and pre-
cious stones. Researchers consider this to have been a sign of kinship
with the reigning family. 44 Such a cross does not occur in Serbia, but
we encounter it among the basileis of Constantinople after Theodore
Laskaris, and likewise in the portrayal of tsar John Alexander and the
young tsar John Shishman in the London Gospel.4 5 Unlike them, the
Tsar's son-in-law Despot Constantine is depicted with a red sceptre,
at the end of which is an ornament in the shape of two cones with
touching tips connected by a small ball.46 The ornamentation is of the
same material as the sceptre: it seems to be red in colour. There are
no other ornaments. A striking fact is that such sceptres are carried
not only by the despot but also by the three daughters of the tsar (his
wife and her two sisters), by tsaritsa Theodora, and even by tsar John
41 Panayotova D., "Les portraits des donateurs de Dolna Kamenica", Zbornik radova
VizantoloSkog instituta, t. XII, 1970, pp. 146-7.
42 Ljubinkovic R, CoroviC-LjubinkoviC M., "Crkva u Donjoj Kamenici", Starinar,
t. I, 1950, p. 69.
43 Zhivkova L., Chetveroevangelieto na tsar Ivan Alexander, Sofia 1980, p. 82, tabl. I,
p. 2.
44 Panayotova, "Les portraits des donateurs", p. 147.
45 Ljubinkovic R., Corovic-LjubinkoviC M., "Crkva u Donjoj Kamenici", p. 70;
Zhivkova, Chetveroevangelieto, p. 83, tabl. II.
46 Zhivkova, Chetveroevangelieto, p. 82, tabl. I, p. 2.
288 CHAPTER FOUR
Asen. Here we may seek a difference between the different persons

for whom the sceptre was emblematic. Only the autocrat and his heir
have crosses, but the cross of the young tsar lacks the decorative pre-
cious stones. Some other differences are also worth noting: only John
Alexander and John Shishman have closed crowns, but the latter's one
is without perpendulia, while tsar John Asen has a crown like that of
his sister's husband. In addition, only the autocrat and the young tsar
have a loros. The difference in the colour of their garments should also
be pointed out. All this should certainly not be disregarded: the sov-
ereign and heir to the throne are distinguished from the others. This
is the aspect in which we should interpret the difference in sceptres
as well: the conclusion is that the cross was most probably part of the
ruler's insignia.
The garments of the two extant portraits are quite similar in type and
cut. Michael is dressed in a long dalmatic with two rows of embroi-
dered bicephalous eagles in front. Constantine's apparel is the same.
In both cases, the garment is buttoned in front, and gold-embroidered
bands strewn with pearls pass across the chest; on despot Michael's
garment, the buttons are visible. Another band lies on the left and
right sides, while in despot Constantine's apparel, portrayed in full,
the band spans the bottom edge as well. The fact that Michael's gar-
ment is richer decorated and has shorter sleeves is not an important
difference. More important is the difference in colour. The garment on
the wall paintings in Dolna Kamenitsa is dark blue, not red or purple
as we would expect. Moreover, despot Michael has a shirt underneath,
of white cloth and with decorated cuffs, which is a relatively late ele-
ment. We see a difference in the belt as well. Despot Michael's belt is
far more similar to the imperialloros, although there are some differ-
ences and it is not thrown over the left hand.
We can only judge about the shoes from the miniatures in the Lon-
don Gospel, for the lower part of the picture of despot Michael has
not been preserved. A striking feature is that Constantine's shoes are
different from those of the other imperial family members. The colour
is darker and seems to have lighter and darker parts. The relation of
the colours is the same as that between the apparel of the younger man
and those of the Tsar, his father-in-law. There is also a difference in
the colour of the cushions on which they have their feet set. Despot
Constantine's is darker and the same as tsar John Asen's.
We know a few details about the portrayals of the despot's wives.
Kera Thamara, although explicitly indicated by her title, does not dif-
fer in clothes from her two sisters. Here she is present mostly in her
quality of tsar's daughter than of "despotitsa". As for the wife of des-
pot Michael, certain elements of her clothing and decorations-the
closed crown with earlaps, the bicephalous eagle, and the abundant
pearls-underscore certain specific features in the insignia. In general,
we should not forget that the wives of these titled persons carried their
title only inasmuch as it was the title of their husbands. In this sense,
the emblematic importance of their garments is restricted to reflecting
those of their husbands. Pseudo Kodinos does not mention the gar-
ments of the women.
Finally, we should say that no general conclusions might be drawn
based on the available data. Nor can we confirm the Byzantine model
was either strictly followed or disregarded. The garments of despot
Michael and despot Constantine are sufficiently different, so that we
may not discern the specific features of the despot's clothing in medi-
aeval Bulgaria, yet sufficiently alike to have the same approach to them.
Nor should we forget the different position of the two: one was a son,
the other was a son-in-law of the tsar. A particularly important fact is
that the wall paintings in Dolna Kamenitsa depict a ruler, even though
despot Michael's apparel is not a usual ruler's apparel. This is indicated
by the above-mentioned insignia and by the depiction, above the des-
pot and his wife, of Jesus Christ making a gesture of blessing.
4.1.1.6. Promotion
The insignia of despot were delivered to the entitled person with a
special ceremony. Only a tsar (basileus) could perform such a pro-
motion in rank. All titles included in the Byzantine hierarchic system
were bestowed upon specific people, usually for life. They were not
hereditary. In his treatise, Pseudo Kodinos does not say this explicitly,
but the matter would have been obvious for a 14th century author. The
very logic of the relation excludes inheritance of the title. Sources on
mediaeval Bulgaria do not testify to serious deviations here from the
Byzantine practice.47
In his treatise, Pseudo Kodinos outlines a circle of people bearing the
title. These were the closest relatives: sons, brothers, and son-in-laws of
the basileus. Of course, the sources attest that limitation to this circle
was not strictly observed. The deviations can be traced with particular
47 Billarsky, "The Despots", pp. 139-142; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 36-40.

290 CHAPTER FOUR
clarity, for the title depreciated over the 14th century. The circle of
entitled persons was one of the areas in which the practice in Bul-
garia (and in Serbia) differed from the Byzantine one. Yet this did not
bring significant deviations from the Byzantine archetype as concerns
the nature of the title and the act of bestowing it in Slavic Orthodox
countries.
The treatise of Pseudo Kodinos provides a relatively complete
description of the ritual of bestowing the title of despot. 48 Notably,
the ceremony resembled to a considerable degree the coronation of
the ruler. Another interesting source, preserved in several copies,
is the prayer for the entitling of a despot and other high titles. 49 This
was a purely ecclesiastic ritual, which makes it different from the
above-mentioned. The earliest copy, that in tsar Baril's Synodicon-
was from late 14th century Bulgaria.
Finally, we should touch upon several exceptions in bestowing the
title of despot. First is the information from George Sphrantzes that
the pope honoured Andrew Palaeologos with the title-this was the
first son of the despot Thomas. 50 We have all reasons to believe this
case to be an exception. Moreover, the papacy was certainly one of the
institutions that lay claim to be heir to the traditions of the Roman
Empire, including the Eastern one. This case offers the possibility for
such an interpretation: entitling a despot may be a claim of the Holy
See to the heritage of the imperial traditions of Constantinople.
A similar situation is evident in the Serbian-Hungarian relations. In
the second half of the 15th century and up to the middle of the 16th,
the Hungarian kings bestowed despot titles on the last representatives
of the Serbian ruler families. 51 It should be emphasised that this prac-
tice started only after 1453, when there were no longer basileis in Con-
stantinople. Undoubtedly, here again we see a sign of certain claims to
the Byzantine heritage. In penetrating into the Balkans, the Hungarian
kingdom emerged as one of the powers capable of resisting the Mus-
lim conquest. There was a struggle for domination over the peninsula,

49 The Greek original, in which the title of despot is not included, cf. Arranz M., S. J.,
"Couronnement royal et autres promotions de la cour. Les sacraments de !'institution
de I'ancien Euchologe constantinopolitain", Orientalia Christiana periodica, 56 (1990),
p. 103; Slavic texts-Biliarsky, "Le rite du couronnement", pp. 106-7.
5° Ferjancic, Despoti, p. 122.
51 For details, see: Ferjancic, Despoti, pp. 194-204.
and such domination was undoubtedly linked with the ideological tra-
ditions of Constantinople. In this sense, it is to emphasise once again
that the Hungarian kings took the liberty of bestowing titles only after
the Ottoman Turks destroyed the Byzantine Empire.
Having examined the ritual of creating a despot, we should devote a
few words to the question of how the title could be withdrawn. In gen-
eral, the hierarchic system of the Empire excluded such a possibility
even in the case of cumulation when a new, higher one was received.
4.1.1.7. Titles and forms of address
As bearer of the highest court dignity, the despot had the right to
the corresponding title and certain forms in which to be addressed.
Regrettably, the domestic sources once again provide little and insuf-
ficient data, and we shall therefore have to resort to comparisons. The
basic Byzantine sources in this respect are the acts of despots, the trea-
tise of Pseudo Kodinos, and some forms found in letters. We need not
retrace the whole development of the despot's title in the Empire based
on preserved acts and narrative texts. That is why I shall limit myself to
pointing out that, while the earlier despots were content with signing
themselves only as N. o Oemt6't'll<;, the title of the despots of Morea
in the 15th century reached its most ceremonious form: ev Xpu:ncp -rep
eecp euae~'h<; oemt6't'll<; naJ..moMro<; (o nop<!>uporevVI'J-ro<;).
The treatise of Pseudo Kodinos remains an invaluable source on
the Byzantine system. Concerning the despot, it contains a compara-
tively detailed presentation of the forms of address. 52 Unfortunately,
there are no data on the ceremony in the Bulgarian court, and we
could not look for parallels with the data in this source. Valuable
information is also contained in the correspondence manual of the
patriarch's chancery « Ekthesis nea », especially as a similar, though
far from identical, Slavic text has been discovered. 53 Here too we
come across the forms oemw-r6. ~ou and it ~amA.eia crou. Of addi-
tional interest is the form of address specifying the position of the
despot himself: 41-42 1t(XV£U'tUXe<J't(X't£ Oemto-r6. ~ou, 43 eu-ruxecr'ta't£
oemto-ra and 44 1tavemuxema-re, £voo~6-ra-re, ~eyaAo1tpexema-re. 54 In
52 Vetpaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 148-51.

53 In a 16th century holiday manuscript, archive of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,
No 31, ff. 239r-244r-c£ Biliarsky, "Ova namchnika za pittakia" pp. 233-97.
54 Darrouzes J., "Ekthesis nea. Manuel des pittakia du XIV• siede", Revue des etudes
byzantines, XXVII, 1969, pp. 56-7.

292 CHAPTER FOUR
the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences manuscript NQ 31 the expressions

used are c·z.ceHb.rw'IHTil AeCniYI'~ and &b.ce&AroHb.ro'lirrwMs AecniYI's,55
which fully match the Greek variant. All this is an interesting basis
for comparison, especially with the extant acts of the Serbian despots,
and provides the richest Slavic material for seeking a solution to the
problem. 56
Most probably, the Serbian acts bear the closest resemblance to
those practiced in mediaeval Bulgaria, and if we must seek paral-
lels, it should be precisely there. On the other hand, we should stress
that, due to the above-mentioned specific differences, we cannot use
15th century data as material for comparison. Yet comparisons are
obligatory in our case, due to the great scarcity of domestic sources. In
my opinion, the sigillion of despot Alexis Slav cannot be used either.
The act was issued in 1220, when his lands lay outside the boundaries
of the Bulgarian state. The charter itself was in Greek and reflected the
Byzantine practice, for it was not a Bulgarian document.
One of the rare texts available to us concerning the title of despot
is the letter by Jacob Svetoslav to the metropolitan of Kiev. The full
title is not given, but this is the only place where the form of address
is mentioned. It is rocnOAb.CT&o MH. 57 Regrettably, this information in
itself does not enable us to trace development. rocnOAb.CT&o MH rep-
resents a translation of the Greek o£o1to't6. ~ou. We have good rea-
sons to believe that this formula, in its Slavic variant, first arose in
Bulgaria, from where it passed into Serbia. We may also assume that
the formula LJ,b.rb.cT&o MH was used in Bulgaria, but, unfortunately, we
have no data on this.
The other source available to us is the note
-c""'
to the Lovech Code. There
M H
we encounter the expression: nrH EAOPO'ITH&~ AetnOT~ MeCb.Arb..58

Although coming from a donator's note, not a document, this infor-
mation should not be neglected. For what it is worth, it contains one
other element of the title, &Ab.PO'Ib.CTH&"l>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.
55 Biliarsky, "Dva narachnika za pittakia", pp. 2872o,2s, 28829, cf alsop. 266.

56 Biliarsky, "The Despots", pp. 142-3; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 40-2.
57 B. Angelov, Iz starata, II, pp. 143, 146.
58 Khristova, Karadzhova, Uzunova, Belezhki, I, p. 56 No. 77.
4.1.1.8. Acts
As a high dignitary, the despot had the right to issue certain acts. 59
Probably all despots, especially the powerful local lords, had their
chancery, where official documents were issued. The despot acts were
silver-seal decrees or argyrobulls, unlike the imperial gold bulls or
chrysobulls. In this respect as well, there were a number of variants
in the Empire. 60
A text that may be considered issued in the chancery of a Bulgarian
despot is Jacob Svetoslav's letter to Cyril, metropolitan of Kiev. Regret-
tably, this document is such that it can help us but little in our present
research. In both extant copies, this document is combined with John
Dragoslav's addition, but is separate from the rest of the text. It starts
with an address to the prelate and is written in the first person singular
of the despot. However, the form of address is permanently lost, as
well as the signature, the seal, and other elements. Moreover, what we
have is most probably not the full text of the message.
4.1.1.9. Coin minting
A feature that distinguishes Bulgarian despots from the Byzantine ones
is coin minting. 61 We have no data on existence of coinage struck by
Byzantine despots. The right to mint coins belonged exclusively to the
basileus, and it was not infringed upon. In this respect, the situation
in the neighbouring Balkan countries varied: mediaeval Serbia offers
ample historical information. We have extant coins of the despot John
Oliver and of 15th century despots.
Extant coins minted by a Bulgarian despot and dating back as early
as the 13th century are those of the lord of Vi din-despot Jacob Sveto-
slav. The other despot who coined money is Dobrotitsa, the ruler of
the Karvouna land (Scythia Minor). His son despot John Terter also
minted coins.
We may ask ourselves whether the authority to mint coins defined
some essential difference between the Byzantine despots and those of
Bulgaria and Serbia. In this connection, it is to point out that mint-
ing was hardly part of the set of rights defining the status of the title.
59 For more details on the acts of despots, see: Biliarsky, "The Despots", p. 144 and
Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite, pp. 43-4.
6° C£ Ferjancic B., "0 despotskim povelama", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog insti-
tuta, t. IV, 1956, pp. 93-103.

61 On the coins of despots, cf. Biliarsky, "The Despots", pp. 145-6 H Biliarsky, Insti-
tutsiite, 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. More-
over, 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 out-
side 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 differ-
ence 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 Bul-
garian despots of the 13th-14th century, for I have presented it else-
where.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
62 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 47-84; Biliarsky, "The Despots", pp. 146-61.

63 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",
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 ini-
tiated 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 aristoc-
racy, which would play a future role in the governance of the state.
In the book Alexias by Anna Comnena we learn that Nicepho-
rus 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 interest-
ing 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<; was an epithet of the basileus and signi-
fied "honoured", "holy", "divine", etc. Later we shall discuss further
on this title. Au't'oKpa't'rop is one of the most significant parts of the
titulature of the basileis. In the context of the Empire, it was con-
nected with the ecumenical doctrine and with the claims of the rulers
of Constantinople to world domination. All this, as well as the posi-
tion of Isaac Comnenos, provides even stronger grounds for paying
serious attention to the author's words that the sebastocrator was a
"second basileus" At the very start of the development of the title,
it did indeed have, in some sense, the character of m>J.L~a<nAeu<;, or
more precisely, so to say, an imperial character (as did also the titles
of caesar and despot); this was reflected in the titulature and the
insignia.
Etudes balkaniques 4 (1978), pp. 70-4; eadem, "Particularites etatiques et juridiques

du titre 'sebastocrator' en Bulgarie durant Ia periode XIII•-XIV• srecle", Etudes balka-
niques 3 (1979), pp. 53-71.
64 Annae Comnenae Alexias, voL I, Lipsiae 1884, pp. 102 20 _29; Brehier, Les institu-
tions, p. 137; Ferjancic, "Sevastokratori u Vizantiji", p. 142.

65 Annae Comnenae Alexias, I, p. 102.
296 CHAPTER FOUR
At first, the title of sebastocrator was reserved only for the clos-
est relatives of the basileis. Alexis Comnenos first appointed it to his
brother and afterwards to his son. Alexis III Angelos started giving
the title to his sons-in-law, one of whom, the grand zhupan of Serbia
Stephen Nemanja, was even a foreigner. The title existed in Nicaea as
well. After the reconquista of Constantinople in 1261, the title was
evidently quickly depreciated. This is largely due to the increasingly
wide use of the title of despot, which was not linked with inheritance
of the throne. Sebastocrator was a title that did not lose its place in
the hierarchy, but largely lost its dynastic element. A general deprecia-
tion can be seen there too. Constantine Palaeologos was the last ruler's
brother to bear the title of sebastocrator-after him all such relatives
are despots. In one case, the title was even given to Momchil, a quasi-
brigand and lord of the Rhodopes Mountains. The last bearers of the
title were from the Cantacuzene family. Subsequently, there are no
more data on this title: its use seems to have been discontinued in the
Empire during the 14th century and is not mentioned in the sources
after that time. 66
The Latin emperors of Constantinople tried to copy the basileis in
all respects, which had a reflection on the hierarchic system. Regarding
the title of sebastocrator, the only extant information, contained in a
letter by Pope Honorius III, is about Conon de Bethune.
In mediaeval Serbia, the title of sebastocrator appeared relatively
early: Stephen Nemanjic the First-Crowned received it in his quality
of son-in-law of the basileus. 67 In this connection, B. Ferjancic is right
in pointing out that Stephen was only a Byzantine sebastocrator, not a
Serbian one. In fact, the true story of the sebastocrator title in the state
of the Nemanides begins in the 14th century and is connected mostly
with the age following the coronation of Stephen Dusan. That was
the age when there were Serbian sebastocrators in the proper sense,
i.e. such as had received their high title from the Serbian ruler. 68 As
in most cases of borrowed Byzantine institutions, here too we may
observe essential, serious deviations from the traditions of Constanti-
nople: the purely titular nature of the dignity was preserved. In Serbia
as well, the title waned towards the end of the 14th century, together
66 Brehier, Les institutions, p. 144.

67 Novak.ovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titllle", p. 244; Ferjancic, "Sevastokratori u
Vizantiji", pp. 168-70; Ferjancic, "Sevastokratori i cesari", p. 256.
68 FerjanCic, ''Sevastokratori i cesari", pp. 257-62.
with the end of the tsardom. In this case, as well, we notice the com-
mon tendencies occurring in both Balkan states. In Tarnovo and Sko-
pje alike, the Byzantine tradition was strictly observed and no serious
deviations from the archetype are evident. In both states the title of
despot proved more viable, and that of sebastocrator vanished (as it
did in the Empire) much earlier.
4.1.2.2. Titular nature of sebastocrator
In connection with our topic, an interesting question is what the title
of sebastocrator was essentially. The question is whether it was an hon-
orary title that gave the bearer a place in the hierarchy and a place in
the court ritual, or else a state office involving certain functions in
the central management apparatus or in the provincial administration.
Some Bulgarian historians raised this problem, which is not present in
foreign historiography.
There are no doubts concerning the title in the Empire. The extant
source data are definite that there was no state office connected with the
title. No such data can be found in Anna Comnena or in later authors.
Pseudo Kodinos was categorical that the sebastocrator had no definite
office, unless assigned as military commander by the basileus.
The problem as to whether this was a title or an office was raised
by P. Petrov in connection with his research on sebastos in mediae-
val Bulgaria. E. Kojeeva continued this direction of interpretation. She
devoted several articles to the topic of Bulgarian sebastocrators. In
them, she categorically asserts that the sebastocrator was an adminis-
trative and military governor of a large province and had several sebas-
toi subordinated to him. I believe these claims are quite unfounded
and I have commented on them elsewhere. 69 Here I shall only mention
that, in my opinion, the Bulgarian title of sebastocrator was identical
with the Byzantine one. It was purely titular, reserved for the closest
circle of relatives of the ruler, and was not necessarily connected with
any functions of a public legal kind. Such was the essential nature of
the reception of a title: to assimilate something from abroad together
with an integral transplantation of the Byzantine culture, and not to
spoil and make a "national change" of the existing model.
69 Billarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 87-90.

298 CHAPTER FOUR
4.1.2.3. Position in the hierarchy

Within the hierarchic system of the Empire the title of sebastocrator
was initially in first place and then in second after that of the basileus.
This was directly linked to the position of the despot, which we dis-
cussed in the respective place. I shall only say here that there are
no grounds for believing that the hierarchic system borrowed from
the Empire was changed in this point. The appearance of the title of
despot in Bulgaria put the sebastocrator in third place, starting with
the tsar.
4.1.2.4. Promotion
In Constantinople, only the basileus was in power to promote a sebas-
tocrator.70 We have absolutely no reason to believe that there was a
different practice in Bulgaria. Although there are no direct data, we
may assert that the tsar gave the title in observing certain require-
ments. Initially the title was reserved to the closest circle of relatives of
the ruler: brothers and sons and, starting from the 12th century, son-
in-laws. The same was true for mediaeval Bulgaria: the sebastocrators
known to us were in some way related to the imperial family. Strez,
Alexander and Radoslav were tsar's brothers, Peter was a tsar's son-
in-law, and Kalojan was a relative, he as well. In the course of time,
the title depreciated in the Byzantine Empire, which reflected on the
circle of persons honoured with it. Regrettably, it is not possible to
trace such a development in Bulgaria. Perhaps the only sign of such
a change is the fact that there are no data about the existence of the
title in the 14th century, which suggests it may have disappeared from
Bulgarian political life by that time.
A point of interest is the ceremony that accompanied the award-
ing of the title. It goes without saying that court rituals were of great
importance in Constantinople. The hierarchical system of the Empire
required them and they were one of the most typical manifestations
of hierarchy. In his treatise, Pseudo Kodinos gives a relatively full
description of the ceremony of awarding the title of despot and only
mentions that the promotion to sebastocrator and caesar was identical,
with certain differences only in the insignia. 71 We need not touch upon
this complicated ritual again, but it is to note that this practice brought
the three supreme titles in the hierarchy together in a separate group,

which shared certain characteristic features with the basileis. Regard-

ing the Bulgarian ritual practice, we know nothing. There is not even
a mention about the sebastocrators in the extant ordo in the ceremony
of entitling a despot and a caesar. We can only imagine that the cer-
emonies in Bulgaria and is Serbia were similar to the Byzantine ones,
but it is hardly possible that the complex ritual of Constantinople was
duplicated in Tarnovo.
4.1.2.5. The address
Byzantine sources give us a relatively comprehensive idea about the
titular system and the forms of address used for the bearers of the title
of sebastocrator. The complete overview of the separate data would
take us beyond the scope of this study, so we shall limit ourselves to
examining two basic sources: the treatise by Pseudo Kodinos and the
manual, dating from 1386, for the patriarchal pittakia. The first of these
devotes a special place in chapter 2 regarding the ways of address-
ing the despot, the sebastocrator, and the caesar. In the presence of
the basileus the forms of address are: oemtot6. ~0\) ae~amo~~:p6.-rrop
and ,; ~amA.eia crou. 72 From § 45 and § 46 of the manual Ekthesis
nea we learn about the epithets of address used when the patriarch or
one of the metropolitans wrote a letter to a sebastocrator. According
to the rank of the writer and certain other circumstances, the epi-
thets were the following: 1tllV£UTUXe<Tta'te, e-byevea'ta'te, EvOO~Mil't£,
~eyaA.o1tpexea-ra-re Oe0"1to-ra ae~amo~~:p6.-rrop. 73 In § 50 is given the
form of appellation, which entirely matches the information given in
the treatise by Pseudo Kodinos.
The data for Bulgaria are so scarce that we can hardly draw any
conclusions from them. The only data that can be considered relevant,
though with some reservations, is the mention of the sebastocrator
Peter in the treaty with Dubrovnik of AD 1253, were he is referred to
several times as &HCOKoro ce&M1'0ief4\1'0f4\ 'PH4\ ne...p4\. 74 We do not know
whether this was some official form, and any assertions on the matter
would be arbitrary and improvable. That is why I shall refrain from
expressing a firm opinion, except for noting there are no comparable
cases of such a form of address in any Greek text.
72 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 149-50; FerjanciC, Despoti, p. 245.

73 Darrouzes, "Ekthesis nea," p. 57.
74 llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 15629, 15731-36·
300 CHAPTER FOUR
4.1.2.6. Acts
Being one of the highest dignitaries, the sebastocrator had the right
to issue specially regulated acts. In the Empire, these acts underwent
some development, but in general tended to be in the category of
ypa<l>'fl. 75 The signature had to be written in blue ink. 76 There are no
extant acts of Bulgarian sebastocrators, but we may presume such acts
existed and were similar to the Byzantine ones.
4.1.2.7. Insignia
We have a considerable amount of available information regarding the
apparel and insignia of the Byzantine sebastocrators. The first data are
from Anna Comnena in her account of the creation of this title. The
author informs us that Alexis I Comnenos allowed the sebastocrators
and caesars to wear crowns at festivities, crowns that were second in
splendour only to that of the basileus himself, decorated with pearls
and precious stones only in some parts and did not have a rounded
cover above. 77 The Yugoslav scholar J. Kovacevic devotes special atten-
tion to the crown of the sebastocrators. 78
The treatise by Pseudo Kodinos provides a rather comprehensive
description of the garments and insignia of this title as they were by
the middle of the 14th century. According to this source, the skiadion
of the sebastocrator was red and gold, decorated with gold thread. The
veil and pendants were like those of the despot, as was the red tunic,
except that it was without embroidery. It is not known what kind of
tamparion he wore, but we do know that the stockings were blue. The
author of the treatise informs that John Cantacuzene allowed his wife's
brothers, John Asen and Manuel Asen, to wear tamparia and stock-
ings like those of despots. The shoes of the sebastocrator were blue,
with eagles embroidered in gold thread against a red background, of
the kind that the despots wore. The whole harness was blue. The tent
was white with blue squares sown on it.79 What is noticeable here is
the use of the colour blue, which seems emblematic for this title. The
other evident tendency is towards similarity with the despot.
75 Ferjancic B., "Povelje sevastokratora i cesara", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog

instituta, t. XXlll, 1984, pp. 109-11.
76 Ferjancic, "Povelje sevastokratora i cesara", p. 112.
77 Annae Comnemae Alexias, I, pp. 102-3.
78 Kovaeevic J., Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih slovena, Belgrade, 1953, p. 240.
In general, the Serbian sebastocrators did not deviate from the tra-
ditions of the Byzantine Empire. Unfortunately, we have no descrip-
tions of their garments, but we can make some inferences based on
the extant portraits. 80 Some of the portraits are in a rather poor state,
such as that in Treskavets, and do not provide much information.
Some other interesting depictions, such as the portrait of sebastocra-
tor Isaac Doucas in St. Panteleimon in Ochrid, contain bicephalous
eagles, which are also emblematic components. We have a portrait of
the sebastocrator Vladko in the small church in the village of Psaca.
I would like to draw attention to the colours: the apparel of Vladko
is crimson. This is not typical for the Empire, at least not according
to the information provided by Pseudo Kodinos; on the other hand,
this matches the tendency for similarity to the emblems of the despots
(and the emperors), emblems that are common to the supreme titles.
The patron portraits in the Bojana church provide the only extant
data concerning the apparel of the Bulgarian sebastocrators. From
them we can draw no conclusions, nor trace a development, but they
do give us some idea on the matter. 81 Kalojan is portrayed wearing
a sebastocrator crown with a plate in front, upon which there is a
precious stone. His apparel consists of a mantle and divitission. The
mantle is green and hangs only to the shoulders without buttoning in
front. The divitission is dark-blue (according to some authors, dark-
green), long, fastened at the waist by a belt of metal plates. There are
peribrachia on the sleeves. The fabric is luxurious and with orna-
ments. Dessislava wears a crown, veiled with a thin fabric that covers
the ears, but leaves visible the hair, which is decorated at the temples
with a string of pearls. She also wears large pearl earrings. Her dress
is of a richly decorated fabric. I would like to draw attention to the
predominantly green colour of Kalojan's garments, rather than the
blue considered typical for the Byzantine sebastocrators. Of course,
this single depiction is not reason enough to claim there was a serious
deviation from the Byzantine traditions, especially as Manuel Philos
indicates green as the colour of the sebastocrators' clothes in Constan-
tinople as well. 82 This description is from a time closer to that of the
8° Kova.Cevic J., Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih slovena, pp. 49, 54, tabl XXXVIII.
81 Mijatev Kr., Bojanskite stenopisi, Dresden, 1961, pp. 16-7, table 46-50; Grabar
A., Bojanskata tsarkva, Sofia, 1978, pp. 68-70, tables I-III.
82 Ferjancic, "Sevastokratori u Vizantiji", p. 144.
302 CHAPTER FOUR
Bojana wall paintings and probably reflects a feature that was present
both in the Empire and in Bulgaria.
4.1.2.8
Having broadly retraced the basic characteristics of the title of sebas-
tocrator in mediaeval Bulgaria, I believe we may say they were not
essentially different from those of the Byzantine archetype. Even if some
specificity did exist in the concrete practice of entitlement in Bulgaria,
it could not have been of a kind justifying the claim there was an
essential difference compared with the Byzantine title. In other words,
this was a case of reception, or transplantation, into Bulgaria of the
Byzantine practice. Finally, I would like to mention the names of the
Bulgarian sebastocrators known to us. They were sebastocrator Strez
(brother of tsar Baril), sebastocrator Alexander (brother of tsar John
II Asen), sebastocrator Peter (brother-in-law of tsar Michael II Asen),
sebastocrator Kalojan, and sebastocrator Radoslav (brother of tsar
Smilets and of despot Voisil ).
4.1.3
The title of caesar is rather more problematic; it is not included in
the glossary, because it occurs only in a translated liturgical text, a
prayer for the promotion of the holder of the title. 83 No Bulgarian
caesar is known by name, nor is there any concrete information about
the activity of such a dignitary. Nevertheless, I believe we should not
neglect the prayer for entitlement of this category of dignitary, in view
of the obvious scarcity of sources for our mediaeval history. What is
important for this study is that the name of the title of caesar is like-
wise transliterated from the Greek, although ultimately the word is of
Latin origin. 84 The title of caesar is the oldest of the "imperial" titles.
Like the other two in this category (despot and sebastocrator), its ori-
gin is connected with the set of titles of the basileis. The Byzantine
x:a'icrap comes from the Latin word Caesar, which was the name of
Caius Iulius Caesar and during the Principate (in the Early Roman
83 See: Biliarsky Iv., « Le rite du couronnement >>, pp. I06, I33-4; Biliarsky Iv.,
"Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", Istoricheski pregled, II (I989), pp. 54-7;
Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. Ill-5.
84 On the caesars in the Empire, cf Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, 134 (I), I48 ff.;
Oikonomides, Les listes, 293; Guilland, Recherches, II, 25-43 [=Orientalia Christiana
periodica, 13 (I947) I68-94].
Empire) served to designate the emperor. In Rome, the title gradually

underwent a considerable decline and gave way to augustus. In Diocle-
tian'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 Comne-
nos 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 Kodi-
nos.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 sys-
tem of the country, but do not ground their assertion. 89 In fact, the
only data on caesars in Bulgaria come from the prayer for promo-
tion 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 transla-
tion 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 con-
tained 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.T<t. eme rAerri\\ ~evponAMTHCb.. 91 This is the
oldest known copy, followed by some Serbian ones and those coming
from the Romanian Principalities.
Therefore, we arrive to the question concerning the very existence
of the title of caesar in mediaeval Bulgaria. In order to resolve it one
85 Guilland R, "Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de !'Empire byzantin, le cesatat",

Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XIII, 1947, p. 168.
86 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 133, 147-50; Guilland, "Cesarat", pp. 177-86,
189-91.
87 Guilland., "Cesarat", p. 187; Ferjancic, "Sevastokratori i cesari u Srpskom carstvu",
pp. 263-68.
88 See Biliarsky, "Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", pp. 54-7.
89 Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 151.
90 Goar, Ei>xo/Jrywv, p. 730; Arranz, "Couronnement royal", p. 103.
91 National Library "Sts Cyril and Methodius", No 289 (55), f 41v; Popruzhenko,
Sinodik tsarja Borisa (1898), p. 80; Biliarsky, "Le rite du couronnement", p. 106
(note 215).
304 CHAPTER FOUR
has to value these texts as historical source, whether they were applied
in any way for the real promotion dignitaries. I have already discussed
this problem elsewhere;92 here I shall only recall the basic conclusions.
In this respect, the text itself cannot help us much. We can only note
that the Greek archetype was faithfully followed and there were no
large deviations from it. The most interesting are the differences in the
title. The title of caesar is present in all copies known to us. That of
nobelissimus is present nowhere because it seems to have gradually dis-
appeared towards the end of the 12th century. The curopalates occurs
only in the text of the Synodicon copy. We shall discuss the latter fur-
ther in this research; here I shall only note that the title is written in
Cyrillic letters, but with the precise Greek spelling and even with the
suffix for nominal case, which is not at all typical for translated texts.
The main difference between the Greek and Slavic headings is the cita-
tion of the title of 'despot' in the latter. Another important difference
is the mention of "other dignitaries" in the translated versions.
We see the differences are few and occur mainly in the heading.
Nevertheless, I would say they demonstrate the translator composed
an or do of the highest titled persons that was actually meant for use in
the respective country. The Greek prayer reflects the ordo of promotion
the highest titles in the Empire in the period of the 9th-11th century.
Caesar, nobelissimus and curopalates were the first three positions in
the hierarchy in the taktika of U spensky, Benesevic, Oikonomides, and
in the treatise of Philotheus. 93 The Slavic text reflects a similar posi-
tioning: the despot is first in the hierarchy, and the caesar is in the top
ranks. In the later transcripts (or translations), "other great or small
dignitaries" are also indicated, meaning the rest of the title-bearers.
Therefore, the source we are discussing provides the only extant
information about caesars in mediaeval Bulgaria. The possible objec-
tion that this was a Serbian translation that subsequently passed into
Bulgaria does not seem convincing, not only because, as mentioned,
the sebastocrator's title is missing from it, but also because the oldest
preserved transcript is from the manuscript of the Bulgarian Synodi-
con. The title of Caesar probably belonged to the highest strata of the
aristocracy and it is surprising that there are no preserved data about
92 Biliarsky, "Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", pp. 54-7; Biliarsky, "Le rite
du couronnement", p. 125.
93 Oikonomides, Les listes, p. 293.
it. In fact, this might be the most serious argument against the thesis
that it was present in the Bulgarian rank system. Of course, this thesis
cannot be disregarded, but I personally am not inclined to accept it.
I must again refer to the extreme scarcity of sources in this respect.
We should not forget that, for the second most important title, that
of sebastocrator, we know of only five bearers, two of whom are men-
tioned in the preserved sources only once, and one of whom is cited in
two or three places. Hence, we should not disregard a piece of infor-
mation, which might enable us to enrich our understanding of the title
system in mediaeval Bulgaria.
It would be pointless to discuss in detail the status of the caesar.
We have no other data, and these prayers do not allow us to set it
apart from the other persons indicated there: despot, curopalates, etc.
It would be interesting to know when this title was included in the
Bulgarian hierarchical system. The question is complicated by the fact
that it existed in the pagan period as well, when emperor Justinian II
honoured khan Tervel with it. 94 Despite these data showing the But-
gars had encountered this title in the earliest period of our history,
I do not feel we have reasons to seek its roots in the First Bulgarian
Empire. There are no supporting data for this, and it is impossible to
assume it was preserved after khan Tervel. Most probably, the title
had a place in the political life during the Second Empire, when the
complete hierarchical system was built after the Byzantine model. Yet
it was not widely used in mediaeval Bulgaria.
4.1.4. Protosebastos
This title is mentioned in extant mediaeval Bulgarian sources only in
connection with two persons: in a charter of the Serbian king Ste-
phen Uros II Milutin on the donation to protosebastos Pribo and in
the Synodicon, where there is a reference to the former protosebastos,
now monk Theodosius. 95 The data are such that it would not be pos-
sible upon them alone to build some notion of the title. Essentially,
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<;, which, having been an epithet used for the basileus, became
a separate title. Subsequently, through prefixes, new titles were formed
(7tavtmepcre~amo<; or 7tpOYtocre~acrto<;), which stood in a considerably
higher position in the hierarchy. 97 The appearance of the title of pro-
tosebastos in the Empire was connected with the reforms and dynastic
policy of Alexis I Comnenos, when a number of titles were created on
the basis of cre~acrto<;. The first bearer of the title was the brother of
the basileus, Hadrian Comnenos. 98 It was also bestowed upon foreign-
ers, such as the doge of Venice. Despite the general devaluation of
titles, protosebastos retained its high position in the hierarchy. Some
of its bearers were among the most eminent families in the Byzan-
tine Empire: the Palaeologos, Comnenos, Tarchaniotes, Raoul, and
Metochites. 99
Our basic information about this title comes from the treatise of
Pseudo Kodinos. In this author's ranking, the protosebastos occupies
the fourteenth place and comes immediately after the grand logothete
and before the pincerna. 100 In other preserved 14th-century rank enu-
merations, this title generally retains a similar place in the hierarchy,
with certain fluctuations between the 13th and 14th positions. 101
Pseudo Kodinos gives us valuable information about the apparel of
the protosebastos, though not by direct description but in reference to
that of the great contostablos and the great primmicerius. The garment
consisted of a golden-green skiadion, with silk threads. The kabbadion
was also of silk, as was the skaranikon, in which several colours were
interwoven. The skaranikon bore depictions of the basileus: in front
~ 6 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 37; Oikonomides N., "L'evolution de

!'organisation administrative de I'Empire byzantin au XI• steele (1025-1118)", Travaux
et memoires, VI (1976), p. 127.
~ 7 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 134-7.
~ 8 Brehier L., Les institutions de /'Empire byzantin, (Le monde byzantin, vol. II),
Paris 1949, p. 139; Oikonomides, "Organisation administrative (1025-1118)", p. 127.
~~ Raybaud L.-P., Le gouvernement et /'administration centrale a /'Empire byzantin
sous les premiers Paleologues (1258-1354), Paris 1968, pp. 180-1.
100 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinios, p. 137.
101 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinios, pp. 300, 305, 307, 309, 320, 334, 344, 347.
in a standing position; and on the back of the garment, sitting on a

throne. The protosebastos did not have a sceptre. 102 We do not know
whether the Bulgarian holders of this title had such garments. Gener-
ally, it would be hard to presume that Tclrnovo had fully copied the
elaborate and expensive court ritual of Constantinople, as well as the
garments as part of it.
There were protosebastoi in Serbia as well, but on them, not much
data are available. Stephen Dusan mentions one bearer of the title in
the time after the taking of city of Prilep. 103 Of course, best known
among the Serbian protosebastoi was Hreljo, who ruled over Eastern
Macedonia. He was certainly within the boundaries of the Serbian
State, because the Serbian king, from whom he received the title of
Caesar, confirmed his charters. 104 The origin of his protosebastos' title
is not clear. The problem arose when S. Novakovic expressed the opin-
ion that the title was bestowed by the Byzantine basileus. 105 This view
should be assessed only in the context of the same author's view that
protosebastoi were untypical for the Serbian society, and that probably
all bearers of the title received it from Constantinople. 106 The aims of
the present study exclude detailed discussion and solution of the prob-
lem for Serbia. Here I shall only note that, even though untypical, the
title did exist in Serbia as well.
The basic question we must resolve is whether the protosebas-
tos was only an honorary court title or involved official functions.
Pseudo Kodinos is categorical on the matter: the protosebastos held
no office. 107 In our national historiography, there is a view that pro-
tosebastos exercised certain administrative functions in the provinces.
P. Petrov claims that the protosebastos was a governor of a large dis-
trict that comprised several administrative units, headed by a sebas-
tos.108 This view is closely connected with this author's thesis about the
administrative nature of the position of Bulgarian sebastos; we shall
discuss this further on. Hence, Petrov draws the conclusion that the

103 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 666; Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule",
p. 256.
104 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 399-401, 404.
105 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titllle", p. 255.
106 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", p. 257.
107 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 175; Raybaud, Gouvernement, p. 184.
108 Petrov P., "0 titulakh 'sevasf i 'protosevast"', p. 63.
308 CHAPTER FOUR
protosebastos must undoubtedly have had a similar position. Apart

from this, Petrov's view has no support in the existing sources.
Finally, we should touch upon a question that is somewhat to the
side of our discussion. In the Byzantine political system the titles
"sebastos", "protosebastos", etc., designated leaders of ethnic commu-
nities on the territory of the Empire; these were usually also com-
manders of military units made up of people of these communities. 109
Such is the case of 'tov bttKpa'touv'ta Momv67toAtv !&p NtKoA&ov 'tov
Mhov Kat1tportocr£~amov 't&v BouA.y&prov.U0 Mitos in question was
not holder of the title "protosebastos" in the proper sense but a leader
of a group of Bulgarians. There are no extant data about this aspect
of the term "protosebastos" in mediaeval Bulgaria, so it will not be a
focus of our interest.
To conclude, I see no reason to contest that protosebastos, as an
institution was identical in the Byzantine Empire and in Bulgaria.
This was a 'pure dignity' not connected with administrative duties
and followed all the general characteristics of the Byzantine title. The
Bulgarian protosebastoi known to us are only Pribo and a former pro-
tosebastos of unknown secular name who was a monk under the name
of Theodosius.
4.1.5. Sebastos
There is no unanimity of scholars on the nature of this institution in
Bulgaria and Serbia, and the question has arisen whether this was an
office or a "pure title". 111 I have presented my standpoint in the discus-
sion elsewhere; here I shall discuss mainly the term and the institu-
tion itself. The term cr£~amo~ is Greek and means "honoured", "holy",
"exalted", "grand", etc. It is to a great degree the Greek match for the
Latin "augustus", which, after Octavian, became a title of the emperor.
109 Ahrweiler H., "Le sebaste, chef des groupes ethniques", in: Polychronlon (Fest-
schrift Franz Dolger), Heidelberg 1966, pp. 34-8.

110 Actes d'Esphigmenou, app. E, v. 16-7; Bozilov Iv., "Les Bulgares dans la preseance
et dans !'administration byzantines", Etudes balkaniques, 1978, 3, p. 119; BoZllov Iv.,

"Les Bulgares dans l'Empire byzantin", Godishnik na Sojijskija universitet, Istorlcheskl
fakultet, t. LIX, 1975, Sofia 1980, p. 163.
111 Mutafchiev, "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", pp. 494-5; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gra-
mota, p. 37; Gjuzelev, "Nadpisa ot krepostta", p. 43; Petrov, "0 titulakh 'sevast' i 'pro-
tosevast'", p. 52ff.; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie", p. 11, 16, 19,
26-7; Blliarsky, Institutsiite, 119ff, 125ff.
Until the 11th century cre~amoc; was an epithet of the basileus. 112 Anna
Comnena stated that Alexis I Comnenos created the particular title of
sebastos, 113 but this claim is hardly acceptable, especially as her own
father, so the same Alexis I, obtained the title of sebastos before becom-
ing a basileus. If we may believe Michael Psellos and John Zonaras, the
title first appeared under Constantine IX Monomachos (1042-1054),
who bestowed it in succession on his two mistresses. Later it was
borne by Constantine Ceroularios; Isaac Comnenos and his brother
Alexis received the title from Nicephorus III Botaniates. Hence, we
may assert that the creation of this new title was the most important
novelty in the hierarchical system of the Empire prior to the reforms
of Alexis I Comnenos. 114 At first, the title was of quite high a rank, but
quickly lost its importance and in the 14th century figured near the
bottom of the list.
Sebastos existed in mediaeval Serbia as well. 115 The charters of Ser-
bian rulers after the middle of the 13th century mentioned often the
title. Some of these cases refer to some privileges and the sebastos is
listed together with officials of the provincial administration to whom
the ruler forbade entering in the beneficiary's property.l16 Along with
this, it is undeniable that in other places, the title of sebastos is pre-
sented mostly as a title or an explicit difference is indicated between
the state and the state officials on one hand, and certain local lords
(HHHMb. rocnOAb.C'I'R08klW'I'HMb. no ~fMK!RC'I'R8 MH) on the other. 117 All
this presents a rather intricate picture. Essentially one may say that
the problem is similar to that in Bulgaria, for the data are similar. I
would specially like to note the view of Stojan N ovakovic that the Ser-
bian sebastos was not significantly different from the Byzantine arche-
type of the title and cannot be classified as part of the administrative
apparatus. 118
112 Brehier L., "L'origine des titres imperiaux a Byzance", Byz. Zeitschrift, XV,
p. 150; Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 209-10, 254; Mutafchiev, "Bozhen-
ishnikjat nadpis", pp. 493-4; Dujcev, SBK, II, pp. 316-47.
113 Annae Comnenae Alexias, I, p. 148; Brehier, Les institutions, p. 139.
114 Stiernon L., Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines. Sllbaste et gam-
bros", Revue des etudes byzantine, XXIII, 1965, pp. 228-227; Oikonomides, "Organisa-
tion administrative (1025-1118)", pp. 126-127, Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 139 30•
115 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 354-8.
116 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 177, 310, 388, 401, 407, 415, 423, 424, 455,
471, 473, 609, 614, 620, 662, 673, 680, 720.
117 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 394, 415, 613.
310 CHAPTER FOUR
The term "sebastos" occurs on many occasions n the Bulgarian

sources of the 13th-14th century. Obviously, its presence in charters
should be emphasised: 119 the Vatopedi charter of tsar John II Asen, the
Virgino chrysobull of tsar Constantine Asen, the Mraka chrysobull of
tsar John Alexander, and the Rila chrysobull of tsar John Shishman.
This creates a relatively sound basis for research; moreover, there are
several extant inscriptions: from Stenimachos, from Bozhenishki, from
the St. Nicholas church in Melenikon, etc.
It is to note that the various sources are not of equal value. Natu-
rally, the charters are of greatest importance, being official documents
issued by authorities. Among the other texts, the inscriptions of Steni-
machos and of Bozhenishki Urvich merit greater attention, as contain-
ing considerably more comprehensive information. Many of the other
data only attests the existence of the title in Bulgaria and that a certain
person held it.
We are faced primarily with the question as to the nature of the
title in Bulgaria. Was the Byzantine archetype followed or was the
title significant changed, causing the Byzantine title to become some
kind of state office in Bulgaria, so that holding it came to be associ-
ated with the exercise of certain administrative functions? In Bulgar-
ian historiography the issue was first raised about a half century ago. 120
Here I shall not discuss this thesis again; I consider it groundless and
elsewhere I have devoted my attention to criticise it. 121 Here I shall
summarise it briefly. To begin with, I should state that, in my opin-
ion, such an essential deviation from the Byzantine archetype must be
proved convincingly-it cannot be simply presumed.
It is obvious that the texts of certain charters raise a serious problem
for Bulgarian mediaeval studies. Peter Mutafchiev devotes attention to
it in his work on the Bozhenishki inscription, where he firmly takes
the standpoint that in mediaeval Bulgaria, as in the Byzantine Empire,
the sebastos was a bearer of a "pure" court title not connected with
any official duties. 122 Michael Laskaris, and later V. Gyuzelev, agreed
with this author.
119 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1514, 1898 _99, 25 28 .3 8, 2753; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota,
p. 59; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 5253.
120 Petrov, "0 titulakh 'sevast' i 'protosevast'", pp. 52-64.
122 Mutafchiev, "Bo:zhenishnikjat nadpis", pp. 494-5, Laskaris, Vatopedskata gra-
mota, p. 37.
So far, as concerns the Byzantine Empire, scholars have no doubts:

the sebastoi there were not officials and their title was not linked with
any state office. 123 The problem presents itself quite differently when
sebastos was referred to as head of ethnic group on the territory of the
Empire and had a certain measure of power; 124 but such an institu-
tion did not exist in Bulgaria and so could not fall in the scope of this
study. In fact, the main argument against P. Petrov's view can be found
in the Bozhenishki inscription: bt.~b. ceRM'I'b. wrH'kHb. &HXb. npH L.J.b.fH
WHWMbt.H'k K~MH~ H MHoro ~J\0 nbt.'I'HXb. Rb. '1'0 Rf'kMb. 'I'SfU.H ROiilbt.Xb.
bt.~b. Cb. Afb.mbt.(Xb. ~b. R'kf'k WHWMbt.Hbt. U.bf'k. 125 The text is plain: sebas-
tos Ognyan was kephale under tsar Shishman. "Sebastos" in this case is
the title of a person, while kephale was the office he performed.
The Bozhenishki inscription certainly suggests the titular nature of
the rank of sebastos. However, this seems to be in contradiction with
the data in some of the charters, mentioning together with various
provincial officials. In the Mraka and Rila chrysobulls the enumerated
persons are called not only "workers of my royalty", but also "boyars"
Does this not give us grounds to classify sebastos with the boyars; and
the other enumerated categories, with officials? This brings us back to
what P. Mutafchiev first said: the charters do indeed attest that sebastos
exercised some power; however, it was not in their capacity of officials
but as provincial landowners and smalllocallords. 126 Thus, the sebas-
tos referred to in the charters appear to be a category of title bearers.
The question remains whether such an approach to the source is justi-
fiable, especially considering that in the Vatopedi and Virgino charters
the term "boyar" does not stand besides "workers of my royalty" In
my opinion, the answer should be affirmative. That is precisely why I
am trying here to argue in support of the view that the sebastos' title
in mediaeval Bulgaria (as in Serbia, where the situation was identical)
retained the basic characteristics it had in the Empire. Finally, I should
say that the general similarity of the institutional systems of the Balkan
Orthodox countries and their origin from, and dependence on, that of
the Empire is the main argument in favour of the "pure title" view of
the dignity of sebastos in Bulgaria.
123 Raybaud, Gouvernement, p. 181.

124 Ahrweiler, "sebaste, chef des groupes ethniques", pp. 34-8.
125 Mutafchiev, "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", p. 493.
126 Mutafchiev, "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", pp. 494-5.
312 CHAPTER FOUR
The Bulgarian sebastoi known to us by name are: sebastos Tsouzmen,

sebastos Vladimir and his brother, sebastos Pribo, sebastos Alexis,
sebastos Berislav, sebastos Hinat, and sebastos Ognyan.
4.2. Officials in the central administration. Court offices

We dispose of no extant text containing detailed information about
the court of the Bulgarian tsars and have to form the representa-
tion of it based on fragmentary mentions. The court institutions are
known mainly by their designations and this fact shows once again
the importance of lexical research. However, one can generally judge
of the organisation of the court only by making comparisons. In this
respect it is worth focusing attention on the multiple indications in the
translated liturgical works of patriarch Euthymius: o GA~roR~fH~U H
XfHC'I'OAkl&HReu Ll,b.fH H~weu, HUi\\feK, o &rz.ceH noA~T~ " Rwex ero,
romoAO'r nouoAHU Ci\\, or the similar and clearer text: no.~i\\HH, rocnOAH,
RCi\\Koe H~"'i\\Ab.CTRO " RA~CTb. " Hme RO noA~~ Gf~Tikl H~ws " &ce
ROHHC'J'R0. 127 The reference here was undoubtedly to the courtiers-the
dignitaries among the personal attendants of the ruler and his close
circle. Interesting information about the tsar's court is also contained
ig the inauthentic Composed Zographou Chyrosull: c~uoro "'fb.Tor~ w
u.peR~. 128 Although this document directly refers to the time of Leo VI
the Wise, we should not disregard the possibility that the term was
present to the mind of the writer, especially as a purely Bulgar and Bul-
garian word is used here, chertog (= palace). I believe that the numerous
accounts of translation of relics, especially those in which the eminent
people of the capital city meets the group carrying the relics, contain
data precisely on the court. In these texts, the term "boyar" is usually
used, and the reference is probably at least partially to the court. We
should say at once that the sources are so insufficient that we are unable
to distinguish between the court and the eminent people of the capital,
though there probably was such a distinction.
One of the most interesting pieces of information on the question
we are discussing is contained in the history by George Acropolites and
later recurs in Theodore Scutariotes's chronicle: "Proclaimed basileus,
Theodore (Doucas Angelos Comnenos) acted as would an emperor:
he appointed despots, great sebastocrators, and domestikoi, protoves-
127 Kalu:iniacki, Werke, pp. 289-90, 295, 309, 326, 358, 370, 383-4, 392.
128 Ivanov, BSM, p. 541.
tiarioi and the whole remaining imperial order. However, being igno-
rant of imperial customs, he introduced at the foundation something
Bulgarian, rather barbaric. He was familiar neither with the order,
nor with the structure, nor with the ancient customs that existed in
the courts". 129 This is the only data that contains some information,
albeit indirect, concerning the customs and structure of the Bulgarian
imperial court. Writing about the palace of Theodore Doucas Angel
Comnenos, the author in fact points out some characteristics of the
imperial court of Tarnovo or at least reflects the Byzantine view on
it. It is to emphasise that the court was structured after the model of
the Byzantine tradition; at least such was the intention. In this sense,
a particularly important indication is that this happened after and
in connection with the promotion of the ruler Theodore Comnenos
as emperor. His emperor-style deed was to bestow the highest court
dignities in keeping with the tradition of Constantinople, i.e. despots,
sebastocrators, domestikoi, which, as we know, are titles only a ruler
of imperial rank could give. The authors, in writing about ignorance
or non-observance of the exact traditions, had in mind precisely the
traditions that the ruler of Thessalonica had attempted to observe, i.e.
the Byzantine ones. Undoubtedly, Epirus became a centre that tried
to restore the Empire and win back Constantinople. In this sense, we
could hardly doubt that the court of the newly crowned basileus tried
to appear in all respects as the legitimate continuation of the old Byz-
antine traditions. However, it would seem, there was something "Bul-
garian" about this court, or rather "barbaric" Can we assume that in
this case "Bulgarian" is set in opposition to "Byzantine", and in what
sense? The answer is not simple. Yes, "Bulgarian" is set in opposi-
tion to "Byzantine", for it is, among other things, "barbaric", yet it
is not opposed as something radically different, but as a distortion
due to ignorance. Hence, we should not believe that the reference was
to a mixture of Byzantine and Bulgarian traditions in organising the
court in Thessalonica. On the contrary, this information indicates that
the Byzantine traditions were the ones observed, but not properly so,
being evidently not well known to the uneducated Bulgarians or the
"ignorant" Theodore. I believe that this information is exceptionally
129 Acropolita Opera, I, pp. 33-4; Theodori Scutariota Historia, Biblioteca graeca
medii aevi, vol. VII, Paris 1894, pp. 468-9.
314 CHAPTER FOUR
valuable, for it clearly, though indirectly, indicates that Tarnovo

attempted to follow the court traditions of the basileis.
The renovated Bulgarian state formed an imperial court that, in
many respects, strove to resemble that of Constantinople. Thus, the
institutions examined in this presentation fit in the context of the court
environment for which they were created. However, it is to emphasise
that I am not claiming the Bulgarian court was identical with the Byz-
antine one. On the contrary, there were obvious differences, which
were pointed out in the source discussed above. The Bulgarian court
could hardly have been able to support a large staff and observe such
an expensive and elaborate ritual as those in the court of the basileis.
In summarising the results, it is to state that, nevertheless, in the
Bulgarian capital was built a court that in type and structure, strove to
be similar to the one in Constantinople. This court was an inseparable
part of the cultural impact of the Byzantine Empire, an impact effectu-
ated through the strong spiritual influence of the Orthodox Church,
of book translations, and of a way of life. In addition, the court cul-
ture penetrated into Bulgaria through the Byzantine princesses who,
starting from the time of tsar Peter, arrived in the capital together
with their retinues. However, probably the most decisive factor was
the conscious implanting of Byzantine traditions by the Bulgarian rul-
ers after tsar Symeon. They strove to copy the court in Constantinople
in order to "duplicate" the Orthodox Empire as well. In any case, an
examination of this court created first in Preslav and then in Tarnovo,
provides a good basis for studying the separate court institutions
within their own environment.
4.2.1
Here, I begin the presentation of the court institutions with the curo-
palates, who probably carried the translated designation )\fAHHTeAb
noAAT'E (palace curator). Due to the character and scarcity of sources,
the very existence of this institution and its name might be put in
doubt. 130 We know the title only from the text of the ecclesiastical or do
for promotion of high titles, one of which is the court institution that
we are discussing here: M.Arr&A HA nocrrA&AeHie KeCAfA ce me H HA
130 Biliarsky, << Le rite de couronnement >>, 134-5; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 148-56.
Regarding curopalate in the Empire, see: Oikonomides, Les listes, 97, 293; Verpeaux,
Pseudo Kodinos, 137 11 , 1752o-22·
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 trans-
lated 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 sys-
tem 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, stud-
ies 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 couron-
nement », 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 subse-
quently by other future emperors, shows its very high position in the
hierarchy but also that it was related to some degree with accession to
the throne.
The development of the institution is in itself of special interest.
Without taking into account the office of the curae palatiorum, we
should note that initially the curopalates was a high-ranking court
functionary who performed certain duties in the central administra-
tion. The sources lead to the conclusion that he was commandant of
the court guard and something similar to a major-domo. A person,
who was a relative of the ruler, held the office. In time, the curopal-
ates gradually lost the actual performance of his functions and the title
became an honorary one. 135 In the treatise of Philotheus this title was
placed among those bestowed through insignia, so among the "pure
titles".U 6 Pseudo Kodinos also asserted categorically that the curopal-
ates had once had some duties in the court (by then forgotten), but no
longer performed any functions at all. 137 Based on all this, one can state
that it became a 'pure title' by around the 8th century and remained
such until the end of the Empire.
The title of curopalates underwent a very significant development
with respect to its place in the Constantinople hierarchy as well. In
the early period, its holder was of exceptionally high rank, a relative of
the ruler, and someone involved in the inheritance of the throne. The
decline of the title began as early as the 9th century, when it was given
to some foreign ruling princes, mainly from the Caucasus. According
to Philotheus, the curopalates was in the top positions of the hierarchy,
but in Pseudo Kodinos, the curopalates was 17th in rank, and in the
15th century, the title does not seem to have been bestowed any longer,
or at least there are no concrete data about who its holders were.
In Constantinople, the curopalates possessed insignia correspond-
ing to their rank. For the earlier period, we draw information from the
treatise of Philotheus, where the garments indicated are the red chiton,
trimmed with gold thread, the chlamys, and the belt; all these were
134 Martroye, "L'origine du curopalate", pp. 80-1; Guilland R., "Le Curapalate",
Bu~avnva, 2 (1970), pp. 187-249.
135 Guilland, "Le Curapalate", pp. 187-90.
136 Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance, p. 97.
137 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 17520 _22•
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 follow-
ing 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'to<;.140 The former curopalates was called Ct1tOKOt>p01taAa't'11<;,
while the wife of this dignitary was KOt>p01taA.a't'fJcrcra. His chancery
was the KOt>p01t<XA<X'ttlKtOV.
The title of curopalates was one of those whose existence in mediae-
val 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 pro-
vides 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 Oikonomides, Les listes de preceance, p. 97.

139 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 156 (v. et pp. 153-5).
140 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 consid-
erablyampler. 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, supre-
mus 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 Pol-
ish 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-
141 Novak.ovic, "Vizantijski clnovi i titule", pp. 264-5.

142 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 Cosminu-
lui, 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.
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 competen-
cies 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 Hungar-
ian 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 appella-
tion, ~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 Byz-
antine 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 cura-
tor" 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<;. In making comparisons, however, I should recall

something said earlier in the discussion: the Byzantine curopalates
early on in time lost his real functions, and this became a "pure" title.
In Philotheus' treatise the term is included among the titles bestowed
through insignia, so among the "pure titles". In this case, the question
arises whether the Bulgarian dignity was also purely titular in value.
Assuming the thesis that it was directly borrowed from Constantino-
ple, we should conclude that the "palace curator" was holder of a title
not connected with any court duties. Now, we should remember that
the only instance of a so-called "pure" title in the Byzantine hierarchi-
cal system to occur in Bulgaria was not called by its original Greek
(transliterated into Cyrillic) name, but by a calque, i.e. by a literal
translation of the term. In all other cases, those of despot, sebastocra-
tor, protosebastos, sebastos, etc., the original sound of the name was
preserved. On the contrary, the terms indicating various offices are
usually calques. In order to designate a capacity of a person, i.e. his
title, it is not necessary to understand the semantic content of a term.
The incomprehensible Greek word even lends an additional loftiness,
typical for titled persons. In that case, why was the appellation of the
curopalates translated, and ultimately from Latin at that? This could
be explained by the fact that this was a court institution, whose bearer
really did have certain court duties. These obligations might necessi-
tate expressing the office in Slavic; thereby its contents would be made
comprehensible.
Therefore, the only sure source of information remains the text
itself. We may judge of the nature of the institution mainly by its
name: Xf~HHTe.l\1:. no.l\~~ (=palace curator). It undoubtedly indicates
care for the court, its protection, and, probably, its general manage-
ment. I already pointed out that there were actually exercised duties
involved. I would not want, however, to put thereby in doubt the
titular character of the institution. On the contrary, it must certainly
have been part of the hierarchy, as confirmed by the prayer, which
envisages a particular order for appointment of the dignitary. I should
specially stress that this was one of the highest titles in the Bulgar-
ian empire. This is the conclusion we must draw in considering the
nature of his duties as supervisor of the court or through comparison
with the position of the Byzantine curopalates, but also by the history
of the prayer, which refers to the three highest titles in the Byzantine
Empire.
4.2.2
The office and title of protovestiarios147 in Bulgaria is known only from
one Greek text, the "History" of the former basileus John Cantacuzene. 148
Nevertheless, I would reconstruct the Slavic name of the title as a trans-
literated one; I dare do so because we find the word in other Slavic
texts, Bulgarian, Serbian or from Walachia, and Moldavia. 149 An addi-
tional justification for this is the presence of the term "vestiarios"
The protovestiarios inherited the service of the comes sacrae vestis
(5th century). He was head of the private vestiarion of the basileus. It
is important to distinguish this from the public vestiarion, which is a
completely different office, headed by a xap'touMpw~ 'toU ~ecr'tw.piou.
The protovestiarios owed much of his importance to the complicated
court ceremonies, which required multiple costumes, kept in the ves-
tiarion of the ruler together with various precious items that gave the
office the characteristics of a treasury. 150 Initially the office of the pro-
tovestiarios was reserved exclusively for eunuchs, but gradually it came
to acquire a titular character. In the 14th century, according to Pseudo
Kodinos' treatise, the protovestiarios still performed some exclusively
ceremonial functions in the court. 151 In a later period, the title was
increasingly distributed among the close to the basileus people and
even to persons entrusted with military command that excluded active
participation in court ceremonies. At the same time, the protovestiar-
ios was among the highest-ranking dignitaries in the Empire: he occu-
pied one of the highest ranks in the list. We know he had the right to
the epithet ~eyaA.ooo~6'ta'to~. 152
147 Guilland, Recherches, I, pp. 216-36; Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 130-1; Ver-
peaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 134 2, 1677_11 ; Oikonomides, Les listes, p. 305; Biliarsky,
I nstitutsiite, p. I 56ff.
148 loannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris Historiarum libri IV, ed. L. Schopen, Bonnae
1828, t. I, I. 11.26, p. 458 19•
149 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 97, 174-5, 198, 200, 213, 236, 601; Docu-
menta Romaniae historica, ser. B, vol. I, 43 No. 17 (nyOTo&H"''H~fl>); ser. A, vol. I, 14

No. 10 (RHCTH~b).
150 Bury, The Imperial Administrative System, p. 125; Brehier, Les institutions,
p. 130; Guilland R, "Protovestiaire", Etudes byzantines, 2, 1944, p. 202; Oikonomides,
Les listes de preseance, p. 305.
151 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 167, 198-216; Brehier, Les institutions, p. 151;
Guilland, "Protovestisire", pp. 202-4.
152 Guilland, "Protovestisire", p. 205.
322 CHAPTER FOUR
The office of the Serbian protovestiarios 153 is important for our study
inasmuch as the institutional system of mediaeval Serbia was closest to
the Bulgarian one. Vladislav Milutinovic, dating from 1323, in which
there is reference to protobistial ]urech, first mentioned this dignitary
in a letter. Protovestiarios is mentioned multiple times in the docu-
ments of Serbian and Bosnian rulers, and in those of some local rul-
ers of lands that are now part of Albania. The preserved data pose no
problem for understanding the institution, which apparently did not
deviate much from its Byzantine archetype. In mediaeval Serbia, this
court dignitary, in addition to his titular quality, retained many of the
initial functions related to guarding the ruler's treasury.
We owe the information about the garments of the Serbian digni-
taries to the portrait of an unknown protovestiarios (Constantine?) of
the second half of the 14th century in Dobrun. 154 It is relatively well
preserved, but the figure is portrayed only down to the knees. The
notable is dressed in a garment sharply cut around the neck and but-
toned in front with a row of pearls. The sleeves are narrow and have
sleeve-protectors; at the wrists, there are also pearls (perhaps serving
as buttons). The portrayed person also has a belt made of various metal
plates, with a large buckle. The comparison with Byzantine protovesti-
arios is interesting. Pseudo Kodinos' treatise informs us that the pro-
tovestiarios has a green sceptre decorated with gold, green stockings,
and a green tamparion with braids. 155 Thus, it is hard to make any com-
parison with the data for the colour, which must have had emblematic
importance. The differences are obvious. In any case, such a deviation
cannot be proof there were significant differences in the nature of the
title in question. On the other hand, the indicated data provide no
possibility for us to make any conclusions regarding the uniform of
the Bulgarian protovestiarios. It is true that Bulgaria followed the Byz-
antine models more strictly than Serbia, but distortions occurred here
too. Hence, any assumptions would be purely arbitrary.
We have interesting data on a similar office in Walachia and
Moldavia. This dignitary first appears in the sources as early as the
14th century. We first encounter the title in the Walachian lands,
where npOToRHC'I'H~f nonwop is mentioned as being a member of the
153 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 97, 174-5, 198, 200, 213, 236, 601; N ovakovic,
"Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 261-3.
154 Kovaeevic, Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih slovena, pp. 58-9.
Council in a charter of Mircea eel Boltr~n, dated January 8, 1392. The

term npOTo&HC'l'H~f is comparatively rare, especially in the 14th-15th
century. A more frequently used term is &HC'l'H~f or &HC'l'H~f""~'
while in the 17th century, &eAH~·I·H Cl:.~fORHWHH~I:. was also in use
(March 6, 1628; January 13 and August 5, 1634; August 3, 1639, etc.).
In Latin texts from Walachia the terms used are: thesaurarius, supre-
mus thesaurarius, camerae praefectus. In Moldavia, this official was
called &HC'l'Hi\\fHH~I:. or &HCTHi\\fl:., and the term first appeared in the
Council at the time of Alexander the Good. In Latin documents of
Moldavia the names used are: wysthernik, thezawrarius, thesaurarius
magnus, supremus thesaurarius; in German it is Schatzmeister. The
thesis regarding the Byzantine origin of these institutions in the two
Romanian principalities is unquestionable. I believe it also indisputable
that this assimilation took place through the mediation of the Balkan
Slavic countries, Bulgaria and Serbia. That is why there was a discus-
sion about the similarities with Bulgarian institutions and whether
conclusions may be drawn from such comparisons. Fortunately, the
title in question was well clarified by Romanian historiography, and
this served as a good basis for further research. 156
The Romanian vistiernics preserved the original character of the
Byzantine office as managers and keepers of the ruler's wardrobe-
treasury. The Walachian vistiernic had to provide expensive cloths and
furs for the court of the ruling voevoda. In the principality, the ruler's
treasury was also state treasury, where the tax and other revenues were
kept. This fact defined to a great degree the functions of the vistier-
nic, who was head of the fiscal office in Walachia and Moldavia. 157 He
took care not only of the treasury but also of revenue collection; he
sanctioned the necessary expenditure and periodically reported on his
activity to the ruling voevoda or the boyar entrusted by the voevoda.
In Moldavia, the vistiernic had to present an account to the Council
every three months. In fulfilling his functions, this dignitary had an
administrative apparatus at his service. Among the people employed
in it, we should point out the second and third vistiernics, who first
156 Grigo~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 270-3; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc,
pp. 217-227; Georgescu V., Strihan P., Judecata domnesca din Tara Romaneasca ~i
Moldova, part I, Organizarea judecatoreasca, vol I (1611-1740), Bucure~ti, 1979,
pp. 134-5; Institutii feudale, pp. 502-4.
pp. 219-220, 224; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domneasca, pp. 134-5; Institufii feu-
dale, p. 502-3.
324 CHAPTER FOUR
appear in the sources by the 16th-17th century; their task was to assist
their chief and to keep records on collection and expenditure. The
logothete of the vestiaria was a sort of secretary of the treasury, while
the diacs, the camara~ and the scribes of the vestiaria had mostly exec-
utive functions. 158
There are extant indications that this service was continued in the
Sultan's court as well. Among the personal attendants of the Padis-
hah, those enumerated in the Kanunname of Sultan Mehmed II, we
notice the hazinedarba~t, who was third in rank and came immediately
after the kapuagasz and odaba~t. 159 The similarity between this dignitary
and the Byzantine protovestiarion seems to be additionally confirmed
by the fact that, as it would appear, he was not the most active figure in
finance management. The treasury in the Ottoman state was created in
the second half of the 14th century; the state treasury (Hazine-i Amire)
was distinct form the sultan's treasury (Hazine-i Hassa). The control
over the revenues and expenditures was exercised by the great defter-
dar (ba~ defterdar) and other defterdars, who also had their places in
the ranks of titles. It is within this set that we should also consider the
positions of the hazinedarba~z, whose very honourable position among
the personal attendants of the Padishah is strongly reminiscent, I shall
stress once again, of the Byzantine protovestiarios.160
We have already had the occasion to point out that the data on
protovestiarios in mediaeval Bulgaria are very scarce: in fact, there is
just one mention in the sources. This caused the French scholar Rod-
olphe Guilland to assert that Raxin, indicated by John Cantacuzene,
was a Bulgarian prince who had received his title from the basileus of
Constantinople. 161 This assertion basically refutes the thesis that there
were protovestiarioi in mediaeval Bulgaria or, at least, it denies the
only existing data about them. I would not go so far as to support such
a view. The boyar in question was closely connected with the court in
158 Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 221-2, 226-7; Grigora~, I nstitu fii feu dale din Mol-
dova, pp. 271-2, Institufii feudale, p. 503.

159 Turski izvori za istorijata na pravoto po bulgarskite zemi, t I, Sofia, 1962, p. 12.
160 Lybyer A., The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman
the Magnificent, Cambridge, 1913, pp. 167 ff., 247; Shaw S., History of the Ottoman
Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. I, The Empire of Gazis: 1he Rise and Dedine of the
Ottoman Empire (1280-1808), Cambridge, 1976,pp. 119-20; Turski izvoriza istorijata
na pravoto po bulgarskite zemi, vol I, pp. 12-3; see also: Nedkov B., Osmanoturska
diplomatika i paleograjija, vol. I, Sofia, 1966, pp. 49 ff., 59.
161 Guilland, "Protovestisire", p. 205.
Tolrnovo and took an active part in the coup d'Etat against the young
tsar John Stephen. All these facts make it rather improbable that he
was a Byzantine noble.
Protovestiarios did exist in mediaeval Bulgaria but it is hard to say
anything beyond that. Foremost, the indicated source does not make it
possible to answer the question whether this was an office or an honor-
ary title. During the period in question, the dignity was purely titular
in the Byzantine Empire. On the other hand, in Serbia and especially
in Walachia and Moldavia, his official characteristics as head of the
central financial administration seem to predominate. Due to the lack
of any concrete data at all regarding the institution in Bulgaria, the
preference for any one of the two suggestions would be arbitrary and
doubtful. Nevertheless, I shall present a view, according to which the
protovestiarios in Tarnovo probably had some functions connected
with the imperial treasury and the management of the finances.
In order to be comprehensive in our argumentation we shall also
present an objection made by the late Peter Koledarov. He points out
that both terms, protovestiarios and vestiarios, are present in Greek-
language sources, which raises the question not whether these offices
existed in Bulgaria, but what their exact appellation was there. We
should note that in the Codex Suprasliensis we find the term fH~b.HHU,~, 162
while in the Virgino chrysobull there is reference to AeMOCHOH"A. 163 The
latter appellation comes from Greek and denotes the same thing but
seems to be a more explicatory kind of word. Considering the prob-
lems linked with the Virgino chrysobull, it would not be superfluous
to point out that this term occurs, albeit rarely, in Serbia but only
in Greek-language acts. 164 For its part, the word fH~b.HHU.~ has the
same semantic content vestiarion, and might be a calque. The word
is certainly popular among the Slavic languages. This is precisely why
P. Koledarov stated the view that this was the name of the tsar's trea-
sury in Bulgaria during the Middle Ages, and that its chief was called
lJe.l\b.HHK'A fH~b.HHlJb.CK"A. 165 Regrettably, this author did not use the text
of the ordo for the tsar's coronation, where the term vestiarios occurs
in the Slavic language. Nevertheless, I do not exclude the possibility
162 Supraslski iii Retkov sbornik, I, p. I20 25•

163 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 1879.
164 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 492.
165 Koledarov P., "Le titulariat des boyards dans Ia Bulgarie medievale et sa protee
dans les autres pays", Etudes historiques, IV, 1968, p. 202.
326 CHAPTER FOUR
that both terms were in usage, but I dare claim that vestiarios or pro-
tovestiarios were probably of a more official kind. Of course, there
may have been certain differences in various periods.
4.2.3
The great primmicerius was one of the important officials in the impe-
rial court. 166 The term primmicerius is present in the glossary; it denotes
a completely different institution, but evidently the designation was
built on the basis of the same term-the Latin primmicerius,-which
passed into Greek as 1tptJ.1Jltrilpto~ and from there into the Slavic
npHt.tH~Kif'A· We have a single reference to the great primmicerius in
mediaeval Bulgaria: the mention of the great primmicerius Tsamblak
in the Synodicon. 167 In itself this text does not enable us to draw con-
clusions regarding the status of the court dignitary we are concerned
with here. The value of the document is chiefly that it indicates the
existence of such a dignitary. Hence, as we are once again dealing with
something borrowed from the institutional system of the Byzantine
Empire, we shall turn to the archetype and discuss the possibility and
admissibility of drawing parallels that may enable us to obtain some
notion of the situation in Bulgaria.
Although this office had quite deep roots in ancient history, the first
data about a great primmicerius in the proper sense come from the
second half of the 11th century. Louis Brehier links its creation with
the rule of Nicephorus Botaniates; while R. Guilland, with the rule of
Alexis I Comnenos. 168 At first, as most court officials, the great prim-
micerii were eunuchs. They were responsible for the duties performed
previously by the rector in the court but also generally in the basileus'
retinue. In his treatise, Pseudo Kodinos gives a detailed description
of the purely honorary office of the great primmicerius during recep-
tions. He had the privilege of handing the basileus his sceptre, which
a representative of the vestiarion had previously brought, and if the
166 This institution in Bulgaria is known only from the reference to the Great
Primmicerius Tsamblak in the Synodicon: M. Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 90,

No 135; Biliarsky, Institutslite, p. 164ff. About the great primmicerius in the Empire
cf.: Oikonomides, Les listes, p. 300; Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 1376, 174-5; Gull-
land, Recherches, I, pp. 300-32; Brehier, Les institutions, p. 148.
167 Popru:zhenko, Sinodik, p. 90, § 135.
168 Bury, The Imperial Administrative System, pp. 122-3; Brehier, Les institutions,
p. 148; Guilland, "Primicter", p. 144.
basileus handed it back to him, he had the right to hold it in hand.

This, of course, was more of a participation in the ceremony than an
actual office (of an administrative kind), but the great primmicerii had
other duties as well, which placed them, if not in the state administra-
tion, at least within the circle of court officials. The duties involved
organising life in court and the ruler's cortege. He was a high dignitary
and, according to Pseudo Kodinos, occupied one of the top places in
the hierarchy as well as in the other honorary tables of this period. 169
We also have a description of the apparel of the great primmicerius
of Constantinople. 170 He had the right to wear a skiadion embroidered
in gold, a kabbadion similar to that of the high dignitaries, and to
wear peach-coloured silk. The skaranikon of the great primmicerius
was decorated with portraits of the basileus made of coloured glass:
in front it was a standing figure; behind, a sitting one. The sceptre of
the dignitary was of gilded wood. Each element of the uniform had
emblematic significance, and if we compare the uniform with data we
have about other dignitaries, we shall get a true idea about the high
position of the great primmicerius in the Byzantine court.
The development of this institution is of special interest for us.
Having originated as a court office for eunuchs, it increasingly came
to be bestowed on close relatives of the basileus, and to have no con-
nection with the previous functions. In this way, the title came to be
linked chiefly to the place it provided in the hierarchy, i.e. it acquired
a purely titular character. In support of this claim, we may indicate
the fact that in later sources the great primmicerii were mostly mili-
tary figures assigned to important expeditions. The fact that they were
absent from the capital city excludes the possibility of their performing
some duties in court. Yet the dignity of great primmicerius did not
turn into a "pure" title, for, at least on paper, it remained connected
with some functions, albeit ceremonial ones.
The only information about a great primmicerius in Bulgaria was of
a kind that provides no possibility for drawing any conclusions at all
regarding the nature of the institution. Essentially, we have merely the
information that the office existed and its appellation. Here I should
note that the Bulgarian designation for great primmicerius was a
169 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 1376, 174-5, 18218-21> 185s-14• 3008, 3078-9• 32027•
33437_38, 344 16, 347 11 _ 1:z; Brehier, Les institutions, p. 148; Guilland, "Primicier", pp.
144-5.
170 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 155; Guilland, ''Primicier", p. 144.
328 CHAPTER FOUR
precise loanword from the name of the Byzantine institution )leya<;

1tPt!l!lKftPtO<;. This and the general trend in the construction of the titu-
lar and administrative system of the Second Bulgarian Empire warrant
the conclusion that both institutions matched not only in name but
also in their basic characteristics. In Tclrnovo, the office hardly under-
went significant modifications, but, on the other hand, we cannot
assume that it copied entirely, down to the least details, the Byzantine
one, especially with respect to apparel, ceremony, etc. Inasmuch as we
have no data about eunuchs in 14th century Bulgaria, this possibility
should also be crossed out.
The Bulgarian great primmicerius probably had some court duties,
but it is hardly true they always and effectively performed those duties.
No firm and indisputable answer can be given to these questions. All
the same, I am inclined to presume that, following the Byzantine tradi-
tion, the great primmicerius in Tclrnovo was also a court official and
supervised various activities connected with service for the ruler. He
was one of the highest-ranking dignitaries in Bulgaria; unfortunately,
there is nothing more concrete we can say about him.
4.2.4
The imperial cupbearer provides an interesting opportunity for ter-
minological study of the institution, for we have available to us sev-
eral different appellations coined in the process of construction of the
institutional vocabulary. 171 The terms used are enHKefHHH, lJb.Rb.Hb.'IHH,
'lfb.n'IHH.
4.2.4.1
The Bulgar (Turkic) word *cbVan, *cugun, 'lb.Rb.Hb.'IHH and the words
derived from them occur in many and various texts, although none of
these texts contains direct testimony that such a Bulgarian institution
existed. The texts refer to a court cupbearer, though not a Bulgarian
one.
I would like specifically to touch upon the quotation in the Roman
Paterikon, where the word 'lb.Rb.Hb.'IHH in manuscript Pogodin No. 909
is replaced in Tolstoy's copy with 'lf'll.n'IHH. 172 The semantic connection
171 Biliarsky, "Primeri za ranno vlijanie na Imperijata", pp. 25-6.

m Tikhova M., "Zamjana na prabulgarskite dumi v Rimskija paterik", Godishn ik na
Sofijskija universitet. CSVP "Ivan Dujcev", t. I, 1987, pp. 302, 306.
between the two is obvious, although they have nothing in common

etymologically. LJprz.nlJHH or lJprz.nlJHh\ comes from the Palaeoslavic
verb *C1Jrpd, *cer(p)ti, which is current in all Slavic languages and has
a link with the connotation of "to cut", "sword", "sheath" and words
related to these. 173 It is from them ultimately that the modern meaning
of "qeprr.H" (= to treat, esp. with beverages) in contemporary Bulgar-
ian is derived. As for the etymology of lJb.Rb.Hb.lJHH or lJb.Rb.Hb.lJHh\ in
the sense of "cup-bearer",174 it is completely different and is related in
origin to the words lJb.Rb.Hrz. or lJb.Rb.Hb.U.b., which is "a vessel with a spe-
cific capacity" or cast iron, the material of which the vessel is made. 175
Hence comes the verb lJI:.Rb.HORb.TH, which means "to pour out", "to
pour into" 176 and, understandably, "to mix" in such a vessel, which in
turn leads to the adjective lJb.Rb.H'll.IH, signifying "mixed", a word that
was preserved until the end of the Middle Ages. 177 All this inevita-
bly leads us to the etymology of the Byzantine name for the institu-
tion 1ttyx:epv11~ (or hm::epvta~), connected with the verb httx:ep&wuJ.Lt,
meaning "to pour upon", "to mix". 178 Such a comparison inevitably
implies the conclusion that not only did the Bulgarian institution of
lJb.Rb.Hb.lJHH, i.e. the ruler's cupbearer, have for its archetype the corre-
sponding institution of the court in Constantinople, but also the name
itself for it was coined from the Bulgar (Turkic) language after the
model of the Byzantine term.
At the same time, we should ask what the relation was between the
terms lJb.Rb.Hb.lJHH and lJprz.nlJHH in the Bulgarian administrative nomen-
clature. This will remain an open question, but I would like to point
out that l!prz.nlJHH is a clearer and more comprehensible appellation,
while, as (ar as I am aware, the word lJb.Rb.Hb.lJHH used as other than a
173 Slovar' drevnjago slavjanskago jazyka, sostavlennyj po Ostromirovu Evangeliju F.

Mikloshichu, A. H. Vostokovu, fa. I. Berednikovu, I. S. Kochetovu, ed. A. S. Suvorina,
St Petersburg. 1892, pp. 926-7; Sreznevskij I. 1., Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskago
jazyka po pis'mennym pamjatnikam, vol III, St Petersburg, 1912, col. 1567; Vasmer,
IV, p. 346.
174 Slovar' drevnjago slavjanskago jazyka, sostavlennyj po Ostromirovu Evangeliju,
p. 919; Sreznevskij, Materialy, vol. III, KOJL 1554.
175 Slovar' tserkovno-slavjanskago i russkago jazyka, t IV, St Petersburg, 1847,
p. 427; Slovar' drevnjago slavjanskago jazyka, sostavlennyj po Ostromirovu Evangeliju,
p. 918; Sreznevskij, Materialy, vol III, KOJI. 1554; Tikhova, "Zamjana na prabulgarskite
dumi v Rimskija paterik", p. 302.
176 Sreznevskij, Materialy, vol. III, KOJL 1554.
177 Sreznevskij, Materialy, vol. III, KOJL 1554.
178 A. Bally, Dictlonnaire grec-franfais, Paris, Hachette, 1950, p. 753.
330 CHAPTER FOUR
technical term would be meaningless. That is why I shall dare to state

the opinion that this was precisely the word used as an institutional
name with the characteristics of a legal term, while "'f'll.n"'HH was closer
to a descriptive designation for the institution.
4.2.4.2
The designation enHKefb.HH, eni'~eepHH, HnHKefb.HH occurs multiple times
in the sources on mediaeval Bufgarian history. 179 As we can see, the
word is of Greek origin, and the institution is part of the general influ-
ence that the court life of Constantinople exercised over Tarnovo.
In the Byzantine Empire, the earliest extant document containing
mention of the imperial cupbearer dates from the rule of the basileus
Leo VI. This official was usually called bttKepvtOc; or 1ttyKepv11c;. His
function was to take care of the emperor's wines and to serve the drinks
at big feasts. This caused his close relations with the ruler. Initially only
eunuchs held the office. The general change in court culture and court
life in the last centuries of the Empire had an impact on this institution
as well. The imperial epicernius was no longer a eunuch-in general,
there were almost no eunuchs in the court by that time. In Pseudo
Kodinos' treatise, this official occupied the 14th rank in the list. 180
The basic question posed to our research is whether under the Palae-
ologos dynasty the epicernius became a merely honorary title, which
provided no more than a place in the hierarchy and did not involve
any functions, any real service. The authors who have written on the
topic insist that this was the case. When he is referring to a "pure"
title, Pseudo Kodinos explicitly indicates there were no functions at all
attached to it. Nevertheless, in this particular case this is not exactly
so. The ceremonial office of the epicernius is explicitly noted. 181 We
know also that it was possible to bestow some of the titles only because
of their place in the hierarchy and without any real connection with
duties for the concrete title-holder, although such duties did exist in
179 Zlatarski, "Zhitie i zhizn"', p. 12; Ivanov J., "Bulgarski i vizantijski prlisteni",
Izvestija na Bulgarskoto arkheologichesko druzhestvo, II, fasc. 1, 1918, p. 2, table 1;
Antonova V., "Novootkrit starobulgarski nadpis ot Shumenskata krepost", Izvestija
na narodnija muzej v Kolarovgrad, 4, 1967, pp. 81-2; Popuruzhenko, Sinodik, p. 90;
Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 291.
180 Oikonomides, Les listes de preceance, pp. 1355, 306; Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos,
p. 137; Bury, The Imeperial Administrative System, p. 128; Brehier, Les institutions,
p. 134; Guilland R, "Le Maitre d'Mtel de l'empereur", Etudes byzantines, 3 (1945),
pp. 188-89.
181 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 175 17, 207-18.
principle. In this sense, the respective title-office was given as a "pure"

title. Examples of this could be supplied, including pincerna. However,
when discussing this institution, we must note that it never completely
lost its ceremonial functions; in this sense, we have no right to classify
it among the "pure" titles. 182
Like the other title-bearers, the pincerna had his insignia corre-
sponding to his place in the ceremonial. Owing to Pseudo Kodinos,
we know that the pincerna's apparel was like that of the great prim-
micerius, but without the sceptre. 183
A similar office, but with some difference in the name, existed in
the court of the Serbian rulers. Stojan Novakovic asserts that the name
paharnik exemplifies the greatest degree of distancing of the Bosnian
court from the Byzantine traditions. 184 Yet undoubtedly the Serbian
appellation enohiar, derived from the Greek term oivox6o~, proves
the opposite to be true. As for the office itself of this dignitary in
the Serbian lands, there can be no doubt that it broadly followed the
Byzantine archetype: his duties concerned the ruler's wine and serving
at receptions. 185
Considerably more data can be obtained from the charters of the
Walachian and Moldavian princes. In Walachia, the institution is usu-
ally called n~x~fHHK'A or 'I~WHHK"A; 186 in only one case is it nH'IefHHK"A. 187
It is obvious from the name that this official's occupation was con-
nected with the ruler's wine. 188 His task was to take a sip from the
cup to verify the drink was not poisoned. He personally served only
at the great feasts; on other occasions, his subordinates took his place.
These duties show the paharnic to have been a person close to and very
highly trusted by the ruler. However, these functions were only the
official aspect of the office. The main task of this dignitary was to take
care of the ruler's vineyards and wine cellars and to collect the rev-
enues from this production, for instance, the tithe on wine. This office

186 DRH, ser. B, vol. I, Na 52, 56, 58, 60, 61 etc.; Dicfionarul elementelor romane~ti
din documenteleslavo-romane (1374-1600), Bucure~ti, 1981, pp. 37-8.

187 DRH, ser. B, vol. I, No. 17 p. 43 (8 .1. 1392).
188 Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 273-6; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domnesca,
pp. 135-6; Institufii feudale, p. 350.

332 CHAPTER FOUR
grew in importance in the 16th century, when the epithet "great" was
added to the name and he was included among the high dignitaries.
In Moldavia, the dignitary under study was called lJb.WHHKI:.; in Latin-
language documents, he was referred to as paharnig or pincerna. 189 The
office was identical with that of the respective Walachian dignitary, but
here there are no data indicating military attributions. 190 Being excep-
tionally close to the ruler, in the 16th-17th century he was among the
personal attendants of the prince.
Of interest for our research on this topic is the considerable vari-
ety of terms designating the cupbearer in Walachia and Moldavia:
lJb.WHHK'll., nb.)(b.fHHK'll., nHlJefHHK'll., etc. This raises the question how
admissible it is to compare the situations in the Byzantine Empire
and in Bulgaria. Of course, there was a similar office in the courts of
all rulers in mediaeval Europe: such was the French grand echanson,
the German Mundschenk. In Hungary, a similar institution was called
regalium magister or paharnok, but there this official did not have any
special power or importance in the court. In Poland, the cupbearer
performed typical court duties and had at his command a whole appa-
ratus of subordinates. It should be noted here that the essential differ-
ences between the above-mentioned officials and dignitaries and those
in the courts in Constantinople and the other Balkan countries were
rooted in some typical differences in the respective court cultures. The
mystic reverence for the basileus conferred a special role for his per-
sonal attendants in a quasi-religious ritual; this in turn defined the
place of these attendants in the hierarchic structure of society. Hence,
we should take into consideration that Walachia and Moldavia were,
in purely geographic terms, at the borderline between the two Chris-
tian worlds; after surviving the conquests in the 15th century, the two
principalities passed the temporal divide between two different ages
that defined the destiny of the nations of southeastern Europe. This
reflected in the above-mentioned appellations. Most impressive of all
is the use of the term nHlJefHHK'll., which is the earliest of all and dates
back to the end of the 14th century. There is no doubt that this word
is a transliteration of the Greek 1tt"(KepV11c;, probably through the Bul-
garian enHKepHHH. This attests the greater influence of the countries
189 DRH, ser. A, vol. I, Na 13, 23-25, 27-32 etc.; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, p. 277.
p. 277.
south of the Danube during that earlier period. For its part, the term
most often used in Walachia, n4\,Xb.pHH~'ll., also points to traces of South
Slavic influence, but mostly that of Serbia and Bosnia. The typical Mol-
davian word '14\WHH~'ll. seems to display an influence coming mostly
from Poland and Lithuania. As I have already had the occasion to
point out, the variety of terms is due, in my opinion, to the variety
of the respective traditions. The situation in Walachia and Moldavia
was not simple, but after the overview presented above, I believe we
may assert that in both principalities the traditions of the Byzantine
Empire were predominant, having probably come through Bulgaria
and Serbia.
Our available data indicate that the pincerna was one of the highest-
ranking persons in the Bulgarian Empire. This position was frequently
occupied by relatives of the ruler. The exceptionally high position of
this dignitary in Bulgarian society of the late Middle Ages is attested
by the fact that he possessed the right of ktitor, i.e. the right to create
monasteries. This indicated his serious social level but also provided
great possibilities for him in his quality of donor.
In summary, we have all reasons to claim that the pincerna dignity
in mediaeval Bulgaria did not differ much from the archetype in the
Byzantine Empire or from the parallel institutions in Walachia and
Moldavia. This was a high-ranking titled noble belonging to the closest
circle of the ruler. His immediate task was to take care of the wine at
the ruler's table, and he personally served at table for important feasts.
In connection with this, he also had duties in managing the vineyards
and wine cellars of the ruler, as well as the probable responsibility
for collecting the tithe on wine. The great pincerna presumably had
his apparatus of subordinates, but the sources contain no data about
them. Strict faithfulness to the preserved texts does not permit draw-
ing any conclusions more concrete than this.
Thus, in tracing the names of the imperial cupbearers, we gain the
rare opportunity of reconstructing the terminological development
of a court institution in the First and Second Bulgarian Empire. The
path of the term started with the creation of the Bulgar (Turkic) word
based on the Greek appellation for cupbearer. This indicates a presum-
ably early assimilation of the institution, at a time when the Bulgar
language was still actively in use in the administration and govern-
ment structures. We can claim nothing more concrete than this, for
lack of data. The byzantinisation of the political structures, of law, and
other institutions during the Second Bulgarian Empire reflected in the
334 CHAPTER FOUR
court official in question. The Bulgar word dropped and the Greek
term was accepted instead. It is to note that in the Bulgarian admin-
istrative nomenclature, the title retained its original and fullest form,
bttKepvtO~/enH~efHHH/ 91 which did not exist even in the court in Con-
stantinople, where the brief form 1tt"((Cepv1l~ was in use. Thus, we can
retrace and confirm our basic conclusions from the study of Bulgarian
mediaeval administrative terminology as a whole.
4.2.5
The stolnik (C'J'OAHH~'A) was the person who took care of the imperial
table; he is presented in the glossary. 192 The name of the institution was
formed based on the Greek o €xl 'til~ -rpcm£~11~/ 93 and the substanti-
ated name was formed from -rp6.xe~a/CTOA'A (= table) according to the
grammatical rules of the Slavic language. We know the term only from
the inscription on a gold ring that once belonged to Slav, stolnik of the
tsar. 194 Of course, this single piece of information may attest only that
the institution existed; it cannot serve as a basis for its full interpreta-
tion. For the latter purpose, we shall have to turn once again to the
corresponding offices in the neighbouring Balkan countries and above
all in the Byzantine Empire.
A special staff took care of the imperial table in Constantinople;
the staff was headed by a court functionary called, as already indi-
cated: o€xl 'til~ -rpax£~'11~· By the 7th century, this had become a rather
important position. Although mentioned multiple times in the treatise
of Philotheus, 195 the title did not have a place in any of the honorary
tables dating from the period of the 9th-10th century. This was one of
the court institutions reserved for eunuchs. The name itself makes it
clear that this was a person who took care of the table-of provisions
1 ~1 About the pincerna in Bulgaria, see: Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 167-77.

1 ~2 The term is known only from the ring-seal of stolnik Slav, cousin of the tsar: cf.
Ph. Malingoudis, Die mittelalterlichen kyrillischen Inschriften der Haemus-Halbinsel,
Tell I, Die bulgarischen Inschriften, Thessaloniki, 1979, p. 103; Biliarsky, Institutsiite,
pp. 177-81.
1 ~ 3 Oikonomides, Les listes, pp. 305-6; Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 1382, 1571slf.•
207 ff.; Guilland, Recherches, I, pp. 237-41.
194 Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 291; Malingoudis, Die kyrillische Inschriften, p. 103.
1 ~ 5 Oikonomides, Les listes de pereseance, pp. 974 , 135 1_ 2 etc.
and of the special banquet ceremonial,196 For this purpose, he had spe-
cial servants under his command.
After 1204, the importance of the stolnik began to grow. In Pseudo
Kodinos he is present in the list and occupies a place in the middle
range of ranks. 197 This author provides data about his special uniform:
an embroidered skiadion, a silk kabbadion and a golden-red sceptre. 198
The stolnik in the court at Constantinople retained his table-serving
duties, albeit markedly ritual ones, at the imperial table. 199 Neverthe-
less, it is to note that there was a perceptible tendency for this court
office to acquire an increasingly ceremonial character and to turn into
a title. There were many cases when it was bestowed on persons only
to provide them a place in the hierarchy, so that the respective digni-
tary was not engaged with actual care for the banquets in court. Under
the basi leis in Nicaea and under the Palaeologos dynasty many known
members of the ruling dynasty held the title.
In mediaeval Serbia, the term stolnik does not figure in the sources,
but we do find the appellation CT~RHAb.L.J,b. 200 used several times. The
earliest mention of the word dates from the time of king Stephen
Decanski, and most mentions are from the time after the reforms
made by tsar Stephen Dusan. This is enough to suggest there was an
increasing closeness to the Byzantine tradition. In this respect, Stojan
Novakovic categorically asserted that the Serbian CT~RHAb.L.I,b. was an
institution corresponding to the Byzantine o e1tt Tile; .,;pa.1te~'ll<;·
We have considerably more information about the lands north of
the Danube. The stolnik was part of court life both of the Walachian
and the Moldavian principalities. 201 We encounter him as early as the
14th century: in Walachia in 1392 and in Moldavia in 1393. A great
variety of names was in use to designate this institution. The most
frequently encountered one, of course, is CTOAHH~'l., but we also find
Tf~ne~OCTfOHTeAb. (March 6, 1628), while in Latin documents and some
narrative sources there is stolnig, magister mensarum, dapifer, cucinae
196 Bury, The Imperial Administrative System, pp. 125-6; Guilland, "Maitre d'hOtel",
pp. 179-180; Olkonomides, Les listes de pereseance, pp. 305-6.
197 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. B82.
198 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 15715-23·
199 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 207-18; Guilland, "Maitre d'hOtel", pp. 181-5.
200 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 298, 653, 691; Novakovic, "Vizantijski
cinovi i titule", pp. 252-4.
201 Stoicescu, Sfotul domnesc, pp. 280-4; Institifii feudale, p. 456; Dicfionar elemen-
tilor romtlne~ti, p. 223.
336 CHAPTER FOUR
praefectus, supremus dapifer. The functions of the stolnik directly

involved serving the ruler's table: he took care of the provision and
preparation of the food, he personally served the ruler on important
holidays, and he even performed the duty of tasting the dishes to make
sure the food was not poisoned. In the performance of these tasks,
their staff assisted the Walachian and Moldavian stolniks.
Unfortunately, based on the Bulgarian data alone we cannot assert
anything other than the fact of the existence of the institution. I believe
the observations made above give us sufficient grounds for the conclu-
sion that it was common to all the Balkan countries that allows the
comparison of the Bulgarian stolniks with corresponding officials in
the Byzantine Empire, Serbia, and the Romanian principalities. There
can be no doubt that in Tarnovo this dignitary also took care of the
tsar's table. There are no data for Bulgaria indicating the apparatus of
people subordinate to this official. He most probably did have such
staff, but there is no information about it.
Regarding a study of the vocabulary, it should be emphasised that
the stolnik was one of the few court offices-titles the name of which
was translated into Slavic. The cause for this was probably the need
to indicate his duties with respect to the tsar's table and everything
connected with it.
4.2.6
The name of the great comes of the imperial stables is conjectured, for
we do not find it in any Bulgarian text. We find some information
about the existence of this court office in the letter of Pope Innocent
III, where the author refers to comestabulus Sergius. 202 We may assume
the data in certain charters are also relevant; there we find the words
KOUHCb. Cb. KOHb.UH and KOUHCb.. 203 It is obvious that the two cases do
not refer to the same office, for in one case the reference is to a high
functionary in the capital city, while in the other to middle-level pro-
vincial officials. Yet there can be no doubt these were officials belong-
ing to the same system, the nature of which we shall try to clarify.
The name of the institution arrived to us only in its Latin form
(or perhaps translated?)-comestabulus-because the mentions are
202 Dujcev, "Prepiskata na papa Inokentija III", No. IX p. 31, No. X p. 33, No. XVI
p. 45.
203 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1899 _100, 29 10; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52s6·
preserved only in three Latin-language documents coming from the

chancery of the Holy See. This fact makes the institution not par-
ticularly suitable for a terminological study. Despite this, I believe it
should not be excluded from that research. In my opinion, we have
reason to believe that it sounded similar in Bulgarian, for that is how it
sounded in Greek. In fact, this was a case of a transcribed Latin term.
In Bulgarian the word KOMHCb. comes from the Greek KOJ.L1lc;, which in
turn is a transliteration of the Latin comes, -mitis. Having in mind the
strong influence of the Byzantine Empire over the Bulgarian institu-
tional system, we should look for the archetype of this office mostly in
Constantinople. Of course, there were persons charged with care for
the horses and stables of the ruler in all European courts, but our main
attention should be focused on two Byzantine institutions: KOJ.L1lc; tot>
crtauA.ou and J.L£yac; KOVtocrtauA.oc;.
The office of KOJ.L1lc; taU crtauA.ou (i.e. "comes of the /imperial/stables")
occurs quite often in the taktika until the end of the lOth century. 204
This official took care of the horses of the basileus, specifically collect-
ing and feeding them. In the lOth century, he had rather wide powers,
especially in time of war. During military campaigns, he commanded
the convoys, while in time of peace, in the capital, he accompanied the
basileus on the way back from the church of the Holy Apostles. The
institution is mentioned for the last time in the Escorial taktikon (Tak-
tikon of Oikonomides) and most probably disappeared towards the
end of the 11th century. In 14th-century sources we find a KOJ.L1lc; t&v
~acrtAtK&v inm&v, who could not have held a place in the hierarchy,
for he is not indicated in Pseudo Kodinos' list. In my opinion, it is pre-
cisely the office of KOJ.L1lc; tot> 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 con-
nection, he took part in administrating the incoming tax in kind on
hay, while in Moldavia he also managed the forest reserve around the
river Prut, helped in this by his subordinates, the brani~tari. The great
comes would accompany the ruler in horseback riding. In addition,
he supervised the delivery of horses that were owed by Walachia and
Moldavia in tribute to the Sublime Porte. He attended the feasts for
Epiphany and Saint George's day, at which the horses were displayed,
including the horse presented as a gift to the prince by the sultan.
I believe it is fully justified to assert that the Romanian institution
was closely connected with, and probably originated from, the Bulgar-
ian one. The very name attests it. In the Slavic documents, it is given
as KOMHCb, or, more rarely and in more distinguished documents, as
KOHtoW or KOHO.Xf~HwreA (cf. a Moldavian charter of January 20, 1657).
In the Latin-language documents, this official was called magister aga-
zonum, agazonum magister alias comiss, stabuli praefectus, agazonum
et stabuli praefectus. After all, the Slavic names were the original ones,
which make it possible to draw conclusions, based on the similarity,
about the situation in Bulgaria and to obtain a fuller idea about the
institution in Tarnovo.
The situation in Bulgaria could hardly have been very different, but
still, we should address some important questions. First is the problem
as to the exact appellation of the office. The Latin form comestabu-
lus could serve as a reference point. I believe we may assert with a
relatively large degree of certainty that the name was built around the
word "comes" This is the conclusion to which we are led by the pre-
served Latin form and by parallels with Constantinople, Walachia, and
Moldavia, but above all by the occurrence of "comites" in the charters.
Of course, the form comestabulus could be translated and be a word
that matches the meaning rather than a transliteration, but this does
not provide a solution and only makes it harder to get to the single
possible solution. Yet we should say with regret that the presence of
the element "comes" is the only thing that can be claimed with relative
certainty as regards the name we are looking for. It is highly probable
this official was called "great" or that he was connected with the impe-
205 Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 293-8; Institufii feudale, pp. 111-2.
rial stables in order to emphasise his position in the capital, but there
is no direct information to support this.
As to the nature of the obligations of this court official, I believe no
serious differences of opinion could arise. He looked after the ruler's
horses, supervised the imperial stables and their maintenance, the rais-
ing of horses and provision with fodder. Presumably the great comes
was in charge of a large service, with divisions in Tarnovo and in the
country. Regrettably, almost nothing certain can be asserted regarding
the organisation of this service, its connection with the administration
of the receipt of certain taxes or the fulfilment of corvees relevant to
the above-mentioned activity.
I believe that we have very good reasons to conclude that the great
comes was one of the high-ranking dignitaries at the imperial court.
This is attested by the nature and importance of his service, by parallels
with neighbouring countries, but also by the data on the comestabulus
Sergius. In the letter by Pope Innocent III, this official is presented
as a very influential man and as one of the envoys of the Holy See;
subsequently he continued the mission after the archbishop Basil was
detained in Durazzo. Of course, this man could not have been just
anybody. He is the only person to hold the office whose name has
come down to us.
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 con-
nected with a serious shift of competencies, or rather the actual man-
agement 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 concen-
trated 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 borrow-
ing the whole structure to which they belonged. The same observations
can be made based on the charters issuing from the tsar's chancery: in
their features, they followed the Byzantine models.
I should emphasise beforehand that we can hardly claim the two
chanceries were identical. Bulgaria could neither repeat nor ignore
the thousand-year-old tradition of the Byzantine Empire. The history
of the imperial chancery is exceptionally interesting. It became one
of the basileus' offices closest to and most trusted by him. This was
perhaps the best place to start a career in the administration. Along
with this, the chancery offices, except for the highest ones, were never
included in the hierarchy system. Unlike the people personally serving
the basileus, and although they were to a greater degree the true trans-
missions of state power, none of these functionaries gained a particu-
larly high place on the list because of their office alone. This provides
yet another reason to dispute seriously the view that the titular system
and the governing apparatus in the Empire coincided.
The imperial chancery in Constantinople exercised a strong impact
on nearly all Balkan countries. This was due to the overall cultural
radiance emitted by the Empire towards the Orthodox world, but also
to the direct contacts with this office, which was entrusted precisely
with foreign relations. The Serbian rulers built their own chancery to
fulfil the need of administrative service for the conquered former Byz-
antine territories in Macedonia, Thessaly, and Epirus. The issue is even
more complicated for Walachia and Moldavia, where there was Slavic,
Greek, and Latin were all used in the chancery simultaneously. Work-
ing in them required quite a good education and knowledge of diplo-
matic practices that at times differed considerably. We know about the
division of competencies between the different logothetes in them, the
diaks, the scribes and other lower level staff.
In the course of this overview, I would like to mention also the
chancery in the Ottoman sultans, which inherited many of the Byzan-
tine traditions. The person who headed it was the "ni~anet''; and the
chief secretary, "kalfa" The great vizir also had a chancery of his own,
headed by an official called "reisulkUtab" The scribes played an impor-

tant 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 gram-
matiks. 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 activ-
ity, 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 collec-
tion 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 Alex-
ander, dating from 1337,209 and the logothete Peter, who took care of
certain estates in Nicopolis. 210 Unfortunately, this last piece of infor-
mation 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 orienta-
tion and suggests we look for some functions in the ruler's chancery.
206 Popruzhenko, Sinodik, p. 90 § 137.

207 Tsonev B., Opis na rakopisite i staropechatnite knigi v Sojijskata narodna bib-
lioteka, t. II, Sofia, 1923, p. 200; Kotseva E., "Pripiska 1350-1360 g. v sbornike Pyrvo-
slava", Byzantinobulgarica, t. VI, 1980, p. 253.
208 The logothete, husband of Zoe was not a Bulgarian but a Walachian dignitary-
Popruzhenko, Sinodik, p. 90.

209 Kodov Khr, Opis na slavjanskite rakopisi v bibliotekata na BAN, Sofia, 1969,
p. 15.
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 pre-
served 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 differentia-
tion ("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 ref-
erence to "great logothete" and "great logothetstvo" (= logothetehood,
the office of a logothete): the document is a charter of King Stephen
211 Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 254-5; Guilland, "Les logothetes", pp. 5-8.
212 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, 1378, I74; Brehier, Les institutions, pp. IOI-3,
276-7; Guilland, "Les logothetes", p. 5-I6; Oikonomides, "Organisation administra-
tive (I 025-11I8)", p. 132; Oikonomides N., "La chancellerie imperiale de Byzance
du 13• au Is• siede", Revue des etudes byzantines, XLIII, I985, pp. I68-9; Raybaud,
Gouvernement, p. 213; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 22I-36.
213 NovakoviC, "Vizantijski Cinovi i titule", p. 259; Novakovic St., Sluiba logoteta
(velikog logoteta) u staroj srpskoj driavi, Belgrade, I886.

Tomas, dated October 14, 1458. 214 In my opinion, this text leads us to
accept that a separate office of "great logothete" did exist.
Unfortunately, we have too few data about the nature of this office
in Serbia. Undoubtedly, it had some connection with the ruler's chan-
cery. Grounds for this conclusion are provided by the multiple indica-
tions that the logothetes were compilers of documents that have come
down to us. A text meriting special attention is the Law Code of tsar
Stephen Dusan, where there is a regulation as to how many perpera
the logothete should receive for preparing a chrysobull. These find-
ings present this institution as fully inscribed in the general Balkan
context. This provides reasons to claim that its functions overlapped
with those of its Byzantine archetype and of parallel offices in the other
neighbouring states.
The sources from the Walachian and Moldavian principalities are
considerably richer. The distinction there between great logothete and
the other logothetes is quite clear in the sources and in historiography,
so that it is beyond doubt. 215 The first mention of the great logothete in
Walachia is in documents dating from the last decade of the 14th century.
His office was in the ruler's chancery. First, it is to note that the great
logothete was keeper of the great seal, with which international docu-
ments and ceremonial chrysobulls were sealed. The middle seal was for
less significant charters, and the small one for ordinary ruler's decisions
and prescriptions; the latter two seals were in the keeping of the sec-
ond and third logothetes respectively. This position had a particularly
strong impact on the great logothete in the administration. The activity
of his was particularly significant: we see that in most cases the ruler's
acts were entirely in the hands of this functionary. Until the 16th cen-
tury, the ruler did not sign the documents and only the seal certified
their authenticity. By tradition, the great logothete counter-signed all
decisions of the Council and in many cases was entrusted with their
implementation. He also had some particular judicial powers, as well
as competencies as a notary. We see that the great logothete (during a
certain period there were two of them) in Walachia was a high state
official: he was a member of the Council and third in rank after the
great ban and the dvornic. The funds for this functionary came from
214 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 343-5.

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

service ended, the tsar was very joyful and merry together with all
his military men. He thought of a good plan: to translate the body
of the venerable to his own state. Nevertheless, he vouchsafed telling
this plan clearly to his tainiks and princes (H CROHMb. Tb.HHHKWM H
KHA\SeMb.), which he did. And they, when they heard this, exclaimed
as with a single mouth "The Tsar's heart is in God's hands! 0, Tsar,
do what you plan with all speed, for if you turn the intentions into
a completed deed, you will bring great benefit for our souls. More
than that, our land and our city will obtain great assistance!" 217 This
is the only text containing information on the existence of tainiks.
Perhaps that is why this term passed unnoticed for a long time by
researchers. 218 The translators of modern Bulgarian editions of the text
have also neglected it, and they translated the term only as "advisors"
or "secret advisors"
The word Tb.HHHI~'ll. is Slavic but the archetype of this institution was
once again in the institutional system of the Byzantine Empire. Lin-
guistically the word "tainik" fully corresponds to the Greek f..LUcrttx:6c;
(mystikos), from which it has been coined as a calque, just as the Greek
word is a calque of the Latin secretarius. This fact gives some orienta-
tion for our search.
The office of the mystikos in Constantinople existed ever since
the time of the Macedonian dynasty. In the honorary tables of the
9th-10th century (that of Benesevic and that of Oikonomides), the
title occupied, respectively, the 31st and 37th place. 219 In the trea-
tise of Pseudo Kodinos the mystikos was 30th in rank, and in the
other extant rank tables of the late period, the rank varies between
26th and 31st position. 220 We also have a description of his apparel:
a turban and an epilourikon, with no skaranikon. 221 The mystikos was
an official, not a bearer of a "pure" title. This is indicated in Pseudo
Kodinos' treatise, but this anonymous author does not inform us of
the nature of the mystikos' duties, saying only that they are evident
from the name of the institution. 222 This piece of information does
not tell us much, but it still orients us to view this official as part
of the chancery. The insufficiency of sources results in a variety of
217 Kalu:iniacki, Werke, p. 96.

218 Biliarsky, "Les institutions de la Bulgsrie m&lievale: tainlk-mystikos", p. 53 ff.
219 Olkonomides, Les listes de preseance, pp. 24931> 2711s·
220 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 138, 300, 305, 309, 321, 335, 344, 347.
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 appel-
lation 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 trea-
sury, 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 conclu-
sions based on parallels between the Bulgarian tainik and the Byzan-
tine 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 mys-
tique, 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.
conclusion that the two institutions, Bulgarian and Byzantine, also

matched. The archetype is the Latin "secretarius", which was essen-
tially the same term.
The observations made so far justify the conclusion that the Bulgar-
ian 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 honor-
ary 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 Roma-
nians, 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 sev-
eral 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 Con-
stantinople. 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 adminis-
tration. It suffices to point out that among the grammatiks were future
eminent politicians such as Michael Psellos, Nicetas Choniates etc. 228
The Yugoslav historian Ljubomir Maksimovic notes that the office of
grammatik existed with similar functions in the provincial adminis-
tration as well. This is probably so in connection with the duties of
this official to serve as secretary of a superior, but we have reasons
to believe there was a great difference in the work that an emperor's
grammatik and a provincial one performed, as well as in their social
position.
The office of grammatik existed in the Serbian lands as well, but
apparently, it was not typical for the ruler's chancery there. We find
traces of it in a charter of the Bosnian ban Matthew Ninoslav, dating
from 1235.229 This text makes it clear that the grammatik was the per-
son who prepared the ruler's act. This provides grounds to assert that
the functions of this office did not deviate in Bosnia from its Byzantine
archetype. Nevertheless, we should note that it occurs quite rarely in
documents of Serbian rulers.
The official of the same name had identical functions in the prin-
cipalities to the north of the Danube. 230 There he was subordinated to
the great logothete and prepared ruler's acts. In Walachia, we come
across this office for the first time in a charter dated June 10, 1415; in
Moldavia, in 1422. In the 18th century, the institution comprised three
degrees. The great grammatik was equal in rank to the great pahar-
nic and was an influential figure. The office was preserved until the
19th century, a time when he was called first .. secretary" of the ruler.
The information we have about the position of grammatik in Bul-
garia does not exclude but, on the contrary, gives ample grounds for
drawing conclusions based on similarity with the corresponding Byz-
antine institution and that in Walachia and Moldavia. The grammatik
in Tarnovo was also a secretary to the ruler and took an active part in
preparing tsar's acts. It is to stress also that grammatik existed not only
228 Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 166-7; MaksimoviC, Provincijska uprava, p. 107.
230 Georgescu V., Bizantul ~i institutiile romanqti pana la mijlocul secolului al
XVIII-lea, Bucure~ti 1980, p. 145, n 117; Institufiifeudale, p. 209.

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 con-
sidering 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 ter-
minology, 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<netAaV ~oi:Mv Kat 't~ty6:tov
in a delegation that negotiated with the basileus Constantine V. 232 In
the translation by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, the words in this place
are Tzigaton or Ezigaton. 233 The term is certainly considered the appel-
lation of an institution and not a personal name. 234
Veselin Besevliev notes that, in a Slavic prologue of the 14th century,
Tsok-the persecutor of Christians-is called "chetkat" The eminent
231 Slovar' drevnjago slavjanskago jazyka, sostavlennyj po Ostromirovu Evangeliju,

p. 923 (defines the chigota as an executioner or some kind of baillfi); Sreznevskij,
Materialy, III, col. 1517 (as most authors, he defines him as a counterpart of"proto/
spatarios", and adduces corresponding terms from the original Greek texts that were
translated). Cf. also Moravcsik Gy., Byzantinoturcica. Sprachreste des Turkvolker in
den byzantinischen Quellen, vol. II, Budapest, 1943, p. 263.
232 Theophani Confessoris Chronigraphia, ed. C. de Boor, I, p. 447 3•
233 Anastasii Bibliothecarii Chronographia tripartite, ed. C. de Boor, p. 295 31 et
nota.
234 J. B. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene, Lon-
don, 1889, p. 228; Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, II, p. 263; Zlatarski, Istorija,
vol. 1/1, p. 228 note 1; Dujcev lv., "Vi!.rkhu njakoi bulgarski imena i dumi u vizan-
tijskite avtori", pp. 341-2. J. B. Bury and G. Moravcsik relate the Bulgarian word
"chigat" to the Turkic "jigit" and define it as some kind of military institution or,
generally, as "soldier". Jurdan Trifonov (Trifonov Ju., "Ki!.m vaprosa za starobulgar-
skoto boljarstvo", Spisanie na BAN, XXVI, 1923, pp. 16, 26) was the first to relate
the word to the Byzantine spatarii and points out some of its local usages that were
preserved until modern times. The name of the village of Chigotovo is referred to in
a document of the King Stephen Uros II Milutin, dating from 1314.-cf. NovakoviC,
Zakonski spomenici, p. 624.
350 CHAPTER FOUR
scholar discerns in that word a form of the appellation of chigot. 235 In

Mihanovich's Minaeum, dating from the 16th century, the chigot is
presented as HOCeH Hi\P'l.l Ml:.'ie 'f,i\ 1..1,4\feMH, feKOMH liHI'O'I'H. 236 Maria
Tihova points out that the word "chigot" is used several times in the
Roman Paterikon.237 In one case (Pogodin 909, f. 56v17-19 [= Pog.
909]) the phrase w liHPiYI''l. ero corresponds to w uel!eHoweu.'l. ero
(Tolstoy, Q. I. 275, f. 116v 8-12 [=Tal.]), while in the other case ego~
}C
l!HPOT'l. (Pog. 909, f. 36v) corresponds to c&oH CM"rr'l> (Tal. f. 83v). The
term is also to be found in the Great Reading-Minaeum, which con-
tains several Vitae dating from the time before Symeon Metaphrastes'
reform of hagiography, and obviously translated in a time and envi-
ronment 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 w
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;.
235 Besevliev, Parvobulgari. Istorija, p. 205 note 20.

236 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", Byzanti-
nobulgarica, VIII, 1986, pp. 227-40; Mlltenova A., Tapkova-Zaimova V., Istoriko-
apokaliptichnata 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.
In any case, these observations are yet another reason for seeking a
connection between the Byzantine institution of the spatharios (either
protospatharios, either spatharios or spatharocandidatos) and the Bul-
garian chigots. The proposed etymology of the term also points in that
direction. 242 Actually, ever since Yurdan Trifonov there has been a
unanimous opinion in Bulgarian historiography that the institution
of "chigot" corresponds to the Byzantine "spatharios". 243 Only Ivan
Venedikov asserts the extravagant view that the ones corresponding
to the Byzantine institution, and to what is evidently its Bulgarian
loanword mechenosha (sword-bringer), were not the chigots but the
bagaturs. 244
4.4.1.2
This conclusion immediately takes us to the term "mechenosha",
which corresponds to "chigot" in some translations, such as that of
the Roman Patericon. This, in turn, leads us to the institution of the
"mechenosha", quite rarely present in sources. As the appellation of
a Bulgarian institution (not a Byzantine one mentioned in a Bulgar-
ian text), the term is attested as existing only in an inscription on the
golden seal-ring found in the region of Pazardzhik. The inscription
reads uelJWHWWb. Tb.PlJH, and bears the monogram Tagchi. 245
Before going on to discuss the institution of the mechenosha, I would
like to consider the word/name "Tagchi", about which different views
have been expressed. The prevailing and traditional opinion is that this
was the name of a bearer of the title, usually defined as a "non-Slavic"
one, Turkic or Iranian. Not long ago Mosko Moskov, who sees it as
possibly being a term, did state a different, though not categorical,
view. He proposes an origin based on dag* or tag*, meaning "brand",
"seal". 246 This leads to the name-title tamgaci, meaning "keeper of
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 cus-
toms duties at the border, a customs inspector. In support of this is
adduced the Russian word for customs inspector "TaMo:>KeHMK", which
is derived precisely from the Tartar word "tamga". 248 M. Moskov does
not state categorically whether he considers Tagchi to have been the
name of a person or part of the name of the institution, but I think
he was inclined to the latter view. I do not believe this has been con-
vincingly proven, especially as it concerns a fiscal institution that was
little compatible with that of the spatharios, who was military court
institution.
Two recently published articles are especially devoted to the topic of
the sword-bringers in early mediaeval Bulgaria; they offer a completely
new interpretation of the institution and of the manner how it relates
to that of the chigot. 249 According to the author, the word tagchi is not a
name, but an appellation oflranian origin identical with mechenosha,250
and repeated afterwards in the Slavic language. Evidently, this author
is also inclined to relate the word to bagaturs and gives arguments for
the special place of the institution in the Bulgarian political system
during the First Empire. As for chigot, the author relates the word to
jigit and defines it as a military rank of youths and adolescents. I can-
not agree with such an interpretation and ascribe it to the insufficiency
of sources on Bulgar institutions. In any case, this interpretation does
not explain some of the usages of chigot as a counterpart of proto/
spatharios in translated texts or concrete cases of substitution of the
two terms in some of the texts that I cited above.
na chl.-kor. prof dr. Veselin Besevliev, Veliko Tarnovo, 12-15. V. 2000, Sofia, 2003,
p. 486; Drevnetjurkskij slovar', pp. 158, 527.
247 Moskov, "Omonimi ot bulgarski proizhod", pp. 486-7; Drevnetjurkskij slovar',
p. 530.
248 Moskov, "Omonimi ot bulgarski proizh.od", p. 488; Vasmer, IV, p. 18.
249 Jordanov St., "Mechonostsite na P1l.rvoto tsarstvo", in: Traditsii i priemstvenost v
Bulgarija i Balkanite prez Srednite vekove. Jubileen sbornik, posveten na prof dr. Jordan
Andreev. Izsledvanija i materiali ot mezhdunarodnata nauchna konferentsija v chest
na 6--godishninata na prof din Jordan Andreev, 14-15 mai 1999 z., Veliko Tarnovo,
Veliko T1l.rnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo "Sts Kiril i Metodij", 2003, pp. 384-404.
250 On the origin of"Tagchi" from the lexeme meaning "saber", c£ likewise another
article by the same author: Jordanov St., "Tremini za oboznachavane na probodno-

sechashti 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.
Most scholars date the ring of the mechen osha from the time of the
First Bulgarian Empire. There is one exception: in his corpus on the
seals of mediaeval Bulgaria, Ivan Yordanov sets it in the 13th-14th
century. 251 His argument for this view is based on how the ligature
of the inscription was written. With all due respect for this eminent
Bulgarian specialist in sphragistics, his dating of the source in the time
of the Second Empire seems unconvincing and the argument appears
insufficient. The historical evidence and the name of the persons (pre-
suming that "Tagchi" is a personal name, about which opinions differ)
point indubitably to the time before the 11th century.
I believe we cannot avoid the connection between the institutions of
"spatharios", "chigot" and "mechenosha" and their appellations. Viewed
as a connected set, they give us an idea about the development of Bul-
garian institutions under the influence of the Byzantine Empire since
the early time of the Bulgarian state when it constructed its adminis-
trative terminology. It is hard to prove to what degree the appellation
"chigot" was coined in imitation of the Byzantine term "spatharios" or
its derivatives, but it is fully clear that the subsequent development of
the term was precisely as a counterpart of the original Byzantine term.
Nevertheless, I believe this was exactly the path: first, the construction
of a Bulgar Turkic word (or the adaptation of an already existing word
to the purpose) based on the Greek term and as a counterpart to it;
second, with the introduction and imposed predominance of the Slavic
literary language as the official language of the state, the Bulgar term
was substituted by a Slavic one, which matched its Greek original even
more closely. We cannot say how and when precisely this substitution
took place. In any case, it was not immediately after the first steps of
Slavic literature, for the word "chigot" was in usage in the Slavic liter-
ary environment as well, where it has left ample traces. I believe that
the two terms ("chigot" and "mechenosha") were used simultaneously
for a while, and, possibly, one of them was official. The permanent
substitution must have occurred in the lOth century, but the word
"chigot" must have continued to exist and be used in various texts.
I believe that the institution "chigot" represents an early example
of the influence of the Byzantine Empire upon the Bulgarian institu-
tional system, and the presence of the term attests the adapting of the
Bulgarian terminology (Bulgar/Turkic or Slavic) to the administrative
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 docu-
mented 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 Conver-
sion, 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 Constan-
tinople in Bulgaria.
In the Byzantine Empire, the protostrator was a military figure
among those of the basileus' entourage. The first information on Byz-
antine protostrator comes from the 8th century, during the rule of
Constantine V. They were commanders of one of the court guards,
and their subordinates were the strators, the armophylax and the stau-
locomites. The protostrator rides besides the basileus. He could usher
in foreign envoys instead of the protospatharios. At the time when
Philotheus wrote his treatise, this institution did not hold a particu-
252 Georgli Pachymerls De Michaeli et Andronico Palaeologis libri XII, rec. Im.
Bekkerus, t. 1-11, Bonnae 1835, pp. 466-8; G. Pachymeres, Relations historiques, ed.
A Failler, t. II, pp. 589-91.
253 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 207ff. Regarding the protostrators in the Empire cf:
Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 1374, 173; Oikonomides, Les listes, pp. 337-8; Brehier,
Les institutions, pp. 132-3; Oikonomides, "Organisation administrative (1025-1118)",
p. 145; Guilland, Recherches, I, pp. 478-97.
larly high place in the hierarchy, but it rose subsequently. The pro-
tostrator had a strong position not so much due to the importance
of his office but because of his closeness to the basileus. 254 In later
times, Nicetas Choniates compares the service of the protostrator to
that of the French marshals, while Pseudo Kodinos informs us about
how he accompanies the ruler, carries the ruler's sword, and leads his
horse. 255 However, we have reasons to believe that the actual functions
of the protostrator were considerably larger. They are related mostly
to military command. During military campaigns, he headed the light
cavalry, the vanguard, and the patrol forces. Occasionally protostrator
would command the whole army and even head the navy. In fact, this
was one of the highest-ranking dignitaries in the Empire, among the
highest on the list.
In mediaeval Serbia, the office of protostrator has not left any trace
in the sources, but Stojan Novakovic is seemingly inclined to iden-
tify it with that of the tepchi,256 a view that is hard for me to accept
as proven. On the other hand, I should explicitly point out that the
Romanian stratornic has nothing in common with the protostrator,
and we can gain a better idea of his office from another appellation:
postelnic.
As for Bulgaria, here too the very existence of this institution may
be put in doubt. The doubt grows stronger from the already men-
tioned fact that the word is not present in the other Balkan countries.
For his part George Pachymeres explicitly stresses that Kasimbek was
bestowed the title of protostrator by Michael VIII Palaeologos. 257 It
may be supposed that here too we have a case of a typical awarding of
a rank to foreigners in order to attract them to the politics of Constan-
tinople. Yet I believe that such a conclusion would be somewhat over
hasty. Since it originated from the Byzantine system, the Bulgarian
rulers could have adapted the title of protostrator as well.
In conclusion, we may say that the Bulgarian protostrator was among
the most prominent functionaries in the state. This is evidenced by
Kasimbek's closeness to the tsar. The duties of the institution were
254 Bury, Impeiral Administrative System, pp. 117-8; Brehier Les institutions,
pp. 132-3; Guilland, "Protostrator", pp. 156-8; Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance,
pp. 337-8; Oikonomides, "Organisation administrative (1025-1118)", p. 145.
255 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 168, 173, 176.
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 infor-

mation 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 differ-
ent editions: +
~'l'l> Rf~H~ AO~~ ReAHK'l.. C'l..TROfHX'l.. Pf~# KfHU,VR~
MM~ ~Cb.LI,~ S~R (6712=120l:l r.) ~~ MOAHTb.R'l..l KMOiW~H~ u_"'p<k. 259
This is all the information we have from mediaeval Bulgaria. The office
existed at least in the time of tsar Kalojan. The word itself is an adop-
tion from the Greek, which leads us to seek its origin in the Byzan-
tine Empire. In Constantinople, there was an institution with a similar
name (~era~ oo-6~. It appeared towards the end of the 11th century
in connection with the reforms undertaken by Alexis I Comnenos. By
AD 1118, this functionary had permanently been established as com-
mander of the Byzantine navy. It is as such that he is mentioned in
the treatise of Pseudo Kodinos. 260 There he held the fifth place in the
hierarchy-a confirmation of his strong position in the time of the
Palaeologos dynasty as well.
The institution was not typical for Serbia. Its name occurs in a docu-
ment of Balsa III, dating from AD 1420: ~. c~MOAfb.mUHH rocnoA~fb.
GMW~, no MHAOCTH GO;KHeH AO~K~ ReAHKH H rocnO#fb. ~eMAH
~eTCKOH •••• 261

We see the text reflects a completely different state of
things. The ruler of Zeta is displaying his pride as ruler, a thing that is
completely lacking in the Bulgarian inscription.
258 N. Oikonomides, « 0 rganisation administrative ( 1025-1118) >>, 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; Oikono-

mides. "Organisation administrarive (1025-1118)", p. 147; Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos,
p. 134.
261 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 583.
Considering these remarks, I should stress that any direct paral-

lels with the situation in the Byzantine Empire or the Serbian lands
are unacceptable. We are fully justified in believing that the Bulgar-
ian 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 Bul-
garian great duces were military functionaries in the central adminis-
tration. 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<;, but such an institution is not known
to have existed in the Byzantine Empire. The name of the office occurs
twice in tsar Boril's Synodicon-npOToKe.l\i'OTHH"A. 263 Indisputably, the
word is of Greek origin and can be related to the entourage of the
ruler, but such a designation for an official in the Empire is not known
to have existed. In the sources there is a term KeMtO't'll<;, 264 but the
context of its use is such as does not permit comparisons with the
Bulgarian institution.
The Romanian sources seem to provide better possibilities for com-
parisons. I should first note that to the north of the Danube as well,
the term "protokelliotin" is not found in this form. We should point
our attention to the similar designation kellar (Ke.Ab.fb.)/65 used at
times for the office better known as kliuchar (K.Akl'lb.fb.) or kliuchnik
(K.Akl'IHHK'A). The word kellar itself and its etymology do not pose any
difficult problems. The origin is in the Latin word cella, but it was
262 Poporuzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, p. 90; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 213-5.
263 Poporuzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, p. 90.
264 Du Cange, Glossarium, col. 631.
265 Dicfionar elementilor romdne~ti, p. 40 (Mold. 16 oct 1538-1540). A monastery
office of the same name is found in Russia as well-c£ Sreznevskij, Materialy, vol. I,
1204.
358 CHAPTER FOUR
directly borrowed from the Greek KeAMpwc;, and passed into the
Romanian language from the Slavic. We shall not discuss this Greek
term, inasmuch as it does not denote any Byzantine court institution.
More interesting for our study is the Moldavian version. Of course,
the latter is not identical with the Bulgarian designation, and hence no
possible similarity between the two institutions can be assumed.
The earliest record in Walachia of the designation of the office of
kliuchar (identical, as I pointed out, with the term that concerns us
here, kellar) is from August 29, 1469; in Moldavia, it is from May 12,
1425. From the very start, the great kliuchar was a high-ranking digni-
tary, and at times a member of the Council in Walachia. His occupation
was to ensure provisions for the court. He took care of all that had to be
supplied in the ruler's storages and supervised how it was spent. 266
When undertaking the search for parallels with Bulgaria, we should
explicitly note that the form l~eA~fb. is found in Moldavia alone, where,
unlike Walachia, the Bulgarian influence predominated over the Ser-
bian. Despite this, drawing conclusions based on comparisons in this
case would be very risky. The extant Bulgarian sources attest merely
the existence of this institution and do not permit any concrete asser-
tions as to the duties it involved. The authors who have written on the
topic (we should point out that they have merely separate notes on
the topic) believe that the protokeliot was an aide-de-camp of the tsar,
but at the same time was entrusted with the protection of the latter. 267
This, of course, is very probable but cannot be proven. Regrettably, we
must note that a similarity to the Moldavian kliuchar/kellar cannot be
proven either. Any comparison would be entirely arbitrary, especially
as the terms do not coincide. That is why I shall refrain from insisting
on any parallels.
The only fact that supports the thesis that this official had military
duties is that, at the mention of the term in the Synodicon, it is suggested
that the protokeliots die in battle in defence of their lord. However, is
that a sufficient indication? With some relative degree of certainty, we
could only say that these were high-ranking dignitaries close to the
ruler: two of them found a place in the Synodicon. It is very probable
they had military functions, and I am inclined to accept this.

267 Koledarov. "Le titulariat des boyards", p. 207 note 36; Andreev, Angelov, Isto-
rija, p. 150; Istorija na Bulgarija, t. III, p. 259.
4.5. Provincial administration

4.5.1
First, I would like to pay attention to the designations of the admin-
istrative-territorial units. It may be claimed that they were in one way
or another connected with the territorial organisation of the Empire
in the period of the breakdown of the system of themata. That is why
all the units in Bulgaria bear names that originate from the Greek Byz-
antine terminology.
4.5.1.1
Two names of administrative-territorial units were directly borrowed
and simply transcribed in Cyrillic letters: )\Of~ (chora) and ICAHCO'J'f~
(kleisoura). Here we shall simply indicate them, for I have devoted a
special article on the topic. 268 Both words are Greek: xropa (meaning
"country") and x:A.etcroupa (meaning "closed mountainous area") and
represent direct loanwords as technical terms in the administrative
nomenclature of the Byzantine Empire.
It is to point out that the word kleisoura has become deeply rooted
in the Bulgarian language and has survived not as an administrative
concept but as a geographic one in modern Bulgarian (KRucypa): it
signifies a narrow pass in a mountainous area. This suggests that the
name of this territorial unit was typical only for mountainous regions.
Actually, this was also the case in the Byzantine Empire.
The word chora remained only an administrative technical term,
although it developed in the vocabulary of modern Bulgarian, forming
the plural of ttoeeK (= man, human being) > xopa (= people, men,
humans).
4.5.1.2
Practically all the other designations of administrative-territorial units
besides these two were translations or calques from the Greek and
were ultimately borrowed from the administrative system of the Byz-
antine Empire. 269 Thus, zemlya (~eMAil\ from rf1 = earth terra), strana
(C'I'f~H~ from xropa =country), predel (np<BA'BA'A from ~epoc; =bound-
ary) and mesto (u<Bcrro from -c6noc; = place, locality)-all of which are
268 Iv. Biliarsky, "Les circonscriptions administratives en Bulgarie au 13• srede",

j}u~a:v1:tvoov epe:uvoov, 13 (1999), pp. 177-201 (concerning
l:uJ111Et!cra: 'toU 'Ivcrmo-&rou
"~~"'" cf pp. 179-80, and concerning "KNtesrA" see pp. 183-6).
9 On this topic cf Biliarsky, « Les circonscriptions administratives >>, p. 190ff.
360 CHAPTER FOUR
presented in the glossary-are translations of the corresponding Byz-

antine 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 com-
prehensiveness however, I would like to merely point out some differ-
ences 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 characteris-
tics, 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 mittel-
alterlichen Balkanlander und im Osmanischen Reich », Etudes historiques, IX (1979),
pp. 99-127; Bogdan 1., Originea voievodatului la romani, Bucure~ti, 1902 [= Analele
Academiei Romane, Memoriile sectiuni istorice, III, t. 24, pp. 191-207]; Virtosu E.,
Titulatura domnilor ~~ asocierea la domnie fn Tara romaneasca si Moldova (pfna la seco-
lul al XVI-lea, Bucure~ti, 1960, p. 105 ff; Institufii feudale din tarile romane, Dicfionar,
Bucure~ti, 1988, p. 168 ff.; Z. Wojciechowski, L'Etatpolonais au moyen Age. Histoire des
institutions, Paris, 1949, p. 243; Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 201-7, 270-86.
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 Constan-
tine 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 ten-
dency 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 Con-
sidering 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.
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 assum-
ing that it was created in the framework of the apostolic mission of
the first Slavic educators St. Cyril and St. Methodius in Great Moravia,
there it could have only been a word used for the purpose of a transla-
tion from Greek texts, not the name of a concrete institution. Such,
I believe, it became in the Balkans, within the Bulgarian state system.
This signifies that not only the word but also the institution itself of
the strategos-voevoda was transplantated in Bulgaria and the Bulgar-
ian public law.
The institution of strategos as military commander and provin-
cial governor was adopted in Bulgaria even before the Conversion. I
am referring to the Hambarli inscription of the early 9th century. It
mentions that the army and state were divided into central, left, and
right part, governed respectively by the brother of the ruler, the boila
kaukhan, and the itzirgou boila, each with his subordinate strategoi. 277
Thus the subordinate of the khan's brother was strategos Leon; the
subordinates of the itzirgou boila were the strategoi Vardan and Gian-
nis/Iani; and of the boila kaukhan; the strategoi Kordil and Gregoras.
Evidently, these strategoi were not Bulgars, although they were officers
of the Bulgar ruler. Of the quoted five names three are Greek (Leon,
Iani, and Gregoras), and two are Iranian, and probably Armenian
(Vardan and Kordil). 278 There is reason to believe they were Chris-
tians. The assumption has been stated that the strategoi Iani and Leon
were those same "strategoi of the Christians" slain by khan Omurtag,
as stated in the Constantinopolitan Synaxarium. 279 This was part of
277 Besevliev, Pt'lrvobulgarski nadpisi, No. 47, pp. 186-7. Ivan Venedikov explains
the appearance of Christian strategoi south of the Balkan mountains in the newly con-
quered Byzantine territories by the presumed desire of Khan Krum to organise these
lands in preserving the local specific features of governance (Venedikov, Voennoto i
administrattvnoto ustrojstvo, pp. 63-5). This assertion is quite arbitrary, as is, for that
matter, a large part of the views of the author expressed in this book
278 Regarding the names Vardan and Kordila, c£: Marquart J., Osteuropiiische
und ostasiatische StreigzUge, Leipzig, 1903, p. 493; Justi F., Iranisches Namenbuch,
Marburg, 1895, pp. 351-3; Vasmer M., Untersuchungen Uber die iiltesten Wohnsitze
der Slaven, I, Die Iraner in SUdruj3land, Leipzig, 1923, p. 35; Zgusta L., Die Person-
ennamen griechischer Stii.dte der nordlichen SchwarzmeerkUnste, Prag, 1955, p. 335;
Be8evliev, Pt'lrvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 188-191.
279 Delehaye H., Sinaxarium ecdesiae Constantinopolitanae, Bruxelles, 1902, p. 416;
Gregoire H., "Les sources epigraphiques de l'histoire bulgare", Byzantion, IX, 1934,
fasc 2, pp. 758-9; Halkin Fr.,« Inscriptions grecques relatives a l'hagiographie. (suite)
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 divi-
sion 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 dur-
ing under the thematic organisation after the Barbarian invasions. Of
course, I do not state that the highly developed Byzantine administra-
tion 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 cre-
ated 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 adminstrative-
territorial system of Poland.
Finally, I would like to highlight a very interesting piece of informa-
tion, 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, writ-
ing about the events connected with the movement of Peter Deljan
in AD 1040, the Byzantine author explicitly states that in the Bulgar-
ian 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. Zlatar-
ski 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 men-
tions 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 conno-
tations, 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 Dujcev, "Njakolko belezhki ka.m Kekavmen", p. 197.
284 Kekavmen, Sovety i rasskazy, p. 417.
285 NovakoviC, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", p. 195ff.
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 speci-
fication, 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 explain-
ing 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 interpreta-
tion 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 con-
nected with the citation from Kekaumenos.
4.5.2.2
The institution of zhupan (~o~nAHrz.) is among the most enduring pub-
lic 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 inscrip-
tion of zhupan Dimiter of Dobrudja. 289 There is reference to zhupans
286 BER, vol 4, pp. 572-3.

287 Ztvot Svetoga Save, 1860, p. 202; Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 294-6.
288 Be8evliev, Parvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 200, 231, 234, 250.
289 Com~a E., Popescu D., "Cercetari arheologice pe trascul canalului Dunare-
Mare Neagm", Studii ~~ cercetari de istorie veche, 1951, 1, p. 171; Com~a E., Bogdan
D. P., Panaitescu P. P., "Inscrtptia slavil. din Dobrugea din anul 943", Studii (Revista
de istorie ~~ filosojie), IV, 1951, pp. 122-3; Bogdan D., "Dobrudzhanskaja nadpis' 943
g.", Romanoslavica, 1, 1958, pp. 88-104; Gju:zelev V., "Dobrudzhanskijat nadpis' i
sabitijata v Bulgarija sled 943 g.", Istorichski pregled, 1968, 6, pp. 40-8; Bozllov Iv.,
''Nadpisil.t na zhupan Dimitil.r ot 943 g.", Izvestija na okrazhnija istoricheski muzej v
366 CHAPTER FOUR
in the Law for Judging the People. During the Second Empire this
office was not present in the institutional system of Bulgaria, although
it does appear as a word in some texts that usually reflect foreign (Ser-
bian, central European, or Romanian) realities. 290
Before presenting briefly what we know about the nature of this
institution, we should consider the origin of its designation. The ety-
mology is not completely clear. In general, there are two prevalent
views: that it is of Slavic or Turkic-Avar origin (generally connected
with the traditions of the Eurasian steppe). The proponents of the
Slavic origin believe that it comes from mo~nb. with the suffix« -b.H'b »
and is related to the Indo-European root *gheu-/*ghu-, which pro-
duces the Greek guph, and the Palaeoslavic *gt>pan. 291 The assumption
has also been made that the origin of the word is related to cultivating
the soil by burning wood, a technique used by the Slavs; hence, passing
through the word msmwz. ("fire") comes msnb., whence msnb.H'b. 292 Yet,
the predominant view is that it is of Turkic origin, for parallels with
the languages of the steppe peoples can be found. Initially the meaning
of the word was evidently 'chief' or 'commander' of a group or mili-
tary unit. A. Briikner believes it is of Avar origin, while K. H. Menges
links it to the Turkic cupan (= "assistant to a village mayor"); to their
arguments P. Malingoudis adds reasons based on history. 293
Historical data on zhupans provide very interesting material. The
first evidence of the word in the sources is in a Bavarian document
dating from AD 777. 294 The term occurs several times in Bulgar inscrip-
tions, two of these cases being in the Bulgar Turkic language. The case
of the treasure of Nagy-Szent-Mikl6s is not quite clear and undispu-
Tolbukhin, 1973, pp. 37-58; BoZ!lov Iv., "L'inscription de jupan Dimitre de l'an 943
(theories et faits)", Etudes historiques, VI, 1973, pp. 11-28; Istorija na Dobrudzha,
t. II, pp. 40-1, 62-3.
290 Regarding the literature on this topic cf.: Grachev, Zhupan 1965, p. 178ff.;
Grachev, Zhupan 1967, p. 3ff.; Dobrev, Zhupan 1965, pp. 383-7; Malingoudis, "Zupan",
pp. 61-76; Institufii feudale, pp. 239-40, 260, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 266 ff.; Philippi,
Die Burger von Kronstadt im 14. und 15 Jahrhundert, p. 131; Gavllkova, "Transfor-
matsija", pp. 62-3; Holzer, Zur Sprache, pp. 57-63; Havlov3, K pullkovanym, pp. 24-7;
Cleminson, "Brashovskaja gramota tsarja Ivana Sratsimira", p. 370.
291 Machek V., Etymologickj slovn£k jazyka ceskeho, Praha, 1968, p. 598; Malingoudis,
"Zupan", pp. 62-3; BER, I, pp. 559-60; Vasmer, II, p. 66.
292 Dobrev, "Zhupan", p. 385.
293 A. Briikner, Slownik etymologiczny j~zyka polskiego, Krak6w, 1927, p. 667;
K. H. Menges, The Oriental Elementsin the Vocabulary of the Oldest Russian Fpos, New
York, 1951; Malingo~dis, "Zupan", pp. 64, 74-6.
294 Malingoudis, "Zupan", pp. 64-7.
table for historical science. 295 The Bulgar inscription clearly indicates
the place of the zhupan in the military hierarchy. There we find it in a
combination that is still not quite clear: trouptrouva 1t11Ae l;omav. 296 In
two Greek commemorative inscriptions (in Besevliev numbers 61 and
63), the zhupan-tarkan Chsounos (Xcrouvo<;) of the family Kiurigir and
an anonymous zhupan of the Ermiar family are indicated as people in
the employment of the ruler. 297 On the Bulgarian side, we have data
about the great zhupan Sivin from his silver cup found in a grave in
Preslav. 298
While the above-mentioned data on zhupans are chiefly related
to the capital (or generally to the centre of the state) and to specific
military functions, other data present these people as officials in the
provinces, as district governors with competencies clearly falling in the
sphere of defence. Such is the case of the already cited Slavic-language
inscription of zhupan Dimiter, dating from AD 943. 299 Although pre-
served in fragments, it provided reasons to believe that this person was
a local Bulgarian governor in North Dobrudja who had taken part in
some military campaign. Here I shall not touch upon the unfounded
assertions that his rule represented the start of "Romanian statehood"
in Scythia Minor, or that it was inherited, or the claims about some
sort of "Russian island amidst Dobrudzha"
Zhupans are also mentioned in the Law for Judging the People
(ch. 3 and ch. 20),300 but the mentions are of such a kind that they do
not shed additional light on the nature of the institution. One mention
is connected with the distribution of spoils, and there the "zhupan" is
contrasted with the "prince" on one hand and with ordinary people on
the other. Without going into an extensive discussion of this problem,
295 Thomsen W., "Une inscription de la trouvaille d'or de Nagy-Szent-Mikl6s",

Samlede. Aughandliger, t. III, Kopenhagen, 1917; Mavrodinov N., Le tresor protobul-
gare de Nagy-Szent-Mikl6s, Budapest, 1943, pp. 203, 204-6; J. Nemeth,« The Runifirm
Inscriptions from Nagy-Szent-Mlkl6s and the Runiform Scripts of Eastern Europe»,
Acta Linguistica, t. XXI, 1-2, Budapest, 1971; Bajchorov S. Ja, Drevneljurkskie
runicheskie pamjatniki Evropy: Otnoshenie severokavkazkogo areala drevnetjurkskoj
pismenosti k volgo-donskomu i dunajskomu arealam, Stauropllis, 1989.
296 Be8evliev, Parvobulgarski nadpisi, No. 53, p. 202.
297 Be8evliev, Parvobulgarski nadpisi, No. 61 and 63, pp. 231-2, 234.
298 Be8evliev, Parvobulgarski nadpisi, No. 87, pp. 250-1.
299 See Gjuzelev V., "Dobrudzhanskijat nadpis' i sllbitijata v Bulgarija sled 943 g.",
p.41.
300 Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, pp. 48, 52, 105, 108; Ecloga. Das Gesetz-
buch Leons III. und Konstantins V., p. 216 (XIV.8-here the term "zhupan" is a trans-
lation ofta~O'I)Mpw~). 244 (XVIII.l-here it is a translation of liPXrov).
368 CHAPTER FOUR
I shall only say that in this case the reference is not to a concrete
institution but simply to "powerful person", "military commander",
"high-ranking person", all of whom are people whose due share of the
spoils is equal to that of the prince, i.e. their part is equal to that going
into the state treasury. A similar position is connected with article 20,
regulating second hand testimonies of witnesses, which are prohibited
even for "the zhupans". In my opinion, this too is not a concrete insti-
tution but a reference to the state and social elite of those times.
The term "zhupan" figures in the quite early Codex Suprasliensis,
where it means a person close to the ruler. 301 In his treatise on the gov-
ernance of the Empire, the basileus Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos
mentions "zhupans" several times, but these indications are not about
Bulgarian but about the Serbo-Croatian lands. 302
This was a rather widespread institution, obviously of a complex
nature, and it is difficult to give an unambiguous definition of what
it essentially was. Much depends on the definition of its origin, which
in turn is closely connected with the etymology of the term. Evidently
this was a remnant (and elaboration) of a tribal institution within
the state. The proponents of the Slavic version see it as a way for the
Slavic aristocracy to take part in the political life of Bulgaria. 303 I do not
intend to comment on ideas that are the result of the presumed ideo-
logically based thesis regarding the "federal" character of the state in
the early Middle Ages and the strong Slavic presence in it. As I already
said, the two opposed views as to the etymology of the word "zhupan"
are that it is of Slavic or Turkic-Avar origin (or generally of the Eur-
asian Steppe peoples). It is beyond the limits of our task to take a final
stand on this issue, which falls in the competence of philology. Our
goal is to clarify the status of the Bulgarian institution and its origin.
In this sense it may be said that, whatever the etymology of the term
"zhupan", it was preserved chiefly among the Slavic peoples and their
neighbours who were under their influence (Romanians, Hungarians,
Baltic peoples, etc.) Nevertheless, we should not forget that the Slavs
themselves underwent an exceptionally strong influence by the peoples
301 The reference is to the Vita of St Aninos, where zhupans are mentioned among
the other high-ranking dignitaries: Supraslski ili Retkov sbornik, pp. 561 24 , 562 26;
Malingoudis, ":Zupan", pp. 68-70.
302 Constantini Porphyrogeniti De administrando imperio, pp. 124, 144, 158.
303 Kojceva E., "Titlata zhupan u v1l.prosite na bulgarskata d1l.rzhavnost", Bulgarija
1300. Institutsii i darzhavna traditslja, Sofia, 1982, t. II, pp. 215-24.

of the Eurasian Steppe. The status of the zhupan, especially during the
late Middle Ages, was different from what it was in Bulgaria during
the First Empire. In the latter age, references to this institution place
it entirely within the traditions of the Bulgar pagan state, which had
nothing in common with the Slavs. The first names and family names
of all bearers of the title are non-Slavic, probably Turkic Bulgar, which
attests their affiliation to the ruling aristocracy. The only exception was
the zhupan Dimiter, but his name is Christian and of Greek origin, so
it provides no information about his ethnic affiliation. Thus we can
claim with a relative degree of certainty that the zhupan institution
(together with all its composite variants) in Bulgaria in early mediae-
val times probably originated in the Eurasian steppe and was related
to a military commander with governing authority in the territorial
administration; he was a person of high social rank. The preservation
of the word in a Slavic environment is easily explained; it probably
passed into the language in a similar way as the word "boyar"
The zhupan institution did not exist in Bulgaria during the Second
Empire, when the Byzantine system was introduced. 304 Nevertheless, it
continued to be widespread among the western and northern neigh-
bours of the Bulgarians. The earliest information on zhupans and great
zhupans among the Serbs dates from the 12th century, but there they
had nothing in common with the Bulgarian institution and are not of
interest for our study. 305 In any case, it is important to note that the
title of "great zhupan", which until the beginning of the 13th century
was the designation of a Serbian ruler, had nothing to do with the
"great zhupan" from the inscription of Sivin, who was not head of the
state. All authors who have written on the topic share this view.
In Walachia and Moldavia there is much data on zhupans, but this
was not an institution in the proper sense but rather a reference to a
"person of high standing", a "distinguished person" as a social category,
not a legal one. Such were usually the boyars without a specific office;
among those boyars who did have an office, only the highest-ranking
ones were zhupans. 306 In fact in some cases, the citations of "zhupan"
are such that this very much resembles a "pure" title, especially when it
304 Petrov, Grozdanova, "Mittelalterliche Balkaniimter", p. 99.

305 Malingoudis, "Zupan", pp. 72-4.
306 I nstitufii feud ale, p. 260.
370 CHAPTER FOUR
is combined with the office of the person: msn~H HR~H ReAHKH RHcrr'i~f,
m~n~Hb. H~roe ReAHKH G4\Hb. Kf~MRCKH, msn~H Af~rHT AWrocf,eT. 307
fn his history of the campaign of Frederic I Barbarossa, Ansbertus
gives an account of the meeting of the crusaders with a "zhupan or
satrap of Bulgaria" (iuppanum vel satrapam Bulgarie). 308 This text is
quite a vague piece of information about the institutions and provokes
discussions more than it identifies the person, so it is not interesting
for our study. The author was probably referring to some local lord in
Macedonia, not to a concrete institution or ruler's title.
In the Vir gino chrysobull the word zhupa occurs,309 a term that was
widespread among the Slavic peoples neighbouring to the Bulgarians.
T. Vasilevski devoted a special study to this term and its related
zhupania; 310 the author reached the conclusion the two were not iden-
tical. The zhupania in the later Middle Ages was a large administrative-
territorial district that encompassed several zhupas. I do not believe we
can accept either of these existed in Bulgaria in the 13th-14th century,
and I say this not only because of the inauthenticity of the Virgino
chrysobull. The latter document is known to have been an antedated
copy of the charter of the Serbian king Stephen Milutin, dating from
AD 1300, so that many of the data in it are about Serbia and have noth-
ing to do with Bulgaria. In addition, the mention of zhupas does not
recur in any other document.
A reference to a zhupan there is also in the letter of tsar John Sratsi-
mir to the authorities in the city of Bra~ov (Kronstadt). One of the
leaders of the city was had that title, given in the Latin-language docu-
ment as "judex" and in the German-language as "Richter". 311 He is in
first place in the address in the letter, a fact that suggests he was first
in rank among the governors ofBra~ov. This was not a Bulgarian insti-
tution but a Slavic and Hungarian designation for a Saxon institution
in one of the most important cities in Transylvania. Hence, it is not
relevant to our study.
Vladislav Grammatik's Rila Narrative contains an interesting men-
tion of zhupan in the account of a stop along the way during the trans-
307 Kodov Khr., Rajkov B., Kozhukharov St., Opis na slavjanskite rt'Jkopisi v bib-
liotekata na Zografskija manastir v Sveta Gora, vol I, Sofia, 1985, pp. 78, 82, 85.
308 Ansberte Historia-in: Chroust, Quellen zur Geschichte, p. 5619-33·
309 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 1774·
310 Wasilewski, "Zhupa i zhupanija", pp. 84-92.
lation of the relics of St. John of Rila from Tolrnovo to the monastery
founded by the hermit. The procession was met in Nicopolis by Bogdan
zhupan, who led the participants to his palace and set the relics of the
saint in a house of prayer. 312 The text makes it clear that Bogdan was a
very wealthy and influential person. There is mention of his servants,
of the copious meal with which he regaled the travellers. The difficulty
of understanding this case comes from the fact that these events are
dated from the second half of the 15th century, i.e. more than half a
century after the Bulgarian state was occupied by the Osmanlis. Hence,
this could not have been a 'Bulgarian zhupan' or some legacy from
the Bulgarian Middle Ages. More probably, this was a local spahi or a
Romanian boyar who possessed some goods in the Nicopolis region
and come to this territory from the north.
Evidently, the title of zhupan was in use into the Ottoman Empire
for a short time in the early period of Ottoman rule to designate local
eminent persons. For instance in one source there is a reference to the
timar for the zhupan Halil, son of Ibrahim bin Hac1 from the village of
Busmantsi, involving a personal military obligation, with one warrior
and one tent. 313 The zhupan Bogdan must have been something of the
sort: a Christian spahi or a Walachian boyar possessing property and
estates to the south of the Danube as well.
4.5.2.3. Kephalia (Ke<j»MH!b.)
The designation of this official occurs several times in Bulgarian sources
from the time of the Second Empire. In particular, it is to mention the
imperial documents: one finds the term in two of them, the Virgino
chrysobull and the Vitosha chrysobull. 314 In the latter, the institution
is cited as "kephalia of the city of Sofia", and there he is placed in the
head of the listed provincial administration's clerks. The functionary
in question is also mentioned in the famous inscription of sebastos
Ognyan from Bozhenishki Urvich. 315 This source is of special interest
for the present study, inasmuch as both the honorary title and the
administrative position of this Bulgarian dignitary are indicated there.
Gregory Dobropisets' Vita of St. Romil of Vi din contains another data
about the kephalia. The work relates how the kephalia of Skopelos
312 Kalu:iniacki, Werke, pp. 420-1; Stara bulgarska literatura, vol IV, p. 388.
313 Izvori za bulgarskata istorija, vol XIII, Sofia, 1966, p. 21.
314 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 16u. 29s-s-
315 Mutafchiev, "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", p. 493.
372 CHAPTER FOUR
warned the hermits about Muslim bandits in the vicinity. 316 Was he a
Bulgarian or a Byzantine official? Considering the location of the city
of Skopelos, we should assume it was most probably the latter.
The term "kephalia" itself is of Greek origin, derived from Ke<jxxA.ft,
meaning "head" We thus come to the etymology of the word. There is
opinion that kephalia was initially military commander of the detach-
ments in a given district but gradually assumed civil functions as well. 317
Ljubomir Maksimovic proposed the thesis that the origin of the term
was non-official. The general sense of "chief", "superior" gradually
turned into the most widely used expression for a governor in the
provinces during the last two centuries of the history of the Byzantine
Empire. 318 This is not in contradiction with D. Zakythinos' idea that
the term under question denoted in general a great variety of offices
during the earlier period. The institution of kephalia in the proper
sense of the word took shape in the 13th century. It occurs above all in
the European provinces: Peloponnesus, Thrace, Thessaly, and in nearly
all the provinces of Asia Minor.
Since the 14th century, we have data on kephalias in Serbian docu-
ments; moreover, they are so numerous that the institution had evi-
dently become very popular in Serbia. There he was too a head of a
district government. 319
From all these remarks, it becomes clear that the kephalia in the Byz-
antine Empire and in mediaeval Serbia was official in the provincial
administration. The office had no titular value, as evidenced by the fact
that it is absent from the hierarchic honorary table in Pseudo Kodinos'
treatise. I believe it is to reject the opinion that the kephalia could have
been the name not only for an official but also for a local ruler.
Ljubomir Maksimovic specifies that the kephalia had under his super-
vision a territorial unit called katepanikion (not a kephalatikion-there
was no such unit), which, though not large, could not have been lim-
316 Syrku P. A., "Monakha Grigorija Zhitie prepodobnago Romila", in: Pamjatniki
drevnej pis'menosti i iskustva, t CXXXVI, Sankt Petersburg, 1900; Stara bulgarska
literatura, t. 4, p. 493.
317 Mutafchiev, "Bo:zhenishnikjat nadpis", pp. 495-6; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 345;
Zakythinos D., Le Despotat grec de Moree, t. II, London, Variorum Reprints 1975,
pp. 65 tf., 85.
318 Maksimovic, Provincijska uprava, pp. 71-2.
319 Ostrogorsky, Serska oblast, p. 94; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto uprav-
lenie", pp. 15-6, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 287-9.
ited to a city or a fortress. There were higher-ranking officers called

Ka9oA.ucatK£<j>aA.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 ter-
ritorial 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 sub-
ordinated one.
In conclusion, one can say that the study of the evidence contained
in the sources leads to the conclusion there was almost complete simi-
larity 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 com-
manders subordinated to the strategos of the theme, but they later
headed certain administrative territorial units. 324 The battle of Man-
tzikert, which dealt a heavy blow to the thematic system, had an
impact on this institution as well. The duces became provincial gover-
nors of administrative territorial units that were smaller but greater in
number. They remained so as late as the 13th century, chiefly in Asia
Minor and the islands of the Aegean Sea, where the Latin invasion had
caused less destruction. 325 Under the Palaeologos dynasty, the basic
unit of territorial organisation became the katepanikion, headed by a
kephalia, while the dux (often designated by the combined title Soul;
Kat anoypa<j>eu~) retained certain functions in the defence sphere and
the fiscal apparatus. 326
The common opinion on the office of the dux as it existed in medi-
aeval Bulgaria is he was a district governor. M. Laskaris thinks that
this was the official designation of the governor, while kephalia was
the colloquial name. 327 I cannot agree with the latter assertion, which is
unproven and, besides, is refuted by the data for the Byzantine Empire
and Serbia. Nevertheless, I accept the view that the dux was a district
governor in the Bulgarian state. Data contained in charters very defi-
321 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1898 _99 , 28 28 ; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 59;
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.
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. Actu-
ally 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 develop-
ment 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
Katepano (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, capi-
tanus, 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
328 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 28 ; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 59; Andreev Vato-
pedskata 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 high-

est 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 atten-
tion 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 conclu-
sion 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, Vatoped-
skata gramota, p. 38; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 152; Maksimovic, Provinci-
jska uprava, pp. 78-9.
m Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 2-12, 47, 80-2, 118, 266, 569, 788.
m Stoicescu N., Curteni ~i slujitori. Contribufii la istoria armatei romane, Bucur~ti,
1968, pp. 246-260; Grigor~, Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 314-5; Georgescu,
Strihan, Judecata domneasca, pp. 149-50; Institu{ii feudale, p. 84.
was cannot be claimed with any certainty. According to V. N. Zlatar-

ski 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 liter-
ally 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 kastrophy-
laces 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 kastro-
phylax undoubtedly had a place in the administrative system of the
Second Bulgarian Empire. In view of the doubtful nature of the Vir-
gino 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.

334 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 15 14-5, 18 98-9, 29 7-8.
335 Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 342; MaksimoviC, Provincijska uprava, p. 106.
378 CHAPTER FOUR
4.5.3.3. Desetnik (AeCh\THHK'll.)

In the Vitosha chrysobull of tsar John Shishman, in fourth place fol-
lowing 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 Bul-
garian 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, noth-
ing more concrete than this can be inferred. I would not even commit
myself to any opinion about the size of the military detachment com-
manded 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 ala-
gator 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 spath-
arioi. The word itself always retained its ordinary meaning of army
unit, squadron. The two alagions, each headed by an alagator, were
338 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 8·

339 DRH, ser. A, vol. I, No. 195, p. 175 etc.; Institufii feudale, p. 149.
340 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 2754, 299; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 5254.
341 Duridanov Iv, "Byzantino-slavica. Po sledite na edno srednovekovno administra-
tivno naimenovanie", Izvestija na lnstituta za bulgarski ezik, kn. VIII, 1962, p. 182.
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 administra-
tive 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 obliga-
tions 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 com-
mandants de la garde imperiale sous les Paleologues: l'rni mi> mpa:mi> et le juge de
l'armee », Revue des etudes byzantines, 18 (1960), pp. 83-92.
343 Novakovic, "Vizantijski Cinovi i titule", p. 264.
344 Snegarov lv., "Po vllprosa za spahiite-nemokhamedani'', lstoricheski pregled,
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 cav-
alry, namely, the strators and the comites with horses. An interesting
fact is that all three offices are present in the charters of Tsar John
Shishman. As the Virgino chrysobull was antedated, we may disregard
the mention of comites with horses and of the strator in that docu-
ment. There is no doubt that, of the three, the ala gator stood highest in
the official hierarchy. In the enumeration he is in 4th to 6th position,
while the comes with horses is in 13th-14th, and the strator in 14th-
15th. However, this knowledge provides no grounds for inferring that
some specific relations of subordination existed between them, for the
precise nature of the offices has not been fully clarified. Possibly their
military obligations were not too different, and horses are the only
common element between the three.
4.5.3.5. Comes with horses
The form ~OMHCI:. c1:. ~OHI:.MH occurs only in the Virgino chrysobull. 346
In the two charters of tsar John Shishman, the Rila and Vitosha
chrysobulls, we only see the form ~OMHCH (pl.). 347 1t is to clarify whether
these two forms refer to the same institution. In my opinion, the dif-
ferences in designation are not so great as to cause a serious debate
on the problem. Personally, I am not inclined to accept the possible
assertion that the addition "with horses" changes the nature of the
office; probably, we have two different ways of articulate the term in
the documents. The full designation was probably the official one, but
this is hard to prove.
The fact that the institution was included in the charters attests that
in the performance of his duties this provincial official might infringe
some rights granted by the ruler. As for the content of the official's
obligations, the indicating of horses may provide some information.
In order to find parallels with the situation in the Byzantine Empire,
Walachia and Moldavia, I would refer to what was said about the great
comes. Here I would only like to make some remarks about the two
principalities. In addition to the great comes, in sources there we also
find references to a second and third comes, and to twelve officers
346 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1899-Ioo.

347 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 10; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 5256•
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 leader-
ship 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 Otto-
man 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.
351 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64.
382 CHAPTER FOUR
4.5.3.6. Strator
The designation of this official-CTfb.TOfb. (plural CTfb.TOfH, CTfb.TOftl)-
occurs in three documents: the Vir gino, Rila, and Vitosha chrysobulls. 352
The term itself is of Greek origin and is evidently related to the mili-
tary sphere. In studying the Bulgarian institution, we have to consider
again the Byzantine archetype, which is well evidenced in the sources.
In Uspensky's Taktikon and in Philotheus' treatise we learn they were
court officials. In Constantinople, the office was titular. The strators
were the horsed escort of the basileus in the earlier period. They rep-
resented a court schole, headed by the protostrator. They occupied the
thirteenth place in the hierarchy. The last mentions of them date from
the lOth and early 11th century.353 In the Balkan countries neighbour-
ing with the Byzantine Empire, this office, or at least its designation,
was preserved after this period. In Serbia, the strators are present in
the enumeration of offices in the chrysobull of king Stephen Milutin
from AD 1300. 354 In that source, the official in question occupied the
sixth rank, but the context does not enable making concrete inference
as to the nature of the functions he performed.
Evidently, direct parallels are admissible only with the Serbian insti-
tution, but it too is scarcely represented in the documents. We should
also take into account that the office is mentioned in the well known
chrysobull of Milutin, dating from AD 1300, a document that is closely
related to the Virgino chrysobull. The big question is how admissible
it is to make parallels with the Byzantine institution. The authors who
have touched upon this topic have usually expressed the opinion that
parallels can be made. They have pointed out that the strators were part
of the military organisation of a district and were specifically respon-
sible for the cavalry. 355 This was probably so, but it must be proven.
There are several reasons why it would be risky to assume this a priori.
Foremost, it is evident that in Bulgaria and Serbia (probably under
Bulgarian influence, for the information comes from Macedonia, a
352 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 100, 29 10 _11 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 5256·
353 Bury, The Impetial Administrative System, p. 118; Guilland R., "Etudes de titu-
lature et de prosopographie byzantines. Le protostrator», Revue des etudes byzantines,
VII, 1950, p. 156; Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 132-33; Oikonomides, Les listes de pre-
seance, pp. 61 22, 121 30, 155,20526, 227 7,21 , 298, 337-8; Georgescu, Bizantul ~i institufiile
romane, p. 55.
355 Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie», p. 12; Dujcev, Rilskata gra-
mota, p. 65; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 162.
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 neighbour-
ing countries. However, more important, we must pose the question
as to what extent the Byzantine strators as an institution can be com-
pared with the Bulgarian ones. It is to stress once again that in Byz-
antium 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 bot-
tom 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 dupli-
cated 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 pro-
posed 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 add-
ing to the base "R~p-" the suffix forming masculine nouns, "-~( This
suffix produces words that designate persons according to their pro-
fession. 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.

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 dif-
ference 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 for-
tresses, 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·
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 pro-
vide 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 com-
mander-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 detach-
ments 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 principali-
ties.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, adminis-
trative, 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 Mol-
dova, pp. 309-10; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domneasca, p. 143; Institufii feudale,
pp. 434-5.
386 CHAPTER FOUR
under Basil Lupu, and its duties were considerably more complex. Of
course, the military functions were predominant here too, especially
as concerned guarding the borderline separating the country from
the Tartars in the direction of Bucak (or Budjak) and Crimea. The
17th century historian Miron Costin even calls the serdar 'a second
hetman'. From command over the border cavalry, the functions of the
serdar gradually passed to some purely administrative powers compa-
rable to those of the parcalabs and elders in the respective districts.
The Moldavian serdars had power for administration of justice as well,
especially with respect to certain thefts (in particular thefts committed
by Turks or Tartars), as well as for imposing fines at market places.
During the 18th century, this office gradually lost its active duties, and
in the 19th century it turned into a purely honorary title.
All this raises the issue as to how admissible it is to seek parallels
with the situation in Bulgaria. In his view on the issue, Peter Kole-
darov leaves no room for doubt: according to him, the Walachian and
Moldavian institutions &eAH~'ll. cepAAfb. and cepAb.fb. were borrowed
from the Bulgarian administrative system. 364 However, his argumen-
tation seems inadequate, and I would not risk being so categorical.
Undoubtedly, this was an institution borrowed from the Osmanli
Turks. Did it pass through Bulgaria before reaching the principalities
of Walachia and Moldavia? Let us recall that there is record of it in the
Vitosha chrysobull in the 14th century; while in Walachia, no earlier
than the middle of the 17th century (in Moldavia even later!). Nearly
three hundred years would have been quite enough time for such a
tradition to disappear. That is why I believe the assumption that there
was a direct loan from the Ottoman administrative system cannot be
rejected a priori-it even seems to be the more probable explanation.
The indisputably common origin of the two institutions-Bulgarian
one and the Romanian-drives me to consider the comparisons the
only way for attaining more concrete knowledge. Previous authors
that have worked on this issue have followed this line and defined
the serdars mostly as military officers. 365 I believe that the relation of
the Bulgarian serdars with the army cannot seriously be put in doubt.
These were indeed military officers in the provincial administration.
364Koledarov, "Le titulariat des boyards", p. 199.

365Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 120; Dujeev, SBK, II, p. 394, Andreev, Vatopedskata gra-
mota, pp. 156-7; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 162, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 323-5.
Of course, the specific features of the time and state had their impact.
Based on the Bulgarian document one can state that this was not a
high-ranking military officer, but a rank that came in sixteenth posi-
tion in the enumeration.
4.5.3.9
The vatah is mentioned only once in the Vir gino chrysobull: ... HH
R~rr~;x:. 366 In the enumeration, he comes in fifth place. The meaning
of the term designating him is not quite clear. The authors who have
written on this topic are not unanimous about it. 367 Konstantin Jirecek
believed that the vatah was an official dealing with judicial and finan-
cial matters. G. Ilinsky is more inclined to interpret the term as mean-
ing an elder of a tribe. M. Andreev and D. Angelov define him as a
fiscal official with some judicial powers. In this situation, in order to
achieve some more or less satisfactory conclusions, we shall have to
clarify the origin and content of the term itself and seek parallels with
neighbouring countries.
Konstantin Jirecek was the first to make some suggestions about the
etymology of the word; he pointed out that "vatazhka" is the name of a
tribe elder in the Carpathian region; in the Old Polish language wata-
cha and wataha means "union", "association"; in Russian "vataga" is
the designation of a fishermen's guild on the Volga river. In fact, we
may claim that the word came to the Balkans from the East Slavic lan-
guages, into which it was borrowed from Turkic. In Romanian, apart
from the special institutional meaning of the word, it also means "a
person who heads some group", a "chief" (with indication that the
word is borrowed from Ukrainian). 368 Evidently, some Bulgarian non-
institutional meanings of the word are also of this origin. For instance,
Nayden Gerov indicates that "vataf" is the designation of a leader of
calu~ars, who go around on the Rusalii feast practice. 369 1he meaning
in Russian comes from "BaTara" (vataga) ="company", "mob", "gang",
"artel", while "BaTar" (vatag) = "ataman", "elder" = "leader" Else-
where the emphasis is on the meaning 'fishermen's artel', which will
366 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 15 t5·

367 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.
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 Wala-
chia, they are mentioned in sources dating as early as the 15th century
(15. I. 1467), while in Moldavia the dating is later (1532). An interest-
ing office was that of the great vataf, which we find in 16th century
sources. Although quite varied, their functions seem to have origi-
nated from military duties. All indications are that these officials per-
formed 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.
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 Bulgar-
ian institution was, it is inevitable to resort to a parallel examination
of the respective institution in Walachia and Moldavia. 373 Unfortu-
nately, 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 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 333-5.

374 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 func-
tions. Ivan Dujcev was also inclined to define this official as a low-
ranking officer. For their part, M. Andreev and D. Angelov considered
him a fiscal agent who disposed of judicial powers. Unfortunately, the
source itself is too poor in information and does not provide a possi-
bility to make a generalisation on the topic. In any case, the participa-
tion of the topshtikal in the administration of justice is very probable.
This, after all, provides a more concrete idea about his obligations. We
can define them, in accordance with the text, as judicial-police duties. 376
As for the fiscal competencies that some authors suggest, this is merely
a conjecture, neither confirmed nor denied by the sources. That is why
it seems arbitrary to me.
5. CONCLUSION
Thus, to generalise about the institutional and administrative ter-

minology, 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 deter-
mining for the character of the state through the culture of this ethnic
group (of the Eurasian steppe peoples), was substituted by Orthodox
Christianity. Bulgaria fell under the influence of Constantinople and
developed under it, which is especially evident in the processes related
to statehood and law. In this sense, it is not surprising that in the ter-
minology of that period we observe a prevalence of terms which, in
one way or another, originated from the Byzantine Empire.
375 Irecek, Istorija na bulgarite, p. 445; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 342; Andreev, Angelov,
Istorija, pp. 159, 253, 255; llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1514-15·

376 Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 335-6.
The preserved Turkic terms are very few, although in most cases
they are quite concrete. We should also take into account the fact
that not all of them can be ascribed to the legacy of the Bulgars. One
observes also an influence from the later nomads, as well as an early
influence from the Osmanli Turks.
5.2
The influence of the Byzantine Empire began at a very early epoch, for
some of the terms, which have preserved their Bulgar Turkic forms,
have their origin in the concepts adopted from the Byzantine legal
and administrative terminology. In the presentation in this chapter
several such cases were given. Thus, in the earlier period, a term was
created in the Bulgar Turkic language; this term however, followed
its Byzantine archetype. In the following epoch, this term was usually
substituted by a Slavic one, which also followed its Greek-language
original. It is possible that the two were in usage at the same time,
one being more official, and the other (usually the Slavic term) more
colloquial sounding. Finally, usually at the time of the Second Bulgar-
ian Empire, it was possible for a direct loan of the Greek designation
to occur, transliterated in Cyrillic letters, and for this word to take the
place of the previous ones.
5.3
It is possible to trace a certain scale of preferences in the construction
of the terms.
The superior institutions with greater ideological importance had
designations, closer to those in the Byzantine Empire from which they
had ultimately originated. Thus, we can see that practically almost all
"pure titles" had designations directly borrowed and transliterated
from the Greek. These were the highest titles, which had a relation to
the institution of ruler and to the hierarchic order in society, an order
that lies at the core of the Byzantine worldview and, hence, of the
Byzantine political ideology.
The court institutions were usually also titular in character and
heavily charged with ideological meaning, because of their relation to
personal service for the ruler and to the organisation of the cult of
the ruler and the rituals connected with him. This is the reason that
the Greek forms of designation for these institutions are predominant
here as well. The same one can state about the highest-ranking officials
392 CHAPTER FOUR
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 cen-
tury 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 con-
trary, 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 commu-
nity 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 pre-
modern 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 pre-
cisely 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,
1 Kuchev, Finansovo pravo, pp. 43-5.

2 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 rep-
resentatives, which is typical for the present day but not for the premodern societies
such as the Bulgarian one during the epoch we are concerned with.
4 Stojanov P., Danachno pravo, Sofia, 1994, pp. 19-21; Kuchev, Finansovo pravo,
p. 160
5 Stojanov P., Danachno pravo, p. 21.
394 CHAPTER FIVE
Sejm, Etats generaux) the idea was adopted that the ruler only pro-
poses, suggests the levy, and the assembly decides. This is a kind of
self-taxation on the part of the population, for the decisions are made
by their representatives. This practice is still valid and it is assumed
that taxes can be imposed only by virtue of an act of the national rep-
resentation, which is solely empowered to decide on the spending of
revenues based on the Budget Act. The special nature of taxes, which
have never been a very agreeable thing to the population and ever been
a source of corruption or suspicion of corruption, generates likewise
a variety of theories about their essence-the insurance theory and its
version called equivalent theory, as well as the sacrifice theory. 6
Here I would suggest a working definition of taxes: they are state titles
governed by public law and thus of a compulsory nature, and intended
for the support of state activities indispensable for the existence of the
state-organised societies. 7 The public law nature of the receipts8 has a
special importance not only because it makes it mandatory for the
population but also because it radically changes its meaning. Usually
Marxist scholars defined taxes, various fees, and other charges imposed
by the state in pre-modern societies as a type of exploitation. According
to Marxist views, exploitation is the appropriation of the labour result
either coercively or in the form of a surplus product and value. All this
is implemented and organised by means of property and its manage-
ment, which defines also the type of management of the economic
activity in general. Thus, the classical type of exploitation, according
to Marxist theory, is implemented within the framework of relations
regulated by private rather than public law, which regulates the taxa-
tion relations. Thus, we should by definition exclude taxes from the
forms of exploitation exerted by any dominant class. These receipts
are necessary for society; it cannot exist without them and from them
obtains resources for the socially useful activity of the state. It should
be noted however, that fiscal relations aim at, or could aim at, not
only the funding of state activity but also some sort of redistribution
of goods. The latter may be either fair or unfair; either justified or not;
6 Stojanov Iv., Danachno pravo. Obshta chast. Danachen protses, pp. 18-9.
7 Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite, p. 346. There are many definitions of taxes, and the one
given here does not claim to explain the phenomenon but to serve as a working basis
for the present research. For other more detailed definitions, ct: Stojanov P., Danachno
pravo, p. 19 and especially 21; Str. Kuchev, Ju. Kuchev, Danachno pravo, Sofia, 1997,
pp. 7-19; Stojanov Iv., Danachno pravo. Obshta chast. Danachen protses, p. 17.
8 Str. Kuchev, Ju. Kuchev, Danachno pravo, p. 15.
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS 395
either necessary or not, and therefore we cannot reduce it to a com-

mon denominator. In any case, this redistribution leads to acquisi-
tion 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 Bal-
kans, 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 assump-
tion. Moreover, the fiscal system of Bulgaria during the early Middle
Ages cannot be perceived as something complete and preserved dur-
ing 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
9 Tllpkova-Zaimova, Miltenova, Istoriko-apokaliptichnata knizhnina, p. 196.

10 loannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed I. Thurn, Berolini-Novi Eboraci 1973,
p. 412.
11 Ivanov, BSM, pp. 547-62 and especiallyp. 555.
396 CHAPTER FIVE
the 9th century, especially after the conversion to Christianity, and yet
another in the 1Oth-llth century, within the increasingly Byzantine-
like administrative structure created by Symeon, Peter, and Samuel.
The era of the Second Empire provides a somewhat greater amount
of information, as we have several imperial documents from that time.
It is precisely data from that period that will be the basis of this chap-
ter. I have tried to follow the definition of fiscal in its broadest possible
sense, taking the risk to include words that some readers might con-
sider superfluous; but the aim was to miss no term, whatever its degree
of significance. Below, I am going to introduce in detail the vocabulary
and its interpretation, the titles of the officials of the fiscal offices, and
the taxes, corvees and auxiliary objects.
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: desig-
nations 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 lan-
guage), and another two are of Turkic origin (E.Hr'll.l~'ll. and its deriva-
tive 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 classifica-
tion 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:
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 name-
oxen). 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 con-
tradiction 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 excep-
tionally 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 com-
pletely 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 usu-
ally 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. How-
ever, this process has some specific features. I mentioned already that
we know very little about economy and taxes during the First Bulgar-
ian 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 inher-
ited 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 fis-
cal terminology, accompanied by a certain Slavicisation of the vocabu-
lary. This tendency is not very hard to explain. Firstly, during the early
period we observe a simple continuation of the established fiscal struc-
ture, 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 glos-
sary 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
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 Byzan-
tine fiscal terminology. The emphasis is on the obligation of the popu-
lation 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 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 8,13·

13 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 28, 31·
14 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 sP·
15 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 156 n. 24, 27, 15734, 36·
16 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 392, 580, 607, 707.
17 Institufii feudale, pp. 139-41.
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 correc-
tion. I believe that, within the context, the preferred interpretation
should be that this is a general designation for taxes and other state
revenues. It is to stress the fact that the word 'birk' is not of Slavic
but of Turkic origin and is likely to be one of the few words inherited
from the Bulgar language. 20 It is not a derivative of the verb Gfb.TH
(= 'gather', 'take') as it would seem at first glance, but of the Turkic
root 'biiri, biirii' meaning 'gift', 'present'. Here we find another ancient
concept of the tax as a gift for the ruler from the population. This does
not change anything at the lexical level, for in Slavic both concepts
('gift' and 'toll') originate from the verb 'to give'. However, the pres-
ervation of a term borrowed from the languages of the Steppe-and
in such a special area at that-is a significant fact of the culture of
mediaeval Bulgaria. Franz von Miklosich first thought the word to be
of Magyar origin and this opinion was shared by Ivan Dujcev.21 I am
reluctant to subscribe to this opinion but it is to note that it would
again direct us to the traditions of the Steppe. I would like to note
also that Genoveva Tsankova-Petkova connects the term in question
with the Russian-Scandinavian 'vira'. 22 This opinion, mentioned only
as a reference in a footnote, without elaboration of a specific thesis,
I find to be unacceptable, for the term quoted had a completely dif-
ferent meaning in Rus'. The word 'birk' is used also in the Russian
language. In Serbia it is found at least in Milutin's charter of AD 1300,
which is practically the same text, as the Virgino charterY But here we
also find a quite similar word, &Hfb., 24 which undoubtedly has a similar
meaning. I consider the term 'birk' to be of interest, since it not only
originated from a quite ancient period of the Bulgarian state system
but also suggests the nature of the tax income, being related to the
meaning of 'ruler' and 'sovereign', something I have mentioned in the
presentation of the word in the glossary.
Another term for general designation of state titles through compul-
sory payments by the population is AO"f,.OA"b.l<."b. ('dohodak}, which is

20 Vasmer, I, p. 167.
21 von Miklosich Fr., Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum, Aalen, 1963, p. 22;
Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 345.
22 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 110 note 164.
24 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 572, 573, 597, 598, 624, 651, 696, 699.
found only in the Virgino chrysobull; however the word has differ-
ent meanings in that text. In two of the citations it is about revenue
in terms of goods that the tsar has donated to the monastery, 25 while
in the remaining cases it is about revenues from taxes or other public
state titles. 26 Evidently, the situation at the source is quite intricate.
Nevertheless, I think that the obvious solution is the most likely one,
and it was proposed by G. Ilinsky at the beginning of the 20th century: 27
'dohodak', or just 'earnings' or 'income', has no special legal meaning;
it simply means the revenue, which the state or the entity favoured
by the chrysobull has from taxes or other liabilities of the population.
However, for us it is more important to note that the term is a loan
translation from the Greek dcr6ow~, dcr6&ruux or xp6crooo~ or from
the Latin 'obventio', which not only have the same meaning but are
also structured in the same way.
Another interesting term is er.t'M'l'&O ('emstvo'), quoted in tsar
Michael II Asen's treaty with Dubrovnik dating from AD 1253.28 Ivan
Dujcev advanced the opinion that it means 'guarantee', or 'judging',
and compared it to the Latin vadimonium. 29 The word comes from
the verb 'eMBaM' (in Modern Bulgarian), which most generally means
'grab'. Essentially, this does not lead in any way to the meaning on
which our eminent scholar insisted. Furthermore, the context of
the quotation does not allow such an interpretation. The text of the
treaty is clear: "And if the people of Thy Holy Empire or of that of
His Highness, the high sebastocrator, have any claim against a subject
of Dubrovnik, we undertake the obligation to bring him to court
exempt from judicial fees and taxes in accordance with our law of
full justice. Likewise, there shall be justice for our people on the ter-
ritory of Thy Holy Empire or of that of His Highness, sebastocrator
Peter in accordance with the law of Thy Holy Empire or of that of His
Highness, sebastocrator Peter, exempt from any taxes and judicial fees,
and without (any) emstvo". 30 I think that we have grounds to see in
the word 'emstvo' a general designation for state revenues from taxes
and charges. It is true that judicial fees are alluded to, but I would not
25 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 1631,42·

26 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1515• 16 43 M• 18 82,83, 85·
28 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 15736·
30 Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 50. The last words marked in italic are simply missing in the
translation of Ivan Dujcev.
402 CHAPTER FIVE
exclude such taxes as well, since the word dan' is clearly mentioned in
the text. Yet to be addressed is the possible assumption that the term
is purely local to Dubrovnik and has nothing to do with the Bulgarian
fiscal and legal vocabularies. This question will remain pending since
there is no data proving either assumption. I would not exclude this
term from the study, since the treaty is an act involving two parties,
and it could be assumed it is a relevant source for this research.
And finally, before approaching the individual words in the taxation
area, I would like to elaborate also on the term npH11A~T~ ('priplata')
as a general designation for the implementation of state titles. It is
found in the Virgino chrysobull: " ... and shall not do any work for
the tsar and shall not give any priplata ... "31 The context is clear and
I think it refers to a general concept covering not only taxes but all
such incomes, either in kind or in money, except the corvees, where
usually the consideration is in labour or in materials. This term is
found also in Serbia, and we have grounds to think that it bears the
same, more general meaning. 32 D. Angelov mentions 'priplata', but
apparently considers it to be a type of tax and not a general designa-
tion for payables. 33 G. Tsankova-Petkova also considers it to be a type
of levy with undefined meaning. 34
3.1.1. Taxes
Taxes form the most significant part of financial and legal institution
and are also the most significant source of state revenues. Here the
known terms will be introduced in random order without consider-
ation of their size or importance for the state revenues.
3.1.1.1
Tithe (AeCh.Trz..~erz.., desjatak) was one of the important taxes in the
fiscal system of mediaeval Bulgaria. It is a levy on the production
and is defined as a percentage thereof. The term is mentioned in the
Vatopedi and Mraka charters but we should also add the information
on the tithe officers, who were vested with the duty of collecting it. Thus
in the oldest Bulgarian document-the one in favour of the Vatopedi
Monastery-tithe officers are mentioned and, several lines below, the

32 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 411, 461, 609, 680, 704.
34 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 146.
tithe is referred to, without specifications as to the production it was

imposed on. 35 It is an item on the list of taxes the monastery and its
people were exempt from, and the tithe officers were among the officials
forbidden to operate on the Vatopedi lands. In the Mraka chrysobull it
is stated that "no tithe" should be collected from the monastery peo-
ple, and further above in the text there is an interdiction on collecting
taxes by various officials, including by " ... tithe officers of any kind:
swine, sheep, bee ... ". 36 Thus, we learn of some specific tithe levies on
swine, sheep and on production of honey. One should not consider this
list to be comprehensive. In the Virgino charter, among the officials
prohibited to approach the monastery, are cited "... neither bee tithe
officers nor sheep ... "37 In the Rila charter we read about "tithe officers-
bee, and swine and sheep". 38 In fact the same text is found also in the
Vitosha charter of tsar John Shishman. 39
I think that this term is quite typical for describing the taxes
during the Middle Ages and for this reason data about it is abundant.
We found citations also in neighbouring countries, which we usually
use for parallel studying of all too scanty in resources Bulgarian legal
vocabulary. In mediaeval Serbia tithe is repeatedly mentioned in
documents of that age. There we find data on salt tithe;~ 0 swine tithe,41
large and small tithe for the authorities,42 wheat tithe,43 wine tithe,44 bee
tithe,45 sheep tithe;46 finally, "any livestock tithe" is cited.47 Having
in mind that in many places in the texts the tithe is not specified,
35 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 9,14-15·

36 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 29. 32·
37 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 181oo·
39 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 1o·
41 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 310 VIII, 407 III, 411 IV; Solovjev, Mosin.
Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, No. II line 56, pp. 504-5.
42 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 628 LXXXVII.
43 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 411 IV, 455 X, 467 II, 614 XXXII, 680 XXI,
767 XIV.
44 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 455 X, 467 II, 614 XXXII, 680 XXI, 767 XIV.
45 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 407 III, 411 IV, 467 II, 614 XXXII, 767 XIV. In
connection with bee tithe in Serbia I would like to take notice of what was written by
A. Solovjev and VL Mosin as well as of one of the possible interpretations of the term
yoojkA.wnK6v, which is found in Greek language documents of the Serbian rulers-
Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 415-6, 464-5.
46 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 407 III, 411 IV, 448 III, 614 XXXII; Solovjev,
Mo8in. Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, No. II line 49 (7tpoj3atoxotpo&.Ka'teia), p. 485.
47 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 455 X.
404 CHAPTER FIVE
considering also the wide scope of the cited levies on material production,
I think it could be maintained that all those clarifications do not
aim at comprehensively listing the products on which this tax was
imposed. This provides grounds to consider it to have been a general
tax imposed on production, and the quoted clarifications to be examples
of only its more important aspects. Of course, this could also mean
that those favoured by the endowment of the ruler were exempt only
from the above-listed types of tithe, but such a conclusion could be
made only after a detailed study of the specific case, which is not the
purpose of our study. In general, I think that the main conclusion
could be that the tithe in mediaeval Bulgaria was not a different kind
of taxation from the tithe in Serbia.
This fiscal institution also existed in Walachia and Moldavia. There
it was called 'dizmarstvo' (AH~U~fC'I'Ro, from 'dijma' = 'tithe' and
'dijmarit'), a term practically the same as the one in Bulgaria and
apparently also originating from the fiscal terminology of the Empire.48
Even though, like the Byzantine word OeKateia, it means tithe, one
tenth of what is produced, in fact the percentage going to the state
was rarely as low as that, and it varied considerably over time. Data
for Walachia and Moldavia is richer than those for Bulgaria and the
differentiation is more detailed but I do not think that conclusions
could always be made on analogy because the information refers to
different epoch and much better developed financial system, strongly
influenced by the Central European states.
Certainly, the origin of the Bulgarian and of the other Balkan fiscal
institution should be sought in the Empire. This is obvious at least in
relation to the designation: the term 'tithe' is definitely a loan transla-
tion from the Greek OeKatda. However, it seems that the Byzantine
tax mainly concerned stock-breeding production.49 At the same time
differentiation should be made between the tax payable and the 'tithe',
which is rent for the land that serves as the basis for production. 50
It is likely that the tithe was collected in kind by special official
called 'desetkar', tithe officer. 51 According to M. Lascaris the tithe was
a tax imposed only on stock-breeding, while the main land tax was the
48 DRH, ser. B, vol. I, No. 12, 23, 39 etc.; Institutii feudale, pp. 158-60.
49 Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption jiscale, pp. 74-6.
50 Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption fiscale, pp. 127-8.
51 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 357-61 (as well as the indicated therein older literature).
komod. 52 This is mentioned also by D. Angelov, who practically sup-

ports the same opinion and defines it as a tax in kind. 53 G. Tsankova-
Petkova also believes that tithe was a tax imposed exclusively on
livestock. 54 In contrast, M. Andreev states that this was the main tax
imposed on production in mediaeval Bulgaria. 55 In a short note, Ivan
Bozilov also dwells on the tithe and defines it as non-uniform in nature.
He asserts it was far from being the only or the most important tax. 56
It seems to me that the solution of linking the tithe to stock-breed-
ing alone is unacceptable, inasmuch as data exists about a salt tithe
and a wheat tithe, and in many places there is an emphatic reference
to exemption from 'all types of tithe'. Nevertheless, I am inclined to
accept that the tithe was not the main tax collected on the production
and ensuring the main bulk of the state revenue; most likely some
other tax played that role. 57
3.1.1.2
Volobershtina (RoAO&,LJJHH~, a term in which one can easily see traces
of the word 'vol' = 'ox'), called also zeugar (~eRP~fb.), was the name
for the main tax imposed on farming production in mediaeval Bul-
garia. It is of special interest for this research because it is based
on the Greek designation of the same financial title. Volobershtina
is referred to only in the Virgino chrysobull; there it is mentioned
twice, with regard to the various taxes from which the monastery
was exempt. 58 It is found also in mediaeval Serbia, but only in Milu-
tin's chrysobull of AD 1300, which is closely related to the Virgino
chrysobull. 59 In the same document is found also the title of a special
official called 'volober', who was apparently responsible for collecting
52 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 45-6.

53 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 208-11. In the Empire this tax was payable in
cash and was not in-kind-see Dolger Fr., Sechs byzantinische Praktika des 14. Jahrhun-
dert for das Athoskloster Iberon (Abhandl. der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Phil.-hist. Kl., 28), 1949, p. 77.
55 Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 118; Andreev, "Traits speclfiques du systeme
fiscal", p. 90.
56 B<>Zilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 49.
57 With this I would like to correct my statement that the tithe was the main tax in
Bulgaria during the Middle Ages-Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 357.

58 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 aa. 19 1o1·
59 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 609 X, 614 XXXII, 617 L. It is about 'payment
of volobershtina'. Otherwise, the term ~£IYY!XIl!Xnnov is well presented in the Greek docu-
ments of the Serbian rulers: Solovjev, Mosin, Grtke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 442-4.
406 CHAPTER FIVE
the tax. 60 On the other hand, in the Bulgarian documents are found the
terms 'zevgar' or 'zevgelie', but they only mean 'a pair of oxen' and do
not imply any tax burden. 61
Volobershtina as a kind of tax has not been neglected by researchers.
G. Danailov defines it as a tax imposed on a pair of oxen. 62 Practically
the same opinion is expressed by D. Angelov. 63 After some hesitation,
he defines it as a monetary tax, but the justification is reduced only to
contradistinction from the in-kind tithe. According to G. Tsankova-
Petkova, volobershtina is a tax imposed on a pair of oxen and on the
arable land per pair of oxen. 64 This combination between draught ani-
mals levy and land levy is odd; but the author's position is not quite
clear as to whether the tax was imposed on the oxen as means of pro-
duction or whether zevgar is referred to as a way to define the unit of
arable land in terms of a pair of oxen. In fact, the most extravagant
point in the position of G. Tsankova-Petkova is the unification she
proposes for the various taxation terms. The author considers that the
terms zeugologion, zeugaratikion, komod, zhitarstvo, sitarkia, volober-
shtina and soc/soce mean one and the same tax that bore different
designations in various countries. Thus, she actually lumps into one
all the taxes related to agriculture. I see contradiction in this position,
inasmuch as some of the designations are found in one and the same
text both in Bulgaria and in mediaeval Serbia. M. Andreev practically
denies the existence of a tax called 'volobershtina' in the fiscal system
of Bulgaria in the Middle Ages. 65 Indeed, the fact that it is mentioned
only once in the non-authentic Virgino charter may make it question-
able; but I have preferred to discuss it here-at least at the termino-
logical level; apart from this, it may have carried its Greek designation
in Bulgaria as well.
Evidently, the views of the researchers vary significantly. Unanimous
though is the understanding that volobershtina has its roots in the
Empire and corresponds to 'zeugologion' (l;euyoA&ywv) or 'zeugaratikion'
(~c.t>yapa'ttKwv). It is very important for our study to emphasise that
60 NovakoviC. Zakonski spomenici, p. 620 LXXVII.

61 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 16; Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 27 62> 24 21·
62 Danailov G., "Stranitsa iz c!Arzhavnoto stopanstvo v starobulgarsko vreme",
Bulgarski pregled, god IV, 1898, kn 12, p. 47.
63 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 212-3.
64 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 110 note 161, 140-4, 160-1.
65 Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 115-8; Andreev, "Traits specifiques du
systeme fiscal", pp. 91-2.

the Slavic designation is a derivative of the Greek one although it is

neither a loanword nor a literal translation. That is why the original
deserves attention; moreover its connection with Bulgaria is strength-
ened by the fact that it is mentioned in the sigillion of despot Alexis
Slav. 66 First and foremost is the question whether these are two des-
ignations for one and the same tax or for two different taxes. Franz
Dolger seems hesitant in his position on this question because at first
he expressed the view that the two financialliabili ties were identical but
in his later work he made a distinction between them. 67 D. Xanalatos
also makes such a differentiation, noting that 'zeugaratikion' is a tax
imposed on the land ploughed with a pair of oxen while 'zeugologion'
is a tax imposed on the draught cattle. 68 Nicholas Oikonomides con-
siders unjustified the differentiation of the debts called 'zeugologion' or
'zeugaratikion', and classifies them among the additional taxes-in this
case a tax payable only by the paroikoi. 69 In order to clarify the nature
of this debt he refers to one of the letters of archbishop Theophylactus
of Bulgaria, which definitely classifies it as land levy payable only by
the above-mentioned category of peasants. 70
This financial institution under study passed into the Ottoman
Empire with the same or similar connotation under the designation
'fiftltk', undoubtedly a derivative of the Greek 'zeugari' (1;£'\Y'fapt = fift
/Turkish!= 'pair'). 71 Such is also the designation used in Walachia and
Moldavia. 72 Undoubtedly, this confirms its continuity in the mediaeval
Balkan states.
What then can we generally say about the Bulgarian tax duty? I do
not believe we can accept without reservation G. Tsankova-Petkova's
conclusion, whereby she identifies it with the other land taxes. There is
66 Papadopoulos J., pere A. Vatopedinos, "Un acte officiel au sujet du couvent Spe-
leotissa pres de MeJ.enikon", Spisanie na BAN, XLV, 1933, p. 5, Actes de Vatopedi, p. 127
No. 13llgne 18.
67 Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, p. 53; Dolger Fr., Zum Gebuhrenwesen des Byzantiner,
Athen, 1939, p. 24.

68 Xanalatos D. A., Beitrage zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Makedon iens imM it-
tela Iter, hauptsachtlich auf Grund der Brie.fe des Erzbischo.fs Theophylaktos von Achrida,
Mtinchen, 1937, p. 40 ff. See also the work of Solovjev, Mosin, Grtke povelje srpskih
vladara, p. 442 ff.; Kazhdan, Agrarnye, p. 122 ff.
69 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 84.
70 Theophylacti Achridensis Epistulae, ed P. Gautier, Thessalinique, 1980, no. 26,
l. 22
71 Inalclk H., "The Problem of Relationship between Byzantine and Ottoman
Taxation", Akten des XI. Interna. Byzant. Kongresses (1958), Miinchen, 1960, p. 241.
408 CHAPTER FIVE
no doubt that it followed its Byzantine prototype and was a land and
production levy, not a draught animals levy. The latter are mentioned
only as a measure for the area ploughed with them. It is difficult to
say whether only the transliterated Greek designation alone was used
or the Slavic designation as well.
3.1.1.3
Dimnina (A'AIMbHHH~) is a poll tax imposed per household; its des-
ignation is a translation from the Greek term 'kapnikon' (K<X1tVtKov).
The general idea is to refer to the "smoke"= x:a1tV6<; (Greek), A'AIU'b
(Slavic). This term also occurs in the Virgino chrysobull where it is
quoted among the other taxes the monastery was exempted from
" ... the convents of St. George shall not pay priselitsa, neither volober-
shtina, nor perpera or dimnina ..."73
In terms of the nature of the financial duty, dimnina does not pose
any special problems. G. Danailov defines it as house duty, 74 which is
not quite correct, but indicates the indiscriminate nature of the state
title, though he links it to property, not to the household. D. Angelov
defines it as a Bulgarian counterpart of the Byzantine 'kapnikon', and
as "a tax for an individual fireplace in a house" payable in money.7 5
G. Tsankova-Petkova defines it as a poll tax per household and main-
tains that it was one of the pillars of the mediaeval taxation system,
but again expresses a rather peculiar opinion that it is identical with
'oikomodion' or 'komod'. 76 This is because she links the Greek word
oix:6<;" = 'home' with 'toll on the home or the house'. According to
Tsankova-Petkova, this tax was payable even by the poor households
that did not have sufficient produce with which to pay the land tax.
On the other hand, M. Andreev expresses the view that dimnina did
not exist as a tax in the fiscal system of mediaeval Bulgaria. 77 Thus he
practically denies the information contained in the Virgino chrysobull
regarding the Bulgarian practice.
As I have already mentioned, that the dimnina originated from
the Byzantine kapnikon is considered an indisputable fact. It is obvi-
ous even from the designation, which is a loanword from the Greek

74 Danailov, "Stranitsa iz dArzhavnoto stopanstvo", pp. 46-7.
75 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 211-2; see also Andreev, Angelov, Istorija,
p. 145.
76 Tsank.ova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 144-5, 161.
n Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 115-8. See more subtle in: Andreev, "Traits
specifiques du systeme fiscal", pp. 91-2.
term. A comparatively comprehensive literature has accumulated with

regard to the Byzantine tax; it too is a term that does not pose any
special problems. 78 According to the latest studies, it was a parallel poll
tax, which from the 8th century on, was payable by all free proprietors
and paroikoi. Franz Dolger considers it to have been payable only by
the paroikoi, a view not accepted by all authors-but this is the only
disagreement among them in defining the nature of this tax.
There is data on dimnina in Serbian documents as well. 79 Appar-
ently, it is of the same nature there, for we find it presented in the
same way: with reference to the taxes, the favoured party is exempt
from or of those payable by the population to the favoured party and
not to the state. 80 In Walachia and Moldavia the same state title existed.
It was definitely of a similar nature and bore a similar designation in
Romanian: fumdrit. 81
Obviously this was an all-Balkan fiscal institution and its designa-
tion in the various languages originated from the Byzantine Ka1tVtK6v
and was connected with the notion of 'smoke' that goes up from the
fire place. This gives me reason to differ from the view of M. Andreev,
although I understand his reasons related to the inauthenticity of the
Virgino chrysobull. I would like to reiterate what I have said already-
this is a poll tax imposed on households. As far as its identification
with the Byzantine oikomodion or with the Bulgarian komod is con-
cerned, as proposed by G. Tsankova-Petkova, I would not agree with
such a position.
3.1.1.4
Ariko (AfHKO found also as 'I'KAfHKO and fHKOCb.) is a tax whose des-
ignation is borrowed and directly transliterated from Greek with
some variations and therefore occurring in different forms in the
78 Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, pp. 51-3; Dolger, Staatenwelt, pp. 221 ff., 254 ff.;
Ostrogorsky, Steuergemeinde, pp. 49-52, 113; Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih
vladara, p. 451; Ostrogorsky, Feodalite, pp. 303-5; Khvostova, Osobenosti, pp. 166-8;
Kazhdan, Agrarnye, pp. 149-50; Kazhd.an, Derevnja, pp. 145-50; Oikonomides,
Flscalite, pp. 30-1, 72.
79 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 310 VIII, 407 III, 609 X, 614 XXXII, 680 XXI,
696 XCXLIV, 707 I, 709 III, 759 IX.
80 Interesting, espetially from terminological aspect, is the use ofthe word x:a1tvol..ayia
in a chrysobull of Tsar Symeon Uros of AD 1361 (Solovjev, Mosin, Gr&e povelje srpskih
vladara, No. XXXII lines 66-67, p. 236). Probably this is the only case when the Byzan-
tine Ko:1tVt.K6v is called that, but the meaning of the term is the same (Solovjev, Mosin,
GrCke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 451-2).
410 CHAPTER FIVE
documents. The most correct quotation is in the Vatopedi charter

as 'ariko'; it is cited among the taxes and corvees "by the laws of My
Empire" with respect to which the monastery people were exempt
from payment to the state, but had to pay to the abbot of the monas-
tery.82 In the Virgino charter the term is listed second after komod and
before corvees. In the Rila chrysobull, the tax in question is referred to
twice: "... To this is added as follows: if on the estate of the monastery
any rikos is given, this My Empire's monastery of the holy father shall
take everything in good order and none of the mentioned (officials)
shall have any power to take tvariko"Y We see here two terms quoted
in just a couple of lines, one after the other; they are not quite clear
but phonetically both of them are reminiscent of ariko/aerikon. Ivan
Dujcev interprets them as versions of that word. 84 One should ask
whether we are justified in such an interpretation with respect to an
official text that should have followed the fiscal nomenclature. It is
hard for me to accept it, although I have no other more plausible inter-
pretation of this disposition. In this sense, I think we should proceed
from the working assumption already proposed.
The unclarified nature of the Byzantine aerikon reflects on the stud-
ies regarding the corresponding tax in mediaeval Bulgaria. D. Angelov
does not define it as a tax but rather as a type of fine. 85 G. Tsankova-
Petk ova considers that aeri kon was not a tax but a type of fine. 86 However,
she supports the view that, from a penalty, it was transformed into a
regular fiscal right and thus became a kind of tax. M. Andreev also
defines ariko as a state title of a dual nature: it was an additional tax
and at the same time a fine for illegal activities, and subsequently
became a permanent state right. 87 We should admit this is view is not
original, as it follows what Franz Dolger wrote decades ago. I consider
it even more extravagant to look for a kinship with the Russian word
'vira', especially on the basis of two obviously local designations men-
tioned in the Rila chrysobull (lines 24 and 28). Iv. Dujcev subscribes
to the common opinion that 'ariko' was a judicial fine payable to the
ruler's depository, but he emphasises that the nature of this institution
82 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 20·

83 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 28 75 , 78 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 53 75 , 78 •
85 Angelov D., "Prikhodi na srednovekovnata bulgarska darzhava", Istoricheski pregled,
II, 1945-1946, kn 4-5, p. 403; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 146.

86 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 92, 114, 121, 161-2.
87 Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 92-4.
has not been sufficiently clarified either for the Empire or for medi-
aeval Bulgaria. 88
Based on Bulgarian data alone, we could hardly make any serious
generalisations about the state title in question. At any rate, it is
apparent that the designation 'ariko' originates from the Greek term
Ct.eptK6v (aerikon) and designates an identical, or at least similar, reality
and fiscal legal institution. It has been the topic of a great number
of studies. 89 Different, sometimes contrary, opinions have been stated,
which we shall merely outline here. Franz Dolger maintains that ever
since its origination aerikon had the nature of a fine, which gradually
turned into a regular tax. I find this unacceptable; the sources do not
confirm this view. Ioannis Tornarites in the beginning of the 1930s and
after him John Haldon in the first half of the 1990s maintain that the
designation aerikon comes from the Latin word aes, aeris (='copper',
'bronze', 'small coin') and define this title as a monetary tax or a vari-
ety of the well-known 'dykeraton' or 'hexapholon'. The most recent
study is by Nicholas Oikonomides; it is based on a review of the avail-
able sources. He confirms the meaning as being that of a fine in some
late or isolated cases. However, according to this author, the main and
original meaning of the term was an additional tax on the livestock
collected annually in cash (initially in kind) for which the village bore
collective responsibility.
I think we should look for the characteristics of the Bulgarian ariko
within these parameters. There is no extant data on it except for the
designation itself and the fact that it concerns a state title included in
the monastery privileges. The opinion of the authors that it refers to
a fine is not a result of their special research but rather of the strong
influence and authority of Franz Dolger. I personally consider the
position of Nicholas Oikonomides to be better grounded; his research
is also the most recent. Thus, ariko appears to be an additional tax on
stock-breeding. The nature of penalty that this right acquired later in
the Empire might have existed in Bulgaria as well. In any case, the

89 Dolger Fr., "Das aeptKl>v", Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXX (1929-1930), pp.
450-7; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 46-8; Tornarites, "To a'tvtrJUX 'toO
j}u~!XV'ttVO'I) aeptlroi)", pp. 1-212; Tornarites, "AeptK&;-aerarium-fiscus", pp. 307-66;
Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 383-5; Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija,
pp. 324-5; Haldon, "Aerikon/Aerika: a Re-Interpretation", pp. 136-42; Oikonomides,
Fiscalite, p. 80 ff.
412 CHAPTER FIVE
borrowing of the tax designation, in its Greek form at that, evidences

that the content of this fiscal legal institution was also borrowed.
3.1.1.5
Komod (I~OMOAOZ.) is the name of a tax whose designation is likewise
borrowed from a Greek term-oh:o~6owv (oikomodion). It is found in
three of the chrysobulls of Bulgarian rulers. In the Vatopedi charter of
tsar John II Asen the term is quoted twice. The officers are forbidden
to enter the estate of the monastery and" ... shall neither write, nor take
toll, nor komod, nor mitat or apodochia ... ", and several lines below
in the same text it is written that those revenues shall be collected in
favour of the monastery by the abbots. 90 In the Virgino chrysobull
the KOMAAA (sic "komada") is cited among the taxes the convent of
St. George was exempt from. 91 And finally in the Mraka chrysobull of
tsar John Alexander, komod (cited as "komad") is quoted again in the
enumeration in the protective provisions of the document: " ... neither
write, nor take toll, nor komod, nor mitats or tithe .. ."92
This fiscal legal institution has not been overlooked in studies on the
Bulgarian taxation system. M. Lascaris in his edition of the Vatopedi
charter pays special attention to the komod but expresses the view that
this tax in Bulgaria was entirely different from the tax of the same
name in the Empire and was actually the main land tax payable in
grain or, with regard to vineyards, in wine. 93 D. Angelov defines it as
an in-kind recompense that the tax officer collected in his own favour
from the peasants for measuring the taxable produces. 94 G. Tsankova-
Petkova also discusses this tax in her study; unfortunately her views on
it are strongly influenced by her typical tendency to put in opposition
the data on the taxation system in Bulgaria with that in the Byzantine
Empire, a position dictated also by other considerations having no
connection with the specific research. Thus once again she presents a
peculiar view, unfortunately not a very clear one. According to her the
'komod' was a basic land tax and not an additional payment. 95 It does
not become clear though, whether she identifies it with zeugaratikion/
90 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 13, 2o.

91 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 1o1·
95 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 90-5, 140-1, 160-1.
volobershtina 96 or with dimnina. 97 M. Andreev subscribes to the com-

mon view regarding the oikomodion in the Empire and defines it for
Bulgaria as well as an additional income in favour of the tax officer
who measures the produces. 98
Many of the unclear points in the study of this Bulgarian financial
legal institution are due to obscurities in the clarification of the nature
of its Byzantine archetype. Evidently, the most widely popular position
is the one originating from an authority like Franz Dolger and stating
that oikomodion was an additional charge in favour of the tax official
for the performed measurement of produces and especially of the land
in modia, from which the name is derived. 99 The opinion of G. Litavrin
is similar. 100 J. Bompaire practically maintains the same position and
asserts the tax was a charge in favour of the official who measured the
taxable land in modia. 101 As early as the 19th century V. Vasilevsky
expressed a different opinion-that oikomodion/komod was a state
title identical with dimnina and was a levy on the houses and the sur-
rounding land. 102 It is obvious that the arguments are largely based on
etymology. Finally, N. Oikonomides summarises that the Byzantine
'oikomodion' and its Slavic correspondent 'komod' were regular annual
payments, most likely in kind, which were neither the basic land tax
nor a fee for measuring the land or the produce. 103 Obviously, this was
an additional tax that in the later age was a percentage of the basic tax.
This tax was not typical for the Serbian financial system. It is men-
tioned once in Milutin's charter of AD 1300, which was the archetype
of the Virgino charter. 104 We have good reason to believe that it refers
to the same institution.
96 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 160-1

97 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarniteotnoshenija, pp. 140, 144. In fact, it should be noted
that V. Vasilevskij expressed a similar opinion earlier ("Materialy po vnutrennej istorli
Vizantijskogo gosudarstva", Zhurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosveshtenija, t. CCX,
1880, pp. 368-9.
98 Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 103-4; Andreev, "Traits specifiques du
systeme fiscal", p. 90.

99 See in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Bd. 39, p. 56 ff.; Dolger, Staatenwelt, pp. 251-6,
Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, p. 6.
100 Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija, pp. 310-4.
101 J. Bompaire, "Sur trois termes", pp. 625-31
102 Vasilevskij, "Materialy po vnutrennej istorli Vizantijskogo gosudarstva",
pp. 368-9.
103 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 82-3.
414 CHAPTER FIVE
Komod is especially interesting for this study, for the term was bor-
rowed from the Greek language but the earliest information avail-
able comes from the Bulgarian state and from the time of the First
Bulgarian Empire. In one of the charters of Basil II Bulgaroctonos
for the Archbishopric of Ochrid, it is said that the kliriks are exempt
from oikomodion and other epoireiai as it had been in the time of
tsar Samuel. 105 This concerns what John Scylitzes has said about the
taxes payable in kind imposed on the Bulgarians during the time of
Comitopouloi. 106 There is an opinion that this duty was established in
Bulgaria and was adopted and disseminated by the Byzantines after
the conquest in the beginning of the 11th century, and which could
have been transformed later from basic into additional. 107 In any case,
I do not think that the coincidence of the names is accidental nor that
'komod' could have been some unknown Bulgar Turkic word, later
Hellenised in the administrative language of the Empire. At least at
terminological level, I believe this was a Greek loanword, although the
reality it referred to may have had a distant Bulgarian origin.
3.1.1.6
Perper (ner'l.ner'l>, 1m£pn:upov) is the name for a coin in the Byzan-
tine Empire and later became the name for a specific tax payable in
money. It can be found in the Bulgarian documents, together with the
similar word for the person in charge of collecting it-perperak. Per-
per ("ner'l.nerA/ner'l>ner'l>") is mentioned in the Virgino and Zographou
chrysobulls but not always in the sense of tax. Thus in the Zographou
chrysobull the word designates only the monetary unit. It refers to the
fifty perpers from the payment of which the hagiorite monastery was
exempted from paying by the basileus after the intervention of the
Bulgarian tsar, and not to a specific tax. 108 Unlike this, in the Virgino
chrysobull there is reference both to the coin and the monetary tax:
"... neither volobershtina nor perpera, nor dimnina .. ." i.e. the taxes the
monastery was exempt from were listed. 109 In addition to this informa-
tion, there is mention of perperaks, i.e. the officials collecting this tax,

106 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

in the Rila and Vitosha chrysobulls. 110 Both texts are identical and the
perperaks are cited among the tax officers.
The authors who have studied the issue are unanimous that the perper
refers to a monetary tax-the word itself suggests this. Beyond that,
however, opinions differ. M. Lascaris is inclined to see in the perper a
kind of customs duty (similar to the Byzantine 'koummerkion'); and in
the perperak, a special customs officer.m D. Angelov views it as being
some vague kind of monetary tax. 112 M. Andreev also maintains a
similar position. 113 According to G. Tsankova-Petkova this was a basic
monetary tax, similar to the Byzantine xcipay~ (charagma), which
had acquired its designation from the golden coin im£pn:upov. 114
In Byzantium the payment of taxes in money, especially the proce-
dure and calculation in charagma, 115 was related mainly to land tax.
Having in mind that monetary relations were incomparably better
developed in the Empire than in mediaeval Bulgaria, I do not believe
we have grounds for drawing direct parallels. This is also reinforced by
the fact that no state title of such a designation, originating precisely
from the name of the coin hyperpyron/perper, is known to have existed
in the Byzantine fiscal system. The term was known in Serbia and there
are multiple quotations, but one should bear in mind that they mostly
refer to the coin and not to the tax. A special study of the local sources
will be necessary for further clarification, but it is out of the scope of
our direct tasks. However, I would like to draw attention to the only
quotation of 'perperak' in a document of tsar Stephen Dusan: "... H OTrz.
COK~ H AHMHHHe H nepnerb.K~, H AeCeT,Kb. mHTHOrb. ... " 116 It becomes
clear from the context that it does not mean an official but the tax
itself. Unfortunately there are no other details concerning its nature.
In Walachia a tax by the designation of nepneprz. was known since the
110 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 27 54 , 29 9; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 54 •

111 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.

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 insti-
tution suggests a reference to a levy on commerce. This comes close
to what M. Lascaris has written earlier, although I shall not be too
specific and I am only proposing these ideas as a matter for debate.
3.1.1.7
Otrotzina (or otrochina) is mentioned only once in a Greek text
by archbishop Theophylactus of Bulgaria. 119 Because of the nature
of this source, the word is available only in Greek transcription-
6tp&rt~tva. There is no doubt, however, that the reference is to a
Slavic term derived from otrok (O'I''AfO~'A), which designated a specific
category of peasants, which we shall discuss further on. It is in connec-
tion with this category that we should seek the meaning of this kind
of state duty.
It should be noted that its nature is not quite clear, which is due to
the fact that the source base amounts to a single reference. G. Litavrin
seems inclined to define otrotzina as a tax payable by the lord for the
right to have serfs. 120 After some hesitation, G. Tsankova-Petkova
suggests the hypothesis that it refers to a tax payable by the landless
peasants-serfs (otroks). 121 About a decade ago Nicholas Oikonomides
touched upon this issue in his work on the fiscal relations in the
Empire. He mentions otrotzina in the section dedicated to paroikiatikon
but defines the title as similar to the Byzantine aktemonitikion
(aK't'll~OVt'rtKtOV) and raises the question as to whether this was a kind
117 DRH, ser. B, vol. I, No. 31 pp. 223-4 (document ofJanuacy 15, AD 1467); Dicfionarul
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.
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 pos-
sesses 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 docu-
ments; 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 cus-
toms 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.
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. How-
ever, 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 dif-
ferences, 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 undoubt-
edly 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.
135 0 n the regulation of trade in mediaeval Bulgaria, see: Biliarsky, "Reglementation
du commerce", pp. 99-117.
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 bor-
rowed 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 Milu-
tin's chrysobull of AD 1300. Was this not a purely Serbian fiscal insti-
tution, fallen by chance in the inauthentic document? In Serbia there
is a lot of data on 'tsarina' but there the term means either customs 142
or customs duty, and also 'the imperial exchequer'. 143 I consider this
second meaning to be similar to the meaning found in the beginning
of the Vir gino chrysobull; it should also correspond to demosion and
demosia, found in lines 79 and 93 of the same chrysobull. 144
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 appar-
ently 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·
topic define it as related to the use of pastures for the livestock. Thus,
G. Tsankova-Petkova defines travnina as a "tax on the use of moun-
tainous pastures", which "was payable in money"Y 5 Further in her
book the author defines 'travnina' as identical with 'gornina' and as a
'fee' for using the pastures. 146 This is not the place to clarify the differ-
ence between 'tax' and 'fee', 147 but it is evident that the institute under
question has been defined without a profound study of the matter. On
the other hand, M. Andreev also sees in travnina something resembling
a fee for the use of pastures. 148 D. Angelov has devoted more attention
to this state title in his study of the monastery economy. 149 He calls it
a "charge for using the lord's land", which was usually paid in kind,
though a combined form of payment was also applied. It is obvious
that the author mixes the 'feudal annuity', which is an income gov-
erned by private law, with duties and taxes under public law.
In order to say something more, one should address the richer data
of the neighbouring countries with similar legal systems. In the Serbian
sources travnina is mentioned many times. 150 At some places in the
documents it is quoted among the corvees (f~&OTE u.~rcTR~ HH), which
leaves the impression it was one of them. 151 Nevertheless, we know of
at least two texts that quite clearly relate the payment of travnina to
livestock pasture, shelter and hibernation in the mountains. 152 To this
data one should also add 'travnina ovcha' (sheep's travnina). Article
197 of the Law Code of Stephen Dusan provides more detailed infor-
mation on travnina. It stipulates that if anyone spends the winter in
the ruler's estates, they shall be obliged to pay travnina of one animal

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.
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).
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 increas-
ingly assimilated as being part of the taxes and eventually became a
permanent state title imposed on the owners of livestock, not a charge
for use of the pastures. 155 It was payable by everybody regardless of
their social status. It seems that in the cases of taxation privileges for
the monasteries, the travnina was not paid to the state but to the ben-
eficiary of the privilege. 156
3.1.2.2
Gornina (ropb.HHHA) is mentioned twice in the Zographou chrysobull
of tsar John Alexander. 157 Its origin is Slavic-from POfA (i.e.
'mountain')-and the meaning is obvious. The context, in which the
term is mentioned, is that of zhitarstvo and gradozidanie. It refers to
the fact that the Zographou Monastery had to pay to the Byzantine
authorities fifty perpers for 'zhitarstvo, gornina and gradozidanie' and
the tsar managed to exempt them from this liability. This gives us rea-
son to believe it was related to various kinds of liabilities the mon-
astery redeemed itself from by paying some fixed amount. The other
1s3 Novakovic St., Zakonik Stefana Du5ana cara srpskog 1349 i 1354, Belgrade, 1898,
p. 145 art. 197.
154 Ostrogorsky, Steuergemeinde, pp. 57 -8; Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vla-
dara, p. 431; Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, p. 53; Dolger Fr., Aus den Schatzkammern des
heiligen Berges, Mi.inchen, 1948, pp. 31, 208; Xanalatos, Beitriige zur Wirtschafts- und
Sozialgeschichte, _p. 41; Ka.zhdan, Agrarnye, pp. 123-4; Schmid G., "Byzantinisches
Zehntwesen", JOB, 6 (1957), pp. 45-110; SchUbach E., Byzantinische Metrologie,
Mi.inchen, 1970, pp. 262-3; Harvey A., Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire,
900-1200, Cambridge, 1989, p. 104.
Iss Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 75.
1s6 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 76.
157 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 23 5o, 5s·
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 moun-
tain 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-insuf-
ficiently 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
158 llinskij, Gramoty, p. 124.

159 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.
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 monas-
tery of Iviron, 169 and in many other places. It is noteworthy that the
word nA.avwft is quoted also in the Greek-language documents pub-
lished by the Serbian rulers, having there the legal meaning of a type of
property or estate, not of a geographical concept. 170 The term has been
a subject of interest mainly with relation to the Slavic toponymy in
Greece. Analysing it from this aspect, Ivan Bozilov states that it proves
the presence of a Bulgarian population in the village of Radolivon. 171
We could subscribe to this statement but it does not concern our study
of a specific fiscal institution. Therefore, the question remains open as
to how the term was adopted in the Byzantine official vocabulary of
that epoch and reflected in the imperial documents. Obviously, the
term was about a type of property and most likely borrowed from
the Slavic legal terminology. How did this happen? This question
also remains open but it seems to me that it is related to the Serbian
invasion in Macedonia and its annexing in the end of 13th and the
beginning of the 14th century. Thus, the above-mentioned, well-
described in the Serbian sources term planina probably penetrated the
Byzantine vocabulary as a designation for a type of property. This is
164 Actes de Lavra, vol. I, No. 66lines 1, 14; BoZilov, Bulgarite vav Vizantijskata imperija,
p. 47, note 342.
165 Actes de Chilandar, vol. I, No. 18lines 51-3, No. 43line 51.
166 Actes de Chilandar, vol I, No. 42lines 137, 142.
167 Actes de Vatopedi, vol. I, No. 68line 79, vol. II, No. 78line 37; Actes de Chilandar,
vol. I, No. 44line 55.

168 Actes de Vatopedi, vol. I, No. 38line 14.
169 Actes d'lviron, vol. III, No. 54 et 74.
170 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.
hardly inconsistent with the reference to the word in the 12th century,
not only because it is relatively isolated but it also refers to another
geographical region and is in another context. I would like to reiterate
that here it does not refer to toponymy but is a legal property term.
It is worth mentioning that the term gornina is not typical for Serbian
documents. Therefore, one may ask whether the Serbian planiatiko is
not some kind of toll on the use of a type of property, called 'plan ina'.
M. Andreev's discussion on the question is not very specific and
detailed, but in all probability he defines 'gornina' as a charge payable by
the peasants for the use of pastures in the forests and mountains. 172 On
the other hand, G. Tsankova-Petkova defines the term in question as a
"tax (and later on in the presentation it becomes a 'fee'-undoubtedly
a more correct term-the remark is mine I. B.) on the use of mountain
pastures" and obviously places it on the same footing with travnina. 173
Therefore, it is obvious that only G. Ilinsky's view that it refers to a
corvee related to ore-mines differs significantly. The other authors
centre their views on the use of mountains and particularly the pas-
tures therein. The specified theses are based mainly on the interpreta-
tion of the name of the fiscal institution.
D. Angelov refers to a similar Byzantine phenomenon. Obviously,
the search for parallels with the neighbouring countries is the best
way for clarifying the actual meaning of this liability in mediaeval Bul-
garia. The designation 6ptK'fi can be found in the Empire, and I think
the Slavic term 'gornina' was borrowed from there (from opoc; = rop~.
'mountain'); 174 N. Oikonomides defines it "as right of common use
of the mountain forests and lumbering, payable to the owner of the
estate". 175 N. Svoronos does not go into details about this revenue and
categorises it under "other taxes". 176 A similar term can be found in
documents from Walachia and Moldavia: gor~tina. 177 It has two mean-
ings: one is a fee on sheep and swine for grazing them in the mountain
pastures, and the other is a type of customs duty for foreigners who

173 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 for-
mula of protection, the Bulgarian chrysobull follows the example of the Byzantine one
(cn<tapKi.a,optKI] ••• ):seeSvoronosN.,Recherchessurlecadastrebyzantinetlafiscaliteaux
XJ• et XII• siedes, Paris-Athenes 1959, (= BCH 83), pp. 111, 112.
175 Actes d'lviron, No. 54 et p. 62; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 84
176 Svoronos, Rechrches sur le cadastre byzantin, p. 112.
177 Institutii feudale, pp. 208-9.
426 CHAPTER FIVE
enter with sheep or swine to fatten them in the respective country. I

think that both cases are interconnected and ultimately refer to a right
related to livestock pasture.
There is no wide choice regarding the possible solutions regarding
the Bulgarian fiscal institution called 'gornina'. I consider it to be a
loan translation from the Empire both as a term and as legal connota-
tion of the liability. Inasmuch as we can generally rely on the parallels
made with the Romanian institution in the fiscal area, and since data
on Walachia and Moldavia is the richest, I think that most probably it
is a charge for use of the mountain pastures. The version of lumbering
or using terrains in the mountains in general cannot be rejected, but
it seems to me less likely. At any rate, the available scanty sources
regarding Bulgaria do not allow more in terms of interpretation.
3.1.2.3
Kosharshtina (KOW~fi:.I.J.IHH~) forms a unified set with the two above
mentioned charges, related to livestock breeding. This term is found
only in the inauthentic Vir gino chrysobull and this may pose the ques-
tion whether the term is not purely Serbian or else a part of the Bul-
garian fiscal terminology as well. Without going into details on this
issue here, I would like to say that I consider this chrysobull to be a
credible source-moreover the legal systems of Bulgaria and Serbia in
that epoch were very close, even almost identical.
As early as the end of the 19th century G. Danailov maintained
the position that kosharshtina was a tax imposed on livestock pens. 178
G. Ilinsky limits his remarks to noting that 'kosharshtina' originates
from 'koshara' which even now in Serbian means 'oRelJHH ~~roH' (=
sheep-pen). 179 The first statement of Ilinsky is obvious, and I should
say the word means the same in Bulgarian. In his comment on the
Virgino chrysobull, Ivan Dujcev expresses the opinion (or, more pre-
cisely, hints) that 'kosharshtina' should be understood as the right
to build livestock pens (dairy farms) on public land-the respective
revenue is obviously related to this right. 180 In a later study, the same
author defines 'kosharshtina' as a duty or tax similar to 'slonovshtina',
i.e. revenue related to sheltering live-stock. 181 Mainly on this basis
178 Danailov, "Stranitsa iz dArzhavnoto stopanstvo", p. 47.

181 Dujcev, "Ezikovi belezhki kAm srednovekovnite bulgarski pametnitsi", p. 311.
D. Angelov states that kosharshtina and slonovshtina are taxes imposed

on buildings used as shelters for sheep. 182 G. Tsankova-Petkova also
draws closer to the meaning of kosharshtina and slonovshtina, defin-
ing them, like I. Dujcev, as fees for the right to use or to build pro-
tected places and shelters for the stock-breeders. 183 M. Andreev defines
kosharshtina as a charge for the use of dairy farms. 184
The term 'kosharshtina' may be found in Serbia, although it was
not very popular there. It is found only in king Milutin's chrysobull of
AD 1300 and its connection to the Virgino chrysobull is beyond doubt. 185
There it is mentioned among other duties from which the monastery
was exempt. The context does not suggest anything specific about this
liability but it is not likely that it was much different from the one in
Bulgaria.
'Kosharshtina' is mentioned in the phrasing that forbids various
officials to enter the monastery estates and to collect any incomes. 186 It
is found after the mention of travnina, slonovshtina, komod, mitat and
before the mention of volobershtina and nametak. Apparently it refers
to something that would cause inconveniences to the privileged but
the context applies to many other similar revenues (taxes, charges, etc.)
and does not leave an option to establish it accurately. Nevertheless,
I would like to draw attention to one significant circumstance: in the
text of the chrysobull, 'kosharshtina' is quoted together with 'travnina'
and-something especially important-with 'slonovshtina', and this
does not give us grounds to define them as identical, something that
some researchers are inclined to do.
Therefore, if we go back to the works of G. Ilinskywe should say that
the only data regarding the fiscal institution in question can be drawn
solely from its name. It is clear that the word is derived from 'koshara'
(= livestock pen) and this gives us grounds to think that it refers to a
liability related to stock-breeding. Thus, a look at the Empire and the
neighbouring countries in general proves useful once again. The fis-
cal institution ).ux.vopux:m::6v is known from the Byzantine documents
and there is every reason to believe that this was the archetype of the
Bulgarian kosharshtina, both in terms of name ().L6:vopa = Kow~r~ I
182 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 222.

183 Tsankova-Petkova, 2'a agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 110 see also notes 160, 162-3.
185 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 614 XXXII.
428 CHAPTER FIVE
koshara/ = livestock pen) and legal connotation. In this regard Nich-

olas Oikonomides notes only that it often accompanies 'ennomion/
travnina' and calls it 'droit de bercail' (= 'right to [use of] livestock
pen'), which is obviously quite a vague right. 187 This vagueness is defi-
nitely due to the scanty source base. Considering this situation, it can
only be stated that kosharshtina was a type of revenue related to stock-
breeding, more precisely to places for sheltering livestock. Any other
specifications, such as that it is about the right to use livestock pens or
to build them, or about places where livestock was gathered, in rela-
tion to other fiscal titles, would be arbitrary and unverifiable.
3.1.2.4
Slonovshtina (c.I\OHORb.I.J.IHHb.) is part of the same system of fees
and charges on stock-breeding. In most comments it is related to
kosharshtina, which seems logical in terms of their names; yet these
two institutions cannot be considered identical. Slonovshtina is known
only from the Virgino chrysobull, where it is preceded by travnina and
followed by komod and mitaton. 188 The context is not very helpful for
defining its legal nature. Similar is the data from Serbia, where the term
can be found only in king Milutin's chrysobull of AD 1300 in a context
that does not help solve the problem as to the nature of the liability. 189
The term is about a marginal state title and thus it is neither well-
covered in the sources nor is a topic of special interest in scholarly
literature. G. Ilinsky categorises slonovshtina among the corvees and
assesses it as being unclear in connotation. 190 I. Dujeev touches upon
this term and defines it as originating from 'cover/shelter' (in the
meaning of 'accommodation', 'shelter', 'place for the livestock') and
as a variety of 'kosharshtina', with which it later merged. 191 According
to D. Angelov it refers to a tax imposed on buildings that served for
sheltering sheep. 192 G. Tsankova-Petkova defines the term in question
187 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, 75.

189 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 620 LXXVII.
191 Dujeev, "Ezikovi belezhki kll.m srednovekovnite bulgarski pametnitsi", pp. 309-11.
as a "toll on using livestock pens". 193 Finally, M. Andreev defines slon-

ovshtina as a variety of kosharshtina. 194
In fact there are two main views on the issue: the one of G. Ilinsky,
who defines slonovshtina as a corvee of ambiguous meaning, and the
other of I. Dujcev (followed by the other cited authors), according to
which the term is about a fee similar to kosharshtina. An obstacle to
research is the fact that we cannot find a Greek counterpart to the term
or a parallel Byzantine fiscal institution. I already noted that unfortu-
nately the context cannot suggest what group to refer this liability to,
for it appears to be in an intermediate position between fees, corvees
and taxes. It can be said with some confidence that it is not identical
with kosharshtina. The latter is mentioned together with slonovshtina
at the same place in the Virgino chrysobull, which would be non-
sensical if the two were identical. This is the only somewhat specific
statement that I would make (namely, the difference between the two
institutions) and without taking a firm stand in favour of the nature of
the duty as a charge for sheltering live-stock or something similar or a
type of corvee related to the accommodation of passing-by officials.
3.1.2.5
Brodnina (&fOAb.HHHb.) is a fee for crossing a river across a ford (=
GfOA'l>), which is obvious from its name. It is mentioned only in the
Virgino chrysobull yet not in the protection formula, but in the list of
donated goods found in the village of Brad, Kichevo district195 • In this
sense, there are no reasons to classify it with the state revenues. On the
contrary, it refers to a good that the monastery has acquired. There is
no doubt however, that this good corresponds to some duty, which is
the subject of our research.
What are the positions expressed so far regarding this term?
D. Angelov comments the term from the Vir gino chrysobull, which he
apparently considers to be authentic, thus placing it outside the period
of his book but touches upon the similar Serbian term GfOAAfHHb.
found in a chrysobull for the Banjska Monastery, a document dated
193 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 110 note 160 ("tax on using
livestock pens out of the settlement", similar to kosharshtina ), 146 (tax imposed on
building a livestock pen on a municipal territory), 163 (charge for use or the right to
build shelters and fences for the needs of the stock-breeders).
195 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 16 l9-3o·
430 CHAPTER FIVE
1313-1318. 196 The reference to the term there is accompanied by the

explanation: "Neither tsarina shall be taken nor brodarina by any ford"
One can draw the conclusion that it is about a fee collected per ford.
This appears in the protection formula in the document, and appar-
ently the context is different from the one of brodnina as the latter is
quoted in the Virgino chrysobull. These two informations may not be
set against each other if we assume that the duty in one document has
turned into a good in the other, as the revenue has been transferred
from the state to the monastery. This was a usual practice. Going back
to D. Angelov's work, we see he defines this fiscal institution as a
state customs duty identical with the Byzantine diabaton, which the
tsar deferred to be collected by the monastery. G. Tsankova-Petkova
defines brodnina as an obligation of the dependent peasants to pay
charge for crossing a river. 197 A similar opinion is maintained also
by Iv. Dujcev in his book on the Rila chrysobull, where he completely
equates it with the diabaton, quoted elsewhere. 198
A similar designation-brodina I brudina-can be found on Roma-
nian territory since the 15th century. It is defined as a charge, a special
customs duty, for passing over bridges and fords and was collected
at the main rivers in both principalities. 199 I think that in this case it
refers to a fiscal liability.
Evidently, this institution is not very well described in the sources
and is not of much interest for researchers. It has been defined mainly
on the basis of the designation, without taking into account the con-
text in which it is quoted. For our present study it is important to
establish whether the reference was to a liability of a fiscal and legal
nature (i.e. public liability to the state) or to a private one. The paral-
lels made with the neighbouring countries support the former view,
while the context in which the term is found here supports the latter.
It may be assumed that both existed separately, because they differ, but
I think what is mentioned in the Virgino chrysobull is a good given by
the ruler, that is a revenue of a private law nature that the monastery
held in its patrimony. Nevertheless, this could be due to the appropria-
196 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 629 XCVIII; Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija,
pp. 227-8.
198 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, pp. 63-4.
199 I nstitufii Jeudale, 60.
tion of some public liability, which from a state fee was transformed
into an income in favour of the incumbent of the privilege.
3.1.2.6
Diavato or diabaton (AH~&~To), as evident from the designation, is a
charge for passing through a certain place. The term can be found in
the Virgino and Rila chrysobulls. 200 In both cases it is in the protec-
tion formula of the chrysobull. In Virgino chrysobull, it is placed after
tsarina and before mostnina and in Rila chrysobull-after koumerk.
The term was simply transcribed from the Greek oui~atov. 201 In the
Virgino chrysobull, exempt from paying the charge were the monas-
tery people as a whole, while in the Rila chrysobull people carrying
on trade were specified as exempt. G. Tsankova-Petkova defines dia-
vato at one place as a charge imposed on traders for crossing passages
and other guarded places,202 and at another-as a charge for crossing a
ford or for passing from one area into another. 203 Iv. Dujcev interprets it
as a charge for crossing a river, crossing a bridge, etc., which is identical
with brodnina'. 204
I consider this fiscal institution to be relatively clear. It refers to a
fee for passing through certain places. Only the differences with regard
to brodnina have to be clarified. Diavato cannot have been identical
since they are found in the same document, i.e. the Vir gino chrysobull.
However, this is the only definite statement I can make. I think that
the rest can be derived from the names. In the case of diavato it is
about passing through a certain place in general-either geographical
or just a toll spot; in the case of brodnina the meaning is clearer-
the nature of the place for passing is specified. Besides, the context in
which diavato is quoted is more clearly related to commercial activi-
ties, which were obviously taxable by the state.
200 llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 19 103, 28 74 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 53 74 •

201 The term ow~a'tov is found also in chrysobulls of tsar Stephen Dusan for the
Vatopedi Monastery (May, 1346 r. and Aprll1348 r.)-Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje
srpskih vladara, p. 82 No. XI line 71, p. 144 No. XVIII line 103, generally about this
charge, see also, pp. 419-20; Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 566 VI.
204 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, pp. 63-4.
432 CHAPTER FIVE
3.1.2.7
Sudbina (cmAb.GHHb.) is mentioned only in the treaty between tsar
Michael II Asen and Dubrovnik, dating from 1253,2°5 which might
provoke the question as to whether this was some kind of revenue
typical only for the Dalmatian Republic and with no relation to the
Bulgarian legal system. This view is disproved by the very text of
the treaty. The treaty stipulates that if a subject of the Bulgarian tsar
or of sebastocrator Peter has any claims (litigation) against anyone
from Dubrovnik, the administration of justice shall be exempt from
"sudbina and taxes in accordance with our law"; in Bulgaria or on the
terriotory of sebastocrator Peter, in similar cases the administration of
justice shall reciprocally be exempt from "taxes, sudbini and without
(any) emstvo". It can be seen that the reference is to revenues existing
in both countries. In one case they are juxtaposed/distinguished from
'taxes', and in the other from 'taxes' and 'emstvo'. As far as I know,
only I. Dujcev has expressed a position on this charge, defining it as
'judicial costs'. 206 This is an acceptable position although I would not
have dared to be so specific, since various judicial fees could also be
the answer to the problem as to the nature of this institution.
The term itself is definitely a derivative from Clf\A"b. (= court of law)
with a suffix for derivation. It looks like borrowed and loan-translated
but I cannot find an accurate Greek equivalent.
3.2. Terms designating corvees and compulsory furnishing and

requisitions
Here will be described the terms designating various obligations of
the population among which are corvees in the narrow sense of the
word. Corvee is a service: mandatory performance of labour, obligation
for provision of transportation, shelter or food and support in general
on the part of the population in favour of the state and its representa-
tives. Of course, everything depends on the respective type of corvee.
Usually these are activities related to defence such as construction of
fortifications, provision of means for transportation and transporta-
tion services in general, provision of food and shelter, as well as other
necessary goods and assistance for passing troops. Similar is the obli-
gation for provision of support and collaboration with passing repre-
205 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 157 34,36·

sentatives of the state administration, imperial messengers, or other

officials involved in communications. Another case is the maintenance
of public order by mandatory service, guarding prisoners, or any other
police service. Special attention should be paid to the attendance to
the imperial hunting.
I would like to elaborate on the term eHr~r"~ (= corvee), which
is borrowed directly from the Greek language and transcribed in
Cyrillic letters in the Slavic texts with a single change of the initial
vowel from 'a' into 'e' in some cases. Thus, it is found in the form of
eHr~r"~ or eHr~penc~TH in the Vatopedi charter, Virgino, Mraka and
Rila chrysobulls. 207 The word is of a distant Persian origin but was bor-
rowed in the Greek language at such an early stage that for Bulgaria
it undoubtedly is a loanword from Greek and an example of the gen-
eral influence of the Byzantine Empire. As a connotation the term is
clear enough and means the same as in the Greek language. These are
services provided by the population along three main lines: 1) manda-
tory performance of labour without any recompense; 2) mandatory
placement at the disposal of the state or its representative of work,
where people and also their draught animals or ships could be taken
away or seized temporarily or permanently, especially in case of military
operations; 3) mandatory annual performance of labour by the paroikoi
for their lords (this type of service appears later). 208 Therefore, based
on what we know about the services in mediaeval Bulgaria and from
the term itself that designates them, it could be contended that their
legal nature fully coincides with the one in the Empire and repeats the
local regulation and practice of these relations.
I would also like to focus on the term paraggareia (napayyapeia),
especially as it is found in the donation of despot Alexis Slav,209 a foreign
2fl? llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 19 104 , 25 33 , 27 63 ; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 15 ,2fJ;

Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 193 1s,2o; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 53 63·
2fJs Cf Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 105-6. For corvees in general, pls. cf.: Jones,
II, p. 831, Ferrari della Spade, Immunita, p. 124 ff.; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gra-
mota, pp. 48-9; Solovjev, Mo8in, Grlke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 378-80; Litavrin,
Bolgarija I Vizantija, pp. 202-4; Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 159;
A. Stauridou-Zaphraka, "'H ayyapda (nO Kei9w~ Bo~avno", B,X:avnva, 11 (1982),
pp. 21-54; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 105 ff.; Institufii feudale, p. 15.
2fJ 9 "Kat Otop~6)1e9a oia wi> :rt!Xp6vt~ li)lOOOV <Jtyu..A.ioo )lTI £:x;etv OOet!XV )llJ'tE wv
K!X't~X K!Xtpov apx;tep!XU.'OOV't!X )llJ'tE 'tOV 1tp!XKmpeUOV't!X rne)l[lavetv 'tcp 'tOI.O'&tco :x;coptco
ii f.v Til 11ovfi e~ ~iJ'tTlatv 'tTl" ol.!XVoov .... ii ~el..runv ii ~royol..uyioo OOOtv ii ayyapia~
ii :rt!Xpayyap~ ii 'lfCO)lO~TJil~ ii illTJ~ ...." -Actes de Vatopedi, vol. I (Des origins a
1329), ed. J. Bompaire, ]. Lefort, V. Kravari, Chr. Giros, Paris, 2001, No. 13, p. 127 18 •
434 CHAPTER FIVE
document but that definitely concerns Bulgarian mediaeval history.

The term was about an obligation of the population with regard to
transportation of passing troops or state officials and was beyond the
usual transportation-related corvees. This means that paraggareia was
a special service similar to corvee, concerning both people and their
animals or other means of transportation for support of army moves
or the functioning of the administration. 210
Similar are the obligations for food furnishing, which will be
described in detail below.
3.2.1. Corvees related to provision of shelter and support to

representatives of the state
3.2.1.1
Mitat/on/ (UHTb.Trz..) is called the obligation to provide shelter
for the passing troops and their quartering for a relatively longer period
of time. The name can be found in four chrysobulls of the 13th and
14th centuries. In the Vatopedi, Virgino and Mraka charters211 this is
the designation of some type of duty or service, while in Rila charter
'mitaton' indicates an appointed official of the administration. 212 The
context can be useful only in this respect, otherwise this obligation is
placed along with other obligations of such a different nature that it is
not possible to draw any conclusions.
There is no doubt that the term is Greek and refers to parallels in
the fiscal system of the Empire. G. Ilinsky in his comment contents
himself with reference to it. 213 G. Tsankova-Petkova notes several times
that, in terms of duty, mitaton is provision of shelter to the army;
she does not elaborate further on the topic. 214 D. Angelov considers
it to be an obligation to shelter state officials. 215 I. Dujcev provides a
more extensive interpretation as provision of shelter and food for the
210 Jones, I, p. 118, II, p. 833; Ferrari della Spade, Immunita, p. 124 ff; Solovjev, Mo8in,
GrCke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 379; Tsankova-Petkova, ZA agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 122,
note 210; Stauridou-Zaphraka, "'H ayyapeia O'tO m9WJI.!X Bu~avno", pp. 35-6;
Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 106-7.
211 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 13 _14; Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 19 1o1• 2531·
214 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 110, 114, 160.
army and state officials, and considers it to be identical with postoy

and comparable with priselitsa. 216
Obviously none of the authors who mention mitaton are especially
interested in it, and all of them limit their remarks to asserting its
connection with the passing of the army. Inasmuch as the designa-
tion is from the Greek language and apparently was a loanword from
the Empire, I think that something more could be said only on the
basis of comparison with what is known about the Byzantine metaton/
mitaton. 217 This duty is only in favour of the military-the officers and
soldiers from the metropolitan troops and the mercenary troops. 218 It
involves quartering the troops in the homes of the civilian population
for a longer period of time. Usually it was connected with spending the
winter on a certain territory and not with passing through a territory
for some military campaign. The obligation was too burdensome and
many people redeemed themselves. Such an option existed and the fee
for redemption was called O.vn~t'ta:tix:wv or cl7tO~l'tex'tix:wv. Sometimes
mitaton was replaced with the so called payytanx:6v, which was an
obligation to construct temporary buildings and huts for the army in
winter. It seems that mitaton did not contain the obligation to furnish
food for the period of accommodation; it was supplied from the mili-
tary reserve or the military had to buy it.
There is information on a similar duty in mediaeval Serbia. 219 The
Serbian data is similar to that in Bulgaria and confirms the general
conclusion that in both Balkan Orthodox Slavic countries the Byzan-
tine archetype of the institution was followed.
3.2.1.2
Priselitsa (npHce.I\HLV-) is called the obligation of the population to
provide subsistence and partially or fully an accommodation for the
passing army or state officials. The term is found only in the Virgino

217 Ferrari della Spade, Immunita ecdesiastiche, pp. 158-9 Jones, The Later Roman
Empire, I, pp. 249-53; Ostrogorsky, Steuergemeinde, pp. 60-1; Laskaris, Vatopedskata
gramota, pp. 43-4; Cvetkova B., Influence exrcee par certaines institutions de Byz.
ance et des Balkans du Moyen Age sur le systeme feudal ottoman, Byzantinobulgarica,
1 (1962), pp. 252-3; Bartusis, "State Demands for Billeting", pp. 115-23; Oikono-
mides, Fiscalite, pp. 91-3.
218 N. Oikonomides provides an extensive list of foreign mercenaries employing
this right: Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 264-72.
219 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 545 V, 557 I, 563 XXI, 566 VI, 723 (in the
Greek language), 614 XXXII, 620 LXXVII, 673 XVI (in the Slavic acts).
436 CHAPTER FIVE
chrysobull, where it is written: "... priselitsa shall not be paid by the

St. George metochia, neither volobershtina nor perper ... "220 It is clear
that this refers to some payment the monastery was exempt from.
Hence, the question arises about a possible contradiction with the
above-mentioned nature of priselitsa in terms of obligation to provide
food and full or partial accommodation.
First of all, we have to review the existing views regarding fiscal and
legal nature of the institute under research. D. Angelov only notes that
priselitsa is a provision of shelter and food to passing state officials and
soldiers; in the textbook on "History of the Bulgarian State and Law"
he equates priselitsa, padalishte and mitaton. 221 G. Tsankova-Petkova
seems to equate priselitsa with mitaton and defines it as an obligation
of the peasants to provide free accommodation at the passage or stay
of troops and state officials. 222 It seems that Iv. Dujcev also considers
mitaton and priselitsa to be identical. 223 Evidently, no in-depth study
has been done on the nature of this obligation, which is due to its
very limited presentation in the sources. Practically no specific conclu-
sions can be drawn based on the sources. Therefore, parallels should
be sought in the neighbouring countries.
The designation of this type of corvee itself suggests a parallel with
the Byzantine aplekton (liltA:rtK'tov). Undoubtedly it refers to a borrowed
fiscal institution accompanied by a loan translation of its name. How-
ever, this case is exceptional to some extent and this is helpful in the
quest for the connotation of the term. The Greek term is a translit-
eration of the Latin applicatum in conformity with the rules of the
phonetics of the Greek language. The Slavic loanword however, is
semantically based on the Latin term, which means that the Slavic
writer was aware both of the meaning of the term and of the con-
notation of the institution, which obviously should correspond to the
one in Serbia or Bulgaria (where the term was created). Therefore,
whatever is known about the Byzantine aplekton should also apply
to priselitsa in Serbia and Bulgaria. Research has been done on this
topic, for this duty has attracted the interest of various authors over

221 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 198; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 149.
a long period of time. 224 Apparently there is a unanimous position

that aplekton/priselitsa was an obligation in favour of passing troops
or state officials. Thus, the most significant issue is its differentiation
from mitaton. Firstly, it should be noted that mitaton is an obligation
in favour only of the army, while priselitsa concerns troops, military
officers, state officials (local or metropolitan), as well as messengers-
couriers or embassy envoys. The obligations differ for the various
categories. Regarding the military, the population had to provide an
area where they could camp and also to furnish food. This duty was
relatively hard but also brief in time and in general it did not include
providing quarters in the homes of the population. However, for some
categories of high ranking state officials it provided for accommoda-
tion in the homes where they would be more comfortable and would
not stay long. Regarding some judges, strategists or fiscal officers a
form of cost sharing was provided, called J..L£cr<btA:rJ1ctov.
Obviously, there are several reasons for differentiating aplekton/
priselitsa from mitaton. They differ both in terms of the scope of ben-
efited persons and in terms of the obligations of the population in
favour of those persons. Mitaton concerns only the military (officers
and soldiers), while priselitsa concerns both military and civil officials
at various levels. Moreover, mitaton in principle involves occupation of
some of the homes of the local population but without the obligation
for the locals to furnish food. On the other hand, priselitsa could also
involve occupation of a part of the homes of the local population but
only in case that the favoured persons were high-ranking commanders
or civil functionaries. However, in the normal case only an area for
camping was provided. Priselitsa indicates a shorter period and refers
mainly to passing troops or officials, while mitaton implies a longer stay
and is usually connected with the army spending the winter. Therefore,
I think these similar obligations can be clearly differentiated and indi-
vidualised. Quite different is the problem with the so-called kathisma,
which will be described in the section on the service called padalishte.
Here we should make only one other differentiation -between aplekton
and mitat/on/. Kathisma always designates some kind of building used
224 J. B. Bury, "The lbtA:qK'taofAsiaMinor",Bu~avt~,2 (1911),pp. 216-24;G. Kolias,
Ilept wtA:TJK'tO'I), EEBS, 17 (1941), pp. 144-84; Ostrogorsky, Steuergemeinde, p. 60;

Tsankova-Petkova, ZA agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 97; Cvetkova, "Influence exercee",
pp. 252-3; Bartusis, "State Demands for Billeting", pp. 121-3; Oikonomides, Fiscalite,
pp. 93-7.
438 CHAPTER FIVE
as a base or headquarters located at various places within the scope

of the jurisdiction. 225 It applies to high ranking representatives of the
judiciary and of the administration who needed comfortable head-
quarters at various places. An in-kind obligation was maintenance of
these buildings and support for their occupants imposed on the owner
but not on the paroikos in the settlement. This somehow indicates a
difference from the other institution and services.
I would like to go back to a point that I mentioned above. In the
only source available to us containing the designation priselitsa the
word is used as meaning payment, while the duty described here was
a different kind of obligation. Here is a contradiction that should be
resolved. I consider it to be related to the option of redemption from
the service available to the population; although the designation was
preserved, the service was gradually transformed into monetary state
title. Such a practice is known to have existed for other types of obli-
gations as well.
The term priselitsa can be found also in mediaeval Serbian sources. 226
In general, the dominating position is that this was a kind of corvee, but
M. Balgojevic and later R. Mihaljcic have expressed the position that
priselitsa is a compensation for damage caused by robbers in an inn. 227
One of the references is from king Stephen Milutin's chrysobull of
AD 1300. The document is closely related to the Vir gino chrysobull, and
this fact raises some questions. If we assume the latter to be authentic,
then it would be the oldest document in which priselitsa is mentioned.
Since it is not authentic and also the only Bulgarian document with
information on priselitsa, one may ask whether this institute was at
all present in the Bulgarian legal and fiscal system. In my opinion the
answer should be affirmative, for such non-authentic documents were
compiled with complete adherence to the form in order to seem as
authentic as possible. Since it must have been compiled before the
year 1300 as a justification for the Milutin's document, it appears this
225 Olkonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 94-7.

226 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 305 II, 306 II, 310 VIII, 401 XI, 407 III,
411 IV, 420 IV, 424 II, 436 XI, 455X, 456 IV, 470 IV, 473 II, 486 VIII, 495,498 I, 515
II, 516 III, 520 XXXIX, 609 VI, 614 XXXII, 617 L, 661 XXXV, 671 IX, 680 XXI, 704
XVI, 720 XIV, 759 IX, 767 XIV, and in a Greek language document of tsar Stephen
Dusan for Thessaly Monastery the term can be found written in the Greek alphabet
:rtproeA.t't~a-see p. 792 II.
227 Blagojevic, "Obrok i priselica", pp. 165-8; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim
ispravama, p. 205.
really is the oldest extant official text containing priselitsa, at least to

my knowledge. I would not dare to make any further assumptions
based on this single piece of information, including to claim that it is
a Bulgarian loanword in the Serbian fiscal terminology or vice versa.
Priselitsa is mentioned also in the Law Code of tsar Stephen Dusan,
articles 125, 155, 156, 200. 228 The articles regulate individual aspects of
the service with regard to its imposition on various towns and villages,
its takings, as well as some special occasions such as death of a horse.
There is a similar obligation in Walachia and Moldavia, 229 but it
does not concern this terminological research. Essentially, it could be
stated that such services existed all over Europe in those times.
3.2.1.3
The term zhitarstvo (mHT~fbCTRo) designates a specific type of obliga-
tion corresponding to the Byzantine crt'tapKia. It can be found in the
Zographou chrysobull, in a reference to fifty hyperpers paid by the
monastery for redemption from zhitarstvo, gornina and gradozidanie,
and the exemption from it for which there was a treaty the tsar and
the Byzantine basileus. 230 I think that here the term is in a context that
could be helpful for its clarification. One should also add to the sources
for zhtarstvo the double reference to zhitar (mHT~fb.) in other Bulgar-
ian documents. In Rila chrysobull this official is mentioned among the
listed tax officers who are explicitly differentiated by the expression
"and then" from the cited before them superintendants or military
commanders. 231 The same is the situation in Vitosha chrysobull of tsar
John Shishman. 232 We have good reasons to believe that zhitars were in
charge of the implementation of the obligation called zhitarstvo.
There are no considerable differences in views on this issue in the
relevant literature. D. Angelov defines zhitarstvo as a tax imposed on
wheat and links it to the By:zantine sitarkia,233 but in an earlier work
he identifies zhitarstvo with perper. 234 I. Dujcev equates it again with
sitarkia but is inclined to interpret it as an obligation to sell wheat
228 Novakovic, Zakonik Stefana Du5ana, pp. 96, 122-3, 146.

229 Institufiifeudale, pp. 517-8.
230 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 23 5o, 5s·
231 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 54; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 54•
m Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 9•
234 Angelov, "Prikhodi", p. 403.
440 CHAPTER FIVE
to the state, which later was transformed into a tax payable in cash. 235
Several years ago on the occasion of studying the zhitar institution I
made a statement that it was probably a tax similar to the tithe, 236 basing
my assertion on the existence of "wheat tithe" in Serbian documents. 237
Perhaps this position should be reconsidered. Then again, we face
the extraordinary opinion of G. Tsankova-Petkova that it refers to
the main land tax for production in mediaeval Bulgaria, which is
identical with the Byzantine sitarkia and zeugaratikion and with the
Bulgarian volobershtina (and maybe also with komod) as well as with
the Serbian soc. 238
I consider the relatedness of zhitarstvo to sitarkia to be indisputable
and therefore, before drawing hasty conclusions, I would like to elabo-
rate on its nature. The literature on this topic is not very abundant and
this is evidence that the income in question was not one of the most
significant ones in the Byzantine financial system. Al. Solovjev and Vl.
Mosin consider sitarkia to be a basic tax which is also close to other
rights. 239 N. Oikonomides dedicates only a few lines to the Byzantine
crttapKia (named also crttapxia, crttapKtcr)l6<;, crttapKtcr~) and interprets
it as a special requisition of wheat in favour of the state, made for the
purpose of supplying the army. 240
This term cannot be found in Serbia but there are some similar ones
there, like 'wheat nametak' or 'wheat tithe'. In the Romanian lands
though, there is a state title referred to as jitarstvo/zhitarstvo or jitarit. 241
Clarification of the nature of the Bulgarian obligation should be
based on the text of the documents and its Byzantine archetype.
As I mentioned already, the only information about zhitarstvo as a
taking is from the Zographou chrysobull where the Tsar says that he
has secured the exemption of the Hagiorite Monastery from paying
fifty hyperpers for zhitarstvo, gornina and gradozidanie. None of these
three takings is a tax in its fiscal and legal nature. Gradozidanie is a
corvee and gornina is a special fee. Then is it right to define zhitar-
stvo as a tax paid to the state, and a major one at that? It should not
235Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64.

236Biliarsky, I nstitu tsiite, p. 362.
237 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 467, 614, 680, 767.
238 Tsankova-Petkova. Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 140-4, 160-1. For "soc" see:
Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 216-7.
239 Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 491.
240 Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption fiscale, pp. 103-4.
241 DRH, ser. B, vol. I, No. 10, 21, 24; Institufii feudale, pp. 205, 231, 255-6.
be forgotten that the reference is to the redemption for obligations

not typical for the monastery. I think this gives us grounds to define
zhitarstvo not as a tax but as some other type of obligation. Here, turn-
ing to the Byzantine archetype of the institution, it can be seen that it
is about a special requisition of wheat; the Bulgarian tsar had secured
the Hagiorite Monastery to be exempt from redemption for it. Such
a solution is in agreement with the source text and with what was
written about the situation in the Empire; to me it seems to be the
most acceptable solution.
3.2.1.4
Nametak (H4\MeJ''A~'A) is mentioned only once in Virgino chrysobull
among the duties the monastery and its people were exempt from:
" ... either volobershtina or nametak-wheat, or wine or meat or cheese,
neither shall perform construction nor guard .. ."242 Apparently this
refers to some state title of revenue, imposed on specific products,
which-as it appears from its name-is auxiliary rather than basic.
In his comment to the edition of the chrysobulls, G. Ilinsky defines
nametak as an in-kind tax imposed on the respective product (wheat,
wine, meat, cheese). 243 G. Tsankova-Petkova defines nametak as an in-
kind supply of the above-mentioned products collected for the needs
of the administration and the army. 244 In fact this position was main-
tained before her by D. Angelov, who practically equates nametak with
some of the corvees related to the support of the administration, simi-
lar to the Byzantine psomozemia. 245
Nametak is better described in the Serbian documents, although it is
found mainly in Milutin's chrysobull of AD 1300. Several nametaks are
listed: wheat, wine, meat and cheese. 246 In tsar Stephen Dusan's char-
ter dating approximately from the middle of the 14th century, swine
and sheep nametaks are found. 247 In another reference to nametak
in a document from the time of king Stephen Dragutin, this duty is
cited among the corvees,248 and in Stephen Dusan's charter of 1343 it
242 llinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 101 _102• Ilinsky notes that the part 'cheese' seems to be added
later by somebody else's hand

244 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 110, 134, 147, 160.
248 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 388 X.
442 CHAPTER FIVE
is cited as 'town (public) nametak'249 In another charter of the same

Serbian tsar, dating from 1354, nametak is opposed to podanak and in
other cases is quoted among the corvees. 250 All this creates chaos in the
information and does not allow drawing very concrete conclusions.
I think that in the present condition of the sources one cannot form
a definitive view on the place of nametak in the taxation in mediaeval
Bulgaria. It is definitely about some additional burden for the people.
The prevailing number of quotations leaves the impression that it
was some compulsory supply rather than tax. It referred to the above-
mentioned products: wheat, wine, meat (swine, sheep), cheese, etc.,
but it is doubtful that it applied only to them.
3.2.1.5
Similar to the cited obligations are also the compulsory supplying of
food and other provisions, which are not designated by specific name
but only by the products that had to be provided: bread, wine, meat,
chicken. In the chrysobulls they are mentioned twice; in the Mraka
chrysobull it is said: " ... no tithe shall be taken, nor bread, nor wine,
nor meat, nor grain, nor chicken ... " ,251 and in the Rila chrysobull is
forbidden " ... forcibly to take bread or kill chicken ... "252
The meaning of the words quoted is perfectly clear and does not pro-
voke different positions in historiography with some small exceptions.
Regarding the Bulgarian territories the most detailed elaboration is that
of G. Tsankova-Petkova who establishes a connection with Byzantine
psomozemia. 253 I would like to note the mentioning of chicken: G. Ilinsky
considers it to indicate this was some type of tax (tithe) imposed on
poultry. 254 It should be noted though, that the quotation is such as
to exclude that type of interpretation. The prohibition is for "killing
chickens", which is incompatible with their taxation. On the contrary,
it indicates seizure of poultry for food.
Therefore, we come again to the Byzantine archetype of the
Bulgarian fiscal and legal institution: it might suggest to us what
the regulation in Bulgaria was. Usually psomozemia is mentioned as the
24 gNovakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 411 IV.

252 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 65-66; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 53 65-66·
253 Tsankova-Petkova, 2'il agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 106 (note 133), 113 (note 173),
133-4, 160.
archetype. Quite a lot of literature has been accumulated on this topic,

but the positions differ. 255 The term itself appeared in Byzantium at
the end of the 11th century in a list of duties the favoured was exempt
from, and continues to be mentioned in the same context. This gives
grounds to define it as a type of corvee or paraggareia. Most authors
define it as compulsory supplying in kind aimed at the support of the
army or officials, or compulsory buying up at fixed prices. Thus, they
include therein not only the provision of bread (Greek 'psomi') but
also of other products. However, there is some later research that tends
to link this duty particularly with bread. In this sense paraggareia is
identical with the duty, known already in the late Roman Empire, for
milling grain and making bread at the expense of the ordering party,
and it existed also in the Empire during the Middle Ages. 256 This is
confirmed by the separated from psomozemia citation of the products,
including bread, in the chrysobulls. Therefore it appears to be a special
paraggareia particularly with regard to bread.
These observations pose the question about the nature of the
Bulgarian citation of bread, wine, meat, etc. that was hastily identified
with psomozemia. I consider that this identification should be rejected
and we should see the Bulgarian duty as being some compulsory
supplying of products or compulsory buying up of the same and not
a special corvee related to bread.
The Serbian sources cannot be of much help for this study. Pso-
mozemia can be found several times but only in the Greek-language
acts of the Serbian rulers in favour of monasteries in Thessaly or
Mount Athos. 257
3.2.1.6
Padalishte (nb.N-J\Hlj.Je) is an extraordinary duty for proVIsiOn of
headquarters for representatives of the administration. The term is
mentioned only in the Vitosha chrysobull of tsar John Shishman:
" ... neither serdars nor varars, nor podvoda or padalishte, or kraguyars
255 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 44; Angelov, "Prinos kAm narodnostnite i

pozemleni otnoshenija v Makedonija (Epirski despotat) prez p1l.rvata chetwrt na XIII
vek", Izvestija na Kamarata na narodnata kultura, god. IV, 1947, 3, p. 43; Cvetkova,
"Influence exrecee", p. 251; Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija, pp. 327-8; Melovski, "Kon
prasanjeto za psomozemijata", pp. 111-7; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 108-9.
256 Ferrari della Spade, Immunita ecclesiastiche, 121-3; Oikonomides, Fiscalite,
pp. 108-9.
444 CHAPTER FIVE
or pesjaks ... "258 It can be seen that it is placed in relation to the cited
officials who were forbidden to trouble the monastery, as well as
among the duties the monastery was exempt from. This provides a
starting point for research and an explanation of the nature of the duty
called by this name. Unfortunately, in this case there is no additional
data except the word itself.
Padalishte has not been a subject of special interest in the studies of
the mediaeval Bulgarian fiscal system. In his comment to the edition
of the chrysobulls, G. Ilinsky dedicates to it only a few words, and
these contain contradictions at that: 259 in the presentation he classifies
padalishte with the goods of property and more specifically-under
real estates, defining it as 'hotel', 'inn', and in the glossary is written
"K6.9tcr~, hospitium gratuitum" D. Angelov equates padalishte with
priselitsa and mitaton and defines them together as a duty for provision
of shelter to officials and soldiers passing through the village. 260 This in
fact repeats the meaning of what G. Ilinsky has written in the glossary
regarding free accommodation, but it is equated with K6.9tcrJ. ux.
Actually, I think the solution to the problem is the following:
'padalishte' is a translation/loanword of the Byzantine term 'kathisma'
(K6.9tcr).ux) where one should look for a parallel in order to explain
the nature of the duty. In the administrative system of the Empire
K6.9tcr).UX always means some building, used by the representatives of
the local administration when moving around the territory under their
jurisdiction. 261 There were such buildings at different places across the
area and they served as temporary headquarters for representatives of
the administration, the judiciary, the fisc, and various military com-
manders. And since this refers to some burden for the population,
apparently the population had to provide and maintain the buildings.
I consider that padalishte in Bulgaria was a provision of buildings for
temporary headquarters of the administration at various places on the
territory as well as maintenance and support. Such duty was in place
everywhere during the Middle Ages, but I am not aware of this term
being in use in mediaeval Serbia.

259 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 117, 142.
261 Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption jiscale, pp. 94-6. See also the Greek Acts of
the Serbian rulers: Solovjev, Mosin. Grtke povelje srpskih vladara, p. No. XVIII line 72
andp. 449.
3.2.1.7
Obligations regarding combat animals and animals used for transporta-
tion by the army and the administration. As quoted in the chrysobulls,
these obligations appear to be connected mainly to the feeding of the
service animals. Some of them are better presented, others only by cita-
tion of the products that the population had to supply.
The hay supply was very important for the service animals and for
this reason traces of such obligation can be found at several places in
the documents although presented in different ways. First of all, there
is a relation to the name of the institution senar quoted in the Rila
and Vitosha chrysobulls (we shall dwell on it further in that study).
In the former, the official in question is placed among those officials
who were forbidden to trouble the monastery, and is mentioned after
strator and before mitat. 262 In the Vitosha chrysobull senar is in the
same citation, ranking last. 263 Apparently this refers to some fiscal or
military officer, especially from the cavalry, in charge of supervising
the obligations of the population regarding hay supplies. I think that
this is more likely to concern some kind of corvee or supplying and
was not a tax on hay. This statement is confirmed also by the fact that
there is data on obligations of the population with regard to hay. In
the Virgino chrysobull among the duties the monastery people were
exempt from is said: "nor hay to be mowed". 264 This is quoted in the
protection formula after the prohibition to be made on hoing vine-
yards and before the one on harvesting and giving tsarina. It is clear
that this refers to a corvee or compulsory labour related to mowing
hay and submitting it to the state. I think that senars were in charge
of exactly this obligation. At the same time the term 'senokos' (= hay-
mowing) is also found. However in the Virgino charter this is not a
duty of the population but a good of property-obviously meadows
for producing hay for the livestock. 265 It is the same in the Mraka and
Rila charters. 266
In mediaeval Serbia there was a corresponding obligation of the
population and it is relatively well described in the sources. 267 The Law

264 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 I02-I03·
265 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 16 4h 17 63,69·
266 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 24 22, 2524, 2747·
267 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 401, 431, 448, 512, 514, 582, 590, 619, 625;
Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 211-2.

446 CHAPTER FIVE
Code of tsar Stephen Dusan informs about it in terms of obligation to

the state or to the locallord. 268 There is every reason to presume that
it was similar to the one in Bulgaria and it can simply be defined as
corvee or paraggareia for performance of some work and/or furnish-
ing the specific product.
More data is found in Walachia and Moldavia. As an important
agricultural product, hay was connected with various obligations in
both principalities: there was a tithe on hay as well as other furnishings
in kind or in money. 269 The official in charge of the implementation of
these obligations was called 'senar' and in the Romanian language-
fdnar (from Latin foenarius). 270 The hay is of vital importance for
stockbreeding and for farm production in general, but we are inter-
ested in its significance for the defence in connection with support of
the cavalry. Therefore, I would like to note that the right of adminis-
tration of this activity was possessed by the military commanders in
Moldavia. Thus, the comis took care of furnishing the lords' horses
with hay, and under his authority were placed the forests along the
Pruth River; there were special officials called 'brani$tari'. 271 There was
also a special official called great comis with a special task to supply the
court with hay. He supervised the mowing and the hay supply for the
ruling prince. 272 Most probably, all this detailed information cannot
be applied to Bulgaria, but it definitely helps us form an idea about
this state service and the related thereof obligations of the population
during the Balkan Middle Ages.
Other obligations regarding the cavalry are referred to with the
names of the provided products or activities: grain, feed, pasture, etc.
Grain is mentioned in the Mraka chrysobull where the term is cited
in the prohibition of requisitions and corvees: " ... nor bread, nor wine,
nor meat, nor grain, nor chicken ..."273 I do not think that the essence of
this obligation creates any problems. Apparently, it is about furnishing
grain by the population for the service animals of passing representa-
tives of the administration, the postal services or the army. Similar
obligation existed also in Serbia: grain is mentioned in the chrysobull
268 Novakovic, Zakonik Stefana Du5ana, p. 32 art. 34, pp. 55-6 art. 68, p. 188.
270 DRH, ser. B, vol I, p. 110 No. 56; Institufiifeudale, p. 198.
271 DRH, ser. A, vol. I, p. 16 No. 11; DRH, ser. B, vol. I, p. 224 No. 131; Institutii
feudale, pp. 56-7, 112.
of king Milutin for the St. Stephen Monastery in Banjska. 274 Surely it
existed also in the Empire, in Walachia and Moldavia, as well as all
over Europe, and data from there is more detailed and not limited
only to mention of the name of this duty.
Another obligation of the population was to provide pasture for the
service animals. The mentioning thereof in the Virgino chrysobull is
not quite clear. It refers to a prohibition to pasture horses on church
territories. 275
3.2.2. Transportation-related corvees

Transportation-related corvees were among the most significant inas-
much as they were related to the communications within the state. The
aim was to provide support to the administration and the army when
passing through a certain territory and to facilitate their advance.
This support or rather an obligation for support, could be achieved
by performance of certain labour by the local population or by its
livestock, and by means of the respective technical equipment. For the
implementation of the corvee, temporary or permanent requisition of
livestock or means of transportation could be applied either with or
without compensation. Of course this implies also the support of the
above-mentioned livestock.
3.2.2.1
First of all we should mention the term 'podvoda' (noA'I.ROAb.). It is
found in the Mraka and Vitosha chrysobulls, in both cases in the for-
mula for interdiction for administration representatives not to trouble
in any way the monastery people. In the Mraka chrysobull podvoda
is mentioned in a context that can indicate a link to transportation-
related obligations of the population:"... neither take a horse nor oxen,
nor donkeys or take podvoda or cause any other damage .. ."276 In the
Vitosha chrysobull podvoda and padalishte (two different duties but
both related to support for representatives of the administration) are
inserted in the citation of designations for various officials. 277
There are not many doubts in scholarly literature about the con-
notation of the term. G. Ilinsky defines it as an obligation of the

277 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 11 •
448 CHAPTER FIVE
population to put their means of transportation at the disposal of the

state, and he thus explains the verb 'take' in the quotation form the
Mraka chrysobull.278 D. Angelov defines it as a requirement for the
population to provide carts and other vehicles. 279 Practically the same
explanation is given by G. Tsankova-Petkova, who relates it to the
term paraggaria (1tapayyapcia) and adds it to the goods taken away-
not only carts, but harness and other gear. 280
In Serbian documents the term podvod is found only once in a
charter of king Stephen Dragutin for the Chilandari monastery, dating
from 1276-1281, where it refers to guarding the monastery port. 281 On
the other hand, the term provod (nro&OAO:Z.) is widely used (transition
into Modern Greek as 1tpo~60ot). 282 Very often it is quoted together
with ponos (noHOCb); this and the context of the quotation define it as
a type of transportation corvee. 283 The word is not found in Bulgarian
documents, including the Virgino chrysobull, although it is present in
that of Milutin of AD 1300.
Transportation corvees were well-known in the Empire. 284 They
covered the obligations of a special part of the population that had to
support communications via the imperial post service included horses
and carts relay, maintenance of stations and other related activities.
In our case, I think that it refers to another type of obligation that
is closer to the Byzantine paraggariai, which provided that the peas-
ants had to support the moving of administration representatives with
labour or with means of transportation and the relevant equipment.
There were varieties of paraggariai in the Empire that relate to spe-
cialisation in the transportation of various materials, etc. 285 I suppose

280 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 93 note 63, 159, 167.
281 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 387 III.
282 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 310 VIII, 407 III, 411 IV, 455 X, 456 IV, 486
VIII, 512 X, 514 XXI, 609 VI, 614 XXXII, 671 IX, 680 XXI (nyo&OAA noKAHCAfb), 698
CLXXV. At the same time it should be noted that in some cases the term means a
type of fine-see same source, pp. 387 IV, 388 V, 617 XLVIII (nyo&OAb KOHbCKHH), 699
CLXXXV; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 205-6.
283 MihaljciC, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 201-2.
284 Ka:zhdan, Derevnja, pp. 160-2; Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, Recherches sur /'administration
de /'Empire byzantin aux IX-XI siecles,pp. 17, 19, 22; Ahrweiler, Byzance etla mer,p. 146;
Lemerle, The Agrarian History of Byzantium, pp. 175-6; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp.
106-7, 119-20
285 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 106-7.
that this is precisely the obligation of which we find a counterpart in

Bulgaria.
Podvoda was well-known also in Walachia and Moldavia, where
it was either called caratura or preserved its Slavic name podvoada. 286
There are reasons to believe that it is the same obligation, although
to the north of the Danube River it was not so much connected with
the administration but rather with the transportation of products in
favour of the state or the local proprietor.
3.2.2.2
To this group of transportation-related obligations belong also the
various requisitions, traces of which are found in the chrysobulls. Ref-
erence is made to requisitioned animals: horses, donkeys, oxen, etc. As
only living draught animals were used for transportation at that time,
they were of exceptional importance for the communications in the
state. In Bulgarian documents these obligations are mentioned mainly
in the interdiction to requisition livestock for such purposes from the
people of the favoured monastery. Apparently this was a regular prac-
tice and not an exception.
In the chrysobulls are cited also horses, donkeys, oxen, etc. The Vir-
gino chrysobull contains the following passage: " ... neither a man shall
be taken for corvee nor horse, nor ox or donkey ... "287 I think we have
all the grounds to relate the verb 'take' (for corvee) that is 'burden
with corvee' not only to the monastery people, who were exempt from
such duties, but also to the animals. The citation leaves no doubt that
it refers to animals to be used for transportation and for no other
purposes. On the other hand, in Mraka chrysobull is mentioned a
similar duty the monastery was exempt from: " ... neither shall they
take them for any work in favour of My Empire nor shall they take for
corvee a horse nor oxen, nor donkeys or take podvoda ... "288 This text
is even clearer: people should not be taken for any compulsory work
for the state and also the animals should not be taken for corvee-
apparently for transportation. This citation is right before the mention of
'podvoda', which strengthens the impression that a transportation-
related obligation was meant. The Rila chrysobull says the following:
" ... neither a man of his (of StJohn, of Rila Monastery) shall be taken
286 Institufii feudale, pp. 84-5, 366.

450 CHAPTER FIVE
for work, nor their workers, nor their zeugari shall be taken for corvee,
nor horse nor beast ... "289 Here oxen are replaced with 'zeugari' and
after 'horse' follows the generalisation 'beasts' indicating all livestock;
but there is no doubt that draught animals were meant.
In the Byzantine Empire all these duties and requisitions were inher-
ited from the late Roman Empire. Usually, though not necessarily, this
activity was under the jurisdiction of the imperial communications,
the so-called Dromos headed by the logothete tou Dromou. 290 In many
cases however, it was connected with the army or with performance
of specific military operations, and it was natural in such cases for
these duties and requisitions to be organised by the military institution
or by the commanders of the operation. Similar obligations existed
practically everywhere, not only during the Middle Ages but also in
Modern Times.
In mediaeval Serbia the seizure of saddle horses and draught ani-
mals is registered several times in the documents, but it is only in king
Milutin's chrysobull of AD 1300 that this procedure is phrased in a way
similar to that in Bulgaria. 291 Data on such obligations can be found
also in the Law Code of tsar Stephen Dusan. 292
3.2.3. Building Corvees

3.2.3.1
Gradozidanie (Pfb.AO~HA~HHe, building of fortresses) is the name of
a typical building corvee related to erection and maintenance of for-
tresses and other military fortifications. The term is found twice in
Zographou chrysobull,293 where it is written that the monastery had
to pay fifty perpers for zhitarstvo, gornina and gradozidanie and was
exempt from that duty by the intercession of the Bulgarian tsar. It
is clear that the reference is to burdens of various kinds (such as
the three cited). There are as well references to an obligation called
~b.~TH (construct) in the Virgino chrysobull and in some narratives. 294
In studying its meaning one should be careful not to confuse the term
289 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 62-<i3·

290 Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption jiscale, p. 105 tf.
291 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 420, 431, 590, 609, 614, 628, etc.
292 NovakoviC, Zakonik Stefana Du5ana, pp. 96, 222-3.
293 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 23 5o, 58·
with the ordinary verb describing the work of construction, for the
latter has no legal meaning. This is not the case in the above-mentioned
document where the quoted activity is explicitly classified among the
burdens the monastery people were exempt from and is described as
rp'A ~b.Ab-TH, which is a version of the term in question.
There are no significant differences among authors regarding the
content of this corvee. G. Ilinsky describes it as building of fortresses
and quotes earlier authors. 295 G. Tsankova-Petkova defines gradozi-
danie as labour service related to the construction, maintenance and
restoration of fortresses, city walls and other fortifications. 296 The same
opinion is maintained by D. Angelov. 297 I think that the consensus of
the authors is due both to the clarity of the term and to its undispu-
table correspondence with the Byzantine corvee, which deserves some
more attention.
The term gradozidanie itself is an obvious loan translation from the
Greek Ka.mpoK'ttcria. (kastroktisia), which gives reason to conclude that
the word was borrowed from the Empire's fiscal system and had a direct
connection with the military sphere. In general, the construction and
maintenance of fortifications and other important infrastructural sites
such as roads, bridges, etc. were part of the obligations of the local mil-
itary commanders. 298 At times however, special imperial officials with
broad powers were sent for the purpose of construction of important
sites. They were called kastroktistes (Ka.crtpOK'ttmm). As far as it was
related to defence, this obligation fell within the framework of the mil-
itary administration (A.oyo9£mov toil crtpa.ttrottKoi'l). 299 At the same
time the link with the fisc is inevitable, inasmuch as the reference is
to the organisation and imposition of some burden on the population
and the right of the state to require it. Archbishop Theophylactus of
Bulgaria describes kastroktistes as executors of some very heavy charge,
who were entitled to demolish buildings for the materials or because
of alleged threat to military facilities. 300 The significance of this duty
295 llinskij, Gramoty, p. 124.

297 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 196, 198.
298 Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption fiscal, p. 110.
299 Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, p. 62; Tsankova-Petkova, 2'll agrarnite otnoshenija,
p. 117 note 198.

300 Theophilacti Achridensis Epistulae, ed P. Gautier, Thassaloniki, 1980, no. 32.
452 CHAPTER FIVE
to the state is confirmed by the basileus Leo VI the Wise. 301 However,
initially this was an extraordinary burden that was not imposed on
a regular basis. Such imposition is evidenced starting from the 13th,
when the local authorities or landlords started to misuse it for regular
construction, sometimes even of private castles. 302
It seems to me that what contributed to this abusive practice was the
possibility of redeeming this obligation: it became standard practice to
pay some amount of money instead of performing the labour. 303 This
practice is of special importance for our research, for the text of the
Zographou chrysobull refers precisely to exemption from this payment,
which, until then, the monastery had paid to the Byzantine authorities.
Unfortunately, this document cannot help us make inferences regard-
ing the existence of redemption in Bulgaria. It refers to the Empire and
the Bulgarian tsar had intervened in favour of the Zographou Mon-
astery. Therefore the information about the fifty perpers redemption
payment refers to the local practice. Whether it existed in Bulgaria or
not is uncertain. There is no data although I personally suppose that
the answer should be in the affirmative. Probably this practice was
borrowed from the Empire and existed also in Bulgaria.
Data on gradozidanie is available from mediaeval Serbia as well and
kastroktisia is mentioned in the Greek acts of the Serbian rulers. 304 This
obligation is quoted in the chrysobulls sometimes with its full name or
only as 'grad'. 305 It is also mentioned in the Law Code of tsar Stephen
Dusan, where it provides for construction not only of fortresses but
also of other buildings. 306 This data can be used for making parallels
with the situation in Bulgaria. I think that all of it proves more or
less the Byzantine archetype of the obligation in the two Balkan coun-
tries. In this sense it could be said that there is a complete coincidence
between the loan-word and the designation of the institution as well
as in its connotation.
301 Patrologia graeca, t. 107, col. 1032C.

302 Troianos, KacrtpoK'nma, p. 49; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 111.
303 Troianos, KampoK'ttcr\a, p. 53; S. Borsari, "lstituzioni feudali e parafeudali nella
Puglia bizantina", Archivio strorico perle provinzie Napoletane, N. S. 38 (1958), p. 128;
Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption jiscale, p. 110.
304 Solovjev, Mo8in, GrClce povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 452-3.
305 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 401 XI, 411 IV, 436 XI, 607 II, etc.
306 NovakoviC, Zakonik Stefona Du5ana, art. 127 pp. 97-8, 223.
3.2.3.2
Mostnina (MOCT'AHHH~, from "most/uocrr"A" = "bridge") is an obliga-
tion of the population and there is no unanimous position on its sub-
stance as a result of some gratuitous statements not based on extensive
research. The term is found twice in the Virgino chrysobull: 307 firstly
(line 30) it is mentioned among the goods granted to the monastery
by the Tsar, and secondly (line 103) among the duties the monastery
was exempt from by the grace of the Tsar. At the first place mostnina
is cited together with brodnina but among 'fields', 'meadows', 'winter
pastures', 'summer pastures' 'game hunting and fishery reserves', etc.
The second quotation contains an interdiction to take either diavato or
mostnina, or to take for corvee monastery people or an ox or a donkey.
Undoubtedly, there is some contradiction between the two texts that
should be clarified in order to understand how an obligation can be
transformed into a good, right or privilege. Therefore, the nature of
the obligation should be made clear.
The positions expressed in the scholarly literature gravitate towards
the view that mostnina is some kind of fee, usually demanded for
crossing a bridge over a river. It is already expressed by G. Ilinsky in
his comment to the published documents. 308 The same is the opinion
of D. Angelov who also proposes a solution to the contradiction in the
Virgino chrysobull: mostnina is a charge for carrying goods across a
bridge, while in the privileges-the monasterywas not only exempt from
it but was entitled to collect it from others in its favour. 309 G. Tsankova-
Petkova also maintains the opinion that mostnina is a charge for crossing
a bridge. 310 Obviously, all authors have based their arguments on
the name of the duty and have classified it with the fees without any
research or parallels made with neighbouring countries.
Here I shall disagree again basing my argument on the name of the
fiscal institution. Mostnina is obviously a translation of the Byzantine
term gephyrosis (ye<j,.6procrt~ from "ye<f>upa./gephyra" = "bridge") and it
does not designate a charge for crossing a bridge but a special building
corvee. 311 This was an obligation of the population to participate in the
307 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 16 3o• 19 103·

311 Ferrari della Spade, Immunitil, pp. 137-8; Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, p. 62;
Karayannopoulos, Finanzwesen, p. 181; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 109.
454 CHAPTER FIVE
construction, maintenance and repair of bridges, usually for the need

of the army. Such an obligation has been known since ancient times
and can be found in various Roman statutory texts, transferred later
to Constantinople. 312 As a duty it is closely related to gradozidanie/kas-
troktisia, which was already mentioned, and to the so-called hodostrosia
(6Bomprocria, i.e. the obligation to build and maintain roads)-three of
them are often quoted together. This fundamentally changes the knowl-
edge of mostnina as it was conceived in previous studies.
Mostnina was known also in mediaeval Serbia but information in
this regard is as scarce there as it is for Bulgaria. 313 In the Romanian
principalities a similar obligation was connected not only with com-
pulsory bridge building but also with the subsequent use of bridges
and obtainment of income from bridge charges. 314
These observations permit a possible explanation for the fact that
a duty could be cited among the goods granted to the monastery by
the tsar. First of all, the charge was in favour of the state and here
the point is not simply the exemption but the transfer of the right in
somebody else's favour: whether this be the right to demand com-
pulsory labour for construction and maintenance of private bridges
and roads, or the right to use bridges and roads, built with public
resources, or to collect redemption from corvees for private benefit, is
a different issue altogether.
All this data allows us to draw a general picture of this obligation,
which ultimately followed its Byzantine archetype. For that reason, the
term remains the same as in Greek, though translated from the Greek
into Slavic.
3.2.4. Corvees and obligations of population of special status elated to

performance of military and police functions as well as such related to
hunting
We may judge about many of these corvees by the information from
the post-Byzantine period, when the Balkans peninsula was under the
power of the Ottoman sultan. Military corvees were popular among
312 I. et P. Zepos, Iusgraecoromanum. I, Athens, 1931, p. 23, Basiliques, V, 1.4 =Cod.

lust. I, 2, 5 et Basiliques, V, 3, 6 = lust. Nov. 131, c. 5
313 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 615 XXXVI; GrujiC, "Trihilandarsk.e povelje",
p. 16.
the Christian population in the Ottoman Empire and at least part of

them were a legacy from the mediaeval Balkan states. These were the
various derventct (derventdji), martolos and voynuks who performed
military or paramilitary and police functions of guarding passages and
thoroughfares, certain territories or settlements, pursuing and detain-
ing gangs of robbers, etc. 315 To these one could add konars (from
"I~OHblkon" = "horse") who had obligations related to breeding and
furnishing horses for the imperial power and caring for them in the
sultan's court. The continuity related to this population and its status
regarding some obligations inherited from the Middle Ages could be
found along many lines, but I would like to draw special attention
to its internal organisation and institutions. The head of the group
in charge of the respective military or police obligations was usually
called lagator, 316 which is an obvious loanword from the mediaeval
military institution of the alagator connected with the command of
the cavalry in the provinces. 317
Unfortunately mediaeval Bulgaria has not left us much or detailed
information on the organisation of military and similar obligations
of the population of special status. There is data only on the hunting
corvees that generally pertain to the performance, as a kind of service,
of military and some police and guarding functions by the population.
They will be discussed further in the presentation.
3.2.4.1
About the obligations related to hunting is known only from the des-
ignations of officials in charge of hunting birds (PtlfAKAfb I gerakar
and KfAPO~~Afb I kraguyar) and those in charge of the hunting dogs
(ncApb, fAfb I psar). The name of this obligation is not known and
there is no description of its characteristics.
This kind of services relate mainly to the organisation of the tsar's
hunting, for which there was an established network of institutions not
315 Law for the vojnuks-Turski izvori za istorijata na pravoto, I, pp. 279-83; Snega-
rov, "Spahii-nemokhamedani", pp. 83-6; Cvetkova B., "Novye dannye o khristijanakh-

spakhijakh na Balkanskom poluostrove v period turetskogo gospodstva", Vizantijskij
vremenik, t. XIII, Moscow, 1958, pp. 184-97; Vasic M., "Martolosi u jugoslovenskim
zemljama pod turskom vladavinom", Akademija nauka i umetnosti Bosne i Herce-
govine, djela, knj. XXIX, Odelenje istorijsko-filoloskili nauka, knj. 17, Sarajevo, 1967.
316 Snegarov, "Spahii-nemokhamedani", p. 84; Duridanov, "Byzantoni-slavica", pp.
181-187; Petrov Grozdanova, "Mittelalterliche Balkanii.mter", p. 100; Beldiceanu, "La region
de Timok-Morava", pp. 112-3; Beldiceanu, "Le Valaques de Bosnie", pp. 126, 130.
456 CHAPTER FIVE
only in the capital but also in the provinces. There is no doubt that in
mediaeval Bulgaria the tsar's hunting was an important activity going
far beyond pure entertainment. There is no detailed information except
for an explicit quotation in the Vita of St Sabbas of Serbia, who died in
Tarnovo at the time when the tsar had gone hunting. 318 Hunting was
so closely related to the supreme power that some authors even define
it as an exclusive right of the tsar. According to G. Danailov, only he
had the right to hunt, and ceded this right with special provisions in the
documents where 'hunting and fishery reserves' were mentioned. 319
As with every ideologically significant activity, it could be presumed
that hunting in the Bulgarian imperial court had been organised after
the model of this activity in Constantinople and duplicated the main
Byzantine traditions in this respect. That is precisely how those tra-
ditions spread throughout the Balkans; some of them survived the
Empire. Thus, it could be said that hunting in Basileuousa Polis at
the Bosphorus coast can be divided into two categories: hunting with
hunting birds and hunting with dogs. The former was especially popu-
lar among the basileis. I would like to make a special remark about the
dogs, for their importance and role for hunting in mediaeval times
were different and much more significant than in modern hunting. In
fact the hunting animals did not only find and bring the catch but they
chased it and blocked it, and only the last act remained for the hunter,
usually armed only with a knife or a short spear. In this respect the
training of the dogs was of paramount importance. This is also obvious
for the hunting birds and does not need to be proven. During the time
of Andronikos III Palaeologos the court kept thousand hunting dogs
and thousand hunting falcons. 320 These impressive numbers required a
significant number of attendants and a very good organisation of their
work. Therefore a special official of the palace was in charge, called
protoierakarios (i.e. chief and first falconer), whose position will be
further discussed in greater details in the presentation regarding the
officials involved in the ruler's hunting.
All this refers to the organisation of hunting at the tsar's court, but
it shows the entire system, and was mirrored in the provinces. Mediae-
318 Teodosije Hilandarec, Zitije svetoga Save, Belgrade, 1984, pp. 189-92.
319 Danailov, "Stranitsa iz darzhavnoto stopanstvo", p. 50.
320 Brehier, Les institutions, p. 150; Guilland R., "Sur quelques grands dignitaires
byzantins du XIV• siede", T611a<; KcovmavrivO'I> Ap!levo1t0'61..ou, Srocral..oviKTJ, 1951,

p. 189.
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 authori-
ties 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 partici-
pate 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 justi-
fied 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 Byzan-
tine 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.

324 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 cap-
tured 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 pro-
hibit 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 <;avu~ from Sofia (16th century) as well as in Kanunname
by Orner Avni, dating from 1642, it is said that these individuals were
of two categories: the first had a timar while the others enjoyed the
benefit of remission of certain taxes. 328 In the sub-district everything
was in the hands of the doganctba~t. Every year there were duty shifts
in the capital for groups of individuals entrusted with care for the
birds, specifically the people serving as carriers of falcons, hawks and
eagles and feather cleaners. These obligations were passed on from
father to son. For part of the obligations and privileges there is infor-
mation in the Law for the ~ahinct and ryaktrct of the sancak (district) of
Vidin (16th century), specifically about exemption from certain taxes
and duties, and the obligation to deliver a certain number of birds per
year. 329 It is noteworthy that in many cases the falconers were exempt
m Cvetkova, "lnfluenceexercee", p. 243; lnalclkH., 1he0ttomanEmpire.1he Classical

Age (1300-1600), London, 1975, p. 81.
326 Jacobo de Promontorio, "Governo et entrate dell Gran Turco. Stato del Gran
Turco", Izvestija na istoricheskoto druzhestvo v Sojija, t. IX, 1929, pp. 51-2; lnalclk,
1he Ottoman Empire, p. 81.
327 Cvetkova, "Sokolarstvoto", pp. 66-7.
328 Turski izvori za istorijata na pravoto, I, pp. 218-9, 238-9.
329 Bojanic-Lukic D., Vidin i Vidinskija sandzhak prez XV-XVI vek, Sofia, 1975,
pp. 177-8; Cvetkova, "Sokolarstvoto", p. 68 ff.
from the jurisdiction of the sancakbeg and were under the jurisdiction
of their doganctba~t. 330
After this brief overview of the situation in the other Balkan coun-
tries, we must conclude by discussing the situation in the mediaeval
Bulgarian state. Unfortunately, the information that has reached us is
such that the only thing that can be asserted with relative certainty is
the existence of specific duties for the population related to hunting.
Our knowledge is based only on the available information about the
designations of the officials in charge of the implementation of these
duties. The nature of the duties is not known in details, but it is obvi-
ous they were connected with service animals trained to take part in
the hunt-rapacious birds and hunting dogs. Apparently, the popula-
tion had the obligation to breed, to train and to deliver such birds and
dogs to the authorities, and at the same time provided duty shifts in
the capital to look after the animals. It is also likely that the popula-
tion was obliged to participate in the ruler's hunting parties personally
and with their own animals. It is not certain whether this applied to a
specific category of population of special status or was a general obli-
gation for people when called upon. However, this activity apparently
caused inconvenience to the people and was a burden for them; hence,
the domains specially privileged and endowed with an order of the tsar
were exempted from it.
3.2.4.2
The obligations related to performance of police and guard functions
are known from some occasional mentions in documents. The most
important are found in the Virgino chrysobull, where we find refer-
ence to an exemption of the monastery people from a duty designated
as """ rr~ ~HAb.TH "" &AklCTH H, "" TeUHHU,A &AklCTH". 331 It is
quoted between the different types of nametak, which precede it, and
other labour services (ploughing, vine digging, hay mowing and har-
vesting), which follow. This information is scanty and insufficient to
provide a complete idea about this duty but it allows us to define it as
an obligation of the population that falls in the category of corvee. To
this data we may also add the mention of the position of the varar in
the Bulgarian administration. I have defined it in my previous studies
330 Bojanic-Lukic, Vidin i Vidinskija sandzhak, p. 178.

460 CHAPTER FIVE
as related to the organisation of the guard service and probably to the

category of obligations we are discussing here. 332
The Serbian acts provide interesting additional information. In king
Milutin's chrysobull of 1300 C'l'fA;Kb. Pfb.AO~ is mentioned, which most
likely was a position corresponding to the Bulgarian varar. 333 In this
connection the repeatedly mentioned obligation of the population
called gradobliudenie (Pf4\AO&AtoAeHHe) 334 is of special interest: it was
probably the designation of one of the discussed police and guarding
corvees specifically related to guarding towns and fortresses.
Historians have not ignored those duties, but they did not pay any
special attention to them. This is due to the extraordinary nature of
those obligations and to the fact they were not of paramount impor-
tance either for the economy or for the state governance. Ultimately,
it could be assumed that these obligations were likewise auxiliary in
respect to the actual guard function. I. Sakazov mentions them as a
duty the monastery people were exempt from. 335 G. Tsankova-Petkova
mentions them as obligations of the population to the military
authorities. 336 S. Lishev also limits his remarks to noting that the two
above-mentioned services consisted of standing sentry and guarding
fortresses or jails. 337 In my opinion all authors complement each other
in their attempts to explain a type of obligation about which no details
are known but regarding the nature of which there can be no debate:
it refers to performance of guard service by the population-keeping
watch on towns and fortresses on one hand and on jails on the other.
Here I do not mean the regular military service, which could be paid
or otherwise, but an obligation of the general population with respect
of the state. It is possible that, like other duties, it was regulated by
public law. It certainly was not fundamental for supporting the secu-
rity of the sites; it was auxiliary to the military services and probably
supervised by the latter.
332 Biliarsky, "Trois institutions meconnues", pp. 100-2; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp.
321-3.
333 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 616; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 322.
334 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 401, 448, 498, 499, 512, 514.
335 SakAzov Iv., "Dan!1chnata sistema v srednovekovnite ni monastiri", Dukhovna
kultura, kn. 20-21, 1924, p. 131.

336 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 110, 117 note. 198.
337 Lishev Str., Bulgarskijat srednovekoven grad, Sofia, 1970, p. 164.
4. FISCAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURES
Terminology in this field has most strongly preserved the original

Byzantine lexis. Some of the designations have been directly tran-
scribed from Greek (praktor, perperak, apodochator, mitat, gerakar),
others have been translated (pisets, desetkar /tithe collector/, zhitar,
vinar, senar, psar and so forth), and only a few, insignificant ones in
terms of their level in the administration (like gradar, varnichi, povar),
bear purely Slavic names.
At first, I shall consider some structures and services needed to ensure
the state finances, which are not designations of specific officials.
4.1
The imperial treasury3 38 and the names it used to bear in mediaeval
Bulgaria is still a not well-explored part of its institutions. There are
several different terms that have probably been used in different ages.
I shall consider them one by one.
One of them is 'vestiarion', for which we judge mainly by the name
of the official vestiarios (&HC'l'Hil\fl:.) or protovestiarios who used to be
in charge. 339 The word was directly loaned from Byzantium, where
the term ~ecrnapwv 340 comes from Latin, from vestiarium, derived
from vestis (clothing). There is also a conjecture about a relation to
the word bestia (beast, animal), in connection with the use of ani-
mals as units to measure wealth in ancient times. It is interesting that
the grand duke's treasury in Kievan Rus' was called Cl~iYI'I:.HHLI,A, which
could be a derivative precisely from this interpretation of the trea-
sury. Record of vestiarios can be also found in Serbia where there is
even a preserved portrait of one such official, the protovestiarios Con-
stantine.341 We have grounds to believe that, there too, the institution
was organised in a way similar to its Byzantine archetype. Due to the
nature of the sources and the specific features of the historical des-
tiny of Romanians, records on vestiars in Walachia and Moldavia are
much more abundant. In addition, there is evidence about the service
338 Danailov, "Stranitsa iz darzhavnoto stopanstvo", p. 43.

339 See: Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 156-64.
340 Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 412.
341 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 261-3; Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici,
pp. 97, 174-5, 198, 200, 213, 236, 601; Kovacevic, Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih
slovena, pp. 58-9.
462 CHAPTER FIVE
called vistierie, 342 which corresponds exactly to the term in question. It

has been thoroughly studied in the principalities, which provides good
reason to believe its archetype was most likely Bulgarian, and confirms
the spread of Byzantine influence in this area throughout the Balkan
Slavic states.
I believe that the Slavic term fH~b.HHU,~, found in the Codex
Suprasliensis, 343 originates from the Byzantine vestiarion, i.e. it is a
translation of the latter. The idea of "coffers" as a meaning of the word
vestiarion is related to the connotation of "treasury" where not only
public revenues but also various precious robes and insignia were kept.
Consequently, there is only one step to the connotation of "wardrobe"
or "chain armour" This term remained not so typical for Bulgaria,344
however, its presentation should highlight the opinion of P. Kole-
darov that it was a central matter in the state and that the chief of the
treasury was called "chelnik of the armour" ( •-teAb.HH~'ll. fH~b.HH'Ib.C~'ll.). 345
Unfortunately, the author does not provide any serious arguments in
support of his statement and it can be considered as part of his general
thesis of directly relating records and evidence about institutions in
Walachia and Moldavia or Serbia to those in Bulgaria. I consider it
unacceptable and I think any assumption based on such a possible cor-
respondence should be grounded well, not automatically accepted.
And finally, I would like to investigate two interesting terms quoted
in the Virgino chrysobull. These are AHMOCHOH'll. (dimosion) and
Aet.tocH~ (dimosia), 346 which are obviously simple transliterations of
the Greek terms &r,~6mov and &r,~6crux. 347 Both texts refer to paying a
certain sum. The major problem in this respect is whether they had the
same meaning, for in one of the cases it seems that the reference is to
the particular treasury to which the sum is paid (line 93, dimosia); and
in the other, the nature of the payment itself (line 79, dimosion). In
the Empire the term in Greek is used mostly in the meaning of "tax",348

343 Supraslski ili Retkov sbornik, p. 120 25•
344 We find it in Serbia-see: NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 161, 199.
345 Koledarov, "Le titulariat des boyards", p. 202; Evidence of this institution in
Serbia can be found in a document dated back at the time of George Brankovic
(September 17th, 1445)-Novakovic,Zakonski spomenici, p. 90; Novakovic, "Vizantijski
cinovi i titule", p. 196.
346 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 18 79, 93·
347 Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 419.
348 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 73, 77, 81, 162, 248. Here we can also cite George
Acropolites, who announced that the first thing Tsar John II Asen had to do after his
but I do not believe that in our case it entirely repeats this particular
meaning. Indeed, at least in one of the two quotes, what we have is
rather the meaning of "treasury". It should be related to the term tsar-
ina mentioned in the same chrysobull.349 All this makes things quite
vague, especially taking into account the specific character of the inau-
thentic Virgino chrysobull, where all these various terms have been
gathered in order, perhaps, to express one meaning; or similar terms,
different meanings. In my opinion, the question remains open.
4.2
As it seems, there was no tax cadastre in Bulgaria. In contrast to the
Byzantine Empire, there is no direct evidence of its existence here,
even though there were some kinds of tax lists. As far as the lists are
concerned, we can judge mainly by indirect evidence, such as the
ban imposed on "writing" (nM~TH) or mentioning the fiscal institu-
tion called nHceu,b.. The latter can be found in the Virgino and Mraka
chrysobulls,350 indicated in both places as the prohibition for officials
to trouble the monastery with their doings. I think there is no doubt
that a fiscal institution is meant. 351 The verb nM~TH or &"AnHc~TH is
mentioned repeatedly in the documents, 352 though in most cases the
reference is to the verb "to write" without any specific legal connota-
tion. At the quoted places, however, it is among the actions not allowed
to the administration in view of not disturbing the monastery and
its people. This leads to the conclusion that we are probably talking
about making lists for the purpose of collecting public taxes.
Nevertheless, we can ask ourselves whether this might have been
something inherited from the time of Byzantine rule. For that period
we have solid proof corroborating the existence of a cadastre,353 but
that does not give enough grounds to assume that a cadastre was con-
tinued in Bulgarian state as well. It seems that in Serbia a cadastre had
not been set up-at least according to the opinion of K. Jirecek. 354 In
victory of Klokotnitsa, was to appoint "soldiers, strategists and public tax (fuw,6cna
!JlopoA.oyruJ.a'ta) collectors"-Acropolita Opera, I, p. 43.
349 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 15 14• 18 79, 93·
350 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 181oo• 25 2s·
352 Illinskij, Gramoty, pp. 19 112, 25 31 ; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 13•
353 Litavrin, Bolgarija-Vizantija, pp. 223-4.
354 Jirecek. Staat und Geselschaft, II, p. 67.
464 CHAPTER FIVE
Walachia and Moldavia there was a cadastre and it was drafted by spe-
cial officials called catastifi (catastihi). 355 They, however, did not appear
until the end of the 15th century and cannot serve as proof of the
existence of a cadastre in Bulgaria. Ultimately, I think that either there
was no cadastre in Bulgaria, or any evidence and record on this matter
has been lost. A solution to the issue related to the fiscal institution
of 'writers' can be found in the assumption of M. Andreev that there
existed some kind of tax registers, 356 but these could not be acknowl-
edged to be a complete cadastre in the true sense of the word.
4.3
In-kind taxes had to be kept in special storage as part of the system for
collecting and accruing public revenues. We are not aware of how they
were called except for the terms apodochia and zhitnitsa. The first one
was mentioned in the Vatopedi charter, while the second is known
from an inscription/57 which is not a legal text and the legal meaning
of the evidence thus provided is rather doubtful. Here this will be left
outside the scope of our concern.
The apodochia (~nOAOXH~) is cited in the Vatopedi charter among the
various duties the monastery and the lands belonging to it were exempt
from. 358 This evidence should be supplemented with information on the
official bearing the name of apodochator, who was obviously the head
of the apodochia. 359 These institutions have to be considered as inter-
related, though they are not identical. It was G. Ilinsky who associated
the apodochia with the tax system. 360 Of key importance to its study
is the correspondence between M. Lascaris and F. Dolger with ref-
erence to the name of the apodochator, obviously a word of Greek
origin, though not found in Greek sources but only in Slavic. 361 In the
m Institufiifeudale, pp. 77-8; Abdreev, Vatopedskata gramota rna, p. 102.

356 Abdreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 102-3.
357 K. Konstantinov, "Dva starobulgarski nadpisa ot skalnija monastir pri s. Krepcha,
Urgovishki okrng", Archaeologia, 1977, 3, p. 21; Smjadovski St., "Epigrafsko-teksto-
logichni dobavki wrkhu tri starobulgarski nadpisa", Archaeologia, 1982, 2, p. 39.
358 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 14·
359 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 100 , 25 29 ,27 55 , 29 10; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 10;
Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 55 • For the office of the apodochator, see Biliarsky,
correspondence this official is related to the apodochia and to keep-

ing the collected in-kind taxes in storehouses. M. Andreev defined the
apodochator simply as a store-keeper, and consequently the apodochia
as a storehouse; he judged that the use of this term by the Serbs had
come from Bulgaria. 362 He believed this implied additional receipts
of benefit to the store-keeper-apodochator. 363 G. Tsankova-Petkova
wrote that we were simply dealing with an unclear obligation, probably
related to axoooxfl, i.e. to receiving superior military or other officials
during their visit to a certain town or village. 364 Iv. Dujcev just briefly
defined the apodochator, though rather incompletely, as a "collector of
in-kind taxes". 365 He did not comment on the apodochia, but it is evident
he shared the commonly accepted opinion expressed by F. Dolger.
The quoted reference to apodochia in the Vatopedi charter makes
it clear that it was something, which could cause concern among the
population. Consequently, it could not be simply interpreted as a
storehouse but rather as some kind of obligation. If we proceed from
the almost unanimous opinion (excepting G. Tsankova-Petkova)
that associates the term with keeping produce in storehouses, then
the obligation in question can be thought to concern the support and
maintenance of these storehouses. The term is Greek and it may come
both from axo06xwv and from axoooxfl. The problem is that in the
first case we are talking about a storehouse while in the second we
refer to the obligation of providing accommodation and hospitality. At
this time, I am not in a position to make a final decision in assessing
these two options, and I think this issue remains open. Nevertheless, I
find the option of relating the apodochia to keeping collected in-kind
taxes more acceptable. As far as any inconvenience to the population
as a result of this activity is concerned, it is not difficult to imagine
it: it might be related to finding suitable facilities, collecting produce
there, providing adequate security or other obligations or restrictions
involved.
362 Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 153-4; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsial-
noto upravlenie", pp. 26-7.

363 Andreev, "Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", p. 90.
364 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 108, 114 note 179.
466 CHAPTER FIVE
4.4. Central financial administration

The only dignitary, who could presumably have been in charge of the
central finances of the state, was the protovestiarios (1tproto~ecr'tt<xpw<;).
We already mentioned him in the chapter on the central services and
now it is only to remark the main features of the title!offikion of this
dignitary. Unfortunately, records on this person are limited only to a
reference in the historical relation of the former basileus John Canta-
cuzene, where it is mentioned that the young tsar John Stephen was
dethroned as a result of a coup d'etat staged by the logothete Philip
and the protovestiarios Raxin. 366 Obviously, this implies a very high-
ranking person of the metropolitan nobility, but the text does not pro-
vide any further details about his office, position or later events.
The name of the institutionitselfis ofGreek origin-1tproto~ecr'ttapw<;
and is found in a Greek text. This allows us to study it by analogy with
the Byzantine service we already know of, but it poses the question
whether it used to bear the same name in official Slavic language of
Bulgaria. Nevertheless, in order to be able to say something about the
Bulgarian protovestiarios, we should turn to their Byzantine arche-
type. We have much more data on the Constantinople protovestiarios
and these have been comparatively thoroughly studied. 367 They were
responsible for the private vestiarion of the basileus. Not only was his
clothing kept there, but also various pieces of jewellery, which makes
it similar to a treasury. The protovestiarios was a person from the
very close entourage of the ruler, and wielding huge influence, but
we should note that in the course of time his responsibilities in the
government administration became increasingly ceremonial. 368 At first
this dignity was reserved exclusively for eunuchs, but subsequently it
changed and in later periods was conferred as a "pure" title to relatives
of the basileus or to persons charged with military command, which
by itself casts doubt on their participation in the court ceremonial and,
what is more, on the actual management of the ruler's finances.
366 Joannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris Historiarum, t. I, 1. III.26, p. 458 19; Biliarsky,

367 Bury, The Imperial Administrative System, p. 125; Brehier, Les institutions, p. 130;
Guilland, "Protovestiaire", p. 202; Olkonomides, Les 1istes de preseance, p. 305; Biliarsky,
Institutsiite, p. 156 ff. The protovestiarios is one of the highest-ranking persons, and he
occupies one of the top places on the list-c£ Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 134-7.
368 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 167, 198-216; Brehier, Les institutions, p. 151.
Theprotovestiarios had the right to be addressed as ~yaA.o3o~6-to:te. 369

His wife was called npOYto~ecr'tuxp{a or npOYto~ecrttap{crcra, however
this was not a special title but rather a transfer of the husband's title
to her. 370
Data on the insignia of dignity are provided by Pseudo Kodinos:
green sceptre decorated with gold, green stockings and green braided
tamparion. 371 We also have a portrait of a Serb protovestiarios of the
14th century in Dobrun, in which a noble is seen wearing a high-
necked garment with pearl buttons in front and on the sleeves, a metal-
plated girdle with a big buckle in front. 372 The dissimilarity with the
robes described by Pseudo Kodinos is obvious, however I do not think
it could prove this was a different kind of title in Serbia.
On the contrary, I believe that records on the Serbian protovestiarios
do not imply there are any particular problems in the parallel study
of the institution there with the one in Byzantium. The first Serbian
protovestiarios mentioned in the sources was Jurech in a letter from
the year 1323.373 The institution has been mentioned recurrently in
documents of Serbian and Bosnian rulers as well as of ones from the
present-day Albanian lands. 374 A Dubrovnik institution of the same
name is also found in the treaty between tsar Michael II Asen and the
Adriatic Republic. 375 There are no substantial differences between the
Byzantine archetype and the Serbian institution, but it must be noted
that in Serbia protovestiarios seem to have kept to a greater degree
their primary functions of attending to the ruler's treasury. 376 This is a
key issue for the present study.
A similar service can be also found in the two principalities to
the north of the Danube, where the traditions of the Empire and the
mediaeval Slavic Balkan countries were largely upheld. The first quote
originates from Walachia, from a document dated January 8, 1392,
where nfOTORHC'J'Hh\f nonWOf is also mentioned among the members of
the Council. 377 It should be noted that the full form of the institution's
369 Guilland, "Protovestiaire", p. 205.

370 Guilland, "Protovestiaire", p. 220.
372 Kovacevic, Srednevekovna no5nja balkanskih slovena, pp. 58-9.
374 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 97, 174-5, 198, 200, 213, 236, 601.
375 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 158 77•
377 DRH, ser. B, vol. I, No, 17, p. 43.
468 CHAPTER FIVE
name is found comparatively less frequently and mostly in the earlier

period (14th-15th century). Later we find it mainly as RHCTHh\f'A or
RHCTHh\fHH~"A. In the 17th century it can be also found in the form
of Re.I\H~i' Cl:.~fORHWHH~'A (March 6, 1628; January 13 and August 5,
1634; August 3, 1639). 378 The Latin terms for the institution used in
Walachia are: thesaurarius, supremus thesaurarius, Camerae prae-
fectus.379 In Moldavia the official in question was called RHCTHAfl:. or
RHCTHAfHH~I:.; the first mention dates as far back as the time of the
prince Alexander eel Bun. 380 In Latin or Polish-Latin texts, he is called
wysthernik, thezawrarius, thesaurarius magnus, supremus thesaurarius,
and Schatzmeister in German. 381 I think it is firmly proven that (proto)
vestiarios in the Romanian principalities originate from the Byzantine
institution of the same name and they have survived to modern times
through the mediation of the Slavic countries in the Balkans. 382
The administrative character of the dignity of the protovestiarios
was preserved in the Romanian lands; but, even more important, he
preserved his functions in the fiscal administration by managing the
ruler's treasury. 383 He took care not only of the valuables and the deliv-
ery of clothes and expensive fur but also attended to the collecting
of revenues and approved expenditures, reporting periodically to the
prince or to a boyar appointed by the prince. In Moldavia this report-
ing was supposed to take place every three months before the Council.
In connection with these obligations to the treasury, there was a whole
administrative machine. Deputies of the vistiernic were the second and
third vistiernics, who were assisting their chief and were keeping the
revenue and expenditure registers. 384 The lower-ranking departments
were logothete of the vestiarion, who was a kind of treasury secretary,
378 Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, p. 218.

380 DRH, ser. A vol I, No. 10, p. 14; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, p. 223.
382 Grigora~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 270-3; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc,
pp. 217-27; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domneasca, pp. 134-5; Institufii feudale, pp.
502-4; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 158-9.
pp. 219-20; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domnpeasca, pp. 134-5; Institufii .feudale,
pp. 502-3; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 158-9.
pp. 221-2, 226; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 159.
and the diac, camara~ and scribes of the vestiarion, who had mainly
operational functions. 385
The sultan court of the Ottoman Empire preserved many of the
preceding Byzantine traditions, one of which is somewhat reminis-
cent of the protovestiarios. Among the personal attendants of the sul-
tan listed in the Kanunname of sultan Mehmed II we also find the
hazinedarba~t, who was third in rank in the hierarchy. 386 He occupied
a quite honourable position among the sultan's personal attendants;
in spite of his name and some of his obligations, he was not the most
active person in managing finances. This brings him even closer to the
Byzantine protovestiarios. 387
We therefore see that according to records from Bulgaria's neigh-
bouring countries, and before all, its closest neighbours Serbia, Wala-
chia and Moldavia, the institution of the protovestiarios preserved the
functions it clearly had in the Byzantine Empire. Moreover, it was con-
siderably better defined and more closely related to the fisc and man-
agement of public finances. All this gives us grounds to conclude that
the situation in Bulgaria during the Second Empire must have been
similar. Probably the protovestiarios attended not only to the impe-
rial wardrobe and valuables kept there, and his function was not only
ritual-which was an indisputable fact and evidenced in the sources
concerning the coronation of the ruler. 388 Most likely he had respon-
sibility for the ruler's treasury and its revenues and expenditures. The
source records we have available allow us to maintain only this asser-
tion. I think any further specification and elaboration on the functions
and responsibilities of the dignity in question would lead to arbitrary
and speculative claims.
385 Grigora~, Institufii feudale din Moldova, p. 272; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 222,
227; I nstitufii feudale, p. 503; Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite, p. 159.
386 Turski izvori za istorijata na pravoto, I, p. 12.
387 Nedkov, Osmanoturska diplomatika I paleograjija, t. I, p. 49 ff.; Lybyer, The Gov-
ernment of the Ottoman Empire, p. 167 ff.; Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and
Modern Turkey, pp. 119-20, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 159-60.
388 Blliarsky, "Le rite du couronnement", p. 104 51 _52, 55, Blliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 161.
470 CHAPTER FIVE
4.5. Fiscal administration in the province

4.5.1. Officials of the provincial fiscal administration and those related
to tax infrastructure
4.5.1.1. Praktor (nfA,X'I'Of'll.)
We draw records about praktors as high officials of the fiscal admin-
istration from the preserved documents of Bulgarian rulers, but it is
to note that the word does not always have the same meaning. Thus,
in the Vatopedi charter "the praktors of My Empire" stands for all the
officials of the provincial administration. 389 Accordingly, the term has
a general meaning of "state official" here and is fully in line with the
expression found elsewhere: "workers of My Empire", cited in some
other documents.
On the contrary, in the Virgino, Mraka, Rila and Vitosha chrysobulls
the term denotes a particular service in the management of local fis-
cal administration. 390 In all these documents praktors are mentioned
among the first in the list, which comes in favour of the idea about
their comparatively high-ranking position in local administration.
This is also substantiated by the parallel with the corresponding Byz-
antine institution. It is obvious the term itself derives from Byzantium
and is directly loaned from the previously established imperial tax
administration. In the 12th century praktors replaced the dioiketes in
running taxes in the province. 391 These were officials of various wide-
ranging competences who were able to judge disputes on tax issues
and carry into effect their decisions. 392 Accordingly, we can say they
had functions both in the executive power and in the judiciary. There
was a similar situation in Serbia. Praktors are mentioned repeatedly in
documents of Serbian rulers of the 13th-14th centuries. 393 We have no
reasons to assume that the Serbian institution could have been com-
pletely different from the similar Byzantine one.
Undoubtedly, the office of the praktor was inherited from the
almost two-century long foreign domination, during which it was
38g Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 7, 1o_ 11 ; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota,
pp. 193 7, 10 _ 11 and 157-60; Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite, p. 350.

3g0 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 15 14, 18 g8 _gg, 25 38, 29 7-B; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52;
Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 350-3.

m Brehier, Les institutions, p. 263.
m Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 234-5.
m NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 407, 609, 614, 616, 620, 644, 662, 680.
widely practiced in the Byzantine local administration. 394 So, it was

continued by the Asenides dynasty and penetrated into the Second
Bulgarian Empire. We are talking here about persons whose compe-
tences were broad, but chiefly related to taxes and their collection. 395
Probably some of them comprised the management of the fiscal
administration.
4.5.1.2. Pisets (nHCb.L.J,b.)
I already mentioned about the official called pisets (from the verb
nHC~TH = "write") in reference to the cadastre, the existence of which
is rather questionable. The official himself has become known to us
from the Virgino and Mraka chrysobulls, from certain correspondence
files and the list of Bulgarian saints included in the Zographou Bul-
garian History. 396 In two other documents we come across a quote
forbidding "to write" (HH nHc~TH), 397 which probably describes the job
of the pisets.
K. Jirecek, and later M. Lascaris and I. Dujcev defined the Bulgar-
ian pisets as identical with the Byzantine &vaypa<j>euc; or &noypa<j>e6c;. 398
This suggests the existence of a tax cadastre in Bulgaria, which, obvi-
ously, these authors tacitly accept for a fact. The opposite view is
shared by M. Andreev who does not acknowledge its existence. 399 He
suggested the most credible solution, i.e. that what we have is some
kind of tax lists, which, however, do not represent an integral cadastre
of the population.
4.5.1.3
Apodochator (~nOAO](~TOfA) is a term we find in the Vatopedi, Mraka,
Virgino, Rila and Vitosha charters/00 but cannot be found in any
Greek text in spite of its obvious Greek origin. Earlier in the exposition
394 Litavrin, Bolgarija-Vizantija, pp. 222-3.

395 Bobchev S. S., "Titli i sluzhbi v oblastnoto upravlenie na starovremska
Bulgarija", Izvestija na Istoricheskoto druzhestvo, t. XI-XII, 1932, p. 236; Dujeev, SBK,
II, p. 32; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64.
396 llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 100 , 25 26; Ivanov,BSM, p. 64; Blliarsky,Institutsiite, p. 353.
See the quotes in the glossary!

397 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 31 ; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 13; Andreev,
Vatopedskata gramota, p. 193 13·

398 Jireeek, Staat und Geselscahft im mittelalterlichen Serbien, II, pp. 67-8; Laskaris,
Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 41-2; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 323.

400 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 1oo. 25 29, 27 55, 29 1o; Laskaris, Va topedskata gramota, p. 5 1o;
Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 193 10; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 55 •

472 CHAPTER FIVE
we already mentioned the reference to apodochia in the Vatopedi

charter ,401 which beyond any doubt must have been related to the
office of the apodochator.
This official can be found in the king Stephen Milutin's chrysobull of
AD 1300, where it is quoted twice-as ~nOAO~~TOfb.and as ~noAO~H~fb.. 402
Regardless of the difference in the orthography, I believe we have here
one and the same official. The Serbian document also lacks any particu-
lar details about his office. This fact, as well as the difficulty involved in
making a comparison with the Byzantine administrative system, com-
plicates the process of defining the institution. Nonetheless, K. Jireeek
and G. Ilinsky defined the apodochator as part of the fiscal administra-
tion.403 It is to quote here the correspondence on this matter between
M. Lascaris and F. Dolger, where the German scholar responded to
the question asked by his Greek colleague and together they identified
the origin of the term-and hence of the institution as well-from the
Greek word cmo06xwv, which stands for "storage depot" In the end,
this denotes a person in charge of the in-kind public incomes collected
in special storehouses.404 Hesitating a bit, Iv. Dujcev agreed with this,405
and M. Andreev made a definitive conclusion that this was a person
who kept the collected taxes in kind but was not responsible for the
collecting itself. 406
Actually, the key to the problem is to link the apodochator with
the apodochia and thus come to the core essence of the institution.
This was an official responsible for the storehouse, who took care of
keeping the collected in-kind taxes and earned his living from special
receipts in his favour .407 The very nature of his responsibilities proves
that he was not a high-ranking figure in the administration.
401 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 14; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 193 14 •

403 Ireeek, Istorija na bulgarite, p. 445; Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 120.
4.5.2. Services related to collecting public revenues from taxes and

other charges
4.5.2.1. Officials responsible for collecting taxes in money: perperak
( nef'I.nl!f4\K'J.)
An official called perperak is mentioned in the two documents of tsar
John Shishman-the Rila and Vitosha chrysobulls. 408 In both cases
it refers to a prohibition for this official to trouble the monastery
people or encroach upon their possessions. In one of the cases-in the
Vitosha chrysobull, where the officers in the local administration
are designated as belonging to the kephalia-we find the expression
" ... neither the perperaks of My Empire ... " This could be interpreted
as a proof that the officials in question were subordinated directly to
the central administration, but we must be careful and try to avoid the
risk of misinterpretation.
Obviously, the Bulgarian Slavic term originated from the Greek
t:ntcpnupch:t~, which stands for an official defined by I. Dujcev as a
collector of taxes in money in the district. 409 The word is a simple trans-
literation of its Greek archetype (or, to be more exact, its colloquial
form) in which the suffix for the nominative case has been dropped.
It is closely related to another term-perper-which is the name of a
Byzantine coin but also means a certain kind of tax, no doubt collected
in money. So, in assessing the nature of the office of Bulgarian perperaks,
we have to bear in mind the overall set of issues.
The designation of the coin perper is recurrently found in Serbian
documents and here I would like to draw attention to one of them:
in a document of tsar Stephen Dusan, dating from 1347-1350, what
is mentioned is not the coin but rather the public receipt called
nepnep4\Kil\. 410 The situation in Walachia is quite similar, where a tax
liability called perper is often found in the sources (for the first time
in a document dated January 15, 1467). 411 The tax was in money and
referred mainly to commercial goods. It certainly originated from the
name of the Byzantine coin, however complete identity with the tax
408 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 54 ; Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 9•

411 DRH, ser. B, vol. I, No. 31, pp. 223-4; Dicfionar elementelor romane~ti, p. 173;
Institufii feudale, pp. 355, 359.
474 CHAPTER FIVE
cannot be claimed, as it refers to a later age and to a much more devel-

oped fiscal system.
Having made this brief overview, I think it can be asserted that the
perperak was a provincial official responsible for collecting taxes in
cash, mostly the tax called perper, from which it derived its name. The
only problem is whether this must be interpreted restrictively, i.e., the
perperak was collecting only the perper, or extensively, meaning that he
was in charge of also collecting other taxes or the other taxes in money.
Given the condition of the sources, a definite and undisputable answer
cannot be given, but I am rather inclined to leave the option of a possible
extensive interpretation. The parallel study of the institution with
records available from Walachia suggests that there might also be ref-
erence to an official in charge of the taxation of commercial goods.
Probably the perperaks had definite authority within the fiscal ser-
vices. This assertion is also based on the position this official occupied
according to the ranking found in various documents. Both charters
put it in sixth or seventh place, but he is always on top of the list
among the tax officers, right after the praktor.
4.5.2.2. Collectors of taxes and other in-kind public receipts
4.5.2.2.1. Desetkar (AeCAT'll.K~fb., tithe collector) is mentioned in the
Vatopedi, Virgino, Mraka, Rila and Vitosha charters, and is quoted
in instructions on the produce on which was collected a tithe. 412 The
term itself is Slavic and does not create difficulties in comprehension.
Probably this could explain the almost complete agreement among the
authors who have written on the topic, who all defining the desetkar
as tithe collector, most likely in-kind. 413
Obviously, the appellation of the tax determines that of the person
responsible for its collection. This can be also found in the neighbouring
Balkan countries. In Serbia we find it in king Milutin's chrysobull of
AD 1300.414 This is particularly important not only because it refers
to lands once belonging to the Bulgarian state, but also because it
412 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 100,25 29,27 55, 29 10; Laskaris, Vatopedskatagramota,p. 5 9;
Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 193 9; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 55 •
413 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 36; Dujeev, SBK, II, 322, 349; Andreev,
"Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie", p. 8; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, 153;
Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63.
414 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 620.
served to draft the antedated and unauthentic Virgino chrysobull. In

the Romanian lands the appellation of the officials was also derived
from the name of the tax and could vary accordingly. So, in Moldavia,
desetina ( ="tithe") corresponds to desetnic (the earliest extant record
is from May 10, 1439), in Transylvania the person responsible for col-
lecting decima was called decimator, while in Walachia the person
responsible for AH;KU4\ (dijma = 'tithe') was called AH;KUb.fb. (dijmar,
first record from October 28, 1439).415 I think it is quite clear that we
have here one and the same institution and almost the same name, but
in different practices.
Collecting the tithe and in-kind taxes required a good organisation
of production and well established duties for various people in charge.
It is difficult to say whether all desetkars in Bulgaria had a definite pro-
file with respect to the taxed production (corn, wine, honey, cattle, etc.)
or they belonged to the service in general without any specific line of
work. It must be stressed that the texts usually included an explanation
of the nature of the production for whose taxation they were respon-
sible, the only exception being the text of the Vatopedi charter. Further
on, we shall consider the officials who can be recurrently found in the
sources and whose area of responsibility has been specified.
Desetkar svinni (collectors of the tithe on the pigs) are explicitly
mentioned in the Mraka, Rila and Vitosha chrysobulls.416 No doubt
they were collectors of the tax on pigs and pork production. Refer-
ences to them can be also found in Serbian mediaeval documents. 417 It
is interesting that in all three cases of mentioning this type of deset-
kars in Serbia, the references are in charters concerning possessions
in Macedonia which was a former Bulgarian territory and where there
were certainly traces of previous practices. The special attention paid
to these officials in both Bulgarian and Serbian documents comes to
confirm that the production in question and relevant taxes were of
considerable importance for the economy and treasury. We have evi-
dence on tithe on pigs not only for Walachia and Moldavia, but also
415 DRH, ser. A. vol. I no. 195 p. 275 (see also 241); ser. B, vol. I, no. 127 ect
I nstitufii feudale, pp. 158-9.

416 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 25 29 , 27 55, 29 10; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 55 •
417 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 310,407,411. In the Greek documents from
Serbia we find the term xotpo&.Ka'teia: Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara,
No. II 56, pp. 504-5.
476 CHAPTER FIVE
for Transylvania.418 It seems to have been common and important for

the whole Balkan Peninsula.
Desetkar ovchi (collectors of the tithe on sheep) are mentioned in
four of the Bulgarian documents: the Virgino, Mraka, Rila and Vito-
sha chrysobulls. 419 These were officials charged with collecting the tithe
on sheep and on mutton, which should have been identical with the
Byzantine 1tpo~a'toOeKa'teia. Record on the sheep tithe is also found
in the Serbian practice.420 In the Greek-language documents of Serbian
rulers we find the term 1tpo~a'toxotpoOeKa'teia, which evidently com-
bined the tithe on pigs and sheep and might suggest the employment
of certain profiled officials.421 The tax must have had considerable
importance in the taxation of mountain areas with farming concen-
trated around large pastures as well as among some of the nomads,
such as Walachians (to the South of the Danube River) and others.
Unfortunately, available sources do not allow us to say anything more
specific about this public receipt, especially the specific produce to be
collected: sheep, lambs, mutton, wool, fur, milk, or all of these.
Desetkar pchelni (collectors of the tithe on apiculture, honey pro-
duction) are mentioned in the Virgino, Mraka, Rila and Vitosha
chrysobulls.422 They were officials in charge of collecting honey, which
corresponds to the Byzantine J..L£Aumoew6J.LtOV. We have enough data
on honey tithe in Serbia as well. 423 This tax is well represented in the
sources about Walachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania too. 424 We have
records on the 'tsar's bee-keeper' Dimiter from Musina425 (a village,
situated not far from the capital Tarnovo), which comes to suggest
that it might be about an institution related to the personal attendance
of the ruler (deliver honey for the imperial court), probably within
the authority of the stolnik.426 The other option is to refer to a person
responsible for collecting the tax on honey production. I think, however,
418 I nstitufli feudale, p. 149.

419 llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 100, 25 29 , 27 55 , 29 10; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 55.
421 Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, No. II line 49, p. 495.
422 llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 100, 25 29 , 27 55, 29 1o; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 55·
425 Maslev St., "Neizvestni u nas bulgarski r!!kopisi v Brashov", Izvestija na instituta po
istorija, 19, 1967, p. 206 (with facsimile); Linta E., Catalogul manuscriselor slavo-romane
din Bra~ov, Bucur~ti, 1985, p. 30; Khristova, Karadzhova, Uzunova, Belezhki, vol. I,
No. 99, p. 63.
426 On the Romanian principalities, see Institufii feudale, pp. 11, 295-6.
this is not likely to be the case as far as we have records on the desetkars.
At first glance, it is not easy to explain this special interest in honey, its
production and the importance of its taxation. In my opinion, the only
solution can be the importance of this product for export and its high
demand (together with wax) in Ragusa, Genoa, and Venice.
In foreign documents, mostly Serbian, there are other tithes men-
tioned, such as great and small, corn, wine. There is no evidence of
profiled officials in charge of these. It is quite interesting that all deset-
kars mentioned were related only to cattle-breeding, but I shall refrain
from insisting on a solution that these officials were involved only in
the taxation of cattle-breeding and relevant production. Such an asser-
tion cannot be credibly corroborated.
In conclusion, we can say that the desetkars were fiscal officials in
charge of collecting tithe on definite kinds of production. The subject
of taxation is specified in the name of the institution itself. I believe it
can be asserted they were not leading figures but neither were they at
the bottom of the tax hierarchy.
4.5.2.2.2. The term pobirchia (pl. no&HftHe) is found in the Mraka and
Rila chrysobulls.427 Some time ago I gave an opinion that it must be
related to the tax called &Hfb. or &Hfb.~'ll., but now I believe the nature of
this public receipt should be reassessed. 428 Earlier in the present exposi-
tion I defined it as a general notion of tax, or, to be more exact, as one
of the existing general notions. Along this line we could also define the
pobirchia-as far as we consider its name as derived from birk-as a
more general designation for a tax officer or certain officer responsible
for some kind of revenue (in money, in kind, or other). The context
where pobirchias were mentioned in the Mraka and Rila chrysobulls
cannot serve as an argument for a similar conclusion, however, I do
not know whether it can be subject to a more detailed interpretation
at all. In both cases the pobirchias are mentioned among officials in
charge of corvees, but obviously they were not. It is evident that every
solution can be questioned, but I would suggest only the option based
on relevance between the receipts called birk (and defined as a generic
notion of a tax) and the job of the pobirchia.
427 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 25 3o, 27 s:t. Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 57·
478 CHAPTER FIVE
4.6. Officials responsible for various com?es and indispensable

deliveries
4.6.1. Officials in charge of military and police and hunting corvees
First, I would like to say that these are not the ones related either to
the military command, or to army support costs, but rather to the
overall organisation of operations and functions in regards to defence,
along with definite obligations of certain types of people having special
status in a given area.
4.6.1.1. Officials responsible for hunting birds: kraguyar, gerakar
(1~r4\rO~Il\rb., rer4\1~4\rb.J
The term gerakar is found in the text of the Vir gino chrysobull,429 while
kraguyar is mentioned in the Mraka, Vitosha and Rila chrysobulls.430
For supplementary evidence we can use an Ottoman text on the con-
quest of Sofia, which refers to a certain Uzunca Sevindik, who was
falconer of the city's governor Yanuka. 431
Both these terms are of special interest, but we have to say that the
very presence of gerakar in the Bulgarian institutional system could be
questioned. A feasible argument in support of that statement is that it
can be found only in the counterfeit Virgino chrysobull and it could
have been a quote from its archetype-ing Milutin's chrysobull of
AD 1300 or could have come from the Serbian administration in gen-
eral. Indeed, the term used to be widely spread in Serbia. 432 The word
is of Greek origin and comes from iepo:~, which in Modern Greek is
yep(h:t, meaning "falcon" or "hawk" Certainly, not only the name,
but the institution itself was borrowed from the Empire. The question
is who borrowed the word and when. Elsewhere, I have proposed the
assumption that this might have probably happened in Bulgaria in
429 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 18 1oo·

430 Ilinskij, Gramoty pp. 25 29 , 27 56 , 29 11 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 56 •
431 Ahmed Feridun bey, Megmu'a-i munsa'at us-salatin, c. I, Qostantiniye 1274
( = 1857-1858), pp. 108-9; I. Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Recherches sur les actes des regnes des
sultans Osman, Or khan et Murad I (=Acta historica Societatis academicae dacoromanae,
tomus VII), Monachii 1967, No. 43 et 44, p. 224 ff.; Ikhchiev, "Materiali :za istorijata ni
pod tursko robstvo". Izvestija na istoricheskoto druzhestvo, II, pp. 92-6; Djakovich B.,
"Sbornik na Feridun bej", Godishnik na Narodnata biblioteka v Plovdiv, 1922, p. 194.
the 13th century, while in the 14th century the term was replaced by
the Slavic kraguyar. 433
Kraguyar is a Slavic word (maybe of some remote Turkic origin)
originating from the outdated word Kf4\r8H (kraguy = falcon), which
existed in the mediaeval language as well as in most contemporary
Slavic languages. 434 Nevertheless, it must be noted that it is onomato-
poeic and can be also related to some similar words in other languages,
as is the case with the Greek verb Kpa~ro (= "croak", imitating the
sounds produced by birds of prey).
In order to be able to say anything about the service for the organi-
sation of the imperial hunt with hunting birds, we shall again have to
refer to the parallel services in the neighbouring countries and mostly
in the Byzantine Empire. I already said a few words about the corvees
related to hunting and the aspiration of the Tarnovo court to resemble
the one in Constantinople. The parallel with the practice there is quite
obvious, as the Bulgarian gerakar was evidently borrowed from the
Byzantine l.epaKapw<; or 1tproto'iepaKapt0<;.435 Pseudo Kodinos indi-
cated his place in the court hierarchy and noted shortly that he was
in charge of those who carried the hunting birds. 436 We also have a
description of his uniform and insignia, among which special men-
tion is made of the symbolic glove worn at the waist-belt. 437 Of course,
in this case the word refers to a court service, whereas the Bulgarian
officials under consideration in the study were minor and provincial,
according to the available records.
In Serbia we find only gerakar, but not kraguyar. 438 As it was already
said, this official is mentioned everywhere along with the psar, probably
due to the similar hunting nature of the corvees they were responsible
for. This coincides with the quotes from Bulgarian documents, which
confirms the identity of the Bulgarian and Serbian institutions.
In the section on the hunting corvees it was already mentioned
that the Ottoman Empire preserved many of the mediaeval Balkan
433 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 375.

434 BER, II, 703-704; Rechnik na redki, ostareli i dialektni dumi v literaturata ni ot
XIX i XX vek, Sofia, 1974, p. 219; Slovnik jezyka staroslovenskeho, vol. 15, p. 58.
435 Brehier, us institutions, p. 150; Guilland, "Sur quelques grands digni.taires", p. 189.
436 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 38 29,84 10 _ 13 , 301 7 _8, 307 32• 309 25-26• 322 69• 336 88•
345 14 _15, 348 52; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 376.

437 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 62 25 _ 32•
480 CHAPTER FIVE
traditions, including the one related to the tsar's hunting with birds.
In the sultan's court, the office for hunting with birds was headed by
the ~aktrctb~t, who seemed to have inherited the Byzantine protoie-
rakarios, and his title most probably originated from the Greek term.
He was a high-ranking figure in the Kanunname (Law Code) of Sultan
Mehmed II and occupied 11th-12th place, being sixth among the
military ranks.439 In the province440 the head of the hunting bird service
was the beglerbeg of the doganct, and in every nahiye (district), the head of
the local group of falconers was the doganctb~t, called also serbazdaran
or Ser$ahinct. His subordinates were grouped according to the name
of the birds they were occupied with, namely: doganet, $ahinct, taktret,
balabanct, while the hunters and bird-trainers were called atmanct.
Unfortunately, we do not have enough detailed evidence on the
organisation of this service in Bulgaria, but we may assume that the
Ottoman Empire had at least partially preserved this service from
the preceding period. There are no records on the person responsible
for the imperial hunt with birds in the central administration, and I
do not consider it necessary to indulge in speculations as regards this
government official. Only local provincial services are mentioned. We
are not aware if there was some differentiation with regard to the type
of hunting bird they were responsible for, but I do not believe the
difference between the kraguyar and gerakar lies in that.
Records from the charters show that the persons mentioned there
were officials and not people of special status. They could have obvi-
ously created problems for the people and possessions of the monas-
tery, and for this reason they were included in the formula of protection
in the charters. The institution was comparatively widespread during
the Second Bulgarian Empire and was responsible for the corvees
related to breeding, training and provision of hunting birds for the
imperial court. 441
4.6.1.2
The Psar (mllc~pb), or the person in charge of the hunting dogs, is
mentioned in five of the preserved documents from the Bulgarian
Middle Ages: the Vatopedi, Virgino, Mraka, Rila, and Vitosha char-
439 Cvetkova, "Influence exercee", p. 243; Inalctk, The Ottoman Empire, p. 81;
Turski izvori za istorijata na pravoto, vol. I, p. 12.
44° Cvetkova, "Sokolarstvoto", pp. 66-7.
ters. 442 The quote in the first of the listed documents is question-
able because it is a supplement made by M. Lascaris; for his part,
M. Andreev suggested another reading. 443 The term is found in dif-
ferent forms and with different spellings, but there is no doubt it
originated from the word for "dog" = nb.C'A. I believe most certainly
the service of the psars was related to the imperial hunt, and espe-
cially, to some kinds of pertinent corvees I already discussed earlier
in my exposition. I think that the term itself is built similar to the
Greek Kt>V11y6c;, also based on the word for dog (Kt>rov) and meaning
"hunter" From Pseudo Kodinos' treatise we know about the great
hunter or 1tprotOKt>V11'Y6c;, who occupied the 41st place in the hierarchy
and held an honourable post in the palace.444 We find these officials in
Croatia at an early time, as evidenced in Mutimir's charter of AD 892,
and in a number of Serbian documents. 445 These records largely overlap
with evidence from Bulgarian documents, and we can quite confidently
assert that Serbian and Bulgarian psars had similar responsibilities.
Ottoman sources have also provided some additional data on the
imperial hunt officials. There we find the so-calledsagbanlaror seymenler,
i.e. "those who lead dogs", a designation completely coinciding with
the Greek-Byzantine and Slavic ones. They belonged to the military
structures and, more precisely, to the janissary corps. 446 They were
divided into thirty-four cohorts, each comprising 40 to 70 people, and
were entrusted with the organisation of the sultan's hunt, but accom-
panied the ruler at war as well. They also performed the obligations
of guards of the sultan and we might say that these were people of his
close entourage.
Unfortunately, we do not have any evidence on imperial hunt
services in Tolrnovo and our interest should be focused on the pro-
vincial officials. Earlier in the exposition I already discussed records
on hunting corvees and some kind of taxation on dogs, which prob-
ably comprised taxation on hunting. I think the special features of the
psar's service should be identified and studied mainly along this line.
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. Collect-

ing 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 com-
paratively 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 administration-
there are grounds for both assertions, however direct evidence is lack-
ing. 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 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 56; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 56·

449 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 27 54 , 29 9; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 54·
450 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 23 5o, 5B·
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 interpreta-
tion 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 responsibili-
ties 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 adminis-
tration 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 corn-
trade 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 <;:elebi compared Moldavian jitnicer with the Ottoman arpa
emini, who was in charge of provisions for the sultan's court.
Comparison with Walachia does not bring any better result. There
they had a jitar, but the word has a completely different origin and
451 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 361 ff.

453 Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 288-9; Dicfionarul elementelor romane~ti, pp.
116-117; I nstitufii feudale, p. 256; Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite, p. 363.

454 Iorga N., Contribufiuni Ia istoria bisericii noastre, Bucure~ti, 1912, p. 12.
455 Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 288-9; Institufii feudale, p. 256.
484 CHAPTER FIVE
refers to a different service-at least in the later period this official

guarded the borderline and forests. 456
As we see, the comparison with the countries having a similar
administrative structure does not give good results. For the time being,
I shall only assert that this was a minor official connected with the
obligation called zhitarstvo.
4.6.2.3
The vinar (RHH~fb) is mentioned in the Virgino, Mraka, Rila, and
Vitosha chrysobulls,457 and according toM. Andreev's reading, in the
Vatopedi charter as well.458 The Virgino chrysobull contains data on
a wine nametak,459 defined in the previous exposition as an obliga-
tion having the nature of an indispensable delivery; by this defini-
tion I correct a view I shared previously.460 The word vinar is Slavic
and is explicitly clear in meaning-it is about a man attending to
wine. Records on vinars of probably similar responsibilities can be
also traced for Serbia.461 Serbian documents also mention RHHbH'l>IH
H~UeTbKb,462 which must be identical with the one in Bulgaria. Walachia
and Moldavia also report various burdens related to wine called
RHH~fH%, RHH~fH"'H, RHH~fH"'IO.I\'1> or RHH~fH"'Bl\'1..463 Here, however, ref-
erence is made to a tax which, until the 16th century, had been collected
in-kind; and after the 18th century, only in cash. This was the spe-
cial concern of an official called RHH~fH"'~fb or as the obligation itself
RHH~fH"'H. 464
Wine-growing is an essential part of the economy of Balkan coun-
tries and consequently its taxation is of substantial importance for
public finances. We know that in the Byzantine Empire there was an
obligation called otvo~&pwv, and in Serbia the nametak existed along
with tithe on wine. Far more information is provided by Romanian
documents, which enables us to appreciate the importance of this

457 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 ~~· 25 29 , 27 53_54 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 53-54·
458 Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 193 ~-lo·
45g Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 loHo2·
462 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 609, 614.
463 Dicfionar elementelor romtlne~ti. p. 260.
464 DRH, ser. B, voL I, No. 52, 56, 77, 192, 220, etc; Dicfionar elementelor romtlne~ti,
p. 260; Institufii feudale, pp. 501-2.
revenue. 465 Moreover, wine has always been an important part of peo-
ple's meals, supplied them with up to one third of the calories they
required. This fact also determines the importance of the obligatory
deliveries of wine for the army and governing bodies. Obviously, this
was not a matter of pleasure, but rather of a necessity to fulfil the pro-
vision in question. Consequently, not less important was the function
of the vinar who-as it seems - attended to providing these deliveries
called wine nametak". So, the officials in question turn out to have been
part of the fiscal administration; however, not part of the tax authorities
there-as I have written elsewhere466-but rather of the office related to
corvees and mandatory deliveries. They were officers in the provincial
administration and did not belong to the top management.
4.6.2.4
The senar (c~Hb.fb.) is mentioned in the Rila and Vitosha chrysobull:
c~Hb.fe (pl.). 467 The term is Slavic, and not difficult to understand: it
means ,the one who takes care of the hay". I have discussed the insti-
tution elsewhere and here only the final results will be presented.468
Taking into account the importance of hay for cattle-breeding, and
for the military as well in connection with the cavalry, we come to
the conclusion that organising the provision of hay for the army and
for public offices was of particular importance. Various imperial
documents repeatedly mention hay and haymaking,469 but special
attention should be paid to an obligation of the population, called
c~Ho KOCHTH (to mow hay); it is cited in the Virgino chrysobull. 470 In
Serbian documents this obligation is much better evidenced.471 In spite
of the unauthentic character of the chrysobull in question, I think the
quote found there is not only a replica from king Stephen Milutin's
document of 1300, and that the obligation existed in Bulgaria as well.
The senar must have administered that same obligation, and by stating
this I would like to amend a previous assertion of mine when I agreed
with the opinion of I. Dujcev, who wrote that we this was probably a
465 Institufii feudale, p. 502.

467 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 27 56 , 29 12; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 56•
469 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 16 41• 17 63,69• 25 22.24• 27 47·
471 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 401,431,448, 512, 514, 582, 590, 619,625, etc.
486 CHAPTER FIVE
collector of in-kind tax on the hay.472 Similar were the obligations of

senari!flnari and of brani~tari in Romanian principalities.473
4.6.2.5
Povar (noR~fb.) was called one of the persons charged with providing
food to the army, mentioned only in the Mraka charter.474 The words
means 'cook' and this suggests the main line of search. Elsewhere
I have offered the view that this service was close to the Ottoman a~p
(= cook), who was an officer in the janissary (yeni ~eri) corps. This
officer took care of providing food and guarding the caldron.475
I believe that the service of Bulgarian povar must have been similar:
he had to administrate the obligation of the population to supply food
and products to passing troops or other public services.476 Their activi-
ties could have troubled the local people, so they had to be included
in the protection formula in the documents. It is not likely for them
to have been high-ranking officials and they most probably had only
operational functions.
4.6.2.6
The imperial heralds: apokrisiarios, izgonchia, nahodnik were not
officers of the fisc in the true sense of the word, but as they bene-
fited from a special obligation of the population, they had a definite
bearing on its organisation. The term apokrisiarios is found only in
the Vatopedi charter of tsar John II Asen, dating from 1230, but
otherwise it is quite widespread in non-documentarytexts. 477 The word
has a notable presence in Serbia as well, where we should say it was
directly borrowed from the Byzantine institutional system, as it was in
Bulgaria as well. The term itself corroborates this assumption, for it is
Greek and means "a man who has been sent", "a messenger"
I consider that the term izgonchia, mentioned in the Virgino and
Mraka chrysobulls, is a loan translation of the Greek term "apokri-
siarios", designating the same institution.478 Nahodnik is mentioned
m Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65; Blliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 368.

475 Inalctk, The Ottoman Empire, p. 83; Georgieva Tsv., Enicharite v bulgarskite
zemi, Sofia, 1988, p. 42.

476 Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 384-5; Blliarsky, "Trois institutions", pp. 102-3.
477 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 1o; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 193 1o·
478 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 100 , 25 30 ; Blliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 391.
only in the Rila chrysobull of tsar John Shish man and most probably
these people were also officials related to communications.479
We have all reasons to assume that they had similar duties and simi-
lar relation to the population corvees. These were officials responsible
for communications, and as far as they benefited from certain special
obligations of the population related to transportation, accommoda-
tion and overall support on the road, they had some relation to their
organisation.480 In this sense I would like to quote the records found in
a document of tsar Stephen Dusan, where reference is made to relieving
the population from corvees called npoROA~ no~<AHC~fb..481 I believe its
purpose was to serve the tsar's heralds. We have no knowledge of the
exact nature of this corvee, but it is not difficult to guess it, since it
could not have differed substantially from the other obligations related
to the support and transportation provided to passing public officials.
4.6.3. Officials in charge of building and construdion corvees

4.6.3.1
Officials called gradar (rp~A~pe, pl.) are found in the Mraka and Rila
chrysobulls. 482 The word is Slavic and it seems quite clear, but never-
theless it has caused certain hesitations as regards its interpretation.
K. Jirecek identifies gradar with gardener, and was supported by other
authors as well. 483 Later, Iv. Dujcev affirmed that it comes from the
verb PP~AHTH, and I shared this opinion in an earlier publication of
mine. 4~
In the mentioned study I stated that it is about an official in
charge of building and construction corvees, and, in particular, a per-
son responsible partially for the obligation called rp~AO~H~HHe or
KampoK'ttcria, which stipulated obligatory labour of the population in
building or maintaining fortress facilities. This was an official standing
479 llinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 57; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 57; Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite,
pp. 392-393.
480 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Dujcev, SBK, II, pp. 322, 348; Andreev,
Vatopedskata gramota, p. 153; Koev T., "Die Institution der Apokrisiarioi", Etudes
balkaniques, 1978, 4, pp. 57-61; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 153; Andreev, "Sluzhbite
na provintsialnoto upravlenie", p. 12, Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64.
482 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 25 29, 57 5?: Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 57·
483 Ireeek, Istorija, p. 446; Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 121; Slovnik jezyka staroslovenskho,
VIII, p. 430.
484 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 382.
488 CHAPTER FIVE
low in the hierarchy, and in charge of some specific tasks, but he was
not responsible for the overall organisation of this obligation.
4.6.3.2
Other officials responsible for building corvees were the so-called var-
nichi (&4\fHH"'i'e, pl.), referred to only in the Rila chrysobull. 485 I have
already proposed that the term originates from "varnitsa" (lime pit)
and with the suffix "-chii" it forms a masculine noun designating a
profession.486 So we come to the meaning of "a person dealing with
the lime pit" and we have to determine in what way he could disturb
the population as to be included in the protective formula of the docu-
ment. The only way was for him to have had his responsibilities in the
area of fisc and corvees. I think this leads us quite naturally to building
corvees (and, in particular, the gradozidanie), where he must have par-
ticipated as a person in charge of the lime-pit serving to provide this
product, needed for construction works. Probably the population had
some kind of obligations related to producing and using this product
and the varnichi was perhaps responsible for all that. Nothing else
could be added, except that we have here a low-ranking official who
mostly carried out orders in his functions.
5. CATEGORIES OF POPULATION HAVING SOME CONNECTION WITH

THE FISC AND RELATED THINGS
The way the title is formulated suggests an overview of a broad scope

of categories of population, including all professional guilds as well as
various corporations. As we do not have detailed references to these,
the present exposition will refrain from a similar extensive interpre-
tation and will focus only on the categories having a certain degree
of dependency or benefits from the exemptions granted to the land-
owner, or simply the receipt of their obligations has been passed on
from the state to him. The most interesting issues are those related
to slavery and those regarding the peasants, especially the categories
"otrok" and "paroikoi"
485Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 57; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 57.

486Biliarsky, "Trois institutions meconnues", pp. 102-3; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp.
384-5.
5.1
The term f~&rz.. (slave) has quite a few meanings in Bulgarian mediae-
val texts. One of them, which is also the most widespread in literature
and in this glossary, is the religious connotation designating a definite
type of relations between man and God. We shall leave it aside in the
present study. The basic, original and primary meaning of the word
designates slavery, i.e. the existence of a right of ownership over a
human being. Beyond any doubt, slavery did exist in Bulgaria in the
Middle Ages487 as practically in all countries of continental Europe and
the Mediterranean region at that era. However, it was by no means
widespread or of major importance economically or socially. In this
sense, the problem about slavery remains marginal for our study.
Nevertheless, the term and mainly its derivations, raise definite
interest by their secondary connotations. The word is Slavic, with
Indo-European roots, and originates from the most general meaning
of "child" (*arb'b). Particularly important is the similar meaning
"orphan" (Indo-European *orbho-), from which the meaning of"slave"
is derived.488 So it obviously comes from the implication of "subor-
dinate", "dependent", which, in turn, lexically repeats the historical
development of slavery which originated from the placing of individ-
ual who are not family members in dependence similar to the power
of the father over his family.
The word's derivatives have much greater importance for our study
and, in my opinion, have followed a different path in their construction
than the basic term "slave" I have in mind the terms f~GOT~ (work)
and f~GO'l'HH~rz.. (worker), as well as the verb f~GO'l'~TH (to work). They
all can be found in the charters and in one of their connotations they
mean the position, functions and common name of tsar's (or, in other
words, "public") officials. They have been recurrently ca}led "the work-
ers of My Empire" (w &rz..crtp G.OA'tf'l.. H r~GO'l'HH~rz.. Ll.fR~ MH),489 and
their service is defined as "work" (f~&oT~). 490 There is no dispute as
to the meaning of those references in historiography and they have
been universally accepted as a generic name for public/tsar's officials,
487 Angelov D., "Robstvoto v srednovekovna Bulgarija", Istoricheski pregled, II,
1945-1946, No.2, pp. 129-56; lstorija na Bulgarija, vol II, c. 167-9.

488 BER, VI, 132-136, 274-276; Vasmer, III, 427.
489 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 96 , 97, 25 27, 27 58 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 58·
490 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 25 28 , 27 59 , 60; Laskaris, Va topedskata gramota, p. 5 a; Andreev,
Vatopedskata gramota, p. 193 8 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 59 , 60 •

490 CHAPTER FIVE
which, in fact, becomes quite clear in the text itself. What I would
like to add is that a similarly special meaning of the words derived
from "slave" is not the result of an independent development from
the Indo-European root, but rather a borrowing from Greek: oouA.eux
meaning "slavery" but also "service" or simply "work"; the same is also
true for the verb oouA.euro (f~GOT~TH, to work). Once more, this comes
to prove the influence Byzantium had not only on the Bulgarian legal
system, but also on the related vocabulary.
In close relation with the word "slave" is also the word c&OGOAbH'A
(free man), which is featured both in the general glossary and in the
one from the Law for Judging the People. It refers to a person's status
related to the specific regulation of the Law. From a terminological point
of view, the word does not raise any particularly difficult questions,
and we must only pay attention to the fact that it might mean both
"a free man" and "liberated", which presents certain differences in the
preceding status that might also have a bearing to the succeeding one.491
5.2
The term otrok (OT'AfOK'A) originally meant "a slave" but later it acquired
a special meaning pointing to a category of individuals related to the
social structure as well as to economy, taxation and appropriating
wealth. We find it in the Virgino and Mraka chrysobulls492 and the tax
called otrotzina (6't'pO)'t~wa), mentioned earlier in the exposition, also
bears reference to it. The life of St Joachim of Osogovo493 mentions
otroks of the local lord. The word &poKO<; is also found in the Greek
documents of the Serbian rulers. 494
It is about a category of dependent population, which, for various
ideological reasons, has been cited as part of feudalism and conse-
quently has become an issue of particular interest to Marxist histori-
ans. In this sense we can say that research has been done on the topic
but most of it is quite ideologised and biased. Our aim is different,
because we shall just slightly touch upon otroks as a socio-economic
category and we shall consider their position in a definite social and
cultural context of the mediaeval Balkans.
491 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenlja, pp. 72-3.

492 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 77, 78, 25 23·
494 Solovjev, Mo8in, Grtke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 475.
D. Angelov discussed otroks in his research published in 1958:~95 He

made an overview of the presence of otroks in documents from Ser-
bia and Bulgaria, defining them as predominantly peasant population
engaged in farming, but also found in towns as craftsmen. They used
to cultivate the master's land and were heavily dependent on the "feu-
dal lord", even more so than the paroikoi. They were deprived of rights
and could be sold. In a similar situation were the sokalniks, found in
Serbian documents:~ 96 The same author presented his views again in
the multi-volume History of Bulgaria and defined the otroks as depen-
dent peasants cultivating land belonging to the "feudal lord" (as is said
in the author's text); they did not possess their own paternal shares, i.e.
inherited land, and they were dependent on their master both materially
and personally.497 G. Tsankova-Petkova noted that there was a ten-
dency to blur the line between the separate categories of population
and consequently defined the otroks as penniless peasants who found
shelter in the "feudal estate" where they were accommodated on the
master's land and enslaved.498 She found a tendency for the otroks to
acquire the long cultivated master's land and become paroikoi. There
were otroks in Serbia as well. 499 Later Rade Mihaljcic500 also briefly
discussed the otroks. According to him, this was a group of the most
underprivileged people in the state, deprived of their personal freedom.
Their situation was similar, though not identical, with that of slaves.
As we see, there is no particular disagreement on the nature of
otroks' situation in historiography-they are defined as dependent
peasants cultivating the lord's land and with no land of their own. I
believe we can agree with this view and add some points. The term
itself suggests the otrok had a lower social position than the paroikos.
The primary meaning of the word "subordinate", "a person who does
not (have the right to) talk", and hence the connotation of "child-
subordinate" and "slave". 501 The latter meaning seems to have formed

496 For them see Radojkovic B., 0 sokalnicima, Rasprava iz social nih odnosa u staroj
srpskoj driavi srednjega veka, Srpska Kraljevska Akademija Posebna izdanja, CXX,
Belgrade, 1937; Solovjev A., "Sokalnici i otroci u uporedno-istorijskoj svetlosti, Glasnik
Srpskog naucnog drustva, XIX, 1938, pp. 103-32.
497 Istorija na Bulgarija, t. III, pp. 205-6.
499 BlagojeviC, "Meropsi i otroci", pp. 21-60.
500 Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 199-200.
501 BER, IV, 973-974; Vasmer, III, 172-173.
492 CHAPTER FIVE
the name given to this category of dependent population. This depen-

dence, based on receiving land from the lord master, has turned into
a personal one leading to the purchase of these human beings. This
situation of dependency is also confirmed by the Law Code of Tsar
Stephen Dusan. 502 The tax called otrotzina, which we already discussed,
is closely related to them and the parallel with the Byzantine tax
aktemonitikion comes to prove their low social status and poverty.
I would suggest comparing Bulgarian otroks and Byzantine doulo-
paroikoi and douleutes. 503 As I already noted, my argument their similar
and obviously lower position than that of the paroikoi and the con-
notation of "slave" contained in their name, which was most probably
borrowed in Bulgaria. In historiography the douloparoikoi are defined
as servi casati, i.e. a category of people who were not free and were
living on the land of their lord-master, and thus turned into his depen-
dants. By the way, we see that all this is very similar to what has been
written on the otroks in Bulgaria. I believe the suggested identification
provides an opportunity to rethink the category of dependent popula-
tion called otroks and offers a further confirmation of the transplan-
tation (of course in a rather simplified form) of the Byzantine social
structure in Bulgaria.
5.3
The paroikos (n~pH~'b) are mentioned in the Virgino and Mraka
chrysobulls. 504 Marxist historiography has given to that category much
attention, probably because they have been widely featured in docu-
ments and other sources. Naturally, this attention was concentrated
mainly in the period from the 1940s to the first half of the 1960s within
the theoretical views on Bulgarian feudalism. D. Angelov mentions
several times the paroikoi and their situation. 505 They are defined as
502 Novakovic, Zakonik Stejana Dusana, art. 46.

503 Angelov, "Prinos lcl.m pozemlenite otnoshenija", p. 85 ff.; Olkonomides N., "Oi
jm~avnvol. OooA.omxpotJrot", :EU)lJI.etK'ta, 5, 1983, 295- 302; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 67,
215. By the way, I would like to explicitly underline that the first to mention the idea of
comparing the douloparoikoi and the otrokswas D. Angelov ("Prinos lcl.m pozemlenite
otnoshenija", pp. 87-8).
504 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 16 39,so-si• 17 54• 25 n·
505 Angelov, "Prinos kam narodnostnite i pozemleni otnoshenija", p. 35 ff.; Angelov,
"Prinos kam pozemlenite otnoshenija", p. 63 ff., 71 ff.; Angelov D., "Za zavisimoto
naselenie v Makedonija prez XIV vek", Istoricheski pregled, 1957, 1, p. 30 ff.; Angelov,
Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 92 ff.; Istorija na Bulgarija, t. II, p. 360 ff., t. III, p. 203, ff.
a major category of dependent population. These were people from

villages, who possessed land of their own and who became depen-
dent on the lord-master together with their property. The villages they
lived in, as well as the land property they owned, were called "paroikoi
places".SC)6 In the earlier period-judging mainly by the endowment
charters of Basil 11-the number of paroikoi was fixed; whole villages
were not given as property, which would be done later. They were
mainly farmers, but they could also be craftsmen, and sources indicate
quite a few such cases. G. Tsankova-Petkova divided the paroikoi into
two categories: the first owned their land and had their own cattle and
farm equipment, and the second were either completely deprived of
land but had their own stock and equipment, or were unable to culti-
vate their land, or were former slaves. 507 S. Lishev associated the status
of the paroikoi-as also of the clirics-with ownership over them and
their land on behalf of the "feudallord". 508
The Slavic word n~pH~'ll. is an obvious loan-word from the Greek
xapotKO<;, which is only transliterated. In Greek it is a composite of
xapa and oiK6<;, which stands for "one who lives around/nearby"
This fact, along with the records found in the documents, should be
the starting point in the interpretation of the term. There are paroikoi
in Serbia as well. They can be also met in Greek-language and Slavic
documents of Serbian rulers. 509 These were personally free peasants,
however tied to the land. In the late Byzantine age the word had the
same meaning as the Western European villanus. In the law code called
Libri Basilicorum they are called evax6ypa<j>ot xapOtKOt, which corre-
sponds to the Latin coloni censiti. 510 They called paroikoi a category of
population, mainly in villages, who constituted the majority and were
comparatively better placed than the other categories of dependent
population. They had their own land and stock, but it seems that most
of them were tenant-farmers on the master's land. This made them
different from the otroks who cultivated land that did not belong to
them, where they found shelter and food. This also made them differ-
ent from hired labourers (H~HUHH~'ll.), who worked on someone else's
506Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 16 39, 50-51·

507Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 72-4.
508 Lishev, Za genezisa na feodalizma, p. 145 ff.
509 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 390, 392, 394, 403, 494, 644, 703; Solovjev,
Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 479.

510 Basilicorum L LV, tit. 2; Cod. lust., XI, 49.
494 CHAPTER FIVE
land for payment. It is obvious that the less dependent position of the
paroikoi was due to the fact that he had his own farm and stock and a
certain degree of economic independence.
5.4
The technitar (rre_xHHTAfb.) is mentioned only in the Mraka chrysobull
(HAeme ll.ij.IG Clf\T'll. HAH nAfHLI,H H WTfOLI,H HAH TG,XHHTAfG HAH
A~He ~A~O&H AH&o) 511 along with the otroks and paroikoi and he
has been differentiated from the latter two, though this suggests the
term likewise designates a category of population. In fact, the differ-
ence compared with the other two is obvious from the word itself.
This is also the reason why in historiography there are no particular
differences in the interpretation given by authors who have written on
the topic. For G. Ilinsky this is a special category of craftsmen. 512 In a
strongly ideologised and quite superficial article, A. Burmov discusses
the technitars, practically not going beyond the scope of what their
name actually means: it refers to craftsmen both in villages and towns,
who, according to him, were in some kind of dependence on the "feu-
dal lord". 513 D. Angelov wrote several times about this category of
population. 514 He practically did no more than to underline the impor-
tance of artisans for the monastery farm, and, as far as the technitars'
status and characteristics are concerned, he stated they were depen-
dent people. S. Lishev defines the technitars as a feudally dependent
population in the town. 515
There were technitars in Serbia as well, though the term is not wide-
spread. We find it in a document, dating from 1330, about the mon-
astery St. Nicholas Mracki near Oriakhovo; in it they are listed after
the paroikoi and otroks and before "people, whatever they might be". 516
I think there is no difference in the way this population is represented
in Bulgaria. It must be also noted that there is reference on a donation
to that same monastery for which the Mraka chrysobull was issued,
sll Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 23·

SI2 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 118.
513 Burmov A, "Zavisimotonaseleniev Bulgarija prezXIII iXIVv. ",Istoricheskipregled,
III, 1946-1947, 3, pp. 261-2.
s14 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 189 tf.; Istorija na Bulgarija, t. III, p. 206.
sis Lishev, Bulgarskijat srednovekoven grad, p. 172.
s16 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 644.
which might mean there was some kind of mutual influence-an issue
worth discussing separately.
Obviously, those people were craftsmen. The term technitar itself
shows this clearly enough. It is a loanword and is only transliterated
from the Greek word texvrrtapn<;, designating 'a craftsman', and is
derived from texvn, meaning 'art' or 'craft'. The word was certainly
borrowed, because the very notion of a craftsman comes from outside
of Bulgarian society. In general, we should say that, even in the suc-
ceeding period, the terminology in this field was borrowed from Italian
or Persian and Arabic, a fact that speaks for itself regarding the key
position of the Balkans between the West and the Near East. The only
mentioning of technitars in an official document does not provide much
liberty for interpretation. As was already said, they were listed among
the monastery people along with the paroikoi and otroks. This surely
means they were also part of the common farm and were to some extent
tied to it. We cannot make a guess what exactly was the case.
The argument is not only about townspeople, though crafts are usu-
ally associated with the city. In pre-industrial society there were small
producers in villages as well, where the populace had to be supplied
with tools, furniture and household goods, construction services and
so on. Commodity-monetary relations were not unknown to Bul-
garia, but the economy could hardly be called a market one, especially
when we take into account that most of the trade was in the hands
of foreigners. Thus, the local community tried to a maximal degree
to satisfy its needs on its own; likewise the master's estate, granted a
number of privileges by the authorities-the large monasteries were
such estates-also needed craftsmen bound to it. This raises a rather
interesting side issue regarding guilds and associations of artisans in
Bulgaria. This question has already been on the list of topics for his-
toriography, but I do not think an adequate and correct answer has
been found. I shall quote the opinion of S. Lishev, who focused some
of his pursuits on the Bulgarian mediaeval town. Though somewhat
reservedly, he acknowledged that there were such associations, mainly
basing this view on the records about the Saxon mining communi-
ties according to evidence from Macedonia and the western regions
of Bulgaria, such as the town of Chiprovtsi. 517 The texts substantiating
517 Lishev, Bulgarskijat srednovekoven grad, p. 91 ff.; Istorija na Bulgarija, t. III,
pp. 223-4.
496 CHAPTER FIVE
all this are Serbian and I do not consider these data as relevant for the
whole of Bulgaria. There might have been craftsmen's associations, but
we do not have knowledge about such. I do not think we can use for
comparison the subsequent development in this area under Ottoman
rule, because urban life was then much better developed in our coun-
try, and there was a comparatively orderly organisation of artisans, the
existence of which in mediaeval times cannot be simply claimed with-
out solid proof. There is another side issue related to our present topic,
namely, terminology. As regards craftsmen's associations under the rule
of the sultans-esnaf, rufet-there are names that represent a strange
mixture of words of Italian origin and words borrowed from Persian
and Arabic. This could be easily explained from a historical point of
view, but it could become the topic of a separate study, which prom-
ises interesting results. Here I shall only note that a similar situation
does not allow us to trace a tradition coming from the Middle Ages
and make a parallel with the preceding era.
5.5
As a separate category of people were the hired labourers
(H~HMb.HHKrz.), who worked in the master's estate for pay. As additional
records we can mention the word included in the glossary m'zda
(Mb.W), one of the meanings of which is 'salary' The terms themselves
are not found in the charters, but we find them in presbyter Cos-
mas and in the Long Vita of St Clement of Ochrid by archbishop
Theophylactus. 518 It is precisely the text Oration on Heresy that is cited to
characterise the work of the hired shepherd. 519 Widely varying opinions
have been given in historiography as to the meaning of the term.
D. Angelov believes it is about hired farm workers (farm hands) usu-
ally attending to cattle for pay. 520 G. Tsankova-Petkova defines them
as tenant farmers. 521
However, both authors agree on one thing: they define the Slavic
word H~HMI:.HHI~rz. as corresponding to the Greek j..Ltcr9CO't6c;. Here I
could add that the above-mentioned Slavic word Mb.W has the same
518 Milev Al., Grittskite zhitija na Kliment Okhridski, Sofia, 1966, p. 136; Begunov,
Kozma prezviter, p. 388.
519 Lishev, Za genezisa na feodalizma, p. 177.
520 Istorija na Bulgarija, t II, p. 362.
521 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 148, 177.
distant origin in Indo-European antiquity as the Greek ~ta06~, 522 from

where their derivatives come. In this sense we can say that we should
again seek parallels in the situation in the Empire. There we can find
a category of population called mistotoi (from ~taOOYt6~). 523 These
were hired labourers who did not have their own land and cultivated
the lord-master's land for pay. They were personally free, but their
social status was extremely low. We can assume hired hands in Bul-
garia shared the same destiny, but nothing more than that can be said.
Accordingly, I consider the opinion of D. Angelov closer to what the
sources teach us.
5.6
Popoviani (nono&'tHHH'A) is a term we encounter in the Virgino
chrysobull. 524 The term is very clear as regards its origin-it is a deriva-
tive of pop (= priest) and in this sense has some reference to the clergy.
Popoviani were also mentioned in king Milutin's chrysobull of 1300. 525
The word priest itself is repeatedly found in the charters and sometimes
means dependent people who were apparently clerics and were pro-
tected, as stipulated in the endowment documents. 526 In literature we
find the opinion that, among the subordinates in the monastery estate,
there were some representatives of the petty clergy as well. 527 There
is, however, a hesitant opinion on the identity of pops (priests) and
popoviani. In my opinion, the text of the Virgino chrysobull makes it
clear that we are talking about different persons who were in a similar
situation: i.e. both the former and the latter belonged to the cohort
of monastery people. In my opinion, we should start from the names
themselves, which would certainly lead us to the conclusion that pops
were ecclesiastics in the position of paroikoi, while the popoviani were
persons connected to them, probably members of the family, who
were in a similar situation.
I would like to make a step further and associate the popoviani (I
accept it as a generic notion including both the pops /priests/ and the
522 The word is found in Greek documents of Serb rulers: Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke
povelje srpskih vladara, No. XXXIII lines 7, 8, XL line 27 and p. 466.
523 Angelov, "Prinos !<Am pozemlenite otnoshenija", pp. 88-93.
5:u Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 18 82·
525 Grujic, "Tri hilandarske povelje", p. 18 XLIII.
526 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 81, 84• 25 39, 27 32, 34; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 32, 34-
527 Istorija na Bulgarija, t. III, p. 204.
498 CHAPTER FIVE
persons related to them), relevant records dating from the period of

the Second Bulgarian Empire, with the kliriks, known to us since the
time of the First Empire. They have been mentioned recurrently and
the authors share a common opinion that they were some kind of
paroikoi. From that point on there are different variations: some of
the authors define the kliriks as paroikoi belonging to the clergy and
people connected to them; others say they were paroikoi who, being
deprived of land, fell under the authority of the bishop, and hence
had lower social status, and still others define them as paroikoi simply
under the authority of the Church (i.e. not dependent on a secular,
but on an ecclesiastical "feudal lord"). 528 The latter point should be
excluded, as we know full well that bishops had not only kliriks, but
paroikoi as well. The difference lies elsewhere, and I am rather inclined
to see it in the clirics' affiliation to the clergy, with all the reserva-
tions that can be made, considering the available sources. I also dare
express the opinion that the popoviani were successors of the kliriks. I
am fully aware that such an assertion cannot be undeniably substanti-
ated. It is based only on the fact that these were dependent people with
obviously similar designations. Popoviani is not a Slavic translation of
clirics, but the similarity in meaning is apparent. That is precisely what
gives me reason to express the assumption, which can be the subject
of further discussion.
6. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we have to say that records on the fiscal system and its
legal terminology corroborate the conclusions made about the other
legal fields. A substantial part of the words comprising the databank
presented in the glossary are Slavic in their origin, but most of them
belong to the colloquial everyday speech and are not specific terms.
Most of those that have a specific fiscal and legal meaning owe their
origin to the Greek legal vocabulary in the Byzantine Empire. This
origin could be of various kinds. Some of the words were directly bor-
rowed from Greek and were then incorporated into the Slavic language,
which was Bulgaria's official language. Others were loan translations
528 Lishev, Za genezisa na feodalizma, pp. 145 ff., 171 tf.; Tsank.ova-Petkova, Za
agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 90 and note 53, pp. 94, 95, 105, 136; Istorija na Bulgarija, t. II,
p. 360 ff.
or directly translated, and still others-without being translated, were

constructed according to the original Greek term.
This phenomenon can be interpreted in the same way as other public
spheres: it refers to acceptance of finance and tax law and hence of the
fiscal system, with its related institutions, services, receipts, obligations,
etc. This was part of the cultural affiliation of Bulgaria to the Ortho-
dox Commonwealth, whose natural hub was in Constantinople. In the
fiscal sphere, however, some specific circumstances were also involved.
In the beginning of the 11th century, Emperor Basil II Boulgaroctonos
conquered the kingdom of tsar Samuel's successors and included it
into the Empire's territory mainly as the Theme of Bulgaria, Theme of
Paristrion and that of Sirmium, and other units. Besides, many of the
acquired relations stayed on under Byzantine power. So, the Byzantines
came to borrow certain fiscal institutions-for example, oikomodion/
komod-from the Bulgarian taxation practice. Bulgaria remained
within the Empire until the last decades of the 12th century and,
after the restoration of the Bulgarian Empire, inherited and preserved
the Byzantine tax system. These events had an immediate influence on
the terminology, which in broad outlines remained the same. In this
case we see how the general circumstances related to cultural identity
came to take effect along with the specific issues ensuing from the
particular historical heritage of the Second Bulgarian Empire.
The already independent Bulgarian state kept on developing as a
state of 'Byzantine' type. Even institutions that had not been previ-
ously acquired came to be received in a later period. This explains the
more ample and sophisticated system from the end of the independent
existence of the Bulgarian state in the 14th century whose establish-
ment was accompanied by a certain Slavicising of the terminology.
This tendency should not, however, be interpreted as a drawing away
from the 'Byzantine' model. In borrowing the models from the Empire,
the Bulgarian state borrowed their designations as well. The fact that
they were either translated or loan translated does not indicate any
terminological emancipation, but on the contrary, it suggests internal
borrowing of the model and further construction of terms not contrary
to it, but rather following its forms and norms. This seems to be an ele-
ment of the overall development of Bulgarian culture, and in particular
of letters and the use of the Slavic language and the Cyrillic alphabet.
CHAPTER SIX
GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL VOCABULARY.

ECCLESIASTICAL DIGNITIES, ORDERS AND INSTITUTIONS
1. THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN THE SYSTEM OF BULGARIAN

MEDIAEVAL LAW
The Church as an institution held a special and exceptionally important

place in public and political life, in everyday activities, in culture,
and in practically all spheres of life in mediaeval Europe. The Middle
Ages are essentially defined in terms of Christianity, the institutional
form of which is the Church. In materialising the basic ideology of
the epoch, the Church naturally has a direct relation to the state and
law. However, in this sphere the situation is complex and ambiguous.
I will try to present it here briefly, with a special emphasis on the fact
that any one-sided, simple definition could lead to its incorrect, even
utterly false interpretation. I would also like to stress at the very start
that the chosen range of texts on which the glossary is based is not
representative for the ecclesiastic vocabulary and does not provide a
sufficiently complete idea about it. For that reason, and in consider-
ation of the topic of power and relations connected with power, I will
confine myself only to the basic institutional ecclesiastic vocabulary.
1.1
First, I should highlight two different conceptions as to what the
Church is: one is from the perspective of Christian ecclesiology, and
the other from the perspective of institutions in the visible world. 1
Christian theology devotes special attention to the Church and its
interpretation. The definition of the Church is included in the very
Credo, formulated by the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (AD 325)
and subsequently by the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople
(AD 381); the Creed provided the briefest and clearest possible definition
Mila8, Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, p. I ff, 223 ff; Troianos Sp., Ilpaooaeu;
h:KI..rota<m.KO'i) OtKaioo, Athens-Komotini, 1984, p. 34 ff.
502 CHAPTER SIX
of the basic tenets of the Christian religion. It is not coincidental

that the article regarding the Church follows immediately after the
one regarding the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity, which essen-
tially explains Divinity as such. There the Church is defined as ,one,
holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic'? which provides us with the
basic dimensions for understanding it: It is one, for it encompasses
all Christians in the world and outside the world; 3 it is one, because it
encompasses both the visible and the invisible world: its members are
not only the living faithful but the dead as well, and the saints, and also
the asomatic celestial beings-angels, cherubim, and seraphim. It is
precisely this oneness of the Church that makes it universal, regardless
of the existence of different ecclesiastical organisations and admin-
istrations, which refer to a hierarchy in the visible world alone. The
Church is likewise universal, because, even in its least manifestations,
it includes all the faithful. Thus, every separate Orthodox liturgy,
Eucharistic sacrament, is administered not only for the Christians
present, but also for the whole world, and that is why it is not repeated
in the same day, in the same temple, or by the same clergyman. The
one and universal Church is apostolic, because its foundation goes
back to the times of the apostles and is connected with the earthly
life of the Saviour and His immediate disciples, the holy apostles; it
was founded on the day of Pentecost by God, who descended in the
appearance of tongues of fire. The Church is holy, because we discover
in it the Divine presence: God is head of the Church and continues to
be present in it through the Eucharist.4
Orthodox (and also Roman Catholic) ecclesiology looks upon the
Church as a Divine-human organism that encompasses the visible
and invisible world and corresponds to the Divine-human nature of
the Lord Jesus Christ. According to Christian theology, the Church is
Corpus Christi, the Body of Christ. Hence, the Christians belonging to
the Church are members of this Body and thereby fulfil the mission of
salvation of the Son of God, Who is the Incarnate Word, Who became
the Son of Human in order that humans should become sons of God.
In this sense, and interpreted in this way, the Church does not coin-
cide with the earthly ecclesiastic organisation, with the hierarchy in
the visible world, with the administration and all the human elements
2 Mila.S, Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, p. 227.

3 Mila.S, Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, pp. 228-32.
4 Mila§, Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, pp. 224-6, 239 ff.
GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL VOCABULARY 503
of the latter. One might say this perspective on the Church is purely
theological and dogmatic, not juridical, so it will not concern us in the
framework of this study. Such a radical exclusion from the scope of
our interest of the ecclesiological understanding of the earthly organ-
isation of the Church could lead to erroneous results in the study.
Of course, the theological theory of the Church is not a topic for the
science of law, yet it is so important as to penetrate the sphere of law
and influence it, directly or indirectly. In any case, we can discover
such an influence in the framework of the topic we are elaborating
upon in this study. Interpreted as a universal Divine-human organism,
the Church retains some of its universal characteristics, even though
it is divided in its administrative aspect in the visible world. This has
a two-fold impact in the juridical sphere: on one hand the essential
elements of church and canon law remain common to the Univer-
sal Church, and the legislation of the ecumenical councils and certain
other norms and cannons apply to the entire world, not being limited
to any separate denomination; on the other hand, although divided
in terms of administration of the concrete local commonwealth, the
Church has the same type of organisation, structure, and institutions
everywhere, and these elements in most cases have the same or similar
designations. This similitude is obviously most relevant for the sphere
of legal terminology, which is the object of this study.
The visible Church, i.e. the Church within the visible world, consists
of the faithful people, of the council, which is the visible head of the
Church according to Orthodox doctrine, and of the earthly hierarchy,
consisting, for its part, of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as well as of
various ecclesiastic administrative offices. This organisation within the
visible world is made up of people and exists within the legal sphere,
being regulated by canon and ecclesiastic law, but also by the law of
the state. The organisation has its hierarchy, its administration (ter-
ritorial administration and central offices), its institutions; all of these
are formed and function according to strictly defined rules. 5 Other
aspects of the life of the Church are also strictly regulated, especially
liturgical activity, which includes various sacraments and other rites.
In the final account, we could say that this Church, with its organisa-
tion, institutions, life, and regulations, will be the focus of our interest.
This is the Church as it exists in the legal world, yet, as I mentioned on
5 Mila8, Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, p. 232 ff.

504 CHAPTER SIX
another occasion, it is interpreted not only in terms of canon law, but

also of civil law, as well as in terms of Orthodox theology.
1.2
The Church, viewed as an ecclesiastic hierarchy and organisation
within the world, was closely linked with the state during the Middle
Ages, without ever being part of the state. 6 This is obviously true for the
Church in Western Europe, but it holds true for the Orthodox coun-
tries as well. In both great divisions of Christianity, the Church has
always been considered universal, although the Roman curia created
a unified and centralised organisational structure, while the Eastern
Orthodox countries have autocephalous Churches. The latter feature
is not an essential characteristic of Eastern Orthodoxy but a result
of its historical development. The Roman Catholic Church became
centralised and, in itself, acquired and claimed the characteristics of
universality, while in the Eastern Church there remained four auto-
cephalous patriarchates: in addition to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople, there were the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch
and Jerusalem. That of Constantinople was indisputably predominant,
but there was nevertheless a plurality, which was later used by various
Orthodox states, including Bulgaria, when they strove to create their
local and so-called "national" Churches linked to each separate state. 7
It came about that the local church organisation became increasingly
connected with its state; moreover, the loss of one world centre put
that church in a growing dependence on the political power of the gov-
ernment. Of course, this does not apply to the purely religious sphere,
but only to the political and administrative sphere. The connection
between the Empire and the Church dates back to Antiquity, even to
the times of the pagan Roman Res Publica. The Christian Church was
born as an organisation within the framework of the Roman Empire,
on its territory, and it followed the model of the Roman administrative
structures. The early dioceses, coincided with the provinces, and this
situation was preserved for centuries.
Nevertheless, the Church did not become part of the state administra-
tion,although it was integrated in what we maygenerallycall the political
6 Mila.S, Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, p. 661 ff.

7 Nikolova B., Neravnijatpi1 t na priznan ieto. Kanonichnoto polozhenie na bulgarska ta
tarkva prez Srednovekovieto, Sofia, 2001, p. 75 ff.
structures of the state. Although state and Church were connected

and mutually interpenetrating, the two remained separate structures.
Thus we find that certain persons within the state structures, had, in
their secular capacity, an ecclesiastic dignity as well, and similarly, the
Church's foremost hierarchs in their capacity as prelates were reserved
a place in the imperial hierarchy. However, of the two categories,
the ecclesiastic hierarchs were in a more favourable situation in this
respect. Whereas the basileus had the right to hold only a very modest
position of depotatus within the Church hierarchy, the ecclesiastic
hierarchs occupied quite high-ranking positions in the imperial
honorary tables. 8 These examples do not imply traces of imperial priest-
hood in the Byzantine Empire9 (this is an entirely separate topic) or
that the ecclesiastic hierarchs were part of the administration. It only
means that they held a place in the hierarchy of the Empire in their
quality of ecclesiastic hierarchs, but they were hierarchs only within
the Church, where they were God's officials, not imperial ones.
1.3
I gave these examples in order to indicate the mutual interpenetration
between state and Church during the Middle Ages, a relation that is of
particular interest for this study, for we see it existing in the sphere of
law as well. Specifically, I am referring to the normative texts that incor-
porate the ecclesiastic rules. 10 We know that the source oflaw this is an
expression of the legislator's will, which generates and imposes rules.U
We find that, in the case of canon law, the issue oflegal sources appears
even more complicated, for this is not the law of a state but of an institu-
tion interpreted as Divine-human. Hence, there is a risk that this might
entail a belief in the divine origin of law, which would put a research
such as this one in a very delicate situation. Such are the cases-those
of Judaism and Islam-where the Revelation books are assigned the
function of normative legal texts that have direct legal effect for human
8 On these issues, see: Biliarsky, Hierarchia. L'ordre sacre, pp. 52-61.

9 On these issues, see: Dagron G., Empereur et pr~tre. Etude sur le 'cesaropapisme'
byzantin, Paris, 1996 and Pitsakis K. G., "Saintete et empire", Bizantinistica. Rivista di
Studi Bizantini e Slavi, serie seconda, anno III, Spoleto, 2001, pp. 155-227.
10 Milas, Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, p. 81 ff.; Petrova G., Tsarkva i tsarkovno
pravo, p. 67 ff.
11 I believe one version of this is the view that the organ making this expression of
will is the source of law. Cf. F. C. von Savigny, System des heutigen romischen Rechts,
Bd I, Berlin, 1840 (ND 1981), p. 11 ff.
506 CHAPTER SIX
relations; in this way, law becomes something eternal, unchang-

ing, and is placed beyond the scope of eventual human intervention.
For Christians however, there is a distinct separation of the legal sphere
from the religious one, a distinction based on the words of the Saviour
about the division between "the things that are God's and the things
that are Caesar's"Y Hence, not even canon law is of divine origin as
we find it in Judaism and Islam.
Thus, overall, the basic sources of Church law can be divided into
several categories. Foremost is Holy Scripture (or Divine Revelation).U
These are the books of the Old and New Testament, believed to have
been given to people by the grace of God and revealed to man by
the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, Holy Scripture does not have that all-
encompassing and direct legal effect as it does for the Jews and Mus-
lims; it only provides the basic ideas and directions of canon law; in the
concrete aspect, it serves only to regulate some of the most important
elements of the life of the Church, of the sacraments, etc. The other
important source-likewise not a very concrete one-of Orthodox
ecclesiastic law is the Holy Tradition, 14 which can be defined as the
basic principles of Church practice, turned into norms, and estab-
lished in the Church by its Founder; thereby Church practice is given a
normative form. Holy Tradition is very close (except in certain details)
to custom as a source of law in this sphere. 15 Thus, we come to ecclesi-
astic and civil legislation as sources of Church law, and they are of the
greatest interest as regards the tasks of this study.
Ecclesiastic legislation 16 consists of the rules devised by the ecumeni-
cal and local councils; in a narrower aspect, it includes various rules
created by ecclesiastic authorities. Here we may add the mandatory
interpretation by these authorities as a supplementary source and the
interpretations of influential specialists of canon law and jurists, which,
though not obligatory, are hugely important for the enforcement and
administration of law. Finally, there are separate civil laws, which reg-
ulate various aspects of the life of the Church and which are also a
source of the Church's law, although created by secular authoritiesP
12 H. Hattenhauer, Europiiische Rechtsgeschichte, 4. Auglage, Heidelberg, 2004,

pp. 135-140.
13 Milas, Pravoslavno tstlrkovno pravo, pp. 39-44.
14 Milas, Pravoslavno tsiirkovno pravo, pp. 44-6.
15 Milas, Pravoslavno tsiirkovno pravo, pp. 49-53.
16 Mila8, Pravoslavno tstlrkovno pravo, pp. 47-9.
17 Mila8, Pravoslavno tstlrkovno pravo, pp. 54-8.
I would like to focus special attention on the degree of obligatoriness

of the last two groups and on ecclesiastic law in general.
In principle, ecclesiastic rules should be in effect only within the
Church and only for Church members. The dogmas related to basic
tenets of the faith are believed to be part of Revelation and therefore
immutable, as God (in this case, the Holy Ghost) is immutable and
never changes his opinion. Now these dogmas are of a theological
nature, not of a legal kind. The canons of the Church, on the contrary,
are though to be the result of the wisdom of bishops taking part in
the ecumenical council, and, being a work of man, are susceptible to
change and improvement. Essentially, these cannons are the basis of
ecclesiastic legislation. The important point is that state power does not
remain indifferent to the instituting of ecclesiastic law. The decisions
of the ecumenical councils are promulgated by imperial constitutions
and thus become obligatory for all subjects of the emperor, including
non-Christians. This is certainly the basic way in which state law and
Church law are integrated. Another way is the compilation of ecclesi-
astic legal anthologies containing the basic legal texts of the Bulgarian
Middle Ages and of the Orthodox countries. 18
To these observations, we may add the fact that the Church brings
under regulation some of the basic areas of law, such as matrimony, the
status of a person, some areas of penal law, and the norms of organi-
sation; all this indisputably demonstrates the legal relevance of canon
law, of the organisational and disciplinary norms of the Church, as
well as the regulation of important spheres of ecclesiastic life, especially
divine service and the sacraments. This provides us with some idea of
the significant place the Church holds in the mediaeval legal sphere,
and is an argument for including Church issues in the present study.
2. ORIGIN AND BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEGAL VOCABULARY

PRESENTED IN THE GLOSSARY PERTAINING TO THE FIELD OF
CANON LAW AND THE CHURCH
In the proposed glossary, we have about two hundred and twenty words
in the sphere of the Church and canon law. Of these words, fifty-five
are directly borrowed from Greek and transliterated; the translated or
18 MilaS, Pravoslavno tsilrkovno pravo, p. 170 ff.

508 CHAPTER SIX
calque words mainly from Greek are over sixty; about ninety terms are
Slavic; twelve are ofLatin origin; two are of Gothic, and one is ofTurkic-
Mongol origin. We see a strong prevalence of words that are in some
way of Greek origin, and this is quite understandable; yet we should
have in mind that these statistical figures do not provide a precise idea
of proportions in the vocabulary. The ecclesiastic part of vocabulary in
the present study includes a great variety of terms, of which the only
common element is their connection with the Church and religion. I
believe we would get a relatively more precise picture by examining
those words that are clearly ecclesiastical and canon law terms. Using
this approach, we would see an even greater prevalence of Greek-origin
words, whether directly borrowed, calques, or looser translations. Here
we will confine ourselves to terms related to power relations.
2.1
We thus have over eighty terms designating various church institutions.
Of them, directly borrowed from the Greek and simply written out
in Cyrillic letters are forty-five words, and the calques or translations
from Greek are sixteen. We thus see that, in fact, three fourths of the
words designating various ecclesiastic dignities, offices and institutions
are in some way related by their origin to the Byzantine Empire. This
is only natural in view of the history of the Bulgarian Church. Only
eighteen of the words in this group are of purely Slavic origin. Five
terms are of Latin origin; we will touch upon them later on.
2.2
In the glossary, we have forty or so canon law terms. It should
be noted however, that this sample is not entirely representative. Of
the indicated words, only four are directly borrowed from Greek,
while the translated words and calques are only three. On the con-
trary, about thirty terms and words are of Slavic origin, and fourteen
are Latin. I believe this proportion is due to the non-representative
nature of the sample, which, for its part, is due to the choice of texts
on which the glossary is based.
2.3
The same can be said about a group of words that are liturgical
terms with a legally relevant quality. There are about ten of these in the
glossary, of which two are Greek and two are translated from Greek
originals. The Slavic words are five in number and the Latin are two.
Having in mind the enormous influence of Constantinople on Slavic
liturgy and the fact that practically all liturgical texts were translated
from Greek, this proportion can be explained only by the choice of
sources from which the glossary was built. There are no liturgical
sources among them.
3. DEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BASIC LEGAL

CONCEPTS IN THE FIELD OF THE ORGANISATION OF THE CHURCH
As we pointed out, in the texts on which the glossary is based, we

have more than two hundred words that can be included in the group
of ecclesiastic legal vocabulary. In many cases, there are designations
of various ecclesiastic or monastic dignities and institutions, as well
as terms indicating the affiliation of a person to the clergy. There are
also adjectives derived from these terms. A separate group consists of
various words relevant to the faith, religion, but not directly to Church
life. The inclusion of some of these in the glossary could be viewed as
problematic, yet I decided to include them after all, inasmuch as they
could be of some interest to this study. Finally, we might mention the
detached parts of terms related to the liturgy and ecclesiastic law.
The specificity of the field of Church life, institutions, organisa-
tions, ritual, law, etc., determines the nature of the terminology used;
these terms find a place-at least partially-in the documents of rul-
ers. I have already indicated that the Church is universal; Bulgaria was
baptised by Constantinople and, after some hesitation, permanently
adhered to Eastern Christianity in AD 870. Together with the religion
came the clergymen, and the liturgical books, and the rite. Later, the
Slavonic liturgy was introduced, yet this Slavic language itself was
devised and created for spreading Eastern Christianity throughout
Central Europe. Slavonic remained the liturgical and official language,
the lingua sacra, precisely in Bulgaria, but the translation of the litur-
gical texts accomplished in Great Moravia or in Preslav, literally fol-
lowed the Byzantine models. This was a time of incredible linguistic
creativity. The coining of new words, terms, constructions-inevitably
stemming from the original-was a necessary condition for translating
the texts of a developed religious tradition into a language that until
then had no books or even a script. The conversion to the new faith,
510 CHAPTER SIX
the inclusion in a new culture and civilisation, required a readjustment

of the language as a means of communication and expression of this
faith, culture, and civilisation.
The paths by which the ecclesiastic terminology was introduced are
clear and well studied. The reception-to some degree or another-of
this terminology was inevitable mostly because of the universal nature
of the Church and its unity of structure. During the age of the creation
of Slavic Church terminology (the 9th-10th century), the law was simi-
lar everywhere, the Church was not divided, the liturgical texts were a
universal norm and of a definite number. This applies not only to the
Slavic terminology, but also to the Latin one in Western Europe and
to the terminology of the eastern Churches. In this respect, the results
of our study on the interpretation of ecclesiastic terms in the glossary
are predictable and do not provide much opportunity to draw general
conclusions about the legal terminology as a whole. Thus, I believe that
among the ecclesiastic legal terms there is an obvious prevalence of terms
of Greek origin or terms that have reached the official Slavic language of
the Bulgarian state through the mediation of the Eastern Church.
3.1. Designations of representatives of the Church hierarchy and the

management bodies of the Church
We have fifteen terms designating the members of the high clergy, their
dioceses, or other high government bodies of the Church. Practically
all these words are of Greek origin. Only the word n~n~ (= 'pope'),
the designation of the head of the Roman Church, is of Latin origin,
but this is quite understandable; moreover, this term is not part of the
vocabulary for the Bulgarian Church but indicates a foreign institution.
A more particular case is the term COZ.E>OfZ. (='council'): it is Slavic, but
I believe we have reason to see it as bearing traces of a Greek arche-
type. The other twelve words are either designations of various episco-
pal ranks, such as enHcl~onoz., ~rxHenHcl~onoz., MHTronoAHToz., n~TrH~rxoz.
(bishop, archbishop, metropolitan, patriarch) 19 or words derived from
them. The word A'l>.AOZ. or A'l>.AI:.U.OZ. stands apart: it is purely Slavic
and is the name for a high-ranking person in heretical communities.
19 Krlistanov Tr., "Titlite ekzarkh i patriarch v bulgarskata ts~rkva ot IX do XIX vek

Sv. loan Ekzarkh ot Rim i patriarch na bulgarskite :zemi", Darzhava i Tsarkva-Tsarkva
i darzhava v bulgarskata istorija. Sbornik po sluchaj 135-godishninata na Bulgarskata
Ekzarkhija, Sofia, 2006, pp. 73-86.
We hardly need to point out the paths along which this terminology
was created (or more precisely borrowed). The Bulgarian Church arose
in the 9th century as a daughter church of the Ecumenical Patriarch-
ate of Constantinople. 20 After the creation of an autonomous and later
autocephalous local church, it adopted the structure inherited from
the practice of the mother church, and created government bodies
and ecclesiastic dignities matching the original onesY In the religious
sphere, the trend was the same as in other fields of public life and cul-
ture in which Byzantine influence was overwhelming. It is even more
perceptible in the ecclesiastic sphere, which concerns us here. This
leads to borrowing of terminology.
We must also take into account the fact that practically all designa-
tions of ecclesiastic dignities are of a similar kind. 22 Their different
pronunciation in certain Romance and Germanic languages does not
lead to the coining of new words. Hence, apart from the strong influ-
ence of Constantinople over Bulgaria, the country simply followed the
same trends typical for all churches, Orthodox and others.
This explains the fact that the only purely Slavic word among these
designations refers to the heretical hierarchy. The term A~Ab.U.b.
(dedets), in the form A~AU.~ cytAe'lb.CIC4\ro (Gen. 'dedets of Sredets'),
we find in the Synodicon. 23 The institution is well known and com-
paratively well presented in the sources regarding the heretical dualists
in Bosnia. Other Slavic appellations were used there, such as 'rocT',
'cTapeu;' or 'CTpo:tiHMK' (gost, starets, stroinik). 24 Dedets was something
like a bishop for the Neo-Manichaean heretics, a person who may have
held some power in the community, but may also have performed
only ritual or purely religious functions. 25 The mention of 'dedets of
Sredets' (the old name of the city of Sofia) in the Synodicon suggests
the territorial or diocesan characteristics of the institution. This might
signify that this was a person with some religious and perhaps disci-
plinary power over the heretics in a specific region (in this case, around
the city of Sredets). Yet this data does not afford us the possibility to
20 Nlkolova. Neravnijat pat na priznanieto, p. 17 ff.

21 Nlkolova B., Ustrojstvo i upravlenie na Bulgarskata pravoslavna tsarkva (IX-XIV
vek), Sofia. 1997, p. 38 ff., 52 ff., 144 ff.
22 Mila§, Pravoslavno tsilrkovno pravo, p. 414 ff.
23 Popruzhenko, Sinodik, p. 68 § 78.
24 Fr. RaCki, Bogomili i patareni, I, Zagreb, 1870, p. 183; Fine, The Bosnian Church,
passim; Dragojlovic, Krstjani i jereticka crkva bosanska, pp. 143-164.

25 Angelov, Bogomilstvoto v Bulgarija, pp. 282-4.
512 CHAPTER SIX
make a deeper interpretation, although it is clear that the Bogomil

Neo-Manichaean communities had to be managed by someone at least
as regarded the cult, and most probably that person was the dedets. It
is essential for our study to emphasise that the Slavic terminology in
this quite specific sphere of ecclesiastic management arose precisely
among the heretics, where the influence of Constantinople was the
weakest, at least in the organisational aspect. I believe this observation
confirms our previous conclusions regarding the complete predomi-
nance of Byzantine influence in the ecclesiastic sphere.
3.2. Terms for the clergy

A greater variety can be observed here. We have about twenty words.
Seven of them are Greek written in Cyrillic letters, and six are trans-
lated or calques from the Greek. The Slavic terms are only three, the
Latin are also three, all of them derivatives of nonrz,. (pop = priest),
which may be viewed as the only term of a remote Latin origin.
The Greek words present no problem. In fact, they are all the words
that have a more clearly defined quality of terms. They include the des-
ignations of non-episcopal ecclesiastic ranks, presbyter and deacon, as
well as all the accompanying designations. An interesting point is that
the term nporron~n~crz,. (protopapas = protopresbyter) is cited without
observance of the phonetic rules for loanwords, so that the ending for
the nominative case has been preserved.
The Slavic words are npH'n.Trz.. (=clergy), nMT'll.lfb. (=shepherd, pastor)
and &'tAb.U.b. (from &'tA'll. = 'white', as opposed to 'ifb.Hb.U.b. = 'black').
Of these two, only the first has the quality of a term. The others are
simply words from the ecclesiastic language.
The word pop is believed to be of Latin origin. We should also
cite the view that it is a loanword from the Germanic languages or
from the Greek word 1t0.1t1tO:~. The interest in this term is enhanced
by the fact that it has been used as an argument for localising the first
steps in the creation of the ecclesiastic vocabulary. In this connection,
there is a dispute among linguists as to whether the word 'pop' was
borrowed by the Slavs in the contact zones between them and Latin
culture or Frankish culture in Great Moravia, or else represents a
heritage from the popular Latin of the Balkans. Latin was widely used
along the Adriatic coast and along the limes Romanus on the Danube
River. The answer to this question is not particularly important for
our study, since, in all cases, this word is clearly a loanword from the
Byzantine ecclesiastic vocabulary. The word originated in colloquial

speech, and from there it entered the ecclesiastic legal vocabulary.
3.3. Terms designating various ecclesiastic offices and the officials in them
Seven such terms are presented in the glossary. There is an obvious

prevalence among them of purely Greek transliterated words: five of
the terms are such. There is one Slavic calque of a Greek word: par-
voprestolen (= first-throne), from the Greek 'protothronos', and one
word of Italian origin: post (an office position), which we cannot con-
sider to be part of a typical ecclesiastic vocabulary. I should specifically
point out that these seven words do not include all the officials in the
Church administration presented in the glossary. Some of them are
certainly among the supreme hierarchs, indicated above, but some of
them we will find among the monastic offices. Placed here are only
those that have not been cited in any of the other sections.
I do not believe that this specific sample of words included in the
glossary is representative for the terminology related to ecclesiastic
administration. Nevertheless, I believe that the proportion would be
nearly the same or, in any case, similar to what we find here. The expla-
nation for this is clear: the Bulgarian Church copied the structure and
organisation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and, together with
this, the vocabulary of Constantinople related to the various offices,
officials, and organs. In preparing the glossary, we should base our
choice on various source materials, which would change the nature of
the whole study. The important thing here is that the present results
confirm the main trend and characteristics of the ecclesiastic legal
vocabulary in this area.
3.4. Terms related to monasteries, monastic life,

institutions, and organisation
This group is considerably larger. It consists of thirty-six words, of
which twenty are transliterated Greek terms and six are translations.
The Slavic terminology comprises ten words, primarily related to the
idea of monasticism as "black" clergy.
We may say that Bulgarian monasticism was born by Byzantine
one and followed the latter's basic characteristics and course of devel-
opment. In Bulgaria, the same monastery statutes were in effect and
adopted one after the other, as those, which existed and were created
in the Byzantine Empire: broadly speaking, these were at first the typi-
514 CHAPTER SIX
con of the Stoudios monastery and later the Jerusalem typicon. Bulgar-
ian monks founded various monasteries, after which they spent some
time in the large monastic centres of the East. The contact zones of
Eastern Orthodoxy were also of great importance for this influence.26
The foremost influential monastic centre was Mount Athos, and there
were other large ones in the East or in Constantinople. Contacts in
these centres created a community that proved even more stable and
powerful than the communion between the ecclesiastic hierarchies
and managements. They also provided the opportunity for the construc-
tion of a common ecclesiastic language, with common designations
for common objects.
That is why the Greek terms are prevalent in this group. They
are designations for representatives of various categories of monks
(t..toHb.X'I., KMo~reprz. and their female counterparts), of the monaster-
ies themselves and their branches (t..tOH4\CTrz.1prz., .1\4\Rfb., uerroxrz., ~ee.I\H~),
and the various degrees of monastic life: Hepot..tOHb.Xrz., CXHMHHKrz.. We
should also focus attention on those monastic institutions, which also
entirely duplicate their Byzantine archetypes. Here we should give as
an example the word 4\RRb., which is Hebrew, but came into the Slavic
language of Bulgaria from Byzantium; likewise the designations for
leaders of the monastic community: Hro~t..teHrz. and b.fXHMb.HAfHTrz..
The latter word is not only the highest rank among the presbyters
(and thus first in rank after the bishop), but also the leader of the
fraternity. For their part, the various monastic offices also have Greek
names. One such word in the glossary is ~ee.l\4\fb.; others are noprrb.fb.,
t..tb.refHHLI,4\, etc., which were borrowed into the Slavic language directly
from Greek.
The translated terms in the glossary are six in number: HHo~erz. and
CRh.I.J.IeHoHHoKrz., and the words related to the concept of wilderness,
desert. In the respective place in the glossary, I have explained that I
believe HHo~erz. to be a translation of the Greek word ~ovax6~. The sec-
ond cited word would be a calque of the term iepo~6vaxo~, to which
it fully corresponds in structure and meaning. The theme of 'wilder-
ness' provokes justifiable interest, for it reveals one of the character-
istic features of mediaeval culture, and also indicates a characteristic
phenomenon of that culture. The no~crrrz.m~, the 'wilderness', the 'des-
26 Dujcev Iv., "Tsentry vizantijsko slavjanskogo obshchenij i sotrudnichestva".-

Trudy otdela drevnerusskoj literatury, t. 19, 1963, pp. 107-29.
ert' is the uncultivated spaces; these may be the sands of northern

Africa and the Near East, or a forest, or the Western and Northern
Seas, the Ocean. This is a place that has not been assimilated, that is
dangerous and alien, but is also a place for monastic feats and strug-
gle against the demons. Special holiness is obtained through victory
over those demons. 'Wilderness' is also the mountain, the sanctity
of which begins from the Holy Scripture and reaches our time. 27 The
terms related to 'wilderness' in the glossary all refer to monasteries
and places of hermitage. This concept of the desert (no~C'J''AIH~ from
no'rCT'A = 'deserted', 'uninhabited', 'empty') as a place of reclusion is
not a Bulgarian one and the vocabulary in question is translated from
the Greek: EP1l~O~ ('desert') or £p11~ia ('a place of reclusion', 'a place of
hermitage'). The Greek words are formed in a similar way as the Slavic
word, from the verb £p~6ro, which means 'to leave', 'to vacate', 'to
depopulate'. I believe we have a similar pattern in Latin, and, finally,
in French, but there the words themselves are directly borrowed in the
case of "(h)ermite" and "(h)ermitage" Thus we see how the borrowed
concept leads either to the loan of the term or to the construction of a
term in the new language as a replica of the original.
We now come to the Slavic terms in the glossary. They are ten in
number, but some of them are related to the theme of'wilderness' and
some to the theme of 'black clergy'. Here we should draw attention to
the word 'lfb.Hb.U,b. and its derivatives (adjectives derived from it, its
female gender, as well as the compound words of which it is a part).
The word 'lfb.HOfH~b.U,b. emphasises the colour of the clothes typical
for monks. An interesting word is the noun 'lfb.HOC'I'b.fb.U.b., in which
only the essential part of the word is translated (C'I'b.fb.U.b.), identical
with the Greek word yeprov, while the other is added in connection
with the apparel of monks. In any case, the usual term is C'l'4\fb.LI,b., not
'lfb.HOC'I'b.fb.U,b.. The word o&'AITeAb. (obitel = monastery) is also interest-
ing inasmuch as it designates the monastery as institution. It contains
the idea of the localisation of the monastery and its sanctity, the idea
of 'home', 'habitation' (maybe in the 'wilderness').
27 Popovic D., "Pustinje i Svete Gore v srednjevekovne Srbija (pisani izvori, prostorni
obrasci, graditeljska resenja)", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, t. XLIV /1, 2007,
pp. 253-73.
516 CHAPTER SIX
4. CONCLUSION
Thus, we see the unquestionable predomination of the Byzantine legacy

in the sphere of ecclesiastic terms. In the course of this exposition, I
already stated a position regarding the causes of this situation. The
Bulgarian Church arose from inside the Ecumenical one as a daughter
church of the latter. It continued to evolve within this framework, at
times coming into severe conflict with the mother, but never essen-
tially diverging from its initial course. Even during the brief periods
of union with Rome, this formal connection did not have a reflection
on the internal and liturgical life of Bulgarians. The entire normative,
liturgical, hagiographic and other literature of Bulgaria was either
translated from Greek or created in Bulgaria following the model
of Byzantine literature, which served as paradigm for nearly all of
Eastern Christianity. All this predetermines the results of our research
on the legal vocabulary in the ecclesiastic and canonical sphere. How-
ever, there is one other important point: in fact, the Byzantine influ-
ence in Bulgaria worked mainly through the Church. This refers not to
the ecclesiastic institutional path of influence, or not only to it, but also
to a religious-ideological complex that provides and formulates the
basic values of society and thus predetermines the course of society.
Bulgarian culture is part of the "Byzantine Commonwealth" because
Bulgaria is an Orthodox country, and not because of the high quality
or attractiveness of Byzantine culture. Without denying these qualities
of the culture, it should be said that they too are a product of a certain
spirituality, which determines all the rest. The Church was the institu-
tion closest-formally and essentially-to this spirituality, and that is
precisely why, in the legal sphere, the ecclesiastic aspect was the most
strongly influenced by the Byzantine cultural centre, through which
mediaeval Bulgaria became part of European-Mediterranean civilisa-
tion, as it remains to this day.
CONCLUSION
I would not want the conclusion of this work to consist in a sort of

summary of the separate concluding parts of its chapters, although
it is likely this will prove hard to avoid entirely. Nevertheless, I will
point out that the separate chapters are, to a great degree, complete in
themselves. That is why the conclusions drawn at the end of each are
relevant to the material presented in that particular chapter and the
respective branch of mediaeval Bulgarian public law discussed therein.
However, the chapters also lead to certain more general conclusions,
to which I would like to direct attention here.
By this work, I have attempted to carry out a study of the language
of law in mediaeval Bulgaria, of the legal vocabulary of the country,
and this, from a historical perspective. I have attempted to present the
branches of public law, i.e. those branches related to institutions, to the
exercising of power and the state activities involved in that exercising.
I say this, for I know this specific sphere is not among the foremost
fields of interest either of historians or of jurists, so that research on
these matters has been left in the hands of specialists in other fields.
This refers to the fact that the early research on legal language, Slavic 1
or Indo-European,Z was usually part of more general works pertaining
to cultural studies or anthropology. Recently the study of legal vocabu-
lary and legal texts in general-at least those of mediaeval times-has
fallen almost entirely in the hands of philologists. I am referring to the
numerous and exceptionally interesting works of Bulgarian scholars
such as T. Slavova and M. Tsibranska, as well as some foreign scholars.
Their perspective is purely philological and textological, and though it
may assist the historian's work in many respects, it cannot be a sub-
stitute for that work. I have tried to present the study of the material
L. Niederle, Slovanske starozitnosti, t I-IV, Praha, 1901-1924; K. Kadlec, Insto-

duction a l'histoire du droit slave, Paris, 1925, and others.
2 L. R Palmer, The Indo-European Origins of Greek Justice, London, 1950; L. Gernet,
Anthropologie de la Grece antique, III Droit et predroit, Paris, 1968; E. Benveniste,

Vocabulaire des institutions indo-europeennes, vol I-II, Paris, 1969; C. Watkins "Studies
in the Indo-European Legal Language, Institutions and Mythology", IndoEuropean
and Indo-Europeans, Philadelphia, 1970, pp. 321-54; Myth and Law among the
Indo-Europeans, ed. by J. Puhvel, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1970.
518 CONCLUSION
from a historical and juridical perspective, while also placing it in a

broader anthropological context. V. V. Ivanov and V. N. Toporov,
in a keynote article, assert that concrete analysis of various legal terms
has brought them to the view that the coining of these terms has
followed not from internal to law motivation, but from mythopoetical
(in other words, religious) incitement; this reveals the deeper process
and foundation of the coining of legal vocabulary. 3 This was most
probably quite true at the dawn of human history, and continues to
be true to the extent that an ideal foundation (religious, philosophical,
etc.) remains a major motivating force in any human activity. Yet
I have tried to show an additional, historical motivation for the
construction of a language of law: namely, the reception of laws (as
one part of a greater cultural accession effectuated by Bulgaria in the
9th century) as a basic motivation for the reception of a specific legal
language or jargon.
I will not be announcing anything new when I say that my study
has led me to the conclusion that legal language is archaic. It is always
archaic and this applies equally to the ages of pre-juridical custom
before the emergence of state and law, to Antiquity and the Middle
Ages, and to modern times. From a historical and technical juridi-
cal perspective, this fact is easily explained: an antiquated language
(as regards both vocabulary and grammatical constructions) is clearer
and less susceptible to ambiguities. 4 In a more general philosophical
aspect, we could say that law is, by definition, conservative, and that
this quality of law is manifested in its language. Law is part of the
normative principle in society, and it is the purpose of norms to sta-
bilise relations in society, not destroy them. I have already expressed
the position that law first arose as connected with religion. People
viewed norms in the context of law or of pre-legal custom not as a
work of man but as a rule that comes from a transcendent sphere and
expresses the will of the gods. Law first arose at the margin of myth,
and the first rules, the first violation of rules, and the first punishment
for violation were all taken from mythological text. 5 This could be the
myth of the evil divinity that kills the perpetually revived god and thus
3 Ivanov V. V., Toporov V. N., "0 jazyke drevnego slavjanskogo prava (k analizu
kljuchevykh terminov)", Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. VIII Mezhdunarodnyj s'ezd slavistov
(Zagreb-Ljubljana, sentjabr' 1978 g.). Doklady sovetskoj delegatsii, Moscow, 1978, p. 221.
4 Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane I razvitie, p. 25.
5 Ivanov, Toporov, "0 jazyke drevnego slavjanskogo prava", p. 223.
CONCLUSION 519
disturbs the harmony of the universe, established, according to pagan

religions, in the 'history' of the cosmogonic myth. In monotheistic
religions, this could be a fallen angel who violates the commands of
God and thus takes the lead of the forces of evil, becoming the Foe to
the salvation of people. This Foe is the first criminal, archetype of all
subsequent criminals. Moreover, according to the Bible, human his-
tory itself began with disobedience to the Divine command, likewise
provoked by the Arch-criminal.
We thus see normative order arising at the borderline between the
religious text and the requirements of life in the immanent world.
This order consists of texts that represent behaviour rules, which were
initially transmitted orally. The oral mode of transmission is an uncer-
tain one, and, due to the requirement to preserve the norm, verbal
constructions tend to be petrified so they can be more dependably
remembered and can remain unchanging, which in turn leads to the
archaic quality of legal language. 6 This applies to primitive cultures
but it helps us understand the archaic quality of modern legal texts as
well; the requirement for clarity and unambiguousness leads to archaic
form not only because old and previously established formulations are
used, but also because a more conservative language would be a more
faithful way to transmit the meaning. In our times, language develops
chiefly through the introduction of colloquial forms in writing, which
are certainly more simplified and at times ambiguous.
What happens when a legal text is received into the environment of
a different language, as in the case of mediaeval Bulgaria? As was said,
language as a means for transmitting the norm in the sphere of law
has the task of preserving with maximum precision the meaning of the
normative text. The aim is to say the same thing and to construct what
are essentially the same concepts in another language in the course
of translation. This amounts to the reception of a type of normative
order, and not only of its outward marks and embodiment, such as
a concrete law. M. Tsibranska correctly points out: "The linguistic
norm of Slavic legal documents is set in the Byzantine stylistics of
jurisdiction".7 In her special study of the Nomocanon, Tsibranska con-
cludes that the language of the translator St. Methodius, archbishop of
Pannonia, is recognisable and that his language and norms belong to
6 Ivanov, Toporov, "0 jazyke drevnego slavjanskogo prava", pp. 221-2.

7 Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 29.
520 CONCLUSION
the classical Palaeoslavic sources. 8 I would like to draw special atten-

tion to one of the conclusions of this author, which, in my opinion, is
confirmed in this study as well, although following a different path and
based on other texts. She writes: "The lexical influence of the Greek
original can be felt especially in the sphere of terminological nomina-
tion and loanwords, but also in the word-formation models underlying
the formation of calques". 9
Coming back to the results of the present study, we see that in the
legal vocabulary and in the specific language of law in the Bulgarian
Middle Ages, the influence of Greek is enormous. It is particularly
strong in specialised terms having a concrete legal meaning, which do
not exist outside the juridical sphere and are not, or are very slightly,
present in spoken language. The Byzantine linguistic influence is dif-
ferent in the different legal spheres. The more ideologically charged
the particular area of law, the stronger the influence of the Byzantine
Empire can be felt there. This is easily explained by the overall nature
of the politics of Bulgarian authorities during those times. Bulgaria
strove to duplicate and take the place of the Universal Empire of the
New Rome, and, since it could not achieve this, it tried to do it at least
at the level of ideology and symbols, and among small elite. That is
precisely why the higher spheres are those showing a stronger presence
of the Greek language.
Moreover, it should be pointed out that Bulgaria's way to the
Byzantine Commonwealth passed chiefly through the Church. Bul-
garia was in the commonwealth because it was an Orthodox country,
and not vice versa. The Bulgarian Church was a daughter church of the
Byzantine one, a relation that certainly involved the strong influence
of Constantinople. However, the most significant element in this case
is the universal nature of the Church itself, manifested in the sphere
of language and especially in vocabulary.
Our studywas prepared based on a certain range of texts, and material
from other sources has been used only for the sake of illustration or as
a supplement. In addition, I have striven to include a larger number
of words, which has left its mark on the result of the study. Present
in the glossary are a large number of words that are from the spoken
language, not from the specialised legal jargon; this choice has increased
8 Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 110-3.

9 Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 111.
CONCLUSION 521
the proportion of purely Slavic words. Nevertheless, taking into account

the specifics of the terminology, I believe that the asserted thesis that
Bulgarian legal vocabulary is dependent on the Byzantine models has
been confirmed.
Finally, we may say that the legal vocabulary has an especially great
importance for Bulgarian mediaeval culture and for the culture of
the entire Slavia Orthodoxa. The written Slavic language that we call
classical was built in the course of translations from original Greek
texts. The translations were first accomplished in Great Moravia and
later in Bulgaria, especially in Preslav. This means that the vocabu-
lary of the Slavic language (particularly its high style, where words
of everyday speech are rarely to be encountered) was built following
a previously existing model. This is true for the specialised terms but
also for verbal constructions. The purpose of this effort, however, was
not philological but apostolic and missionary-the spreading of the
Gospel. This was the main meaning of the work of the saintly brothers
Cyril and Methodius. The creation of the legal vocabulary and of a
specialised legal language was also there work. An enormous part of
the texts that the archbishop of Pannonia translated was juridical or
parajuridical. He thus created a model that would be followed stead-
fastly during the Middle Ages. This model, however, is not specifically
a legal one, but part of the larger culture of mediaeval Bulgaria and of
Orthodox Slavic peoples.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. PRIMARY SOURCES
Actes de Lavra, vol. I-IV, Paris 1970, 1977, 1979, 1982.

Actes d'Esphigmenou, Paris 1973.
Actes de Chilandar, vol. I (Des origines a1319), ed. M. .Zivojnovit, Chr. Giros, V. Kravari,
Paris, 1998.
Actes de Vatopedi, vol. I (Des origins a 1329), ed. J. Bompaire, J. Lefort, V. Kravari,
Chr. Giros, Paris, 2001; vol. II (De 1330 a 1376), ed. J. Lefort, V. Kravari, Chr. Giros,
K. Smyrlis, Paris, 2004.
Ahmed Feridun bey, Megmu'a-i munsa'at iis-salatin, c. I, Qostantiniye 1274 (=1857-
1858).
Ajdarov G., Jazyk Orkhonskikh pamjatnikov drevnetjurkskoj pismenosti VIII veka,
Alma Ata, 1971.
Annae Comnenae Alexias, vol. I-II, Lipsiae 1884.
Arranz M., S. J., "Couronnement royal et autres promotions de la cour. Les sacraments
de !'institution de l'ancien Euchologe constantinopolitain", Orientalia Christiana
periodica, 56 (1990), pp. 85-133.
Begunov Ju. K., Kozma prezviter v slavjanskikh literaturakh, Sofia, 1973.
Beldiceanu-Steinherr I., Recherches sur les actes des regnes des sultans Osman, Orkhan
et Murad I (=Acta historica Societatis academicae dacoromanae, tomus VII), Mona-
chii 1967.
Besevliev V., Ptlrvobulgarski nadpisi, Sofia, 1992.
Biliarsky Iv., "Dva namchnika za pittakia ot K1l.snoto Srednovekovie", Zbornik radova
VizantoloSkog instituta, t. XXIX-XXX (1991), pp. 233-300.
- , "Pismo na sultan Bajazid II do kral Matias Korvin ot 1487 g.", Ricerche slavis-
tiche, XLIV, 1997, Rome, 1999, pp. 61-93.
- , "Le rite du couronnement des tsars dans les pays slaves et promotion d'autres
axiaf', Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vol. 59, 1 (1993), pp. 91-139.
Constantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae libri duo,
Bonnae, 1829.
Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik et
R J. H. Jenkins, Washington D. C., 1967, p. 170.
Darrouzes J., "Ekthesis nea. Manuel des pittakia du XIV• siede", Revue des etudes
byzantines, XXVII, 1969, pp. 5-127.
Daskalova A., Rajkova M., Gramoti na bulgarskite tsare, Sofia, 2005.
Davidov A., Rechnik-indeks na prezviter Kozma, Sofia, 1976.
H. Delehaye, Sinaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Bruxelles, 1902.
Dolger Fr., Sechs byzantinische Praktika des 14. Jahrhundert for das Athoskloster Iberon
(Abhandl. der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., 28), 1949.
Dostal A., Clozianus Codex paleoslavenicus glagoliticus, Praha, 1959.
Documenta Romaniae Historica, ser. A (Moldova), ser. B (Tara Roma.neasca).
Dujcev Iv., "Prepiskata na papa Inokentija III s bulgarite", Godishnik na Sojijskija
universitet, Istoriko-filologicheski fakultet, t. XXXVIII, 3, 1942, pp. 1-116.
- , Iz starata bulgarska knizhnina (= SBK), t. 1-11, Sofia, 1943.
- , Miniatjurite na Manasievata letopis, Sofia, 1964.
- , Rilskata gramota na tsar Ivan Shishman ot 1378 g., Sofia, 1986.
Ecloga. Das Gesetzbuch Leons III. und Konstantins V., herausg. L. Burgmann (=For-
schungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, Bd. 10), Frankfurt-am-Main, 1983.
524 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Georgiev P., "Olovni pechati ot manastira pri Ravna, Provadijsko", in: Izvestija na
Narodnija muzej-Varna, 26 (41), 1990, pp. 103-9.
Georgii Acropolita Opera, t. 1-11, Lipsiae, 1903.
Gjuzelev V., "Nadpisa ot krepostta", Bozhenishki Urvich, Sofia, 1979, pp. 43-44.
- , Venetsianski dokumenti za Bulgarlja i bulgarite ot XII-XIV vek, Sofia, 2001.
Grabar A., Bojanskata tsarkva, Sofia 1978.
[Grlgorij Tsamblak], Zhitie na Stefan Dechanski ot Grigorij Tsamblak, Sofia, 1983,
328 p.
Grujic R., "Trihllandarske povelje", Zbornik za istoriju juzne Srblje i susednih oblastima,
Skopje, 1936, pp. 5-24.
Ilinskij G., Gramoty bolgarskikh tsarej, Moscow, 1911.
Joannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris Historiarum libri IV, ed.. L. Schopen, Bonnae 1828,
t. 1-11.
Joannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab Ioannae et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed.. Aug.
Meineke, Bonnae MDCCCXXXVI.
Joannis Skylitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed.. I. Thurn (= Corpus Jontium historiae
byzantinae, series berolinensis, vol. V), Berolini-Novi Eboraci MCMLXXIII.
Istrin V. M., Khronika Georgija Amartola, Petrograde, t I (1920), t II (1922), t. III (1930).
- , Khronika Joanna Malaly v slavjanskom perevode, ed.. M. I. Chernysheva, Moscow,
1994.
Ivanov]., Bulgarski starini iz Makedonija (=BSM), Sofia, 1931.
- , "Bulgarski i vizantijski priisteni", Izvestlja na Bulgarskoto arkheologichesko
druzhestvo, II, fasc. 1, 1918, pp. 1-14.
- , "Pomenitsi na bulgarskite tsare i tsaritsi", in: idem, Izbrani proizvedenija, t. I,
Sofia, 1982,pp. 144-154.
Jordanov Iv., Korpus na pechatite na srednovekovna Bulgaria, Sofia, 2001.
Jurukova ]., Penchev Vl., Bulgarski srednovekovni pechati i moneti, Sofia, 1990.
KaluZniacki E., Werke des Patriarchen von Bulgarien Euthymius (1375-1393), Wien,
1901.
Kekavmen, Sovety i rasskazy. Pouchenie vizantijskogo polkovodtsa XI veka, ed.. G. G.
Litavrin, St Petersburg, 2003.
Khristova B., Karadzhova D., Uzunova E., Belezhki na bulgarskite knizhovnici X-XVIII
vek, t. 1 (X-XIV vek), t. 2 (XV -XVIII vek), Sofia, 2003-2004.
Kliment Okhridski, Sabrani sachinenija, t. I-III, Sofia, 1973.
Laskaris M., Vatopedskata gramota na tsar Ivan Asenja II,(= Bulgarski starini, kn. XI),
Sofia, 1930.
Leonis Diaconi Coloensis Historiae libri decem, rec. C. B. Hasii, Bonnae,
MDCCCXXVIII.
Ljubinkovic R, Corovic- Ljubinkovic M., "Crkva u Donjoj Kamenici", Starinar, t I, 1950,
pp. 55-86.
Malingoudis Ph., Die mittelalterlichen kyrillischen Inschriften der Hamus-Halbinsel,
Tell. I, Die bulgarischen Inschriften, Thessaloniki, 1979.
Malov S. E., Pamjatniki drevnetjurkskoj pismenosti. Teksty i issledovanlja, Moscow, 1951.
Margos A., "Nadpisa na lvo Gramatik", Archaeologia, 1981, 1-2, pp. 36-40.
Mijatev Kr., Bojanskite stenopisi, Dresden, 1961.
Milev Al., Gratskite zhitija na Kliment Okhridski, Sofia, 1966.
MiSic S., "Povelja kralja Stefana Uro8a III manastiru Hilandaru", Stari srpski arhiv, 5
(2006), pp. 65-81.
Magnae Moraviae fontes historici, t. IV, Brno, 1971.
Mosin VL, "Bitoljska plocha lz 1017 godine", Makedonski jazik, Skopje, XVII, 1966,
pp. 51-61.
Nicephori archiepiscopi constantinopolitani Opuscula historica, ed. de Boor, Upsiae 1870.
Novakovic St., Zakonski spomenici srpskih driava srednjego veka, Belgrade, 1912.
- , Zakonik Stefana Du5ana cara srpskog 1349 i 1354, Belgrade, 1898.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 525
Oikonomides N., Les listes de presea nee byzantines de IXe et Xe siecles, Paris, 1972.
Georgii Pachymeris De Michaeli et Andronico Palaeologis libri XII, rec. lm. Bekkerus,
t. 1-11, Bonnae MDCCCXXXV.
Georges Pachymeres, Relations historiques, ed. A. Failler, t 1-V, Paris, 1984-2000.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus [IIa1ttlbO!tO'I)A.oi)_ Kepa~] l\. l\ vaUJCta 'lepocroi..'I>)J.t-ttKi!~
mcrox;oo~ 't. A', St Petersburg, 1891.
Papadopoulos J., pere A. Vatopedinos, "Un acte officiel au sujet du couvent de Speleotissa
pres de Melenlkon", Spisanie na BAN, XLV, 1933, pp. 1-16.
Popkonstantinov K., Kronsteiner 0., Altbulgarische Inschriften, vol 1-11 (Die slawischen
Sprachen, Bd. 36, 1994; Bd. 52, 1997).
- , "Oshte vednil.7h za nadpisa na lvo Gramatik", Archaeologia, 1983, 1-2, pp.
98-105.
Popovic R, "Povelja bana Tvrtka I Kotromanovica Dubrovniku o slobodanu od carini",
Stari srpski arhiv, 5 (2006), pp. 149-56.
Popruzhenko M.G., Sinodik tsarja Borisa, Odessa, 1898.
- , Sinodik tsarja Borila, (= Bulgarski starini, VIII), Sofia, 1928.
Popruzhenko M., Kosma prezviter, bolgarskij pisatel' X veka, (Bulgarski starini, XII),
Sofia, 1936.
Porcic N., "Povelja kralja Stefana Du8ana dubrovnicanima o carini sluge DabiZiva",
Stari srpski arhiv, 5 (2006), pp. 83-98.
Reginonis Chronicon, ed. G. H. Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae historica, SS, I, Leipzig,
1925, pp. 537-629.
de Sacy baron Sylvestre, "Memoire sur un traite fait entre les ~nois de Pera et un
prince des Bulgares", Histoire et memoires de l'Institut Royal de France, Academie
des inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, t. VII, Paris, 1824, pp. 292-326.
Stara bulgarska literatura, t. 3, Istoricheski sdchinenija, Sofia, 1983; t. 4, Zhitiepisni
tvorbi, Sofia, 1986.
Solovjev Al., Mosin VL, GrCke povelje srpskih vladara, Belgrade, 1936.
Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii v slavjanskikh literaturakh,
ed. M. A. Salmina, Sofia, 1988.
Stanchev St., "Nadgrobnijat nadpis na cha.rgubllja Mostich ot Preslav", in: Nadpisyt na
chargubilja Mostich, Sofia, 1955.
Stancheva M., Stanchev St., Bojanskija pomenik, Sofia 1963.
Stojanovic Lj., Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi, I, Belgrade, 1902.
Supraslski ili Retkov sbornik, ed. J. Zaimov, M. Capaldo, t. 1-11, Sofia, 1982/1983.
Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi,
H. Delehaye, Bruxellis, 1902.
Ti!pkova-Zaimova V., MlltenovaA., Istoriko-apokaliptichnata knizhnina vav Vizantija
i v srednovekovna BuJgarija, Sofia, 1996.
Teodosije Hllandarec, Zitije svetoga Save, Belgrade, 1984.
Theophani Confessoris Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, Lipsiae, 1883.
Theophylacti Achridensis Epistulae, ed. P. Gautier, Thessalonique, 1986.
Thomsen V., Inscriptions de l'Orkhon, Helsinki, 1896.
- , "Alttiirkische lnschriften aus der Mongolei in i.ibersetzung und mit Einleitung",
Zeitschrift des deutschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft, 78 N.F. 3, 1924, pp. 120-75.
TotomanovaA.-M., Slavjanskata versija na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, Universitetska
biblioteka, No 474, Sofia, 2008.
Turski izvori za istorijata na pravoto po bulgarskite zemi, t. I, Sofia, 1962.
Vasiliev A., Ivanovskite stenopisi. Materiali za istorijata na grad Ruse i Rusenski okrag,
Sofia, 1953.
Verpeaux J., Pseudo Kodinos. Traite des offices, Paris, 1966.
Zacos G., Veglery A., Byzantine Lead Seals, t. I, Basel1972.
Zaimov J., Bitolski nadpis na Ivan Vladislav, samodarzhets bulgarski. Starobulgarski
pametnik ot 1015-1016 g., Sofia, 1970.
526 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, ed. M. N. Tikhomirov, Moscow, 1961.

Zepos I. et P., Ius graecoromanum, I-, Athens, 1931.
Zivojnovic D., "Hrisovulja cara Stefana Dusana o Lu:l.ackoj metohiji", Stari srpski
arhiv, 5 (2006), pp. 99-113.
Zivot Svetoga Save, napisao Dometijan, ed. B. Danicic, Belgrade, 1860.
Zlatarski V. N., "Zhitie i zhizn prepodobnago ottsa nashego Teodosija", Sbornik za
narodni umotvorenija, nauka i knivnina, t. XX, 1894, pp. 1-14.
- , "Asenevijat nadpis pri Stanimaka", in: ibid, Izbrani proizvedenija, vol. II, Sofia,
1984, pp. 395-409.
II. SECONDARY LITERATURE
Ahrweiler [Glykatzi-Ahrweiler] H., Recherches sur !'administration de !'Empire byzantin

aux IX-XI siecles, Athenes-Paris, 1960/= Bull. Corr. Hell., 84/.
Ahrweiler H., "Le sebaste, chef des groupes ethniques", in: Polychronion (Festschrift
Franz Dolger), Heidelberg 1966, pp. 34-38.
- , Byzance et la mer. La marine de guerre, la politique et les institutions maritimes
de Byzance aux Vll'-XV' siecles, Paris, 1966.
Andreev J., "Narodnite sabori v politicheskija zhivot na pyrvata bulgarska darzhava",
Istoricheski pregled, 1971, 4, pp. 96-105.
- , "Titulat 'bagrenorodni' na bulgarskite prestolonaslednitsi pri Vtorata bulgarska
darzhava", VTU ''Kiril i Metodij~ Slavistichni prouchvanija v chest na VII mezhduna-
roden slavistichen kongres, Sofia, 1973, pp. 305-12.
Andreev M., Vatopedskata gramota i vaprosite na bulgarskoto feodalno pravo, Sofia, 1965.
- , "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie na srednovekovna Bulgarija ina sred-
novekovna sarbija spored gramotite na bulgarskite i srabskite vladeteli ot XIII-
XIV v." Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet, Juridicheski fakultet, t. 58, 2 (1967), pp.
1-131.
- , "Sur certains traits specifiques du systeme fiscal de la Bulgarie medievale
en conparaison avec le systeme fiscal byzantin", Etudes balkaniques, 1978, 4, pp. 89-93.
Andreev M., Angelov D., Istorija na bulgarskata feodalna dtlrzhava i pravo, Sofia, 1972.
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 1,
pp. 3-119.
Angelov, "Prinos kam narodnostnite i pozemleni otnoshenija v Makedonija (Epirski
despotat) prez parvata chetvart na XIII vek", Izvestija na Kamarata na narodnata
kultura, god. IV, 1947, 3, pp. 1-46.
Angelov B. St., Iz starata bulgarska, ruska i srabska literatura, t. II, Sofia, 1967.
Angelov D., Prezviter Kozma i besedata mu protiv bogomilite, Sofia, 1945.
- , "Prikhodi na srednovekovnata bulgarska darzhava", Istoricheski pregled, II,
1945-1946,kn. 4-5,pp. 385-411.
- , "Robstvoto v srednovekovna Bulgarija", Istoricheski pregled, II, 1945-1946, No 2,
pp. 129-56.
- , "Prinos kam pozemlenite otnoshenija vav Vizantija prez XIII vek", Godishnik na
Sojijskija universitet, Filosoftko-istoricheski fakultet, 47, 2, 1952, pp. 1-104.
- , ,Za zavisimoto naselenie v Makedonija prez XIV vek", Istoricheski pregled,
1957, 1, pp. 30-66.
- , Agrarnite otnoshenija v Severna i sredna Makedonija prez XIV vek, Sofia, 1958.
- , "Kam vaprosa za tsarskata vlast v srednovekovna Bulgarija", Sbornik v pamet na
Al. Burmov, Sofia, 1973, pp. 158-66.
- , Bogomilstvoto v Bulgarija, 3d edition, Sofia, 1980.
Bakalov G., Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel (Titulatura i insignii), Sofia, 1995.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 527
Bakalova E., "The Image of the Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bulgarian Literature and Art",
In: Les cultes des saints souverains et des saints guerriers et l'ideologie du pouvoir
en Europe Centrale et Orientale. Actes du colloque international 17.01.2004. New
Europe College, Bucarest. Volume coordonne par I. Biliarsky et R. G. P1l.un. Bucarest,
2007, pp. 34-80.
Balaschev G., "Titlite na starobulgarskite gospodari", Minalo, I, 1909/1910, pp. 79-93.
- , "S1l.shtinski li e khrisovul1l.t na tsar Konstantin Tikh ( 1257-1277)", Minalo, II, kn
5-6, 1911, pp. 178-87.
Bartusis M., "State Demands for the Billeting of Soldiers in Late Byzantium", Zbornik
radova Vizantoloskog institute u Beogradu, t. XXVI (1987), pp. 115-23.
- , "State Demands for Building and Repairing Fortifications in Late Byzantium and
Medieval Serbia", Byzantinoslavica, 49 (1988), pp. 205-12.
Beldiceanu N., "La region de Timok-Morava dans le documents de Mehmed II et de
Selim I", Revue des etudes roumaines, III-IV, Paris, 1957, pp. 111-29.
- , "Vozarliq: une institution pontodanubienne", Siidost-Forschungen, XXXII, Miin-
chen, 1973, pp. 73-90.
- , "Le Valaques de Bosnie a Ia fin du XV• siecle et leurs institutions", Turcica, VII,
Paris, 1975, pp. 122-34.
Benveniste E., Vocabulaire des institutions indo-europeennes, vol. I-II, Paris, 1969.
Besevliev V., Parvobulgari. Istorija, Sofia. 1984.
Bezlaj F., Etimoloski slovar slovenskega jezika, Ljubljana, 1976-, t 1-.
Biliarsky Iv., "Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", Istoricheski pregled, 11 ( 1989),
pp. 54-7.
- , "Belezhki wrkhu institutsionnata sistema na Vtoroto bulgarsko tsarstvo: kephalia",
Tarnovska knizhovna shkola, vol. V, Veliko T1l.rnovo, 1994,pp. 553-562.
- , Institutsiite na srednovekovna Bulgaria. Vtoro bulgarsko tsarstvo (XII-XIV v.),
Sofia, 1998.
- , "Srednovekovna Bulgarija: Tsarstvoto i naroda", IIOAYXPONIA. Sbornik v chest
na prof Ivan Boiilov, Sofia. 2002, pp. 25-40.
- , "Primeri za ranno vlijanie na Imperijata wrkhu formiraneto na bulgarskata pub-
lichnopravna terminologija: voevoda. chigot, chvanchij, Istoricheski pregled, 5-6,
2008, pp. 16-27.
- , "Trois institutions meconnues de Ia Bulgarie medievale : RAVHH'iiH, RAV~V'>•
noRAp~>", Ricerche slavistiche, XLI, 1994, pp. 95-104.
- , "The Despots in Mediaeval Bulgaria", Byzantinobulgarica, t. IX, Sofia, 1995,
pp. 121-62.
- , "Les institutions de Ia Bulgarie medievale: y avait-il des bans en Bulgarie d'avant
Ia conqu~te turcque?", Bulgarian Historical Review, 1992, 1-2, p. 89 ff.
- , "Les institutions de Ia Bulgsrie medievale: tainik-mystikos", Byzantinoslavica, t
LIII (1), Prague, 1992, pp. 53-6.
- , "Les circonscriptions administratives en Bulgarie au 13e siede", Symmeikta, 13,
1999, pp. 177-202.
- , Hierarchia. L'Ordre sacre. Etude sur l'esprit romalque, (= Freiburger Veroffentli-
chungen aus dem Gebiete von Kirche und Staat, Bel. 51), Fribourg/Suisse, 1997.
-,"Some Observations on the Administrative Terminology of the Second Bulgarian
Empire", Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Birmingham, 25, 2001, pp. 69-89.
- , "Les perspectives des etudes sur les institutions du Premier empire bulgare",
Bu~a;vnv6~ 06)10~, (12), 2001, pp. 171-3.
- , "Un cosmopolitisme entre Ia beaute et Ia saintete", Guerre et paix dans l'Orient
mediterraneen, (= Mediterranees, No 29), 2001, pp. 39-50.
- , "Quelques observations sur Ia reglementation du commerce de l'Etat medieval
bulgare", La pratique commerciale (= Mediterranees, No 30/31, 2002), pp. 99-117.
-,"La Demeure et Ia corne de l'Empire", Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vol. 69,
fasc. I, 2003, pp. 179-97.
528 BIBLIOGRAPHY
- , "Mutaberis in virum alium. Observations sur certains problemes juridiques lies

a l'onction royale", Jus et ritus. Rechtshistorische Abhandlungen iiber Ritus, Macht
und Recht, herausg. von Iv. Biliarsky, Sofia, 2006, p. 83-125.
- , "Deux ensembles de rites concernant la personne et la Res Publica : Bapteme/
Onction et Mariage/Couronnement", Personne et laRes Publica, vol. I, Paris, 2008,
pp. 239-53.
-,"La 'Terra Albanese' nel sistema amministrativo bulgaro", Vocafia istoriei: Prinos
profesorului $erban Papacostea, Brllila, 2008, pp. 259-70.
BlagojeviC M., "Planine i pasnjaci u srednjovekovnoj Srbii", Istoriski grasnik, 2-3
(1966), pp. 3-95.
- , "Obrok i priselica", Istoriski casopis, 18 (1971), pp. 165-8.
- , "Meropsi i otroci-b3Stinici i posadnici i grbaljskom rukopisu Dusanovog zakona",
Glas SANU, CCCXCVI (2004), pp. 21-60.
Bobchev S. S., "Knjaz ili tsar Boris?", Bulgarska sbirka, XIV, 5, 1907, pp. 309-19.
- , "Titli i sluzhbi v oblastnoto upravlenie na starovremska Bulgarija", Izvestija na
Istoricheskoto druzhestvo, t. XI-XII, 1932, pp. 228-47.
Boehm Ch., Blood Revenge. The Enactment and Management of Conflict in Montenegro
and other Tribal Societies, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987, 263 p.
Bogdan 1., Originea voievodatului la romani, Bucure~ti, 1902.
Bojanic-Lukic D., Vidin i Vidinskija sandzhak prez XV-XVI vek, Sofia, 1975.
Bompaire J., "Sur trois termes de fiscalite byzantine", Bulletin de correspondance
hellenique, 80 (1956), pp. 625-31.
Borsari S., "lstituzioni feudali e parafeudali nella Puglia bizantina", Archivio strorico
perle provinzie Napoletane, N. S. 38 (1958), pp. 123-35.
Boiilov Iv., "Les Bulgares dans l'Empire byzantin", Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet,
Istoricheski fakultet, t. LIX, 1975, Sofia 1980, pp. 145-94.
- , "Les Bulgares dans la preseance et dans !'administration byzantines", Etudes
balkaniques, 1978, 3, pp. 112-20.
- , "Belezhki vllrkhu bulgarskata istorija prez XIII vek", in: Bulgarsko Srednovekovie.
Bulgaro-savetski sbornik v chest na 70-godishninata na prof Ivan Dijcev, Sofia, 1980,
pp. 78-81.
- , Tsar Simeon Veliki (893-927): Zlatnijat vek na srednovekovna Bulgarija, Sofia,
1982.
- , Familijata na Asenevtsi (1186-1460). Genealogija i prosopografija, Sofia, 1985.
- , Bulgarite vav Vizantijskata imperija, Sofia, 1995.
-,"Ivan I Asen i Stefan Nemanja-Sv. Simeon: rodonacalnitsi dve porodice-dve
dinastije", Stefan Nemanja-Sveti Simeon Miritocivi. Istorija i predanje (Naucni
skupovi Srpske Akademije nauka i umetnosti, kn XCIV, Odelenja istorijskih nauka,
kn. 26), Belgrade, 2000, pp. 47-54.
- , "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare ot XIII-XIV v.", Palaeobulgarica, XXX (2006),
2, pp. 37-51.
Bulgarski etimologichen rechnik [=BER], t. 1-, Sofia, 1971.
Brehier L., Les institutions de !'Empire byzantin, (= Le monde byzantin, vol. II), Paris
1949.
Burmov A., "Zavisimoto naselenie v Bulgarija prez XIII i XIV v.", Istoricheski pregled,
III, 1946-1947, 3, pp. 257-63.
Bury J. B., A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene, London,
1889.
-,The aJtl.tK'ta of Asia Minor, Busav'tt<;, 2 (1911), pp. 216-24.
-,The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century, London, 1911.
Cibranska M., Le ZAKOH'b c~AH'biH .\IOAI>M'b du point de vue de la lexicographie
historique", Etudes balkaniques, 3-4, 1998, pp. 196-210.
Cleminson R., "Brashovskaja gramota tsarja Ivana Sratsimira", Arheografski prilozi,
vol. 20, 1998, pp. 369-78.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 529
Cvetkova B., "Novye d.annye o khristijanakh-spakhijakh na Balkanskom poluostrove

v period turetskogo gospodstva", Vizantijskij vremenik, t XIII, Moscow, 1958,
pp. 184-97.
- , "Influence exrcee par certaines institutions de Byzance et des Balkans du Moyen Age
sur le systeme feudal ottoman. Byzantinobulgarica, 1 (1962), pp. 237-57.
- , "Sokolarstvoto v severna Bulgarija prez XV -XVI vek", Godishnik na muzeite v
Severna Bulgarija, kn. IV, Varna, 1978, pp. 66-82.
Dagron G., Empereur et pretre. Etude sur le 'cesaropapisme' byzantin, Paris, 1996.
- , "Ne dans la pourpre", Travaux et memotres du Centre de recherches d'histoire et
civilisation de Byzance, 12, 1994, pp. 105-42.
Danailov G., "Stranitsa iz d~avnoto stopanstvo v starobul.garsko vreme", Bulgarski
prefl.ed, god. IV, 1898, kn. 12, pp. 41-51.
Dictionarul elementelor romtlne~ti din documentele slavo-romdne (1374-1600), Bucur~tl.
1981.
Dimitrov P., "Okolo predislovieto i nazvanieto na 2'latostruj", Ezik i literatura, t. 35 (1980),
kn. 2, pp. 17-28.
Djakovich B., "Sbornik na Feridun bej", Godishnik na Narodnata biblioteka v Plovdiv,
1922.
Dobrev Iv., "Praslavjanskoto *Zu.pa 'xc.Opa:', starobulgarskoto IKO\j'~H'A, starobul-
garskoto >KO\j'neA'A '9eiov', >K~nH4Je ')lvfiJLa:', srednobulgarsko'to lKO\j'neAeRHH~
'SUeA.A.a:'", Kbnstantin-Kiril Filokof. Jubileen sbornik po sluchaj 1100-godishninata
ot smdrtta mu, Sofia, 1969, pp. 383-7.
Dobrodomov I. G., "Iljuzornaja semantika v rusklkh istorichesklkh slovarjakh i ee
posledstvija (na primere slova IC'AMeTb)", Drenjaja Rus', 3 (21), september, 2005,
pp. 26-7.
Dolger Fr., "Das aepurov", Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXX (1929-1930), pp. 450-7.
- , "Tsarskata vlast v Bul.garija i imperatorskata vliv Vlzantija", Rodina, I, 3,
1938/1939.
- , Beitrage zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung, besonders des 10.
und 11. Jahrhunderts, Darmstadt, 1960.
- , Aus den Schatzkammern des heiligen Berges, Mi.inchen, 1948.
- , Zum Gebuhrenwesen des Byzantiner, Athen, 1939.
- , Byzanz und europiiische Staatenwelt, Ettal, 1953.
- , Byzantinische Diplomatik, Ettal, 1956.
Dragojlovic Dr., Krstjani i jeretitka crkva bosanska, Balkanolo8ki institute, posebna izd.
30, Belgrade, 1987.
Drevnetjurkskij slovar', Moscow-Leningrade, 1969.
Dujcev Iv., "Ezlkovi belezhki kam srednovekovni bulgarski pametnitsi", Izvestija na
Instituta za bulgarski ezik, III, 1954, pp. 304-14.
- , "Vliproslit za vizantijsko-slavjanskite otnoshenija i vizantijskite opiti za slizd.avane
na slavjanska azbuka prez plirvata polovina na IX vek", Izvestija na instituta za bul-
garska istorija, t. VII, 1957, pp. 241-63.
- , "Tsentry vizantijsko-slavjanskogo obshchenija i sotrudnichestva", Trudy otdela
drevnerusskoj literatury, t. 19, 1963, pp. 107-29.
- , "Njakolko belezhki klim Kekavmen", in: idem, Prouchvanija varkhu srednovek-
ovnata bulgarska istorija i kultura, Sofia, 1981, pp. 193-202.
- , "Vlirkhu njakoi bul.garski imena i dumi u vizantijskite avtori", in: idem, Prouchvanija
varkhu srednovekovnata bulgarska istorija i kultura, Sofia, 1981, pp. 337-42.
Durie V., "Novi Isus Navin", Zograf, t. 14, Belgrade, 1983, pp. 5-16.
Durid.anov Iv, "Byzantino-slavica. Po sledite na edno srednovekovno adminis-
trativno naimenovanie", Izvestija na Instituta za bulgarski ezik, kn. VIII, 1962,
pp. 181-7.
Etimologicheskij slovar' slavjanskikh jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksicheskij fond [=ESS]a],
rec. 0. N. Trubachev, t. 1-, Moscow, 1974-.
530 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Feldbrugge F., Law in Medieval Russia, (=Law in eastern Europe, vol59), Leiden-Boston,
2009.
Ferjancic B., "0 despotskim povelama", Zbornik radova VizantoloSkog instituta, t. IV
( 1956), pp. 89-112.
- , "Povelje sevastokratora i cesara", Zbornik radova VizantoloSkog instituta, t. XXIII
(1984), pp. 105-17.
- , Despoti u Vizantiji i u juinoslovenskim zemljama, Belgrade, 1960.
- , "Sevastokratori u Vizantiji", Zbornik radova VizantoloSkog instituta, t. XI (1968),
pp. 141-90.
- , "Sevastokratori i eesari u Srpskom carstvu", Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta u
Beogradu, t. XI, 1 (1970), pp. 255-69.
- , "Sevast i protosevast Pribo", Zbornik Filozofskogfakulteta u Beogradu, t. XV-1,
Spomenica Ivana Boiica, Belgrade. 1985, pp. 91-6.
Ferrari della Spade G., Immunita ecclesiastiche nel Diritto Romano imperiale, Venezia,
1939.
Fine J. V. A., Jr., The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation. A Study of the Bosnian
Church and Its Place in the State and Society from the 13th to the 15th Centuries,
New York and London, 1975.
Gallagher C., "St. Methodios the Canonist: The Greek 0 rigin ofSlavonic Canon Law", In:
Gallagher C., Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium. A Comparative
Study, (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, vol. 8). Aldershot, 2002,
pp. 85-113.
Ganev V., ZAKOH'l> c~AH'l>IH AIOAI>U'l>, Sofia, 1959.
Gavlikova L., "Transfdrmatsija, retseptsija i adaptacija vizantijskoj voenno-politicheskoj
terminologii v slavjanskoj srede", Vizantijskij vremenik, t. 50, 1989, pp. 59-65.
Georgescu V., Etudes de philologie juridique et de Droit romain, vol. I, Les rapports de
Ia philologie classique et du Droit romain, Bucarest-Paris, 1940, 530 p.
- , Strlhan P., Judecata domnesca din Tara Romdneasca ~i Moldova, part I, Organi-
zareajudeciitoreasca, vol. I (1611-1740), Bucure~ti, 1979.
- , Bizantul ~i institufiile romane~ti pana Ia mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea, Bucure~ti
1980.
Georgiev P., "Titlata i funkciite na bulgarskija prestolonaslednik", Istoricheski pregled,
1992, 8/9, pp. 3-12.
Georgieva Tsv., Enicharite v bulgarskite zemi, Sofia, 1988.
Gernet L., Anthropologie de Ia Grece antique, III Droit et predroit, Paris, 1968.
Gjuzelev V., "Ichirgu boilite v Pyrvata bulgarska dArzhava (VII-XI B.)", Godishnik na
Sofijskija universitet. Filosofsko-istoricheski fakultet, 65, 3, 1973, pp. 123-81.
- , "Les relations bulgaro-venitiennes durant la premiere moitie du XIV• siecle",
Etudes historiques, t. IX, 1979, pp. 36-76.
- , Ochertsi viirkhu bulgarskija severoiztok i Chernomorieto (kraja na XII-nachaloto
na XV vek), Sofia, 1995.
Gorina L., "K voprosu o podlinnosti Virginskoj gramote", Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie,
1965, 5, pp. 60-8.
Gorskij A. A., Drevnerusskaja druzhina, Moscow, 1989.
Grachev V. P., "Iz istorii izuchenija slavjanskikh srednevekovykh institutov (Vopros
o zhupakh i zhupanakh v istoriografii)", Uchenye zapiski institute slvjanovedenija,
t. XXIX, Moscow, 1965, pp. 178-209.
- , "Terminy 'zhupa' i 'zhupan' v serbskikh istochnikakh XII-XIV vv. i traktovka
ikh v istoriografii (K izucheniju politicjeskoj organizacii v srednevekovoj Serbii)",
Istochniki i istoriografija slavjanskogo SrednevekovJa. Sbornik statej i materialov,
Moscow, 1967, p. 3-52.
Granberg J., Veche in the Chronicles of Medieval Rus. A Study of Functions and Ter-
minology, Goteborg, 2004.
Gregoire H., "Les sources epigraphiques de l'histoire bulgare", Byzantion, t. IX, 1934,
fasc 2, pp. 745-86.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 531
Grlgora~ N., Institufii feudale din Moldova, vol. I, Organizarea de stat pdna la mljlocul
secolului al XVIII-lea, Bucure~ti, 1971.
Grivec F., "Duo sermones s. Methodii Thessalonicensis", Oriental ia Christiana Periodica,
16, 1950, pp. 440-8.
Guilland R, "Protovestiaire", Etudes byzantines, 2, 1944, pp. 202-20 (= Guilland,
Recherches ... , I, pp. 216-36).
-,"Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin, le cesatat", Orientalia
Christiana Periodica, XIII, 1947, pp. 168-94 (= Guilland, Recherches ..., II, pp. 25-43).
- , "Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin, le grand conetable",
Byzantion, t XIX, 1949, pp. 99-111.
- , "Etudes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines. Le protostrator", Revue
des etudes byzantines, VII, 1950, pp. 156-79 (= Guilland, Recherches ... , I, pp.
478-97).
- , "Les commandants de la garde imperiale sous les Paleologues: I' btl. -too crtpa-too
et le juge de l'armee", Revue des etudes byzantines, 18 (1960), pp. 79-96 (= Guilland,
Recherches ... , I, pp. 522-34).
-,"Sur quelques grands dlgnitaires byzantins du XIVe siede", T611oc; KcovcrtavtiVO'O
Ap!1£Vo1t0'6A.oo, eecmaA.ovilCTJ., 1951, pp. 192-5.
- , "Etudes sur Ia titulature byzantine. Les titres auliques reserves aux eunu-
ques (suite). Le Primicier", Revue des etudes byzantines, XIV, 1956, pp. 122-57
(= Guilland, Recherches ... , I, pp. 300-32).
- , "Le Maitre d'Mtel de l'empereur", Etudes byzantines, 3 (1945), pp. 179-87
(= Guilland, Recherches ... , I, pp. 237-41).
- , Recherches sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin : le despote, REB,
XVII, 1959, pp. 52-89 (= Guilland, Recherches ... , II, pp. 1-24).
- , "Le Curapalate", Bu~avttva, 2 (1970), pp. 187-249.
- , "Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin. Le mystique, o
J1UcrttK6c;", Revue des etudes byzantines, XXVI, 1968, pp. 279-96.
-,Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, vol. I-II (Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten,
Bd 35, 1-2), Berlin-Amsterdam 1967.
- , "Les logothetes", Revue des etudes Byzantines, t. XXIX, 1971, pp. 5-16.
Gy6ni M., "La transhumance des Valaques balkaniques au Moyen Age", Byzantino-
slavica, XII, 1951, pp. 29-42.
Haldon J., "Aerikon/Aerika: a Re-Interpretation", JOB, 44 (1994), pp. 136-42.
Halkin Fr., "Inscriptions grecques relatives a l'hagiographie (suite)", Analecta Bollan-
diana, 70 (1952), fasc. 1 et 2, pp. 116-37.
Harvey A., Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 900-1200, Cambridge, 1989
Hattenhauer H., Europiiische Rechtsgeschichte, 4. Auglage, Heidelberg, 2004.
Havlova E., "K publikovanym i nepublikovanym pracfm Ant. Matzenauera", Studia
etymologica Brunensia, 2, 2003, pp. 11-28.
Hofmann J. B., 'EWJlOMytKOv A.el;tKC'>v 'tile; cXPX;aiac; v..A.1JVtJcilc;, £v Aef\vatc; 1989.
Holzer G., "Zur Sprache des mittelatrelichen Slaventums in Osterreich. Slavisch unter
bairischen Einfluss", Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, Bd 48, 2002, pp. 53-73.
Inalak H., "The Problem of Relationship between Byzantine and Ottoman Taxation",
Akten des XI. Interna. Byzant. Kongresses (1958), Mi.inchen, 1960 (=H. Inalctk, The
Ottoman Empire: Conquest, Organisation, Economy, Variorum, II), pp. 237-42.
-,The Ottoman Empire. The Classical Age (1300-1600), London, 1975.
I nstitufii feudale din fa rile romane. Dicfionar, Bucure~ti, 1988.
Iorga N., Contribufiuni la istoria bisericii noastre, Bucur~ti, 1912.
Ireeek K., Istorija na bulgarite, Sofia, 1978.
Istorija na Bulgarija, t I, Sofia, 1979, t. II, Sofia, 1981, t. III, Sofia, 1982, ....
Istorija na Bulgarija, t. I-III: t. I: Iv. B<>Zilov, V. Gjuzelev, Istorija na Bulgarija VII-XIV
veK, Sofia, 1999.
I us et ritus. Rechtshistorische Abhandlungen uber Ritus, Macht und Recht, herausg. von
Iv. Biliarsky, Sofia, 2006.
532 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ivanov V. V., Toporov V. N., "0 jazyke drevnego slavjanskogo prava (k analizu
kljuchevykh terminov)", Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. VIII Mezhdunarodnyj s'ezd slavistov
(Zagreb-Ljubljana, sentjabr' 1978 g.). Doklady sovetskoj delegatsii, Moscow, 1978,
pp. 221-40.
Jirecek K., Staat und Geselschaft im mittelalterlichen Serbien. Studien zur Kulturge-
schichte des 13.-15. /h., Bd. I-III, Wien, 1912-1914.
Jones A. H. M., 1he Later Roman Empire, Oxford, 1964, vol. 1-.
Jonova M., Beletristikata v sistemata na starata bulgarska literatura, Sofia, 1992.
Jordanov St., "Tremini za oboznachavane na probodno-sechashti orlizhija u prabul-
garite", in: Acta Musei Varnaensis I. Orazhie i snarjazhenie prez kasnata Antichnost
i Srednovekovieto IV-XV v. Mezhdunarodna konferentsija. Varna 14-16 septemvri
2000, Varna, 2002, pp. 87-98.
- , "Mechonostsite na P1l.rvoto tsarstvo", in: Traditsii i priemstvenost v Bulgarija
i Balkanite prez Srednite vekove. Jubileen sbornik, posveten na prof dr. Jordan
Andreev. Izsledvanija i materiali ot mezhdunarodnata nauchna konferentsija v chest
na 60-godishninata na prof din Jordan Andreev, 14-15 mai 1999z., Veliko Tarnovo,
Vellko T1l.rnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo "Sts Kiril i Metodij", 2003, pp. 384-404.
Kadlec K., Instoduction a l'histoire du droit slave, Paris, 1925.
Karayannopoulos 1., Das Finanzwesen des frubyzantinischen Staates, Miinchen, 1958.
Kazhdan A., "Sevastokratory i despoty v Vizantii XII v.", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog
instituta, t. XIV-XV, 1973, pp. 41-4.
Kazhdan A. P., Agrarnye otnoshenija v Vizantii XIII-XV vv., Moscow, 1952.
- , Derevnja i gorod v Vizantii IX-X vv., Moscow, 1960.
Khristova-Shomova 1., "K1l.m v1l.prosa za proizkhoda i znachenieto na dumata neprijazn",
in: Acta Palaeoslavica. vol 2. In honorem professoris Angelinae Minceva, Sofia, 2005,
pp. 161-71.
Khvostova K. V., Osobenosti agrarnopravnykh otnoshenij v pozdnej Vizantii XIV-XV
vv.. , Moscow, 1968.
Kodov Khr, Opis na slavjanskite rakopisi v bibliotekata na BAN, Sofia, 1969.
Kodov Khr., Rajkov B., Kozhukharov St., Opis na slavjanskite rakopisi v bibliotekata na
Zografskija manastir v Sveta Gora, vol. I, Sofia, 1985.
Koev T., "Die Institution der Apokrisiarioi", Etudes balkaniques, 1978, 4, p. 57-61.
Kojeeva [Savceva] E., "The Office and the Title of Sebastocrator in Bulgaria", Etudes
balkaniques, 1978, 4, pp. 70-4.
Kojeeva E., "Particularites etatiques et juridiques du titre 'sebastocrator' en Bulgarie
durant Ia periode XIW-XIV• siecle", Etudes balkaniques, 1979, 3, pp. 53-71.
Kolarov Khr., "Titulatura i polnomochija vladetel'skoj vlasti v srednevekovoj Bolgarii",
Etudes balkaniques, 3, 1978, pp. 89-101.
Koledarov P., "Le titulariat des boyards dans Ia Bulgarie medievale et sa protee dans
les autres pays", Etudes historiques, IV, 1968, pp. 191-212.
Kolias G., Tiepl. a1tA:qK"t01), in: 'E1te'tepi~ 'E-tatpe~ B'I>~!XV'tl.VOOV 1;1t01)000V, 't. 17 (1941),
pp. 144-84.
Kotseva E., "Pripiska 1350-1360 g. v sbornlk Pyrvoslava", Byzantinobulgarica, t VI,
1980, pp. 247-58.
Kovacevic J., Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih slovena, Belgrade, 1953.
Krlistanov Tr., "Titlite ekzarkh i patriarch v bulgarskata ts1l.rkva ot IX do XIX vek. Sv.
loan Ekzarkh ot Rim i patriarch na bulgarskite zemi", Darzhava i Tsarkva- Tsarkva i
darzhava v bulgarskata istorija. Sbornik po sluchaj 135-godishninata na Bulgarskata
Ekzarkhija, Sofia, 2006, pp. 73-86.
Krys'ko V., "Russko-tserkovnoslavjanskie rukopisi XI-XIV vv. kak istochnlk po istorii
staroslavjanskogo i russkogo jazykov: novye dannye", in: Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie.
XIII Mezhdunarodnyj s'ezd slavistov. Ljubljana, 2003. Doklady rossijskoj delegacii,
Moscow, 2003. pp. 339-55.
Kuchev Str., Kuchev Ju., Danachno pravo, Sofia, 1997.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 533
- , Finansovo pravo, Sofia, 2004.

Kutlkov VI., "Bulgaro-vizantijskijat dogovor ot 716 g. Pravo-istorichesko izsledvane",
Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet, Juridicheski fakultet, t. 65, 1974, No 1, pp. 69-119.
Kutsch E., Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient, Berlin, 1963.
Lemerle P., The Agrarian History of Byzantium from the Origins to the Twelfth Century,
Galway, 1979.
Leroy-Molinghen A., "Trois mots slaves dans les lettres de 1heophylacte de Bulgarie",
Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves de l'Universite de
Bruxelles, 6 (1938), pp. 111-7.
Liflt:a E., Catalogul manuscriselor slavo-romane din BrafOV, Bucure~ti, 1985.
Lishev Str., Za stokovoto proizvodstvo vav feodalna Bulgarija, Sofia, 1957.
- , Za genezisa na feodalizma v Bulgarija, Sofia, 1963, 224 p.
- , Bulgarskijat srednovekoven grad, Sofia, 1970.
Litavrin G. G., "Krestjanstvo Zapadnoj i Jugo-Zapadnoj Bolgarii v XI-XII veke",
Uchenye zapiski Instituta slavjanovedenija AN SSSR, t. XIV, 1956, pp. 226-50.
- , Bolgarija I Vizantija v XI-XII vv., Moscow, 1960.
Lukin P. V., "0 tak. nazyvaemoj mnogoznachnosti ponjatija 'veche' v russkikh letopis-
jakh. Domongol'skoe vremja", Neischerpaemost istochnika. K 70-letiju V. A Kuchkina,
Moscow, 2005.
- , "Rannye neletopisnye upominanija vecha", Drevnjaja Rus', 3(21), 2005, pp.
58-60.
Lybyer A., The government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time ofSuleiman the Magnifi-
cent, Cambridge, 1913.
Magdalino P., "The Not-so-secret Function of the Mystokos", Revue des etudes byzan-
tines, XLII, 1984, pp. 229-40.
Maksimovic Lj., Vizantijska provincijska uprava u doba Paleologa, Belgrade, 1972.
Maksimovich K. A., Zakon' soudnyi ljud'm'. Istochnikovedenie i lingvisticheskie aspekty
juridicheskogo pamjatnika, Moscow, 2004.
Malingoudis Ph., "Die Institution des 2upans als Problem der friihslavischen Geschichte
(Einige Bemerkungen)", Cyrillomethodianum, t. II, Thessalonique. 1972-1973,
pp. 61-76.
- , "Zu einigen Verfassungstermini des Codex Suprasliensis", Cyrillomethodianum,
V, 1981, pp. 197-201.
Marquart J., Die Chronologie der alttiirkischen Inschriften, Leipzig, 1893.
Martroye M. F., "L'origine de curopalate", Melanges offerts aM. Gustave Schlumberger
a !'occasion du quatre-vingtieme anniversaire de sa naissance (17. X. 1924), Paris
1924, t. I, pp. 79-84.
Maslev St., "Neizvestni u nas bulgarski rakopisi v Brashov", Izvestija na instituta po
istorija, t. 19, 1967, pp. 195-217.
- , "Brashovskata gramota na tsar Ivan Sratsimir: prinos krun nejnoto
prouchvane", Palaeobulgarica, XIV (1990), 4, pp. 84-99.
Matov D., "Grlltsko-bulgarski studii", Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija, nauka I
knizhnina, t. IX, 1893, pp. 21-84.
Melovski H., "Kon pra8anjeto za psomozemijata", Godi5en zbornik Filoz. Fakult., t. 30,
Skopje, 1978.
Menges K. H., "Altaic Elements in the Proto-Bulgarian Inscriptions", Byzantion, t. 21,
1951, pp. 85-118.
Mihaljcic R., Vladarske titule oblasnih gospodara (Prilog vladarskoj ideologii u staroj
srpskoj proslosti), Belgrade. 2001.
Mihaljcic R, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama (pravni prop is~ prevodi, uvodni tekstovi
I obja5njenja), (= Izvori stpskog prava, XIII), Belgrade, 2006.
Mijatovic C., "Financije stpskog kraljevstva, II, Izvori za financijski dohodak u XIII i
XIV veku", Glasnik Srpskog ueenog drustva, IX (26), Belgrade, 1869, pp. 152-219.
von Mildosich Fr., Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum, Wien, 1862-1865.
534 BIBLIOGRAPHY
-,Die turkische Elemente in der siidost- und osteuropiiischen Sprachen, Wien, 1884.
Milas N., Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, Sofia, 1904.
Miltenova A., Kajmakamova M., "The Uprising ofPatar Deljan (1040-1041) in a New
Old Bulgarian Source", Byzantinobulgarica, t. VIII, 1986, pp. 227-40.
- , "Neizvestno bulgarsko letopisno sllchinenie ot XI vek", Palaeobulgarica, 4 (1983),
pp. 52-73.
Mineeva A., "Entstehungswege der friihesten christlichen Terminologie bei den Slaven",
Orpheus, 8 (1998), Georgiev Memorial Volume, pp. 53-63.
Moravcsik Gy., Byzantinoturcica. Sprachreste des Tiirkvolker in den byzantinischen Quellen,
vol. 1-11, Budapest, 1943.
- , ''Komenton-pechenezhkoe ill russkoe slovo?", Acta antiqua Academiae Scienci-
arum Hungaricae, I, 1951, pp. 225-31.
Mosin Vl., "Zur Frage der Abfassung der Chrysobullen bei den Si.idslaven und in
Byzanz", Jubilejnyj sbornik Russkogo areheologicheskogo obshchestva v Korolevstve
Jugoslavii k 15-letiju obshchestva, Belgrade, 1936, pp. 93-109.
Moskov M., Imennik na bulgarskite khanove (Novo tillkuvane), Sofia, 1988.
- , "Omonimi ot bulgarski proizhod", in: Protobulgarica et mediaeval/a europensia.
Materiali ot jubilejnata nauchna konferentsija v chest na 100-godishninata na chl.-
kor. prof. dr. Veselin BeSe'Vliev, Veliko Tilrnovo, 12-15. V. 2000, Sofia, 2003.
Mutafchiev P., "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", in: iden, Izbrani proizvedenija, vol. I, Sofia,
1973, pp. 486-517.
Myth and Law among the Indo-Europeans, ed. by J. Puhvel, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London,
1970.
Naydenova D., "Pravnite pametnitsi v Pllrvoto bulgarsko tsarstvo", Istorichesko bildeshte,
IX, 2005, 1-2, pp. 136-63.
- , "Istoricheskata dostovernost na Leksikona 'Suda' kato iztochnik za zakonodatelstvoto
na khan Krum", Starobulgarska literatura, t. 35-36, 2006, pp. 167-80.
-,"Die byzantinischen Gesetze und ihre slavische Obersetzung im Ersten Bulgar-
ischen Reich", Scripta & e-Scripta, t. 3-4, 2006, pp. 239-52.
Nedkov B., Osmanoturska diplomatika i paleograjija, vol. I, Sofia, 1966.
Nenovski N., Pravo i tsennosti, Sofia, 1983.
Nichev AI, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", Ezik i literatura, 35 (1980), 2, pp. 55-68.
Niederle L., Slovanske starozitnosti, t. I-IV, Praha, 1901-1924.
Nikolova B., Ustrojstvo I upravlenie na Bulgarskata pravoslavna tsarkva (IX-XIV vek),
Sofia, 1997.
- , Neravnijat pilt na priznanieto. Kanonichnoto polozhenie na bulgarskata tilrkva
prez Srednovekovieto, Sofia, 2001.
Novakovic St., "Vizantijski cinovi i titule u srpskim zemljama XI-XV veka", Glas Srpske
Akademije, t. XXVIII, 1908, pp. 178-279.
Obolensky D., The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500-1453, London, 1971.
Oikonomides N., "L'evolution de !'organisation administrative de !'Empire byzantin
au Xle siecle (1025-1118)", Travaux et memoires, t. VI (1976), pp. 125-52.
- , "ot llo(;!XVttvoi &rol..o1t!ipourot", l:u)l~tlcr!X, 5, 1983, pp. 295-302.
- , "La chancellerie imperiale de Byzance du 13e au 15e siede", Revue des etudes
byzantines, XLIII, 1985, pp. 167-96.
- , Fiscalite et exemption jiscale a Byzance (IX'-XI's.), Athenes, 1996.
Ostrogorsky G., Die liindiche Steuergemeinde des byzantinischen Reiches im X. Jahrh.,
Stuttgart, 1927.
- , "Avtokrator i samodrl.ac", Glas Srpske Kraljevske Akademije, drugi razred, 84,
1935, pp. 95-187.
- , "Urum-Despotes. Die anfiinge der Despotewiirde in Byzanz", Byzantinische
Zeitschrift, XLIV, 1951, pp. 448-60.
-,Pour l'histoire de la jeodalite byzantine, Bruxelles, 1956.
- , Serska oblast posle Du5anove smrti, Belgrade, 1965.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 535
Palmer L. R, The Indo-European Origins of Greek Justice, London, 1950.

Panayotova D., "Les portraits des donateurs de Dolna Kamenica", Zbornik radova
VizantoloSkog instituta, t. XII, 1970, pp. 43-156.
Papastathis [X. n~GrJ] To volJ.O&tt1rov £pyov 'til~ ~rop~Mo~eoOu:wi]~ l.ep=O'tOI..fi~
£v Meyci/..n Mopa.l}~ 6romxl..ovi101, 1978.
Papastathis Ch., "The Procedural Principles of Methodius' Anonymous Homily", in:
Kirilo-Metodievski studii, 4, 1987, pp. 272-3.
Petrov P., "Ki1m vi1prosa za avtentichnostta na Virginskata gramota i dostovernostta
na si1di1tzhashtite se v neja svedenija", Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet. Filosofsko-
istoricheski fakultet, 51, 2, 1957, pp. 169-255.
- , "0 titulakh 'sevasf i 'protosevasf v srednevekovom bolgarskom gosudarstve",
Vizantijskij vremenik, t. XVII (1959), pp. 52-64.
Petrov P., Grozdanova E., "Mittelalterliche balkanamter und Titel im osmanischen
Orts- und Selbsverwaltungssystem", Etudes balkaniques, 1978, 4, pp. 94-103.
- , "Woiwode in den mittelalterlichen Balkanliindern und im Osmanischen Reich",
Etudes historiques, IX, 1979, pp. 99-127.
Petrova G., Istorija na bulgarskata dtlrzhava i pravo, t. I, Srednovekovie, Sofia, 2002.
- , Tstlrkva i tstlrkovno pravo v srednovekovna Bulgarija, Sofia, 2005.
Philippi M., Die Burger von Kronstadt im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert, Koln/Wien 1986.
Pitsakis K. G., "Saintete et empire", Bizantinistica. Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slav~ serie
seconda, anno III, Spoleto, 2001, pp. 155-227.
Pljukhanova M., Badalanova F., "Srednevekovaja simvollka vlasti: krest Konstantinov
v bolgarskoj traditsii", Literatura I istorija. Acta et commentationes Universitatis
Tartuensis, t. 78, 1987, p. 132-48.
- , Badalanova F., "Srednevekovaja simvollka vlasti v Slavia Orthodoxa", Godishnik
na Sofijskija universitet, Fakultet slavjanski filologi~ t. 86, kiL 2, 1993, pp. 95-164.
Popovic D., "Pustinje i Svete Gore v srednjevekovne Srbije (pisani izvorl, prostorni
obrasci, graditeljska resenja)", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog institute u Beogradu,
t. XLIV/I, 2007, pp. 253-75.
Prellwit, Etymologisches Worterbuch der griechischen Sprache, GOttingen, 1905.
Procha7ka V., "K historickopnivnimu vyznamu csL pritbknqti a jeho parafrazi z ruskjch
pramentl.", Slavia. Roc. XXVI, 1957, pp. 336-40.
Prohazka VI., "Le Zakon sudnyj ljudem et Ia Grande Moravie", Byzantinoslavica, 28,
1967, pp. 359-75.
Radojkovic B., 0 sokalnicima, Rasprava iz socialnih odnosa u staroj srpskoj drfavi sred-
njega veka, Srpska Kraljevska Akademija. Posebna izdanja, CXX, Belgrade, 1937,
VIII+l49 p.
Radoslavov Tsv., "Titlite na bulgarskite vladeteli", Izvestija na bulgarskija arkheologi-
cheski institut, V, 1928/1929, pp. 159-186.
Rajkova M., "Sur Ia terminologie juridique medrevale", Revue des etudes sud-est euro-
peennes, 1-4 (2004), pp. 37-47.
Ramstedt G., "Zwei uigurische Runeninschriften in der Nord-Mongolei", Journal de
la Societe Finno-Ougrienne, 30, 1913, H. 3, pp. 1-9.
Raybaud L.-P., Le gouvernement et l'administration centrale a l'Empire byzantin sous
les premiers Paleologues (1258-1354), Paris 1968.
Rechnik na redki, ostareli i dialektni dumi v literaturata ni ot XIX I XX vek, Sofia, 1974.
Romanski St., "Simeonovata titla 'u,'tCAfb'", Bulgarski pregled, I, I, 1929, pp. 125-8.
Saki1zov Iv., "Dani1chnata sistema v srei:lnovekovnite ni monastiri", Dukhovna kultura,
kiL 20-21, 1924, pp. 122-51.
Saturnik Th, Pfispevky k sffeni byzantiskeho prdva u slovaml, V Praze, 1922.
SchUbach E., Byzantinische Metrologie, Mi.inchen, 1970.
Schmid G., "Byzantinisches Zehntwesen", JOB, 6 (1957), pp. 45-110.
Shaw S., History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, V. I, The Empire ofGazis:
The Rise and Dedine of the Ottoman Empire (1280-1808), Cambridge, 1976.
536 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Shchepkin V. N., Russkaja paleograjija, Moscow, 1967.

Skok P., Etimologijski rjecnik hrvatskoga iii srpskoga jezika, knj. 1- IV, Zagreb, 1971-1974.
Slovar' drevnerusskogo jazyka (XI-XIV vv.), t. 1-, Moscow, 1988-.
Slovar' drevnjago slavjanskago jazyka, sostavlennyj po Ostromirovu Evangeliju F. Mik-
loshichu, A. H. Vostokovu, fa. I. Berednikovu, I. S. Kochetovu, ed. A S. Suvorina,
St Petersburg, 1892.
Slovnik jezyka staroslovenskeho, t I-, Praha.
Snegarov Iv., "Po v!1prosa za spahiite-nemokhamedani", Istoricheski pregled, 1955, 6,
pp. 83-6.
Solovjev A., "Sokalnici i otroci u uporedno-istorijskoj svetlosti, Glasnik Srpskog naucnog
drustva, XIX, 1938, pp. 103-32.
Sreznevskij I. 1., Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskago jazyka po pis'mennym pamjat-
nikam, vol III, St Petersburg, 1912.
Slovar slovenskega knjiZnega jezika, t. 1- V, Ljubljana, 1970-1991.
Starobulgarska literatura. Entsiklopedichen rechnik, Sofia, 1992.
Stauridou-Zaphraka A., "'H ayyapeia crro m9mp.a B~avn.o", B~avttvU, 11 (1982),
pp. 21-54.
Stiernon L., "Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines. sebaste et gambros",
Revue des etudes byzantine, t. XXIII, 1965, pp. 222-43.
Stoicescu N., Sfatul domnesc ~i marii dregr:Uori din Tara Romclneasca ~i Moldova (sec.
XV-XVII), Bucur~ti, 1968.
- , Curteni ~i slujitori. Contribufii Ia istoria armatei romclne, Bucure~ti, 1968.
Stojanov Iv. G., Danachno pravo. Obshta chast. Danachen protses, Sofia, 2001.
Stojanov P., Danachno pravo, Sofia, 1994.
Stojanov V., Diplomatika na srednovekovnite izvori (Vladetelski dokumenti), Sofia, 1991.
Svoronos N., Recherches sur le cadastre byzantin et Ia jiscalite aux XI' et XII' siecles,
Paris-Athenes 1959, (= BCH 83).
Tikhova M., "Zamjana na prabulgarskite dumi v Rimskija paterlk", Godishnik na
Sojijskija universitet. CSVP "Ivan Dujeev", t. I, 1987, pp. 259-311.
Tornarites J. Ch., "To al:vtwa <toi) j}u~avnvoi) c'xeptl«>'i)", l\px;e'tov 8'U~aV'twoi) Ot~~:aiuo, I
(1930), pp. 1-212.
- , "l\epuro~-aerarium-fiscus", l\px;iiov B~avnvoi) OtKato'U, 1-2 (1931), pp. 307-66.
Trifonov Ju., "K!1m wprosa :za starobulgarskoto boljarstvo", Spisanie na BAN, XXVI, 1923.
Troianos Sp., "KacnpoK'twl.a. Einige Bemerkungen i.iber die finanziellen Grundlagen
des Festungsbaues in by:zantinischen Reich", 8'U~<XV'ttvli, 1 (1969), pp. 39-57.
- , IIapaooae~ £KKI..eatacrnl«>'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 Altar 170
Abraham 234 Anastasius Bibliothecarius 349
accusator 81 Anatolia 270
accuser 81, 154 Ancestor-Creator 187, 200
acolyte 60 anchorite 128
Ac~ 293, 300,444a 261 Andrew Palaeologos 290
Adriatic 9, 41, 188, 467, 512 Andronikos I Comnenos, emperor 424
adulterer 126 Andronikos II Palaeologos, emperor
adulterium 126 424
adultero 126 Andronikos III Palaeologos, emperor
adultery 90, 126, 139-140, 156, 166 424,456
adversarius 143 angel 519
aedificare 75 Anglo-Sax 101, 110, 117, 138, 162,
aedifitio 75 172, 174
Aegean Sea 374 ango 154
aerikon 410-411 Anna Comnena 295,297, 300,309
aes 411 anointed 86, 114-115, 223
Africa 363, 515 anointment 114, 223
aga 385 Anonymous Homily 12, 18, 47, 197
agazonum et stabuli praefectus 338 Ansbertus 370
agazonum magister alias co miss 338 Antioch, town 504
ager 100 Antiquity 10, 187 a 5, 250, 275, 315,
aktemonitikion 416, 492 497, 504, 518
alagator 378-380, 455 aplekton 436, 437
alagion 378 apocryphon 350
Albania 188-189, 322 apodochator 27, 461, 464-465, 471-472
Albanian 39, 92, 114, 118-119, 144, apodochia 412, 464-465, 472
171, 177, 188-189, 199, 360, 467 apokrisiarios 486
Alexander, sebastocrator 279, 281, 298, apostle 227, 337, 502
302 apostolic 362, 502, 521
Alexander eel Bun/Alexander the Good applicatum 122, 436
(prince of Moldavia) 323, 468 Arabic 149, 495-496
Alexander the Great 238, 239 Aramaic 145
Alexandria 108, 238, 239, 504 Arbanashka 360
Alexandrine Library 243 Archangel Gabriel 191
Alexias 295, 300, 309 Archangel Michael 29
Alexis, sebastos from Stenimachos 312 archbishop 28, 510
Alexis I Comnenos, emperor 276, archbishopric 83
295-296, 300, 303, 306, 309, 326, 342, Archbishopric ofOchrid 395,414
356 Archiereus 28
Alexis III Angelos, emperor 296 archont 272
Alexis Slav, despot 24, 54, 104, 149, archypresbyter 125
151, 229, 279-282, 292, 294, 334, 407, argentum 142
433 ariko 409-411
Ali <;a~ from Sofia 458 aristocracy 29, 38, 152, 193, 205, 250,
aliegena 78 258,262,295,304-305,319,368-369
all-faithful 217 Ark of the Covenant 255
540 INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
Armenian 52, 68, 88, 118, 145, 159, 362 459,462,468-467,474,479,484,490,

armophylax 354 495, 512
army 40, 42, 45, 68, 75, 84, 87, 92, 95, BalSa III 356
111-112, 122, 139, 157, 176, 181,221, Baltic 73, 75, 141-142, 368
253, 261, 263, 355, 361, 362-363, 373, ban 48, 198, 265, 270, 343, 348, 463
378,385-386,434-435,437,440-441, Banja 423
443, 445-447, 450, 454, 478, 483, Banjska 447
485-486 Banjska Monastery 429
arpa emini 483 banner 148,225-227,352
art 3, 144, 201, 232 n. 49, 236, 240, Baptism 86, 257
260,495 barbarian 40, 183, 193, 208, 213, 363
artisan(s) 144, 494-496 ba~ defterdar 324
a~p 486 Basll, archbishop 339
Asenide(s) (or Asen) dynasty 220-222, Basll II Bulgaroctonos 83, 395, 211,
280,282,398,471 414, 493, 499
Asenovgrade 22 Basll Lupu, prince of Moldavia 386
Ashina 259 Basileuousa Polis 237, 456
Asia Minor 122, 142, 252 n 95, 372, basileus 102, 116, 133, 135, 195, 203,
374, 384-385, 437 n. 224 212-214,221,223-224,226-227,
asomatic 502 245,262-263,276-277,280,282-283,
Asparukh,khan 186,395 286-287,289,290,293,295-300,
assembly 40-41, 179, 251-259, 394 306-307, 309, 313, 317, 321, 324,
Assyro-Babylonian 145 326-327, 330, 332, 337, 340, 342, 346,
asylum 121, 145, 162, 173, 179 348-349, 354-355, 361, 368, 378, 382,
Athonite 229 414, 439, 466, 505
atmanct 458, 480 Batoshevo 22
augustus 135, 303, 308 Bavarian 85, 128, 366
autocephalous 504, 511 bazdar 458
autocrat 133, 214, 236, 288 baya 29
autocrator 133, 295 beatus 123, 127
auxiliator 115, 117 bee-keeper 129, 476
Avar(s) 88, 366, 368 beg- 29, 85, 265
Avestan 32, 41, 46, 50-51, 58, 61, 65, beglerbeg 480
68, 71, 73-74, 76, 85, 92, 94, 99, 113, Bela-Alexis 276
117, 134, 136-137, 140, 149, 152-153, Belaour 233
158-159, 162, 166-168, 172-173, 180 bellatores 250
bellum 132
bagain 29, 265, 270 Benjamin 255
bagatur 351-352 Berislav, sebastos 24, 312
bagh 29 bestia 461
bagrenitsa 225-226 Bethlehem 219
bagrenoroden 226 Bible 197-198, 200, 202, 232, 236-238,
bajan 29,31 243, 246, 519
balabanct 458, 480 biblical 151, 190 n 9, 211,213, 233-234,
Balkan Peninsula 69, 189, 265, 362, 237-238, 241-242,244, 246, 249,255
454,476 bicephalous eagle 289
Balkan(s) 1, 5, 9, 31, 87, 112, 116, 128, bir 400
145, 150, 165, 171, 188, 218, 265, 278, birk 399-400, 477
287, 290, 293-294, 297, 311, 317, 323, bishopric 66-67, 125
332, 334, 336, 340, 343-344, 347, 355, bishop(s) 29, 37, 44, 64, 66-67, 76, 93,
362, 362 n. 277, 363, 365, 379, 382, 108, 195, 225, 275, 365, 498, 503, 507,
384-385, 387-388, 395, 404, 407, 409, 510-511, 514
435, 435 n. 217, 446, 452, 455-456, Bitolja, town 19, 215
INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES 541
Black Sea 228, 294 390,395,398,400,402,404-408,

blood revenge 188-189 410-416, 418, 420, 424-427, 432-433,
Bogdan. zhupan 371 435-436,440,442,444,446,449,
bogomil 64, 512 450-452, 454-456, 461-466, 469, 471,
bolla 38, 152-153, 362 475,478,480,484-486,489,491-492,
bolla kaukhan 153, 362 494-499, 504, 509, 511, 513-514,
Bojana, village 22, 280, 301-302 516-521
boliar/in/ 265, 270 Bulgarian(s) 1-13, 26, 28-33, 38,
boliarka 265 40-41, 45, 48-50, 52, 55, 62-63, 69,
Booty 89, 166, 169, 171-172 73-74, 76, 80-81, 83, 85, 87-88, 102,
Boril, tsar 226, 302 107, 123-125, 128, 136, 141, 147, 149,
Boris-Michael, khan 192, 194, 209-211, 152, 155, 164, 166, 183 IL 1, 185-186,
236, 253, 258 192, 193-194, 201-203, 207-212,
Bosnia 254, 333, 342, 348, 511 214-216, 219, 226-233, 235-241,
Bosnian 65, 318, 322, 331, 348, 467, 243-244,247-256,260-262,264-275,
511 IL 24 279-285,287,291-294,297-298,
Bosphorus 250, 456 300-302, 305-306, 308, 310-315, 317,
Botevgrade, town 24 319-325, 327-330, 332-334, 336-338,
Boyar(s) 38, 192-193, 242, 246, 341, 344-347, 349-359, 361-365,
249-250, 280, 283, 311-312, 323-324, 367-379, 381-392, 393 IL 3, 395-398,
344, 369, 371, 468, 482 400-404,406-409,411-414,415 IL 114,
Bozhenishki Urvich 24, 268 IL 8, 310, 417-420, 424, 425 n. 174, 426-427,
371 432,434,436,438-444,448-450,452,
Bozhenitsa, village 310-311, 371 456, 459-460, 462-463, 466, 470-471,
brani~tari 338, 446, 486 473-476,478-481,483,486,489-490,
B~ov (Kronstadt), town 10, 18, 69, 492, 495, 498-499, 507-508, 510-511,
107, 116, 147, 230, 264, 266-267, 370, 513-517, 520-521
476 IL 425 bulla aurea 137, 149, 228-229
bread 68,148,442-443,446 biirger 70, 128, 147, 266, 366 n. 290
brod 429 Busmantsi, village 371
brodarina 430 byre 29
brodina 430 Byzantine 2-3, 5, 9, 36, 42, 62-63, 66,
brodnina 397, 429-431, 453 88, 92, 106-107, 124, 132, 135, 144,
brudina 39, 430 148, 161, 166, 195, 200-203, 208-212,
Bucak (or Budjak) 386 214-226, 230, 232, 234, 236, 239-240,
Budget Act 394 247,250,260,262,264-265,267-269,
Bulgar(s) 1, 3, 29-31, 33, 38, 60, 88, 274-275,277-282,284-287,289-303,
109, 133, 152-153, 186, 193, 207-208, 305-311, 313-314, 318-337, 339-340,
210-211, 218, 221, 231, 265-267, 342-349, 351, 353-360, 362-363, 369,
274, 305, 312, 328-329, 333-334, 350, 372-378, 380-383, 389, 390-392,
352-354, 362-363, 365-367, 369, 385, 395-399, 404, 407-409, 410, 412-416,
390-391, 395, 400, 414 418, 422, 424-425, 427, 429-430, 433,
Bulgaria 1-4, 7, 9-11, 18, 41, 59, 66, 435-436,439-442,444,448,450-454,
69, 74, 80, 83, 89, 92, 109, 135-136, 456-458,461-463,466-473,476,
139, 147-148, 187, 200-203, 205-212, 479-481, 484, 486, 492-493, 498-499,
214-218,220-225,227-230,233-234, 505, 508-509, 511-514, 516, 519,
236, 238-239, 242, 247-248, 250-255, 520-521
257-260,263-268,272,274-275, Byzantine Commonwealth 3, 201, 208,
277-286,289-290,292-295,297-299, 214, 217, 232, 262, 398, 516, 520
302-306, 308-312, 314-317, 319-328, Byzantine Empire 2-3, 66, 92, 107, 148,
332-333, 334 IL 191, 336, 338-340, 195,212, 218, 221, 224-225, 240
344, 346-348, 351 n. 245, 352-362, IL 62,262,264,274-275, 278, 280,
365-370, 373-377, 381-383, 386, 389, 291, 294, 298, 301, 306, 308, 310-311,
314, 325-326, 330, 332-334, 336-337, Celestial Turks 258

339-340,342,344-345,347,353-354, cella 80, 357
356-357,359,363,372-375,377-37~ Celtic 137, 144
380, 382-383, 390-391, 395, 39~ 412, Cenobitic 103
414, 422 n. 154, 433, 450, 463,469, centurio 378
479, 484, 498, 505, 50~ 513, 520 ceremony 289-291, 298-299, 327-328
Byzantium 55, 83, 92, 113, 213, 217, chancellery 56,60,89, 227
263, 383, 385, 415, 443, 448 11. 284, chancellor 148, 342, 344
461, 467, 470, 490, 514 chancery 270, 291, 293, 317, 337,
339-341,343-344,345-348
cadastre 50, 110, 130, 425 nn. 174, Chantak, village 9
176,463-464,471 charagma 415
caesar 58, 150, 192, 211, 268, 275, 277, charge(s) 394, 396, 401, 418-420,
281, 295, 298-299, 302-305, 307, 319 426-428,454
Caius Julius Caesar 302 Charlemagne, king and emperor 85,
faktrct 458, 480 213-214
faktrctba~t 480 chartophylax 147-148
cmra~i, town 19 chelnik 363-365, 462
calu~ar 387 chelnik of the treasury 364
calva 52 chergubylia 21, 265, 270
camara~ 324, 469, 483 chergubylstvo 265
camerae praefectus 323, 468 chertog 207, 312
canon 34-36, 77-78, 80, 99, 114, 120, cherubim 502
126, 138, 162, 171, 503 Cherven, town 22, 25
canon law 13, 32, 34-35, 64, 67, 76, 83, chetkat 349
89, 90, 93, 104, 113, 140, 162, 503-508 chieftain 45, 188
Cantacuzene, Byzantine family 296 Chigochin 350
canton 80 chigot 274, 349-353
capital 38, 129, 150, 218, 227, 237, 250, Chilandari monastery 448
260 11. 127, 270, 282, 312, 314, 327, chin 271
336-337, 339, 342, 344, 349, 367, 381, Chinese 148
383, 456, 458-459, 476 Chiprovtsi, town 495
capitaneus 375-376 chiton 316
capitano 375 n. 329, 376 chlamys 316
capitanus 375-376 chora 101, 148, 271, 359, 360
captain 376, 381, 389 Christian 2-3, 98, 170-171, 190,
captive 162, 164, 171 192-196, 199-201, 206, 208, 232,
caput 375 234-235,238-241,243-244,256,260
career 145 n. 127, 332, 362 n. 277, 369, 371, 379,
Carstea, jitnicer of Suceava 483 385, 455, 501-502, 504
castellum 80 Christianity 1, 3, 112, 134, 191-192,
castle 80, 164, 265 194, 197, 201, 203, 208-210, 212, 221,
castrum 55-56, 80, 86 223, 239-241, 243, 251, 253, 265, 390,
casula 84 396, 501, 504, 509, 516
ca tastifi I ca tastihi 464 christus 86
Catholic 502, 504 Chronicle of Ioannina 278
altun 80 Chronicle of Morea 278
Caucasian 109, 228 chrysobull(s) 9-10, 19, 26, 74, 87, 90,
Caucasus 316 98, 103-104, 228-229, 293, 310-311,
caulae 84 325-326, 342-343, 370-371, 373,
causidicus 125 375-378, 380-384, 386-387, 389, 399,
cavalry 27, 83-84, 139, 142, 355, 378, 401-403, 405, 408-410, 412, 414-415,
380-383,386,445-446,455,485 417,419-420,422-431,433-434,436,
faVU~ 270, 385 438-450, 452-453, 459-460, 462-463,
470-471,472-478,482,484-488,490, commater 165

492, 494, 497 commercium 86, 419
chrysobullon sigillion 229 Commune 102-103, 147
chrysobullos horismos 229 communico 84
Chsounos 367 Comnenos dynasty 295, 306, 375
Church 25, 27, 29, 50, 65, 67, 86, 115, Comnenos, Hadrian 306
118, 124, 144, 148, 152, 161, 166, Comnenos, Isaac 295, 309
180-181, 235, 237, 240, 243, 314, Composed Zographou Chyrosobull 312
337, 399-400, 421 n. 152, 447, 498, condemnation 56, 105, 133
501-511, 51~ 516, 520 confugere 121
chvanchi 274 coniux 141
fiftlrk 45, 73, 407 Conon de Bethune, crusader 296
city 35, 40-41, 55-56, 69, 95, 116, 125, consanguineus 154
128, 145, 147, 150, 164, 218, 227, 237, consecration 49, 104
254, 264, 266-267, 307, 312, 327, 336, Constantine the Great, emperor 30, 44,
345, 365, 370-373, 383-384, 388, 451, 226,237,239-240,275,303
478, 495, 511 Constantine V Copronymus, emperor
civil law 36, 47, 71, 78, 122, 142, 504 252, 349, 354
clan 40, 82, 96, 110, 132, 164, 188, 218, Constantine VII Prophyrogennetus,
222, 259, 388 emperor 31, 71, 250, 361, 368
clausura 81 Constantine IX Monomachos, emperor
clergy 99, 115-116, 123, 134, 497-498, 309
509-510, 512-513, 515 Constantine Tich Asen, tsar 7-9, 19,
clirics 493, 498 25, 222, 248, 282-283, 310
Codex Clozianus 12, 18, 197 Constantine Ceroularios, patriarch 309
Codex Suprasliensis 30, 41, 62, 64, 81, Constantine, despot 279, 284-289, 294
133, 139, 211, 226, 254, 256, 325, 368, Constantine, protovestiarios 461
462 Constantine Kostenechki 374
coin(s) 11-12, 25-26, 74, 82, 109, 142, Constantine Mannasses, chronicler 30,
177, 203, 276, 285, 293, 294, 411, 210, 226, 232, 236-237, 245, 249, 257
414-415, 416 n. 118, 473 Constantine Palaeologos, sebastocrator
coliba~ 108 296
coloni censiti 493 Constantine ~erban, prince ofWalachia
colophon 26 385
comes 27, 30, 43, 58, 80, 83, 85, 89, Constantinople I, 38, 139, 195, 203,
102, 107-108, 110, 128, 157, 164, 206, 208, 212, 216-218, 221-223,
191, 194-195, 201, 211, 225, 275, 303, 226-228, 230, 237, 239, 250-252,
306, 315, 318, 321, 325, 329, 336-339, 260,262,264,270,274,276-277,
341, 354, 364-366, 371, 373-374, 378, 279-280,282-285,287,290-291,
380-382, 387-388, 401, 411, 414, 416, 294-296, 298-299, 301, 307, 313-314,
461,470,475-476,478,482,487, 316, 320, 324, 327, 329, 330, 332,
489-490,492,495,518 334-335, 337-338, 340, 345, 347,
comes ofthe/imperial/stables 336-337 354-356, 375, 382, 383, 390, 395, 398,
comes sacrae vestis 321 454, 456, 466, 479, 499, 501, 504, 509,
comes with horses 380-381 511-514, 520
comestabulus 266, 336, 338-339 Constantinopolitan synaxarium 259
Comitopouloi 221, 414 constitutio 146
comis 446 constitution(s) 146, 190 n. 9, 203, 205,
comiiel 381 507
commander 29,40,45-46,52, 55, 59, constitutional 187, 205
69, 80, 147, 239 n. 60, 297, 356, 357, consuetus 103
362-363, 366, 368-369, 372-373, 379, consularius 248
381, 385 continere 140
contostablos 306 curopalates 269, 270, 304-305,

contract(s) 57, 68, 71, 81-82, 91-92, 314-320
103, 166 custom(s) I, 86, 126, 150, 185,
contributor 57 187-188, 194, 198-199, 313, 352, 415,
convent 252,412 417-420, 425, 430, 506, 518
coquus 111 Customary 103
cornu 132 customary law 185, 188, 198
corona 225 Cyril, saint 194-195, 201-202, 303,
Corpus Christi 502 362, 521
Cortes 393 Cyril, metropolitan of Kiev 293
corvee(s) 35, 40, 53, 55, 66, 75, 84, 94, Cyrillic 21, 202, 225, 247, 274-275,
108, 112-113, 130, 142, 145,261, 339, 304, 320, 359, 391, 433, 499, 508, 512
384, 393, 396, 402, 410, 419, 421,
423, 425, 428-429, 432, 433 n 208, Dagon 255
434,436,438,440-443,445-451, dairy 29, 426, 427
453-455,457,459-460,477-482,485, Dalmatian 432
487-488 dalmatlc 288
Cosmas the Presbyter 12, 19, 41, dan' 399, 402
47-48,155,496 Dandolo, Enrico, doge 279
Costin, Miron, chronicler 386 Danube, river 214, 248, 333, 335, 348,
Council 37, 50, 71, 115, 128, 140, 449, 357, 371, 376, 449, 467, 476, 512
178, 210, 226, 248-251, 252 n 95, Danubian principalities 5
254-256, 323, 339, 343, 358, 468, 483, dapifer 335-336
501, 503, 507, 510 dare 112, 321, 326, 330, 349, 399, 416,
court 58, 66, 122, 129, 143, 178-179, 439,498
230, 232, 254, 261-263, 269-270, daughter 159, 276, 279, 282-283, 289,
276-277,281-282,284,286,291,295, 511, 516, 520
297-298,307,310,312-318,320-324, David, king 244
326-336, 339, 346-347, 352, 354, 358, deacon(s) 503, 512
381-383, 391, 401, 432, 446, 455-457, De administrando imperio 361, 368 n
466,469,476,479-480,483 302
craft 144, 495 debitor 60
craftsmen 491, 493-495 debitum 60
creator 75, 140, 187, 200, 223 debt 60,122,152,407
Credo 501 Decani, monastery 423
crime 56, 85, 127, 157, 159, 173, 188, decima 475
196 decimator 475
Crimea 156, 386 decurio 59
Crimean 220 dedets 64, 511-512
Croatia 481 defterdars 324
Croatian 107,347,368 Dejan 277
crown 37, 51-52, 60, 223, 225, 227, demosia 420
283,285-289,300-301 demosion 420
Crown giver 223 depotatus 505
Crusaders 276, 370 derventc1 379, 455
cucinae praejectus 336 desert 128, 514-515
Cultural Hero 187, 200 desertum 128
Cumans 136, 385 desetina 475
cum mater 87 desetkar 404, 461, 474
cup-bearer 66, 274, 328-330, 332-333 desetkar ovchi 476
cura 115, 315 desetkar pchelni 476
curae palatiorum 316 desetkar svinni 475
cura palatii 315 desetnic 378, 475
curare 315 desetnik 264, 378
desjatak 402 Doucas, Isaac 301

despot 8, 26, 35, 54, 58, 104, 149, 151, douleutes 492
217, 229, 268, 275-300, 302-305, 320, douloparoikoi 492
364, 407, 419, 433 D ragalevtsi, village 10
despotate 278 Dragas, John, despot 277
despoteia 278 Dragoman, kastrophylax 377
despotitsa 289 Dragoslav, despot 285
Dessislava 301 Drinov, Marin 26
Deuteronomy 196-197, 242 droggarios 249
diabaton I diavato 417, 430-431, 453 Dromos 450
diac 469, 483 druzhina 62, 230, 231
diadem 60, 225 driava 224, 268 n. 7
Digenis Acritas 239 Dubrovnik(Ragusa) 9, 19, 41, 43, 60,
dijma 404, 475 62, 74, 80, 87-88, 98, 102, 104, 109,
dijmar 475 125, 128, 140, 143, 229-230, 251, 254,
dijmt'.lrit 404 256, 264, 267, 284, 299, 399, 401-402,
dlkanikion 317 417, 432, 467
Dimiter, zhupan 365, 367, 369 duka 356
Dimiter from Musina 129, 476 Dulo 218
Dimitrie Cantemir, prince of Moldavia Durazzo, town 339
483 dux 45, 62-63, 269, 317, 356-357,
dimnina 397, 408-409, 413-414 373-376
dimosia 462 dvor 230, 318
dimosion 462 dvornic(s) 317-319, 343
Diocletian, emperor 303 dykeraton 411
dioiketes 470
ditare 102 Eastern Roman Empire 101, 193
Ditsevg, Bulgar dignitary 259 ecclesia 61, 152
divan 247, 483 Ecclesiastes 242
Divine Revelation 232, 244, 506 ecclesiastical 28-29, 51-52, 61, 65, 67,
divinity 36, 134, 502, 518 76-77, 79, 89, 93, 115, 118, 121,
divitission 301 125-126, 134, 138, 140, 144, 147, 152,
divorcium 132 180, 196, 227, 314, 346, 498, 502, 508
dizmarstvo 404 ecclesiasticus 152, 246
Dobrich, town 20 Edoga 4, 6, 19, 161, 166, 171, 195-197
Dobromir 341, 344 Ecumenical 50, 115, 226, 295, 506
Dobrotitsa, despot 284, 293-294 Ecumenical Councll!s 37, 226, 501,
Dobrudja 294, 365, 367 503,507
Dobrun 322, 467 Ecumenical Patriarchate of
dodge 90, 279 Constantinople 504, 511
doganct 379, 458, 480 Egyptian 242-243
doganctba~t 379, 458-459, 480 Ekthesis nea 291, 299
dohodak 400-401, 418 IL 129 Eltimir, despot 279, 281, 284, 294
Dojran 22 emere 87
Dolna Kamenitsa, village 25, 283, emperor 9, 30, 85, 133, 211-213, 217,
285-286,288-289 224,226-227,236,238-240,245-246,
domestikoi 312-313 252, 275-276, 279-280, 282, 301, 303,
dominare 44, 54 305, 308-309, 312-313, 316, 330, 339,
dominus 54, 81, 215, 275 346, 348, 383, 507
domus 61 Empire 5, 43, 85, 94, 102, 113, 135,
donare 112 151, 196, 202, 208, 214-217, 219, 221,
donatio 57 224-225,227-228,233,235,238-239,
donor 57, 86 242, 260, 262, 264, 270-271, 275-276,
donum 57, 112 282,284,286,291,293,295-298,
300-304, 306, 308-309, 311, 313, faliigyel6 147, 266

315-316, 320-321, 330, 340, 355-356, fanar, finar 446, 486
359-360, 368, 374-375, 395, 397-398, faveo 53
404, 406, 410-416, 419, 422, 425-427, fee 39, 47, 53, 59, 84, 137, 143-144,
433-435,441,443-444,447-448, 399, 413, 421, 423, 425, 429-431, 435,
451-452, 456, 462, 467, 470, 478, 481, 440,453
497, 499, 504-505 feria 108
empress 150, 223 fero 76
emstvo 401, 432 fidelis 34, 51, 52
encomion 231-233, 235-237, 240-243, fides 39, 171
246 firmare 118
English 54, 61, 65, 76, 205 First Bulgarian Empire 3, 29, 31, 69,
enohiar 331 152, 211, 250-251, 266, 305, 353, 365,
epicernius I epikernios 66, 274, 330 398, 414
epilourikon 345 First Ecumenical Council 37, 226, 501
Epiphany 338 fiscal 27-28, 40, 42, 45-46, 50, 55,
Epirus 278, 313, 340, 364 59, 63, 69, 73-74, 83, 86, 92-93, 109,
episcopal 28-29, 67, 109, 510, 512 111, 113, 121, 129-130,261,266,
episcopus 67 268, 323, 342, 352, 374-375, 387-388,
epoireiai 414 390, 392, 394-399, 402, 404, 406,
Ermiar 367 408-412, 415-416, 418, 420, 422-431,
Escorial taktikon (see also Taktikon of 434,436-440,442,444-445,451,
Oikonomides or Scorialensis) 453,463-464,468,470-472,474,477,
337 482-483,485,498-499
esnaf 496 flag 148-149
Etats generaux 394 foenarius 142, 446
Eucharistic 256, 502 fold 29,84
Eunuch(s) 43, 263, 321, 326-328, 330, folnagy 147
334,466 folnog 147, 266
Eurasian steppe 1, 3, 40, 192, 207, 218, ffinok 147, 266
270,366,368-369,390 fornicate 35, 126, 139, 155
Europe 2, 186, 200-212, 221, 257, 332, fornication 36, 90, 166
363, 439, 447, 489, 501 fornico 126
European 69, 188, 199, 203, 213, 230, forum 145, 147
239, 253, 257, 262, 337, 366, 372, 404, Frankish 213-214, 512
493 Frederic I Barbarossa, emperor 370
Euthymius, patriarch 30, 44, 51, 75, (transfer to letter B[No, I thnk it is
96, 99, 149, 226-227, 270, 312, 344 better to be cited here on F than on
Evliya <;:elebi 483 B - Ivan Bil.])
exactor 121 French 61, 77, 324, 332, 355, 515
exarch 65 frumenti 69
exsecrari 124 fumilrit 409
eyewitness 133 furium 85
Ezigaton 349
Gabrovo, town 22
facio 65 gardener 487
facultas 60, 61 Genoa 63, 477
faingl 266 Genoese 419
fair 108, 120, 140, 145, 147, 394 gens 132
faith 39, 71, 78, 120, 158, 170-171, genu 82
184, 187, 190, 192-196, 199, 232, genus 82
239-240, 243, 507, 509-510 George I Terter, tsar 283-284, 294
faithful 52, 217-218, 502-503, 519 George II Terter, tsar 220
falconer 53,383,456,458,478,480 George Acropolites 312
George Brankovic, despot 277, 462 grates 71

n. 345 great captains 376, 389
Georgian 109, 207, 228 great comes 336-339, 380-381
gephyra 453 great comes of the imperial stables 336
gephyrosis 453 great comis 446
gerakar 455, 461, 478-480 great defterdar 324
German 39, 42, 46, 48, 54, 61, 63, 65, great dux 63,317,356-357
70, 76, 82, 85, 90-91, 95, 101, 110, great grammatik 348
118, 128, 147, 159, 163, 166-167, great hunter 481
170, 207, 264, 267, 323, 339, 361, great kliuchar 358
468,472 Great Laura, monastery 424
Germanic 35, 42, 86-88, 90, 110, 148, great logothete 340-344, 348
152, 155, 166, 177, 207, 209, 214, 266, Great Migration of Peoples 186
273, 511-512 Great Moravia 87, 194-195, 202,
geron 138 361-362, 509, 512, 521
Giacomo di Pietro Luccari 284 Great Preslav 51, 221
Giannis/lani 362 great primmicerius 306, 326-328, 331,
Gigen 19 379
Giray 220 great vataf 388-389
Glagolitic 20, 202 great vizir 340-341
glava 271 great voevoda 46, 361
godmother 165 great zhupan 367, 369
GOktiirk 258 Greece 19, 23, 424
Golesh 19 Greek 3, 5, 9, 27-35, 37-38, 40, 42-46,
gornina 397, 421-423, 425-426, 48-51, 53-63, 65-68, 70-71, 73-86,
439-440, 450 88-89,91-95,97-102, 104-111,
gor~tina 425 115-136, 138-141, 144, 146-152,
Gospel 54, 192, 195, 197, 240-241, 521 154-155, 157-175, 177-180, 183,
go~odar 215,271-272 200,202,207-218,223-226,230-231,
go~odin 215, 271-272 233-236, 241, 243, 247, 249, 252,
gost 511 254-257,260,263-276,278,290,
Gothic 42, 47-48, 50-53, 60, 63, 65, 292, 299, 302, 303-304, 308, 315,
68, 90-91, 148, 150, 207, 508 317, 319-321, 325-326, 330-334, 337,
Goths 211 340-341, 345-347, 349-350, 353-354,
government 12, 55, 97, 205, 254, 261, 356-367, 369, 372, 375, 377-378,
333, 339, 372, 393, 466, 480, 504, 510, 382-383, 389, 391-392, 396-398, 401,
511 403n 45,404-409,411-412,414,
governor(s) 46, 80, 85, 123, 133, 271, 416-417, 422, 424, 429, 431-436,
297, 307, 319, 349, 362, 367, 370, 438 n 226,443-444,448,451-452,
372-374, 376 454,461-462,464-466,471-473,475
grad 360,452 n 417,476,478-479,480-481,486,
gradar 461, 487 490, 493, 495-499, 507-510, 512-517,
Gradets, village 22-23 520-521
gradobliudenie 460 Gregoras, Nicephorus 362
gradozidanie 422-423, 439-440, Gregory Dobropisets 371
450-452, 454, 488 Gregory Presbyter and Monk 245
grammatik I grammatikos 269, Gregory Tzamblak 374
340-341, 344, 347-348 guard 35, 40, 92, 108, 139, 145, 149,
grand favu~ 270 315-316, 378, 383-384, 388, 441, 457,
grand dux 269 460
grand echanson 332 guardian 40,80, 377,384
grand logothete 269, 306 guilt 42, 47, 50, 56, 97, 152, 156
grand primmicerius 269 Gypsies 122
grand zhupan 216, 296 Gypsy 107
habitus 77 Holy Trinity 49, 50, 502

Hadrianopolis, town 259 homicide I homicidium 47, 145, 147
Hagiorite 414, 440-441 Honorius III, Pope 296
Hagioritic 9 horismos 9, 74, 228-229
Hagios Germanos 19 horugva 207, 226
Hairetisms 235 hosiomartyr 127
Halil, zhupan. son of Ibrahim bin Hac1 hosios 51
371 hospitium gratuitum 444
Hamartolos, George 249 hosrismos 104
Hambarli. village 362, 363 hostis 54, 124
Hann 147 Hreljo, protosebastos and kesar 303, 307
Harold Hardrada, king of Norway 350 humus 73
harp 244 Hungarian!s 40, 85, 88, 147, 179, 264,
hazinedarba~1 324, 469 266-267, 368, 276, 280, 290-291, 319,
Hazine-i Amire 324 370
Hazine-i Hassa 324 Hungary 216,276,294,332
head 27, 29, 40, 45, 50, 52, 63, 76, 80, Huns 88
88-89,97, 122, 138, 143, 164, 188-189, hunt 45, 47, 89, 111, 157, 456-457,
217, 232, 240, 259, 271-272, 277, 286, 459,479-482
311, 321-323, 325, 341, 344, 355, 365, hunting 45, 53, 84, 89, 129, 433, 453,
369, 371-373, 375-376, 379, 385, 455, 455-459, 479-481
464, 480, 502-503, 510 hyperpers 439-440
Hebrew 27, 86, 238, 243, 256, 514 hyperpyron 415
hegoumen(os) 76, 138
Henri. emperor 279-280, 282 Iani 362
herald 77 ic 152
hereditare 96 Icelandic 53, 70, 73, 86, 110, 117-118,
heres 97 121, 138, 141, 148-149, 153, 169, 172,
heresy 35, 67, 114 177
heretic 64, 67, 98 ichirgou boila 152-153
hermit 118, 128, 371 idiorhytmic 89
hermitage 128, 515 idolatry 76
Herzog 361 imitari 116
Heterodox 77, 120 immotus 98
hetman 386 impedire 78, 107
hexapholon 411 imperare 101, 151
hierarchy 212, 262, 282, 285, 295-298, imperator 151, 213
303-304, 306, 316, 320, 327, 330, 335, imperial 30, 58, 60, 74-75, 77, 82, 85,
337, 340, 342, 346, 348, 355-356, 367, 88-89, 92, 97-98, 104, 109, 114, 117,
380, 382, 384, 389, 469, 477, 479, 481, 124, 129, 137, 139, 149-151, 193, 203,
488, 502-504, 505, 511 208, 210, 212-214, 221, 224, 226-230,
hieromonk 76, 135 233-235, 238, 242, 247, 260, 263,
Hinat, sebastos 24, 312 268, 275, 277, 280, 283, 285, 288,
Hincmar, archbishop of Reims 192, 290, 293-295, 298, 302-303, 313-314,
257 325-326, 328, 330, 333-341, 344, 348,
Hittite 107, 149, 181 371, 377-378, 396, 419-420, 424, 433,
Hochdeutsch 51, 65, 70 448,450-451,455-456,461,469-470,
hodostrosia 454 476,479-482,485-486,505,507
Holy Apostles 337, 502 imperial cupbearer 328, 330
Holy Ghost 506-507 imperialis 149
Holy Scripture 71, 151, 197, 213, 233, imperium 151
236,239,241-244,246,506,515 impertitio 112
Holy See 290, 337, 339 Indian 53, 101, 137
Holy Tradition 506 indictio 77
Indo-European 30, 35-36, 38-39, Jewish 71, 190-191, 241

41-45, 47-48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, Jews 190-191, 506
60-61, 63-65, 74-76, 81-82, 84, 86, jitar 483
89-95, 97, 100-103, 105-108, 110, jitarit 440
112-114, 119-122, 124-125, 128-130, jitarstvo 440
132-133, 137-139, 141-143, 145-146, jitnicer 483
154-155, 157, 159-163, 166-171, 173, Joasaph copy 156
175, 177, 180, 275, 366, 489-490, 497, Job 242
517 John 220
inimicus 47 John Alexander, tsar 9, 19, 25, 220,
Innocent III, pope 149, 227, 336, 339 222, 232-237, 239, 241, 283-284,
insignia 151, 224-228, 285-286, 287-288, 294, 310, 341, 399, 412, 419,
288-289, 295, 298, 300, 303, 316-317, 422,482
320, 331, 462, 467, 479 John I Asen, tsar 219, 227
intercessor 73, 115, 117, 125 John II Asen, tsar 8-9, 18-19, 25, 230,
ira 104 279, 310, 412, 462 n. 348, 486
Iranian 39, 88, 228, 351-352, 362 John III Asen, tsar 282
Irish 60, 62, 82, 91, 95, 101, 114, 141, John Asen, tsars, two sons of tsar John
145-146, 152, 167, 174, 178 Alexander 284, 288, 300
Isaac 295, 301, 309 John VI Cantacuzene, emperor 278,
Isaiah 242, 245 283, 300, 321, 324, 466
Islam 190-191, 505-506 John Dragoslav 293
Islamic 2, 191, 220 John Exarch 231
ispravnic 79 John Oliver, despote 277, 293, 423
Israel 151, 190 n. 9, 213, 224, 241, John Shishman, tsar 10, 19, 25-26,
244-245,255-257 220, 283-284, 287-288, 302, 310, 373,
Italian 62, 80, 121, 128, 495-496, 513 378, 380, 384, 403, 423 11. 160, 439,
itzirgou boila 362 443, 473, 482, 487
iudex 143, 318 John Sratsimir, tsar 10, 18, 25, 69, 116,
iudex curie 318 147, 211, 230, 370
iudex et palatinus curie nostre 318 John Stephen, tsar 220, 283, 325, 344,
iudex generalis 318 466
iudicare 143 John Teeter, despot 284, 293-294,
iudicium 143 419
iugum 73 John Uglesa, despot 277
iuppanum 370 John Vladislav, tsar 19, 215
ius 120 Joshua 239,246,257
iustitia 120 Joshua ben Sira 246
iustus 120 Judah 213
Ivailo, tsar 354 Judaic 191
Ivanovo, village 23 Judaism 190, 505-506
Iviron, monastery 424 Judea 151
Izbornik I Izbornik of AD 1073 231, 233 judex 69, 370
izgonchia 486 judge(s) 18, 59, 99, 105, 143, 172,
178, 197, 240-241, 285, 288, 312,
jail 35, 73 318, 320, 420, 437, 454, 461, 463,
Jambol, town 23 470,482
janissary 385, 457, 481, 486 Jurech, protobistial 322, 467
Jeremiah, prophet 239 juridical 18, 31-32, 34-36, 47, 49-50,
Jerusalem 237, 239, 245, 256, 504, 514 58, 60, 64, 69, 73-75, 81-82, 84-85,
Jerusalem typicon 514 88, 94-95, 104, 109, 112, 114, 117,
Jesus Christ 49, 102, 149, 151, 192, 119, 121, 126, 156, 164-165, 193, 201,
197, 215, 227, 235, 237, 239, 289, 502 503, 518, 520-521
jurist 124, 346 kliriks 414, 498

justice 120, 173, 184, 254, 318-319, kliritsi 115
346, 373, 386, 389-390, 401, 432 kliuchar 357-358
Justinian, emperor 275 kliuchnik 357
Justinian II, emperor 305 Klokotnitsa 9, 463 n. 348
Justin II, emperor 316 kmet 265, 269
knez 267,273,377
kabbadion 286, 306, 317, 327, 335 knjaz 209-211, 216, 266, 273
kalfa 340 knjaiestvo 225
Kalojan, tsar 149, 219, 227, 281, 298, Koloman I, tsar 219
301-302, 356 komad 412
Kalotina, village 25 komada 412
Kalugeritsa, village 23 komod 405-406, 408-410, 412-414,
kamara 286 427-428,440,499
kanartikin 218 konar 379
Kanun 188-189 Konig 88, 209
Kanunname 458,480 Kordil 362
Kanunname of sultan Mehmed II 324, Kormchaja 8, 18
469 kosharshtina 426-429
Kanzellariat 339 koumerk 417-419, 431
kapnikon 408 koummerkiarioi 417
kapuagast 324 koummerkion 415, 419
Kardam, khan 210 kraguyar(s) 443, 455, 478-480
Kartvelian 109 kraishte 265
Karvouna, town 293 kral 85, 213-214, 265 n. 5
Karydochorion, village 23 kralstvo 225
Kasimbek, protostrator 354-355 Krftn, town 279
kastel 265 Krepcha, village 20,464
kastroktisia 451-452, 454 Krichim, town 23
kastroktista I I kastroktistes 55, 451 Kriva Palanka, town 23
kastrophylax 377-378 Krum,khan 210,251,259,362 n. 277
katepanikion 271, 372-374, 376 ktitor 333
katepano 375-376 Kuman, despot 294
kathisma 437, 444
katun 265 lagator 379, 455
Kekaumenos 36, 363-365 Landtag 393
kellar I kelar 80, 357-358 Latin 31, 33-34, 40-43,45,47-48, 51,
kephalia 271, 371-375, 377-378, 473 53-54, 58-59, 61-63, 65, 69, 73-75,
Kera Thamara 288 77, 79, 80-84,86-87, 91, 95, 98-101,
kesar 58, 211-212, 268 108, 110-112, 116, 119, 121-122, 125,
khagan 186-187,210 132, 134-135, 138, 141, 143, 145-147,
khaganate 186 149-152, 154, 157, 163-165, 170-171,
khan 208, 210-211, 258, 349, 363, 395 180, 184 n. 1, 199-200,211,213, 215,
Khazar 259 248-249,252,264-266,271,27~ 278-
Kichevo, town 429 279, 296, 302, 308, 315, 318-320, 323,
Kiev, town 8, 280, 292-293 326, 335, 336-338, 340, 345, 347, 357,
Kievan Rus' 461 374-375, 378, 396,401,411, 419, 436,
king 40, 62, 85, 205, 213-214, 223, 446, 461, 468,493, 508-510, 512, 515
239,241-242,244,246 latrocinium 131
kingdom 85, 225, 253 law 1-3, 5, 11-13, 17, 31-37, 42,
kinship 183, 186-187, 189, 281-282, 44-45, 47, 51-52, 55, 58, 63-65,
284, 287, 410 67-69,71,75-78,80-83,87,89-90,
Kiurigir 367 93, 95, 98-99, 101, 103-108, 113-116,
kleisoura 271, 359, 360, 417 120, 122, 126-127, 129, 134, 136, 138,
140, 142, 145, 158, 161-162, 164, lord 8, 31, 36, 54, 58, 158, 195,
166, 170-171, 175, 184-203, 205-207, 215-216, 271-272, 275-276, 279, 285,
216, 218, 223-224, 260-262, 264, 273, 293, 296, 358, 370, 416, 446, 490-494,
278-279, 333, 362, 365, 373, 390, 394, 498
397-398, 401, 417, 421, 430, 432, 460, Lord God 51, 53-54, 75, 220
493, 499, 501, 503-510, 517-520 loros 225, 285, 288
Law Code of tsar Stephen Dusan 343, Lovech, town 38, 292
421,439,445-446,450,452,492 lucrum 121
Law for Judging the People 3, 5-6, Ludovic 283
18-19, 83, 156, 173, 175, 195-198, luere 110
206,269,361,366-367,396,490
Law for the koumerk 417 Macedonia 22-23, 54, 239, 307, 340,
Law for the ~ahinct and faktrct of the 364, 370, 381-382, 424, 475, 495
sancak (district) ofVidin 458 Macedonian 239
Lazar Brankovic 277 Macedonian dynasty 345, 376
Lebedia 361 magister agazonum 338
legatus 97 magister mensarum 335
legislator 71 Magna Charta Libertatum 205
legitimus 72 magnus provisor 318
Leo III, emperor 249 Magyar 400, 418
Leo VI the Wise, emperor 312, 452 major-domo 316
Leon 362 Malachi 242
Lettish 33, 39-40, 46-47, 52, 61-62, Malalas, John, chronicler 83, 249
70, 76, 82, 92, 114, 116, 133, 141-142, malefactor 75
145-146, 149, 164, 167, 169-171 Manichaean 511-512
leul pe bute 416 manifestatio 103
Leviticus 196 Mannus 167
lex 71 mantle 301
liber 134 Mantzik.ert, town 374, 376
libertas 134 Manuel Asen, despot 300
libra 165 Manuel I Comnenos, emperor 236,
Libri Basilicorum 493 276
limes Romanus 512 Manuel Philos, Byzantine writer 301
List of the Bulgar Princes 218, 221 marginal note 17, 26, 210 n. 4, 423
Lithuania 38, 333 Mark 51, 192, 234
Lithuanian 39, 46-48, 52-53, 55, 61, marriage 38, 68, 91, 98, 112, 122, 166,
63, 65, 70-71, 76, 82, 92, 111, 114, 176-177,197-198,235,284
116, 133-134, 136, 141-142, 145, 152, marscalcus 318
157, 163-164, 167, 169-171, 177-178 marshal 355
littera 109 martolos 455
liturgical 138, 202, 216 n. 16, 223, martyr 95, 127
256-257, 302, 312, 503, 508-510, 516 master 81, 124, 194, 233, 271-272,
Liturgik.on 138 275-276,491-493,495-497
liturgy 89, 196, 502, 509 matrimony 38, 112, 119, 122, 131, 166,
locus 95 168, 170, 176-178, 235, 507
logoflt de taina 347 Matthew 234
logothete(s) 51, 89, 269, 306, 324, Matthew Basarab, prince ofWalachia
340-344,348,450,466,468 385
logothete of the vestiaria 324, 468 Matthew Ninoslav, ban of Bosnia 348
logothete tou Dromou 450 mechenosha 274, 349, 351-353
logothetehood I logothetstvo 342 Mediterranean 145, 165, 189, 192, 213,
London Gospel 232-235, 240, 245, 489, 516
279, 285, 287-288 megas doux 63
Mehmed II, sultan 324, 469, 480 Mitos 308

Melenikon, town 104, 151, 229, 310 Mizpeh 255
membrum 95 modia 395, 413
merchant(s) 9, 54, 62, 74, 86-87, 107, Moglen, town 424
116, 141, 145, 418 Mohammed, Muslim prophet 191
Messembria, town 417 Moldavia 2, 38, 45, 66, 73, 79, 89, 92,
messenger 66, 77, 97, 486 113, 136, 214-216, 247-248, 285,
mesto 359, 360 318-319, 321-323, 325, 332-333, 335,
Methodius, saint and archbishop of 337-338, 340, 344, 348, 358, 369,
Great Moravia 194-195, 201-202, 380,385-386,388-389,399,404,407,
303 n. 91, 362, 519, 521 409,416,425-426,439,446-447,
metochia 436 449,461-462,464,468-469,475-476,
Metochites, Theodore 306 483-484
metropolitan 8, 51, 93, 104, 125, 127, Moldavian 240, 244, 317, 331, 333,
148, 151, 280, 292-293, 435, 437, 466, 335-336, 338, 343, 358, 386, 483
510 Momchil 296
Michael II Asen, tsar 9, 19, 25, 62, 74, monachus 78-79, 153
302, 399, 401, 417, 432, 467 monarch 205, 210, 223, 274
Michael lii Shishman Asen, tsar 25, monastery 8-10, 27, 29, 71, 76, 78, 89,
195,220,283-284,294 91, 93, 100, 103, 107, 117-118, 128,
Michael Asen, tsar, son of the tsar John 130, 138, 141, 170, 229, 244 n. 68,
Alexander 283 357 n. 265, 371, 399, 401, 403, 405,
Michael VIII Palaeologos, emperor 355 408,410-412,414,417,420-424,427,
Michael IX Palaeologos, emperor 424 429, 430-431, 436, 439, 441, 444-445,
Michael, despot 284, 286-289, 294 447-448,449-454,459-460,463-464,
Middle Ages 1, 2 n. 1, 3, 5, 8, 12-13, 473, 480, 482, 494-495, 497, 513, 515
36, 88, 186, 189, 200-201, 205, 214, money 28, 53, 60, 82, 89, 109, 165,
216 n. 16, 228, 239, 242, 247, 250, 181, 293, 402, 408, 414-415, 421, 446,
261, 273, 325, 333, 329, 365, 368, 452,473-474,477
369-371, 395-397, 403, 405 n. 57, Mongol 29, 31, 148, 207, 225, 508
406,443-444,446,450,455,480,489, monk 39, 73, 76, 78-79, 93, 95, 103,
496, 501, 504-505, 507, 518, 520-521 117, 128, 135, 138, 153, 237, 245, 305,
Mihanovich's Minaeum 249, 350 308
military 40, 45-46, 55, 59, 62, 69, 80, monotheism 212
83, 92, 122, 136, 139, 157, 159, 176, monotheistic 191, 519
187, 231-232, 236, 239 n. 60, 241, morals 1, 184, 192
250,257-258,262,264,270,273,277, Moravia 155, 194
286, 297, 308, 319, 321, 327, 332, 337, Moravian 32, 156, 166, 174, 195-196,
345, 349, 352, 354-358, 360, 362-363, 269
366-369, 371-380, 382-383, 385-387, Moravians 194, 196
388-389, 433, 435, 437, 439, 444-446, Moravism 94, 155
450-451, 454-455, 458, 460, 465-466, Mordovian 88
478,480-482,485 Morea 278, 291
Milvian Bridge 240 Mosaic law 37
ministerium 130 Moscow 4 n. 5, 9 n. 10, 15, 18,26-29,
Mircea eel B1l.tran, prince of Walachia 33, 39, 41-42, 53, 62-63, 70, 77, 83, 87,
323 96, 151, 196 n. 19,232,237, 351
Mircea vod1l. 20 n. 242, 388 n. 370, 455 n. 315, 518 n. 3
misceo 174 Moses 190, 234, 241, 245
missal 138 Mostich, chergubylia 21, 351 nn. 243,
mistotoi 497 245
Mita, logothete 341, 344 mostnina 397, 431, 453-454
mitat 412, 427, 445, 461, 482 Mount Athos 9, 75, 424, 443, 514
mitatlonl 122, 428, 434-437, 437, 444 Mount Sinai 190
Mourtagon, khan 259 oblast 101, 271 n. 16, 360, 372 n. 319
Mraka chrysobull 19, 310-311, 375, obshtina 264
399,402-403,412,433-434,442, obshtinski 264
445-449,468,470,475,477,486-487, obventio 61, 401
494 occidere 145, 193 n. 12
mulcta 53 occupatio 104
A!undSchenk 332 Ochrid, town 83, 166, 301, 395, 414,
M urfatlar 20 496
Musina, village 129, 476 Octavian Augustus, emperor 308
Muslim(s) 98, 191, 290, 372, 506 odaba~t 324
Mutimir 481 Odartsi, village 20
mystikos 271 nn. 13, 14, 340, 345-347 Oecumene 214, 224
mythopoetical 518 ojfikion 466
Ognyan, sebastos 311-312, 371
nachalnik 271-272, 365 oikomodion 408-409, 412-414,417,499
nachalo 271-272 Old High German 52, 61, 65, 70
Nagy-Szent-Mikl6s 366, 367 n. 295 Old Testament 190, 194, 196, 213, 220,
nahiye 480 223-224, 233, 239, 241-246
nahodnik 486 Orner Avni 458
namestnik 273 Omourtag, khan 210, 259, 362
nametak(s) 427, 440-442, 459, 484-485 Oration on Heresy 12, 19, 496
Narration of Isaiah 350 ordination 49
nastoinik 271, 273 ordo 152, 271, 299, 304, 314-315, 317,
navy 355-357 319, 325
negligentia 97 Oreshak, village 21
Nehemiah 256 Oriakhovo, town and village 10, 494
Nemanides 222, 296 Orkhon, river in Mongolia 186
Nemanja, Stephen 296 orphan 130, 136, 489
nemets 183 Orthodox 4-5, 75, 102, 120, 192, 202,
Neophyte 100, 201 234-235, 260 n. 127, 262, 284, 290,
Nevsha, village 23 311, 314, 340, 390, 398, 435, 499,
New Rome 221, 237, 262, 520 502-504, 506-507, 511, 516, 520-521
New Testament 234, 241, 243, 506 Orthodoxy 120,234,240,243,504,514
Nicaea 37, 226, 280, 296, 335, 501 Osman family 220
Nicephorus III Botaniates, emperor Osmanli(s) 136, 214, 247, 265, 371,
309,326 385n. 362,386,391
Nicephorus, patriarch 252 Osmar, village 23
Nicephorus Melissenos 295 Ossetian 88, 94
Nicetas Choniates 348, 355 otrok 416, 488, 490-495
Nicholas 1st, Pope 192-193, 257 otrotzinalotrochina 416-417, 490, 492
Nicopolis, town 341, 371 Ottoman 29, 45, 73, 85, 136, 291, 324,
ni~anct 340-341 340, 364, 371, 379, 381, 384-386, 407,
nobelissimus 304, 315, 319 415 n. 115, 435 n. 217, 454, 478, 481,
nobiltty 29, 38,193,250,262,466 483, 486, 496
Nomocanon 8, 519 Ottoman Empire 220, 324 n. 160, 363,
norma 119-120 371, 407, 455, 457-458, 469, 479-481,
Norman 287 486 n. 446
Norway 350 Ovchepole 101
Notitia Dignitatum 315 ox, oxen 73, 75, 132, 397, 406-407,
Novgorod, town 26 417, 447, 449-450
novice 117
Numbers 26, 196, 367, 456 Pachymeres, George 354-355
nuntius 77, 97 padalishte 436-437, 443-444, 447
nuptials 38, 68, 176 Padishah 324
pagan 1, 3, 40, 44, 52, 65, 71, 76, 112, patriarch 51, 109, 123, 247, 271, 291,
123, 171, 174, 192, 198, 208, 210-213, 299, 365, 510
218, 243, 258-259, 275, 305, 363, 369, Patriarchy 148
504, 519 patrimonium 31, 37, 64, 346
paganus 112, 171 patrimony 31, 61, 91, 138, 163, 430
paharnig 332 Paul Claudiopolites, metropolitan of
paharnik 331 Melenikon 54, 104, 151
paharnok 332 Pax Romana 242
palace 43, 153, 230-231, 242, 263, Pazardzhik, town 21, 351
269-270, 312-314, 317-320, 371, 456, pechat 207, 228
481 Pechenegs 136,252 a 95,385
palace curator 269-270, 314, 317, Peloponnesus 372
319-320 pen 29,84,426-428, 429a 193
Palaeologos 283, 290, 296, 306-307, penal 13, 33, 35-36, 44-45, 47, 52-55,
330-331, 335, 346, 355-356, 374, 424, 64-65, 67, 71, 75-78, 80-81, 90, 95,
456 99, 101, 105, 114, 120, 124, 126-127,
Palaeologos dynasty 282-283, 317, 145, 161, 164, 166, 170-173, 189, 319,
330, 335, 346, 356, 374 389, 398, 507
Palaeoslavic 31-33, 36, 38-45, 47-54, penitence 32, 36, 83, 99, 118, 197
58, 60, 62, 68, 70-72, 78-79, 81-82, penitential 44-45, 48, 78, 126
84-88, 90-92, 94-114, 116-125, 127, Pera, Genoese colony 419
129-137, 139, 141-146, 148-149, peribrachia 301
152-154, 157, 161-177, 179-181, 209, Pernik, town 21
266, 329, 366, 520 perper 414-416, 418, 436, 439, 473-474
palatinus 318-319 perpera 343,408,414
palatium 315 perperak 414-416,461,473-474
Palauzov (Spyridon Palauzov and Persia 66
Palauzov's copy of the Synodikon) Persian 66, 73, 85, 88, 136, 153, 231,
26, 49-50, 52 247,384-385,433,495-496
Palestinian 89 person 4, 11, 30, 33, 36, 38, 40, 43,
palitsa 208, 225 47, 55-57, 59, 63-65, 67, 71, 74, 82,
panate 171 86, 98, 103, 113, 117, 120, 122, 124,
Panegyric forSt Dimitrios ofThessalonica 129, 134, 136, 147, 155, 162-165, 169,
374 173, 179, 183, 188, 197, 212, 215-218,
panis 148 231-232,237,262-263,267,269,274,
Pannonia 519, 521 289, 293-294, 310-311, 316, 320, 322,
Pannonian 174 331, 334, 339, 340, 341, 347-348, 352,
papa 108,227 a 37,336 367-371, 379, 383, 387, 414, 417, 466,
papacy 290 469,472,474-476,480,487-488,491,
papal 194 507, 509-512
paraggareia 261 433-434, 443, 446 pesjaks 444
pclrct'.Uab 386, 389 Pesnivets 232, 234-235, 241
paroikiatikon 416 Peter, tsar and saint 219, 227, 236,
paroikos 45, 108, 115, 407, 409, 417, 314, 396
433,438,488,491-495,497-498 Peter, sebastocrator 281, 298-299, 302,
paroikos-aktemon 417 401,432
paroikos-boodatos 417 Peter, logothete 341
paroikos-zeugaratos 417 Peter Deljan, tsar 253, 363
Parvomaj, town 21 petitio 125
parvoprestolen 513 pharaoh 242-243
pascere 108 Philip, logothete 344, 466
Paterikon 328, 350 Philip, priest 232, 236
PAtnluti. village 240 philochrist I philochristus 149
Phllos, Manuel 301 priest 28, 39, 44, 52, 71, 76, 79, 99,
Phllotheus 304, 316, 320, 334, 354, 382 106-107, 116, 121, 135, 172, 212-213,
Phocas, emperor 249 232, 236, 497, 512
Phrygian 73 priesthood 115, 134, 505
pincerna 306, 317, 331-333, 334 n. 191 Prilep, town 307
pious 217, 224, 233, 236, 243 primicerius 88, 122
pisets 461, 471 primmicerius 122, 265, 269, 306,
pittakia 34, 43, 125, 138, 291 nn. 53-54, 326-328, 331, 379
292 n. 55, 299 primmikirios 265
planina 110, 423-425 prince 13, 62, 88, 132, 165, 193-195,
plebs 110 209, 211, 218, 221, 219, 227, 252
pleo 110 n. 95, 266, 273, 276, 316, 318, 324,
Pleven, town 19 331-332, 338, 345, 367-368, 385, 419
Pliska, town 21, 23 n. 138, 446, 468
Plovdiv, town 21, 23, 387, 478 n. 431 princeps 88
pobirchia 265, 400, 477 Principality (-ties) 2, 5, 39, 88-89,
podvoadA 113,449 214-215, 225, 248, 304, 318-319, 323,
podvod 448 332-333, 335-337, 343-344, 348, 376,
podvoda 443,447,449 378, 380-381, 385-386, 416, 418, 430,
Poland 332-333, 363 446, 454, 462, 467-468, 476 n. 426,
police 40, 144, 376, 388-390, 433, 455, 486
459,460 Principate 303
Polish 318, 387, 468 principium 272
polytheism 212 priplata 402
pomazan 223 priselitsa 408, 435-439, 444
pomazanie 151, 223 prison 73, 145
ponos 448 privilege 121, 326, 396, 420, 422, 431,
Pontlfex 149, 227 453
pop 115, 497, 512 privilegium 121
pope 149, 227, 290, 510 Procopius of Caesarea 275
popoviani 115, 497-498 prodltor 126
populus 154 Promised Land 191
Porphyrogennetus 30, 116, 226, 361 property 8-9, 31, 36, 53, 58, 61, 71,
possessio 141 74, 77, 89, 98, 100, 102, 108-110,
post 70, 95, 128, 341, 448, 454, 481, 119, 121, 130, 138, 140-142, 174-175,
513 309, 346, 371, 394, 408, 420, 423-425,
postelnic 355 444-445,493
postoy 435 prophet 191, 241, 246
potca 119 prosecutor 154
potestas 44, 101, 275 prostagma 228, 342
povar 461, 486 protalagator 379
praefectus 323, 336, 338, 364, 468 protekdikos 124
praktor(s) 377-378, 461, 470, 474 protolerakarios 456, 480
predel 359-360 protokeliot 357, 358
prefect 133 protokelliotes 269
prelate 28, 43, 76, 293 protopapas 512
Preljub 303 protopop 125
presbyter 41, 47-48, 76, 116, 121, 127, protopresbyter 124-125, 512
155, 172, 496, 503, 512, 514 protopriest 124
Preslav, town 21, 23, 51, 202, 221, 314, protosebastos 268, 305-308, 320
351 nn. 243, 245, 367, 509, 521 protospatharios 274, 349, 351, 354
Prespa, town 19 protostrator 269, 354-355, 382
Pribo, sebastos and protosebastos 305, protothronos 513
308, 312 protovestiarion 324
protovestiarios 266, 269, 321-322, reisulkutab 341

324-326,461,466-469 remissio 125
provincia 101 renova tio 10 1
provisor curie 318 Republic 9, 19, 41, 43, 74, 88, 109, 125,
provod 448 143, 213, 221, 251, 254, 267, 432,
provost 88, 165 467
Prussian 47-48, 51-53, 65, 68, 70-71, Res Publica 235 n. 56, 504
82, 101, 114, 133-134, 142, 163, 170, responsibility 32, 42, 50, 105, 156, 168,
177 333, 373, 411, 469, 475
Prut, river 338 Revelation 71, 190-192, 232, 240-241,
Psaca 301 243-244,246,505-507
Psalms 70, 242 rex 85, 151, 211 n. 7, 213-214
Psalter 232, 234-235, 341 rex sacrorum 213
psar 455,461,479-481 rhetor 124, 133
Psellos, Michael 309, 348 Rhodope Mountains 296
Pseudo Kodinos 270 n. 12, 271 IL 14, Rhomaioi 203
277,285-287,289-291,297-301,302 Richter 69, 370
IL 84, 303, 306-307, 309 IL 114, 314 Rila 166, 227,268IL 7, 370-371,382
IL 130, 316-317, 321-322, 326-327, Rila chrysobull 10, 26, 87, 104, 229,
330-331, 334 n. 193, 335, 337, 342, 310-311, 383, 399, 403, 410, 417, 423
345-346, 354 n. 253, 355-356, 372, 379 n. 160, 430-431, 433-434, 439, 442,
IL 342, 466 niL 367-368,467,479, 481 445, 449, 470, 475, 477, 482, 485,
Pseudo-Callisthenes 238 487-488
psomozemia 441-443 Rila Monastery 10, 449
Ptolemaeus 233, 242-243, 245 Rila Narrative 370
Ptolemaeus I Soter, pharaoh 242 ritual 89, 114, 123, 174, 193, 223, 235,
Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus, pharaoh 263, 277, 290-291, 297-299, 307, 314,
243 317, 332, 335, 469, 509, 511
public law 206-207, 216, 218, 223, rob 50,273
261-262, 278, 362, 365, 394, 397, 421, Roman 77, 203, 208, 211-214, 227,
460, 517 238, 239, 242, 247, 249-251, 260, 315,
purgar 128, 266 351, 454, 502, 504, 510
puto 99 Roman Empire 92, 101, 193, 213, 290,
302-303, 315, 338, 443, 450, 504
Qur'an 2, 191, 220 Roman law 2, 87, 199, 200-201, 264
Roman Paterikon 328, 350
rabotati 271, 273 Romance of Alexander 238
rabotnik 271, 273 Romania 19, 20, 240
Radolivon, village 424 Romanian(s) 2, 69, 80, 85, 90, 119,
Radoslav, sebastocrator, brother of tsar 128, 138, 145, 150, 318-319, 323, 338,
Smilets 298, 302 347, 355, 357-358, 366-368, 371, 376,
Ragusa (Dubrovnik) 9, 41, 74, 254, 378, 381, 386-389, 399, 409, 418, 426,
477 430, 440, 446, 461, 475, 484
Ragusan 74,86, 102,141,267 Romanian principalities 39, 215, 323,
Raoul 306 336, 378, 385, 418, 454, 468, 476
Ravna, village 21, 219 n. 19 n.476,486
Raxin, protovestiarios 324, 466 Romans 192, 203, 216
regalium magister 332 Rome 108, 213, 221, 223, 237-238,
Regino, abbot 253, 257 250, 262, 303, 339, 516, 520
regio 73 Rostislav, prince 194-195
regnum 85, 151 Roussokastron 233
regula 120 Royak 24
Reims, town 192, 257 ruby 287
reiskutab 341 rufet 496
Rus' 219, 400, 461 Second Bulgarian Empire 3, 31, 38, 74,
Rusalii 387 208, 238, 250, 267 n. 6, 275, 280, 317,
Russe, town 23 328, 333, 361, 375, 377, 391, 398, 471,
Russia 5, 38, 214, 237, 269, 357 n. 265 480,498-499
Russian 6, 31, 40-41, 47, 58, 90, 94-95, Second Ecumenical Council 501
106, 139, 154, 166, 202, 210-211, 244 secretarius 271, 345, 347
n. 68, 249, 254, 269, 352, 364, 367, secretary 324, 340, 346-348, 468
387-388, 400, 410 segbanlar 457
Ruyno 21 sejm 205, 394
Seldjuk 270
Sabaoth 239n. 60,241 Semalto, village 9
Sabin, khan 251, 252 senar 445-446,461,485-486
sacerdos 79 Senate 41, 221, 231, 246-250, 339
sacrament(s) 86, 235, 290 n. 49, senator(s) 231, 248-250
502-503, 506, 507 senex 138
sacrifice 70, 118, 179, 394 senokos 445
sagbanlar 481 sentinel 40, 139, 384
~ahinc1 458, 480 Septuaginta 243
sailor 84 seraphim 502
samodrzhets 214-215 serasker 385
Samuel, tsar 215, 242, 255, 395-396, serbazdaran 480
414, 499 Serbia 2, 5, 9, 24-25, 38, 41, 55, 69, 85,
san 265,270 98, 119, 125, 134-135, 214, 216, 222,
sancakbeg 459 247,268,273,277-278,284-285,287,
Sanskrit 32-33, 46-47, 50-52, 55, 58, 290, 292-294, 296, 299, 303, 307-309,
61, 62, 70, 74, 76, 92, 94-95, 99-100, 311, 317, 319, 322-323, 325, 333,
111, 113-114, 116, 134, 152-153, 335-336, 342-344, 355-356, 364-365,
157-158, 162, 166-170, 173, 179 370, 372, 374, 376-377, 379, 381-382,
satrap 370 389, 399, 400, 402-406, 415, 417-418,
Savet 247 420, 424, 426-428, 435-436, 440,
Saviour 223, 227, 234, 238, 244, 502, 444-446, 450, 452, 454, 456-457,
506 461-463,467,469-470,474-476,
Saxon 128, 147, 154, 266-267, 370, 495 478-479,484,486,491,493-494
Scandinavian 400 Serbian 2, 7, 9, 31, 39, 41, 61, 69, 80,
sceptre 70, 107, 136, 141, 208, 225, 85, 87, 110, 117, 150, 215, 238, 245,
227, 240, 287-288, 307, 317, 322, 247, 268 n. 7, 272, 276-278, 286, 290,
326-327, 331, 335, 467 292, 294, 296, 301, 303, 304-305, 307,
seep tru m 136 309, 318, 321-322, 331, 335, 340,
Schatzmeister 323, 468 348, 357-358, 366, 369, 370, 372-373,
Schism 131 376-377, 382, 403, 405, 409, 413,
schole 382 419-421, 423-426, 429, 435, 438-443,
scribere 130 444 n. 261,448,452,460,467,470,
scriptor 56 472-473, 475-479, 481, 483-485,
Scylitzes, John 211, 252, 395, 414 490-491, 493, 496
Scythia Minor 293-294, 367 serdar(s) 265, 270, 384-386, 443
seal(s) 11, 21, 26, 72, 74, 89, 109, 218 Serenissima Respublica 63
n. 18, 228-229, 242, 293, 305 n. 94, Serenissima Signoria 63
334 n. 192, 341, 343-344, 351, 352, Sergius, comestabulus 336, 339
353 Serres, town 9, 38
sebastocrator 54, 58, 135, 268, 275, ser~ahinc1 480
277, 279, 281, 294-305, 312-313, 320, servi casaN 492
401,432 servo 149, 180
sebastos 24, 135, 268, 295, 297, servus 106
307-312, 320, 371, 373, 376 Sextus lulius Africanus 248, 255-256
seymenler 457, 481 35--36,44,46, 59, 65, 69-70, 83, 99,

Sharia 2, 191 114, 129, 137, 151, 154, 184, 193, 195,
Shishman 10, 19, 25, 26, 220, 283, 284, 210,215,219-220,223-224,22~22~
287-288, 294, 310-311, 373, 378, 380, 231-232, 235, 238 1L 5~ 242 1L 65,247
384, 403, 423, 439, 443, 473, 482, 487 IL 74, 250 IL 89,251 IL 90, 254 n. 105,
Shumen, town 21, 23-25 255 IL 107, 259 IL 126, 260 IL 127,
sigillion 229, 292, 407 268 niL 7-8, 269, 275 IL 22, 280 IL 34,
Sillstra 19, 21 287 n. 43, 301 IL 81, 308 IL 109, 324
silver 25, 142, 229, 293, 367 IL 159-160, 341 niL 207,209, 347
Sirmium 499 IL 227, 350 n. 240, 351 n. 243-244,
sitarkia 406, 439, 440 352 n. 246, 368 IL 303, 370 IL 307, 371,
Sivin, zhupan 367, 369 373, 384 n. 35~ 393 niL 2, 4, 394 IL 7,
skaranikon 286, 306, 317, 327, 345 417 n. 128, 418 1L 129, 458, 460 1L 337,
skiadion 286, 300, 306, 317, 327, 335 478, 479 n. 434, 486 n. 475, 496 IL 158,
Skopelos, town 371-372 504 n. 7, 510 IL 19, 511
Skopje, town 7 IL 7, 9, 19, 125, 148, sokalnik 491
215, 286, 297 solidus 74
Slanderer 81, 154, 163, 181 Solomon, king 244, 246
slave 33, 47, 106, 116, 130-131, 158, sorceress 52
172, 174-177, 196 1L 20, 197, 273, spahi 371
489-492, 517 n. 1 spatharios 92, 351-353, 378
slavery 130,174-175,273,488-490 spatharocandidatos 350-351
slaves 22, 63, 106, 281 IL 36, 416, 491, spatharoioi 92
493 spectabilis 315
Slavia Orthodoxa 5, 240, 521 Sphrantzes, George 278, 290
Slavic 3, 30, 33, 54, 57, 66, 69, 73, 75, spouses 131, 166, 176
83-85, 89, 91, 93, 95, 98, 102, 108, Sratsimir, despot 284, 294,
141-142, 145-146, 150-152, 159-161, Sredets, town 64, 511
164, 173, 183, 194, 196, 200-202, St Artemios 256
207-215,225-226,228,230,236,240, St Clement 249
248-249,255-256,260,263-264,266, St Clement of Ochrid 496
269, 273-274, 278, 290-292, 304, 315, St Constantine 226, 240, 250
317-321, 323, 325-326, 329, 333-334, St Cyril 194-195, 201-202, 362
336, 338, 340, 344-345, 349, 351-354, St Fourty Martyrs 24
358, 361-362, 365-370, 373, 378, StGeorge 7, 9, 117, 338, 408, 412, 419,
383, 387, 390-392, 396-397, 399-400, 436
407-408, 413, 416, 422, 424-425, 433, St George Zographou, monastery 9
435-436, 449, 454, 461-462, 464, St Gregory of Agrigento 350
466-468,473-474,479,481,484-485, St Gregory the Theologian 341
487, 489, 493, 496, 498-499, 508-515, St Helena 30, 44, 226, 240
519, 521 St Isaakios 256
Slavonic 56, 95, 198, 210, 509 St Joachim ofOsogovo 273 n. 19,490
Slavs 1, 4-5, 82, 145, 150, 195, 207, StJohn 449
211, 213, 228, 231, 248, 260, 362, 366, StJohn Chrysostomos 243
368-369, 376, 512 StJohn of Rila 227, 371
slonovshtina 426-429 St Methodius 194-195, 201-202, 362,
slovo 197 IL 25, 230, 252 n. 95 519
sluga 137, 483 St Nicetas 350
Smilets, tsar 220, 284, 302 St Nicholas 9, 25, 310, 494
smoke 63,408-409 St Nicholas Mracki, monastery 494
soc 406,440 St Panteleimon 301
soce 406 St Paraskeva-Petka 51
Sofia 3 n. 3, 4 IL 5, 8 IL 8, 10, 11 St Paul 192
1L 20, 12 niL 21-23, 15, 19-28, 30, 32, StPeter 227
St Philothea 344 sultan 85, 265 IL 5, 324, 338, 340, 342,

St Philotheia 270 379, 454-455, 457, 469, 478 n. 431,
St Romil of Vidin 371 480-481, 483, 496
St Sabbas of Serbia 365, 456 Sunnah 191, 220
St Sava 245, 247 supremus dapifer 336
St Stephen Monastery 447 supremus iudex curie 318
Sts Cosmas and Damian 47 supremus provisor 318
stable(s) 29, 81, 146, 184, 234, supremus thesaurarius 323, 468
336-339, 379, 514 suzerain 279
stabuli praefectus 338 Jacob Svetoslav, despot 8, 26, 279-282,
Stanicene 25 285, 292-294
Stanislav's synaxary 101 Swedish 70, 101
stare 124 sword 21, 91, 180, 329, 351-352, 355,
starets 138, 153, 511 378
Statute 71, 120, 144, 146, 245, 388, sword-bringer 21, 351-352
393, 513 Symeon, tsar 203, 208, 209-211, 219,
staulocomes (-mites) 354 230-233, 236, 242, 243-246, 258, 314,
Stenimachos, town 22, 268 n. 7, 310 350, 396, 409 IL 80
Stephen Decanski, king 335, 423, 457 Symeon Metaphrastes 350
Stephen Dragutin, king 441, 448 synagogue 256
Stephen Du8an, tsar 277-278, 285, syncellus 144
296, 307, 335, 343, 377, 415, 421, 423, Synedrion 256
431 IL 201, 438 n. 226, 439, 441, 446, Synkellos, George 248, 255-256
450,452,457,473,487,492 Synklit 246-251
Stephen LazareviC, despot 277, 364 Synodicon 13, 26, 49-50, 52, 64, 96, 99,
Stephen the First-Crowned, king 296 111' 114-115, 118, 124, 226, 268, 279,
Stephen the Great, prince of Moldavia 290, 303-305, 317, 319, 326, 341, 344,
240 357-358, 511
Stephen Tomas, king of Bosnia 342
Stephen Uros, tsar 423 Tables of the Law 190
Stephen Uros II Milutin, king 7, 9, Tagchi 21, 351-353
268 IL 7, 283, 305, 349 n. 234, 370, tagma 92
377, 381-382, 389, 400, 405, 413, 420, tainik(s) 269-270, 271 IL 13, 340-341,
427-428, 438, 441, 447-448, 450, 457, 345-347
460,472,474,478,485 tajnik 347
steppe 1, 3, 31, 40, 69, 88, 192, 207, taktikon 304, 337
210 IL 3, 211, 218, 221, 231, 265, 270, Taktikon of Leo VI 378
366, 368-369, 390, 400 TaktikonofOikonomides (Scorialensis)
stolnig 335 337
stolnik 24, 129, 138, 269, 270, 334-336, tamga 352
476 tamgaci 351
Stoudios monastery 514 tamparion 286, 300, 322, 467
strana 359-360 Tarchaniotes 306
strategos 361-363, 365, 374 T1l.rgovishte, town 20
strator 354, 380, 382-383 T1l.rnovo/ Veliko T1l.rnovo, town 24,
stratornic 355 38, 129, 150, 224, 237, 271 n. 16, 277,
Strez, sebastocrator 279, 281, 298, 280-283,285-286,297,299,307,
302 313-314, 325, 328, 330, 336, 338-340,
stroinik 511 344, 347-348, 352 niL 246, 249, 365,
Strymon, river 9 371, 383, 456, 476, 479, 481
Sublime Porte 338 Tartar(s) 33, 220, 352, 386
subscribere 113 tax 27, 33, 45, 57-59, 61, 63, 65,
sudbina 432 68-69, 73, 83, 86, 96, 106, 109-110,
122, 130, 132, 144, 323, 338-339, Theodosius of Chilandari 247

342, 379, 389, 39-423, 425-429, 432, theology 501-502, 504
439-442,445,458,462-465,470-477, Theophanes the Confessor, chronicler
482,484-486,490,492,499 248, 252, 255, 349, 354
tax cadastre 110, 130, 463, 471 Theophilus, emperor 245, 246
taxation 28, 42, 68-69, 84, 87, 109, Theophylactus of Bulgaria, archbishop
205, 393 n. 3, 394-395, 397-398, 402, 106, 407, 416, 451, 496
404, 406, 407 n. 71, 408, 412, 422, thesaurarius 323, 468
442,474-477,481,484,490,499 thesaurarius magnus 468
teacher 57, 147, 195, 246 thesaurus 141
technitar 494-495 Thessalonica, town 313, 374
Telerig, khan 349 Thessaly 340, 372, 438 n. 226, 443
Telets, khan 251 thezawrarius 323, 468
Temple 61, 70, 149, 180, 256, 502 Thomas Palaeologos, despot 290
temp/urn 152 Thrace 372
tenebrae 145 Thracian 73, 134
tenere 62 throne 49, 125, 127, 139, 142, 207,
tepchi 355 218-220, 222-227, 235, 248, 251, 276,
terra 73-74, 359, 360 n. 70 279-280,283-284,288,295-296,307,
Tervel, khan 305 316, 513
teskerecz 341 thronus 127, 139
testament 54, 71, 104, 151, 154, timar 371, 379, 458
190-191, 194, 196,213,220, tithe 59, 129, 331, 333, 378, 397,
223-224,233-234,239,241-246, 402-406,412,422,440,442,446,461,
506 474-477,483-484
text 4-9, 11-12, 17-19,26-27,41, tithe officers 402-404
47-49, 51, 60, 66, 69, 71, 80, 83, Tiurkiut 186
87-89, 92, 96, 99, 106, 111, 113-115, Tocharic 40
118-119, 121-122, 129, 132, 140-141, toparch 342
143, 150-152, 155, 161-162, 165, topp 385
171, 175, 179-180, 186-187, 192-200, topshtikal 389-390
210, 213, 217, 225-226, 231-233, town 55-56, 80, 442, 465, 494-495
236, 239, 241, 243-245, 248-249, 256, traitor 126
264, 270, 291, 293, 299, 302-304, Transylvania 74, 128, 147, 266,
311-312, 314-315, 318-321, 325-326, 370-371,475-476
336, 341-345, 347-348, 350-351, 354, rravnina 420-422,425,427-428
356, 363-364, 370-371, 373, 377-390, rravnina ovcha 421
399-403, 406, 410, 412, 416, 419-420, treasure 141, 240, 366
427, 432, 439-441, 449, 452, 464, treasury 43, 141, 165, 321-325, 346,
466, 471, 475, 478, 490-491, 496-497, 364,368,461-463,466-469,475
518-519 Treatise on the Letters 374
theme 68, 233, 246, 374, 359, 514, 515 Treskavets 301
Theme of Bulgaria 499 tribal 29, 183, 189, 205, 258, 361, 368,
Theme of Paris trion 499 393
Theodora, tsaritsa 287 tribe 82, 110, 132, 186, 189, 193, 208,
Theodore Doucas Angel Comnenos, 255, 273, 387
emperor in Thassalonica 313 tribunal 143, 178, 254
Theodore II Laskaris, emperor 282, tributa publica 58
287 trophy 166, 169, 171, 172
Theodore Scutariotes, chronicler 312 Tsamblak, great primmicerius 326
Theodore Svetoslav Terter, tsar 25, tsar 7-10, 18-19, 22-23, 25-26, 41, 46,
220,284 52, 62, 66, 69, 74, 86, 104, 113-114,
Theodosius 236, 247, 305, 308 116-118, 133, 138, 141, 147, 149-151,
Theodosius II, emperor 236 203, 207-213, 215-219, 220, 222,
226-227,229-237,241-248,258,260, varnichi 384, 461, 488

274,278-285,287-290,294,298,302, Varsanojievskaja 18
310-312, 314, 325, 334-336, 339-341, vataco 388
343-345, 348, 350, 355-358, 370, 373, vataf 381, 387 n. 368, 387-388, 389
376, 378, 380, 383-384, 395, 399, vatag 387-388
401-403, 412, 414-415, 417, 419, vataga 387-388
422-423, 430-432, 438-439, 441-443, vatah 265, 270, 381, 387, 388
446,450,452,454,456-459,466-467, vataman 388
473,476,480,482,486-487,489,499 v1l.ta~ 387 n. 368, 388
Tsar Asen, village 19 v1l.tav 387 n. 368, 388
tsarina 419-420, 430-431, 445, 463 vatazhka 387
tsaritsa 150, 287 Vatopedi 9, 18, 22, 229, 268 n. 7, 311,
tsarstvie 225 373, 375, 377, 399, 402-403, 431
tsarstvo 3 n. 2, 151, 203 n. 29, 225, 271 n. 201,434,471,474,480,484
n. 16, 352 n. 249 Vatopedi chrysobull 8, 18, 310, 399,
Tsok 349 410, 412, 433-434, 464-465, 470-472,
Tsouzmen, sebastos 312 474-475, 484, 486
tunic 286, 300 vattas 388
turban 345 veche 20, 41, 251-252, 254-256, 264,
Turkic 29-30, 33, 38, 40, 69, 84, 109, 365 n. 289
133, 148, 152, 186 n. 4, 211, 225, vechnik 251, 264
264-265, 270, 274, 328-329, 333, 349, vectigal 57
351, 353-354, 366, 368-369, 384-385, venatus 89
387, 388, 391, 396, 400, 414, 479, 508 vendere 123
Turkic Empire 186 vendetta 94, 113, 152, 189, 199
Turkish 29, 85, 384-385, 407 Venetian(s) 417, 419
Turks 136, 252 n. 95, 258, 265, 291, venets 225
384-386, 391 vengeance 105, 188-189
typicon 71, 144, 514 Venice 62-63, 102, 306, 418, 477
Tzigaton 349 venor 111, 157
ventsodatel 223
u~ 85,265 vestiar 461
uc-beg 265 vestiarion 321, 325-326, 461-462, 466,
Uy-beyi 266 468-469
Ukrainian 387-388 vestiarios 43, 269, 321, 325-326,
unctio 114 461-462,468
unction 114, 223 vestiarium 43, 461
U ralic 88, 179 vestis 321, 461
Urum (Uron) 276 vicar 221
usba~l 381 vicus 136
Uspensky's Taktikon 382 Vidin, town 22-23, 55, 233, 285, 293,
Ustiuga 26 371,458, 459n. 330
Uzunca Sevindik, 478 vigil 139
villanus 493
vadimonium 65, 401 villicus 147
Valach 122 vinar 461, 484-485
values 1, 13, 183-186, 190, 196, 198, violation 116, 155, 168, 173-174, 417,
200, 245, 395, 516 518
varna 418 vira 400, 410
Varangian 350 Virgino 7, 9, 19, 69, 74, 98, 268
varar(s) 384, 443, 459, 460 n. 7, 310-311, 325, 370-371, 373, 375,
Vardan 362 377, 380-383, 387, 389, 399, 400-403,
Varna, town 21, 23-24, 53, 219 n. 19, 405-406,408-410,412-414,419-420,
352 n. 250 423-424, 426-431, 433-435, 438, 441,
445,447-450,453,459,462-463, 404,407,409,415,425-426,439,
470-471,474-476,478,480,484-486, 446-447,449,461-462,464,467-469,
490,492,497 473-476,483-484
Virgino chrysobull 7, 9, 19, 69, 74, warfare 45
98, 310, 311, 325, 370-371, 373, 375, warrior 45, 112, 132, 235, 238, 371
377, 380-383, 387, 389, 399, 400-403, watacha 387
405-406,408-410,412-414,419-420, wataha 387
423-424, 426-431, 433, 438, 441, 445, widow 51
447-450,453,459,462-463,470-471, witch 52
475-476,478,484-485,490,492,497 witness 81, 117, 133, 140, 172, 177,
vis 96 196-197,247
vistierie 462 wreath 223, 225
vistiernic 323, 468 wysthernik 323, 468
vita 100
Vitosha chrysobull 10, 19, 107, 371, Yanuka, ban 478
373, 378, 383-384, 386, 403, 439, 443, yeni yeri 486
445,447,470,473,475,478,485 Yugoslav 287, 300, 348
Vitosha Mountain 10
Vladimir, sebastos 312 Zajecar, town 24
Vladimir-Rasate, khan 209, 251 Zechariah, prophet 242
Vladislav, despot 294 zemlya 359-360
Vladislav Grammatik 370 Zeno, Marino 279
Vladislav Milutinovic 322 Zeta 356
Vladko, sebastocrator 301 zeugar(s) 45, 405
vlast 151, 272 zeugaratikion 406-407, 412, 440
vlastel 271-272 zeugari 407, 450
voevoda 46, 216, 269-270, 274 n. 21, zeugarion 395
323, 360-365 zeugologion 406-407
Voisil, despot 284, 294, 302 zevgar 406
Vojhna, kesar 303 zevgelie 406
vojnuk(s) 379, 455 IL 315 zhitar(s) 439-440, 461, 482-483
Volga, river 387 zhitarstvo 397, 406, 422-423, 439-440,
volober 405 441,450,482-484
volobershtina 397, 405-406, 408, zhitnitsa 464
413-414,427,436,440-441 zhupa 69-70,265,270,370
vornic 318 zhupan(s) 69-70, 265, 270, 296,
voynuks 455 365-371
Vrana 356 zhupania 370
Vratsa, town 24 zhupan-tarkan 367
VukaSin, king 277 Zlatostruj 231, 233, 243
Zletovo 101
Walachia 2, 38, 45, 66, 73, 79, 89, 92, Zographou Bulgarian History 471
108, 112, 136, 147, 214-216, 247-248, Zographou chrysobull 9, 19, 414, 422,
285, 318-319, 321-323, 325, 331-333, 439,440,450,452,482
335, 337-338, 340, 343-344, 348, 358, Zographou Monastery 422, 452
369, 380-381, 385-386, 388-389, 399,
GREEK INDEX
&ppa 27 uva:cpepro 49
&ya:9oefY'(eaia: 34 &.vecrts; 12 5
uya:96v 33 uveu1topoc; 168
&ya:J.Loc; 99, 148 uviJp 167
uyya:peia: 66, 433 n. 208 and 209, 434 UVOJ.l.O<; 56
n. 210 UV'tlJ.l.l'ta:'ttKtOV 435
uyya:peoeiv 66 aV'ttma'tTJ <; 14 3
&yya:pos; 66 UV'ttbtKO<; 14 3
aria 1s1 al;ia: 275
uyvoia: 157 U1ta:pVEoJ.l.O:l 170
uyopti 145 a1ta:'taro 90
uyopa~ro 87, 162, 164 uJtetpia: 168
liyopos; 107 u1teA.a:aia: 160
ayxro 154 a1teA.a:uvro 160
&.yro 361 a1teAru9epoc; 177
&.Bwxv 433 n. 209 fi1tATJK'tOV 122,436
uBui~eo~os 168 a1tay pa:cprus 11 o
uBuiA.mos; 168 uJtobtroKro 176
aei 123 uJtoBoxa'trop 27
ueptx6v 28, 132, 144 a1toboxfl 465
u~iJJ.Lto<; 155 u1toB6xwv 27,465,472
O:t!J.OJ.l.t~a:t 164 U1tOKa:9ta'tTJJ.l.l 158
a:'tpecrts; 67 u1toKa:'tama:crts; 171, 180
a:ipenx6s; 67 u1toxoup01ta:A.a'tTJs 317
a:iaxp6tTJ<; 32 &1toxptataptoc; 28, 77
a:t'tTJJ.l.O: 125 U1tOA.eA.UJ.l.EVTJ 129
a:i'tia: 156, 42 a1toA.uro 105-106, 170
a:ix¢A.OYto<; 171 U1tOJ.l.l'tO:'ttKtOV 435
UKtVTJ'tO<; 98 a1topero 163
UKpDU'tTJ<; 172 a1totivew 110
UK'tTJJ.l.OVt'ttKtOV 416 upyopopooA.A.to<; A.6yoc; 229 n. 46
UK'tiJJ.LroV 41 7 aprup6s 142
uA.a:ya'trop 27 upxero 159
aA.A.6'tpws 160-161, 167, 181 &poupa; 100
aU6qroA.os 78 &.p-to<; 148
&.A.oyov 378 UPXetV 101
aJ.L1teA.c:Ov 156 apxiJ 97, 272
UVO:"(VcOa'tTJ <; 27 upxtmtcrK01tO<; 28
uva:yprupru<; 11 0 aPXtepapxos 28
uva:BiBroJ.Lt 158 UPXtepa:'truoV'to<; 433 n. 209
uva:tpero 179 uPXtepeus; 28
uva:ipecrt<; 131 UPXlJ.l.O:VbphTJ<; 29
UVO:t<JJCI)V'tO<; 32 uPXtcr'tpa:ny6s; 29
uva:xa:ivroats; 10 1 fiPXOJ.l.O:l 156
UVO:~OptK6<; 150 fiPXro 132
uva~rop 150 UPXOOV 43-44,88,97,132,156-157,
UVO:J.l.UP'tTJ'tO<; 32 160, 165, 272, 361 n. 274, 365, 367
&va:cpa:ipe'to<; 99 n. 300
564 GREEK INDEX
ucre~eta 33 yuvaiov 160

&= 56 yuv-fJ 68, 160, 167
uc:r6v9eto<; 32
ata:l;ia 33 M:vewv 60
&nfLO<; 32 ~eKaPXO<; 59
&tta: 107 ~EK!l'tet!l 59, 404
a:i>9evteum, a:U9evtei:v 44, 272 ~epm 179
ai>9evt~<; 54,158,215-216,272 OC0"1tOtV!l 43
!lU'tOKpatmp 133,135,214,295 occr1tma p.oo 54, 291, 299
a:Ut6<; 133 ~£0"1tO't£ta 43, 175
uqxnpem 158 ~£0"1t0t~<; 54, 58, 158, 215, 233, 275,
&~peat<; 10 5 277,291,299
aq>tepo!J.!lt 1s9 ~~p.6crux 58, 462-463
uq>op\Setv 105 ~~p.6crwv 60, 165, 462
~TJp.~XPXo<; 88
~yaivo.; 29 ~ta:~ivm 59
~1t'ttS(I) 30 ~ta:~'ttKOV 59
~ap~apo.; 40 ~ta:~a'tOV 39, 431 IL 201
~a:crt.A.eia: 150-151, 291, 299 ~ta:ocm 52
BamA.eia II6A.t<; ISO ~t&~~p.a 52, 225
~a:mA.ei>ew 151 ~~tKim 59
~a:crtA.ei>.; 150-151,233,275,242 ~ta:~tK6<; 59
~mA.uo:6.; 149 ~ta:Ql9eipm 180
~ecrnaptov 43 ~ta:ytyvmcrK6 p.evo.; 15 5
~ecrnapw.; 43 ~ta:A.Um 131
~ia: 96, 169 ~ta~!l'tOV 59, 431
~ui~m 168, 17 3 ~t&~p.a 60
~!..&~ 157 ~taKOV0<; 60, 137
~eave.; 31 ~ta~ei>yvup.t 176
~~96.; 115, 117 ~t!l~UytOV 132
~otA.a 349 ~toocrKaA.o.; 57
BoA.t&~e<; (pl.) 250 ~tOOcrKOO 96
Bo-DA.yapot 308, 364 ~i~p.t 112, 159
~0'\)A.e'l)'tt KO<; 178 ~tKaiov 120
~ooA.-fJ 41 ~tK!ltO<; 120
~piOcrt<; 132 ~tKmoc:r6v~ 120
~tKatrop.ata 120
yap.ei:v 116 ~Ktp.~m 171
yap.et-fJ 160 ~top9oi)v 79
yap.t Kii'l<; 166 oop.o.; 2 n. 1, 61
yepaKt 478 oot~<; 57
yepmv 515 ~'UA.et& 130, 490
ye!p'l)pa 94 ~'\)A.eoo 1 ~'I)A.euetv 273, 490
yeq>Upmm<; 94 ~-oA.~ 175
rfl 73-74, 359 ~uA.o.; 106, 131, 137, 175-176, 273
yl..&q>m 53 ~-61; 62-63, 356, 374
yviaw.; 123 ~oxei:ov 27
yoveu<; 132, 176 ~pooyyo.; 249
y6vu 82 ~'Uvameia: 177
yo'U~Mt!l'ttKOV 129, 403 IL 45 O&pov 57, 112
rp&p.p.a; 1o9
ypap.p.a;nK6<; 56 £rrpaq>etv so
ypaq>ew 130 EyKA.~!J.!l 56
ypa:!Jlll 300 f.9vtKO<; 112
GREEK INDEX 565
£9vos; 154 hep61iol;os; 77

EWIDAOV 76 d:ryevecr1:a1:o<; 299
ewmA.oA.a1:pda 76 EUiioKta 34
dpTJvo1totos; ~acrtA.rus; 242 EVEpy&'T]J.La 34
dcr6S'T]J.La 61, 40 1 EVAoyEtv 34
dcr6Stos; 61, 401 evA.oyia 34
EKbtKO<; 94, 167 EW tcr1:6<; 34
EKiitcOK(J) 162 ev1topem 163
EKKA'T]cria 61, 152, 181 e£1topos; 156
EKKA1Jcrtacr'ttK6<; 152 eupicrKm 169
imi1t1:m 170 eooe~da 35
EAE.'Y'XOt 81 EOOE~<; 34-35,291-292
iA.ru9epia 134 eoo1:e~pavos; 34
iA.ru9epos; 134, 171 , 176 EOO'tE(J)tXV(J) 34
iA.ru9epms; 134 emEA.fis 168
eU1JVo<; 65 e-6'tuxecr1:a1:o<; 291
iJ.L!IDA.m 157 e'l)xfi 303, 315
EJ.L1t01it~EtV 107 i~ptcr1:1JJ.L t 97
EJ.L7tP1JcrJ.L6<; 157 £x9pa 157
ivliol;6'ta1:o<; 291, 299 ix9p6s; 47, 177-178
EVV6J.LtoV 144, 422 £xm 163, 250
EVVOJ.LO<; 72
£vocrts; 166 ~aKavov 71
EV'tOATI 161 ~aK6Vt 71
igxpxos 65 zeJ.LeA.m 73
Ei;r.tKOVt~(J) 101 ~euyapa'ttKtov 45, 405-406
ifjA.acrt<; 433 n. 209 ~euyapt 407
£/;t<; 77 ~euyaptov 73
E/;oJ.LOAoyEtV 78 ~ruyeA.tov 73
il;opia 172 ~rurvuJ.Lt 178
il;op~m 172 ~ruyoA.bytov 45,406
igoucria 44, 101, 156 ~'Tj'tem 162-163
igoucrui~uv 44 ~TI1:1Jcrt<; 433
£gu ~tA.alies; ooo
E1ttXV(J) 80, 375 TIYEJ.Lovia 277
E1t!lPXEtV 101 TIYEJ.l.OOV 45
btapxia 101, 161, 360 TIYoUJ.LEVO<; 76
i1ti 'tils 1:pa1te~1JS 138, 334-335 i!i9ws; 51
E1tt~OUAEUID 162
E1ttKepavvuJ.Lt 66, 329 9eoapecr'to<; 38
imKepvws; 66, 329-330, 334 9e61i01:o<; 37
E1tt!JK01t0<; 67 eebs; 291
E1ttcr1:a1:em 273 9eoo'tE1t'tO<; 37
imcr'ta1:1J<; 273 9eocrmcr1:6<; 38
E1ttcr1:1jpt~EtV 118 9e6~pV..os; 37
£1to<; 41 9w~p6~o<; 37
EpyOJ.Lat 89 9w~p6pos; 37
EP1JJ.Lta 515 9eoxapaK1:o<; 37
EP1JJ.L01tOAh1J<; 128 9f!A.Eta 160
Ep1]J.LO<; 128, 515 91lA.fi 160
EpJ.L6ID 515 91]craup6s; 141
£crm ~tMbe<; 250 9p6vos; 127, 139, 225
hatpEta 231 eura1:1JP 1s9
e1:mpos; 62, 231 9ucrtronf!ptov 170
566 GREEK INDEX
lEJ.W.t 157 KI.TtpOVOJ.LElV 96

iepax&pwc; 53, 479 KI.TtpOVOJ.ll!X 61,64
iepal; 478 KI.Ttpov6J.LOS 97
iep&PJCTIS 76 xl.ivo!J.!Xt 82
iep&-re'U!J.!X 134 xl.ottl\ 85, 169
iepe6c; 79, 135, 172 KOJ.L~CV"tOV 252
iepoJ.L6vaxoc; 76, 135, 514 KOj.LCV"tOV 252 fi. 95
iepoo pyia 134 K6J.1TtS 83, 337
iepa6pyoJ.Lat 134 K6J.LTtS -roo ma-6/.o'U 337
tVbt~CtOS 77 K6J.LTtS "tOJV ~acrt/.tKOJV f)1t1tOJV 337
lO't11).1t 124 Koj.L).1€pKtOV 418
iox6c; 86, 164 K6PTt 157-158, 160
KOO"j.1tK6c; 82
xa9UJJ.La 66,107,444 K60"J.LOS 82
xatv6c; 154 KO'UpEUCO 170
xai:crap 211, 277, 302, 315 KO'Up01t!XM"tlJ KtOV 317
KUK6bol;,oc; 75 KO'UpOttaM-rTtc; 303, 315, 320
K!XK01tOtCCO 7 5 KO'Upottal.a-rl\crcra 317
xaMyepoc; 79 xp&~co 479
K!XV!Xp"ttKElVOS 218 xp&I.Ttc; 85
K!XVcOV 119-120 Kp!X"tCCO 62,133,140,225
K!X1tVtK6V 63,408-409 xp&-rtmoc; brott6"tTtc; 233
Kattvol.oyia 63, 409 n. 80 Kpa"tta"tOS Kpa-rcop 233
Kattv6c; 408 xp&-roc; 62
xap&~wv 84 Kplj.L!X 56
mpa~oc; 84 xpivuv 143
KUPVTt 146 Kptatc; 143
xam€Uov 80 Kpt-rl\ptov 143
K!X<rtpO!CttO"l!X 55, 75, 451, 487 Kpt"tl\c; 143
K!X<rtpO!Ctlcr"t!Xt 451 KpU1t"tCO 141, 164
x&mpov 55-56,86 !CtElVEtv 145
xampoqn)l.ul; 80 !Ctlt!J.!X 141
xa-ray€/.coc; 133 !CtlJ"tCO p 86
xa-rabtx&~co 170 !Ct~CO 86
xa-ral.al.ia 81 l('l)vtyecrwv 89
K!X"t!XJ.lTtvDCO 162 l('I)VTtY6c; 129,457,481
xa-rapacr9at 124 cip 81, 308
K!X"tclcrxEO"tS 104 l('l)ptax6v 152
K!X"t<X"ti9Tt).1t 100 l('I)PtUPXTIS 272
xa-rEtt&vco 80, 375 l('l)pt&pxco 272
xa-rl\yopoc; 81 1('1) pteue tv 44, 54
Ka'to6vo~ 80 l('l)ptx6v 152
xf.I.MpTtc; 80 cipwc; 54, 158, 215, 272, 275
xei.Mptoc; 80, 358 l('l)cOV 481
xel.l.tov 80 xcol.uco 38, 48
xf.l.l.t6"tTtS 357 KCOJ.1Tt"t11S 164
xepac; 132 KcOJ.LTt 164
xepboc; 121
xap&l.awv 169 l.a6c; 89, 166
xapa/.1\ 80 l.a-6pa 88
KTtPO~o-61../.toc; Mroc; 229 l.et-rooyia 89
KtVTt"t6c; 58 I.Tta"tl\c; 131
xi..Etcm-6 pa 81 l.t~&ba 89
xi.Ctt-rco 164 l.hpa 165
GREEK INDEX 567
l..oyo9ecnov -tcro crtpanwmroo 451 )1'1>pc:.Ovco 114

l..oro9klt~ 342 )1'1>crttK6~ 271, 345-346
l..oyo9kTJ~ 'tOOV CJ£Kpe-tcov 342 )LCOpta 154
/Jryo~ 74, 89, 137, 149, 177, 229 n. 46, )1COp6~ 154
230, 341
Mate; 131 va6~ 181
l..uco 131, 176 ve)LCO 48, 65, 99, 163
ve6qroto~ 100
IJ.(iretpo~ Ill VtKT\ql6po~ Ill
IJ.IXKIXpW'tiX'tO~ 123 NtK6Aao~ Mho~ 308
jUivopa 24, 84 VO)lfi 144
IJ.IXVOptanKbv 84, 427 VO)lt)LCO~ 98, 161
~J.apropeco 172, 178 v6)1ta)1a 74, 177
jUipro~ 117, 177 vo)1o9roia 161
jUiaaco 95 V0)1o9mt~ 71
JIZYal..e3tupavemam~ 317 v611~ 71, 161
JIZYIXAoO~IX'tO~ 321,467 VO)LO'tt~)lt 158
JIZYcxMmpe:rticna-t~ 291, 299 voo9roia 96
J~ZYal..oc; I pir~ 164, 233, 250, 269 vco13£Maat)10~ 303, 315
)ley~ oo-o~; 356
)ley~ KOV'tOO'taU~ 337 l;{qlet n)LCOpeco 180
11ey~ ~..oroee't'l'\~ 342
11ey~ 1tpt)1tKftp~ 328 6 btl. -til~ -tp~T\~ 138, 334-335
)1£96ptOV 91 6otr6~ 45
)1£iyvl))1t 173 oOocrtpCOCJia 94,454
)1£tAtov 114 606crtp~ 94
)1£1..waoevv6)1toV 476 61)0'1) Ka'tWrtaatc; 94
11epo~ 126 oi&x 52
)1£CJaMT\K'tOV 437 oiKeio~ 123
)1£'tclOoCJtc; 112 oi~~ 131, 176
)1£'texco 91 oiKtoV }80
)1£'toxfl 91 oiK000)1£iv 7 5
)1£'t6JCtOV 91 oiKoOO)lfi 75, 94
)LTJ VO)lt)l~ 98 oiKo)lbowv 83, 412
111'\P~ 95 oiKOVO)lta 77
)11'\'tihov 92 oiKOV6)10~ 77
)11'\'tporool..{'t'l'\~ 93 oiK6~ 180, 408, 493
)1t)1£ia9at 116 oiK00)1£VtK6~ 50
)1ia9to~ 167 oivo~ptov 484
)1ta9~ 94,166,497 oiv6)1£'tpo~ 42
)1ta9ooro6~ 96, 496-497 (F)otvo~ 42
)LVT\~ 160-161, 167 oivox6o~ 331
)10tJ(;£ta 126 0)160ol;~ 49
)!OtJCeUCO 126 0)169£~ 49
)10tx6~ 126 o)169povo~ 49
)!OtJCOO 126 OV£t0tCJ)16~ 13 3
)10A'I>J31)o1300U~ /Jryo~ 229 n 46 om to4
)10VIXJC6~ 73,93, 153,514 6p9ol>ol;ia 120
)LOV~ptoV 93 6p960ol;o~ 120
)LOVWrtpta 181 6p96~ 132
11ovil 433 n. 209 op~co 104, 167
)16V~ 93 optKft 53, 425
Momv61tol..tc; 308 6pta)1~ 104
)11tWrtwa 31 op~ 53,425
568 GREEK INDEX
6pcpav6c; 130, 136 1t6A.tc; 56, 150, 159

omop.ap-tupoc; 127 1tOAuet!J.&.ptTJtoc; 93
ocrtoc; 123, 127 1tOVTJptet 36
&tpoKoc; 490 1tOVTJp6c; 168
&tpc.ln~tVCt 106, 490, 416 1tOptK6V 39
6cpetA.&qc; 60 1topvda 36, 90, 166
6cpEiA.TJp.et 60 1topveuro 155
ocptc; 168 1t6pvoc; 36
1tOpcpUpet 30, 223
1tettliE'6ew 79 1topqropoyeVVlJtOS 30, 116, 223
IIetA.ettoA.6yoc; 291 1tpawa 42, 156
7tetvetrfl c; 51 1tpetetet 99, 168
1tetvaywc; 51 1tpetKtopE'6rov 433
1tetveutuxecrtatoc; 291, 299 7tp&Ktrop 121
1tetVTJyOptov 107-108 1tpetti 99, 168
7tetviepoc; 51 1tpettic; 50, 99, 168
7tetv6moc; 51 7tpm~teptov 115
mxvn11oc; 51 7tpm~tepoc; 116, 121
1tetVtOKpatrop 51 7tpecr~uc; 97
1tetvu7tepcre~crtoc; 306 7tpmeA.tt~a 438 IL 226
1tet1t1tcxc; 116, 512 1tptp.!J.tK'ftptoc; 122, 326
7tetpet~CtlVCO 127, 175 1tptppTJcrftc; 169
1tetpetyyapel.et 433, 448 7tpompecrn 157
7tetp6.1iomc; 126 1tpo~tobeKettdet 476
1tetpet1tE!J.1tCO 172 7tpo~toxotpolieKettda 403, 476
1tetpCttTJpE.tV 35 1tpol361iot 448
oop9evoc; 64, 159 1tpoli&TJc; 126
7tetp0tK£lV 122 1tpocrliexo!J.ett 158
1tetpOtKtetttK6V 106 7tpoa9{JKTJ 17 3
mxpotKOS 108, 493 7tpocr!J.etptupero 178
1tapro 158 7tp6crolioc; 61, 121, 401
1tettptetfJXTJS 109 1tp6crtetl;tc; 111
7tet9ro 39, 171 1tpocrcpe'l}yetv I 1tpoocpE'6yro 121, 173
xEVTJS 168 7tpocrcpeuyrov 173, 179
1tept~6A.wv 109 7tpocrcprovero 171
1tE.p1tUpaKtS 109, 473 1tp6crro1tov 165
1ttYKEPVTJS 66, 329-330, 332, 334 7tpoxdptcrtc; 303, 315
1tt1tpMKCO 174-17 5 1tprotE.KbtKOS 124
1ttcrttc; 158 1tproto~ecrttetpl.et 467
1ttcrt6c; 34, 51-52, 217 1tproto~ecrttetpl.crcret 467
1tAnvw6. I 1tAetVTJvlJ 424 7tproto~ecrtt6.ptoc; 466
1tl..a.ap.a 35 7tproto9p6voc; 125
xA.acrtTJ c; 7 5 1tprotoi:epaKapwc; 479
7tAmvel;l.et 89 1tprotoKei..A.tc.lnTJc; 357
1tAi19oc; 110 1tprotOKUVTJY6c; 481
1tATJp6ro 159, 163 1tprot01tet1tcxc; 124-125
1tA.oucrtoc; 36 7tprotocre~crtoc; 306, 308
1tMUtt~ew 102 7tUp 157
1tAoutoc; 37 1tCOAelV 123
1t0tero 152, 155, 160 1tCOI..ero 171
1tOtvlJ 113, 163
1t0Ae!J.toc; 124, 176 petyytetttK6v 4 35
1t6Ae!J.oc; 132, 156 pet9U!J.lCt 166
1toA.t9da 159, 161 Pil!J.et 177
GREEK INDEX 569
pill; 85 cruatpc:mc&tT\c; 62
pfrtmp 133 crxit!J.a: 139
ptvoK61ttiD 180 crm!J.a: 176
pw6c; 180
p&yu 169 ta:~uMptoc; 160, 367 n. 300
taA.a:vtov 142
:Ea:P<lStoe; 134 tal;tc; 32-33, 152, 155
cre~atoKpatmp 135,277,299 't!X1tEtv6t; 138
cre~a:atoc; 135,295,306,308-309 tatum 144
LE!J.EA.T\ 73 'tEKVOV 160
crt-y{Utov 229, 433 teA.oc; 57
crtta:plcia: 68, 425, 439-440 -r£xv11 144, 495
crttapKWtc; 440 't£XVT\'tUPT\t; 144, 495
crua:pKtcr!J.6c; 440 'tT\tam 144
auapxia 440 'tt!J.Tt 181
crttaPXoc; 68 'tlVID 113, 152
crh01) 69 'tt91'\!J.t 65, 89, 162, 341
crK'i11ttpov 70, 136 't01ttK6t; 115
mcrtJt't(J) 136 t61t0c; 95, 161, 167, 359
ari>A.oc; 172 tpa1te~a: 334
cr!J.ilvoc; 257 tcreMyya:c; 364
cr1ta:9aptoc; 92, 350 'tU1ttK6V 144
crta:crta~(J) 254 tu1ttm 179
ataatc; 254 tuq>Mm 175
crtE!J.~ 73 'tiDUp'tiDUV!X 1t1'\l.,e ~ID1t!XV 367
crtepym 139
crtE<pa:voc; 52,225 \S1ta:vSpoc; 167
crtE<pm 52 {)1tUPXIDV 60
crtpa't1'\Y6c; 46, 361, 363 l)1tEpftq>avoc; 154
crtpana 361 uitEPJtupaKtc; 473
crtpa:t6c; 139, 361 u1tEp1tupov 109,414-415
crtpatmp 139 U1t1'\peaia: 130, 137-138, 277
cruyyevftc; 154 u1toypaq>ew 113
cruyyiyvo!J.a:t 173-17 4 u1t68emc; 165
m)YKeUoc; 144 U1tOM!J.~UV(J) 99
auYKA.T\ttK6t; 83, 249 u1tovo8eum 174
:EuYKA.T\tOt; 249 uJt6ata:crtc; 163
au~u-yia: 177-178 u'l'tMc; 43
au~uy6c; 141 u'l'lMta:toc; 125, 217
cru!J.~a:crV.eUc; 295 U'lf6ID 49
crTI!J.~liDV 166
cru~uA.it 252 q>a:vepmmc; 1o3
cru!J.~uMa: 178 lp!Xp!J.!XKEta 45
au !J.~ouA.tov 178 q>E~Of.J.!Xt 145
cruva;ymyit 140,256 q>epm 76
cruv&A.A.a:r!J.a: 17 6 q>Seipmv 160, 173
:EuveSpmv 256 q>tA.Oxptcrtoc; 149
aUVEbpoc; 256 q>Mym 33
cruvit811c; 103 q>6~c; 145
cruvoSia: 62 q>6voc; 47, 145, 147
cruvoSoc; 256 q>opoA.oyia: 61
cruvotKecrtoc; 166 q>6poc; 147
cruvopov 136 q>ocrcratoc; 157
cruvta:yf.J.a: 146, 256 q>pftyYU!J.t 102
570 GREEK INDEX
q~povri~ 115 XpW't&; 86, 291

qrol..ariJ 145 Xp1>aol3m>IJ..w~ 230
qn)A.al; 139 :x;p1>a6j3oo/J..w~ Alry~ 149
qroMaaco 35, 180 :x;p1>a6j3oo!J..ov 149
qn)co 60 :x;p1>a6j3oo!J..ov aty(Uwv 229
:x;p1>a6j3oo!J..o~ 74, 137
xaio~ 70 :x;p1>a6j3oo!J..o~ opw)16~ 229
xap!X'YJI.Il 415 :x;p1>a6j3oo!J..o~ Airy~ 74, 137
:x;ap-tool..apux; 'toU j}ro'tuxpiou 321 :x;p1>a6~ 74, 161
:x;ap-toqn)A.al; 147 xropa 7o, 139, 148, 359
XetJI.!X 74 :x;cop!l!pwv 168, 100
:x;etpmdm'tco 172, 174-17 5 :x;copf.ov 136
:x;etpO'tOvta 49
:x;peo~ 49 voxfl 63
xp=eiv 159 'lfCO)ltov 148
:x;pta)la 114, 223 'lfCO)lO~TJ)lta 148, 433 n. 209
OLD CYRILLIC INDEX
27, 514
1>.1!:1!:.\ RAA.roH~B:OAGHHif 34
A.EfHKOC 132 RAA.rOCAOB:GC'I'B:H'I'H 34
MA.rA.'I'Ofb. 27, 378 RAA.rOCAOB:H'I'H 34
A.HA.rHOC'M. 27 RAA.rOCAOB:AifHHif 34
A.nO,A.OXA.'I'Ofb. 27, 471-472 RAA.ro'I'B:OfH'I'H 34
A.nOAOXHA. 27, 464 RAA.ro~ b.C'I'Hif 35
A.nOAOXH~b. 472 RAA.ro~b.C'I'HB:'l>IH 35, 217, 292
A.nOKfHCH~'l> 28 RAMIEH'l> 123
A.fHKO 28, 132, 144, 409 RA~H'I'H 35, 139-140, 155
A.fXHGn HCKOn'l> 28, 510 RA~'l> 36,71
A.fXHEfA.fX'l> 28 ~b.HHK'l> 36
A.fXHEfEH 28, 29 IWI'\ltiAEH Hlf 36
A.fXHEfEHC'I'B:O 29 RAIOC'I'H 35, 459
A.fXHMA.HAfH'I"l> 29, 514 RO rA.'I''II'I'H 37
A.fXHC'I'fA.'I'Hr'l> 29 ROrA.'I'H~HIJib. 36
ROrA.'I"l> 36-37, 102
RA.rA.HH'l> 29,225-226 ROrA.'I'b.C'I'B:O 37, 156
RA.rf'l> I 30
RA.r'l>f'l> &oroiH'l> 29
RA.rf'IIHH11.A. 30, 225-226 ROroRO~Hb.H'l> 37, 217
RA.rf'IIHOfOAb.H'l> 30, 223 ROroB:'IIHb.~A.Hb.H'l>IH 37, 236
RMWA. 356 ROI'OAA.H'l> 37
RA.H'l> 31 ROroAIORHB:'l> 37, 218
RA.IJIHHA. 31 ROroHA.fG~GH'l> 37, 217
RG~A.KOHb.HHK'l> 31 ROroHM "'f'I'A.H'l> 37, 217
RG~A.KOH b.H'l> 31 ROrOHOCb.H'l> 37
RE~RI»Kb.H'l> 31 &oroC'l>nA.Cb.H'l> 38, 218
RE~rf'IIW b.H'l> 32 &oroo~rOAb.HO 38
RE~~HCA'l>H'l> 237 ROr'l> 31, 36, 37-38, 102
RGC'I'~Ab.H'l> 32 ROliiH 356
RGC'I' Ab.C'I'B:O 32 ROA'IIfHH'l> I ROA'IIf'l> 38, 249, 289
RGC% b.H'l>IH 32 ROA'IIfKA. 38
REC'l>B:'IIA 'II'I'EAb. 140 RO~HH'l> KUG'I"l> 83
REC'l>B:'IIC'I'b.H'l> 32 RO~HH'l> KOUH'I''l> 83
RGC'l>'l"l>IJIG'I'A. 155 RO~E, ROI"b.j)'l>l 249
RGIJIHHA. 32 ROtb.'I'H 37
RGIJIHHHif 33 RfA.K'l> 38, 39
REIJIHHb.HHK'l> 155 RfA.H H'I'H 38, 48
REIJIHHb.HH11.A. 32, 155 RfA.H b. 38, 156
RGIJib.C'I'B:OB:A.'I'H 33 RfA.'I'H 33, 38, 400
RGIJib.C'I'Hif 33 RfA.~b.Hb. 39
RHfOK'l> 399 RfOMfHHA. 429
RHf'l>K'l> 33, 111, 265, 396, 399, 477 RfOAH'I'H 39
RHfb. 400, 477 RfOA'l> 39, 429
RAA.ro 33 RfOAb.HHHA. 39, 429
RAA.roB:'IIHb.~A.H'l>IH 34, 217 Rf'IIB:'IIAErH 121
RAA.roB:'IIfb.H'l> 34, 217-218, 236 R'l>~EAA. 245
RAA.I'OAA.'I'b. 34 R'l>~EAA.fb. 129
RAA.rOA 'lltb.H Hlf 34 R'llrA.'I'H 119, 121
572 OLD CYRILLIC INDEX
111!,A.o\ 39 I!:A'l>eHII'\TH 44
111!,A.HTH, ll'tiii,<VI'\ 39, 111 I!:A'l>)I:I!:OI!:o\HHif 44
111!,A.b.H'l> 39 I!:A'l>)l:l!:'l> 44,45
G'IIAb.IH 39 I!:A'l>Wb.Go\ 45
G'IIAb.U,b. 39, 512 I!:O,A.HTH 45, 95, 112, 361
I!:Olii,A,b. 45
1!:.\j)b.fb. 39, 383 I!:OHHo\ 157
1!:.\j)HTH 40, 111, 384 I!:OHHOI!:O,A,b.U.b. 45
1!:.\j)OI!:o\TH 384 I!:OHHb.eTI!:O 45-46, 312
1!:.\j)THTH 170 I!:OHH'l> 45
1!:.\j)'l>l!:o\f'l> 40 I!:OHeiCo\ 45
l!:b.fb.HH~HH 40, 488 I!:OAHTH 77
1!:1\To\ro\ 388 I!:OAOGGfb.IJIHHo\ 45, 405
l!:o\To\Uo\H'l> 388 I!:OAb.H'l> 46
l!:o\To\)l:'l> 40, 387 I!:IWA. 46, 77, 157
I!:GICb.HHICb. 40, 256 I!:OfHHICb. 318
I!:GAHICH 111\Hb. KfMGI!:eiCH 370 1!:~ 361
I!:GAHICH I!:HeTi.\j) 370 I!:Oifl!:o\TH 46
318
I!:GAHK'iH ,A,I!:OfH'l>IH es,A,'io\ I!:OIIii!:O,A.o\ 46, 157, 165, 360, 361
I!:GAHK'iH eb.Kj)OI!:HWHHICb. 323, 468 l!:fb.r'l> 46-47
I!:GAHIC'l> 40, 46, 63, 150, 233, 234, 237, l!:fb.lllb.Ao\ 47, 157
356, 386 l!:fo\lllb.,A,GGHHIC'l> 157
I!:GAHIC'l> I!:Oifi!:O,A.o\ 46 l!:fb.Ho\ 356
I!:GAHIC'l> A""rli 356 l!:fb.THTH 48, 158
I!:GAHK'l> eGfAb.fb. 386 l!:fb.~"' 47
I!:GAH~b.eTI!:O 40 l!:fG,A,HTH 157
I!:GAb.H 41 l!:f"'IA'l> 47, 157
I!:GAb.UII'\lll'l> 41 l!:eG~b.eTb.H'l>IH 153
I!:GA"'ITH 41, 46, 72, 111, 156 l!:e"'ll!:"'lfb.H'l> 217
I!:G~G 40-41 l!:'l> I!:AMTb. G'l>ll!:o\~ 156
I!:GIJib. 42, 156 l!:'l.,A,o\TH 48
I!:H,A,GTH 100, 133 l!:'l>lllo\ro\TH 157
I!:HHo\ 42, 99, 156, 169 l!:'l>~o\ICOHHTH IK'l>~o\ICOH~TH 48, 158
I!:HHb.fH~b.fb. 484 l!:'l>~Gfo\HHTH I l!:'l>~Gfo\H~TH 48
I!:HHb.fH~H IKHHo\j)H~BA'l> IKHHb.fH% 484 l!:'l>~l!:fb.THTH 158
I!:HHb.fb. 42, 484 l!:'l>~l!:f"'IIJI H 48
I!:HHO 42 l!:'l>~I!:HSo\TH I l!:'l>~I!:HrHII'\TH 48
I!:HHOrfA,A,'l> 156 l!:'l>~f~HTH 48
I!:HHb.H'l> 42 l!:'l>~"'II!:HTH 158
I!:HHb.H'l>IH Ho\UGTb.ICb. 484 l!:'l>~HUo\TH 48-49, 158
I!:HOOIC'l> 43, 299 l!:'l>~AOliiGHHif 49
I!:HeTH~HHIC'l> 323, 468 l!:'l>~AOliiGHHif fii'\K, 49
I!:HeTH~ I I!:Heb.~b. 43, 323, 468 l!:'l>~HGeTH 49
I!:AA,A.Mb.U.b. 43, 101 l!:'l>K3no&Olllb.H'l> 49
I!:AA,A.o\HHG 43 l!:'l>K nonf"'leTOAb.H'l> 49
I!:AA,A.'l>I!Co\ 43, 156, 233, 237 l!:'l>K noeAo\l!:b.H'l> 49
I!:AA,A.'l>I~HU.o\ 43 l!:'l>U H~TH 50
I!:AA,A.'l>l~b.eTI!:Hif 43, 44 l!:'l>nHeo\TH 50, 463
I!:AA,A.'l>l~b.eTI!:O 44 l!:'l>eGAGHMIC'l>IH 50
I!:AA,A."'ITH 44, 125 l!:'l>eGHb.fO~HT'l>IH 292
I!:AAeTGAHH'l> 44 l!:'l>enf"'ITHTH I 1!:7>enf111Jlb.TH 50
I!:AAeTGAb. 44 l!:'l>enfHbO.TH 50
I!:AAeTH 44 I!:~ITHTH IK'l>e)('l>IIJio\TH 50
I!:AAeTb. 44, 101, 156, 312 1!: 'l>eii'\A'l> 83
OLD CYRILLIC INDEX 573
lt'l.ICOK'l. 125 rf'IIWI>H'l. 56

ltb.AOitb. I ltb.AOitHLI,b. 51 rO~AH'I'H 57
ltb.~&ArOHb.fOqH'J''l.IH 292
ltb.~lt'llfb.H'l. 51 Ab.&HA'l. 244
ltb.~Afb.iKH'I'GAb. 51 Ab.HHh1 57
ltb.~n0%'1'~H'l.IH 51 Ab.HI> 57, 399
ltb.~nf'llnOAO&b.H'l. 51 Ab.f01tb.H HG 57
lt'IIAb.'I'H 52, 162, 168, 177 Ab.f7. 57, 112
&'IIAb. 52, 72, 98, 140, 168, 177 AMKM'l. 57
lt'IIHb.U,OAb.'I'GAb. 51 Ab.'I'GAb. 57
lt'IIHb.LI,b. 51,52,225 Ab.'I'H 37, 48, 51, 57-58, 71, 112, 123,
lt'IIHb.qb.'f'H 37, 52 126, 159, 163, 165, 399
lt'llfb. 120, 158, 311 Ab.t&.'I'H 58
lt'llfb.H'l. 51-52, 98, 217 A&HrH"''I'H 48
&'llqG 246, 251, 253 AltHlKHI.A'l. 58, 98
lt'II4JG 41, 246, 251, 253-255 A1t0f7. 58, 230
lt'II4JHLI,b. 52, 98 A1tOfHHK'l. 318
lt'llijlb.HHLI,b. 254 A1tOfOAf1>lKHLI,b. 318
lt'II4Jb.HH%CK'l. 254 AltOfCKHH KHG~I> 318
A&Of'l. 58, 230
rGfb.Kb.fb. 53, 455, 478 AGMOCHOH'l. 325
rA~~.~tb. 52 AGMOCHt&. 58, 462
rAO&b. 53 AGCG'I'I>K'l. lKH'I'I>H'l. 415
rH'IIItH'I'H 57 AGCnO'I'HLI,b. 58
rH'II&'l. 57 AGCnO'I''l. 58, 292
ro&'IIHHh1 53 AHb.ltb.'I'O 59, 431
rOHH'I'H 77, 160 AHA.AHK'l. 59
roy11. 53, 422, 425 AHb.AHI.Ab. 60, 225
rOfH'I'H 56 AH&'l. 131
rOfb.HHHb. 53, 422 AHlKI.Ab. 475
rocnoAA.fb. 53, 54, 158, 215-216, 356 AHlKMb.fl> 475
rocnOAHH'l. 53-54, 158, 215-216, 272 AH~Mb.fC'I'ItO 404
rocnOAb. 54 AHMHHHb. 415
rocnOAb.C'I'&Hh1 I rocnOAb.C'I'&o 54 AHMOCHOH'l. 60, 462
rocnOAb.C'I'ItO MH 292 AHt&.K'l. 60
rocn OA I>C'I'&O&b.'I'H 54 AA'l.r'l. 60, 159
rocnOAI>C'1'&8104JHH 309 AA'l.lKI>HHK'l. 60, 159
rocn OlKA. 158 AA'l.lKI>H'l. 60
rocn OJKAA. 54 AO&'l.l'l"l.K'l. 60
roc'l'l> 54 AOit'l.A'II'I'H 161, 159
rfb.&H'I'H 55, 176 AOM'l. 61
rfb.A"'f" 55, 487 AOC'I'OH'I'H 159
rfb.AH'I'H 55, 487 AOCb.AH'I'GAI> 81
rfb.AH4JG 55 AOC'I'Ot&.H HG 61
rfb.AO&AIOAGHHG 460 AO)COA'l.K'l. 61, 399-400
rfb.AO'J,HAb.HHG 55, 75, 450, 487 AfA.r'l. 62
rfb.A7. 35, 55, 103, 159, 161, 356, 365
rfb.A'l. &AIOC'I'H 35
Aflr'l.
AfO lKHHb.
62, 112
62, 230
rfb.A7. ~b.Ab.'I'H 451 Af b.&AHit'l.IH 233
rfb.Mb.'I'HK'l. 56, 347 Af'l.lKb.ltH'l.IH 233
rf'II)COiti>H'l. 56 Afl>lKb.&b. 62, 224
rf'II)C'l. 32, 56, 93, 140, 159 Afl>lKb.'I'H 62, 102, 104, 133, 140, 224
rf'IIWHHI>C'I'ItO 56 Afl>lKb.lti>H'l. 62
rf'IIWI>HHK'l. 56 Afl>ro&G 231, 249
~~'I!;~;;;~:
A a 373-374
.· 370
1Kfb.'I'Hif
IKan.\
IK n.\H'l>
IK
69. 366
n'-\7>
IKb. A'l>
76
69, 160,
366
70, 225
365, 366, 370
A Wb. 63 1Kb.fb.11.b. 70, 76

A'l> H 159
A'l>IU'l> 63, 408 ~b.IWI'\AH'I'H 71
A'l>IUb.HHH.\ 63, 408 ~.\1!'.11'1'7> 71
A 111!'..\ 64, 158-159 ~.\1!'.114Jb.'I'H I ~.\1!'.114Jb.I!'..\'I'H 71
A111!'.HI1..\ 64, 160 ~.\roHeHHif 160
A111!'.H~b. 64 ~.\NHH'I'H 160
A111!'.b.C'I'I!'.O 64 ~.\KOHO,A..\'1''-\b. 71
A 111!'.b.C'I'I!'.OI!'.M'H 64 ~.\KOH'l> 31, 48, 71-72, 98, 158, 161, 175,
A'I!AHH.\ 64 194-195
A'IIA'l> 64, 510 ~.\KOHb.H'l> 72, 399
A'IIAb.11.b. 64, 510-511 ~M11~.\'I'H 161
A11KOH7> 60 ~.\U/1'\lK'l> 161, 167
A'IIAO 65 ~.\nG~.\'1'.\H'l> 72
A11'1'1"A.'I'H 160 ~.\nG~.\'1'.\'I'H 72
A11'1''-\b. 65 ~.\nOI!'.'I!Ab.'I'H 72
A 'lltA.H Hlf 65 ~.\nO&'I!Ab. 72, 161
A'litA.'I'H 75, 90, 126, 162 ~.\nOI!'.'-\1111'..\'I'H 72
~b.nf11'1'H'I'H 72
G~HK'l> 154 ~b.nf114JGHHG 72
'-\HH'l> 65 ~.\~'l>K'l> 72
eU'M'I'I!'.O 65, 401 ~.\CTII'\nAGHHif 72
eHrb.fenCA'I'H 66, 433 ~.\CTII'\n HHK'l> 72-73
GHrb.fHb. 66, 433 ~.\'I'I!'.OfH'I'H 73
GH,A,HK'I'HOH'l> 77 ~.\'I'I!'.Of7> 73
GH,A,HK'I"l> 77 ~.\'I'I!'.Ofb.HHK'l> 73
GAb.f)\l> I eKCAf)(7> 65 ~e&rb.fb. 46, 73, 405
enHKefHel!'.'l> 66 ~ei!'.~He 73
enHKefb.HHH 66, 328, 330, 332, 334 ~eUAtA. 73, 159, 161, 172, 356, 359
en HCKOnH.\ 66 ~G'I'CK.\ 356
GnHCKOn'l> 66-67, 510 ~HUOI!'.H4JG 74
en HCKOnb.CK'l> 67 ~A.\'1'.\fb. 74
en HCKOnb.CTI!'.O 67 ~A.\'I'HI1..\ 74, 177
GfeCb. 67 ~A.\'1'0 74, 161
GfG'I'HK'l> 67,244 ~A.\'I'OnG~.\'I'b.HOG CAOI!'.O 74, 137, 149
GfG'I'H~b.CK'l> 67 ~A.\'I'OnG~.\'I'b.H'l> 74, 228, 230
'fe'I'H~b.C'I'I!'.O 67 ~O&b. 75
~'l>M 75,311
IKeH.\ 68, 91, 160, 166 ~'l>AO&.\ 162
IKGHH'I'&.\ 68 ~'l>AOA11i"A.'I'H 75
IKGHH'I'H 68, 98 ~'l>AOA11bO.H 75
IKH'I'b.fb. 68-69,439,482 ~'l>AOCA.\I!'.b.H'l> 75
IKH'I'b.j'b.C'I'I!'.O 68, 439, 482 ~b.,A,.\'I'H I ~HAb.'I'H 55, 75, 450, 451, 459
IKH'I''-\b. 128 ~b.,A,.\HHe 75
IKH'I''-\b.C'I'I!'.O 166 ~b.,/!J,.\'1""-b. 75
IKH'I'H 128 ~b.,A,.\'I'H 75,450-451
IKH'I'O 68, 69
IKH'I'b.HH11..\ 68 HI'O'J'UeHOI!'.'l> 76
IKH'I'b.H'l> 69 H""'j'UeH'l> 76, 514
HAOAOIKfb.'I'H~ 76 KMK,'I'A 81, 163

HAOA'b 76 KMK,'I'Afb. 81
H~'KiHA'b 244 KMK,'I'b.HHK'b 81, 163
H'fAf)C'b 76 KAHCO\ffA 81, 359
H'fOI.A OHA)C'b 76, 514 KAb.KATH 81
HlfiA11.H,'I'H 162 KAIOim 81
H~GfAH'bH'bl H 76, 217 KAIO~Afb. 357
H~KOAH'I'H 76-77 KAIO~HHK'b 357
H~KOA~HH~ 77 KOKA% 82
H~POHb.~HH 77 K~MHK'b 82
H~HCKA'I'H 162-163 KOA11.HO 82
H~AGO'I'A'I'H 163 KOAti>.HOC'blllm'l''b 234
HKOHOM'b 77 KOI.A.\AA 412
HM11.HH~ 77, 163 KOI.AHC'b 83, 336-338, 380
HM11.'1'H I HI.AA'I'H 48-49, 65, 77, 158, 163, KOI.AHC'b Cb. KOHb.MH 336, 380
171 KOMOA'b 83, 412
HHAHK'I'HOH'b 77 KOM'bKAHH~ 83
HHAHK'I''b 77 KOM'bKA'I'H 83-84
HHOK"Il.fb.H'b 77 KOHO)CfAHH'I''A 338
HHOK'b 78, 135, 514 KOHl> 84, 455
HHOnMM,Hb.HHK'b 78 KOHb.CK'b 84
HnHK'f'bHH 66, 330 KOHb.U,b. 154
HCKA~A 78 KOHIOW'b 338
HCKA'I'H 162 KOfAG'b 84
HCKO!nH'I'H 78, 162 KOfAGb.HHK'b 84
HCKO n'b 78, 162 KOf'H11. 237
HCnA OC'I'H'I'H 78 KOfH'I'H 145
HCnOK11.AAHH~ 78 KOCH'I'H 84, 142, 485
HCnOK11.AA'I'H 78, 162 KOWAfA 84, 427
HCnOK"Il.Ab. 78 KOWAfb.4JHHA 84, 426
HCnfAKH'I'H 79 KfAPO\ftl>.fb. 84, 396, 455, 478
HCnfMMHH' 79 KfAJKAA 84-85, 164
HCn'bi'I'AH H~ 162 KfAH4J' 85
HCn'bi'I'A'I'H 162-163 KfAH4J b.H HKb. 85
H~'H 79 KfAA~KC'I'KO MH 309
KfMb. 85,213
KA~A'I'H 79,96,163 KfAI.AOAA 85
KA~Hb. 79, 163 KfM'I'H 85, 164, 169, 179
KMOiWAHH'b 356 KfMb.H'b 234
KM1'P'fHU,A 79 KfHU,VKA 356
KM1'P'fOK'b 79 Kf'b 4J'H H~ 86, 159
KMO\fP'f'b 79, 514 Kf'bi'I'H 164
KAn,fAHb. 376 Kfb.C'I'H'I'H 86
KAfti>.'I'H 113 Kf11.nOC'I'b. 86, 164
KM'I',A'b 80 Kf11.n'b 86
KM'I'focfHAA;!'b I KM'I'focfHAAKb. 80, 377 K'I'H'I'OfHU.A 86
KA'I',nAHO 80, 375 K'I'H'I'Of'b 86
KA'I',Hb.CK'b 80 K,M,fb.K'b 86, 396, 417
K~Afb. 80, 357-358, 514 K,nAfb. 66
K~Htl>. 80, 514 KO\fnH'I'H I KO\fnoKA'I'H 78, 87, 105, 121,
K'CAfb. 211, 303, 317, 162, 164
K~MHtl>. 80, 271, 311, 371 KO\fnAtl>. 87
KHfA 81 K1'nb.U,b. 87
KHf'b 81 KO\ffOnMA'I'HCb. 319
KO\ff'Z> 87 MOr~'l'b. 93
K'1.f..i~'I'H4J~ 164 1.10/\H'I'KA 303
K'1.1.1~'1''1. 265,269 MONM'I'Hf'l> I 91, 93, 514
MONM'I"1.1f'1.
K'l>I.IO'I'fo\ 1 K'l>I.IO'I'r 87, 165 MONM'I"1.1fb.CK'1. 91, 93
K'l>l.lb.'l'b.83, 16 MOH<l>.)(MIO&HK'l> 237
K'l>HHro\ 87-88,228,243 MOHo\)('1. 93, 514
K'l>HHrO/\IO&~LI,b. 244 MOfH'I'H 146, 180
K'1.H'Il7,'1. 273 1.10f7> 146
~n~'l'fo\ 165 I.IOC'I"1. 93, 453
Kvyonoho~>.'I'HCI> I K~yonMo~>.'I'HCI> 303, 315 MOC'I''l>HHHo\ 93, 453
K~f'l> 81 M04Jb. 115
M7>Ab.hOC'I'b. 94, 166
1\o\Kfo\ 88, 514 Mb.4Ao\ 94,166-167,496
1\HKb.Ao\ 89 l.lb.4Ab.HHK'1. 167
/\H'I'fo\ 165 1.1 b.C'I'H'I'~/\1> 94
/\H'I'O\ffrHtn 89 Mb.C'I'b. 94, 105, 167
hH)(O~I.I'IlHHhl I 1\H)(OHI.Ib.C'I'KO 89 Mb.C'I'b.HHK'l> 167
/\H)('l>89 M'llHIA'I'H 50
/\HLI,~ 165 M'llC'I'O 94, 115, 167, 359
MKH4J~ 89 1.1~<\'l'o\IA 167
Mr~'l''l> I Mrocp'"''l> 89, 90, 370 1.1~<\'I'HLI,o\ 95, 167
MlKH'I'H 100 1.1~'1. 41,95, 161,167
h7>ro~>.'I'H 101 M~Ko\ 95
/\b.C'I'H'I'H 90, 114, 126 M~%NHK'1. 95
1\b.C'I'b. 90, 165 I.I~~H'I'H 95
1\b.C'I'b.LI,b. 90
/\10&0,6. 'llHC'I'KO I 1\to&O,A.'lliAHHhl 90, 166 NAK'iHH'l>, IHCO\fC'l> 257
/\10&0,6. 'llHLI,o\ I 1\to&O,A.'llH 90 HAKO,A.H'I'H 95
1\to&O,A. 'llhb.No\ 245 NAKO,A.'l> 95
/\10&'1.1 90 Hb.A'l> 97
1\IO,A.H 90, 166, 494 No\HMb.NHK'l> 96,493,496
hto,A. b.CK'l>l H 166 No\Ko\:l,AHHhl 96
1\m~H'I'H 105, 131 No\Ko\:l,A'I'H 96
Ho\1.1 ~'1''1.K'1. 96, 441
Mo\r~NHLI,o\ 514 Ho~>.f~%Nb.Ho\o\ 161, 167
MM'l>lK~No\ I MM'1.lK~N'1. 166, 197 Ho\fOA'l> 96
I.IM'l>lK~HC'I'KO 90 Ho\fO~ H'l' H 167
I.I~JKAA 91 NMH/\Hhl 96-97
1.1~'1'~)(<\'I'H 91 HM/\'Il,A.H'I'H I NMh'll,A.OKo\'I'H 96-97, 223
I.I~'I'O)(HIA 91 NM/\'Il,A.b.HHK'l> 97
M~'I'O)('l> 91, 514 NM'I'AKHHK'l> 97
M~~~NOC~LI,'l> 350 NM'I'O/\b.NHK'l> 97
I.I~~OHOWo\ 91, 351 NM'I'OIA'I'H 97
~..~~~'1.1 1.11>~'1. 91 Ho\)(0,6.1>NHK'1. 97
I.IHMC'I'HK'l> 237 No\~~N'l>II.IH rfol>.,A.o\ 365
MHMC'I'b. 92, 356 No\~b.N~ 97, 154, 365
MH/\'1. 114 H~&f'lllK~NHhl 97
MHf'l> 138 H~&f'll4JH 97-98
1.1 Hfb.CK'l>IH 92 N~K'Il,A. 'llNHif 168
I.IH'I'o\'1''1.92,434,482 N~K'IllK,A.b.C'I'KHhl 98
I.IH'I'fOnO/\H'I"1. 93, 510 N~K'Ilfb.HHK'l> 98
MHH)('l> 93 N~K'Ilfb.H'l> 98
MNOrOrf'llWb.N'l> 56, 93 H~K'IlC'I'o\ 98
MOI'ih 41 H~,A.KHlKHM'l> 98
N':Z,b.KONI>N'b 98 ori>N'l. 157

N'O'M.HAI\teM'b 99 OAfb.lKb.N lite 104
N'" OKH N'l.N'b 99 OKfb.A'N'l.IH 169
N'nOfO~I>N'b 99 01\'l.'l'b.fb. 170
"'"fb.KI>Ab. 120 0 nfb.K b.Ab.'I'll 104
N'nf111t>.:Z,NI> 99, 168 On'l.KHNCKH 103
"'"f1lC'I'mni>N'l. 127 Oni>KHNb. 102
N'n 1>4J,Kb.'l'l1 99 OfrHti>. 104
N'fb.:Z,Am~HM'b 168 OfH:Z,MO 104, 228
N'fb.:Z,Am%N'bll1 168 OCKO&OJKAb.'I'H 104
N'C'I'H 49 OCKKfb.NI1'1'11 104
NHKb. 100, 168 wcnoAA.f" 272
N117,/\0lK 11'1'11 100 OC'I'b.KI1'1'11 I OC'J'b.Ki\11>.'1'11 105
NI14JI> 168 OC'I'b.Ki\teNHte 105
NOCI1'1'11 91 OC'I'f114JI1 170
N,AH'I'H 100 01W.AI1'1'11 105, 170
NlAI>MH 168, 173 Ocm!K,6.b.'l'11 105
N JKAb. 100, 169 OcmJKA'NHte 105
N1l 0' 370 O'l"l.Kf1l4J11 170
O'l''l.KO'f n'l. 10 5
O&b.,6.11'1''1\l> 81 O'l''l.Am~b.'I'H I O'l''l.Am~H'I'H 105, 176
0&11,6.b. 100, 169 O'l"l.M I>C'I'I1'1'11 105
O&HAI\HK'b 100 O'l''l.nb.,6.A.'I'H 170
O&HA1l'1'11 100 O'l''l.nfOCI1'1'11 105
0&11NOKb.'l'l1 169 onnO'fC'I'H'I'H I onn,4JA.'I'H 106, 129,
0&11'1'1ll\1> 100 170'
0&11'l'b.'l'l1 100 O'l''l.fOK'b 106, 416, 490, 494
O&l\b.,6.b.'l'l1 100, 127 O'l''l.IW.AI1'1'11 170
O&l\b.,6.0Kb.'l'l1 100 O'I'I>IJ,I> 106
0&1\b.C'I'b. 101, 360
0&1\H~b.'I'H I 0&11.11~11'1'11 101, 169 nb.,6.MH4J' 107, 443
O&I\11%NI1te 101 nb.KOC'I'I1'1'11 107
0&1\11~11'1',1\1> 81 nb.KOC'I'I> 78, 107, 141
0&1\'l.rb.NIIte 101 nMHU,b. 107, 225
O&NOKMNHte 101 nA.NA.rHf" 107
o&orA.'I'H'I'H I o&orA.4Jb.'I'H I osorA.'1'1l'I'H 102 nA.nb. 108, 510
O&fb.:Z,'b 102 nb.fHK'b 108,492-494
0 &fOK'b 102, 169 nb.f11%CK'b 108
O&f1lC'1'11 102, 122, 169 nMH4J' 108
O&f1l4Jb.'l'l1 102 nM'I'H 108, 170
O&'z.Afl>lKb.'I'H 102 nM'l"l.lf" I nM'I'O~)C'l. 108, 512
O&'b4JI1Nb. 102-103 nA.'I'fHA.f.X'l. 109, 510
O&'b4JI1NI>CK'bll1 103 nb.'l'fHKi' 250
O&'b4J I>N HK'b 103 nb.)Cb.fNHK'b 66, 331-333
O&'bti>.KMNHte 103 "'fHKOI\'b 109
O&'bi'I'MI> 515 "'f"'fb.Kti>. 415, 473
O&'bl~b.H 103 n 'f'l.n 'fb.K'l. 109, 47 3
O&'bi%N'b 103 n'f'l.n'f'l. 109, 414-415
0&1l'1'0Kb.NI1' 103 "'"'f'b 299
0&1l'l''b 103 "'~b.'l"l. 72, 109, 228
0&1l4Jb.NI1te 103 nHCb.NHte 109
0&1l4Jb.'l'l1 I O&,~b.'I'H 103 nHCb.'I'H 109-110, 113, 129-130,471
orfb.Ab. 103 nHCI>IJ,I> 110, 463, 471
wrN1lNI> 311 nH~'fNHK'b 331-332
nAAHHA'I'HKO 423 nOHOC~ 448

nAAHH Hoi. 110 non~%HHh1 115
nAA'I'H'I'H I nAA4JA'I'H 110, 122 non~4JH 115
nNbK'l> 110 nonHCA'I'H 113
nA~H~HHK'l> 171-172 nono&~HHH'l> 115, 497
no&'ll,l>.OHOC~H'l> 111, 218 nono&~C'I'&O 115
no&Hf~ H~ 477 nonwof 322, 467
no&Hf'l>~HH 111, 396 non7> 115, 172, 512
nO&'Il,l>.OHOC~H'l> 111, 218 noyo~.&O'I'H'I'H 116, 172
nO&'Il,l>.OHOC~LI,~ 237 nOfOK'l> 99
no&'ll,l>.A'I'H 171 nOfO~~H'l> 99
no&Af~ 111, 486 nOf'I'Af~ 514
no&HHO&A'I'H Ill nOfcfHfOfOAH'l>IH 116, 223
no&HH~H'l> 171 nof<J>'rfA 30
no&~~HHh1 Ill noy~&~HO&A'I'H 116
no&~~'I'H Ill nofli\~H'I'H I noyli\~A'I'H 116
no&~tl\ 228 noco~.r~>.'I'H 116
norAHHK'l> 112 noco~.rHii\'I'H 116
norAH~H'l>IH 112 nOCH/\Hh1 116, 117
norAH~CK'l> 171 nocH/\H'I'H 117
nory~wH'I'H 140 nOCA~IIIH'I'H 137
nOAMHHh1 112 nOCA )(b 117, 172
nOAMA'I'H 112 nOC/\0 WAHHh1 117
nOAAHHh1 112 noCA3WA'I'H 117
nOAAfO&AHHh1 112 noel\ W~HHK'l> 117
nOAAfO&AH~H'l> 112 noco& "'~"~ 117
nOAAfO&A'I'H 112 noc'I'MH'I'H 117
nOAA'I'H 112 noc'I'MMH'i~ 303, 314-315, 317
nOAAti\'I'H 112 nocn 118, 172
nOAO&H'I'H 127 noc'I'~HHK'l> 118
nOAO&~H'l> 127 nocMA'I'H 118, 172
nOAfll'j'rA 112 nOCii\IIIA~HHh1 105
nOAf,111Hh1 112 nO'I'&f~H'I'H 118
nOA'l>&OAA 112, 447 nO'I'&f~AA'I'H 118
nOA'l>nHCA'I'H 113 nO'I''l>KA 119
noHMA'I'H I noHM~'I'H 68, 171 no'l'~n~ro~. I no'l'~n~:t,A 119
nOKAfti\'I'H 113 noxo'l'~ 119
nOKAti\H Hh1 113 noxo~'I'H 119
nOKAti\'I'H 113 n'I'MOIA~H 242, 244
nOKO\fCH'I'H 113, 171 nfMHM 119, 120
noAo~.h 303, 312, 314-315, 317, 319, nfA&HHA 120
320 nfMH'I'H 120
nMOH'l> 172 nfMO&~fHh1 120
nM~C'I'H'I'H 114 nyo~.&o&~f~H'l> 120
nOIAA7,AHHh1 114 nfMOC/\M~H'l> 120, 235
nOMA7,AH'l> 114 nfA&O)COA~LI,'l> 234
nOMA7,AH~HHK'l> 114 nfM7> 120
nOMA7,A'I'H 114 nfM~AA 104, 120, 173, 195
noi.I~'I'Hii\'I'H 114 nyo~.&~~H'l> 120
nOIAHM&AHHK'l> 114 nyo~.nfli\AA 30
nOIAHM&A'I'H 114, 127 nfA)C'I'Of7> 121, 470
noM04J~ 115 nfA4JA'I'H 124
nOM04J ~H HK'l> 115 nf~7,&H'I'~f7> 121
noM~C'I'~H'l>IH 115 nfH&~rA'I'H I nfH&~rHii\'I'H 121, 173, 179
nfHR'IU"AI 173, 179 nf'IIAf~o~Ka.'I'H 62

nfHR'biT'l.K'b 121, 173 nf'IIKfO'I"bK'b 237
nfHIUtA&rHa. 121 nf'IIAI>C'I'H'I'H 126
nfHKO\j'n'b 121 nf'IIAIOR'bl 126
nfHAGlkb.HHif 121, 173 nf'IIAIORil,b.'IIH 126
nfHA'IInA~H 122 nf'IIAIORil,b. 'IIHC'I'KO 126
nfHAOlKH'I'H 173 nf'IIAIORil,b.~HHif 126
nfHA'IInAtt>.'I'H 121 nf'IIAIORil,b.~'I'H 126
nfHMHKIOf"' 122, 326 nf'IIUHA~'I'HK'biH 127, 218
nfHM'IIWb.'I'H 173 nf'IIORAA,A.b.'I'H 127
n f HOR f'IIC'I'H 122 nf'llnll,b.ORI>NOM"'~&NHK'b 127
nfHnAa.'l'a. 122,402 nf'llnll,b.ORI>H'b 127
nfHC&AH'I'H 122 nf'IICAb.KI>H'b 127, 218
nfHC&AH~b. 122,435 nf'IIC'I'..,.nH'I'H 127, 175
nfHCNO\j'RAti>.'I'H 174 nf'IIC'I'"'nAifHHif 175
nfHC'I'b.KI>HHK'b 123 nf'IIC'I'"'ni>HHK'b 127
nfHC'I'fOH'I'H 171 nf'IIC'I'"'n~oN'b 127
nfHCI>HO 123 nf'IIC'I'OA'b 125, 127, 225
nfHCI>HORAa.IKGN'b 123 nf'II'I'H'I'H 72
nfHCI>H'b 123 nf'II~I>C'I'I>H'biH 153
nfH'I''bKHifi'I'H 174 n rra.,.. 128
nfH'I''b~b. 174 n C'I'OWHif 128
nfH%'1"1. 123, 512 n C'l''b 128, 131, 515
nfHbi.'I'H 127 n C'l''biHH I n~C'I''biH~ 128, 514-515
nfORil,b.b. nOICAHCb.fl> 448 fl. 282, 487 n CT'l.IHI>HHK'b 128
nfORil,b.'b 448 n CT'l.IHI>HOlKH'I'&AI> 128
nfll,b.b.Rb.'I'H 123 n C'l''biHI>H'b 128
"f0Aa.1Kb. 174 n 4Jb.'I'H I nO\j'C'I'H'I'H 129, 131
"f0Ab.'I'H 123, 174-175 n 4J&HH~b. 129
nf~H'I'H 105, 124-125 .. 129
nf~H'I'H
nfO'I'&r,A.HK'b
124-125
124
""f"' 50
""f~ 125, 175, 178-179
nfO'I'HK'bN'b 124 n1>Cb.f1> 129-130, 455, 480
nfO'I'HKI>NHK'b 124 ni>Cb.'I'H 109, 113, 129, 463
nfO'I'O+fON'bH'b 125, 225 n~oc'b 129-130, 457, 481
nfO'I'ORHC'I'H~f"' 322-323, 467 n~>ei>H 130
nfO'I'OKHC'I'H~f"' nonWOf 322, 467 n~oe~o~K'b 129
nfO'I'OK&A'iO'I'HH'b 357
nfO'I'Ona.na.C'b 124, 512 fb.Rb. 130, 175
nfOWGNHif 125 fb.RO'I'b. 130-131, 163, 172, 175-176,
nf04JGNHif 125 421,489
nf'bKOnf'IIC'I'OA'bH'b 125, 225 fb.RO'I'b.'I'H 130, 163, 489-490
nf'bKOC'bK'II'I'HHK'b 248 fb.RO'I'NH K'b 130, 489
nf'bK'b 125 fb.RO'I'I>N'b 130
nf'brb.fH 128 fb.R'b 116, 130, 175, 489
"f"~" rf¥."~" 125 fb.R'biH~ 131
"f"~" 125 fA,A.H~I> KOnH&KHKI> 318
nf'IIKAA,A.'II'I'H 125 fb.7,ROH 64, 131
nf'IIK'biOOK'b 125, 217-218, 235-136 fb.7,ROHHH K'b 131
nf'llrf'IIWI>N'b 56 f.\7,rfb.RAHiHHHi 176
"f'IIA'IIA'b 85, 126, 359 f~f'IIWH'I'H I f~f'IIWb.'I'H 131
nf'IIAb.HHif 126 f~f'IIW&HHif 131
"f'IIAb.'I'&AI> 126 fb.~H'I'H 48
nf'IIAb.'I'H 126 fb.~~~b.'I'H I fb.~~~H'I'H 131, 176
fMKOA'b 131 CAOKOnOAOIIIH'I'~Ab. 89

fMn,cn 131 CAOKOC'bnHCb.'I'Mb. 89
fb.'l'b. 132, 176 CAOHOKI>ijJHHb. 137, 428
fb.'J'b.HHK'b 132 CAO~Pb. 137, 350
fb.'J'b.H'b 176 CA,IIII>&b. 138
f~A'b 132 CA~III~HH~
IIIH'I'~AI>
137
137
fH~b. 153 CA
fH~b.HHU,b. 325, 462 CA IIIH'I'H 137
fHKOCb. 132, 144, 409 CA lllb.&i>HHK'b 138
fO&'b 130 CAO Wb.'I'H 117
fOI"b 132 CA11.Hi>U,~ 237
fOAHK'bWHH 176 CM Hf~HI>H'biH 138
fOAH'I'~Ab. 132, 176 COKit>. 415
fOAH'I'H 134 COAOMWH'b 244
fOA'b ?6, 132, 154, 176 C'l'b.KHAI>U,I> 335
fll\j'I.AIAH HOAO&f~b.%H'b 234 C'l'b.KH'I'H 118, 146
f'bi'I'Of'b 13 3 C'J'b.AO 138
f11.%HHK'b 81 C'l'b.f'b 138
fmPb.'I'H 133 C'l'b.f11.HWHHb. 138
fmr'b 133 C'l'b.fb.U,I> 138, 153, 515
fmKb. 116 C'l'b.CI> 138
C'I'OH'I'H 159
Cb.MOKHAb.U,b. 133 C'I'OAHHK'b 138, 334-335
Cb.MOAfb.lllb.Kb.H'biH 133, 356 C'I'OA'b 127, 138-139, 334
Cb.IAOAfb.IIIHU,b. 133 C'I'Oit>.'I'H 97
CM.IOAfb.lllb.U,b. 133, 214, 236 C'l'f.\1111> 139, 460
Cb.IA'b 133 C'l'fb.Hb. 139, 177, 195, 359
Cb.IA'b~HH 133 C'l'fb.HI>H'biH 177
Cb.H'b 133 C'l'fb.'I'Ofl> 139, 382
CKb.'l'b.&b. 176 C'l'fOH'I'H 139, 146
CKO&OAb. 104, 133-134, 176-177 C'l'fOit>.HH~ 139
CKO&OAb. 176 C'l'f"AI> 246
CKO&OAb.HHK'b 177 C'l'f11.4JH 139
CKO&OAb.H'b 134, 490 C'I'O~A'b 32
CKO&OAb.H11. 134 C'l'mnH'I'H 73
CK11.'l'OH0Cb.H'b 237 CO\j''I'I>&HHb. 143
CK11.'l'b.A'b 237 CJ(fii.II>HHK'b 139, 514
C~Kb.C'I'OKfb.'I'OfHU,b. 135 C'b&AmAH'I'H 139
C~Kb.C'I'OKfb.'I'Ofb. 135, 299 C'b&Of'b 140, 249, 257, 510
C~Kb.C'I"b 135, 311 C'b&b.fb.'I'H 140, 245
C~AH4J~ 135 C'bKf'bC'I'b. 177
CMO 122, 135-136 C'bKfi>WH'I'~AI> 140
C~fAb.fb. 136, 384, 386 C'bK'!IA11.'1'MI> 140, 177-178
CHAb. 96, 116, 177 C'bK'!IA 11.'1'MI>C'I'KOKb.'I'H 178
CHHOf'b 136 C'bK'!IA 11.'J'H 140, 177
CHf'biH 136 C'bK11.C'I'b. 32
CKKb.fH'b 104 C'bK11.C'I'I>H I> 32
CKHn'l'fO 136, 225 C'bK11.'1'AHK'b 178
CKO'I'b.HHU,b. 461 C'bK 11.'l''b 178
CAM.\ 137 C'bPf11.Wb.'I'H 140
CAb.Kb.H'b 127 C'bPf11.W~HH~ 140
CA.\A 'bK'b 246 C'bPf11. W H'I'H 140
CA~AH'I'H 96 C'bAf 1>111.\'I'H 140-141
CAOKO 74, 137, 149, 177, 228 C'bAf1>111H'I'MI> 141
I
~
C7>A 1lhl.'I'H 65 &H'I'H 0\f&Hitb.'I'H 145, 179
C'bKf01tH4J~ 141 &OH 145
C'bU~Wb.'I'H 141 0 &~r'b 179
C'bN~M'b 246,251,253,255-256 0~&'1liiiH4J~ 145
C'bH~U~HHK'b 256 O~KOfH7,N~H'b 145
C'bn.l.KOC'I'H'I'H 141 01KfM'I'H 164, 179
C'bnM.l.'I'H I C'bn.l.C'I'H 38 olMb.ftA'I'H I ,uopH'I'H 146, 180
c'bnymr'b 141 o1nOAO&H'I'H 127
C'bC'I'O/\~H HK'b 256 0 f~7,b.'I'H HOC'b 180
C'b'I'KOfH'I'H 156, 160 0 C'l'b.lt'b 146
C'b'l'fb.n~7,NHK 256 O~C'I'fO~HHh1 146, 180
C'beii\A'b 178 0 C'l'fOH 146
C'b%'1'<\HHI\1 178 0 C'l'fOH'I'H 146, 180
C'b%'1'<\'I'H 178 O~~Kb.'I'H U~~~U'b 180
C~f~&fO 142 0 'l'ltf'bAH'I'H 146
C~f~&f~HHK'b 142 0 'l'ltf'bi!IA~HH~ 241
C~AMH4J~ 142, 226 0 ~~HHK'b 146-147
C~A~'I'H 142 0 ~H'I'~/\~ 147
C~Hb.f~ 142, 485 O~~H'I'H 146-146
C~HO 142, 485
C~HO KOCH'I'H 485 cf.l.HrH'b/\'b 147
C~ NO KOC'b 142 ipoAHOr'b 147
Cii\AH'I'H 105, 143, 170 <poyoc'b 147
Cii\AH4J~ 143 <J>,H'b 147
Cii\AHIA 143, 178
Cii\A'b 143, 170, 178, 143 )Cb.f'I'ocp~AA/i'b 147
Cii\A~&HHA 143, 432 )1:/\.l.K'b 148
cmnoC'I'A'I"b 143, 178 )CI\~&'b 148
cmn~r~ 143, 178 )COAA'I'AH 148
cmn~f~HHK'b 143, 178 )COAA'I'AHC'I'ItO 148
C~rKAH'I"b I CHrKAH'I"b 246-247, 249, 250 )COAH'I'H 32, 61, 97, 148
~Hw..'b I ~rK~/\'b 144 )COfb. 148, 359
)COfmr'bl 148, 225
'l'.l.r~H 351 )CO'I'~'I'H I )C04Jm 119
'l'b.HHHK'b 270, 344-345 )CfAM'b 149, 180
'1'.1.'1'~ 84-85, 144 )CfAHH'I'~/\~ nOAA~ 303,314-315, 317,
'l'b.'l'~&b. 144 319-320
'l'itb.fHKO 144, 409 )CfAHH'I'H 149, 180
'l'ltOfH'I'H 155 )CfHCOKO\f/\'b 149, 228, 230
'I'Itf'l.A'b 118 )CfHC'I'O/\kl&Hit'b 149, 218, 236
'l'~n~'I'H 179
'I'~'I'H 119 U,Af~K'b 149
'I'~)CHH'I'b.f~ 144, 494 U.b.fHrf<\A'b I U.b.f~Krf.l.A'b 150
'I'HnHK'b 144 U,b.fHHb. 150, 419
'I'OnijJHKM~ 144, 389 U.Af~ 149-151,211-212,237, 350,356
'l'fb.it~HHH.l. 144, 420 U.Af~CK'b 149
'1'fb.n~7,0C'I'fOH'I'~/\~ 335 U,b.f~C'I'KHI\1 151
'l'f'brOitb.'I'H 144 U.b.f~C'I'KO 151, 292, 421
'l'f'br'b 144 U,Af ~C'I'KOKA'I' H 151
'l'f~&b. 179 U,lt~'I'A 245
'1'0\ffU.H 311 U,lt~'I'~U,~ 245
'I'~M.~. 145 U.f~K'blt~H'b 152, 180
'I'~M~HHU,b. 145 U.f~K'bl 152, 181, 399
O~&HH U,b. 145 U,~Cb.f~ 150, 233
152, 181 %&AN~ 329

150-151,211-212,243 %&AH~IH 329
~t.&AHI>~HH I %&AHI>U,t. 328-329
~AWHHK~ 66, 331-333 %C'I't. 32
~GAO 364-365 %C'I't.H~IH 153
%1\t.HHK~ fH~t.HH%CK~ 325, 462 %'I'm 32
%fHOfH~t.U,t. 39 ~IOIK~IH 181
~GfHI>U,t. 39
~HPO'I'HH~ I ~H~ 349-350 WHWMAH~ 311
~HHH'I'H 32, 152, 155 Wt.n~'l't.HHK~ 81, 154, 181
~HH~ 32, 152, 155, 249
~HC'I'H 32, 153 4JG'I'A 155
~H'I'H'I'H 33 4JIO/KAHH 181
~f~n~HH I ~f~n~Htll. 328-330
~ft.r~&~ll\t.C'I'&O 153 ffiiKt.HHK~ I miKHK~ 154
~ft.r &~lAtA. 152-153 ffifOA~ 154
~fi>HO ~t.U,t. 153, 515 ffifOAt.C'I'&O 154
~fi>HOC'I'Afi>U,t. 153, 515
~fi>H~ 153
~fi>Ht.U,t. 153, 181, 512, 515
~fi>Ht.~t.CK~ 153 IJI.&H'I'H 103
~fi>Ht.~t.C'I'KO 153
~fi>Ht.~t.C'I'&OKA'I'H 153 bi.~~IK~ 154
~ft.'l'or~ 153, 230-231, 312 bi.'I'H 89, 49
%&AH0&A'I'H 329

Biliarsky, I. - Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria, 2011 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Biliarsky, I. - Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria, 2011 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria

East Central and Eastern

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Biliarsky, Ivan, (Ivan Aleksandrov), 1959-

Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by

Introduction The Bulgarian Legal Vocabulary during the

Chapter One Glossary of Mediaeval Bulgarian Legal

Chapter Two Law, Language, and Identity 183

Chapter Three Legal Vocabulary Related to the Supreme

Chapter Four Institutions, Military and Administrative

Chapter Five Taxation and Fiscal Legal Concepts

Chapter Six General Ecclesiastical Vocabulary. Ecclesiastical

Index of names and places 539

Greek Index 563

Old Cyrillic Index 571

the Centre for Byzantine Studies, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.,

THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE

The present study is devoted to a specific problem in the investiga-

to a certain culture, or is a way of adhering to that culture. For its

dle Ages. Bulgarian culture of the 10th-15th centuries existed entirely

2. TEXTS ON WHICH THE PROPOSED STUDY IS BASED

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

as LJP or ZSL), a document created on the basis of title Seventeenth

5 Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, ed. M. N. Tikhomirov, Moscow, 1961;

Ganev V., ZAKOHZ eoyAHZIH AIOAbMZ, Sofia, 1959.

during the Middle Ages should be accomplished in the frameworks of

compilation. Examples of this will be given at the relevant places in the

Bulgarian tsar several decades earlier. So we should say the Bulgarian

- The Vatopedi charter of Tsar John II Asen, dating from AD 1230.9

nitsa and during a visit of the Bulgarian ruler to Mount Athas. In it

Sofia, 1931, pp. 576-7; M. Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota I vaproslte na bulgarskoto

the village of Oriakhovo in Western Bulgaria. Several villages were

inventories, border inscriptions, etc. I believe I need not specially

19 K. Popkonstantinov, 0. Kronsteiner, Altbulgarische Inschriften, vol. 1-11 (Die

slawischen Sprachen, Bd. 36, 1994; Bd 52, 1997).

strictly legally regulated field, such as government, exchange, etc., and

2.2.4. Narrative texts, treatises, and rhetorical prose

21 J. Jurukova, V1. Penchev, Bulgarski srednovekovni pechati i monet~ Sofia, 1990.

M. Popruzhenko, Kosma prezviter, bolgarskij pisatel' X veka, (Bulgarski starinl. 12),

known as Instruction for Princes-though not a legal work, it contains

3. THE STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY. GLOSSARY OF THE LEGAL TERMS:

BER Bulgarski etimologichen rechnik, t. I-, Sofia, 1971

Before proceeding further, I should present the structure and contents

After these indications, I have attempted to supply a brief clarifica-

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

TEXTS THE GLOSSARY IS BASED ON

AH = Anonymous homily of Codex Clozianus published in MMFH,

Virg. = Virgino chrysobull, ascribed to the tsat Constantine Asen.

• N ?-Inscription (1) from Krepcha (Targovishte district): Skorpil

• N 23-lnscription on a lead plate-amulet from Oreshak (Varna dis-

• N 43-lnscription from Varosh (Macedonia): Miljukov P., "Khris-

dnija muzej, 5, 1933, pp. 253-5; Mladenov St., "Belezhki varkhu

• N 67-Inscription (1) from Royak (Varna district): Margos A., "Sred-

St., "Epigrafsko-textologichni dobavki varkhu tri starobulgarski nad-

NM 15-Billon coins of the tsar John Shishman (type I-II): Jurukova-

MAPATOfb. (subst. m.)-Ril. 54, Vit. 9. II Etym.: Transliteration of

AHArHoCTrz. (subst. m.)-N 34. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek

AnOAO.XHA (subst. f.)-Vatop. 14, II Etym.: Transliteration ofthe Greek

fiscal byzantin", Etudes balkaniques, 1978, 4, pp. 89-93, p. 90; Bozilov,

&e~~OHb.H'b (adj.)-MN 71 (3); K 22:4-6, 67:21-2311 Etym.: "~OH'b"