Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria

Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria

East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages,

450-1450 General Editor

Florin Curta

VOLUME 14

Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria By

Ivan Biliarsky

BRILL

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011

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

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

To my fatherAlexander Biliarsky

CONTENTS Foreword

ix

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

1 15

Chapter One Glossary of Mediaeval Bulgarian Legal Vocabulary

17

Chapter Two Chapter Three State Power

Law, Language, and Identity

183

Legal Vocabulary Related to the Supreme 205

Chapter Four Institutions, Military and Administrative Vocabulary

261

Chapter Five Taxation and Fiscal Legal Concepts and Terms

393

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

501

Conclusion

517

Bibliography

523

Index of names and places

539

Greek Index

563

Old Cyrillic Index

571

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

X

FOREWORD

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

INTRODUCTION

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

THE PROBLEM

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

2

INTRODUCTION

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

I have devoted a special article to this topic of research on law and institutions of the Bulgarian Middle Ages: Iv. Biliarsky, "Les perspectives des etudes sur les institutions du Premier empire bulgare", Bv{avnv~ OOJl~, (12) 2001, pp. 171-3.

THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES

3

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

2.

TEXTS ON WHICH THE PROPOSED STUDY IS BASED

2.1

This study is based on the legal vocabulary found in original Bulgarian texts of the Christian period, written in the Slavic Bulgarian language. The written records chosen for this purpose are such as contain a comparatively large amount of legal vocabulary and which are representative for the official language of the Bulgarian Middle Ages in the First and Second Empire. Translated works have been left out: this means that the study excludes texts translated from the Greek, but also compilations based on Byzantine texts. Regrettably, these translated works comprise all the extant laws of mediaeval Bulgaria, for written law after the conversion to Christianity was entirely adopted from the Byzantine Empire. However, I have made one exception to the rule of not using translated works here: in a separate glossary I have presented the vocabulary pertaining to the Law for Judging People (abbreviated

2

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

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

4

INTRODUCTION

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

2.1.1 Objections might be raised to such a study of legal vocabulary that excludes nearly all legal texts. I shall immediately admit that such questioning and doubt are generally justified and should be responded to. In this connection, we should have in mind the quantity of extant legal sources from mediaeval Bulgaria. Of course, I shall at once concur that, whatever the explanations, a study based on all mediaeval Bulgarian texts and which takes into account the manuscript tradition as well, would be the richest and most comprehensive, and would lead to the most precise conclusions. But collecting such a large amount of material cannot be the work of a single scholar-it could be done by a comparatively large team working over a considerable length of time. That is why I have taken the liberty of restricting the scope of texts used for the study. In doing so, my purpose has been to set the start of a future, more wide-ranging investigation in which other researchers from Bulgaria and other countries would take part. I believe that a comprehensive presentation of the legal language of Orthodox Slavs

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

THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES

5

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

6

INTRODUCTION

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

On the other hand there is one other problem-regrettably, a "technical" one-connected with the inclusion of translated texts, and especially of laws. It is related to the situation regarding extant publications of mediaeval Bulgarian legal texts. Of all of them for which indubitable or doubtful claims have been made that they were part of the legal system of the mediaeval Bulgarian state, the only one that has been truly critically edited is the Law for Judging People. All the others, including the Ecloga (the critical edition of which has, to my knowledge, been long since prepared by Y. Shchapov, but has yet to come out), are used from old editions, mostly Russian ones of the Nineteenth century, which never take into consideration the historical development of the text and the differences in the copies made, though these differences could be particularly significant for research such as this. These considerations would imply the need for working with manuscripts, a procedure that would change the nature of the research process. And here the issue arises as to how accessible these manuscripts are for a Bulgarian researcher. 2.2

As I already mentioned, we have at our disposal quite a limited number of mediaeval documents or legal written records that have indubitably been present in the Bulgarian state of those times. Of course, the exact number would depend on what texts are placed in this category, but even in the broadest range, they are quite few. Here I shall present a brief overview of the texts that have been taken as a basis for the proposed study and in which the presence of a specific lexeme warrants inclusion in the glossary and, thus, in the set of words on which this study is based. 2.2.1

Inasmuch as all mediaeval Bulgarian legal texts are either translated or compiled, Bulgarian documents of that age hold a major place in the study. As I already pointed out, the Law for Judging People is included here exceptionally, but the material it contains is presented separately from that drawn from the local Bulgarian written records.

THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES

7

2.2.1.1

When drawing on the documentary heritage of mediaeval Bulgaria for the study of legal vocabulary, we should first of all answer several questions: what is to be done with the inauthentic or false documents; with those not enacted only by a Bulgarian ruler but representing bilateral agreements or treaties to which that ruler was a party; with the documents representing acts of Bulgarian mediaeval rulers, but published or preserved only in a foreign language. The approach in these several cases cannot be the same, so I shall discuss each of them separately. As regards the inauthentic or false documents come down to us, it should be said that the approach to them cannot be the same in all cases. By definition a document embodies some statement of intention-that of a state organ or a private individual. The declaration in a false document is untrue, in some cases inexistent, but this does not signify that the document has no value as a source. It lacks value only as regards the substance of the statement of intention and its capacity to provoke legal consequences, but not as regards the form of the text or the elements it contains, etc. Obviously, any fake document prepared in the respective historical age, in order to have been usable, would have had to contain all the characteristic features of an authentic document. If we are interested not in the concrete legal relation but in that type of relation and in the acts whereby it was realised, a fake document would serve as a completely valid source of information. This is the case as regards the so-called Virgino Charter attributed to tsar Constantine Asen. 6 The document is obviously a replica of the charter of the Serbian king Stephen Uros II Milutin issued in AD 1300.7 It was specially created to justify and provide some historical grounds for the Serbian king to issue his own charter seemingly confirming the rights and goods donated to the St. George Monastery by the

6 On this issue there is no single and common opinion shared by all historians. Some scholars claim that the charter is authentic. This has no bearing on the present study, for I have included it in the Glossary in any case; but in order to be honest to my colleagues, I shall point out some major publications on the issue: Balaschev, G. "Sashtinski li e khrisovulat na tsar Konstantin Tikh (1257-1277)", Minalo, II, kn 5-6, 1911, pp. 178-87; Petrov P., "Kam vaprosa za avtentichnostta na Virginskata gramota i dostovernostta na sadatzhashtite se v neja svedenija", Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet. Filosofsko-istoricheski fokultet, I, 2, 1958, p. 171ff.; Gorina L., "K voprosu o podlinnosti Virginskoj gramote", Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie, 1965, 5, p. 171ff. 7 R Grujic, "Tri hilandarske povelje", Zbornik za istoriju juzne Srbija i susednih oblastima, Skopje, 1936, pp. 5-24.

8

INTRODUCTION

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

8

B. St. Angelov, Iz starata bulgarska, ruska i srabska literature, t II, Sofia, 1967,

pp. 142-7. 9 M. Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota na tsar Ivan Asenja II, (=Bulgarski starini, kn. XI), Sofia, 1930; J. Ivanov, Bulgarski starini iz Makedonija, (= Ivanov, BSM)

THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES

-

-

-

-

-

9

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

Sofia, 1931, pp. 576-7; M. Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota I vaproslte na bulgarskoto feodalno pravo, Sofia, 1965. 10 G. Ilinskij, Gramoty bolgarskikh tsarej, Moscow, 1911, p. 13; Ivanov, BSM, pp. 577-8. 11 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 155-9. 12 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 14-9; Ivanov, BSM, pp. 578-87. 13 Grujic, "Tri hiland.arske povelje", p. 5tf. 14 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 21-3; Ivanov, BSM, pp. 587-90. 15 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 24-6; Ivanov, BSM, pp. 590-4.

10

INTRODUCTION

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

2.2.2 The mediaeval Bulgarian inscriptions form a second group of texts on which this study is based. Unlike the documents, they are not so similar to one another and are classified under one category only with regard to the form in which they have come down to us. Below I shall present the basic groups of inscriptions, divided according to these formal traits; but before all, I would like to point out that inscriptions include not only official texts but also texts produced on random occasions, such as graffiti. Without doubt, inscriptions are one of the richest sources of lexical material for a study such as this one.

2.2.2.1. Inscriptions on stone, on mural paintings, and on fabric We pointed out that inscriptions do not represent a uniform group, not only in regard of their formal traits but also of their textual contents. Indubitably, some individual inscriptions are of the nature of acts and practically represent official texts come down to us in stone or as mural paintings. The medium in no way changes their characteristics as official acts. We should remember that even the legal texts of Antiquity are known to us only from inscriptions. Falling in this category of epigraphic documents would be all orders, agreements, 16 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 26-8; Ivanov, BSM, pp. 594-600; Iv. Dujcev, Rilskata gramota na tsar Ivan Shishman ot 1378 g., Sofia, 1986. 17 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29; Ivanov, BSM, p. 600-1. 18 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 30; Ivanov, BSM, p. 601-2.

THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES

11

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

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

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

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

12

INTRODUCTION

strictly legally regulated field, such as government, exchange, etc., and thus are of special interest for our research. I would like to point out once again, that in preparing the Glossary of legal vocabulary pertaining to inscriptions on coins, I have referred to the book by J. Yurukova and V. Penchev/ 1 the use of which permits a better organisation of the material. 2.2.3

Marginal notes and colophons are notes attached to manuscripts, not being part of the main text; these too are not a homogeneous group of texts. Among them we find acts but also texts such as donator's dedications. Marginal notes-in cases when the acquiring of the book, its owner, or change of owner, are indicated-may provide interesting information on the civic exchange. Marginal notes are arranged according to the numeration in the first volume of the corpus encompassing texts dating from the 10th15th centuries. 22 2.2.4. Narrative texts, treatises, and rhetorical prose

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

22

THE BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY DURING THE MIDDLE AGES

13

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

The proposed study will consist of several parts. Besides this chapter, there will be a separate chapter presenting general observations regarding law and the system of normative regulation of society as a whole and a society's culture. I shall present my views on problems such as law and identity, law and values, law and language. The main treatment will be given in several chapters presenting the legal vocabulary in separate branches of public or canon law. My first idea was to prepare a research on the entire legal vocabulary of the Bulgarian Middle Ages. That is how it all began, and the glossaries for all branches of law are practically ready. In the course of writing, however, I reached the conclusion that such a presentation would result in too voluminous a work, and one that would be greatly misbalanced with regard to the representativeness of the sources, with which I was working. While the selected texts are highly representative of state institutions and public legal relations as a whole, this is not true as regards civil and penal law and procedure. I believe the study of these latter fields requires enhancing their representation by the inclusion of more legal texts. I have already explained why I believe this to be unfeasible at the present stage.

ABBREVIATIONS

BER DRH

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

Dujcev, SBK, t. I-II

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

ESS]a

Ivanov, BSM Jurukova-Penchev

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

MGH MMFH

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

P. K. I-II

1971 Popkonstantinov K., Kronsteiner 0.,

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

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

S]SS SSK]

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

CHAPTER ONE

GLOSSARY OF MEDIAEVAL BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY 1

Before proceeding further, I should present the structure and contents of the separate units of which the glossary consists. 1.1

In the selection of words for the glossary, I have stuck to the broadest possible meaning of "legal vocabulary" Thus, included in the glossary are not only terms in the strict sense of the word, but likewise all words related in some way to law and to the linguistic expression of legal acts, institutes, persons, institutions, objects, etc. Included in the glossary are verbs expressing certain actions of a legal nature as well as adjectives related to the sphere of law. I am fully aware that coherence may thus be forfeited, and that the presence of many of the terms and other words might be questioned, or simply rejected, by some readers. Nonetheless, I prefer to err on the side of being excessive in expanding the number and scope than in restricting them. 1.2

What remains is to present the structure of the separate units. At the beginning, of course, is the word itself: I have written out in full, without the diacritical titles and other abbreviations occurring in the texts. The words are arranged in alphabetical order. Following the lexical unit, I have indicated in brackets its morphological characteristic-a noun, verb, adverb and so on; for nouns the gender is also given, and the number, where necessary. Then follows an indication of the places in the glossary's basic texts where the word may be found-an abbreviation designates the text (the name under which the document is known and indication whether it is an inscription, marginal note, or another kind of text), followed by a number indicating the page or line in the respective edition I have used.

18

CHAPTER ONE

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

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

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

GLOSSARY OF MEDIAEVAL BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY

19

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

20

CHAPTER ONE

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

GLOSSARY OF MEDIAEVAL BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY

21

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

22

CHAPTER ONE

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

GLOSSARY OF MEDIAEVAL BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY

• •

• •

•

• •

• • •

23

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

24

CHAPTER ONE

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

GLOSSARY OF MEDIAEVAL BULGARIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY

25

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

26

CHAPTER ONE

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

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

GLOSSARY (subst. m.)-N 12. II Etym.: From Hebrew through Greek &~~a. (Vasmer M., Etimilogicheskij slovar' russkogo jazyka, vol. I, Moscow, 1986,p. 58) II Sign.: "Father", "abbot". Abbot (head) of a monastery. The word could be used as address to God-Father. (Slovar' drevnerusskogo jazyka (XI-XIV vv., t. I, Moscow, 1988 pp. 71-2; Institufii feudale din fdrile romane. Dicfionar, Bucure§ti, 1988, p. 1) ARRA

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

(subst. m.)-N 34. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word &vayvffi
(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 collected taxes in grain were stored up" (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, 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.XATOf'll.

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 systeme 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 scholars 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 etimologichen rechnik (= BER), t. I, Sofia, 1971, p. 17; Vasmer, I, p. 91) II Sign.: "Archbishop", high ecclesiastical dignitary.

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

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

GLOSSARY

29

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

Af,XHUAHAfHT'll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 9, 95, Mr. 35, 38, Af,XHMh.AfHTORA (adj.-archimandritae; Gen. sg.)-Virg. 89; N 59; MN 31, 51 (1). II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word
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 meaning 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 meaning 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 relevant 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 Helena (Kaluzniacki E., Werke des Patriarchen von Bulgarien Euthymius (1375-1393), Wien, 1901, p. 121) as well as in the Chronicle of Constantine 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 established 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? », Bulgarian 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 signifies "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 feudale, 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.

(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 problem of responsibility. &ec'll.R'tC'J'I:.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.: "Shameless" Could be linked to the problem of responsibility. &ecTO~AI:.H'll.

&ecTO~AMTRO (subst. neutr.)-K 64:25-27, 79:18-21 &ecTo~ AI:.H'll.. Sign.: "Shamelessness", Gr. aicrxp6trt<;.

II

II

Etym.: See

(adj.)-MN 21 (7). II Etym.: Prefix/particle &e~- added to (="honour"). It is linked to the Palaeoslavic "*cbstb" < 'II:.Tii'\, 'IHC'I'H kindred to the Sanskrit "dttis", Avestan "cisti-" ("thinking", "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" &ec"'I:.C'J'I:.H'll.IH

the word

'II:.CTI:.

&e4-JHH~/&e4-JHHO'r (adverb.)-K 56:10-12, 56:12-15, 56:18-20 II Etym.: From the word
GLOSSARY

33

du plus ancien code slave dit «Zakon sudnyj ljudem))", Byzantinoslavica, 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 historique)), 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 Turkic 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, offering, 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" ("brilliance, lustre"), Greek
34

CHAPTER ONE

GA4\POR
(subst. f.)-K 14:7-8, 11:9-11, 12:19-20, 36:21-22, 71:1411 Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek word (eil)xapi<;.ll Sign.: "Grace" (Davidov, p. 30). &1\4\POAI\Tb.

(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). &1\4\POA
(subst. cp)-MN 42 II Etym.: From "som!" ("will"). Loan translation of the Greek word euooKia = "good will" II Sign.: "Good will", "favorable decision" &1\4\POH~RO.I\eHHe

(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). &1\4\roc.l\oRHTH

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. "benedictio". (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/".

35

GLOSSARY

&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, 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", "fabrication", "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 debauchery", "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.. II Sign.: "Fornicate", "to indulge in debauchery" The juridical signification of the word is related to the canon and penal law. (Davidov, p. 33).

(BER, I, p. 57, SDR]a, I, pp. 234-5; Vasmer, I, p. 180)

36

CHAPTER ONE

II Etym.: See Sign.: "Fornication", "debauchery", Gr. 1tOVllpia. The term has its juridical signification in the domain of canon (penitence) and penal law. ~'ll. (subst. m.)-K 60:14-16, 67:19-21, 73:18-19

GM.Ab..

II

~b.HHK'll.

(subst. m.)-K 4:14-16, 24:1,60:4-7,65:1-311 Etym.: See . "D ebauc hee ", "lecher ", "l'b . t or ", G r. S1gn.: 1 er t'me ", "c1ormca 1t6pvo~. The term has its juridical signification in the domain of canon (penitence) and penal law. GM.Ab..

II

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", "debauchery", 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." "A young rich man", "son of a rich man". See sor~T'll..

II Sign.:

&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 etymology 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 ethics, 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
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 rich, wealthy"

II Etym.: See &oPATrz.. II Sign.: "Become

II Etym.: From ~orrz. (= "God") and (= "to fear", "be afraid of"). (BER, I, p. 71; Vasmer, I, p. 203, 204) Loan translation of the Greek word 9eo
(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. &oroR-tHb.'IAHb.H'll.IH

(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 citation the word is related to the Mosaic law. &OPOMH'll.

&OPOAiil&HRrz. (adj.)-Zogr. 5 II Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek word 9e6
(adj.)-Zogr. 7311 Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek word 9eo1tpOptcr)leVo~. II Sign.: "Termed by God", "foretold by God", "dedicated to God". Epithet for the ruler. &oroHAre'leHb.Hrz.

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 identical 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
Gf~HH'l'H (verb)-K 31:17-1811 Etym.: See Gf~H~:..II Sign.: "forbid I prohibit", "put obstacles", "put interdict", Gr. KroA:6ro. &f~HI:. (subst. f.)-N 45, 73; MN 45 (4).11 Etym.: From the Indo-European *bhor-ni-s = "quarrel", "encounter", related to the "6opH ce" =

39

GLOSSARY

"to fight" (BER, I, p. 73; SDR]a, I, pp. 304-5; Vasmer, I, p. 207) Sign.: "Battle", "encounter", "war" &f4\0U.Hb. (adj.)-K 63:18-19 II Etym.: See &f4\~'ll.. nial", something related to the matrimonial links.

II

II

Sign.: "Matrimo-

&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", "trouble", "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 deprived", "hard I difficult"

II

Etym.: See &'kA4\.

II

Sign.: "Poor I

(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)" &'tAb.U.b.

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 masculine 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 building 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) Russian 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; Vasmer, 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 institution and the word is not a part of the Bulgarian nomenclature. (subst. neutr.)-MAD 40, K 69:8-9 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic Re.I\H~Crz.. = "big, great", "strong" See Lettish "vala" = "force", Tocharic "wal" or "walo" = "king", Greek (F)
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, 16:911, 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"

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

42

CHAPTER ONE

letopisjakh. Domongol'skoe vremja", Neischerpaemost istochnika.K 70-letiju V. A. Kuchkina, Moscow, 2005, passim; Lukin P. V., "Rannye neletopisnye upominanija vecha", Drevnjaja Rus', 3(21), 2005, pp. 58-60; Feldbrugge, Law in Medieval Russia, pp. 147-65). Req.n.. (subst. f.)-Syn. Dr.33, 35, Syn. Pal.33, 35; K 2:18-20, 2:23-25, 26:10-12 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic *vektb, *vektb-, related to the Gothic "weihts", German "Wicht" (BER, I, p. 140; SDR]a, I, pp. 40610; Vasmer, I, pp. 309-10) II Sign.: "thing", naT. "res", Gr. xp&y~, "act, action" (see 2:23-25). "Thing" or "belonging" is related to the real law and the latter could be used to describe some action relevant to the law domain. (Popruzhenko, Sinodik, p. CXXXV; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 56).

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

RHH4\fb. (subst. m.)-Virg. 99; Mr. 29, Ril. 54, 55, Vit. 9 II Etym.: The term is created on the basis of the word RHHO (="wine"). II Sign.: Fiscal employee, charged with the collection of the taxation on the wine. Probably he was correspondent to the Byzantine oiv6~e'tpo~. (Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Institutii feudale, pp. 494-5, 501-2; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 364-6).

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

RHHI:..H'l..

"guilty".

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

II

Etym.: See

RHH4\.

II

Sign.:

43

GLOSSARY

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

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

II

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

(subst. neutr.)-MAD 8

II

Etym.: See

RAb.AMb.L.J.b..

II Sign.:

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

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

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

44

CHAPTER ONE

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

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

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

&A~A'kTH (verb)-N 45; K 39:22, 40:1 61:3-4, 62:8-10 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*vold-"
(subst. m.)-MAD 12, 104, K 31:14-16, 35:1112,37:9-11,37:13-15,37:15-16, 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, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 48). &A~C'l'H (verb)-Virg. 16, 81 II Etym.: See R.I\MTb.. govern, dominate", Gr. Kt>pteuew, Lat. "dominare"

II

Sign.: "To rule,

&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". (Ilinskij, 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 incantations" 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, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33).

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 warriors", "military commander" The word is not appellation of any concrete institution. (subst. m.)-MN 45 (4). II Etym.: Composite word ohoHH'll. ("warrior") and H~'lh.Ab.HH~'ll. ("head"). II Sign.: "Head of warriors", "military commander" The word is not appellation of any concrete institution. ROHHOH~'Ih.Ab.HH~'ll.

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, Formirane i razvitie, p. 38). (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" ROHC~~

(subst. f.)-Virg. 88, 101 II Etym.: The term is created 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 "qMTJH: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. ROAO&efb.I.J.IHH~

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, 19:1114, 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 (adj.)-K 57:3 "released"

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

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

(subst. m.)-N 52, 74

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

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

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

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

Rfb.P'l>

GLOSSARY

47

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

Rfb.mb.~

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

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 interests 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. (verb)-K 39:8-10 II Etym.: From the verb c , , " gtve . , . "C on1er &'A-. II Stgn.:

&'AAI\TH

prefi x

N-TH

with the

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, 54:68, 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 disprove", "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
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 translation 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 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.-K14:6-7,

II

R'A~ATHIR'A~HM4\TH (verb)-K 3:8-11, 24:17-19, 38:3-5, 76:9-10 Etym.: Created from the suffix R'A~- and the verb ~THIHM4\TH = Modern Bulgarian "eMaM", "eMBaM" ("xBa~aM") = "to have", "to take I

to catch" • » receive

II

Sign.: "To take", "to catch I to seize", "to obtain", "to

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 presented 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).

(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~nonp
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 Etym.: From the verb M'NHil\'I'H (="to exchange"). The general meaning 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" R'Z.M'NHil\'I'H

(verb)-Ril. 101-10211 Etym.: The juridical (fiscal) meaning of the term is a loan translation of the Greek word eyyp&
(verb)-K 80:3-6 II Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic "*prijati" (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" Roz.cnpH!h.'I'H

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 dispute" (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. Greek word oiKoU~cVtK6~. (BER, I,

II

Etym.: Loan translation of the 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 single". (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.: II Sign.: "Widow". (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 33).

R!-.AORHI..I,b.

See

Rb.AORA.

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 (patriarchs, metropolits). The term appears in Patriarch Euthymius' Vita of St Paraskeva-Petka (Kaluzniacki, Werke, p. 71) in reference to Mark, Metropolitan of Great Preslav.

II

c~:.eeno"'I:.TeNrz..IH (adj.)-MN 89 Etym.: Loan translation of Gr. xav'tt~O'i· Sign.: "Very honorable", epithet for high dignitaries, in

II

the cited case for a logothete. Rb.cenp-tnoAO&b.H'l.. (adj.) -Syn. Dr .10, Syn. PaLlO II Etym.: Loan translation 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
R.-K 60:3-4 II Etym.: See R
(adj.)-MAD 3; Virg. 114, Zogr. 74; AH, 201, 203, 204 (bis); !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 IndoEuropean 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

R'ki.J.IHU.~ (subst. f.)-N 22 bis. II Etym.: From R
(subst. f.)-K 65:12-14, 65:23-24 II Etym.: Related to the Lithuanian "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". rA~R~

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 Palaeoslavic 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 punishment, linked to the loss of property (mainly money but also cattle and so forth), Latin "mulcta" (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123; Institutii feudale, 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", "humility", "repentance", "obedience". (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, 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", Prussian "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 ispravama, 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" Corresponding word to the Greek au9eVTrJ<;. In the Greek testament of Paul Claudiopolites, 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 (meaning "Lord God") 36:18-19, 37:9-11, 38:1-3, 38:3-5, 38:5-7, 65:1819, 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), identical with Gr. Oe0'1tO't6: ~ou /crou/. rocnOAI:.C'J'ROR~TH

(verb)-Virg. 42 II Etym.: See rocnOAI:.. A derivative 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".

55

GLOSSARY

rr~GHTH (verb)-K 13:14-15 II Etym.: Related tithe Lithuanian word "grobti" = "clutch, grip, grasp", Sanskrit "graMyati" = "make somebody 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 maintenance of fortresses. The person in charge of this was usually the local military commander, but there were also specific officials (kastroktistai) who controlled and organised this obligation of the population. 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 Medieval 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, 2:1314, 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, 59:12,67:111211 Etym.: See Pf't,X'A. II Sign.: "Sinful", "guilty".

57

GLOSSARY

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 caluminate", "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, 50:8-9,64:2021, 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"

(subst. neutr.)-K 29:5-611 Etym.: See ,1\4\HI:.. of giving", "gift"

A4\HH!e

II Sign.: "The act

(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.) A4\HI:.

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.).

(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. AMKMrz..

(subst. m.)-K 71:1 tributor", Gr. OO't11~· A4\TeAI:.

II Etym.: See A4\TH. II Sign.: "Donor, con-

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, 36:1213, 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 provide", "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 meaning 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.: Colloquial 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 griechischen 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 century 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 fourteenth 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 translation 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, Vatopedskata 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 systeme fiscal", p. 90; Institutii feudale, pp. 149, 158-60; Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption fiscale, pp. 74-6; Bozilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite 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 II Sign.: "Person who judges", "judge".

OtaOtKero > OtaOtK6~.

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.: Public 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", "acolyte" (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).

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\rz.rrz. (subst. m.)-Virg. 76, 77 74; K 71:7-9

,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 32:3,39:5-6,44:2224, 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
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). (verb)-AH 202. II Etym.: From meaning "BoJur" = "will"
(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, 79:1415 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" AOM'l>

(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. ''facultas". (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 115; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64). AOC'I'OtMlHE

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

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

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

(subst. f.)-MAD 39, 40 bis, 41, 45; Virg. 75-76, Zogr. 28, 73, Mr. 9, 48, 49-50, Ril. 71; MN 111, 113. II Etym.: From the verb AfbJK~TH (see!). (BER, I, p. 461; Vasmer, I, p. 503) The term should be a loan translation of the Greek word Kpa'toc;. II Sign.: 1) "State" 2) In the concrete case of the cited treaty of the tsar Michael II Asen with Dubrovnik (AD 1253) the term means "immobile goods", "real estate", which is out of the settlement. Thus the term is opposed to the "village" This meaning can be found now in some Western Bulgarian dialects. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 119).

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

II

Etym.: See Afb.m~TH.

II

Sign.:

AfbJK~TH/nf'kAfbJK~TH

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

GLOSSARY

63

Sign.: The head of the Serenissima Respublica or Serenissima Signoria (Venice). The same term is in use in Genoa to refer to its leader. This is not a Bulgarian institution. AO'i'~~ (subst. m.)-Vatop. 9, Virg. 99; Mr. 28; N 62.11 Etym.: Translit-

eration of the Greek word oo-61; (that derives from the Latin "dux"). II Sign.: Official in the local territorial administration. In N 62 the institution is called AO~~~~ ReAHI~'ll. ("great dux") but this is not the Byzantine megas doux. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 292-4; Institutii feudale, p. 180).

A,W~ (subst. f.)-K 37:13-1511 Etym.: From "*dux'b" (from the IndoEuropean "*dhouso-s", related to the Lithuanian "dausos" ="air" and "dvase" = "spirit", Gothic "dius" = "game, wild animals" and "tior" = "animal", German "Tier" = "animal"). (BER, I, pp. 451-2; Vasmer, I, p. 558) II Sign.: The basic meaning of the word is "soul", and it is of a religious-anthropological connotation. These cases are not cited here. We are only interested in its legal meaning, as "man", "individual", i.e., a subject of law. This is the meaning that has been calqued from Greek, in which 'lfl>Xft may signify "dependent person" (cf. 'lfl>xal &v9proxrov = "slaves").

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

64

CHAPTER ONE

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

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

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

II

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

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

A't&b.CT&o

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

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

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

A'tAHH4\

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

GLOSSARY

65

edition, Sofia, 1980, pp. 282-4; Fine J. V. A., Jr., The Bosnian Church:

A New Interpretation. A Study of the Bosnian Church and Its Place in the State and Society from the 13th to the 15th Centuries, New York and London, 1975; Dragojlovic Dr., Krstjani i jereticka crkva bosanska, Balkanoloski institute, posebna izd. 30, Belgrade, 1987, pp. 143-64) A~O

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

II

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

II Sign.: "(Bene)

A'th\HH!e (subst. neutr.)-AH 200 (see 201-verb C'll.A'th\TH); K 66:910. II Etym.: See A't.l\0.11 Sign.: "Deed", "act" eKC4\f,X'll. I eii4\f,X'll. (sub st. m.)-Virg. 83, 85; Mr. 40; K 79:11-1311 Etym.: Transliteration of the Gr. £~aPXO<; = "exarch".ll Sign.: "Exarch". Ecclesiastical 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 corvee" (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". Originates from the Persian word that passed in Greek as &yyapoc;. Initialy 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 requisition 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. the epikernios /cup-bearer/", "cup-bearer's"

II Sign.: "Related to

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)

II Etym.: See enHc~on'll.. II Sign.: "Bishopric", "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.). enHc~onH~ (subst. f.)-MAD 50

67

GLOSSARY 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, 74:2627, 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 copal", "bishop's"

II Etym.: See EnHc~eon'l>. II Sign.: "Epis-

EnHc~eom~C'J'RO (subst. neutr.)-K 44:8-9.11 Etym.: See EnHCKon'l>.ll Sign.: "Bishopric", "Episcopal see/diocese"

(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. EfECb.

(subst. m.)-N 4 bis; K 1:0, 3:1-2, 4:12-13, 4:17, 5:1, 5:23, 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, 19:22-23,20:1214, 21:1-2, 21:4-5, 21:11-13, 21:13-14, 23:6-8, 23:10-11, 24:1, 24:2223, 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)

EfE'T'HK'l>

(adj.)-K 1:4-7, 15:15-16, 30:3-5, 36:10-12, 39:11-13, 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.

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

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

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

II

Etym.: See

68

CHAPTER ONE

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

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

II

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

(subst. m.)-Ril. 54, Vit. 9 II Etym.: From the word mHrro (= "corn", "cereals", related to the meaning of "bread, food", "life") with the suffix -Apb. (BER, I, pp. 548-9; Vasmer, II, p. 57) II Sign.: The legal meaning of the term is in the sphere of taxation. This was an official charged with collecting taxes on grain production. It was probably translated from the Greek word oTtaPXo~. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 361-4; Institutii feudale, pp. 231, 255-6) mHTArb

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

mHTAfbCT&o

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

mHTbHHLI,A

GLOSSARY

69

then the suffix "-HLI,b." (BER, I, pp. 548-9; Vasmer, II, p. 57). II Sign.: "Granary", "barn" where one keeps the grain. The juridical meaning is related to the fiscal law and especially to the maintenance of the natural taxation on grain. (adj.)-Virg. 101 58 II Etym.: An adjective that derives from (see mHTb.fb.!). II Sign.: "Cereal", Gr. cri:tou, Lat. ''frumenti" The juridical signification of the word is related to the grain tax. mHTb.H'll. mHTO

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

70

CHAPTER ONE

those in German. (Grachev V. P., "Iz istorii izuchenija slavjanskikh srednevekovykh institutov (Vopros o zhupakh i zhupanakh v istoriografii)", Uchenye zapiski institute slvjanovedenija, t. XXIX, Moscow, 1965, pp. 178-209; Grachev V. P., "Terminy 'zhupa' i 'zhupan' v serbskikh istochnikakh XII-XIV vv. i traktowka ikh v istoriografii (K izucheniju politicjeskoj organizacii v srednevekovoj Serbii)", Istochniki i istoriografija slavjanskogo Srednevekov'ja. Sbornik statej i materialov, Moscow, 1967, pp. 3-52; Dobrev Iv., "Praslavjanskoto *zupa 'xropa', starobulgarskoto m~nb.H'Z.., starobulgarskoto m~neArz. '9e'iov', m~nH4-Je ·~vfl~a', srednobulgarskoto m~neAeRHHb. '9u£A.A.a"', Konstantin-Kiril Filosof ]ubileen sbornik po sluchaj 11 00-godishninata ot smyrtta mu, Sofia, 1969, pp. 383-7; Malingoudis Ph., «Die Institution des Zupans als Problem der fri.ihslavischen Geschichte (Einige Bemerkungen) », Cyrillomethodianum, II, Thessalonique, 1972-1973, pp. 61-76; Institutii feudale, pp. 239-40, 260, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 266ff.; Philippi M., Die Burger von Kronstadt im 14. und 15. ]ahrhundert, Koln/Wien 1986, p. 131; Gavlikova L., "Transformatsija, retseptsija i adaptacija vizantijskoj voenno-politicheskoj terminologii v slavjanskoj srede", Vizantijskij vremenik, t. 50, 1989, pp. 62-3; Holzer G., «Zur Sprache des mittelatrelichen Slaventums in bsterreich. Slavisch unter bairischen Einfluss», Wiener Slavistisches ]ahrbuch, Bd. 48, 2002, pp. 57-63; Havlova E., «K publikovanYrn. i nepublikovanYrn. pradm Ant. Matzenauera», Studia etymologica Brunensia, 2, 2003, pp. 24-7; Cleminson R., "Brashovskaja gramota tsarja Ivana Sratsimira", Arheografski prilozi, vol. 20, 1998, p. 370; Mihaljcic, Vladarske titule oblasnih gospodara, pp. 77-87). mb.~Arz.

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

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

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

GLOSSARY

71

appeal", "to call", "to praise" and Lat. "grates"= "thanks". (BER, I, pp. 537-8, 554; Vasmer, II, p. 63) II Sign.: "/Pagan/ priest", "celebrant" related to the status of the person.

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

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

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

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

II

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

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

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

AATH

(="to give").

(=

(subst. m.)-Vatop. 21, Dubr. 11, MAD 34, 37, 37-38, 46, 47, 48, 105, Ril. 12; AH 200 four citations, 201, 202 bis, 203 tris, 204 hisin this text the word means "law" as well as "the Holy Scripture"; K 11:7-8, 16:5-6, 20:10-12, 20:12-14, 20:14-15, 21:1-2, 21:3-4, 22:810, 31:14-16, 43:2-4, 46:15-16, 48:8, 52:13-14, 53:9-10, 55:13-15, 55:15-16, 56:7-9,60:17-18,62:5-6, 63:14-16, 63:19-21, 64:15, 66:2-4, 74:8-9, 74:10-11. 75:20-22, II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*za-kon-o" = "principle", "consuetude", "usage" The word is adopted in Greek as ~a.K6vt. The most ancient citation is in the text of Constantine Prophyrogennetus-~
72

CHAPTER ONE

~~KOHbH'I.

(adj.)-Virg. 19, 22, 24, 27, 31, 35, 44, 70; AH 200; K 7:1517, 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, confirmation 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
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 administrative 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 ~~nf'tTHTH. Sign.: In the cited document the word means "prohibi-

II

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 functions. (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.. Sign.: "Intercession".

II

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" (Vasmer, IV, p. 788) The word is a result of a loan translation. II Sign.: "Intercessor" ~b.T&oprz. (subst. m.)-K 55:11-12.

("to close").

II Etym.: From the verb ~b.TROfH'I'H

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 "tiHTm1K" (from "tiHT"/"s;ift" ="pair") and in Walachia and Moldavia. (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 feudale, 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 signification 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 Western 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-European 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)

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.TAfl:. (subst. m.)-N 61 bis.

II Etym.: OT ~AA.TO. (BER, I, pp. 644-5; II Sign.: A golden coin, Gr. VOJ.LtcrJ.La, Lat. "soli-

~AA.THLI,A. (subst. f.)- Vir g. 79

Vasmer, II, pp. 103-4) 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. (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/document/ of highest degree. Late, such a document was issued even by ~AA.Tone'IA.TI:.H'l>

75

GLOSSARY

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 animals)" 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 monasteries 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
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 translation 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.
(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

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 benevolence" The word is related to the founder law and the royal/imperial goodwill. H~-

H~ROAieHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 36:3-4. "Will", "desire", "decision"

II Etym.: See H~ROAHTH. II Sign.:

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 communication service, "herald I messenger", Gr. a1tOKptcrt6:pwc;, Lat. "nuntius" (Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 391-2)

(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.: Ecclesiastical degree in the presbyterial rang. Could be also a monastic institution. (Institutii feudale, p. 228) HKOHOM'l>.

HU
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 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. HHOR'kfb.H'l>.

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 benefaction. Gr. ec;Jl1to~HI;etv, Lat. "impedire" HcnOR
(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
a formula or definition of the faith. HcnoR
79

GLOSSARY

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 "correctus" 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 "Repair, mending", Greek Ka:t6p9rocr~.

HcnfARH'I'H.

II Sign.:

(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 institution, "priest", "minister", Gr. iepd><;, Lat. "sacerdos" HlefeH

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. ment", "penalty"

II Etym.: See ~~~A'I'H. II Sign.: "Punish-

~Mo~refHLV- (subst. f.)-MN 76 (4). II Etym.: See ~Mo~rep'b. A member of a female monastic sisterhood, "nun"

II Sign.:

~Mo~repoR'b (adj.)-Virg. 72 II Etym.: Adjective from ~Mo~rep'b. Sign.: Concerning the monks. (Institufii feudale, pp. 81-2)

II

~MO\j'ref'b (subst. m.)-N 20; MN 41 (1), 99. II Etym.: Transliteration 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 "castrum" > 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. KM'I'e.l\rz..

la.cTpocj>H.I\A/!l'l>/Krz.. (subst. m.)-Virg. 15, 97, Vit. 8 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term KacrtpoA.a~ = "castle guardian" II Sign.: Local military institution, commander of a garrison of a fortress or a town (Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 313-4). KATenA/Ho/Hrz.. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 9, Mr. 2811 Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term Katm6.vro ="who is above" (from Kat'bt6.vro).ll Sign.: Provincial military institution. (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 309-13)

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

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

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

GLOSSARY

81

KHf~ (subst. f.)-MN 56 (1).11 Etym.: See KHf'b·ll Sign.: "Mistress" The feminine form of the word l&p. (Institutii feudale, pp. 162-3) KHf'b (subst. m.)-Virg. 7, 10, 11, Zogr. 37; N 34, 73; MN 31, 40 his, 47 his, 51 (1), 52, 54, 65, 71 (2), 77, 101 his. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word l&p. The orthography is not stable: K~f'b and KHf'b· II Sign.: "Mister, master", Latin "dominus"

KAe&err~ (subst. f.)-K 54:14-17, 67:19-21. II Etym.: Related to the Indo-European morpheme "* kleu-" > Palaeoslavic KAlil Ill\, KAI:.&~TH (= "to peck"). One of the proposed etymologies is related to the root Knerr- (= "to hit, to strike", "to peck") but this is rejected by other scholars. (BER, II, pp. 427-8; Vasmer, II, p. 245) II Sign.:" Aspersion", "slander", "calumny", "witness", Gr. Ka'taAaAia. The term is related to the penal law and to the procedure.

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

II

KAHCO~f~ (subst. f.)-Dubr. 8, 10 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word wum6pa (from Lat. "clausura") = "closed mountainous area" (BER, II, p. 459) II Sign.: The word exists in Modern Bulgarian as a geographical term. Its juridical signification is as appellation of an administrative-territorial unit in the mountains. (Biliarsky, "Les circonscriptions administratives", pp. 183-5) KM.T&~ (subst. f.)-1) Syn. Dr.1, 11, 29, Syn. PaLl, 11, 29; MAD 51, 53 his, 54, MN 54; K 34:1-3, 48:1-3, 74:1-3. II Etym.: From the verb "KM.TH" (see!). (BER, II, p. 441; Vasmer, II, p. 260) II Sign.: "Oath", sworn when concluding a contract. 2) Virg. 79, 92, Mr. 46 II Sign.:

82

CHAPTER ONE

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

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

II

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

II

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

GLOSSARY

83

KOMHC'l> (subst. m.)-Virg. 99, Vit. 10 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek term 11:6~11~ that origins from the Latin "comes, -itis" The Slavic form keeps the nominative suffix. (BER, II, p. 572; Vasmer, II, p. 302)11 Sign.: Local military institution, probably related to the cavalry; Gr. 11:6~11~; Lat. "comes" See also K'l>Mb.Tb. in the Glossary of the terms of Law for Judging the People! The form I~OMHT'l> is also present is some text of Bulgarian origin: in the Chronicle of John Malalas the Greek word cruyKA1l'ttK6~ is translated as GOA!b.fHH'l> KOMHT'l> with a variant of c BapMaHT GOA!b.fHH'l> KMeTrz..-see Istrin V. M., Khonika Joanna Malaly v slavjanskom perevode, Moscow, 1994, p. 182. (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Institutii feudale, pp. 111-3, 398; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 317-9; Wasilewski T., "Proizkhod i administrativna organizatsija na komitatite v srednovekovna Bulgarija", in: Wasilewski T., Bulgarija i Vizantija (IX-XV vek), Sofia, 1997, pp. 48-54; Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 66) KOMOA'l> (subst. m.)-Vatop. 13, 20, Virg. 101, Mr. 31 II Etym.: Probably this is an abbreviated form of oiKo~Mhov. II Sign.: Fiscal institution. This was an annual obligation in kind, which was neither a basic tax on production, nor a tax for land measurement, nor a tax for weighing grain produce and determining the tax on the latter. We first come across it in the charters of Basil II for the Ochrid archbishopric, which gives us reason to conclude that this was a Bulgarian tax of the time of the First Empire, introduced to Byzantium after Bulgaria was conquered in AD 1018 and became part of the Empire. (Dolger, Staatenwelt, pp. 251-6; Bompaire J., «Sur trois termes de fiscalite byzantine», Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, 80 (1956), pp. 625-31; Litavrin, Bolgarija i Vizantija, pp. 310-4; Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 91-95; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 42-3; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 103-4; Andreev, "Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", p. 90; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 82-3) I~OM'l>Kb.HHie

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

84

CHAPTER ONE

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

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

Kapa~wv

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

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

GLOSSARY

85

then comes the meaning "Kpa~a" = "to steal" (see TAT!:.). The final form is "*krad+ja" (BER, II, pp. 704-6; Vasmer, II, p. 364) II Sign.: "Theft", a crime; Gr. KAoml; Lat. "furium" ~fAHI.J.Ie (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 46-47,4711 Etym.: from the Palaeoslavic "*krajt/, "*krajq" with the primary meaning of"piece" and then "end"; see Avestan word "karana-" ="country" as well as the Persian "karan" (BER, II, pp. 707-9; Vasmer, II, p. 364) II Sign.: The citations from the document mean "area" but in some later Serbian and Ottoman documents this word is the Slavic counterpart of the Turkish term of "uc" or "w;:" = "arrow", "peak", "region" This was an almost autonomous region in the Ottoman state system under the power of an uc beg. In this sense the term could be lexically identical with nf'tArt.Arz.. in the Bulgarian mediaeval administrative system. This does not mean the two terms are identical in their character. The term ~f~HI.J.Ib.HH~b. is present in the Serbia and means "the governor of the region". Later it is used for the uc beg, i. e. as a Slavic translation of the Ottoman term. (Biliarsky, "Les circonscriptions administratives", p. 197; Biliarsky Iv., "Pismo na sultan Bajazid II do kral Matias Korvin ot 1487 g.", Ricerche slavistiche, XLIV, 1997, pp. 79-81; Institutii feudale, 127) ~fMb. (subst. m.)-MAD 8, Virg. 3, 10, 12, 65, 93, 94, 107, 112,Zogr. 31, Bra. 3 bis; N 47; MN 41, 44 (1), 48 (4) bis, 65. II Etym.: From German "Karl" ("Karal")-the name of Charlemagne, the king and emperor of the restored Empire in the West. The word is present in all the Slavic languages, in Romanian and even in Turkish "keral", "qyral", in Hungarian "kinlly" and in Greek KpclA'l'J~· (BER, II, pp. 712-3; Vasmer, II, pp. 333-4) II Sign.: "King", Lat. "rex", Gr. Pill; The term is not a part of the Bulgarian juridical and political terminology and was in use only for foreign rulers, in that case the Serbian one.

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

II

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

86

CHAPTER ONE

KfMTHTH I

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

!Cfb.I.J.IeHHie (subst. neutr.)-AH 201 (TpM II'bTM); K 31:4-5, 32:3, 32:3-5, 67:21-23. II Etym.: See KfMTHTH.II Sign.: "Baptism", a sacrament. See !epMTHTH. (Minceva, "Entstehungswege", pp. 58-61) ~ep-tnoCTb. (subst. f.) -Zogr. 60; N 45. II Etym.: From K£-tnrz. = "fortress" See Palaeoslavic "*krer'b-k'b" < Indo-European *kre-pu-" It is related to the Old Icelandic "hf~~::fa" ="stand, endure", "bear", "suffer". (BER, II, p. 735; Vasmer, II, p. 372) II Sign.: The word can signify "fortress, fortification" but in the cited case it means that the tsar is decided to protect the privileges he instaured with his document; Gr. icr:x;uc;, Kacr-cpov; Lat. "robur", "castrum"

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

II

Sign.: Female

I~THTOf'll. (subst. m.)-Zogr. 11; N 46, 50, 85 (2); MN 54, 70. II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word K't'fi-crop = "benefactor", "who created something", "founder" The Greek word originates from the verb K'tt~ro = "to build", "to create" (BER, III, p. 70; Vasmer, II, p. 393; Nichev Al, "Dvadeset i edna etimologii", Ezik i literatura, 35 (1980), 2, pp. 59-60) II Sign.: "Benefactor", "founder", "donor" KO~Mepb.1~'1>. (subst. m.)-Dubr. 11, MAD 27, 46, 48, Ril. 74 II Etym.: Transfiteration of the Greek word KO'Uj..l.j..I.EpKtOV (from the Lat. "commercium").ll Sign.: "Duty, customs", "tax on the trade". In the Horismos for Ragusan merchants the is citation of the "Law of Koumerki" (Andreev, "Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", 92; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky Iv., «Quelques observations sur la reglementation du commerce de l'Etat medieval bulgare», La pratique commerciale (= Mediterranees, No 30/31, 2002), p. 99ff.; Institutiifeudale, pp. 490-2).

GLOSSARY

KO\j'nAh\

87

(subst. f.)-Dubr. 2, 3, MAD 27, Ril. 7211 Etym.: See Ko~nHTH.

II sign.: "Commodity, merchandise". (Dujcev, Rilskatagramota, p. 64).

~eo~nHTH I KO\j'nO&~TH (verb)-Dubr. 7, 9, MAD 23, 24, 26, Ril. 72 II Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*kupiti" = "to buy", which is adopted from the Germanic languages ("*kaupjan", Goth. "kaupon" = "to buy, to trade"). (BER, III, p. 142; Vasmer, II, pp. 420-1) II Sign.: "To buy", "to ' 'Y Lat. " emere, tra de, , Gr. o.yopo.~:~etV, Ko~m~u,b. (subst. m.)-MAD 21, 26, 27, 29 bis, 31, K 76:9-10.11 Etym.: See Ko~nHTH. II Sign.: "Tradesman", "merchant" The word is cited only in the treaty with Dubrovnik of AD 1253 and probably was more familiar to the Serbian than to Bulgarian usage. I~O\j'fA (subst. neutr.)-Mr. 32, Ril. 66

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

rodster" The word origin of the sound of the song of the oird. It developed in two directions: 1) everything linked to the poultry and this race of domestic birds and 2) "penis", "male sexual organ" (BER, III, pp. 142-3; Vasmer, II, p. 422) II Sign.: "Chick, chicken" The cited case means the obligatory furniture and requisitions for the army and passing state officials. In the Rila chrysobull we read "not to kill chicken" that eliminates the possibility to see in the word a sign of some taxation on the poultry. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 124). K'l..MOTf~ (subst. f.)-AH 201.11 Etym.: The word is adopted from Latin: "cum mater" This could happen in Great Moravia as well as in the Balkans, where the phrase was commonly used in Roman law. There is no common opinion on that question. (BER, III, pp. 124-5, 126; Vasmer, II, p. 414; Etimologicheskij slovar' slavjanskikh jazykov, t. 6, Moscow, 1979, pp. 151-2; SSKJ, t. I, p. 98) II Sign.: "God mother" The cited text is not official and we cannot know if the word was adopted by official or by vernacular way. (Minceva, "Entstehungswege", p. 53ff.; Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 68, 88). K'l..HHP~

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

88

CHAPTER ONE

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

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

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

Atl\Rftl\

GLOSSARY

89

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

AHT~frH~

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

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

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

AOKH4Je

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

90

CHAPTER ONE

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

Ab.CTHTH

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

Ab.CTI:.

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

AMTI:.U.b.

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

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

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

Akl&OA'tHU.~

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

(subst. m. pl.)-Vatop. 4, 17, 21, MAD 19, 20, 21, 25, 31, 33, 35, 39, 47, Virg. 12, 76, 81, 87, 98, Mr. 20, 21, 24, 31, 34, 37, 39, 40, 48, Vit. 6, 7, 12, 14, 17 Ril. 34, 49, 52, 60, 64-65, 70, 89, 102, Bra. 2, 3; AH 200, 203; MN 2, 65 his; K 19:8-11, 19:16-18, 35:9-11, 40:19-20, 75:12-13, 78:18-19, 79:5-6, 80:9-10. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ljud'b, ljudbje"
AklAHe

(subst. neutr.)-K 58:5-7.11 Etym.: The word is an adoption from the Germanic languages: it is composed of the Old German MM'll.meHCT&o

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

M4\HM'l' Hfb.CK'll.

(adj.) -See

MOHM'l'Hf'll.

MOH4\C'l'Hf b.CK'll.

(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 manastiru Hilandaru", Stari srpski arhiv, 5 (2006), p. 78) uemA4\

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 = "community", "participation", "part" (BER, III, pp. 771-2; Vasmer, II, p. 611) II Sign.: Possession/patrimony of a monastery. A small monastery. (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)

(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 ue'IOHOW4\

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", "benefaction" (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" < IndoEuropean "*mei-" (="dear", "darling"). Related to the Lettish "miers" = "peace", "serenity", "silence", Lithuanian "mieras" ="dear" and Albanian "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, (= Mediterranees, 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: temporary requisitioning of part of the homes of the population for accommodating 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 srpskih 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) (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. (Institutii feudale, pp. 297-9) MHrrponoAHT'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. uHororytWb.H'l>

uor..,.Tb.

"can"

(subst. m.)-K 35:17-19.

II Etym.: From the verb "Mora" =

II Sign.: "Powerful man"

(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". (Institutiifeudale, pp. 287-9). MOHMT'l>lf'l>

(adj.)-Mr. 37, 39, Vit. 6, Ril. 20, 28, 30, 39, 69, 71, 76, K 55:13-15. II Etym.: See MOHACT'l>lf'l>· II Sign.: Adjective from "monastery"; "monastic" UOHMT'l>lfb.CK'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" MOHA,X'l>/MHH,X'l>

(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 uocrrb.HHHA

94

CHAPTER ONE

space) and the suffix -HHH~. The word seems to be a translation from the Greek yepac; oiKOOO~ft Kat avaverocrtc;. This was an exceptional (not regular) obligation of the population in cases when the state was hard pressed by circumstances. (Ferrari della Spade, Immunita, pp. 137-8; Karayannopoulos 1., Das Finanzwesen des fruebyzantinischen Staates, Mi.inchen, 1958, p. 181; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 109; Institutii feudale, p. 366) (subst. f.)-AH 203.11 Etym.: From Palaeoslavic "*muditi" < "*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" (Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 94-5) M'l>AI:.AOC'T'b.

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 juridical meaning is "ransom" (only these cases are cited here). Mb.CTHTeAb. (subst. m.)-K 37:18-20. "Avenger, revenger", Greek EKOtKO<;.

II

Etym.: See

Mb.C'T'b..

II

Sign.:

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"

(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

M'kCTO

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 western 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; Vasmer, 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 administratives", p. 190) UMO (subst. neutr.)-Mr. 32 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*m~sa" < IndoEuropean "*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
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-tserkovnoslavjanskie 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" (subst. M.)-K 75:14-17. II Etym.: From the Palaeoslavic (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.HMbHH~'b

"*j~ti"

(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.HH!e

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.

(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"

Hb.fOA'b

(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, outrage, coercion", Gr. ~ia, Lat. "vis". (Institutii feudale, pp. 441-2) HMHAH!e

(verb)-Mr. 46, Ril. 105; AH 202; K 78:1314.11 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) HMNkAORb.'I'H/Hb.CNkAH'I'H

97

GLOSSARY

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 "*nastaviti" = "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
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 messenger, 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. Sign.: "Negligence, carelessness", Lat. "negligentia". A form of guilt.

II

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 German "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
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
HeR
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

99

GLOSSARY

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~. Sign.: "Innocent".

II

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 Palaeoslavic "*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 Euthymius. (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", "depression (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 translation 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.: "Neophyte"; who was baptised not long ago. H~AHTH /eM (verb)-K 68:18.11 Etym.: See H,mAb..ll Sign.: "To violat~ (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. o&HAb.. II Sign.: "To offend", "to hurt"

II

Etym.: See

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 RAb.AMb.L.J.b..

101

II Sign.: "Hold", "possess", "to rule, to reign", Gr.liPXetV,

E1t6:p:x,etV, Lat. "imperare" (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 "*obvlastU" (*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)

O&AM1'b.

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. "Accusation"

II Etym.: See O&AH'I~1'H. II Sign.:

(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"
(subst. neutr.)-Ril. 10 II Etym.: Probably a loan translation from the Greek Ct.vaKaivrom<;. See also Latin "renovatio" II Sign.: "Renovation" The idea of"perpetual renewal" is crucial to understanding the political ideology of the Eastern Roman Empire and, hence, OGHORAeHHie

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 (~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"

(subst. neutr.)-Virg. 95 II Etym.: From h\RHTH (Palaeoslavic "*aviti" = "/make/ appear, make something visible" < IndoEuropean "*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&'Ah\RAeHHie

(subst. m.)-MAD 52, O&
o&'k4-J~TH/o&e'I~TH (rJiar)-MAD 711 Etym.: See o&
(subst. M.)-MN 86 (1). II Etym.: From "o6n( = "common" < Palaeoslavic "*abbtjb" = "all around" (BER, IV, pp. 760-1; Vasmer, III, p. 110) II Sign.: "Cenobitic", "monk belonging to a cenobitic monastery" The word is related to the monastic regulations and to the status of the person. o&b.4-Jb.HHI('A

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" (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. o&rz..l'lb.Hrz..

II

orp~M (subst. f.)-Zogr. 62 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ograda" (see "rp~Arz..") Sign.: "Fence", "boundary marker", related to the bound-

II

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. justify", "to intercede"

II Etym.: See npb.&b.A4\. II Sign.: "To

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, Vatopedskata 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 "definition", "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!). Sign.: "Consecrate", "sactify". Related to the canon law. oc&A4-JeHHie (subst. neutr.)-K 56:22-24. Sign.: "Consecration", "sanctification"

II

Etym.: See OCRA4-Jb.TH.

II II

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 matrimonial 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
OCmAH'I'H Ch./OCmm~'I'H (verb)-AH 202; K 4:7-8, 12:8-9, 15:5-6,23:810, 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 Sign.: "Ransom", a manner to avoid the responsibility, especially the penal in the framework of the vengeance. 0'1''11.-.

rl

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", "excommunicate", 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) (and obtain something)"

0'1''1>-.

II

Sign.: "To beg

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

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

(subst. m.)-AH 200 his, 201, 202; !Seal I.lOA p. 126; MN 17, 21 (7), 28, 30, 31, 32 (1), 35, 40 his, 42, 43, 44 (1)-four citations, 48 (4) his, 51 (1) his, 54, 60, 61, 69 his, 78, 80, 83 (1), 84 (3), 84 (4), 86 (1), 98, 106 his, 108 (1), 117; K (father) 1:2-4, 1:14-17, 1:19-20, 4:2224, 22:8-10, 23:2-3, 23:20-21, 26:9-10, 30:20-23, 30:25-26, 31:8-10, 32:5-6, 32:22-23, 32:23-25, 34:10-12, 34:12-13, 37:20-22, 45:10-12, 48:5-6, 51:13-14, 54:18-20, 59:13-15, 64:9-11, 65:17-18, 67:7-9, 67:14-16, 69:19-21, 71:7-9, 77:13-15, 80:11-14; (priest) 2:1-3, 2:4-5, 11:12-13, 15:12-14, 33:11-12, 49:16-18, 52:2-3, 56:21-22, 58:7-9, 63:9-11, 70:13-15, 79:3-5, 79:9-11, 79:16-18, 79:21. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*atbcb", created by the third palatalisation of "*atbko" (see Russian "oTeK" ="father" and "6mK" ="male"). From the Indo-European

OTI:.U.I:.

107

GLOSSARY

root "*atta-" = "mother", "elder sister" > Goth. "atta", Hittite "attas" and Greek li:mx related to the meaning of "father", "leader" The word comes from the children language and replaced the Indo-European "pater" = "father" (BER, IV, pp. 960-1; Vasmer, III, p. 170) II Sign.: "Father", "priest" The latter is derivative and secondary. Related to matrimonial law. nb.AMH4-Je (subst. neutr.)-Vit. 11 II Etym.: Palaeo slavic "*padala" < "*padati" = "to fell" The word "rrap;aJio" = "encampment", "low-lying place by the road", "a place where travellers stop to rest or spend the night" It has multiple other meanings that do not concern us. The Serbo-Croatian word "rra~aJUfmTe", which occurs in some Bulgarian dialects, means "camp of Gypsy nomads" In this case the word is probably a translation of the Greek word K6.9tcrJ.UX.. (BER, IV, p. 999; Vasmer, III, p. 184) II Sign.: The word is mentioned in the Vitosha Charter with reference to the officials who must not trouble the monastery; this means the reference is to a place, but it is not the name of an official duty. I believe it refers to exempting the population from the obligation of providing and maintaining an edifice for the needs of the local administration, a place that would serve as headquarters for that official during his stay at the place in question. In the Byzantine Empire, an identical obligation was called K6.9tcrJ.UX.. (Oikonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 94-5, see different in Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 117) nb.I~OCTb./nb.~OC'l'b.

(subst. f.)-Dubr. 8, MAD, 23, Bra. 5, K 44:1-2, 77:13-15. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pakastb" = "evil", "damage" (BER, V, p. 15; Vasmer, III, p. 189) II Sign.: "Damage, mischief, harm"; in the citation in Bra. this is a part of the prohibition to bring any injuries the merchants from Bra~ov/Kronstadt. nb.~OCTHTH (verb)-Virg. 98, Mr. 3911 Etym.: See nb.~OC'l'b..ll Sign.: "To

do mischief", "to injure", Gr.

eJ..L1toOi~etV,

Lat. "impedire"

nMHL.J.b. (subst. f.)-K 24:14-16,24:17-19.11 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*palica" < "*pala" = "stick", ''baton", "pole", "rod". Probably related to the Old German "spaltan" = "to split, to rive", "to break" (BER, V, pp. 27-8; Vasmer, III, p. 193) II Sign.: "Scepter". A symbol of power. nb.Hb.rHfb. (subst. m.)-Virg. 16, 30 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek word 1tO.V'l'JyUptOV (from 1tO.V- ="all" and ayupo<; = "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 comparison 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; Institutii feudale, p. 111) n4\fH"'MKrz.

(adj.)-Vir g. 39, 50-51

II Sign.: "Related to the paroikoi"

II Etym.: Adjective of n4\fHKrz. (see!).

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 meaning 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
m.)-MAD 55 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "pecatt/' < "*pekett/', 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 confirmation 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
110

CHAPTER ONE

nHCb.U.b. (subst. m.)-Virg. 100, Mr. 28; MN 14, 54, 74.11 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*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
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 locality)" and "barren (referring to land, soil)" It comes from the IndoEuropean root "*pel-"/"*po-", from which "none" (= field), "rromma" (= meadow) are also derived. It is akin to the Icelandic "fell"= "mountain", 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 referring 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:amtinoslavica, XII, 1951, p. 38; Blagojevic M., "Planine i pasnjaci u srednjovekovnoj Srbii", Istoriski grasnik, 2-3 (1966), pp. 3-95; Bozilov Iv., Bulgarite vav Vizantijskata imperija, Sifia, 1995, pp. 39, 47; Mihaljcic, Zakoni u starim srpskim ispravama, pp. 200-1).

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"

(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" nAeMA

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

(adj.)-MN 45 (4) II Etym.: The word is an exact loan translation of the Greek Vt1CI'( "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" no&

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
(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, 74:1213, 77:15-1711 Etym.: From the verb ReA
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", "peasant 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. Etym.: See nor4\HH~'A. II Sign.: "Pagan"

II

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-")
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" (TsibranskaKostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 54).

nOA'AROAI\ (subst. f.)-Mr. 33, Vit. 11

II

Etym.: Palaeoslavic verb

"*padwesti", "*padvedq" (ROAHTH ="guide, lead"). The primary meaning 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 Walachia and Moldavia ("podvadcl" or "podvoadcl"). (Ilinskij, Gramoty,

113

GLOSSARY

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.
nOK4\f~TH

(verb)-K 37:9-11, 52:14-15, 62:11-13, 65:10-12, 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" C/lt.

noK4\~HHie (subst. neutr.)-K 46:3-5. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*kajati (s(()"
II Sign.: "To repent"

Etym.: See noK4\~HHie.

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 prohibition 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 seduce". Related to canon and penal law.

Ab.CTHTH.

II Sign.: "To

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

115

GLOSSARY

text of the Synodicon this refers to a heresiarch, who preached unjustly and claimed to have the grace of God upon himself. The word corresponds in Syn. Dr. to "anointed", but does not refer to a ruler, at least not in the concrete text cited here. (Popruzhenko, Sinodik, pp. LXXVIII-LXXIX, No. 64) noM04Jb.HH~'ll. (subst. m.)-Virg. 96, Mr. 4 II Etym.: From noM04Jb. = "help, aid" (< M04Jb. = "power, force, strength" with the prefix "no-"). The word means "helper, supporter" (BER, V, p. 512; Vasmer, III, p. 323) II Sign.: This is the holy man-supporter and intercessor of the ruler (related to the theory of power); Gr. ~0'1196c;, Lat. "auxiliator" not.t~CTb.H'll.IH (rrpHJI)-MN 14

II

Etym.: From M~CTO (see!). Probably the word is a translation of the Greek 't01m:6c;. II Sign.: "Local" (for a ecclesiastical council, opposed to the "ecumenical"). non~'I~HHie (subst. neutr.)-Virg. 3, Zogr. 25

II

Etym.: Related to the meaning "care, concern". From the verb non~4JH c.~>.= "to care". (BER, V, p. 524) II Sign.: "Cure", "care, concern", Gr.
II

Etym.: See

non'll..

II

Sign.:

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 "popove 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"

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

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

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

117

GLOSSARY

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

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

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

noc.l\"'fXrz.).

II

II

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

II

noc.l\0\fW~TH (verb)-K 22:6-7; MN 16. Etym.: From C.I\~W~TH (see noc.I\~Xrz.).ll Sign.: "To witness", "to testify", "to attest". Here only the

special juridical meaning is cited but not the general: "to listen", "to hear", "to perceive sound"

II

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

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

noco&HTe.l\1:. (subst. m.)-Mr. 4-5 II Etym.: The word derives from the pronoun ce&'k = "oneself (my/your/him/her/itself, our/your/themselves)" The verb "cnoco6cTB)1BaM" = "to help", "do somebody to reach certain result by me" (BER, V, p. 542; Vasmer, III, p. 340) II Sign.: "Helper, collaborator I who helps", Gr. ~on96~, Lat. "auxiliator" In the citation this is the saint-patron of the monastery (in that case-Saint George) as intercessor and protector of the tsar and of the imperial power. The juridical meaning of the word is related to the ideology of the ruler's power. nocrr~RHTH (verb)-Virg. 83, 90, 105, Mr. 30; AH 204 (to appoint, to nominate); N 44 (to appoint, to nominate); K 11:19-21, 12:6-7, 12:22, 29:4-5,30:1-2,40:9-10,52:14-15.11 Etym.: The prefix no- and the verb

118

CHAPTER ONE

C'T'UHTH (the morpheme "-st-") ="to put" (Vasmer, III, p. 742) II Sign.: "To put" The meaning of the word is the same but it developed in three directions: 1) a prohibition of intervention and even entering ("to step in") in the possessions of the monastery (Virg. 83, 90, Mr. 30); 2) promotion and enthronisation of the tsar by God (Virg. 105); 3) "to appoint", "to nominate" somebody at some position, "ordain" somebody at some ecclesiastical position. noC'T''l> (subst. m.)-AH 201. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*past~>", related to the Old German "fasto", Goth. "fastan" and German "fasten" = "to fast" See also German "fest" = "solid", "hard", "firm"; "Festung" = "fortress", "stronghold"; Armenian "hast" = "solid", "hard", "firm" The meaning derives from "to stay firm", "to abstain" > "respect the fasting" (BER, V, pp. 543-5; Vasmer, III, pp. 340-1) II Sign.: "Fast", a period of abstention ruled by the Church canons aiming a repentance, penitence. (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 97). noC'T'b.HHK'l> (subst. m.)-Syn. Dr.1, Syn. PaLl II Etym.: See noC'T''l>. II Sign.: "Faster", "who fasts", "hermit", Gr. amcftTrJc; (the original word in the Greek text of the Synodicon). noc'l>MTH/noc'l>IAb.TH (verb)-Virg. 97, Zogr. 40, Mr. 27, Ril. 59 II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "pa-" and "*s'blati", related to the Goth. "saljan" = "to sacrifice" and Old Icelandic "selja"= "to redirect", "to sell" Could be related to the Albanian "sflljem" ="to go in", "to run, to run away" and Armenian "slanam" = "to go in", "to run, to run away", "to fly" (Vasmer, III, p. 667) II Sign.: "To send" One of the meanings is "to send (diplomatic) missions" (Virg., Mr. Ril.); other meaning is "to appoint, to nominate state officials" (Zogr.). The word could be used to designate the sending of official correspondence, the appointment or nomination of state officials or the exile as punishment for criminals. (Institutii feudale, pp. 189, 461-2). nOTRfbAHTH/nOTRfbJKAb.TH (verb)-Virg. 106, Mr. 44, 45, Ril. 98 II Etym.: From no- and TRf'bA'l>. "To make something harder" (Vasmer, IV, p. 32) II Sign.: "To confirm, to corroborate", Gr. E1tt
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 prohibition 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 violating 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 ispravama, pp. 203-4). nOTI:.Il't~~/nOT~:>n-tr~ (subst. f.)-AH 202. II Etym.: There are two proposed etymologies: from the verb TeTH and from the verb &'tr~TH. The word bears the idea of"division", "chase, pursuit". (BER, I, pp. 106-7; Vasmer, I, p. 143) II Sign.: "Divorced woman" (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 41-2).

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

120

CHAPTER ONE

"norm", "statute", Gr. Kavrov, Lat. "norma", "regula" (Institufii feudale, p. 375). npb.RHHb. (subst. f.)-Vatop. 4, MAD, 34 his, Virg. 18, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28bis, 31, 35, 42, 51-52, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 58 his, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63bis, 64, 70, 71, Mr. 34, 39, 48, Ril. 17, 35,9211 Etym.: See npb.RbA4\. II Sign.: "Privileges", "goods", Gr. OtKatiDJ.J.(X'ta. Related to (and probably created after) the Greek word OtKaiov. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 115-6; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64). npb.RHTH (verb)-K 44:16-18, 66:14-16. "To rule", "to execute", "to respect"

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

npb.ROR'tfH!e (subst. neutr.)-MN 16 II Etym.: From npb.R'll. (= "right", "straight") and R'tfb. (= "faith"); loan translation of Greek 6p9ooo~ia. II Sign.: "Orthodoxy", belief that is not heretical or heterodox. Could be related to the status of the person and to penal law. npb.ROR'tfb.H'll. (adj.)-Virg. 8, 9, 65, 79, 92, 93, 94, 107, 112; MN 14; K 2:5-7,3:4-6, 3:6-8, 12:1-2, 12:8-9, 19:8-11.11 Etym.: See npuoR'tfH!e; an adjective: "orthodox".ll Sign.: "Orthodox"; related to the status and to the canon and penal law. npb.ROCAb.Rb.H'll. (adj.)-Virg. 1, 2, Zogr. 3, 10, 14, 19, 70, Mr. 17, 44, Ril. 99; Syn. Pal.llO II Etym.: Loan translation of 6p960o~oc;. II Sign.: "Orthodox" npb.Rb.,L\4\ (subst. f.)-MAD, 3, 36, 50, Zogr. 7, 45, Mr. 9; AH 203 (Henpb.Rb.Ab.); K 12:6-7,22:15-17,52:14-15 bis,65:6-7.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pravbda" ("truth", "justice") < "*prav-o" ("right", "straight") < Indo-European "*pro-wo-s" ("before", "right", "straight, direct", "vertical". (BER, V, pp. 581-2; Vasmer, III, p. 352) II Sign.: "Justice", "right", Gr. OtKatocr6vr\. OtKaiov, Lat. "iustitia", "ius". Probably this is a translation of the Greek word OtKaiov. In the cited cases: 1) in Zogr. the meaning is "goods"; 2) in Mr. "justice", "right". (Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 115-6). npb.Rb.Ab.H'll. (adj.)-Mr. 45, Ril. 103; AH 199, 200; MN 45 (4).11 Etym.: See npu~:..,L\4\.11 Sign.: "Righteous, fair, honest", Gr. OtKa tOe;, Lat. "iustus".

GLOSSARY

121

np~,XToprz. (subst. m.)-Vatop. 7; Virg. 14, 99, Mr. 38, Ril. 53, Vit. 8 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Greek npaK'trop that has Latin origin. II Sign.: There are two significations: 1) in Vatop. this is the general appellation of the officials in the local administration; 2) in all the other documents this is appellation of a special fiscal official; Gr. npaK'trop, Lat. "exactor" (Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 35-6; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 350-3).

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

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

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

npHK""fnrz.(subst. M.)-K 56:1-2.11 Etym.: SeeK""fnHTH.II Sign.:"Buying" npHAe;K~HHHl (subst. neutr.)-Zogr. 45, 56, 64, Mr. 25, Vit. 4-511 Etym.: Palaeoslavic verb "*prilaziti", "*prilaia" = "enclose", "attach, add" (Goth. "lagian", Old Icelandic "liggia" = "put, apply"). (BER, V, pp. 716-9) II Sign.: Related to the property. (Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 115)

"f""~nA~TH (verb)-AH 202. II Etym.: Derives from the verb "nem1" and the prefix "rrpH-" > the meaning "to stick, to adhere", "to link" From the Palaeoslavic "*lepiti, lepjq"
122

CHAPTER ONE

with the general primary meaning of "spreading", "pollution, contamination", "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 "primmicerius" 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. Implementation of a debt, obligation. II Sign.: Implementation of the obligation 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. Providing 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, "Influence 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", "eternally", 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 "*pristav'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 fasten", "to cover", "to fit" (Vasmer, III, pp. 367, 825) II Sign.: "Oath, vow", in the citation the word means a type of pagan worship ritual. npH'Ib.T'll. (subst. m.)-MN 45 (4), 47. II Etym.: From "qeTa" (with the primary meaning of "calculate" passing through "to conform with, to take in consideration") and "rrpMtieT" ="honour", "respect" (BER, V, p. 745, Vasmer, IV, pp. 374-5) II Sign.: "Clergy". (Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 34-5). 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).

(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", npoiCN\\TH

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 sanction (penal) formula in the imperial documents. npoKM.T"AIH (particip.)-MN 22 (2). "Accursed, damned"

II

Etym.: See npoKM.TH.

II

Sign.:

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; Vasmer, 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 Byzantine 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.u,b.

(subst. m.)-MAD

8311 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*perti/*pbrq", "b.f~

< Indo-European "*(s)per-, *(s)por-, *(s)pr-" that developed the meaning 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 discussion/controversy" or "the two controversial participants in a civil trial" One of the significations of the word "b.f~ is "lawsuit", "trial", Latin "causidicus" (Dujcev, SBK, II, 336; Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 57-8). np
II

np
126

CHAPTER ONE

II

np-to~V-HH!e (subst. neutr.)-MN 14; K 12:1-3, 56:10-12. Etym.: See np-to~V-TH. Probably a loan translation of the Greek xapaoomc;. Sign.:

II

"Tradition", "custom", "rule, regulation", "legacy" (subst. m.)-Ril. 104-105, K 24:10-11. II Etym.: II Sign.: "Traitor", Gr. xpoo&n,c;, Lat. "proditor"

np-t,LV.Te.l\1:.

np-to~V-TH.

See

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, 63:911. 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, 4723) 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 ecclesiastical 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, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 91-2).

II

np-t.l\kl&OA't~TH (verb)-K 61:10-11. Etym.: From np't.Akl&'ll.l and A't~TH. Sign.: "To commit adultery", "to fornicate", Gr. )lOtX& or

II

)lOtxe6ro, Lat. "adultero", "!ornico"; related to the canon and to the

penal law.

127

GLOSSARY nr
II

Etym.: See noMH.I\OR~TH!

II

Sign.:

nr
the prefix

nre-.

II Sign.: "To dominate", "to possess, to rule"

(adj.)-MN 14 tris, 31 II Etym.: From C&h.T'b. (see Sign.: "/Very/ holy", address formula to a metropolitan.

nr
II

nrpo~. II Sign.: "Hosiomartyr", "a beatus martyr"

(adj.)-Zogr. 5, 61-62; N 78; MN 31, 44 (1) bis, 57, 59, 69, 86 (1), 101. II Etym.: From nr
nr
(subst. m.)-Virg. 105, Zogr. 22, Mr. 42, Ril. 95; N 22; MN 58 (2); K 6:8-11. II Etym.: From np
nr
II

Etym.: See

nr
II

nr
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"
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 "purgar = German "Burger" (BER, V, pp. 857-8) II Sign.: In the documents 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 Council 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 appellation 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. Translation 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", "anchorite", "monk"

no~CT'AIHb.H'A (adj.)-Ril. 79, 10211 Etym.: See no~CT'AIHH.II Sign.: "Desert , "uninhabited".

GLOSSARY

129

n~4-Jb.'I'H (verb)-AH 202 bis. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*pustiti" ("release")
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, Rilskata 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 preparation of a tax cadastre (lists). This is the formula for prohibiting fiscal officials from entering the property of the monastery, Gr. yp6.
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 "service", "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 ispravama, 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, 65:1819, 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 feudale, 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", "burglary", 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 "kalti" = "to cut", "to pick" (BER,

Etym.: From "*arz-" and the verb 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 harnessing 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 that is acceptable and that is a transliteration of the Greek &.epuc6v (see ~fHI~o). (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65) II Sign.: Additional tax identical to the Byzantine &.epuc6v. (see ~fHI(o). MfH~oc

fOI"ll. (subst. m.)-Mr. Bll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*ragu" 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, 74:13.11 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.: Transliteration of the Greek Pfttrop. II Sign.: "Rhetor", "orator"

f'll.ITOf'll.

(subst. m.)-K 39:21-22. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic fii'\Pb.TH = "to curse", "to abuse", "to revile"
fii'\P'll.

(subst. m.)-K 10:2-4. II Etym.: From Cb.M'll. (= "alone", himself") and RHA
Cb.MORHAM.J.I:.

(adj.)-MN 47, 53, 57, 58 (2), 59. II II Sign.: "Autocratic", adjective for the tsar.

Cb.MOAf!:WKb.RI:.H'll.IH Cb.MOAf!:WKM.J.I:..

Etym.: See

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. 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., "Avtokrator i samodrl.ac", Glas Srpske Kraljevske Akademije, drugi razred, 84, 1935, pp. 95-187; Institufii feudale, pp. 419, 443-4). Cb.MOAf!:WKM.J.I:.

(subst. m.)-K 12:1-3, 63:16-17, 69:8-9, 79:3-5. II Etym.: Word 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. Cb.H'll.

(subst. f.)-Mr. 47, Ril. 82-83,86,87, 10911 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*svabada/svebada" < Indo-European "*swe-/*swo-" (= "proper") with CRO&OA4\

134

CHAPTER ONE

suffix "* -bho-" M "* -da". Related to the meaning "who exists by himself" (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" (adj.)-MAD 28, 50, Ril. 91; CROGOAb.HO/CROGOAb.H
CRh.THTeAb.

holy" (see

(subst. m.)-MN 45 (4) II Etym.: From II Sign.: "Cleric", "clergyman"

CRh.T'b

= "saint,

CRh.THTH!).

(subst. neutr.)-K 40:19-20. II Etym.: See CRh.THTeAb.. Sign.: "Priesthood", Gr. tepa'teu~a; related to the ecclesiastical law.

CRh.THTeAb.CTRO

II

(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.TOfOAb.H'b

CRh.THTH CRh.T'b

I

CRh.4-JATH /Ch./

(verb)-K 12:14-17, 27:4-6.

II Etym.: From

< Palaeoslavic "*sv~t'b", "*sv~t'bjb" with the primary meaning of

"strong, robust" and then the meaning "holy" develops with the Christianity. 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 = "cleric" < CRh.T'b = "holy" (BER, VI, pp. 541-2; Vasmer, Ill, p. 585) II Sign.: "Related to the cleric I to the clergy"

CRh.ij.I6HH"'b.CK'b

CRb.ij.leHOA
(verb)-Syn. Dr.20, 65, Syn. Pal.58 II Etym.: Loan translation of the Greek l.epoupyo~m. II Sign.: "Officiate a religious rite" (Popruzhenko, Sinodik, p. CL). c&h.4-JeHOA
GLOSSARY

135

(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, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 35-6). CRA4-JeHb.HH~'ll.

II

CRb-4-JeHb.HOHHO~'ll. (subst. m.)-MN 53 Etym.: From CRb-4-JeHb.HH~'ll. HHO~'ll. = "monk"; probably a loan translation of the Greek l.epo~6vaxoc;.ll Sign.: "Monk-priest", "hieromonk"

and

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, Etym.: 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, Institutsiite, pp. 85-111) 50.

II

(subst. m.)-Vatop. 9, Virg. 14, 99, Mr. 28, 38, Ril. 53; !Seal IV.10 pp. 142-3, IV.12 p. 143; N 44, 72, 73, 75, 81. II Etym.: Transliteration 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 Bulgaria 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). ceR4\CT'll.

(subst. neutr.)-Virg. 33, Mr. 21,22 his, Ril. 1811 Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*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 manastiru Hilandaru", p. 78). ceAH4-Je

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 mediaeval 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 provincial 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 administrative 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.: Transliteration of the Greek word cruvopov. (BER, VI, pp. 674-5) II Sign.: "Boundary", "border", boundaries between real estates. (Institutii feudale, p. 282).

(sub st. m.) -MN 45 (4) II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*sir'b" = "orphan", 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 matrimonial law. (Institutii feudale, pp. 10, 346). CHf'll.IH

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).

137

GLOSSARY

(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"

CAOKO

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 pametnitsi", Izvestija na Instituta za bulgarski ezik, III, 1954, pp. 309-11; Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 222; Tsankova-Petkova, Agrarnite 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 bulgarskite tsare", p. 49). CA,rA (subst. m.)-K 26:12-14, 37:18-20. II Etym.: After some scholars 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
CA~meHHie (subst. neutr.)-Syn. Dr.17, 61, Syn. Pal.54 CA,Pb..

II Sign.: "Service", "civil service", Gr. im:npecria.

CA~mHTH/nocM'(mHTH (verb)-MN 58 (2); K 13:11-12. CM~rA. Sign.: 'To serve"

II

II

Etym.: See

II

Etym.: See

CAO\j'mHTeAI:. (subst. m.)-Mr. 35; MN 57. II Etym.: See cM~rA = "servant" 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 correspondence or in rhetoric prose. (Biliarsky, "Dva nanlchnika za pittakia", pp. 242-3). n'~AO

(subst. neutr.)-MN 14 his, K 16:1-2, 30:1-2, 40:19-20, 74:2627, 75:22-24, 76:17-19, 77:2-4.11 Etym.: Derives from the Indo-European 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 monastery, Gr. yeprov. In Romanian the form developed to the meaning "hegoumen", "abbot", "head of a monastery" n'MI:. (subst. f.)-Vatop. 4, Mr. 25, Ril. 17, 48, 69, Vit. 611 Etym.: Borrowed from the Greek mam~. II Sign.: "Property", "possessions", "patrimony" (Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65). n'O.I\I:.HHK'l.. (subst. m.)-ISeal IV.8 p. 141 (=H 77).11 Etym.: From CTO.I\'l.. (see!); loan translation of the Greek obtl 'til~ -rpaxe~rt~· II Sign.: "Stolnik", an official, charged with the care about the tsar's table. (Institutii feudale, p. 456; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 177-81, 465).

GLOSSARY

139

C'I'OA't.. (subst. m.)-MAD 17, Ril. 8, 12; MN 14 bis, 80, 89; K 14:12-15, 14:17-20, 14:20-22 bis. II Etym.: Related to the Palaeoslavic "*stati", "*stojc/ = "to stay", "to become" (Indo-European morpheme "-st-"). "Chair" (Vasmer, III, pp. 764-5, 788) II Sign.: "Throne", Gr. 9p6vo<;, Lat. "thron us" cTpb.mb. (subst. m.)-K 30:1-2. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*storzb"
related to the sense "space", "to stretch, to spread, to extend" (Vasmer, 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.: Transliteration of the Greek word a'tpa'trop < from mpa't6<; = "army". (Hofman, '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, Institutsiite, 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 Universe 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. Sign.: "Sexual intercourse", "adultery"

II

Etym.: See

&Aii\AHTH.

II

(subst. m.)-MAD 27, MN 14 his, K 2:1-3, 15:22-23, 58:7-9. II Etym.: From the verb C'll.&bfb.TH = "to assemble, to gather"; probably 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.&Of'll.

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
(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 commit a sin", "to transgress"; related to the canon law. C'll.rf'tWb.TH/C'll.rp
C'll.rp
II Etym.: See rp
(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. "continere" 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. C'll.Afb.mb.TH

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 IndoEuropean 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, Pravoslavno 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 C'll.TAm4\TeAI:.

CHAPTER ONE

(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.: Palaeoslavic 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'll.Th.m4\TH

c~:.pespo (subst. neutr.)-MAD 24, Zogr. 6-7, K 19:1-2, 76:9-10. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*sbrebro" = "silver", Lithuanian "sidabras", Prussian "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. Substantive of Cbfe&po. II Sign.: "Silver coin", Gr. taA.avtov.

II

Etym.:

(subst. neutr.)-K 14:17-20. II Etym.: From the verb The meaning is "seat" but also "main office".ll Sign.: "Chair", "throne"; symbol of power. t'tAMHI.J.Ie

C
(subst. m.)-Ril. 56, Vit. 12 II Etym.: Crom C'kHO (= "hay" < Palaeoslavic "*sena") and the suffix -4\p!:.. (BER, VI, pp. 610-12; Vasmer, III, p. 601). II Sign.: Officer, charged with the corvee C
C
C
C
II

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).

(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\AHTH

(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" 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). Cli\AH~

Cli\A"h.!

(subst. m.)-Virg. 78, 87, 104, Mr. 46; MN 19, 70; K 15:5-6, 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-European "*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\A"h.

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-" meaning "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" (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. cli\nb.fb.

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. (BiHarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 335-6). Tf~RI:.HHH~ (subst. f.)-Virg. 10111 Etym.: From "*trawa/trewa", related

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

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

II

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

Tprz.rrz. (subst. m.)-MAD 23, 24, Virg. 30, 31 bis, 103, K 57:7-9. II Etym.: The word is akin to the Albanian "trege" (= "market") and

GLOSSARY

145

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

Etym.: Derived from Tb.M~ = "darkness" and connected with the Irish word "temel" which had the same meaning and the Latin "tenebrae" (pl.). The meaning ofTb.MbHHLJ.b. (=prison) is derived hence. (Vasmer, IV, pp. 133-4) II Sign.: "Prison", Gr.
II

Etym.: From verb &HTH (= "to beat"
0\J'&OH (subst. m.)-K 14:1-4, 73:18-19. II Etym.: See o~&HTH. "Murder", "slaughter", Gr.
II Sign.:

O\j'G.. (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 meaning "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. rl~RHTH

(subst. m.)-MN 45 (4); K 3:11-13, 58:7-9. II Etym.: From
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 confirm", "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. 17980) 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 etymology, probably of Hungarian origin. II Sign.: It may refer to a family name. It has also been suggested this may be an institution of the commune of Bra~ov (Kronstadt)-its roots are sought in the Hungarian word "fali.igyel<'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 Transylvania 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 o\j'H'l> (subst. m.)-Mr. 37, Vit. 12 II Etym.: Transliteration of the Grdek word ~J\4\fi'l> (subst. m.)-N 30.11 Etyrn.: Transliteration of the Greek

term xap'tO
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 proposed 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 Icelandic "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 population 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.: "Intercessor, 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 = "country" II Sign.: Chora. An appellation of a territorial unit in Bulgaria in the thirteenth century. (Biliarsky, "Les circonscriptions administratives." 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.: "Banner", "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 Innocent 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 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.M'll.

(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) .

.Xfb.HHTH

.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.) . (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
.XfHCTOAkl&HR'll.

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. "imperialis". In the document of the despot Alexis Slav of AD 1220 the used

150

CHAPTER ONE

term is avaJCtopuc6c; (avaJCtrop = "ruler, sovereign" -Actes de Vatopedi, 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 represents 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" (Radoslavov 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 srednovekovna 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 istorija i kultura, Sofia, 1981, p. 341; Bakalov G., Srednovekovnijat bulgarski 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 meanings of the word), Gr. EKKA1lcria, Lat. "ecclesia, templum" (Institufii feudale, pp. 45-48; Minceva, "Entstehungswege", pp. 57-8)

U,'tH~ (subst. f.)-MN 14, 15, 31, 117. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*cena", related to the Lithuanian "k;.Hna" ="price", "profit", Avestan "kaena-" = "vendetta", "feud", "punishment", Greek 'ttvco= "to repent",Irish "cin" = "guilt, culpability", "debt" (Vasmer, IV, p. 298) II Sign.: "Price", "payment"

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

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

153

GLOSSARY

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

II

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

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

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

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

II

Etym.: See

II

'lfb.Hb.U,b..

Sign.:

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

(verb)-K 57:17-18.

II

Etym.: See

'lfb.Hb.U,b..

II Sign.:

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

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

II

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

154

CHAPTER ONE

"cetati" ="to show consideration for", "to observe", "to think". (Vasmer, IV, p. 350) II Sign.: Epithet for the ruler and some other high officials. (Institufii feudale, pp. 342-3). (subst. f.)-AH 200; N 74,85 (2); MN 45 (4), 48 (4), 59; K 17:1012.11 Etyrn.: Palaeoslavic "*c~oo", related to the words H~"'b.H~, H~"'ATH (= "to begin") and KOHM.J..b. (= "end") as well as to the Greek Kaw6c; = "new" (and not related to the Old Saxon and Old German "kind"). (Vasmer, IV, pp. 310-1) II Sign.: "Posterity, progeny", "people" "'AAb.

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

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

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

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

(subst. m.)-1) Zogr. 14; AH 203; MN 62; K 2:18-20,66:10-11, 68:8-10.11 Etym.: Palaeo slavic "*j~zy-h"
155

GLOSSARY 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.: "Compensate", "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 precise translation of the Greek text. K. Maksimovich defines the word a Moravism, for it does not occur in documents other than those created 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. See &ei.J.IHHI:.HHU,~. II Sign.: See &ei.J.IHHI:.HHL.V-.

II

Etym.:

&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

eU1tOpoc;. glossary.

II

(subst. neutr.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 = E. XVII. 29 Etym.: In the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general

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

II Etym.: Borrowing from the Goth. "weinagards", probably from the contact zone in Crimea: "wigart". (Vasmer, I, p. 317) II Sign.:

a~1t€MlV.

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)= E. XVII. 5 £~oucria and R'A R.I\MTI:. &'AIR~h\ =
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 signification 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 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 general 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. Maksimovich; it has no exact counterpart but corresponds to the meaning of the context. (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 46) RO.I\h\

(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. ROieROAA

(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:.AA

RfAmi:.Ae&HHk:'A

See RfAmi:.AA. action"

(subst. m.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17-no. II Etym.: II Sign.: "The executor, perpetrator of some inimical

(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" RfeAHTH

(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 concerning or~:.H'A (YeT. 15) = E)l1tP1lO")l6<;. II Etym.: R'A- added to the Palaeoslavic *fega, *fefesi; from the root *deg->*geg->*feg-. Related to the R"AmAPATH

158

CHAPTER ONE

Sanskrit "dahati" ("to burn") and Avestan "d
159

GLOSSARY

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.

(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", "transgression" (see in the general glossary). rr'kX"A

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
(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" AORM'kTH

AOCTOHTH (verb)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 =E. XVIII. 1 a
w

(subst. f.)-Ust. 7, Nov. 9, Vars. 9 (A"A4-Jef1:. 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, Armenian "dustr", Avestan "dug~dar- ",German "Tochter" (BER, I, p. 467; SDR]a, III, pp. 127-8; Vasmer, I, p. 533) II Sign.: "Daughter" A'A4-JH

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" (TsibranskaKostova, 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
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)

(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.

meHb.

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 general 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 glossary. 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 Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general glossary. ~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 the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general glossary.

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 zigzag", "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. (: h . Th'1s II Etym.: From ((p;eJI , (= ((to d o ") , (( p;eJio , (= ((work") an d so 10rt is a form of "Msp;JIBaM" = "to put out", "to remove, to eliminate". IndoEuropean "*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/&ITAHH~

(subst. neutr.)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a ("investigation") = no. II Etym.: See H~n'l>ITATH. II Sign.: "Examination", "probation", "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 investigate", 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 = 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" (HM~~H

~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. Etym.: See ~MReT4\. II Sign.: "Slanderer", "claimant".

II

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 collect", "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 additional 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" Assuming 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, Maksimovich, 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 phonetically 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) (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"

AklAMK'AIH

(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 addition of the word meH~ ="woman" to the Old German word "mahal", "m~l" ="matrimonial contract or union" (German word "Gemahlin" ="wife"). (Vasmer, II, pp. 562-3) II Sign.: "Husband/wife", "spouses" Some authors find that the word is of Moravian origin and that it entered Bulgarian via Ochrid. It is present in some very early texts (in Rila folios of XI century). (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 94) MMrz..meHrz..

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

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

GLOSSARY

167

MI:.~I:.HHK'A (subst. m.)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 =E. VIII. 2J..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 meaning 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<;. Etym.: See in the general glossary. II Sign.: See in the general glossary.

Mli\m~THU.~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12-no.ll Etym.: See in

the general glossary.

II Sign.: See in the general glossary.

Mli\m"A (subst. m.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 = E. II. 9. 1-2-3 avftp. II Etym.: From the very ancient Palaeoslavic word "*mangia-" that has no exact counterparts in the Indo-European languages; related to the Goth. "manna" and the Old German "mann" Tacitus cites the latinised form "Mannus" as the name of the mythic ancestor of the German. See and Sanskrit "manu~/ manu-, manus-"= "man, human", "husband" and Avestan "manus-" that derive from the Indo-European "*man, *mon" (BER, IV, pp. 373-4; Vasmer, II, pp. 670-1) II Sign.: "Man", "husband" "~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
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 matrimony) = 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 excommunicate" (BER, III, pp. 565-6; Vasmer, II, pp. 537-8) II Sign.: "Undividable", "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.: "Undividable", "indissoluble" for the matrimony. HHR~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 =E. XVII. 41 xrop6:qnov.

Etym.: See in the general glossary.

II Sign.: "Field", real estate.

II

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-European "*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. 19, Vars. 19 = E. XVII. 5 xeip (this is not a translation). II Etym.:

(nfM.omHHCh. HO'J'Ab.MH

169

GLOSSARY

Palaeoslavic "*nudity", "*nudj~", related to the Sanskrit "nodayati" = "to force", "to impose", "to hurry", "to rush" See also the Indo-European "*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, compulsorily" (Institutii feudale, pp. 441-2) o&HA~ (subst. f.)-Ust.

16,Nov. 18, Vars. 18 (his)= E. XVII. 1 Ke
II Etym.: In the general glossary. II Sign.: "Injury", "offence"

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

(verb)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33-no. general glossary. II Sign.: "To accuse", "to blame"

OGAH"'HTH

II

II

Etym.: In the

(subst. m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 = E. XVIII. 1 p(rya (= "salary", 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&fOK'A

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. O&f'kCTH

OKf~AeH"AIH

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

170

CHAPTER ONE

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

/eM (verb)-Ust. 28, Nov. 30, Vars. 30 =E. XVII. 15 Koupe:6ro.

II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*strigti"; related to the Old German "strihhan" and Goth. "strikes"= "strip", "free space". (Vasmer, III, p. 778) II Sign.: "To cut the hair"; the word could designate a type of punishment but mostly this refer to the monastic practice of tonsuring novices when entering a monastery. (verb)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a-no; Ust. 15, Nov. 17, Vars. 17 = E. XVII. 41 Ka'taOtKa~ro; Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33-no. II Etym.: See Cli\A'A in the general glossary. II Sign.: "To condemn", "to convict", "to find guilty" OCII\AHTH

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

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

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

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

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

II Sign.: "To sentence", "to

GLOSSARY

171

n.l\'tHb.HH~'ll. (verb)-Ust. 19, Nov. 21, Vars. 21 = E. VIII. 2 eil£u9epo<; 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.: "Captive" (adj.)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10-no; Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 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.: "Subordinate", "obedient"

noRHHb.H'll.

noR'tAI\TH (verb)-Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 ("to appeal", "to complain") = E. XVII. 5 1tpomprov£ro. II Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*beda" < IndoEuropean "*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 Balkans "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/ no~O\J'CHTH

HM'tTH.

II Sign.: "To try"

(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 IndoEuropean 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
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" = "eavesdropping" (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. 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) noc'A.I\4\TH

173

GLOSSARY

nr~RbA~ (subst. f.)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1-no. general glossary! II Sign.: "Truth", "justice"

II

Etym.: See in the

IIfHG'I.IT'I.K'I. (subst.

m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 =E. XVIII. 1xpocr9111C!l· In that citation the word is an exact translation of the Greek term. (Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 67-8; Institutii Jeudale, pp. 163-4)

II Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Income", "revenue"

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. 1 xpompe{yyrov (a loan translation). II Etym.: See IIfH&'kr~TH. II Sign.: "The person seeking asylum" (Institutii feudale, pp. 32-3) IIfHG'kP'I.I

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
IIfHM'kW~TH

(verb)-Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4 = E. XVII. 21 rruyyiyvo).lat (nfHM'kW~~ Ch. < rruvytv6).1evoc; a criminal sexual intercursion 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. /Ch./

174

CHAPTER ONE

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

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

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

"*s~gti"

nrHT'l>KHmTH (verb)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2 ("adduce" witness)-no. II Etym.: From "npM-" and "TbKHa", the sense is related to "introduce", "to drive in", "to knock in" (Vasmer, IV, pp. 64, 130) II Sign.: "To adduce", "to present" (witness but also proofs, testimonies, evidences in general). V. Prochazka advanced the idea that in Moravian /Pannonian/langiage the word means "to testify". It is related to the word nfHT'b'lA = "proverb" in its original sense of "something adduced to testify". (Prochazka V., "K historickopnivnimu vyznamu csl. prit11knqti a jeho parafrazi z ruskych pramenu", Slavia. Roc. XXVI, 1957, pp. 336-40; Skok, III, p. 40; Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 92-3) nyoAA.mA. (subst. f.)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a (to sell as slave)-no. II Etym.: See nyoAA.TH in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Sale", transmis-

sion of property. nyoAA.TH (verb)-Ust. 1, Nov. 1, Vars. 1 (to be sold in slavery)-no; Ust. 4, Nov. 4, Vars. 4 = E. XVII. 217tmp6m.:ro; Ust. 5, Nov. 6, Vars. 6-no; Ust. 9, Nov. 11, Vars. 11-no (nfOAATH cA.); Ust. 10, Nov. 12, Vars. 12-no; Ust. 24, Nov. 26, Vars. 26 (to be sold in slavery) = E. XVII. 10 X€tpOK07t'tro (= "to cut the hand", another type of punishment); Ust. 26, Nov. 28, Vars. 28 (to be sold in slavery) =E. XVII. 13 X€tpOK07t'tro (= "to cut the hand", another type of punishment); Ust.

GLOSSARY

175

27, Nov. 29, Vars. 29 (to be sold in slavery)= E. XVII. 14 xetpoKlm-rro (= "to cut the hand", another type of punishment); Ust. 28, Nov. 30, Vars. 30 (to be sold in slavery)= E. XVII. 14 'tt>
(verb)-Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a (~~KOH'll. II Etym.: See in the general glossary! The text of the Law for Judging the People confirms that the verb is a loan translation of the Greek xapa~aivro. (BER, V, p. 677) II Sign.: "To transgress", "to commit a criminal act" np~cTII\nHTH)-no.

np~cTII\nAieHHie

(subst. neutr.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 (to act a II Etym.: See Sign.: "Crime"

transgression of a law/order) = E. II. 9. 1 xapa~aivro. npEcrrli\nHTH!

II

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 general 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 counterpart in the Greek text. Etym.: See p~&OT~ in the general glossary!

II

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)

II

r~TI:.H'AH (adj.)-Ust. 21, Nov. 23, Vars. 23 = E. XVII. 6 1t0Ae)lt0<;. Etym.: See r~TI:. in the general glossary! Sign.: "Military") "related to

II

the war and to the army " (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"

fOAHR'AWHH

(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"

fOAHTeAI:.

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" (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)

c&OGOAI:.

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. Etym.: in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Word", Gr. Myoc;.

II

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.: Borrowed from the Germanic languages-"*skillings" >"Schilling" (Vasmer, III, p. 642) II Sign.: "a coin" Variants: c~I:.M~b., I.J.IA~~b., I.J.II:.MP'll.. Sometimes it corresponds to the Greek v6~tcr~ but in other the latter correspond to ~A~THU,~, ~A~THH~, ~A~THH~'ll. (a golden coin). (Maksimovich, ZSL, p. 97) C'll.Rf'll.CTb. (subst. f.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 =E. II. 9. 1 cru~uyia.ll Etym.: From the Indo-European root "*wergh-", borrowed in Albanian as "verzellik" = "bracelet", related to the Lithuanian "wetZti" = "to tie" (BER, I, pp. 188-9) II Sign.: "Connection", "matrimony, marriage" C'll.R
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.: "Council", a collective organ of power or consultative one. (Institufii feudale, pp. 438-40) crz..'lb.T~HHte (subst. neutr.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 (about the matrimony) = E. II. 9. 1 O'U~t>yia. II Etym.: See C'l>'lb.T~TH! II Sign.: See C'l>'lb.T~TH!

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

II

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

II

The participant in a trial/ procedure. CII\AH!b. (subst. m.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2-no; Ust. 7a, Nov. 2a, Vars. 2a-no; Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10-no; Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33-no. II Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Judge" See in the general glossary! CII\A'l> (subst. m.)-Ust. 30a, Nov. 33, Vars. 33 bis CII\A'l> and C'l>Cii\A'l>-no.ll Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Tribunal", "court". See in the general glossary! Cli\noC'I'~Trz..

(subst. m.)-Ust. 3, Nov. 3, Vars. 3 = E. XVIII.l €x,9p6c;. Etym.: See in the general glossary! II Sign.: "Enemy", "adversary", "foe".

II

GLOSSARY

179

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

TenerrH (verb)-Ust. 8, Nov. 10, Vars. 10 =E. XVII. 29 'ttm'tro; Ust. 13, Nov. 15, Vars. 15 =E. XVII. 35 'tU1t'tro; Ust. 17, Nov. 19, Vars. 19 =E. XVII. 5 oepro; Ust. 24, Nov. 26, Vars. 26 =E. XVII. 10 'tUx'tro; Ust. 26, Nov. 28, Vars. 28 =E. XVII. 13 'tUx'tro; Ust. 28, Nov. 30, Vars. 30 =E. XVII. 15 oepm.ll Etym.: Palaeoslavic "*te(p)ti" ="to beat", "to strike" Probably the origins of the word are related to the Uralic languages, the root "*tap-"-"to beat"; Mordvinian "tapa-", Finnish "tappa-", Hungarian "tap-", "top-", Nenets "tapa-" (Vasmer, IV, pp. 44-45) II Sign.: "To beat", "to strike" a type of punishment. The appellation is close to the Greek W1t'tro. (Institutii feudale, pp. 39-40) Tf
0\j'&
180

CHAPTER ONE

~UOfHTH (verb)-Ust. 23, Nov. 25, Vars. 25 =E. XVII. 8 oux
:rars.:

O~f't~b.TH HOC'b (verb)-ZSL 6, Nov. 7, =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
(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"

}\fb.U'b

(verb)-Ust. 2, Nov.2, Vars. 2-no; Ust. 3,Nov. 3, Vars. 3= E.XVIII.1 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" ("eating"), "sarrasBaHe" ("keeping", "protection"). (Vasmer, IV, p. 266) II Sign.: "To observe", "to keep", "to safeguard"

}\fb.HHTH /CA./

(adj.)-Ust. 5, Nov. 6, Vars. 6-no; Ust. 6, Nov. 7, Vars. 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". Ll,fb.K'ARb.H'b

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 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"

n~fl;

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)

(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" = "people" 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) lJtom"AIH

(subst. m.)-Ust. 2, Nov. 2, Vars. 2 ("claimant"?)-no. Etym.: In the general glossary! II Sign.: "Slanderer, calumniator", "claimant". Wb.n"ATb.HHK'b

II

CHAPTER TWO

LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY 1

When we speak of identity, we usually mean affiliation to some community with which a person identifies himself. Identity is the quality 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). Identity 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 constant 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 culture 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 characteristics, 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 importance of repressive penalties as a preventive motive against eventual infraction of the law: compared with other normative systems, repression 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 generally 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. 2

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 importance 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 behaviour 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 preceding 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.

LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY

187

Patrick Geary offers an interesting interpretation of this text, and indicates thereby a pattern of identity formation. 5 The text is particularly 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 tradition and custom evident in the reference to the "rules of the ancestors", and in the "novelty" in the khagan's act whereby these rules are "renewed", given a new life, actuality, and force. The actualising of tradition 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 transformed 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 common 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 president 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 vengeance 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 committed, 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. However, 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 Adriatic 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 failure of the state to enforce laws and prosecute offenders and criminals

6

Le Kanun de Leke Dukagjini, Tract. Chr. Gut, eel. Sht

ing House, Peje, 2001.

Gje~vi,

Dukagjini Publish-

LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY

189

felons. We should have no doubts that the state power in Albania had been sufficiently strong for many decades, for it lay in the hands of one of the most ferocious of totalitarian dictatorships. Far from deserting 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 survived 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 vengeance 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 practice 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 Montenegro and other Tribal Societies, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

1987.

190

CHAPTER TWO

3

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 applicable 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 societies 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 Dbersetzung im Ersten Bulgarische Reich", Scripta & e-Scripta, t. 3-4, 2006, p. 242 ff. 9 This power oflaw continues in the present-day state of Israel, and this explains the specifics of the country's legal system. There the biblical law has direct effect and is not amenable to amendment or revocation by the Knesset. For its part, the state does not have a Constitution, for any constitutive law would become the basis for the rest of the legislation, which would come into direct contradiction with the effect of the biblical law.

LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY

191

ject to change; law is not subject to the intervention of society not only as concerns the texts, but also even by their interpretation. The situation is similar for Islamic religion. The Qur'an, the Revelation 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 protection 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 thinkers, this punishment will be overcome only in an eschatological perspective. 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 essentially made between religious and legal norms. The two are identical. Amongst the monotheistic religions, only Christianity offers a different 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 environment. 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 Christianity, 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 Bulgarian ruler, of the rebellion of the boyars against him, and of God's assistance for overcoming the rebellion and the triumph of the Christian faith.U This narrative gives us a framework of historical events for the enormous change in the life of Bulgarians, which ultimately led to

Bertiniani annales, pars III, sub an. 866, Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, SS, t. I, pp. 473-4.

LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY

193

spiritual renewal and accession to a different civilisational community, but also to a change of identity of the people and the state. The Bulgarian 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 special 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 models, 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 manibus 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 textthe 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 individual 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 identity, 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 provides 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: "Rostislav, 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 master who can teach us in our own tongue the true Christian faith, so that other lands, when they see this, should do as we have. That is

14 Important in this connection is the work ofPapastates, who puts a special emphasis on the legal aspect of the activity of St Method.ius and St. Cyril in Great Moraviad. X.. Ilwracnru;9Ti (Papastathis) To voJlolknrrov EfYYOV rij~ 1(1)p!UoJle8o6uxvfi~ {epwrocnoMj~ MeraA.n Mopa{J{f!, eecmaA.ovt<;KTJ, 1978.

ev

LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY

195

why, lord, send us such a bishop and teacher, for the law that com~ from you is always a good one for all countries (my italics-I. B.; R~ 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 interpretations 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 critical 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:

w

"To AO&f'tH RAKo, nocuH

nf~Rb.Aof· 18

T~Krz. u~mb.,

Hme Hrz.l

Hcnr~RHTb. Rb.CK~

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 institute za bulgarska istorija, t. VII, 1957, pp. 241-63. 17 J. Va8ica, Zakom. sudnyi ljudbm'b-Soudni zakonik pro lid, in: Magnae Moraviae 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 observations 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 witness 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.

LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY

197

punishment for bearing false witness (Deuteronomy, 19:15-19). These last texts are very similar to the provision of article 2 of Law for Judging 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 corresponds 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 Gospel. The text refers to God's judgment for human iniquity, and immediately 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 Christianity, 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 Anonymous 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

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· 22

198

CHAPTER TWO

but to an older law text based on the Bible and evidently quite familiar to the compiler of the homily. 26 According to Papastathes, this older text was the Law for Judging People-such is his general thesis. We shall deal with these problems elsewhere; here I would like to point out once again the use of the term "law" for indicating the Bible and the resulting diffusion between religion and law. There is no doubt that the text itself permits such usage, for it refers to legally regulated relations. Such are the relations regulating marriage, and especially obstacles to it and its annulment, and also the relations connected to a ban on pagan practices and prayers. Both cases fall under spheres directly associated with religion and it is natural that they find support for their regulations in the Bible. But in any case, we should not neglect the fact that the Bible itself is called "God's Law" in the Homily, and this fact is a continuation of the thesis presented in the Law for Judging People. 4

Thus, we see that the mediaeval Slavonic texts provide a good foundation for seeking the link between religion, which supplied the basic values forming identity during that age, and norms, in particular law, based on those values and aiming to impose and preserve them. From a historical perspective, having in mind "custom" and "customary law", the norm first appears as an instituting of the values themselves, and a way of life based on them, as a rule that is obligatory and leans on repression but also on the awareness that law is a value. The written law came later and it replaced custom only to some degree. Nevertheless, what is the difference between the two? On one hand there is an evident difference contained in the name itself: the specification "written" We may thus reach the conclusion that the "writing down" of law is the fact that assigns it to "written law" and distinguishes it from "custom" Obviously, this conclusion could not lead us to a distinction we are in search of. Of course, customary law, just like any other "law", consists of "norms", and every norm, being a generally valid rule of conduct, has its linguistic form. I mean it cannot be expressed but in some language. It is a text that

26

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

{epwrocnoA.f;~

LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY

199

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

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

200

CHAPTER TWO

Roman law penetrated into various societies and its reception during the Middle Ages (in the Latin, Greek and Slavic tongues) and in modern times, when it was extended not only to Europe but practically to the whole world in a great variety of languages. The particularities of a language determine the particularities of the professional jargons used in all the spheres of human activity, particularly the sphere of law. This includes not only special terminology but also the special meanings of words that are otherwise part of a common vocabulary, and also the particular constructions and formulations characteristic for legal language down to this day. It is evident, for instance, that in aiming for clarity and avoiding ambiguous meanings, legal language is more conservative and includes specific words and syntactic forms that are not typical for everyday speech. I already had the occasion to stress that both written and customary laws represent cultural, civilisational markers. This study will be focused only on written law in the context of its reception from Roman/Byzantine law in mediaeval Bulgaria. In this connection I should go back to the problem of "novelty" as a characteristic of written law. It is an important trait that could provoke certain misunderstandings. Novelty is a quality that is estimated according to the basic cultural values of the respective civilisation model. Our contemporary civilisation values novelty, discovery, invention, and the kind of creative human activity that creates things that did not exist previously. In the past, such a positive attitude to the new was not always clearly present. According to the view that the world is the work of a divine Ancestor-Creator or Cultural Hero, or is the work of divine Providence in the Judeo-Christian tradition, human creative endeavour is defined in a different way. It consists of the discovery of already existing real things that are the fruit of the extra-temporal and extra-spatial activity in the framework of the cosmogonical myth or of the activity of the Creator according to the Bible. That is how every "legislative creation" or "novelty" in law was given meaning. That is precisely what made possible a given legal system or even a concrete normative text to be declared a "ratio scripta" (,written reason"), and every "amendment" to be justified not as a novelty but as a discovery of the authentic will of the predecessors in the past. Such is the argument when by the act of imposing the norms of "written law" it is claimed that the true will of the Creator has been revealed; or when the new law is presented as part of the cycle of recurrence, of the repeated "occurrence" of the cosmogonical myth.

LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY

201

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

28

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

202

CHAPTER TWO

based on, became the official and liturgical language, though it differed to some degree considerably from the spoken Slavic tongues of the time. The way this new cultural language was created is not without importance-namely, through translations of the Bible, of various ecclesiastic and legal texts from Greek. These sources had a strong impact on the nature and subsequent development of the language, which became part of the cultural development of mediaeval Bulgaria; of course, this development was not due to the work of St. Cyril and St. Methodius alone, but to the whole and continuous influence of the Empire. Mediaeval Bulgaria was part of the Orthodox (or Byzantine) Commonwealth, and this was an essential feature of its culture and of its history. The language did not separate it from, but in a way integrated it with, Byzantine culture. Bulgarian literature consisted of a prevalent number of translated Greek works, and the literary language followed the original model in some degree or another. This trend began in Great Moravia and continued, and even intensified, in Bulgaria, both in Preslav and in the south-western parts of the state. The Cyrillic alphabet, which was in fact an adaptation of the Greek alphabet and came as a substitute for the Glagolitic letters, which were further from the Greek original, was only an outward mark of this trend. In the legal sphere the reception was obvious, as was obvious its political-cultural character. Unfortunately, it is rather problematic for historical science to ascertain the presence of most mediaeval legal texts in Bulgaria. I am referring to the fact that they are not very widespread in the manuscript tradition, which has caused some scholars, mostly Russian ones, to cast doubt on whether some laws were at all received into the Bulgarian legal system. This is not the topic of the present study, but I shall make a note concerning the nature of the reception oflaw in Bulgaria. We may pose the question to what degree the compiled or translated Byzantine laws were applied in Bulgaria. This is an exceptionally complicated and delicate problem due to the lack of sources, and I shall not attempt to give a definitive answer. I already remarked that the laws are not only a regulator of social relations but an identity marker, for they are a value that serves to protect the foundation of a society. These characteristics of law are expressed in unity, but under specific historical circumstances, they can be divided. Thus, law is a value and protects society and social relations in its capacity as regulator, and as such, law is a marker of affiliation to a civilisation. However, the declaration made by a govern-

LAW, LANGUAGE, AND IDENTITY

203

ment that it will follow a certain norm could serve as such a marker regardless of whether the regulation is actually observed in public life. This could find expression in the promulgation of a law that has a purely ideological importance regardless of its actual application. It is much like the minting of jubilee coins, which in practice are not a means of payment but serve to glorify the rulers or to celebrate some event. This practice-whether it be purposeful or not-can be found to exist in past ages and in our times alike (for instance the passing of certain laws for the purpose of the country's integration into the European Union or the inclusion of the declaration of human and civil rights in the constitutions of states with dictatorial regimes, etc.). Inasmuch as we defined law as a marker of identity, it could be used precisely as such. With regard to Bulgaria, this may have taken the form of promulgation of compiled or translated Byzantine laws for the purpose of affirming or proclaiming the imperial nature of the ruler's power. This is a characteristic feature of the political and state ideology of the country during the time of Symeon, who took the title of tsar. He not only declared himself to be a ruler equal to the one in Con stantinople, but also a basileus of the Rhomaioi, meaning of the Romans, and thereby indicated the universal character of his power. In the specific historical context of these events, such a pretension could only be justified through Christianity and the Roman legacy. Law was certainly an essential component of this legacy and as such, it penetrated into mediaeval Bulgaria through the mediation of Constantinople. Thus, the reception of Roman/Byzantine law was effectuated with a view to introducing a new regulation of relationships in the renewed society but also for emphasising the Roman/Byzantine heritage of the power of the Bulgarian tsars. Of course, this is only one possible explanation for this reception of law. 29 Therefore, we saw that language and professional jargon, but also law, are equally identity characteristics of every civilisation. The present study aims to clarify this aspect of interrelations between language and law based on a study of the legal vocabulary of the mediaeval Bulgarian state.

29 D. Naydenova (Naydenova D., ,Pravnite pametnitsi v Parvoto bulgarsko tsarstvo", Istorichesko badeshte, IX, 2005, 1-2, p. 163) advanced the idea that some ofthe laws could be examined more as literary works than as legal texts.

CHAPTER THREE

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

SYSTEM OF BULGARIAN MEDIAEVAL LAW

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

206

CHAPTER THREE

supreme state offices. No such has been preserved, but most probably no such existed. Power relations were regulated by tradition and, during the Christian age, likewise by the desire to follow foreign models, particularly those of Constantinople. The organisation of the supreme state institutions, their creation and way of functioning, must have been effectuated according to the will of the ruler, who took into account these foreign models. It appears obvious to me that the vocabulary related to power is relevant to the topic of this study, as likewise that public law belongs to the legal sphere, and I do not think it necessary to specially justify the inclusion of the topic in my present research. I think it obvious that the public sphere was regulated and that its regulation was of a legal nature. This is implied in the indivisible link existing between statehood and law. My present historical, albeit interdisciplinary, work is devoted to the vocabulary of state power and public law in a specific age and country-mediaeval Bulgaria-and it is quite natural that the circle of problems related to the institutions of supreme power should be particularly relevant to this work. Presented in my discussion are terms and words from this field, but due to the wide scope of this sphere and its insufficiently precise definition, the glossary to some degree loses its systematic quality. The glossary encompasses a wider range of terms as well as many epithets and verbs, all of them connected with power and the exercising of power, but with various degrees of concreteness and legal relevance. This is the cause of a certain amorphousness here, which we shall try to overcome by systematising the lexemes based on their respective types. Of course, greater attention will be devoted to terms included in the legal sphere of state power and to the logic of constructing legal and professional language in this particular legal sphere. 2. ORIGIN AND BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEGAL VOCABULARY INCLUDED IN THE GLOSSARY AND DESIGNATING THE SUPREME STATE POWER AND RELATIONS CONNECTED WITH IT

The glossary contains more than one hundred and thirty words related to state power, the great majority of which figure in the main glossary; while only a dozen or so, in the glossary for the Law for Judging People; most of the latter appear likewise in the main glossary. This is understandable, for the Law does not regulate matter related to supreme

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

207

power, which is the topic of this chapter. The Slavic terms are more than fifty in number, the Greek ones, directly borrowed and transliterated, are also about fifty, and an equal number of words are calques from Greek. About thirty words are translations from Greek. About fifteen are of other origin, and of these, two thirds are cited as Germanic loan words, due to the origin of the word "tsar" and its derivatives. But this last is a rather tentative grouping, for the term "tsar" has been completely Slavicised and assimilated as a proper Slavic word into the Slavic language; in any case it does not indicate any Gothic influence on the Bulgarian public law vocabulary. We also have two terms that originated from the languages of the people of the Eurasian steppe: one is the Bulgar chertog, and the other is from Mongol-horugva. There is one word of Georgian origin-pechat. These three words are obviously an exotic set and do not define the mediaeval Bulgarian legal vocabulary related to supreme state power. In systematising and dividing the terms included in this chapter into types we obtain three basic groups: words related to the institution of ruler in Bulgaria; words designating supreme central state institutions other than that of the ruler (collective ones or other); words related to other (not that of tsar or foreign institutions) positions of rule; and words connected to the idea of power and exercise of power. The largest part of these categories constitutes the vocabulary connected with the monarchic institution. It comprises about sixty words, which can be subdivided into four sub-groups. The names of the institution of ruler are nine in number, of which one is Slavic, two are translated from Greek, two are calques, and four are royal appellations that we may tentatively classify as of German-Latin origin. The epithets referring to the monarchic institution are twenty in number, of which three are Slavic, three are translated, twelve are calques, and two are of German origin; there is none of Greek origin. We have nine units related to inheritance of the throne, which is an essential element of the monarchic institution. Of them, five are Slavic, one is Greek, and two are calques of Greek terms. Finally, we have twenty-one words designating things connected with the power of the ruler. Of them, six are Slavic, five are Greek, two are translated from the Greek, two other are calques of Greek words, and six are of miscellaneous origins. Of these six, three are Germanic in origin but very well assimilated by the Slavs, one is Georgian, and two come from the Eurasian steppe-one being of Mongol origin and one most probably of Bulgar origin.

208

CHAPTER THREE

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

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

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

209

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

vocabulary 3.1.1

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

1 Bobchev S. S., "Knjaz ili tsar Boris?", Bulgarska sbirka, XIV, 5, 1907, pp. 309-19; Balaschev G., "Titlite na starobulgarskite gospodari", Minalo, I, 1909/1910, pp. 84-5; Radoslavov Tsv., "Titlite na bulgarskite vladeteli", Izvestlja na bulgarskija arkheologicheski institut, V, 1928/1929, p. 161.

210

CHAPTER THREE

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

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

3

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

211

Symeon on the list are called "tsars" The rulers of the pagan period were obviously not "princes", nor did Boris-Michael have to become one. The explanation is that this was simply the most appropriate term for translating the Turkic "khan" ("kan", "kana", etc.), so that is how the title was rendered in the Slavic texts. 7 In summary, we may say there was no change of ruler title, while knjaz (prince) is just a translation of the old Bulgar appellation. 3.1.2

The term U.b.fb. (tsar) comes from the Latin Caesar and in this formU.~CAfb.-the Slavs borrowed it from the Goths, probably when they were living in proximity to them in the Southern Russian Steppes. The term retained the meaning of emperor's title, which it officially became for the first time in Bulgaria in the early lOth century, at the time of tsar Symeon. The Greek pronunciation of the Latin Caesar is Katcrap, which passed into Bulgaria as l~eC4\fb. (kesar) and is the word almost uniquely used with reference to the Roman emperors in biblical texts, or in the special meaning of highest title (but not the ruler's) in the Byzantine title system until the 11th century. 8 Some language experts believe that the pronunciation of the word as U.~CAfb. was preserved for a relatively long time in the Slavic language in Bulgaria-in any case, until the end of the First Bulgarian Empire. Some believe it continued even during the Second Empire and even in the time of tsar John Sratsimir. 9 Not counting some obviously untenable assertions, which were criticised by Ivan Bozilov,10 we should say the question remains open. Coming in support of the view that the word was pronounced U.~C4\fb., is the way it is written out in full (without abbreviations and titles) in the Codex Suprasliensis, which obviously indicates the use of such a pronunciation; but we should bear in mind that the dating of the manuscript is of an early age that raises no debate. This is the sense in which a quotation from the chronicle ofJ ohn Scylitzes may be understood, in which he writes that, at the unforeseen attack by the emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonos against the Bulgarian

7 Tsvetan Radoslavov believed that the title of Bulgarian rulers before Symeon was "khan" or "prince", which are equivalent to the Latin "rex" (Radoslavov, "Titlite na bulgarskite vladeteli", p. 162). 8 Biliarsky, "Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", p. 54 tf. 9 Daskalova, Rajkova, Gramoti, p. 16. 10 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 legalpolitical vocabulary of the Bulgarians, although the term is part of the Roman imperial heritage of Europe. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the title of tsar in Bulgaria, even though different in name, has all the basic characteristics of the basileis in the Byzantine Empire. The different name in this case does not signify a different legal nature of the institution, which was received in its entirety but without the Greek term for it. The two ruler titles were understood as being completely the same, as we shall see confirmed by other data, especially by epithets and the way power was legitimised. In this connection, I should like to indicate a particular point connected with the sacred fundament of power during that age. According to the mediaeval concept of power, the ruler, the tsar, was a figure corresponding to the Celestial King, to Whom belongs all power in the visible and invisible world. The tsar had power over the terrestrial realm, for he had received it from the Heavenly King, or, more precisely, he was serving the power of the Almighty in the visible world. In early pagan views, power and the person of the ruler were directly sacralised. The ruler appeared as the king-god, or more precisely, the king-high priest-god. This aspect is not a topic of this study, for Christianity does not allow such an element of polytheism. Monotheism cannot accept the divinisation of the tsar, but does accept the idea of the divine origin of royal power.

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

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

213

Thus, the ruler is seen not as a god, but as corresponding to Him, as the image of God. The ruler is a link in a chain in history, starting from God, passing through the model of power embodied in the kings of the Chosen People, and reaching the concrete ruler. All these held the same title: the Celestial King (the term used in Greek is "basileus" and in Slavic "tsar"); the kings of the people of Israel are also called "basileis/tsars" in the Greek version of the Holy Scripture; finally, the current ruler also held the title of basileus/tsar. The problem stems from the fact that Byzantium was heir to the Roman imperial traditions, which had republican roots. The basileis represented a continuation not only of the kings of the People of Israel, but of the pagan Roman emperors as well. Thus, the Greek term basileus signifies "king" in the sense meant in the text of the Holy Scripture, but also "emperor" in the Roman meaning of the word. The Slavic term "tsar", corresponding to "basileus", is completely identical in this respect. I point this out, because such is not the case in the Latin language, and hence in the Western European languages, in which the Roman imperial-republican legacy is strictly distinguished from the biblical heritage. The term imperator can be used neither in reference to the Heavenly King nor to the Old Testament kings of Israel and Judah. For the latter, the old Latin term rex is used, which was the title of the pagan king-high priest in Rome before the Republic, and was later preserved only in the sacred field of rex sacrorum. This was also the title of the Barbarian kings and other rulers of the Mediterranean region. Unlike imperator, the word rex did not bear any heritage from the Republican tradition and therefore could be applied not only to institutions with a more distinct claim to monarchy but also to sacral institutions, such as Celestial King and the kings of the Chosen People. Thus, we see how the Greek and Latin tradition parted ways, while the Slavic one unswervingly followed the Greek model, walking in the steps of the Eastern Empire. Hence, the term tsar did not come from the Greek original version of the title, but it did follow all the main characteristics of the Greek term, both imperial and sacral. 3.1.3

The term KfMb. ("Kpan", kral, king, rex) is also similar in a certain sense to the examples given above; it represents a title constructed by the Slavic peoples on the basis of the name of the Frankish king and emperor of the restored Roman Empire, Charlemagne. This fact indicates an interesting development in the Slavs' idea of power; though

214

CHAPTER THREE

it is worthy of attention, it is not an example of the influence of the Germanic (or Frankish) political terminology in Bulgaria, although it testifies to the powerful attraction of the personality of Charlemagne. Moreover, the title of king, although it was present in the vocabulary of the Bulgarians, was never (neither in the Middle Ages nor in modern times) part of the institutional terminology of the Bulgarian state in reference to the strictly Bulgarian institutions. That is why we shall not deal with it in detail here. It should only be mentioned that it corresponds to the word rex in the Western tradition, and among the Serbs king (kral) became the basic title of their rulers during the greater part of the Middle Ages. 3.1.4

Particularly worthy of attention is the term c~MOAfb.mM.J,b. (samodrzhets, autocrat), which is a calque of the Greek word a:i:rtOlcpa'trop. This term shows most clearly the Byzantine views on the universal power of the basileis. According to the study by George Ostrogorsky, it has a different meaning in the various Slavic countries of the "Byzantine Commonwealth"Y Thus, in Serbia samodrzhets denotes the independence of the ruler from alien power, while in Russia it signifies his unlimited power within the country. G. Ostrogorsky did not specially discuss the meaning of the term samodrzhets in the Rumanian lands. The use of the word there-similar to that in Serbia and Russia before the 16th century-was in drastic contradiction with its initial, original Byzantine meaning. The rulers of Walachia and Moldavia had no imperial title and hence could not be autocrats. Nevertheless, the term did exist and was used in those principalities with reference to their rulers since a very early time (14th to 15th century), before the Empire had fallen completely into the hands of the Osmanli conquerors. This means the influence upon the lands north of the Danube was not quite indirect. This issue is not a concrete goal of our study, so here I shall only mention that in Walachia and Moldavia the meaning of the term was probably similar to that in mediaeval SerbiaY Unlike the abovementioned examples, in mediaeval Bulgaria the term had the precise Roman/Byzantine meaning, indicating that the basileus "holds by himself" the entire power of the Oecumene, being placed by the Celestial

12

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

13

I nstitufii feudale, pp. 443-4.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

215

King Jesus Christ to rule the visible world and prepare the Salvation of people. This conclusion is consistent with the whole tendency of mediaeval Bulgarian culture, which strove to repeat the Empire not only in the political field, but also in nearly all areas of the life of society. In Bulgaria, the title of samodrzhets was particularly widespread during the Second Empire, but its earliest use is connected with the age of tsar Samuel and his heirs. 14 It was first mentioned in the Bitolja inscription of tsar John Vladislav, 15 a fact that testifies to its quite early reception in Bulgaria. In view of the fact that even in the Empire it became established as late as the lOth century, the presence of the word in that inscription of the second decade of the 11th century is highly significant as regards the culture and political ideology of the country. In any case, for us the important thing was that, in order to designate a Byzantine reality and transplant it to the Bulgarian land, a Greek word was borrowed and a calque of it was formed that not only repeated the original, but was meant to be comprehensible in a Slavic speaking environment. 3.1.5

The term "rom.lAHH'I./rocnOAb.fb." [gospodin/gospodar = lord, ruler] could be viewed as a translation of the Greek term aueeVTllc;, and in some cases of ri>pwc; or Bc.cr1t6-trtc;, and corresponds to the Latin dominus. This is because the word had many different usages. It could simply mean a respectful term with which to address or to designate a person of high authority, but a term without any concrete institutional connotation. It could also be the title of a ruler. It is as such that we see it was used in some of the small states in the Serbian lands as well as in the Romanian principalities Walachia and Moldavia. In these cases, it had a precise institutional meaning, which the Byzantine term aueev't'llc; did not, for the latter was used to designate the ruler

14 Here I will not dwell on the issue regarding the stone inscription containing the term we are discussing and dating from the time of the decline of the First Bulgarian Empire; there are many and justified suspicions as to the authenticity of this inscription. One supporter of its veracity as a source was the eminent Bulgarian linguist and scholar of mediaeval culture Ivan Dobrev (Dobrev Iv., Dva Tsarsamuilovi nadpisa [=Altbulgarische Studien. Beitriige zur Kultur-, Literatur-, Sprach-, und Kunstgeschichte Bulgariens. Bd 6]. Linz, 2007, pp. 443-500). 15 Zaimov J., Bitolski nadpis na Ivan Vladislav, samoditrzhets bulgarski. Starobulgarski pametnik ot 1015-1016 g., Sofia, 1970; Mosin VL, "Bitoljska plocha iz 1017 godine", Makedonski jazik, Skopje, XVII, 1966, pp. 51-61.

216

CHAPTER THREE

(usually of a foreign state) without designating a concrete institution of the Empire. No doubt, the concept of "domination" and of the person who effectuates it could have arisen independently in different societies, which would entail the appearance of a corresponding term. Nevertheless, I would propose a different view. It is true that in the Empire aMevt'll~ simply meant "lord" and was used to designate those rulers of other states whose own titles were not recognised by Constantinople. The word in this sense could not have had a particular institutional meaning, inasmuch as it did not refer to any part of the Empire's own institutional system. The title of a ruler, and specifically its appellation, usually reflected the country's own traditions, even in cases where there was a prevailing Byzantine influence (as we saw in the case of the title of tsar in Bulgaria). Usually (though with some minor exceptions to this rule) these local traditions did not enter into the Greek language of Constantinople, and the Romans would call such a foreign ruler simply "lord", unless they had recognised some higher title of his. Therefore I believe that the abandonment of local appellations such as "knjaz" or "grand zhupan" in Serbia, or "voevoda", inherited from Hungary, which was retained only as a personal title of the ruler and his family in Walachia and Moldavia, was the result of the influence of the Empire and the adoption of its way of designating the ruler of a foreign land. Thus, this term too can be associated with the Byzantine legacy, although the issue in question is not part of the language of Bulgarian public law, inasmuch as rom.lAHHrz./ rocnO#fb. was never the appellation of the ruler in Bulgaria. 3.2. Epithets referring to the ruler and his power in the mediaeval Bulgarian legal vocabulary

The praise of the ruler is essential to the religious meaning attached to him, a meaning that during the age under study was inseparable from the notions regarding the nature of his power and his legal position. 16 The ruler's status, his authority and his power, were defined and legitimised through a religious interpretation according to which he was set in his position by God and derived his power and authority from the Heavenly King. Inasmuch as no treatise or other source has been pre-

16 On the praise of the ruler during the Middle Ages and its importance, cf. E. Kantorovicz, Laudes regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Mediaeval Ruler Worship, Berkley-Los Angeles, 1946.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

217

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

218

CHAPTER THREE

&oroAkl&H&'l> (God-loving), &AAPO&<tpb.H'l> (faithful to God), &orocnMb.H'l> (protected by God, the latter is related especially to the capital city as the place of the tsar and is derived from the idea of the special protection granted to Constantinople in AD 626), npICOK'l> (highly placed), no& (victorious), np (all-merciful), np (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

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

18

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

219

three parts (Kava, rtptXt and &uwo), and translated these as "the prince of tomorrow". 19 If we accept this reading, we shall see it has nothing in common with the subsequent tradition. After the Conversion the religious basis of power changed drastically, but I do not believe that the way the heir in the ruling family was determined also changed. It was just the way the choice of heir was grounded that became different. The Second Empire did not inherit the traditions of the First with respect to the supreme power (except for the title of tsar and Symeon's idea of empire) or other institutions but adopted the Byzantine model. Nevertheless, this is not so obvious in the area of inheritance of power. In retracing the historical events following the renovation of the Empire by the Asen brothers, we see a rather confusing picture of the inheriting of the throne. In any case, the data do not provide a clear testimony that there was an established order of succession of power from father to son. The first three rulers were brothers, and while the case of John I Asen and Peter does not pose a problem due to the specific circumstances of the event, Kalojan assumed the throne even though there were living sons of his elder brother. 20 After Kalojan's death, the throne was assumed by his nephew after a serious internal crisis in the family, which grew into a war, although Kalojan had a son named Bethlehem, whose fate is not quite clear for historians. 21 The very fact that nearly all cousins strove for the throne, and two of the sons of John I Asen escaped toRus', indicates that the succession was not fully regulated or at least was not clearly determined as passing from father to son. Here we shall not discuss the sad end of tsar Boril's reign, but I should point out that the first occasion when power passed to the son of the preceding, deceased ruler was in the case of tsar Koloman I.22 Henceforth until the end of the Bulgarian state at the end of the 14th century, succession from father to son occurred only

19 Georgiev P., "Olovni pechati ot manastira pri Ravna, Provadijsko", in: Izvestija na Narodnija muzej-Varna, 26 (41), 1990, pp. 103-7. See also Georgiev P., "Titlata i funkciite na bulgarskija prestolonaslednik", Istoricheski pregled, 1992, 8/9, pp. 3-12. 20 Boiilov lv., Gjuzelev V., Istorija na Bulgarija VII-XIV vek, Sofia, 1999 (= Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. 1), pp. 435-6, 441 ff.; Bo:iilov lv., Familijata na Asenevtsi (1186-1460). Genealogija i prosopografija, Sofia, 1985, No 1-3, p. 27 ff. 21 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 465-8; Bo:iilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No

10, pp. 94-5. 22

Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, p. 501; Bo:iilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No 18,

pp. 104-5.

220

CHAPTER THREE

four times: tsar Smilets was inherited by his son John, 23 tsar George II Terter inherited the throne from his father Theodore Svetoslav,24 tsar John Stephen inherited his murdered father tsar Michael III Shishman Asen in 1330,25 and tsar John Shishman inherited his father tsar John Alexander-as he was not the first-born son, this act provoked an open conflict in the family. 26 To these observations, we may add certain facts related to the concrete cases, which would bolster the claim that there was no set rule for father-to-son succession to the throne, and, probably no firmly established rules for legitimisation of the succeeding ruler. Apparently, the only rule was connected with the charisma of the dynasty, specifically of the Asen dynasty. I believe the most typical variant of procedure among those registered in the sources was the preliminary co-opting to power of the son or sons of the ruler while the father was still living. In fact, this was a typical Byzantine practice. How should we interpret all this? Is it possible for a state to have no established rules for succession to power? If this was indeed the case in Bulgaria, what was the reason? The search for an answer to these questions leads us to seeking parallels with practices in other states and cultures. Here we shall not consider the Old Testament tradition, which generally views monarchy with mistrust, perceiving it as a rival of theocracy and of the direct power of the Lord God over His people. The order of inheriting power is practically not regulated in Islamic countries either, inasmuch as in the Qur'an and in the Sunnah there is no strictly established rule for this matter. In general, the monarchic order in these countries was quite problematic from a legal perspective. For this reason the Ottoman Empire, for instance, never had an established rule of succession to the throne, apart from the requirement that the heir had to be part of the Osman family, or, in case the family expired, the heir was to be from the family of the Crimean Tartar khans, i.e. from the Giray dynasty.

23 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 540-2; B<>Zilov lv., "Belezhki vil.rkhu bulgarskata istorija prez XIII vek'', in: Bulgarski Srednovekovie. Bulgaro-savetski sbornik v chest na 70-godishninata na prof Ivan Dijcev, Sofia, 1980, pp. 78-81. 24 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 554-6. 25 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, pp. 574-5; Bozilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No 26 M 29, pp. 119-34 and 139-42. 26 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t. I, p. 501; Bozilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No 33, 40, 44, pp. 149-78, 197-210, 224-33.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

221

There was an entirely different reason for the lack of a rule for succession in the Byzantine Empire: there it was assumed de iure that power was not inherited. Constantinople, the New Rome, never renounced the traditions of the Old Rome, including its republican legacy. The Empire never became a real monarchy in the sense of the term in later ages, but neither can we call it a true republic, at least not in the modern sense. The power of the basileus from a legal viewpoint was not hereditary, and since the aim had always been to ensure factual succession, various means were found for defeating the choice made in principle by the Senate, the people, and the army. Since the importance of the dynasty for legitimising power became increasingly great, especially after the iconoclastic epoch, co-opting sons into power became an increasingly important device. The mechanism was very simple and widely used in early mediaeval Europe: the ruling father during his lifetime co-opted his son and bestowed on him the respective imperial or royal title. Thus after the father's death there was no need to choose a ruler, for there already was one, and all he needed to do at that point was to gain factual power, inasmuch as he already had the title. In the Empire, this practice was quite familiar and has been documented in the sources. Of course, this is merely the technique for transference of power. The ideal basis of all this lies in the thesis of the divine origin of the ruler's power. This power actually belongs to God, Who temporarily cedes it to the earthly vicar. This cession is always the result of some special grace and charisma, and cannot be defined by earthly, fortuitous events such as birth. It always occurs at His will, which is not constrained by facts or actions. The latter have some importance only as the means by which the will of God is made evident to the people. This charisma, its reception and transmission, can be defined in different ways, but its essence was always the same for the Byzantine political doctrine. Were things similar in Bulgaria? There can be no doubt that in mediaeval Bulgaria there were dynasties and a way of thinking in terms of dynasty, there were charismatic families. During the First Empire, this way of thinking partially originated in the importance-traditional for the Steppe-of clans, as very clearly displayed in the List of the Bulgar Princes. This attitude persisted after the Conversion to Christianity not only within the ruling family in Greater Preslav, but with the Comitopouloi dynasty as well, and even after AD 1018. During the second Empire charisma was possessed above all by the Asen dynasty, which dominated the political life

222

CHAPTER THREE

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

27

About this dynasty and the affiliation of the Shishmans to it,

ct: BoZilov, Famili-

jata na Asenevtsi, passim. 28 BoZilov Iv., "Ivan I Asen i Stefan Nemanja-Sv. Simeon: rodonacalnitsi dve porodice-dve dinastije", Stefan Nemanja-Sveti Simeon MiritoCivi. Istorija i predanje (Naucni skupovi Srpske Akademija nauka i umetnosti, kiL XCIV, Odelenja istorijskih nauka, kiL 26), Belgrade, 2000, pp. 47-52. 29 Istorija na Bulgarija, 1999, t I, p. 515 ff.; BoZilov, Familijata na Asenevtsi, No 24 J1 25, pp. 115-9.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

223

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

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

225

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 meaning. 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 discuss 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 Patriarch 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 activity 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 "lightcoloured 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 existence 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 33

Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel, p. 241 ff. Popruzhenko, Sinodik, pp. 78, 79.

34 Srednebolgarskij perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii v slavjanskikh literaturakh, ed. M.A. Salmina, Sofia, 1988, pp. 183, 203, 208, 215, 221, 224. 35 KaluZniacki, Werke, p. 121.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

227

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 impossible 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 followed the model of the chancellery of the basileus of Constantinople.38 This is proven by the extant acts, but being extremely few, it is impossible to draw any particularly detailed conclusions. I know of

KaluZniacki. Werke, p. 17; Partriarkh Evtomij, Sachinenija, pp. 50, 55. 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 obshchestva v Korolevstve Jugoslavii k 15-letiju obshchestva, Belgrade, 1936, pp. 93-109; Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. LXXX. 36

37

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
BoZilov, "Dokumenti na bulgarskite tsare", p. 38 ff. Dolger, "Byzantinische Diplomatik", p. 39 ff., 46 ff; Stojanov V., Diplomatika na srednovekovnite izvori (Vladetelski doku menti), Sofia, 1991, p. 71. 39

40

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

229

(decree). 41 This act is of a lesser category of importance than the ceremonial chrysobulls of the tsar, and signifies "decree", "designation", "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 Melenikon) 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 sigillion), 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 indicated 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 srpskih vladara, p. LXXXV. 46 Dolger, Byzantinische Diplomatik, pp. 36-9; Solovjev, Mosin, Grcke povelje srpskih 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 Stojanov, Diplomatika, p. 71 ff. Here I will not discuss terms not found in Bulgaria, such as argyrobulls, molybdobulls, or those with a wax seal. No such documents created in Bulgaria have been preserved, nor do we have data that they at all existed.

230

CHAPTER THREE

~Ab.Tone'lb.'l'b.Hrz., which is a calque of the Greek :x,pucro~ouMto<;. Such are practically all preserved Bulgarian acts of the tsars, with the exception 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 connected 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 European languages. Dvor (= court) is a Slavic word with multiple meanings, but here we are considering its designating the circle around the ruler, which is far from the most common meaning of the word. Other words are derived from it. The concept of "court" was formed over a long period in Bulgaria, and we can say this formation was completed probably at the time of tsar Symeon. Druzhina (=band, company, group) has multiple meanings, and the connotation of "a group of warriors attached to the ruler" is likewise derivative. Generally, it signifies a group, solidarity, one kind of which is a group of warriors. It is worth noting that, although it is Slavic, the

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

231

word has the same underlying logic as the Greek e'tatpe{a, in which the idea of unity, solidarity, comradeship, also passes through the idea of "otherness" (from E'tmpo<; = "one of two", "other"). In other words, in order to be united with someone, we must be different, not one and the same. In the same sense we may indicate the words Afl:.r'll. (senator) and Afl:.roRe (in plural, meaning "Senate"):~ 7 The etymological origin is evidently the same, and the citing of senate and druzhina as the closest circle of people surrounding the ruler may suggest certain 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 dwelling, 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 Bulgarian 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, Universitetska 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 Revelation 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 Byzantine Commonwealth and was even striving, in the person of the Bulgarian 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 military 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 pouvoir en Europe Centrale et Orientale. Actes du colloque international17.01.2004. New Europe College, Bucarest. Volume coordonne par I. Biliarsky et R G. Pliun. Bucarest, 2007, pp. 77-80. 50 Dujcev Iv., Iz starata bulgarska knizhnina (=Dujcev, SBK), t. II, Sofia, 1943, pp. 150-2. 51 Dujcev, SBK, II, pp. 129-30; Dujcev Iv., Miniatjurite na Manasievata letopis, Sofia, 1964, p. 25.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

233

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 prologue-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
52

53 54

Dimitrov, "Zlatostruj", p. 22. Dujcev, SBK, I, 216 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 indicating 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 likewise 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.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

235

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 Orthodox"). It is no coincidence that, in the spirit of the Christian understanding 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 mediaeval 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 ornamentation of the manuscript supports this assumption. 3.5.1.3

The second encomion to tsar John Alexander, that of the London Gospel, 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 Publica: 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 archetype 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 translation 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 mediaeval 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 copied, 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 Theodosius 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.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

237

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 manuscripts 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 literary 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 rulerwarrior (no&-tAOHOCb.LI,b., RI!AHK'li. RA4\A'li.11~4\); the ruler as the descendent 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. = monkloving). "Light" is indicated here as a general biblical symbol that serves as a kind of frame for the contents of the encomion. The mention 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 portraying 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 antonomasia 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 literary 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 Jerusalem 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 features of the ideology pertaining to ruler and state during the Second Bulgarian Empire. Thus, in these glorifications we see achieved a synthesis 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 second 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 character 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-Callisthenes' 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

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

239

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 follower of the Old Testament kings of the Chosen People. The text of the Alexandria is indicative in this respect, especially in the part concerning 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 different 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 Christianity. This should always be taken into consideration when studying the uses of the image of Alexander for building the ideal ruler of European 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. Constantine 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 Christianity. He was head of the militant Church, as we may judge by his portrayal in the frescos of the church in Pcltr
62 This is present both in Slavic countries and in the Byzantine Empire where it originated. Extensive literature on the subject exists, where the official line of the Church but also popular beliefs are presented. Cf. Pljukhanova M., Badalanova F., "Srednevekovaja simvolika vlasti: krest Konstantinov v bolgarskoj traditsii", Literatura i istorija. Acta et commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis, t 78, 1987, and Pljukhanova M., Badalanova F., "Srednevekovaja simvolika vlasti v Slavia Orthodoxa", Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet, Fakultet slavjanski filologii, t. 86, kn. 2, 1993.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

that John Alexander ordered the Gospel to be made "H~ C&OeM, Ll,rC'I'&,". 63

241

B'l'&f'l>*AeHHe

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 Testament, 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 people, 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 frequently in the books of the Old Testament, and it is hardly necessary here to point them out: they were a customary device for designating 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

Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 150. Dagron G., Empereur et pretre. Etude sur le 'cesaropapisme' byzantin, Paris, 1996, pp. 114-5, 155, 238. 63

64

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 present 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 "peacemaker 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\ &
65 Bozilov Iv., Tsar Simeon Veliki (893-927): Zlatnijat vek na srednovekovna Bulgarija, Sofia, 1982, p. 113ff.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

243

Alexandrine Library, thus demonstrating his love of books. In the context 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 Scripture 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 dissemination 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 conclusions: 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 R'l..H~Tfb.H'l..l~ GAb.roR~fH'l..IH

H

nHCb.HH~

u,~Cb.fb. CvuewHrz.. &omb.CTRb.Hb.lero

I believe the words "old" and "new" certainly refer to the books of the Old and New Testaments, as do likewise 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 writings 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 67

Hcnrz..l'l'b.Rrz.. ••• ). 67

Boiilov, Tsar Simeon Veliki, p. 163 ff. 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 concerns 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

,

X'

,

A'

1i'""

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

rl

'li\~'1>

&1:. l,eri\M'E ~H&O~,I.J.IH; HC,~HCA ...&W. _.(.• njH'l'~'IH H. (e• n'ECH~."' &I:. ,~HH

1

l~el~l H~'E

u.r~·

W&~l '0~&0 ~' I~HH ,

H~&rAHHH

~Wm.,.. W~. Wr H~

t;

I~H~. A. -f.~ nj'EAAHH '&'EWm;. WfH~e*e , er~'l''HI~~· Cmi.J.Ie, .~C'l'~.&H; &'1> nO'l'OnH. H. (A• no* *e. A HCHAW• nOi\8HCIWCK'l>l HCnHCA. tl • I~HH •

A ~'l'Oi\OM~ ~~'l>~HPOi\~&_eu.~:. C'l>~rb. A~· r,H ~~·~HP'bl. § C~Mew' ur~:. &i\'l>PArCI~'l>l

HCnHCA MHWP'l>l

I~HHP'bl.

_I!

IAI~O

A&A'l> Ll,rl:. HA

~i\A'l''l>l.

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

68 Jatsimirskij A. I., "Melkija zametki", Izvestija otdela russkago jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, vol. II, 1897, issue 2, p. 359. This text by A. I. Jatsimir-

ski was reprinted by L. Miletich ("Tsar Simeon, spomenat v edin sredno-bulgarski rakopis", Bulgarski pregled, VI, 7 (1898), p. 159), and, since then, by all Bulgarian authors working in this field. Here we are publicising the entire text as given by Jatsimirsky. The latter indicates that this is a manuscript from the middle of the 17th century containing discourses and exhortations for the Sundays of Lent; the manuscript belonged to the Saint Nicholas' scete of the Condrita monastery in the Bessarabian region of the Russian Empire; the author had visited the scete in the summer of 1895. 69 Bozilov, Tsar Simeon Veliki, pp. 164-5. The author has an interesting, but improvable and merely hypothetical assumption that there might have been a miniature depicting tsar Symeon as king David.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

245

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

3.5.2.5 Also associated with love of books is the image of the bee that we find in the glorification of tsar Symeon: ~K"AI &'b'H\A~ Ato&OA
w

Khristova, Karadzhova, Uzunova, Belezhki, II, pp. 117, 294-5, No 489. 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. 70 71

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. 4

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

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

247

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 Bulgarian Middle Ages; the ruler never invokes the Synklit, not even as witness 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, mentions 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~ or CHrKAHTrz... The translated word "Savet" can be found in Serbia. 74 We also come across it in Walachia and Moldavia, where it exists together with the Persian word divan, borrowed from the Osmanlis. 75 This once again confirms the thesis that in Bulgaria the Byzantine models were followed with greater precision, even at the terminological level, than in neighbouring countries. We can hardly say anything more concrete, except that the Synklit was probably something like an advisory organ attached to the ruler. In this sense, the question can be raised as to how membership in this organ was related to the function of advisor to the tsar, about which I have written elsewhere. 76 Tsar's advisors are known to us from the Vita of Saint Sava by Theodosius of Chilandari, who relates that the Bulgarian ruler sought advice from the patriarch and from "his advisors" when the Serbian king arrived and asked the tsar to hand over the relics of the saint. 77 Given the available sources, we can hardly expect any definitive or unquestionable solution to the problem about the character of the Synklit. One possible question is whether this was at all an institution or rather simply a designation of people close to the tsar from whom he sought advice.

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

206.

248

CHAPTER THREE

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

78 Documenta Romaniae Historica (=DRH), ser. B, vol I, No 15, pp. 36-7, No 234, p. 374. 79 I nstitufii feudale, p. 441. 80 BoZllov, Familijata na Asenevts~ p. 115ff.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

249

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

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

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

w

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

82

250

CHAPTER THREE

w

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

Mmm &w

CAHOMOZ.. 88

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

89

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

251

sical times. Most probably, the situation in Bulgaria was even further from the original. Given the lack of all traditions of collective management or of the idea of magistracy similar to the Roman one, the Bulgarian Synklit was probably only some copy of the one of Constantinople. The sources provide a quite amorphous idea of it; most probably the institution in reality was equally so. It must have been a council of the ruler, and its functions could hardly have consisted in decision making. Only in case of grave crisis and vacancy of the throne could it have had some say as to the choice of the next ruler, and this authority must have been dictated by the needs of the situation, and not by any specific rights of the Synklit.

4.2 The presence in the Glossary of the word for national assembly, veche (or vece, &-t'le/&'t4-Je, C'll.HI:.M'll.), and of the related word "vecnik", is related only to the institutional system in the Dubrovnik republic; it has nothing to do with Bulgaria. Nevertheless, we should give some attention both to the institution and to its name, for some authors claim it existed in the country during the First Bulgarian Empire. 90 This claim is connected basically with several cases: in deposing various khans, especially khan Sabin in the 8th century, in the case of the so-called Khan Krum's Laws, in the conversion to Christianity, in the deposition of Khan Vladimir-Rasate in AD 893, etc. I do not intend to deal with issues related to Khan Krum's Laws; it seems that basically there was no such code at all. It would be enough to refer the reader to the article by D. Naydenova, which has treated of this problem thoroughly. 91 Jordan Andreev, the only author who has written a special article on the problem of the veche, discerns the first such in the national assembly for deposing khan Telets after the latter lost the battle with the Byzantines. 92 Before expressing any opinion, I shall note that this problem should be considered and decided only in the general context

90 Zlatarski, Istorija, 1/2, Sofia, 1971, p. 257; Andreev J., "Narodnite slibori v politicheskija zhivot na pyrvata bulgarska dlirzhava", Istoricheski pregled, 1971, 4, pp. 96105; Petrova G., Istorija na bulgarskata darzhava i pravo, pp. 77-8. 91 Naydenova D., "Istoricheskata dostovernost na Leksikona 'Suda' kato iztochnik :za :zakonodatelstvoto na khan Krum", Starobulgarska literatura, t 35-6, 2006, pp. 167-80. 92 Andreev, "Narodnite slibori", p. 97.

252

CHAPTER THREE

of events in Bulgaria around the middle of the 8th century. They form a unity of all that transpired in relation to the removal from power of khan Sabin. The chroniclers are more concrete in their account. We may quote the words of Theophanes the Confessor: " ... when Sabin sent envoys to the emperor and asked that peace be concluded, the Bulgarians held an assembly (KOj..L~evtov 7totftcrav·w;) and firmly opposed Sabin ... "93 For his part the patriarch Nicephorus relates the same events, but without mentioning the "convent", only stating that the Bulgarians opposed his decision. 94 We cannot fail to notice that Theophanes the Confessor used a precise and concrete term, which was not typical for the Greek language but was borrowed from Latin.95 This suggests that the use of the term was accidental and the writer had something concrete in mind. For all that, we can hardly suppose that Theophanes was as familiar with the structure of power in Bulgaria as to have indicated a concrete existing institution. I believe this was the same kind of rebellion and opposition that not a few Bulgarian khans became victims of during the rule of Constantine V Copronymus in Constantinople. There must certainly have been an assembly, a revolt, and an organisation of some sort. But this does not mean that the quoted word gives us sufficient grounds to assume there was some regular, or even extraordinary but established, organ of power in Bulgaria resembling a national assembly, much less a "veche"

~ 3 Theophani Confessoris Chronigraphia,, ed. C. de Boor, Lipsiae, 1883, p. 433. See Zlatarskl, Istorija, I /1, p. 284 ff.; Andreev, "Narodnite siibori", pp. 97-8. 94 Nicephori archiepiscopi constantinopolitani Opuscula historica, eel. De Boor, Lipsiae 1870, pp. 69-70. ~ 5 Here it is worth mentioning the idea suggested in passing by V. G. Vasilevsky, that the word KO~v-tov is of Pecheneg origin and designates some specific council among this people (Vasllevskij V. G., Trudy, I, Sanct Petersburg, 1908, p. 15, note 1)-cf also Moravcsik Gy., "Komenton-pechenezhkoe ili russkoe slovo?", Acta antiqua Academiae Scienciarum Hungaricae, I, 1951, pp. 225-31. Also of interest are two other mentions of Ko~v'tov, available to us. Leo Diacon uses this word for the council convoked by prince Svetoslav in Drustur (T6te oe i\Ott 1havwxo-6CJTJ~ i!)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-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>·

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

253

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

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

254

CHAPTER THREE

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

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

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

255

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

106 107

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

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

256

CHAPTER THREE

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

112

113 114 115 116

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

(= 442b 12), 469.

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

257

are designated precisely by this term. 117 The same meaning of the word occurs in other cases as well. 118 In certain quotations, the meaning is that of an ecclesiastic counciP 19 or of a liturgical prayer assembly. 120 All these examples confirm the general observations concerning the lexeme and fail to convince us it referred to an institution. In fact, the thing coming closest to an institution is connected with regulations of the People of Israel, which we find in a later historical source, which we shall now examine. In the Constantine Mannasses' Chronicle the word we are discussing occurs once, and refers to the assembly of the People of Israel in the time of Joshua. It is notable that it stands together with the word C'b 6op'b:

n

)CII

0 IIIIW\I'CeH me

N~RIHH'l.. .. .. 1.. CH'l.. C

,

HMh.ACTROR~

C'l..G.OfOU

.

o&A~ e&peHCKHu' crz..Huourz... 121 In the Greek original the word is crJ.Lftvoc;, 122 which simply means "a multitude", its original meaning being "a swarm of bees" I believe the indicated examples-both historical and lexical-cannot convince anyone there was in Bulgaria a special institution of a "National Assembly". Actually, the very claim there was such is rooted either in faulty comparisons with Western Europe or in ideological motives connected with the idea of a "military democracy" as a transitional period toward the establishment of a state. Our knowledge about at least two of the assemblies for which such claims are made is derived from West European sources: the archbishop Hincmar of Reims and Pope Nicholas 1st regarding the events related to the Baptism; and abbot Regino on the events of AD 893. This creates the preconditions for transferring the idea of assemblies of people of a specific category, as they occurred in the west of Europe, to a completely different cultural environment; what the chroniclers wrote was addressed to their own public and cannot accurately reflect the reality in south-eastern Europe. H

117

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

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

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

(= 488a 2), 573.

na khronikata na Georgi Sinkel, p. 184

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

122

258

CHAPTER THREE

I believe that the groundlessness of the thesis there were some kind of national assembly is felt by the authors who have written on this matter, as evidenced by the interpretations they offer. For instance, it has been claimed that a National Assembly is a term with a narrow meaning, and was something always connected with a rebellion. Here is a quotation: «Rebellion was a phenomenon that in most cases accompanied the National Assembly and seems to have been the only means by which the Assembly succeeded in imposing its will and bringing the purposed changes to life". 123 This assertion is essentially ludicrous: according to it an obviously illegal act, a revolt, proves to be the only means for implementing the decisions of such a high organ as the «National Assembly" is claimed to have been. I believe the author himself sensed the weakness of his thesis and sought for a way to represent the factual circumstances of the revolt as some sort of regulated means for effectuating the supreme legal acts. I believe the main reason for the assertion that national assemblies existed in Bulgaria is to thereby support the idea of a «military democracy" and the remnants of a tribal organisation. Incidentally, this idea does not fit in with the events at the time of Khan Boris-Michael and tsar Symeon. To be honest, this contradiction was acknowledged in the article by Jordan Andreev, who noted that in the 8th century this institution served as a tool of the aristocracy to be used against the ruler, while in the 9th-10th century, on the contrary, it was used to affirm the power of the ruler. 124 Thus, even the authors who support the belief that such «democratic" political organs existed, are aware of how problematic the thesis is. I cannot accept the assertion that the National Assembly was an organ able to make the decision of removing the khan from power .125 I think this is untenable when considering the sacralisation and all-encompassing scope of power during the period in question. Here I would like to unexpectedly reverse the issue: I claim that it was precisely this sacralisation of power during the pagan period that could serve as an argument for the possible removal of the khan in cases when he was found religiously unfit to be a ruler. This is a situation similar to the position of the Goktiirk (= «celestial Turks") or

123 124

125

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

LEGAL VOCABULARY RELATED TO THE SUPREME STATE POWER

259

the Khazar khagans of the Ashina clan, for whom it was believed their deficiencies might harm the nation, so that the rule was they were to be removed from their position by being put to death. Vesselin Besevliev claims such a practice existed in Bulgaria as well; he states this in connection with events at the end of the reign of one of khan Krum's heir, known as Ditsevg, as documented in the Constantinopolitan synaxarium. Having very cruelly persecuted the Christians and put to death Manuel, the archbishop of Hadrian opolis, Ditsevg was struck by blindness, and therefore removed from power. This and most other important disabilities made the ruler unfit from a religious perspective to be head of the state, and this led to his being slain and substituted by someone else, someone not deprived of the protection of the pagan deities. In the Synaxarium it is said that, due to his blindness, Ditsevg «was put to death by his own men, and Mourtagon/Omourtag assumed power". 126 It seems a wonder no one has yet claimed these events were part of a National Assembly! Someone evidently made the decision to remove the unfit ruler from power, but it is not given us to know what organ made it. To claim this was a National Assembly would be forcing the sources; but for that matter, so would any other concrete claim or assumption. In any case, here we are treading on issues more relevant to the power of the ruler than to that of the «people". I simply believe there is no reason to claim that there were in Bulgaria some kinds of national assemblies existing as regular organs; we must leave the rest to romantic historiography. 5.

CONCLUSION

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

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

260

CHAPTER THREE

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

127 An example of this are the Bulgarian army's constant attacks directed toward Constantinople, perceived by all Orthodox Christians as the centre of the Christian world and the true capital of the universal Empire-Biliarsky Iv., "Srednovekovna Bulgarija: Tsarstvoto i naroda", IIOAYXPONIA. Sbornik v chest na prof. Ivan Boiilov, Sofia, 2002, pp. 31-2. 128 Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bulgarski vladetel, p. 148 ff.; Petrova G., Istorija na bulgarskata darzhava i pravo p. 73ff, 86 ff.

CHAPTER FOUR

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

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

Biliarsky Iv., Hierarchia. L'Ordre sacre. Etude sur l'esprit romai'que, (Freiburger Veroffentlichungen aus dem Gebiete von Kirche und Staat, Bd. 51), Fribourg/Suisse, 1997.

262

CHAPTER FOUR

an honorary title only marks some quality of the person who carries it. 2 In various civilisation environments, titles have different features, which are important for clarifying our concrete case, inasmuch as the Byzantine (and hence Bulgarian) concept of a "title" differs from that in Western Europe. In West European society, organised into social categories (estates), a title designates affiliation to the aristocracy (i.e. to the military estate). It was connected with nobility and passed from father to son by heritage. Byzantine society and the societies of most other Orthodox countries in the Byzantine Commonwealth (as they are designated, using the classical term coined nearly half a century ago by Dimitri Obolensky) were organised and structured in a completely different way. There were no legally regulated social groups similar to the estates in the West, and inheritance of a hierarchic position for a person was reduced, at least de iure, to a minimum. Titles in Constantinople were not hereditary and were acquired through merit, with a special act of the basileus. Nevertheless, a title was essentially the same as in Western Europe or anywhere else: it marked the quality of a person. In the Byzantine Empire, however, this quality was not determined by belonging to the estate but by one's personal worthiness. Personal virtue was the reason for belonging to the hierarchy (the principle of sacredness), i.e. to the holy order which structures the world. In its political aspect, this order was the Ecumenical Universal Empire, organised in the likeness of the celestial hierarchies, and hence similar to the Kingdom of God. 3 Affiliation to the hierarchy was a personal achievement based on merits and qualities, not on family origin. This was the great difference between Constantinople and Western Europe. The Empire was the image of the Celestial Kingdom in the visible world; this concept was an essential characteristic of the political ideology of the New Rome, and hence of the other countries of the Byzantine Commonwealth. This political ideology reflected in the state structures and in public law, and it certainly made titles an essential characteristic of the institutional system of the Empire, though not investing them with specific state functions. The same is true for the various court offices and the officials working for them. In general, these were not state services in the proper sense of the word, but offices pertaining to the state, inasmuch as they

2

3

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

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

263

served the person of the basileus, i.e. they were not part of the administration. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we should not evaluate the phenomena of public power thousands of years ago in terms of the present day. The personal serving of the basileus is not defined as a kind of administrative activity, but neither is it simply the kind of duty a servant performs. The activity of the court services is closely connected with the imperial ritual of the Palace, which, in turn, is a visible expression of the doctrine of the Universal Empire and the only space where we may see, perceive with our senses, the hierarchical order of dignities as a reflection of Celestial Hierarchies. Thus, we learn that many of those responsible for serving the person of the Tsar were actually fulfilling predominantly ritual functions. In this connection, the function of the eunuchs stands out particularly vividly, and surely grotesquely-yet most services in the court were reserved for eunuchs only. The duties of the eunuchs in court were mostly ritual. As 'sexless' beings, they represented in the various ceremonies Divine messengers from the Celestial Army of angels, which are likewise sexless.4 In fact, the presence of eunuchs in the court was above all a sign of the divine nature of the ruler's power. No doubt, such a function was directly connected with justifying power and justifying the mechanism of functioning of power. Here we see one instance of the great importance of court services in the public legal sphere of the mediaeval state. 2. ORIGIN AND BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEGAL VOCABULARY PERTAINING TO THE SPHERE OF INSTITUTIONS AND PRESENTED IN THE GLOSSARY

2.1

The origin of administrative terminology in mediaeval Bulgaria, as presented in the glossary, confirms the conclusion drawn when studying terminology in other legal spheres. We observe a prevalence of terms that have their origin in Byzantium or are somehow connected with it. The glossary words connected with administration and titles are more than a hundred and sixty, of which one hundred and ten are Slavic. In the general glossary, we have thirty-three Greek words. The words

4

Guilland R., « Les eunuques dans l'Empire byzantin >>,Etudes byzantines, I, I 943,

passim; Biliarsky, Hierarchia. L'Ordre sacre, pp. 17-20.

264

CHAPTER FOUR

of Turkic origin are eleven; the Latin words are four; one word is of German origin, one or two are Hungarian (which are designations not of Bulgarian institutions, but of institutions of the city of Bra§OV/ Kronstadt); and two are words of an origin that remains unclear to me. Some words figure in both glossaries. At first glance, the numerical prevalence of the Slavic vocabulary is so obvious, that it might lead us to question the conclusion I drew initially. Nevertheless, I would like to point out certain circumstances that might change this first impression. It is to stress that, in referring to vocabulary connected with the Empire, I do not mean only that which is purely Greek in origin. We are thinking about the integral influence of the legal system of Constantinople, which had accumulated in itself the traditions of Roman law. Hence, some of the Latin words also represent this influence, as do some of the Slavic words, the roots of which are to be sought in calques and translated foreign vocabulary. In examining the accumulated material, we find that at least thirty-six of the Slavic words (considered as specialised terms) are of an origin connected to Greek vocabulary and show the unquestionable impact of the Byzantine administrative system. In addition to this, there is at least one word of Latin origin ("desetnik"), which can be said to have come into the Bulgarian vocabulary from the military-administrative language of the Byzantine Empire. Out of the total number of Slavic words, we should also not count a number of words that belong to the Dubrovnik administrative terminology, and which in fact have nothing to do with Bulgaria, yet are present in the glossary, because they have been taken from a text that is included in those on which the glossary is based. Such words are "vechnik", "veche", "obshtina", "obshtinski", which, at least in the text from which they were drawn, have nothing to do with Bulgarian realities. We thus see that the purely Slavic vocabulary is lesser in number. As noted at the beginning of this study, the glossaries include not only terms but also a wide range of vocabulary. If we examine separately only that part of the terminology that definitely better reflects the processes we are concerned with, we shall see that the relative weight of the Greek lexical units grows even greater.

2.2 An appreciable percentage of words are ultimately of Byzantine origin, and their importance is made greater by the fact that the vast majority

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

265

of these words are terms. Among them, I have included the word primmikirios/primmicerius, which is of Latin origin but undoubtedly came into the Bulgarian administrative vocabulary through the Greek language. I believe we could add to this category the term kastel/castle, also of Latin origin. The situation of the term katun is specific. It is likewise of Latin origin but came into the Balkans from colloquial Latin, and we cannot categorically ascribe it to the Byzantine influence in Bulgaria.

2.3 Among the words of Latin origin included in the glossary, we should focus special attention on the word Krz..uerrrz.. (kmet), and I have done so further on in my presentation. We see that the Latin vocabulary is not widely present in the Bulgarian administrative language: this is quite understandable in view of the cultural affiliation of the country. 2.4

The Turkic terms are of special interest for our study, for some of them derive from the Bulgar heritage and the problem of continuity in Bulgarian statehood before and after the Conversion to Christianity. More than ten such words are present in the glossary, but we must not view them all in the same way. According to origin, they may be divided into several groups, the largest of which is that of Bulgar origin, including, in all, six words: bagain, boliarin, boliarka, san, chergubylia, chergubylstvo. Four terms we can generally connect by origin to the steppe peoples (Bulgars included): ban, vatah, zhupa, zhupan. The etymology of most of them is much disputed, and there is no prevalent opinion on the matter. Last, I would like to add the term serdar, the appearance of which in the Bulgarian administrative nomenclature is the result of a loan from the Osmanli Turks in the time when these were conquering the Balkan Peninsula. Also in this number are two terms which are ultimately of Turkic origin: kraishte and pobirchia. The term "kraishte" is a translation of the Turkic word "uf" (which initially meant "mount", "arrow", and hence, "end", "marginal territory"), as some of the territories newly conquered by the Osmanli were called, territories under the power of the Uf-beyi I uc-beg. 5 The term pobirchia derived from &Hf'l..Krz.., which

5

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

266

CHAPTER FOUR

is of Bulgar origin and must be related to the fiscal system of the First Bulgarian Empire. We shall devote special attention to it in the chapter on the fisc and the public finances. 2.5 One term is of Germanic origin-purgar from "Burger", another of Hungarian origin-folnog (= fonok). I was unable to determine the exact origin of the term faingl, but it should be related to the Hungarian language (and especially to the word faliigye/6 = "somebody in charge with something", "administrator") or to a Saxon dialect spoken by a large and politically dominant part of the population of Transylvania. The term does not belong to the Bulgarian administrative vocabulary but to that of the Saxon city Bra~ov (Kronstadt). Among the Germanic terms I have not included knjaz (= prince), which is also of a remote Germanic origin but was already borrowed in the Palaeo slavic language and does not represent a case of Germanic influence in mediaeval Bulgaria. 3. DEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BASIC CONCEPTS IN THE SPHERE OF BULGARIAN MEDIAEVAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE TERMS DESIGNATING THEM

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

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

267

these terms are part of the general context of the reception of names during the Second Empire, unlike the names of Bulgar institutions, which derive from an entirely different culture and had nothing to do with the processes that took place later. Several years ago, I devoted a special article to the administrative terminology in mediaeval Bulgaria, in which I presented the basic findings of my research on this problem. 6 The main differences in this presentation consist in the range of documents in the basis of the present study and the inclusion of a wider set of administrative terms. That is how some of the follow-ups of the various studies took shape. The administrative terms not present in the range of documents on which the glossary was built are not included in it, but it does comprise terms that have nothing to do with the Bulgarian practice of governance. One such term is "knez", used to designate the institution of the Dubrovnik Republic. It is present in the Bulgarian administrative vocabulary but with a meaning that has nothing to do with the mentioned Ragusan institution. This is also true for the other Dubrovnik terms already mentioned. Of course, furthest away from the practice in Bulgaria are the terms designating the leaders of the Saxon community in the city of Bra§OV (Kronstadt), who had their own German or Hungarian appellations that had nothing in common with the terms used in mediaeval Bulgaria. Finally, I shall group the terms according to their origin in order to attempt to infer some dependency between the character of the institutions and the origin of their name. 3.1

Words transliterated from Greek and other languages usually comprise the high-ranking dignitaries, courtiers, and higher institutions. Such are practically all titles, and this is easily understandable. A title in the Byzantine institutional system had an important ideological and structure-defining function in the contexts of the general Byzantine understanding about the world. In this sense, its inclusion in the Bulgarian institutional system signifies a borrowing of this concept and of the place of the entitled person in the universal order. The title designates

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

268

CHAPTER FOUR

this place and there is no need to be translated, for the appellation as sign is sufficient. The issue would not be the same if some offices in the state apparatus were borrowed. In that case, we would have an instance of assimilation of a type of state activity, and that might create a problem of comprehensibility for the name of the office. Thus, the designations are constructed in different ways, through translation or through calques, as we shall see done in Bulgaria in the assimilation of various administrative, and especially fiscal, designations. 3.1.1

Regarding the assimilation in Bulgaria of Byzantine titles, perhaps the most typical case is that of the three so-called "imperial titles" -despot, sebastocrator and caesar/kesar-which retained their Greek appellations with hardly any change and demonstrate the transplantation of the Byzantine political doctrine to Bulgaria. We shall deal with them in detail further. 3.1.2

The other two "pure titles" known to us in the Bulgarian mediaeval institutional system also bear names directly copied from the Greek. These are protosebastos and sebastos. 7 The two titles are similar and do not pose different kinds of problems; these are obviously Greek appellations and one originated from the other with a specification for the higher rank. In the relevant literature, there is no unanimous view as to the nature of this institution in Bulgaria and Serbia, and there is debate as to whether that was an office or a "pure title". 8 I have pre-

7 The title of the protosebastos is known to us from the Hilendari charter, dating from 1300, of the Serbian king Milutin and from Tsar Boril's Synodicon (Novakovic St, Zakonski spomenici srpskih driava srednjego veka, Belgrade, 1912, pp. 391, 392; Popruzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, p. 90, No. 132). The title of sebastos is cited in several Bulgarian charters (those of Vatopedi, Virgino, Mraka, Rlla)-cf llinskij, Gramoty, 15 14, 18 98 _99, 25 28, 38, 27 53; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 59, as well as in the Stenimachos and Bozhenitsa inscriptions: Zlatarski V. N., "Asenevijat nadpis pri Stanimaka", in: idem, Izbrani proizvedenija, voL II, Sofia, 1984, p. 405; Mutafchiev P., "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", in: iden. Izbrani proizvedenija, vol. I, Sofia, 1973, p. 493. 8 Mutafchiev P., "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", pp. 494-5; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 37; Gjuzelev V., "Nadpisa ot krepostta", Bozhenishki Urvich, Sofia, 1979, p. 43; Petrov P., "0 titulakh 'sevast' i 'protosevasf v srednevekovom bolgarskom gosudarstve", Vizantijskij vremenik, t. XVII (1959), pp. 52-64; Andreev M., "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie na srednovekovna Bulgarija i na srednovekovna S!lrbija spored gramotite na bulgarskite i sr!lbskite vladeteli ot XIII-XIV v." Godishnik na

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

269

sented my opinion in this discussion further on in this study, in the part where I have systematically presented the Bulgarian institutions. 3.1.3

The directly borrowed Greek terms predominate likewise in the part concerning court officials and the central state administration. I would like to stress that, due to the nature of the Byzantine hierarchic system of titles, these administrative services also had the nature of titles. In this sense, the approach in constructing their designations is of special interest for this study. Even from a cursory review of the extant approximately fifteen appellations, including those not given in the glossary, we see that eleven are directly transliterated from the Greek (protovestiarios, vestiarios, grand primmicerius, protostrator, grand dux, protokelliotes, grand logothete, logothete, grammatik), while four are calques/translated from the same language (palace curator/curopalates, stolnik, voevoda, tainik). The addition of the modifier "great", which could be a translation of the Greek word J.l.eym; or else added in the Bulgarian version of the term, does not change matters, for the title is nevertheless formed by the basic term. 3.1.4

So far, the terms discussed were Greek, such is not the case with the word ~'ll.MeT'll. ("kmet"), specifically in the sense, claimed for it, of "distinguished person", "noble" This word has already been the focus of attention and (excessive) interpretations in some studies; it has been adduced as an argument in support of the Western Slavic origin of the Law for Judging the People. 9 The thesis of K. Maximovich is far from generally accepted and has been criticised with good reason by certain scholars, Russian ones included. For instance I. Dobrodomov expresses disagreement with views on the meaning of the word put forward as early as the 19th century, and defines it as "landlord, husband"; he rejects both the view that it was of Moravian origin and that it came directly into Russia together with the Law for Judging the People. 10 All

Sopjijskija universitet, Juridicheskifakultet, t. 58,2 (1967), pp. 11, 16, 19, 26-7; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 119 tf, 125tf. Maksimovich, ZSL, pp. 90-2. Dobrodomov I. G., "Iljuzornaja sem.antlka v ruskikh istoricheskikh slovarjakh i ee posledstvija (na primere slova K'bMemb)", Drenjaja Rus', 3 (21), september, 2005, pp. 26-7. 9

10

270

CHAPTER FOUR

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

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

3.2 The translated and calqued terms usually comprise the lower dignities, although there are certain exceptions to that. Such is the office of the palace curator or curopalates, which we shall examine further in this study. In this group, we may include the stolnik, yet another court official. The most important military-administrative term, calqued from Greek, is that of voevoda. This was a typical case of the early influence of Constantinople on the Bulgarian institutional system, and that is why it should be examined in its proper place. Amongst the appellations of officials in the ruler's chancery, a translated word is tainik (TAHHHK'l>.); it is not present in the glossary, for we find it in the text of the Vita of St. Philoteia by patriarch Euthymius,

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

12

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

271

which is not one of our base sources. 13 It was calqued from the Greek ~umuc6~, which, in turn came from the Latin secretarius. 14 Practically all designations of Bulgarian administrative-territorial units, except the directly assimilated ones chora and kleisoura, are translated, or calqued, from Greek, and, ultimately, were borrowed from the administrative system of the Empire. 15 3.2.1

Finally, I would like to consider several groups of terms that are not exactly appellations of institutions but are certainly relevant to the institutional system and, precisely in this connection, were borrowed through calques or translation from Greek. These are vlastel, glava (= "head"), gospodin!gospodar (= "lord", "master") and their derivatives nastolnik and nastoinik, together with words connected with them, nachalo and nachalnik, rabotnik and rabotati (=to work), chin (= ordo, degree) and their respective derivatives. The word glava (= head) is related to ''being at the head of" and exercising power, without exactly being the name of an institution. In my opinion, it was a precise translation of the Greek word Ke<j>aA:ft. The latter was of the nature of an administrative term designating a district governor who headed the late-Empire administrative-territorial unit called katepanikion. 16 This term was transliterated, not translated, into Bulgarian as ~e<j>MHh\ (kephalia), the word presented here in the glossary. For its part, glava (head) remained a very general name for the leader's function, and not a specific institution. This demonstrates the general approach that was used for the building of the

13 E. Kaluiniacki, Werke, p. 96; Biliarsky Iv., « Les institutions de la Bulgarie medievale: tainik-mystik.os », Byzantinoslavica, LIII, 1 (1992), pp. 53-6; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 237-9. 14 Oik.onomides N., Les listes de preseance byzantines de IX' et x• siecles, Paris, 1972, p. 324; Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 13811 , 160 11 If.• 1795_6; Guilland R., «Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin. Le mystique, 6 !L'OOnK6~ », Revue des etudes byzantines, XXVI, 1968, pp. 279-96; Magdalino P., «The Not-so-secret Function of the Mystik.os »,Revue des etudes byzantines, XLII (1984), pp. 229-40. 15 On this issue, cf. Biliarsky, « Les circonscriptions administratives », p. 190tf. 16 Mutafchiev, "Bozhenishkijat nadpis", pp. 495-6; Dujeev, SBK, II, p. 345; Maksimovic, Provincijska uprava, p. 71tf.; Ostrogorsky G., Serska oblastposle Du5anove smrti, Belgrade, 1965, p. 94; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provincialnoto upravlenie", pp. 15-6; Institufii feudale, p. 95; Biliarsky Iv., "Belezhki W.rkhu institutsionnata sistema na Vtoroto bulgarsko tsarstvo: kephalia", Tarnovska knizhovna shkola, voL V, Veliko Ti!.rnovo, 1994, pp. 553-562; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 286-92.

272

CHAPTER FOUR

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

17

18

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

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

273

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

The purely Slavic words in the administrative vocabulary usually have a closer connection with colloquial language, do not always have a precise institutional reference, and often designate persons of lower rank. 3.3.1

First of all I should cite the widely used word knjaz/knez (KH~~rz. from KHi\\Srz.), although this is a Common Slavic loanword from the Germanic languages. 19 Its meaning can vary widely. Initially it meant "prince", "leader", i.e. the military leader of the tribe; later this was to

19 The citations from the charters have been indicated in the glossary. See also the interesting case of the citing of "local knjazes" in the Vita of St Joachim of Osogovo: Ivanov, BSM, p. 412. Regarding knjazes in mediaeval Serbia, see: Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 105, 107, 108, 109, 177, 182, 255, 260, 310, 312, 389, 424, 453, 455, 456, 471, 473, 494, 601, 614, 616, 620, 662, 680, 683, 704, 720, 759.

274

CHAPTER FOUR

turn into a monarch's title. In Bulgaria, this meaning does not exist as a concrete title or administrative appellation but simply as a general name for a high-ranking person or rulers. As a technical term, the word is present in the Bulgarian nomenclature with the meaning of village leader or leader of a small community. 20 3.4.

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

4.1. Honorary titles

As pointed out, the words for honorary titles were entirely borrowed from the Greek or simply transliterated in Cyrillic letters with the nee-

20 Petrov P., Grozdanova E., << Mittelalterliche balkanamter und Titel im osmanischen Orts- und Selbsverwaltungssystem »,Etudes balkaniques, 1978, 4, p. 95 ff.; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 296-303. 21 I have devoted a special article to this topic, to which I refer the reader: Biliarsky Iv., "Primeri za ranno vlijanie na Imperijata varkhu formiraneto na bulgarskata publichnopravna terminologija: voevoda, chigot, chvanchij, Istoricheski pregled, 5-6, 2008, pp. 16-27.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

275

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 "master" 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 possible 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.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

277

tures. The first information about despots in Serbia dates from before the imperial coronation of Stephen Dusan, and this shows the title was received from abroad, from Constantinople or Tolrnovo. The bearers of this high title in the second half of the 14th century, John Oliver, Dejan, Vukasin, John Uglesa, John Dragas, etc., received it from the Serbian Tsars. The 15th century brought specific features to the title. There was no longer a Serbian Tsar, and the title was received from Constantinople and borne by the rulers of the country: Stephen Lazarevic, George Brankovic, Lazar Brankovic, etc. As we shall see, this is no reason to refer to a "Serbian Despotate" 4.1.1.2. Titular characteristic of the title of despot The thesis that the characteristic of despot was purely titular, not related to any function, is undisputed in foreign historiography. In this respect Pseudo Kodinos was categorical: '0 oecrx6trtc;, cre~acrtoKpatrop Kat Ka'icrap oUOeJ..Liav {m·npecria £xoucrtv, £av J..L'h taxe&mv eic; itreJ..Loviav. 30 The despot, as well as the sebastocrator and Caesar, performed no office in the state apparatus. They could be entrusted by the basileus de; ft'Y£J..LOviav, which meant to head a military expedition in strictly defined cases. In fact, this was hardly the only kind of state activity with which a sovereign could entrust a despot. What is important is that the activities were not connected necessarily to the institution in a way that would make the bearer of the latter part of the state apparatus. As for the participation of the despot in the court ritual, it would be hard for us to refer the Byzantine sources to Bulgarian conditions. Although the tsars in Tarnovo strove fervently to imitate the basileus, their court could hardly have implemented the complex and expensive 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 Elsewhere, 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 contemporary 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 outsider'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) simply 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.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

279

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 Bulgarian 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, including 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 Byzantine 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 sonin-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 Asenevtsi, 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 Constantinople. 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 problems 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 Bulgarian 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 purpose of the despot's title in the Byzantine Empire before this title depreciated 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 question 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.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

281

This problem appears even more interesting when related to the thesis 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 century. 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 powerful in political terms: these were Strez, Alexander, Peter and Kalajan. 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 restoration 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.

Ferjancic, Despoti, p. 155. Blliarsky Iv., « Le rite du couronnement des tsars dans les pays slaves et promotion d'autres axiai », Orientalia Christiana Periodica 59, 1 (1993), pp. 106-7, 126-7. 35 36

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 differently, for most probably the title was bestowed here by Constantinople. 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. Comparing 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 bestowing 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 theoretical, 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 reception of the title from Constantinople became something not typical for the Bulgarian boyar elite in the 14th century.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

283

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 Palaeologos 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 cannot 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 connected 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 despots 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 available 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 Bulgaria (and in Serbia as well). In connection with the practice of bestowing the title of despot in Bulgaria in the 14th century, another interesting issue is the entitling of foreigners. The Empire widely used this practice in order to attract powerful rulers to its policy. The question as to whether it was used by Bulgarian tsars as well is of special interest, for it would reflect on the overall assessment of their foreign policy and would provide a new characteristic of their political doctrine. The awarding of the highest court title, especially to foreigners, was a vivid manifestation of the imperial idea, with which all Orthodox countries became involved eventually.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

285

The only country in which we may look for titles bestowed by Bulgarian tsars is Serbia. In my opinion, it is untenable to presume Byzantine 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 himself. 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 despot most probably got his title from Tclrnovo and not from Constantinople.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 insignia. Every element of apparel and other attributes of the despot, ranging 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 contains quite a comprehensive presentation, which enables us to form an image of the garments of Byzantine despots around the middle of

38 39

Ferjancic, Despoti, pp. 157-8. 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 pendants 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 embroidered eagles upon the similar two-coloured covers of the horse. The despot's tent is white, covered with red eaglets. It is specifically indicated 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 Serbian rulers usually had the rank of despots. Of course, even the data from the two depictions of Bulgarian despots 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.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

287

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 century.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 portrayed holding sceptres. The same object is found in Serbia, but is not mentioned in the treatise of Pseudo Kodinos. Despot Michael was portrayed holding in his right hand a cross, decorated with pearls and precious 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. Panayotova, "Les portraits des donateurs", p. 147. 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. 44

45

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 precious 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 sovereign 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 embroidered 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 garment 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 element. We see a difference in the belt as well. Despot Michael's belt is far more similar to the imperialloros, although there are some differences and it is not thrown over the left hand. We can only judge about the shoes from the miniatures in the London 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-

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

289

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 despot 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 garments 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 mediaeval 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 despot 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 promotion 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 Bulgaria (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 Synodiconwas 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 practice started only after 1453, when there were no longer basileis in Constantinople. 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 Muslim conquest. There was a struggle for domination over the peninsula,

Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 274-5. 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. 48 49

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

291

and such domination was undoubtedly linked with the ideological traditions 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 general, 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 insufficient data, and we shall therefore have to resort to comparisons. The basic Byzantine sources in this respect are the acts of despots, the treatise 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 nopuporevVI'J-ro<;). The treatise of Pseudo Kodinos remains an invaluable source on the Byzantine system. Concerning the despot, it contains a comparatively 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 additional 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

Vetpaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 148-51. 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. 52

53

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 parallels, 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 represents a translation of the Greek o£o1to't6. ~ou. We have good reasons 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. to the Lovech Code. There The other source available to us is the note -c""' we encounter the expression: nrH EAOPO'ITH&~ AetnOT~ MeCb.Arb..58 Although coming from a donator's note, not a document, this information 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. M

55 56 57

58

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

H

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

293

4.1.1.8. Acts

As a high dignitary, the despot had the right to issue certain acts. 59 Probably all despots, especially the powerful local lords, had their chancery, where official documents were issued. The despot acts were silver-seal decrees or argyrobulls, unlike the imperial gold bulls or chrysobulls. In this respect as well, there were a number of variants in the Empire. 60 A text that may be considered issued in the chancery of a Bulgarian despot is Jacob Svetoslav's letter to Cyril, metropolitan of Kiev. Regrettably, this document is such that it can help us but little in our present research. In both extant copies, this document is combined with John Dragoslav's addition, but is separate from the rest of the text. It starts with an address to the prelate and is written in the first person singular of the despot. However, the form of address is permanently lost, as well as the signature, the seal, and other elements. Moreover, what we have is most probably not the full text of the message. 4.1.1.9. Coin minting

A feature that distinguishes Bulgarian despots from the Byzantine ones is coin minting. 61 We have no data on existence of coinage struck by Byzantine despots. The right to mint coins belonged exclusively to the basileus, and it was not infringed upon. In this respect, the situation in the neighbouring Balkan countries varied: mediaeval Serbia offers ample historical information. We have extant coins of the despot John Oliver and of 15th century despots. Extant coins minted by a Bulgarian despot and dating back as early as the 13th century are those of the lord of Vi din-despot Jacob Svetoslav. The other despot who coined money is Dobrotitsa, the ruler of the Karvouna land (Scythia Minor). His son despot John Terter also minted coins. We may ask ourselves whether the authority to mint coins defined some essential difference between the Byzantine despots and those of Bulgaria and Serbia. In this connection, it is to point out that minting was hardly part of the set of rights defining the status of the title.

59 For more details on the acts of despots, see: Biliarsky, "The Despots", p. 144 and Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite, pp. 43-4. 6° C£ Ferjancic B., "0 despotskim povelama", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, t. IV, 1956, pp. 93-103. 61 On the coins of despots, cf. Biliarsky, "The Despots", pp. 145-6 H Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 44-7.

294

CHAPTER FOUR

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

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

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

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

295

4.1.2.1 Origin. The title in the Empire and in Serbia The origin of the title of sebastocrator is closely connected with the dynastic policy of Alexis I Comnenos. Coming to power in 1081, he initiated an overall reorganisation of the hierarchic system of the Empire. The bestowing of titles upon the closest relatives of the basileus led to the creation around the throne of a narrow circle of dynastic aristocracy, which would play a future role in the governance of the state. In the book Alexias by Anna Comnena we learn that Nicephorus Melissenos was promised the title of caesar even before Alexis I mounted the throne. Along with this, the eldest of the Comnenoi, Isaac, was to receive a higher title. In order to satisfy their claims, the basileus created a new title, that of sebastocrator, and put it highest in the hierarchy. Thus, he demoted the caesar and assigned to him the third place in official court glorifications. 64 Particularly interesting is the etymology that Anna Comnena herself offered of the term, related to the basic characteristic of the title. Here are the words of the author: "... the basileus Alexis Comnenos formed a new word and called his brother sebastocrator, a compound word consisting of two parts: sebastos and autocrator, and thus made Isaac something like a second basileus."65 Ie~amo<; was an epithet of the basileus and signified "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 connected with the ecumenical doctrine and with the claims of the rulers of Constantinople to world domination. All this, as well as the position 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
Etudes balkaniques 4 (1978), pp. 70-4; eadem, "Particularites etatiques et juridiques du titre 'sebastocrator' en Bulgarie durant Ia periode XIII•-XIV• srecle", Etudes balkaniques 3 (1979), pp. 53-71. 64 Annae Comnenae Alexias, voL I, Lipsiae 1884, pp. 102 20 _29; Brehier, Les institutions, 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 closest 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 depreciation 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 quasibrigand 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 Constantinople: the purely titular nature of the dignity was preserved. In Serbia as well, the title waned towards the end of the 14th century, together Brehier, Les institutions, p. 144. 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. 66

67

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

297

with the end of the tsardom. In this case, as well, we notice the common tendencies occurring in both Balkan states. In Tarnovo and Skopje 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 honorary 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 mediaeval 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 administrative and military governor of a large province and had several sebastoi 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 discussed 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 sebastocrator.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 requirements. Initially the title was reserved to the closest circle of relatives of the ruler: brothers and sons and, starting from the 12th century, sonin-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 sonin-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 awarding 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,

70

71

Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 276. Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 276.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

299

which shared certain characteristic features with the basileis. Regarding 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 ceremonies 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 addressing 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 epithets were the following: 1tllV£UTUXe
73

Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 149-50; FerjanciC, Despoti, p. 245. Darrouzes, "Ekthesis nea," p. 57.

74

llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 15629, 15731-36·

72

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'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 attention 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 stockings 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 77

78 79

Ferjancic, "Povelje sevastokratora i cesara", p. 112. Annae Comnemae Alexias, I, pp. 102-3. Kovaeevic J., Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih slovena, Belgrade, 1953, p. 240. Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 147-8.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

301

In general, the Serbian sebastocrators did not deviate from the traditions of the Byzantine Empire. Unfortunately, we have no descriptions 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 sebastocrator 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, darkgreen), long, fastened at the waist by a belt of metal plates. There are peribrachia on the sleeves. The fabric is luxurious and with ornaments. 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 Constantinople as well. 82 This description is from a time closer to that of the

° Kova.Cevic J., Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih slovena, pp. 49, 54, tabl XXXVIII.

8

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. 81

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 sebastocrator 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 likewise 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 origin is connected with the set of titles of the basileis. The Byzantine x:a'icrap comes from the Latin word Caesar, which was the name of Caius Iulius Caesar and during the Principate (in the Early Roman

83 See: Biliarsky Iv., « Le rite du couronnement >>, pp. I06, I33-4; Biliarsky Iv., "Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", Istoricheski pregled, II (I989), pp. 54-7; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. Ill-5. 84 On the caesars in the Empire, cf Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, 134 (I), I48 ff.; Oikonomides, Les listes, 293; Guilland, Recherches, II, 25-43 [=Orientalia Christiana periodica, 13 (I947) I68-94].

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

303

Empire) served to designate the emperor. In Rome, the title gradually underwent a considerable decline and gave way to augustus. In Diocletian's tetrarchy the title designated the junior emperor, subordinated to the Augustus, in each part of the Empire-Eastern or Western; after Constantine the Great it acquired the specific features with which we are concerned here, i.e. it becomes a title in the hierarchy. 85 For a long time this title was reserved for the closest circle of the ruler's relatives and remained first in the ranking. It was only under Alexis I Comnenos that it went to second place after sebastocrator, and later to third after despot. Although very depreciated, the title of caesar retained its imperial character, which is evident by its place, insignia, and forms of address, which we learn about from the treatise of Pseudo Kodinos.86 The extant sources provide information likewise about caesars in 14th-century Serbia: Preljub, Vojhna, Hreljo, etc. 87 It is quite problematic whether this title existed in mediaeval Bulgaria. 88 Some authors assume that it was present in the rank system of the country, but do not ground their assertion. 89 In fact, the only data on caesars in Bulgaria come from the prayer for promotion of despots, caesars, and other dignitaries, preserved in several manuscript copies. This work, of course, is of Byzantine origin, but I should emphasise that at least the heading is not an exact translation from Greek. The original is called Ei>xh btl1tpOXetpicret ~~:aicrapoc;, vm~eA.tcri~ou (~~:al) ~~:oup01taA.6:tou. 90 The text closest to this is that contained in the Synodicon: MATRb. Hb. no;rb.Rl\eH'i'e, KECAfb.. ce me H Hb. nocTb.Rl\eH'i'e ;l\fb.HHTeNt noAb.T
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 disappeared towards the end of the 12th century. The curopalates occurs only in the text of the Synodicon copy. We shall discuss the latter further in this research; here I shall only note that the title is written in Cyrillic letters, but with the precise Greek spelling and even with the suffix for nominal case, which is not at all typical for translated texts. The main difference between the Greek and Slavic headings is the citation of the title of 'despot' in the latter. Another important difference is the mention of "other dignitaries" in the translated versions. We see the differences are few and occur mainly in the heading. Nevertheless, I would say they demonstrate the translator composed an or do of the highest titled persons that was actually meant for use in the respective country. The Greek prayer reflects the ordo of promotion the highest titles in the Empire in the period of the 9th-11th century. Caesar, nobelissimus and curopalates were the first three positions in the hierarchy in the taktika of U spensky, Benesevic, Oikonomides, and in the treatise of Philotheus. 93 The Slavic text reflects a similar positioning: the despot is first in the hierarchy, and the caesar is in the top ranks. In the later transcripts (or translations), "other great or small dignitaries" are also indicated, meaning the rest of the title-bearers. Therefore, the source we are discussing provides the only extant information about caesars in mediaeval Bulgaria. The possible objection that this was a Serbian translation that subsequently passed into Bulgaria does not seem convincing, not only because, as mentioned, the sebastocrator's title is missing from it, but also because the oldest preserved transcript is from the manuscript of the Bulgarian Synodicon. The title of Caesar probably belonged to the highest strata of the aristocracy and it is surprising that there are no preserved data about

92 Biliarsky, "Titlata 'kesar' v srednovekovna Bulgarija", pp. 54-7; Biliarsky, "Le rite du couronnement", p. 125. 93 Oikonomides, Les listes, p. 293.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

305

it. In fact, this might be the most serious argument against the thesis that it was present in the Bulgarian rank system. Of course, this thesis cannot be disregarded, but I personally am not inclined to accept it. I must again refer to the extreme scarcity of sources in this respect. We should not forget that, for the second most important title, that of sebastocrator, we know of only five bearers, two of whom are mentioned in the preserved sources only once, and one of whom is cited in two or three places. Hence, we should not disregard a piece of information, which might enable us to enrich our understanding of the title system in mediaeval Bulgaria. It would be pointless to discuss in detail the status of the caesar. We have no other data, and these prayers do not allow us to set it apart from the other persons indicated there: despot, curopalates, etc. It would be interesting to know when this title was included in the Bulgarian hierarchical system. The question is complicated by the fact that it existed in the pagan period as well, when emperor Justinian II honoured khan Tervel with it. 94 Despite these data showing the Butgars had encountered this title in the earliest period of our history, I do not feel we have reasons to seek its roots in the First Bulgarian Empire. There are no supporting data for this, and it is impossible to assume it was preserved after khan Tervel. Most probably, the title had a place in the political life during the Second Empire, when the complete hierarchical system was built after the Byzantine model. Yet it was not widely used in mediaeval Bulgaria. 4.1.4. Protosebastos

This title is mentioned in extant mediaeval Bulgarian sources only in connection with two persons: in a charter of the Serbian king Stephen Uros II Milutin on the donation to protosebastos Pribo and in the Synodicon, where there is a reference to the former protosebastos, now monk Theodosius. 95 The data are such that it would not be possible upon them alone to build some notion of the title. Essentially,

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

306

CHAPTER FOUR

they attest only that it existed in Bulgaria. That is why we shall turn again to the Byzantine archetype. The title of protosebastos was one of the highest in the hierarchical system of the Empire under the dynasty of the Comnenoi, and to some degree under the Palaeologoi. 96 The name is formed on the basis of cre~acrto<;, 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 protosebastos 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 foreigners, 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 Byzantine 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 enumerations, 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.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

307

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. Generally, 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 opinion 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 problem 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 protosebastos 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 protosebastos exercised certain administrative functions in the provinces. P. Petrov claims that the protosebastos was a governor of a large district that comprised several administrative units, headed by a sebastos.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

Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 154-5. 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. 102 103

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 communities on the territory of the Empire; these were usually also commanders 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 protosebastos 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 discussion elsewhere; here I shall discuss mainly the term and the institution 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 (Festschrift 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 gramota, p. 37; Gjuzelev, "Nadpisa ot krepostta", p. 43; Petrov, "0 titulakh 'sevast' i 'protosevast'", p. 52ff.; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie", p. 11, 16, 19, 26-7; Blliarsky, Institutsiite, 119ff, 125ff.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

309

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 becoming 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 Serbian 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 presented 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 Serbian sebastos was not significantly different from the Byzantine archetype 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, "Bozhenishnikjat 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 gambros", Revue des etudes byzantine, XXIII, 1965, pp. 228-227; Oikonomides, "Organisation administrative (1025-1118)", pp. 126-127, Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 139 30• 115 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 354-8. 116 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 177, 310, 388, 401, 407, 415, 423, 424, 455,

471, 473, 609, 614, 620, 662, 673, 680, 720. 117 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 394, 415, 613. 118 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", p. 257.

310

CHAPTER FOUR

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. Naturally, the charters are of greatest importance, being official documents issued by authorities. Among the other texts, the inscriptions of Stenimachos and of Bozhenishki Urvich merit greater attention, as containing 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 associated with the exercise of certain administrative functions? In Bulgarian 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 opinion, 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. 121 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 127-31. 122 Mutafchiev, "Bo:zhenishnikjat nadpis", pp. 494-5, Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 37.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

311

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 institution 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: sebastos 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 sebastos referred to in the charters appear to be a category of title bearers. The question remains whether such an approach to the source is justifiable, 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

124 125 126

Raybaud, Gouvernement, p. 181. Ahrweiler, "sebaste, chef des groupes ethniques", pp. 34-8. Mutafchiev, "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", p. 493. 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 representation 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~ 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 Bulgarian 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-

w

127 128

Kalu:iniacki, Werke, pp. 289-90, 295, 309, 326, 358, 370, 383-4, 392. Ivanov, BSM, p. 541.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

313

tiarioi and the whole remaining imperial order. However, being ignorant 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 Byzantine traditions. However, it would seem, there was something "Bulgarian" 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 opposition 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 Byzantine 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 effectuated through the strong spiritual influence of the Orthodox Church, of book translations, and of a way of life. In addition, the court culture 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 rulers 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 curopalates, who probably carried the translated designation )\fAHHTeAb noAAT'E (palace curator). Due to the character and scarcity of sources, the very existence of this institution and its name might be put in doubt. 130 We know the title only from the text of the ecclesiastical or do for promotion of high titles, one of which is the court institution that we are discussing here: M.Arr&A HA nocrrA&AeHie KeCAfA ce me H HA

130 Biliarsky, << Le rite de couronnement >>, 134-5; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 148-56. Regarding curopalate in the Empire, see: Oikonomides, Les listes, 97, 293; Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, 137 11 , 1752o-22·

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

315

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

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

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

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

316

CHAPTER FOUR

latter.B4 The very fact that this title was held by Justin II, and subsequently by other future emperors, shows its very high position in the hierarchy but also that it was related to some degree with accession to the throne. The development of the institution is in itself of special interest. Without taking into account the office of the curae palatiorum, we should note that initially the curopalates was a high-ranking court functionary who performed certain duties in the central administration. The sources lead to the conclusion that he was commandant of the court guard and something similar to a major-domo. A person, who was a relative of the ruler, held the office. In time, the curopalates gradually lost the actual performance of his functions and the title became an honorary one. 135 In the treatise of Philotheus this title was placed among those bestowed through insignia, so among the "pure titles".U 6 Pseudo Kodinos also asserted categorically that the curopalates had once had some duties in the court (by then forgotten), but no longer performed any functions at all. 137 Based on all this, one can state that it became a 'pure title' by around the 8th century and remained such until the end of the Empire. The title of curopalates underwent a very significant development with respect to its place in the Constantinople hierarchy as well. In the early period, its holder was of exceptionally high rank, a relative of the ruler, and someone involved in the inheritance of the throne. The decline of the title began as early as the 9th century, when it was given to some foreign ruling princes, mainly from the Caucasus. According to Philotheus, the curopalates was in the top positions of the hierarchy, but in Pseudo Kodinos, the curopalates was 17th in rank, and in the 15th century, the title does not seem to have been bestowed any longer, or at least there are no concrete data about who its holders were. In Constantinople, the curopalates possessed insignia corresponding to their rank. For the earlier period, we draw information from the treatise of Philotheus, where the garments indicated are the red chiton, trimmed with gold thread, the chlamys, and the belt; all these were

134

Martroye, "L'origine du curopalate", pp. 80-1; Guilland R., "Le Curapalate", 2 (1970), pp. 187-249. Guilland, "Le Curapalate", pp. 187-90. Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance, p. 97. Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 17520 _22•

Bu~avnva, 135 136 137

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

317

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

.

138 139

140

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

318

CHAPTER FOUR

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

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

142

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

319

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

320

CHAPTER FOUR

KOt>pom:xMXTrJ<;. 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 Constantinople, 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 hierarchical 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, sebastocrator, 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 necessitate 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 management. 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 Bulgarian 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.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

321

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 transliterated one; I dare do so because we find the word in other Slavic texts, Bulgarian, Serbian or from Walachia, and Moldavia. 149 An additional 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 vestiarion of the ruler together with various precious items that gave the office the characteristics of a treasury. 150 Initially the office of the protovestiarios 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 protovestiarios was among the highest-ranking dignitaries in the Empire: he occupied 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; Verpeaux, 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; Documenta 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 documents of Serbian and Bosnian rulers, and in those of some local rulers 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 dignitaries 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 buttoned 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 protovestiarios is interesting. Pseudo Kodinos' treatise informs us that the protovestiarios has a green sceptre decorated with gold, green stockings, and a green tamparion with braids. 155 Thus, it is hard to make any comparison 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 Byzantine models more strictly than Serbia, but distortions occurred here too. Hence, any assumptions would be purely arbitrary. We have interesting data on a similar office in Walachia and Moldavia. This dignitary first appears in the sources as early as the 14th century. We first encounter the title in the Walachian lands, where npOToRHC'I'H~f nonwop is mentioned as being a member of the 153 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 97, 174-5, 198, 200, 213, 236, 601; N ovakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 261-3. 154 Kovaeevic, Srednevekovna nosnja balkanskih slovena, pp. 58-9. 155 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 153.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

323

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, supremus 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 discussion 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 wardrobetreasury. 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 vistiernic, 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. 157 Grigo~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 271-3; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 219-220, 224; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domneasca, pp. 134-5; Institufii feudale, 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 executive functions. 158 There are extant indications that this service was continued in the Sultan's court as well. Among the personal attendants of the Padishah, 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 defterdar (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 Rodolphe 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 Moldova, 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.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

325

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 honorary 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 Greeklanguage 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 problems 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 treasury 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

162 163

164

Supraslski iii Retkov sbornik, I, p. I20 25• Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 1879. 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 protovestiarios 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 imperial 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 conclusions 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 primmicerii 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 receptions. 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; Gullland, 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.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

327

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 administration, 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 connection 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 military 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 titular 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 underwent 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 tradition, 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 terminological study of the institution, for we have available to us several 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.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

329

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 Bulgarian 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 specific 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 inevitably leads us to the etymology of the Byzantine name for the institution 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 corresponding 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 nomenclature. 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 influence 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 Palaeologos 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.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

331

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 corresponding to his place in the ceremonial. Owing to Pseudo Kodinos, we know that the pincerna's apparel was like that of the great primmicerius, 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 usually 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 connected 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 revenues from this production, for instance, the tithe on wine. This office

Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 167-74. Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 155. 184 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", p. 264. 185 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 263-4. 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. 182 183

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 Latinlanguage 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 exceptionally 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 variety 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 apparatus of subordinates. It should be noted here that the essential differences 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 personal 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 Christian 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 Bulgarian enHKepHHH. This attests the greater influence of the countries

189 190

DRH, ser. A, vol. I, Na 13, 23-25, 27-32 etc.; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, p. 277. Grigo~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 272-3; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc,

p. 277.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

333

south of the Danube during that earlier period. For its part, the term most often used in Walachia, n4\,Xb.pHH~'ll., also points to traces of South Slavic influence, but mostly that of Serbia and Bosnia. The typical Moldavian 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 highestranking 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 drawing 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 presumably early assimilation of the institution, at a time when the Bulgar language was still actively in use in the administration and government 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 administrative nomenclature, the title retained its original and fullest form, bttKepvtO~/enH~efHHH/ 91 which did not exist even in the court in Constantinople, 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 substantiated 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 interpretation. 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 indicated: 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. 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. 1 ~2

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

335

and of the special banquet ceremonial,196 For this purpose, he had special 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 Nevertheless, 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 dignitary 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 elementilor 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 conclusion 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 provincial officials. Yet there can be no doubt these were officials belonging to the same system, the nature of which we shall try to clarify. The name of the institution arrived to us only in its Latin form (or perhaps translated?)-comestabulus-because the mentions are

202

Dujcev, "Prepiskata na papa Inokentija III", No. IX p. 31, No. X p. 33, No. XVI

p. 45. 203

Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1899 _100, 29 10; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52s6·

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

337

preserved only in three Latin-language documents coming from the chancery of the Holy See. This fact makes the institution not particularly 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 institutional 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 collecting 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 (Taktikon 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 precisely 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 connection, he took part in administrating the incoming tax in kind on hay, while in Moldavia he also managed the forest reserve around the river Prut, helped in this by his subordinates, the brani~tari. The great comes would accompany the ruler in horseback riding. In addition, he supervised the delivery of horses that were owed by Walachia and Moldavia in tribute to the Sublime Porte. He attended the feasts for Epiphany and Saint George's day, at which the horses were displayed, including the horse presented as a gift to the prince by the sultan. I believe it is fully justified to assert that the Romanian institution was closely connected with, and probably originated from, the Bulgarian one. The very name attests it. In the Slavic documents, it is given as KOMHCb, or, more rarely and in more distinguished documents, as KOHtoW or KOHO.Xf~HwreA (cf. a Moldavian charter of January 20, 1657). In the Latin-language documents, this official was called magister agazonum, agazonum magister alias comiss, stabuli praefectus, agazonum et stabuli praefectus. After all, the Slavic names were the original ones, which make it possible to draw conclusions, based on the similarity, about the situation in Bulgaria and to obtain a fuller idea about the institution in Tarnovo. The situation in Bulgaria could hardly have been very different, but still, we should address some important questions. First is the problem as to the exact appellation of the office. The Latin form comestabulus could serve as a reference point. I believe we may assert with a relatively large degree of certainty that the name was built around the word "comes" This is the conclusion to which we are led by the preserved Latin form and by parallels with Constantinople, Walachia, and Moldavia, but above all by the occurrence of "comites" in the charters. Of course, the form comestabulus could be translated and be a word that matches the meaning rather than a transliteration, but this does not provide a solution and only makes it harder to get to the single possible solution. Yet we should say with regret that the presence of the element "comes" is the only thing that can be claimed with relative certainty as regards the name we are looking for. It is highly probable this official was called "great" or that he was connected with the impe-

205

Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 293-8; Institufii feudale, pp. 111-2.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

339

rial stables in order to emphasise his position in the capital, but there is no direct information to support this. As to the nature of the obligations of this court official, I believe no serious differences of opinion could arise. He looked after the ruler's horses, supervised the imperial stables and their maintenance, the raising of horses and provision with fodder. Presumably the great comes was in charge of a large service, with divisions in Tarnovo and in the country. Regrettably, almost nothing certain can be asserted regarding the organisation of this service, its connection with the administration of the receipt of certain taxes or the fulfilment of corvees relevant to the above-mentioned activity. I believe that we have very good reasons to conclude that the great comes was one of the high-ranking dignitaries at the imperial court. This is attested by the nature and importance of his service, by parallels with neighbouring countries, but also by the data on the comestabulus Sergius. In the letter by Pope Innocent III, this official is presented as a very influential man and as one of the envoys of the Holy See; subsequently he continued the mission after the archbishop Basil was detained in Durazzo. Of course, this man could not have been just anybody. He is the only person to hold the office whose name has come down to us. 4.3. Officials in the central administration. The imperial chancery The ruler's chancery is one of the main centres of power in many states in the premodern age. It is the prototype of the modern government or the council of ministers, as best illustrated by the German term Kanzellariat. The importance and weight of this administration is directly dependent on the degree of monarchisation of government. Thus, it appeared in Rome in the 1st century AD, and this fact is connected with a serious shift of competencies, or rather the actual management of the state, from the senate to the emperor. This tradition was preserved throughout the thousand years of the existence of the Byzantine Empire. The real power and exercise of power were concentrated in the chancery of the basileis, and this did not depend on the fluctuations of court life. Unfortunately, we must again say that direct data are missing as regards the organisation of the tsar's chancery in Bulgaria. We must make inferences based on preserved data about some of its officials and from the acts prepared there. They give me reason to believe that in

340

CHAPTER FOUR

many respects the chancery in Tclrnovo was organised after the model of that in Constantinople. Practically all known officials in it had for their archetype-both in their appellations and in the substance of their duties-in the institutional system of the Byzantine Empire. These were the various logothetes, headed by the great logothete, the tainik-mystikos and the grammatiks. It is hard to believe that such loanwords could have been taken coincidentally without also borrowing the whole structure to which they belonged. The same observations can be made based on the charters issuing from the tsar's chancery: in their features, they followed the Byzantine models. I should emphasise beforehand that we can hardly claim the two chanceries were identical. Bulgaria could neither repeat nor ignore the thousand-year-old tradition of the Byzantine Empire. The history of the imperial chancery is exceptionally interesting. It became one of the basileus' offices closest to and most trusted by him. This was perhaps the best place to start a career in the administration. Along with this, the chancery offices, except for the highest ones, were never included in the hierarchy system. Unlike the people personally serving the basileus, and although they were to a greater degree the true transmissions of state power, none of these functionaries gained a particularly high place on the list because of their office alone. This provides yet another reason to dispute seriously the view that the titular system and the governing apparatus in the Empire coincided. The imperial chancery in Constantinople exercised a strong impact on nearly all Balkan countries. This was due to the overall cultural radiance emitted by the Empire towards the Orthodox world, but also to the direct contacts with this office, which was entrusted precisely with foreign relations. The Serbian rulers built their own chancery to fulfil the need of administrative service for the conquered former Byzantine territories in Macedonia, Thessaly, and Epirus. The issue is even more complicated for Walachia and Moldavia, where there was Slavic, Greek, and Latin were all used in the chancery simultaneously. Working in them required quite a good education and knowledge of diplomatic practices that at times differed considerably. We know about the division of competencies between the different logothetes in them, the diaks, the scribes and other lower level staff. In the course of this overview, I would like to mention also the chancery in the Ottoman sultans, which inherited many of the Byzantine traditions. The person who headed it was the "ni~anet''; and the chief secretary, "kalfa" The great vizir also had a chancery of his own,

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

341

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

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

207

342

CHAPTER FOUR

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

Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 254-5; Guilland, "Les logothetes", pp. 5-8. Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, 1378, I74; Brehier, Les institutions, pp. IOI-3, 276-7; Guilland, "Les logothetes", p. 5-I6; Oikonomides, "Organisation administrative (I 025-11I8)", p. 132; Oikonomides N., "La chancellerie imperiale de Byzance du 13• au Is• siede", Revue des etudes byzantines, XLIII, I985, pp. I68-9; Raybaud, Gouvernement, p. 213; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 22I-36. 213 NovakoviC, "Vizantijski Cinovi i titule", p. 259; Novakovic St., Sluiba logoteta (velikog logoteta) u staroj srpskoj driavi, Belgrade, I886. 211

212

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

343

Tomas, dated October 14, 1458. 214 In my opinion, this text leads us to accept that a separate office of "great logothete" did exist. Unfortunately, we have too few data about the nature of this office in Serbia. Undoubtedly, it had some connection with the ruler's chancery. Grounds for this conclusion are provided by the multiple indications that the logothetes were compilers of documents that have come down to us. A text meriting special attention is the Law Code of tsar Stephen Dusan, where there is a regulation as to how many perpera the logothete should receive for preparing a chrysobull. These findings present this institution as fully inscribed in the general Balkan context. This provides reasons to claim that its functions overlapped with those of its Byzantine archetype and of parallel offices in the other neighbouring states. The sources from the Walachian and Moldavian principalities are considerably richer. The distinction there between great logothete and the other logothetes is quite clear in the sources and in historiography, so that it is beyond doubt. 215 The first mention of the great logothete in Walachia is in documents dating from the last decade of the 14th century. His office was in the ruler's chancery. First, it is to note that the great logothete was keeper of the great seal, with which international documents and ceremonial chrysobulls were sealed. The middle seal was for less significant charters, and the small one for ordinary ruler's decisions and prescriptions; the latter two seals were in the keeping of the second and third logothetes respectively. This position had a particularly strong impact on the great logothete in the administration. The activity of his was particularly significant: we see that in most cases the ruler's acts were entirely in the hands of this functionary. Until the 16th century, the ruler did not sign the documents and only the seal certified their authenticity. By tradition, the great logothete counter-signed all decisions of the Council and in many cases was entrusted with their implementation. He also had some particular judicial powers, as well as competencies as a notary. We see that the great logothete (during a certain period there were two of them) in Walachia was a high state official: he was a member of the Council and third in rank after the great ban and the dvornic. The funds for this functionary came from

214

Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 343-5.

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

344

CHAPTER FOUR

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

(TAHHHK'b)

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

216

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

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

345

service ended, the tsar was very joyful and merry together with all his military men. He thought of a good plan: to translate the body of the venerable to his own state. Nevertheless, he vouchsafed telling this plan clearly to his tainiks and princes (H CROHMb. Tb.HHHKWM H KHA\SeMb.), which he did. And they, when they heard this, exclaimed as with a single mouth "The Tsar's heart is in God's hands! 0, Tsar, do what you plan with all speed, for if you turn the intentions into a completed deed, you will bring great benefit for our souls. More than that, our land and our city will obtain great assistance!" 217 This is the only text containing information on the existence of tainiks. Perhaps that is why this term passed unnoticed for a long time by researchers. 218 The translators of modern Bulgarian editions of the text have also neglected it, and they translated the term only as "advisors" or "secret advisors" The word Tb.HHHI~'ll. is Slavic but the archetype of this institution was once again in the institutional system of the Byzantine Empire. Linguistically the word "tainik" fully corresponds to the Greek f..LUcrttx:6c; (mystikos), from which it has been coined as a calque, just as the Greek word is a calque of the Latin secretarius. This fact gives some orientation for our search. The office of the mystikos in Constantinople existed ever since the time of the Macedonian dynasty. In the honorary tables of the 9th-10th century (that of Benesevic and that of Oikonomides), the title occupied, respectively, the 31st and 37th place. 219 In the treatise of Pseudo Kodinos the mystikos was 30th in rank, and in the other extant rank tables of the late period, the rank varies between 26th and 31st position. 220 We also have a description of his apparel: a turban and an epilourikon, with no skaranikon. 221 The mystikos was an official, not a bearer of a "pure" title. This is indicated in Pseudo Kodinos' treatise, but this anonymous author does not inform us of the nature of the mystikos' duties, saying only that they are evident from the name of the institution. 222 This piece of information does not tell us much, but it still orients us to view this official as part of the chancery. The insufficiency of sources results in a variety of

217 218 219 220 221 222

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

346

CHAPTER FOUR

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

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

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

347

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

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

227 Vasiliev A., Ivanovskite stenopisi. Materiali za istorijata na grad Ruse i Rusenski okrag, Sofia, 1953, pp. 10-15; Margos A., "Nadpisa na lvo Gramatik", Archaeologia,

1981, 1-2, pp. 36-40 and especially p. 38; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 279; Popkonstantinov K., "Oshte vednil.zh za nadpisa na lvo Gramatik", Archaeologia, 1983, 1-2, p. 102; Zlatarski, Istorija, III, p. 425.

348

CHAPTER FOUR

preparing imperial acts. Usually they wrote them down to the basileus' dictation. The office was a modest one and not of an official kind, so it had no place in the hierarchy, but it was often occupied by young people and was a very good starting point for a career in the administration. It suffices to point out that among the grammatiks were future eminent politicians such as Michael Psellos, Nicetas Choniates etc. 228 The Yugoslav historian Ljubomir Maksimovic notes that the office of grammatik existed with similar functions in the provincial administration as well. This is probably so in connection with the duties of this official to serve as secretary of a superior, but we have reasons to believe there was a great difference in the work that an emperor's grammatik and a provincial one performed, as well as in their social position. The office of grammatik existed in the Serbian lands as well, but apparently, it was not typical for the ruler's chancery there. We find traces of it in a charter of the Bosnian ban Matthew Ninoslav, dating from 1235.229 This text makes it clear that the grammatik was the person who prepared the ruler's act. This provides grounds to assert that the functions of this office did not deviate in Bosnia from its Byzantine archetype. Nevertheless, we should note that it occurs quite rarely in documents of Serbian rulers. The official of the same name had identical functions in the principalities to the north of the Danube. 230 There he was subordinated to the great logothete and prepared ruler's acts. In Walachia, we come across this office for the first time in a charter dated June 10, 1415; in Moldavia, in 1422. In the 18th century, the institution comprised three degrees. The great grammatik was equal in rank to the great paharnic and was an influential figure. The office was preserved until the 19th century, a time when he was called first .. secretary" of the ruler. The information we have about the position of grammatik in Bulgaria does not exclude but, on the contrary, gives ample grounds for drawing conclusions based on similarity with the corresponding Byzantine institution and that in Walachia and Moldavia. The grammatik in Tarnovo was also a secretary to the ruler and took an active part in preparing tsar's acts. It is to stress also that grammatik existed not only Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 166-7; MaksimoviC, Provincijska uprava, p. 107. Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 145. 230 Georgescu V., Bizantul ~i institutiile romanqti pana la mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea, Bucure~ti 1980, p. 145, n 117; Institufiifeudale, p. 209. 228

229

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

349

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

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

w

w

w

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

236

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

351

In any case, these observations are yet another reason for seeking a connection between the Byzantine institution of the spatharios (either protospatharios, either spatharios or spatharocandidatos) and the Bulgarian chigots. The proposed etymology of the term also points in that direction. 242 Actually, ever since Yurdan Trifonov there has been a unanimous opinion in Bulgarian historiography that the institution of "chigot" corresponds to the Byzantine "spatharios". 243 Only Ivan Venedikov asserts the extravagant view that the ones corresponding to the Byzantine institution, and to what is evidently its Bulgarian loanword mechenosha (sword-bringer), were not the chigots but the bagaturs. 244 4.4.1.2

This conclusion immediately takes us to the term "mechenosha", which corresponds to "chigot" in some translations, such as that of the Roman Patericon. This, in turn, leads us to the institution of the "mechenosha", quite rarely present in sources. As the appellation of a Bulgarian institution (not a Byzantine one mentioned in a Bulgarian text), the term is attested as existing only in an inscription on the golden seal-ring found in the region of Pazardzhik. The inscription reads uelJWHWWb. Tb.PlJH, and bears the monogram Tagchi. 245 Before going on to discuss the institution of the mechenosha, I would like to consider the word/name "Tagchi", about which different views have been expressed. The prevailing and traditional opinion is that this was the name of a bearer of the title, usually defined as a "non-Slavic" one, Turkic or Iranian. Not long ago Mosko Moskov, who sees it as possibly being a term, did state a different, though not categorical, view. He proposes an origin based on dag* or tag*, meaning "brand", "seal". 246 This leads to the name-title tamgaci, meaning "keeper of

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

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

352

CHAPTER FOUR

the seal", "keeper of the banner", "flagbearer", "person who sets the seal" .247 One possible interpretation is that this was a person from the fiscal administration who branded the livestock after payment of customs duties at the border, a customs inspector. In support of this is adduced the Russian word for customs inspector "TaMo:>KeHMK", which is derived precisely from the Tartar word "tamga". 248 M. Moskov does not state categorically whether he considers Tagchi to have been the name of a person or part of the name of the institution, but I think he was inclined to the latter view. I do not believe this has been convincingly proven, especially as it concerns a fiscal institution that was little compatible with that of the spatharios, who was military court institution. Two recently published articles are especially devoted to the topic of the sword-bringers in early mediaeval Bulgaria; they offer a completely new interpretation of the institution and of the manner how it relates to that of the chigot. 249 According to the author, the word tagchi is not a name, but an appellation oflranian origin identical with mechenosha,250 and repeated afterwards in the Slavic language. Evidently, this author is also inclined to relate the word to bagaturs and gives arguments for the special place of the institution in the Bulgarian political system during the First Empire. As for chigot, the author relates the word to jigit and defines it as a military rank of youths and adolescents. I cannot agree with such an interpretation and ascribe it to the insufficiency of sources on Bulgar institutions. In any case, this interpretation does not explain some of the usages of chigot as a counterpart of proto/ spatharios in translated texts or concrete cases of substitution of the two terms in some of the texts that I cited above. na chl.-kor. prof dr. Veselin Besevliev, Veliko Tarnovo, 12-15. V. 2000, Sofia, 2003, p. 486; Drevnetjurkskij slovar', pp. 158, 527. 247 Moskov, "Omonimi ot bulgarski proizhod", pp. 486-7; Drevnetjurkskij slovar', p. 530. 248 Moskov, "Omonimi ot bulgarski proizh.od", p. 488; Vasmer, IV, p. 18. 249 Jordanov St., "Mechonostsite na P1l.rvoto tsarstvo", in: Traditsii i priemstvenost v Bulgarija i Balkanite prez Srednite vekove. Jubileen sbornik, posveten na prof dr. Jordan Andreev. Izsledvanija i materiali ot mezhdunarodnata nauchna konferentsija v chest na 6--godishninata na prof din Jordan Andreev, 14-15 mai 1999 z., Veliko Tarnovo, Veliko T1l.rnovo: Universitetsko izdatelstvo "Sts Kiril i Metodij", 2003, pp. 384-404. 250 On the origin of"Tagchi" from the lexeme meaning "saber", c£ likewise another article by the same author: Jordanov St., "Tremini za oboznachavane na probodnosechashti omzhija u prabulgarite", in: Acta Musei Varnaensis I. Orazhie i snarjazhenie

prez kasnata Antichnost i Srednovekovieto IV-XV v. Mezhdunarodna konferentsija. Varna 14-16 septemvri 2000, Varna, 2002, pp. 87-98.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

353

Most scholars date the ring of the mechen osha from the time of the First Bulgarian Empire. There is one exception: in his corpus on the seals of mediaeval Bulgaria, Ivan Yordanov sets it in the 13th-14th century. 251 His argument for this view is based on how the ligature of the inscription was written. With all due respect for this eminent Bulgarian specialist in sphragistics, his dating of the source in the time of the Second Empire seems unconvincing and the argument appears insufficient. The historical evidence and the name of the persons (presuming that "Tagchi" is a personal name, about which opinions differ) point indubitably to the time before the 11th century. I believe we cannot avoid the connection between the institutions of "spatharios", "chigot" and "mechenosha" and their appellations. Viewed as a connected set, they give us an idea about the development of Bulgarian institutions under the influence of the Byzantine Empire since the early time of the Bulgarian state when it constructed its administrative terminology. It is hard to prove to what degree the appellation "chigot" was coined in imitation of the Byzantine term "spatharios" or its derivatives, but it is fully clear that the subsequent development of the term was precisely as a counterpart of the original Byzantine term. Nevertheless, I believe this was exactly the path: first, the construction of a Bulgar Turkic word (or the adaptation of an already existing word to the purpose) based on the Greek term and as a counterpart to it; second, with the introduction and imposed predominance of the Slavic literary language as the official language of the state, the Bulgar term was substituted by a Slavic one, which matched its Greek original even more closely. We cannot say how and when precisely this substitution took place. In any case, it was not immediately after the first steps of Slavic literature, for the word "chigot" was in usage in the Slavic literary environment as well, where it has left ample traces. I believe that the two terms ("chigot" and "mechenosha") were used simultaneously for a while, and, possibly, one of them was official. The permanent substitution must have occurred in the lOth century, but the word "chigot" must have continued to exist and be used in various texts. I believe that the institution "chigot" represents an early example of the influence of the Byzantine Empire upon the Bulgarian institutional system, and the presence of the term attests the adapting of the Bulgarian terminology (Bulgar/Turkic or Slavic) to the administrative

251

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

354

CHAPTER FOUR

language of Constantinople. The development of the term itself is also indicative: first, a Bulgar/Turkic term is coined based on the Greek word, and then a Slavic word is created; this course follows the path of Bulgarian mediaeval culture in general. Since chigots are documented in the Chronography of Theophanes the Confessor as early as the 8th century, we see how early the Empire began to exert its influence on the Bulgarian state. This was the age before the Conversion, after which the Byzantine culture became entirely predominant in Bulgaria. 4.4.2

The office of protostrator is known to us only from the information provided by George Pachymeres about the protostrator Kasimbek, whose activity is dated in the restless times of Ivailo. 252 Therefore, the only data on this institution are in the Greek language, but I believe we can reconstruct it based on the existing strator, which is presented in the glossary. 253 This single mention tells us nothing except merely that the institution existed in the Bulgarian state. In order to learn what it essentially was we shall have once again to proceed from comparisons with the Byzantine Empire. It is stress that the mention of the office in a foreign-language text alone makes the term hard to use in a study of legal vocabulary such as this one. Nevertheless, I have included it, because it represents yet another evidence of the influence of Constantinople in Bulgaria. In the Byzantine Empire, the protostrator was a military figure among those of the basileus' entourage. The first information on Byzantine protostrator comes from the 8th century, during the rule of Constantine V. They were commanders of one of the court guards, and their subordinates were the strators, the armophylax and the staulocomites. The protostrator rides besides the basileus. He could usher in foreign envoys instead of the protospatharios. At the time when Philotheus wrote his treatise, this institution did not hold a particu-

252 Georgli Pachymerls De Michaeli et Andronico Palaeologis libri XII, rec. Im. Bekkerus, t. 1-11, Bonnae 1835, pp. 466-8; G. Pachymeres, Relations historiques, ed. A Failler, t. II, pp. 589-91. 253 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 207ff. Regarding the protostrators in the Empire cf: Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 1374, 173; Oikonomides, Les listes, pp. 337-8; Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 132-3; Oikonomides, "Organisation administrative (1025-1118)", p. 145; Guilland, Recherches, I, pp. 478-97.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

355

larly high place in the hierarchy, but it rose subsequently. The protostrator had a strong position not so much due to the importance of his office but because of his closeness to the basileus. 254 In later times, Nicetas Choniates compares the service of the protostrator to that of the French marshals, while Pseudo Kodinos informs us about how he accompanies the ruler, carries the ruler's sword, and leads his horse. 255 However, we have reasons to believe that the actual functions of the protostrator were considerably larger. They are related mostly to military command. During military campaigns, he headed the light cavalry, the vanguard, and the patrol forces. Occasionally protostrator would command the whole army and even head the navy. In fact, this was one of the highest-ranking dignitaries in the Empire, among the highest on the list. In mediaeval Serbia, the office of protostrator has not left any trace in the sources, but Stojan Novakovic is seemingly inclined to identify it with that of the tepchi,256 a view that is hard for me to accept as proven. On the other hand, I should explicitly point out that the Romanian stratornic has nothing in common with the protostrator, and we can gain a better idea of his office from another appellation:

postelnic. As for Bulgaria, here too the very existence of this institution may be put in doubt. The doubt grows stronger from the already mentioned fact that the word is not present in the other Balkan countries. For his part George Pachymeres explicitly stresses that Kasimbek was bestowed the title of protostrator by Michael VIII Palaeologos. 257 It may be supposed that here too we have a case of a typical awarding of a rank to foreigners in order to attract them to the politics of Constantinople. Yet I believe that such a conclusion would be somewhat over hasty. Since it originated from the Byzantine system, the Bulgarian rulers could have adapted the title of protostrator as well. In conclusion, we may say that the Bulgarian protostrator was among the most prominent functionaries in the state. This is evidenced by Kasimbek's closeness to the tsar. The duties of the institution were 254 Bury, Impeiral Administrative System, pp. 117-8; Brehier Les institutions, pp. 132-3; Guilland, "Protostrator", pp. 156-8; Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance, pp. 337-8; Oikonomides, "Organisation administrative (1025-1118)", p. 145. 255 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 168, 173, 176. 256 Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 200-1. 257 Georgii Pachymeris De Michaeli et Andronico Palaeologis libri XII, vol I, LVI. 19, p. 466; Pachymeres, Relations historiques (ed. A. Failler), vol. II, pp. 5988_9•

356

CHAPTER FOUR

centred mainly in the military sphere. In view of the insufficient information about such a high-ranking figure, we may only suppose that this institution was only a temporary one for Bulgaria. I would not risk claiming anything more concrete about it than this. 4.4.3

The office of the great dux (ReAHKrz.. AO'rii or AO~K~ ReAHKrz.. from o ~era~ oo-6~)2 58 is known to us only from the inscnption of the "duka" Vrana, discovered by Stefan Verkovic and published in several different editions: ~'l'l> Rf~H~ AO~~ ReAHK'l.. C'l..TROfHX'l.. Pf~# KfHU,VR~ MM~ ~Cb.LI,~ S~R (6712=120l:l r.) ~~ MOAHTb.R'l..l KMOiW~H~ u_"'p
+

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; Oikonomides. "Organisation administrarive (1025-1118)", p. 147; Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 134. 261 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 583.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

357

Considering these remarks, I should stress that any direct parallels with the situation in the Byzantine Empire or the Serbian lands are unacceptable. We are fully justified in believing that the Bulgarian institution was quite different from the Byzantine one of the same name. We have hardly any data from this period regarding a Bulgarian navy, and we have no grounds on which to make any assumptions about a possible connection between navy forces and the office of the great dux in Bulgaria. However, it remains quite probable that this institution was somehow related to military command. In summing up, I would like to repeat that, in my opinion, the Bulgarian great duces were military functionaries in the central administration. No doubt, the dignity had some titular value as well: we must not forget it bears some Byzantine influence, if only in the name. Any more concrete assertions would be arbitrary. 4.4.4

Finally, I would like to focus attention on a transliterated Greek term:

protokelliot/in/ (npOToKe.I\Hi'wrHHO'r, Dat.)/62 Evidently the archetype of the word was xprotoKeMuirrn<;, 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 comparisons. 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

Poporuzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, p. 90; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 213-5. 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. 262 263

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 dignitary, 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 Serbian. 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 assertions 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.

Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 213-5. Koledarov. "Le titulariat des boyards", p. 207 note 36; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 150; Istorija na Bulgarija, t. III, p. 259. 266

267

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

359

4.5. Provincial administration 4.5.1

First, I would like to pay attention to the designations of the administrative-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 Byzantine 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 Byzantine Empire. 269 Thus, zemlya (~eMAil\ from rf1 = earth terra), strana (C'I'f~H~ from xropa =country), predel (np
Iv. Biliarsky, "Les circonscriptions administratives en Bulgarie au 13• srede", j}u~a:v1:tvoov epe:uvoov, 13 (1999), pp. 177-201 (concerning "~~"'" cf pp. 179-80, and concerning "KNtesrA" see pp. 183-6). 9 On this topic cf Biliarsky, « Les circonscriptions administratives >>, p. 190ff. 268

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

360

CHAPTER FOUR

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

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

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

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

270

Iv. Billarsky, "La 'Terra Albanese' nel sistema amministrativo bulgaro", Vocafia

istoriei: Prinos profesorului $ef'ban Papacostea, Brnila, 2008, pp. 259-71. 271 About the office ofvoevoda, cf Petrov P., Grozdanova E.,« Woiwode in mittelalterlichen Balkanlander und im Osmanischen Reich », Etudes historiques, IX (1979), pp. 99-127; Bogdan 1., Originea voievodatului la romani, Bucure~ti, 1902 [= Analele Academiei Romane, Memoriile sectiuni istorice, III, t. 24, pp. 191-207]; Virtosu E.,

Titulatura domnilor ~~ asocierea la domnie fn Tara romaneasca si Moldova (pfna la secolul al XVI-lea, Bucure~ti, 1960, p. 105 ff; Institufii feudale din tarile romane, Dicfionar, Bucure~ti, 1988, p. 168 ff.; Z. Wojciechowski, L'Etatpolonais au moyen Age. Histoire des institutions, Paris, 1949, p. 243; Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 201-7, 270-86.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

361

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

272 Poporuzhenko, Sinodik tsarja Borila, § 136 Pal. p. 90; P. Petrov, E. Grozdanova, "Woiwode", p. 101. 273 Vasmer, I, p. 332; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 270. It is worth noting the similar formation, on the basis of a calque, of the German word Herzog. The authors of the etymological dictionary are inclined to see a domestic origin of the word and indicate its Greek counterpart as an example of a similar word-forming process: BER, vol. I, pp. 172-3. 274 Zakon Sudnyj ljudem. Kratkoj redaktsii, p. 48 Ust. 3, p. 36 Nov. 3, p. 42 Vars. 3 (iiPXrov is translated as K'l>ttS'l> or &Ohl&o,.v.). 275 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik et R J. H. Jenkins, Washington D. C., 1967, p. 170; Gy Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, vol. II, Budapest, 1943, p. 91. 276 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 270-3.

362

CHAPTER FOUR

Byzantine culture and the Slavs in this age was the Balkan Peninsula, and taking into account the historical context, it may be asserted that, as a term of public law, this word was coined in Bulgaria. Even assuming that it was created in the framework of the apostolic mission of the first Slavic educators St. Cyril and St. Methodius in Great Moravia, there it could have only been a word used for the purpose of a translation from Greek texts, not the name of a concrete institution. Such, I believe, it became in the Balkans, within the Bulgarian state system. This signifies that not only the word but also the institution itself of the strategos-voevoda was transplantated in Bulgaria and the Bulgarian public law. The institution of strategos as military commander and provincial governor was adopted in Bulgaria even before the Conversion. I am referring to the Hambarli inscription of the early 9th century. It mentions that the army and state were divided into central, left, and right part, governed respectively by the brother of the ruler, the boila kaukhan, and the itzirgou boila, each with his subordinate strategoi. 277 Thus the subordinate of the khan's brother was strategos Leon; the subordinates of the itzirgou boila were the strategoi Vardan and Giannis/Iani; and of the boila kaukhan; the strategoi Kordil and Gregoras. Evidently, these strategoi were not Bulgars, although they were officers of the Bulgar ruler. Of the quoted five names three are Greek (Leon, Iani, and Gregoras), and two are Iranian, and probably Armenian (Vardan and Kordil). 278 There is reason to believe they were Christians. The assumption has been stated that the strategoi Iani and Leon were those same "strategoi of the Christians" slain by khan Omurtag, as stated in the Constantinopolitan Synaxarium. 279 This was part of 277 Besevliev, Pt'lrvobulgarski nadpisi, No. 47, pp. 186-7. Ivan Venedikov explains the appearance of Christian strategoi south of the Balkan mountains in the newly conquered Byzantine territories by the presumed desire of Khan Krum to organise these lands in preserving the local specific features of governance (Venedikov, Voennoto i administrattvnoto ustrojstvo, pp. 63-5). This assertion is quite arbitrary, as is, for that matter, a large part of the views of the author expressed in this book 278 Regarding the names Vardan and Kordila, c£: Marquart J., Osteuropiiische und ostasiatische StreigzUge, Leipzig, 1903, p. 493; Justi F., Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg, 1895, pp. 351-3; Vasmer M., Untersuchungen Uber die iiltesten Wohnsitze der Slaven, I, Die Iraner in SUdruj3land, Leipzig, 1923, p. 35; Zgusta L., Die Personennamen griechischer Stii.dte der nordlichen SchwarzmeerkUnste, Prag, 1955, p. 335; Be8evliev, Pt'lrvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 188-191. 279 Delehaye H., Sinaxarium ecdesiae Constantinopolitanae, Bruxelles, 1902, p. 416; Gregoire H., "Les sources epigraphiques de l'histoire bulgare", Byzantion, IX, 1934, fasc 2, pp. 758-9; Halkin Fr.,« Inscriptions grecques relatives a l'hagiographie. (suite)

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

363

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

VI. Grece continentale et les pays balkaniques ,, Analecta Bollandiana, 70 ( 1952), fasc. 1 et 2, p. 131; Besevliev, Parvobulgarski nadpisi, pp. 188-9. 280 A similar view is presented by: Venedikov, Voennoto i administrativnoto ustrojstvo pp. 64-5.

364

CHAPTER FOUR

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

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

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

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

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

365

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

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

286 287 288

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

289 Com~a E., Popescu D., "Cercetari arheologice pe trascul canalului DunareMare Neagm", Studii ~~ cercetari de istorie veche, 1951, 1, p. 171; Com~a E., Bogdan D. P., Panaitescu P. P., "Inscrtptia slavil. din Dobrugea din anul 943", Studii (Revista de istorie ~~ filosojie), IV, 1951, pp. 122-3; Bogdan D., "Dobrudzhanskaja nadpis' 943 g.", Romanoslavica, 1, 1958, pp. 88-104; Gju:zelev V., "Dobrudzhanskijat nadpis' i sabitijata v Bulgarija sled 943 g.", Istorichski pregled, 1968, 6, pp. 40-8; Bozllov Iv., ''Nadpisil.t na zhupan Dimitil.r ot 943 g.", Izvestija na okrazhnija istoricheski muzej v

366

CHAPTER FOUR

in the Law for Judging the People. During the Second Empire this office was not present in the institutional system of Bulgaria, although it does appear as a word in some texts that usually reflect foreign (Serbian, central European, or Romanian) realities. 290 Before presenting briefly what we know about the nature of this institution, we should consider the origin of its designation. The etymology is not completely clear. In general, there are two prevalent views: that it is of Slavic or Turkic-Avar origin (generally connected with the traditions of the Eurasian steppe). The proponents of the Slavic origin believe that it comes from mo~nb. with the suffix« -b.H'b » and is related to the Indo-European root *gheu-/*ghu-, which produces the Greek guph, and the Palaeoslavic *gt>pan. 291 The assumption has also been made that the origin of the word is related to cultivating the soil by burning wood, a technique used by the Slavs; hence, passing through the word msmwz. ("fire") comes msnb., whence msnb.H'b. 292 Yet, the predominant view is that it is of Turkic origin, for parallels with the languages of the steppe peoples can be found. Initially the meaning of the word was evidently 'chief' or 'commander' of a group or military unit. A. Briikner believes it is of Avar origin, while K. H. Menges links it to the Turkic cupan (= "assistant to a village mayor"); to their arguments P. Malingoudis adds reasons based on history. 293 Historical data on zhupans provide very interesting material. The first evidence of the word in the sources is in a Bavarian document dating from AD 777. 294 The term occurs several times in Bulgar inscriptions, two of these cases being in the Bulgar Turkic language. The case of the treasure of Nagy-Szent-Mikl6s is not quite clear and undispu-

Tolbukhin, 1973, pp. 37-58; BoZ!lov Iv., "L'inscription de jupan Dimitre de l'an 943 (theories et faits)", Etudes historiques, VI, 1973, pp. 11-28; Istorija na Dobrudzha, t. II, pp. 40-1, 62-3. 290 Regarding the literature on this topic cf.: Grachev, Zhupan 1965, p. 178ff.; Grachev, Zhupan 1967, p. 3ff.; Dobrev, Zhupan 1965, pp. 383-7; Malingoudis, "Zupan", pp. 61-76; Institufii feudale, pp. 239-40, 260, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 266 ff.; Philippi, Die Burger von Kronstadt im 14. und 15 Jahrhundert, p. 131; Gavllkova, "Transformatsija", pp. 62-3; Holzer, Zur Sprache, pp. 57-63; Havlov3, K pullkovanym, pp. 24-7; Cleminson, "Brashovskaja gramota tsarja Ivana Sratsimira", p. 370. 291 Machek V., Etymologickj slovn£k jazyka ceskeho, Praha, 1968, p. 598; Malingoudis, "Zupan", pp. 62-3; BER, I, pp. 559-60; Vasmer, II, p. 66. 292 Dobrev, "Zhupan", p. 385. 293 A. Briikner, Slownik etymologiczny j~zyka polskiego, Krak6w, 1927, p. 667; K. H. Menges, The Oriental Elementsin the Vocabulary of the Oldest Russian Fpos, New York, 1951; Malingo~dis, "Zupan", pp. 64, 74-6. 294 Malingoudis, "Zupan", pp. 64-7.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

367

table for historical science. 295 The Bulgar inscription clearly indicates the place of the zhupan in the military hierarchy. There we find it in a combination that is still not quite clear: trouptrouva 1t11Ae l;omav. 296 In two Greek commemorative inscriptions (in Besevliev numbers 61 and 63), the zhupan-tarkan Chsounos (Xcrouvo<;) of the family Kiurigir and an anonymous zhupan of the Ermiar family are indicated as people in the employment of the ruler. 297 On the Bulgarian side, we have data about the great zhupan Sivin from his silver cup found in a grave in Preslav. 298 While the above-mentioned data on zhupans are chiefly related to the capital (or generally to the centre of the state) and to specific military functions, other data present these people as officials in the provinces, as district governors with competencies clearly falling in the sphere of defence. Such is the case of the already cited Slavic-language inscription of zhupan Dimiter, dating from AD 943. 299 Although preserved 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 protobulgare 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 Gesetzbuch 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 institution 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 governance 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 ideologically 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 Eurasian 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.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

369

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 mediaeval 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 neighbours 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

305

Petrov, Grozdanova, "Mittelalterliche Balkaniimter", p. 99. Malingoudis, "Zupan", pp. 72-4.

306

I nstitufii feud ale, p. 260.

304

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 identical. The zhupania in the later Middle Ages was a large administrativeterritorial 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 nothing 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 Sratsimir 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 document 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 institution 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 mention 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 bibliotekata na Zografskija manastir v Sveta Gora, vol I, Sofia, 1985, pp. 78, 82, 85. 308 Ansberte Historia-in: Chroust, Quellen zur Geschichte, p. 5619-33· 309 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 1774·

310 Wasilewski, "Zhupa i zhupanija", pp. 84-92. 311 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 301.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

371

lation of the relics of St. John of Rila from Tolrnovo to the monastery founded by the hermit. The procession was met in Nicopolis by Bogdan zhupan, who led the participants to his palace and set the relics of the saint in a house of prayer. 312 The text makes it clear that Bogdan was a very wealthy and influential person. There is mention of his servants, of the copious meal with which he regaled the travellers. The difficulty of understanding this case comes from the fact that these events are dated from the second half of the 15th century, i.e. more than half a century after the Bulgarian state was occupied by the Osmanlis. Hence, this could not have been a 'Bulgarian zhupan' or some legacy from the Bulgarian Middle Ages. More probably, this was a local spahi or a Romanian boyar who possessed some goods in the Nicopolis region and come to this territory from the north. Evidently, the title of zhupan was in use into the Ottoman Empire for a short time in the early period of Ottoman rule to designate local eminent persons. For instance in one source there is a reference to the timar for the zhupan Halil, son of Ibrahim bin Hac1 from the village of Busmantsi, involving a personal military obligation, with one warrior and one tent. 313 The zhupan Bogdan must have been something of the sort: a Christian spahi or a Walachian boyar possessing property and estates to the south of the Danube as well. 4.5.2.3. Kephalia (Ke<j»MH!b.)

The designation of this official occurs several times in Bulgarian sources from the time of the Second Empire. In particular, it is to mention the imperial documents: one finds the term in two of them, the Virgino chrysobull and the Vitosha chrysobull. 314 In the latter, the institution is cited as "kephalia of the city of Sofia", and there he is placed in the head of the listed provincial administration's clerks. The functionary in question is also mentioned in the famous inscription of sebastos Ognyan from Bozhenishki Urvich. 315 This source is of special interest for the present study, inasmuch as both the honorary title and the administrative position of this Bulgarian dignitary are indicated there. Gregory Dobropisets' Vita of St. Romil of Vi din contains another data about the kephalia. The work relates how the kephalia of Skopelos

314

Kalu:iniacki, Werke, pp. 420-1; Stara bulgarska literatura, vol IV, p. 388. Izvori za bulgarskata istorija, vol XIII, Sofia, 1966, p. 21. Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 16u. 29s-s-

315

Mutafchiev, "Bozhenishnikjat nadpis", p. 493.

312 313

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 detachments 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 documents; moreover, they are so numerous that the institution had evidently 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 Byzantine 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 supervision 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 upravlenie", pp. 15-6, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 287-9.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

373

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 territorial armed forces, and no large military units. That is why the civic functions of this official came to the fore; the latter, it would appear, were much wider than his military functions. We have data about the participation of kephalias in the administration of justice. In the Vitosha charter of tsar John Shishman, the kephalia is directly connected with Sofia, i.e. with a specific territory or city, and is put in charge of the entire provincial administration in the region. All provincial officials are called "his servants" It is worth thinking about this passage in the text, for it probably indicates the difference between the apparatus subordinated to the centre and the locally subordinated one. In conclusion, one can say that the study of the evidence contained in the sources leads to the conclusion there was almost complete similarity between the Byzantine, the Serbian, and the Bulgarian kephalias. They were provincial governors with general competency, placed at the head of the basic administrative-territorial units. The office took shape in the Byzantine Empire during the 13th century, and it may be assumed it spread amongst the neighbouring Slavic countries in the following century. Perhaps the only difference was in the name of the administrative units that the kephalias governed. These units in Bulgaria are not known to have been called katepanikion, but no other designation for them is known either. 4.5.2.4. Dux (AO~!\) The designation of this official occurs in several sources for mediaeval Bulgarian history. In the Vatopedi, Virgino, and Mraka chrysobulls, the dux always comes immediately after the sebastos in the enumeration

320

Zakythinos, Despotat, II, p. 61; Maksimovic, Provincijska uprava, pp. 73, 78-9.

374

CHAPTER FOUR

in the protection formula. 321 The term occurs also in the Treatise on the Letters by Constantine Kostenechki. 322 There is a reference to the dux of the theme of Thessalonica in the Panegyric for St Dimitrios of Thessalonica by Gregory Tzamblak, 323 but he was not an official of the mediaeval Bulgarian state and this information can serve only as a linguistic fact. In the texts, the term occurs in both forms: AO~I~A and AO~~· The name of the Byzantine institution Soul; comes from the Latin dux. The name underwent large changes in the course of the history of the Empire. In the early centuries, duces were typical military commanders subordinated to the strategos of the theme, but they later headed certain administrative territorial units. 324 The battle of Mantzikert, which dealt a heavy blow to the thematic system, had an impact on this institution as well. The duces became provincial governors of administrative territorial units that were smaller but greater in number. They remained so as late as the 13th century, chiefly in Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegean Sea, where the Latin invasion had caused less destruction. 325 Under the Palaeologos dynasty, the basic unit of territorial organisation became the katepanikion, headed by a kephalia, while the dux (often designated by the combined title Soul; Kat anoypa<j>eu~) retained certain functions in the defence sphere and the fiscal apparatus. 326 The common opinion on the office of the dux as it existed in mediaeval Bulgaria is he was a district governor. M. Laskaris thinks that this was the official designation of the governor, while kephalia was the colloquial name. 327 I cannot agree with the latter assertion, which is unproven and, besides, is refuted by the data for the Byzantine Empire and Serbia. Nevertheless, I accept the view that the dux was a district governor in the Bulgarian state. Data contained in charters very defi-

321 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1898 _99 , 28 28 ; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 59; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 1939. 322 Angelov B., Iz starata, vol. II, pp. 215-6. 323 Stara bulgarska literatura, vol. II, p. 236. 324 Guilland, "Drongaire", p. 222; Ahrweiler, Recherches sur !'administration, pp. 52-5; Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance, pp. 343, 354; Maksimovic, Provincijska uprava, p. 65. 325 Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 140-1; MaksimoviC, Provincijska uprava, pp. 68-9. 326 Maksimovic, Provincijska uprava, pp. 67, 70. 327 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 321; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie", p. 12; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 152; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, pp. 152-4; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 292-4.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

375

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

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

Katepano

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

(1901), p. 204.

376

CHAPTER FOUR

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

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

' ' 0 Zakythinos, Despotat, II, pp. 58-9; Guilland, "Le Commendant en chef", p. 58; Oikonomides, Les listes de presiance, pp. 343, 354; Ahweiler, Recherches sur !'administration, pp. 64-7; Ferluga J., "Ni1.e vojno-administrativne jedinice tematskog uredenja", Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog instituta, t. 2, 1953, p. 74; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 152; Maksimovic, Provincijska uprava, pp. 78-9. m Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 2-12, 47, 80-2, 118, 266, 569, 788. m Stoicescu N., Curteni ~i slujitori. Contribufii la istoria armatei romane, Bucur~ti, 1968, pp. 246-260; Grigor~, Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 314-5; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domneasca, pp. 149-50; Institu{ii feudale, p. 84.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

377

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

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

378

CHAPTER FOUR

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

338 339 340

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

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

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

379

commanded by a single protalagator, who was under the command of the great primmicerius. 342 The office of the alagator existed in mediaeval Serbia as well. Stojan Novakovic discussed it; according to this author, the alagator was a part of the mail service, more specifically the change of horses at the stations. 343 There is data on alagators (lagators) in the Ottoman administrative system as well, which appeared in the Balkans after the region was conquered. That was the name of the person entrusted with the governance over privileged groups of Christian population performing some military functions. 344 The lagator was a head of vojnuk, doganct, derventct groups, etc., who organised the performance of the obligations of the population; he served annually for a certain period in the sultan's stables (in cases when he was head of a konar group). One of his basic obligations was to supervise the discipline of his subordinates and to catch soldiers (vojnuks), who had deviated from their duties. In remuneration for their service the lagators of vojnuks were exempted from taxes, as were the other vojnuks, and in some cases they had a timar. Based on these data, we can make certain inferences about the nature of the Bulgarian mediaeval institution as well. Undoubtedly, it was a part of the provincial administration. I think we also have reasons to maintain that this was a military office. The above-mentioned views of Stojan N ovakovic, according to whom these were postal officials, have no source basis and no other author confirmed them. On the contrary, the opinion is almost unanimous that this was a commander of a squadron of the territorial armed forces. 345 342 Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, pp. 138 35, 163-64, 180 6, 7, 185 5_ 14, 301, 305, 307-8, 309, 322, 337, 345, 348; Brehier, Les institutions, p. 148; Guilland R., « Les commandants de la garde imperiale sous les Paleologues: l'rni mi> mpa:mi> et le juge de l'armee », Revue des etudes byzantines, 18 (1960), pp. 83-92. 343 Novakovic, "Vizantijski Cinovi i titule", p. 264. 344 Snegarov lv., "Po vllprosa za spahiite-nemokhamedani'', lstoricheski pregled, 1955, 6, p. 84; Duridanov, "Byzantino-slavica", pp. 184-5; Petrov, Grozdanova, "Mittelalterliche Ba1kaniimter", p. 100; Beldiceanu N., "La region de Timok-Morava dans le documents de Mehmed II et de Selim I", Revue des etudes roumaines, III-IV, Paris, 1957, pp. 112-3; Beldiceanu N., « Le Valaques de Bosnie ala fin du XV• siede et leurs institutions », Turcica, VII, Paris, 197 5, pp. 125-30; Biliarsky, I nstitu tsiite, pp. 315-6. 345 Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 383; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie", p. 12; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 162; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63; Biliarsky, lnstitutsiite, pp. 314-7.

380

CHAPTER FOUR

In that case, we may ask what the correlation was between this office and the other two provincial military offices connected with the cavalry, namely, the strators and the comites with horses. An interesting fact is that all three offices are present in the charters of Tsar John Shishman. As the Virgino chrysobull was antedated, we may disregard the mention of comites with horses and of the strator in that document. There is no doubt that, of the three, the ala gator stood highest in the official hierarchy. In the enumeration he is in 4th to 6th position, while the comes with horses is in 13th-14th, and the strator in 14th15th. However, this knowledge provides no grounds for inferring that some specific relations of subordination existed between them, for the precise nature of the offices has not been fully clarified. Possibly their military obligations were not too different, and horses are the only common element between the three. 4.5.3.5. Comes with horses The form ~OMHCI:. c1:. ~OHI:.MH occurs only in the Virgino chrysobull. 346 In the two charters of tsar John Shishman, the Rila and Vitosha chrysobulls, we only see the form ~OMHCH (pl.). 347 1t is to clarify whether these two forms refer to the same institution. In my opinion, the differences in designation are not so great as to cause a serious debate on the problem. Personally, I am not inclined to accept the possible assertion that the addition "with horses" changes the nature of the office; probably, we have two different ways of articulate the term in the documents. The full designation was probably the official one, but this is hard to prove. The fact that the institution was included in the charters attests that in the performance of his duties this provincial official might infringe some rights granted by the ruler. As for the content of the official's obligations, the indicating of horses may provide some information. In order to find parallels with the situation in the Byzantine Empire, Walachia and Moldavia, I would refer to what was said about the great comes. Here I would only like to make some remarks about the two principalities. In addition to the great comes, in sources there we also find references to a second and third comes, and to twelve officers

346 347

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

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

381

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

348 DRH, ser. A, vol I, Na 139, I43, I44, I45 etc.; DRH, ser. B, vol. I, N 242, etc.; Dicfionarul elementilor romane~ti, p. 52; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 295-7; Institufii feudale, pp. 112-3. 349 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 620. 350 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 317-9. 351 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64.

382

CHAPTER FOUR

4.5.3.6. Strator

The designation of this official-CTfb.TOfb. (plural CTfb.TOfH, CTfb.TOftl)occurs in three documents: the Vir gino, Rila, and Vitosha chrysobulls. 352 The term itself is of Greek origin and is evidently related to the military sphere. In studying the Bulgarian institution, we have to consider again the Byzantine archetype, which is well evidenced in the sources. In Uspensky's Taktikon and in Philotheus' treatise we learn they were court officials. In Constantinople, the office was titular. The strators were the horsed escort of the basileus in the earlier period. They represented a court schole, headed by the protostrator. They occupied the thirteenth place in the hierarchy. The last mentions of them date from the lOth and early 11th century.353 In the Balkan countries neighbouring with the Byzantine Empire, this office, or at least its designation, was preserved after this period. In Serbia, the strators are present in the enumeration of offices in the chrysobull of king Stephen Milutin from AD 1300. 354 In that source, the official in question occupied the sixth rank, but the context does not enable making concrete inference as to the nature of the functions he performed. Evidently, direct parallels are admissible only with the Serbian institution, but it too is scarcely represented in the documents. We should also take into account that the office is mentioned in the well known chrysobull of Milutin, dating from AD 1300, a document that is closely related to the Virgino chrysobull. The big question is how admissible it is to make parallels with the Byzantine institution. The authors who have touched upon this topic have usually expressed the opinion that parallels can be made. They have pointed out that the strators were part of the military organisation of a district and were specifically responsible for the cavalry. 355 This was probably so, but it must be proven. There are several reasons why it would be risky to assume this a priori. Foremost, it is evident that in Bulgaria and Serbia (probably under Bulgarian influence, for the information comes from Macedonia, a

352 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 100, 29 10 _11 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 5256· 353 Bury, The Impetial Administrative System, p. 118; Guilland R., "Etudes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines. Le protostrator», Revue des etudes byzantines, VII, 1950, p. 156; Brehier, Les institutions, pp. 132-33; Oikonomides, Les listes de preseance, pp. 61 22, 121 30, 155,20526, 227 7,21 , 298, 337-8; Georgescu, Bizantul ~i institufiile romane, p. 55. 354 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 620. 355 Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie», p. 12; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 162.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

383

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

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

356

Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 319-21.

357

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29u.

384

CHAPTER FOUR

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

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

358 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 127; Ireeek K., Istorija na bulgarite, Sofia, 1978, p. 446; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63. 359 Biliarsky, "Trois institutions meconnues de Ia Bulgarie medievale: Bap'HH'I~H. Bapapb, rroBapb", Ricerche slavistiche, XLI, 1994, pp. 100-2. 360 Biliarsky, I nstitu tsiite, pp. 321-3. 361 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 u·

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

385

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

362 Pakalm M. Z., Osmanli tarih deyimleri ve terimleri sozlUgii, t. III, Istanbul, 1954, pp. 178-9. 363 Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 256-9; Grigor~, Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 309-10; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domneasca, p. 143; Institufii feudale, pp. 434-5.

386

CHAPTER FOUR

under Basil Lupu, and its duties were considerably more complex. Of course, the military functions were predominant here too, especially as concerned guarding the borderline separating the country from the Tartars in the direction of Bucak (or Budjak) and Crimea. The 17th century historian Miron Costin even calls the serdar 'a second hetman'. From command over the border cavalry, the functions of the serdar gradually passed to some purely administrative powers comparable to those of the parcalabs and elders in the respective districts. The Moldavian serdars had power for administration of justice as well, especially with respect to certain thefts (in particular thefts committed by Turks or Tartars), as well as for imposing fines at market places. During the 18th century, this office gradually lost its active duties, and in the 19th century it turned into a purely honorary title. All this raises the issue as to how admissible it is to seek parallels with the situation in Bulgaria. In his view on the issue, Peter Koledarov leaves no room for doubt: according to him, the Walachian and Moldavian institutions &eAH~'ll. cepAAfb. and cepAb.fb. were borrowed from the Bulgarian administrative system. 364 However, his argumentation seems inadequate, and I would not risk being so categorical. Undoubtedly, this was an institution borrowed from the Osmanli Turks. Did it pass through Bulgaria before reaching the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia? Let us recall that there is record of it in the Vitosha chrysobull in the 14th century; while in Walachia, no earlier than the middle of the 17th century (in Moldavia even later!). Nearly three hundred years would have been quite enough time for such a tradition to disappear. That is why I believe the assumption that there was a direct loan from the Ottoman administrative system cannot be rejected a priori-it even seems to be the more probable explanation. The indisputably common origin of the two institutions-Bulgarian one and the Romanian-drives me to consider the comparisons the only way for attaining more concrete knowledge. Previous authors that have worked on this issue have followed this line and defined the serdars mostly as military officers. 365 I believe that the relation of the Bulgarian serdars with the army cannot seriously be put in doubt. These were indeed military officers in the provincial administration.

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

365

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

387

Of course, the specific features of the time and state had their impact. Based on the Bulgarian document one can state that this was not a high-ranking military officer, but a rank that came in sixteenth position in the enumeration.

4.5.3.9 The vatah is mentioned only once in the Vir gino chrysobull: ... HH R~rr~;x:. 366 In the enumeration, he comes in fifth place. The meaning of the term designating him is not quite clear. The authors who have written on this topic are not unanimous about it. 367 Konstantin Jirecek believed that the vatah was an official dealing with judicial and financial matters. G. Ilinsky is more inclined to interpret the term as meaning an elder of a tribe. M. Andreev and D. Angelov define him as a fiscal official with some judicial powers. In this situation, in order to achieve some more or less satisfactory conclusions, we shall have to clarify the origin and content of the term itself and seek parallels with neighbouring countries. Konstantin Jirecek was the first to make some suggestions about the etymology of the word; he pointed out that "vatazhka" is the name of a tribe elder in the Carpathian region; in the Old Polish language watacha and wataha means "union", "association"; in Russian "vataga" is the designation of a fishermen's guild on the Volga river. In fact, we may claim that the word came to the Balkans from the East Slavic languages, into which it was borrowed from Turkic. In Romanian, apart from the special institutional meaning of the word, it also means "a person who heads some group", a "chief" (with indication that the word is borrowed from Ukrainian). 368 Evidently, some Bulgarian noninstitutional meanings of the word are also of this origin. For instance, Nayden Gerov indicates that "vataf" is the designation of a leader of calu~ars, who go around on the Rusalii feast practice. 369 1he meaning in Russian comes from "BaTara" (vataga) ="company", "mob", "gang", "artel", while "BaTar" (vatag) = "ataman", "elder" = "leader" Elsewhere the emphasis is on the meaning 'fishermen's artel', which will

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 15 t5· Ireeek, Istorija na bulgarite, p. 445; Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 120; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, pp. 159, 253, 255. 368 Dicfionarul limbii romane literare contemporane, vol. IV -ea, Bucur~ti 1957 (vlltaf, vlltag, vllta~, vlltav); Scurt dicfionar etimolojic allimbii moldovene~ti, Ch~ineu 1978, p. 82 (B9Tacp, B9TaB, B9TIIX, B9TaiiJ;). 369 Gerov N., Rechnik na bl'garskij jazyk, part 1, Plovdiv, 1895, p. 109. 366

367

388

CHAPTER FOUR

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

370 Dal' VI., Tolkovyj slovar' zhivogo velikorusskago jazyka, vol. I, Moscow, 1989, p. 167, Slovar' russkikh narodnikh govorov, t. IV, Leningrade, 1969, pp. 66-7, Slovnik staroukrai·ns'koi movi (XIV-XV), vol. I, Kiev, 1977, p. 156, Slovnik ukralns'koi movi, t. I, Kiev, 1970, p. 296. 371 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 46, 47, 51, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64; Dujeev, SBK,

II,

p. 342.

m Dicfionarul elementilor romdne~ti, p. 257; Stoicescu, Curteni ~i slujitori, pp. 233-243; Grigora~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 310-4; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domneasca, pp. 148-9; Institufiifeudale, pp. 495-6.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

389

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

m 374

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

390

CHAPTER FOUR

is why authors who have written about it are hesitant. 375 Konstantin Jirecek believed that the topshtikals had judicial and financial functions. Ivan Dujcev was also inclined to define this official as a lowranking officer. For their part, M. Andreev and D. Angelov considered him a fiscal agent who disposed of judicial powers. Unfortunately, the source itself is too poor in information and does not provide a possibility to make a generalisation on the topic. In any case, the participation of the topshtikal in the administration of justice is very probable. This, after all, provides a more concrete idea about his obligations. We can define them, in accordance with the text, as judicial-police duties. 376 As for the fiscal competencies that some authors suggest, this is merely a conjecture, neither confirmed nor denied by the sources. That is why it seems arbitrary to me. 5. CONCLUSION

Thus, to generalise about the institutional and administrative terminology, we may draw several conclusions, which I shall present below. 5.1 The study is focused on the mediaeval Bulgarian administrative vocabulary in Slavic, the official language of the state. Slavic became the official language some time after the Conversion to Christianity, which brought a change of the cultural and civilisation model of the country. The Bulgar's paganism, until then predominant and determining for the character of the state through the culture of this ethnic group (of the Eurasian steppe peoples), was substituted by Orthodox Christianity. Bulgaria fell under the influence of Constantinople and developed under it, which is especially evident in the processes related to statehood and law. In this sense, it is not surprising that in the terminology of that period we observe a prevalence of terms which, in one way or another, originated from the Byzantine Empire.

375 Irecek, Istorija na bulgarite, p. 445; Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 342; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, pp. 159, 253, 255; llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1514-15· 376 Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 335-6.

INSTITUTIONS, MILITARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE VOCABULARY

391

The preserved Turkic terms are very few, although in most cases they are quite concrete. We should also take into account the fact that not all of them can be ascribed to the legacy of the Bulgars. One observes also an influence from the later nomads, as well as an early influence from the Osmanli Turks.

5.2 The influence of the Byzantine Empire began at a very early epoch, for some of the terms, which have preserved their Bulgar Turkic forms, have their origin in the concepts adopted from the Byzantine legal and administrative terminology. In the presentation in this chapter several such cases were given. Thus, in the earlier period, a term was created in the Bulgar Turkic language; this term however, followed its Byzantine archetype. In the following epoch, this term was usually substituted by a Slavic one, which also followed its Greek-language original. It is possible that the two were in usage at the same time, one being more official, and the other (usually the Slavic term) more colloquial sounding. Finally, usually at the time of the Second Bulgarian Empire, it was possible for a direct loan of the Greek designation to occur, transliterated in Cyrillic letters, and for this word to take the place of the previous ones.

5.3 It is possible to trace a certain scale of preferences in the construction

of the terms. The superior institutions with greater ideological importance had designations, closer to those in the Byzantine Empire from which they had ultimately originated. Thus, we can see that practically almost all "pure titles" had designations directly borrowed and transliterated from the Greek. These were the highest titles, which had a relation to the institution of ruler and to the hierarchic order in society, an order that lies at the core of the Byzantine worldview and, hence, of the Byzantine political ideology. The court institutions were usually also titular in character and heavily charged with ideological meaning, because of their relation to personal service for the ruler and to the organisation of the cult of the ruler and the rituals connected with him. This is the reason that the Greek forms of designation for these institutions are predominant here as well. The same one can state about the highest-ranking officials

392

CHAPTER FOUR

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

CHAPTER FIVE TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

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

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

Kuchev, Finansovo pravo, pp. 43-5. Stojanov Iv. G., Danachno pravo. Obshta chast. Danachen protses, Sofia, 2001, p. 9. 3 Here I do not include the decision for taxation made by the population or its representatives, which is typical for the present day but not for the premodern societies such as the Bulgarian one during the epoch we are concerned with. 4 Stojanov P., Danachno pravo, Sofia, 1994, pp. 19-21; Kuchev, Finansovo pravo, p. 160 5 Stojanov P., Danachno pravo, p. 21. 1

2

394

CHAPTER FIVE

Sejm, Etats generaux) the idea was adopted that the ruler only proposes, suggests the levy, and the assembly decides. This is a kind of self-taxation on the part of the population, for the decisions are made by their representatives. This practice is still valid and it is assumed that taxes can be imposed only by virtue of an act of the national representation, which is solely empowered to decide on the spending of revenues based on the Budget Act. The special nature of taxes, which have never been a very agreeable thing to the population and ever been a source of corruption or suspicion of corruption, generates likewise a variety of theories about their essence-the insurance theory and its version called equivalent theory, as well as the sacrifice theory. 6 Here I would suggest a working definition of taxes: they are state titles governed by public law and thus of a compulsory nature, and intended for the support of state activities indispensable for the existence of the state-organised societies. 7 The public law nature of the receipts8 has a special importance not only because it makes it mandatory for the population but also because it radically changes its meaning. Usually Marxist scholars defined taxes, various fees, and other charges imposed by the state in pre-modern societies as a type of exploitation. According to Marxist views, exploitation is the appropriation of the labour result either coercively or in the form of a surplus product and value. All this is implemented and organised by means of property and its management, which defines also the type of management of the economic activity in general. Thus, the classical type of exploitation, according to Marxist theory, is implemented within the framework of relations regulated by private rather than public law, which regulates the taxation relations. Thus, we should by definition exclude taxes from the forms of exploitation exerted by any dominant class. These receipts are necessary for society; it cannot exist without them and from them obtains resources for the socially useful activity of the state. It should be noted however, that fiscal relations aim at, or could aim at, not only the funding of state activity but also some sort of redistribution of goods. The latter may be either fair or unfair; either justified or not; Stojanov Iv., Danachno pravo. Obshta chast. Danachen protses, pp. 18-9. Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite, p. 346. There are many definitions of taxes, and the one given here does not claim to explain the phenomenon but to serve as a working basis for the present research. For other more detailed definitions, ct: Stojanov P., Danachno pravo, p. 19 and especially 21; Str. Kuchev, Ju. Kuchev, Danachno pravo, Sofia, 1997, pp. 7-19; Stojanov Iv., Danachno pravo. Obshta chast. Danachen protses, p. 17. 8 Str. Kuchev, Ju. Kuchev, Danachno pravo, p. 15. 6 7

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

395

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

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

10

396

CHAPTER FIVE

the 9th century, especially after the conversion to Christianity, and yet another in the 1Oth-llth century, within the increasingly Byzantinelike administrative structure created by Symeon, Peter, and Samuel. The era of the Second Empire provides a somewhat greater amount of information, as we have several imperial documents from that time. It is precisely data from that period that will be the basis of this chapter. I have tried to follow the definition of fiscal in its broadest possible sense, taking the risk to include words that some readers might consider superfluous; but the aim was to miss no term, whatever its degree of significance. Below, I am going to introduce in detail the vocabulary and its interpretation, the titles of the officials of the fiscal offices, and the taxes, corvees and auxiliary objects. 2. ORIGIN AND MAJOR MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEGAL TERMS IN THE AREA OF FINANCIAL AND FISCAL LAW INCLUDED IN THE GLOSSARY

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

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

397

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

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

398

CHAPTER FIVE

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

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

399

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

16 17 18

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

400

CHAPTER FIVE

term 'pobirchia', I put forward the idea that that 'bir' and 'birk' were church titles, 19 but my position now need re-evaluation and correction. I believe that, within the context, the preferred interpretation should be that this is a general designation for taxes and other state revenues. It is to stress the fact that the word 'birk' is not of Slavic but of Turkic origin and is likely to be one of the few words inherited from the Bulgar language. 20 It is not a derivative of the verb Gfb.TH (= 'gather', 'take') as it would seem at first glance, but of the Turkic root 'biiri, biirii' meaning 'gift', 'present'. Here we find another ancient concept of the tax as a gift for the ruler from the population. This does not change anything at the lexical level, for in Slavic both concepts ('gift' and 'toll') originate from the verb 'to give'. However, the preservation of a term borrowed from the languages of the Steppe-and in such a special area at that-is a significant fact of the culture of mediaeval Bulgaria. Franz von Miklosich first thought the word to be of Magyar origin and this opinion was shared by Ivan Dujcev.21 I am reluctant to subscribe to this opinion but it is to note that it would again direct us to the traditions of the Steppe. I would like to note also that Genoveva Tsankova-Petkova connects the term in question with the Russian-Scandinavian 'vira'. 22 This opinion, mentioned only as a reference in a footnote, without elaboration of a specific thesis, I find to be unacceptable, for the term quoted had a completely different meaning in Rus'. The word 'birk' is used also in the Russian language. In Serbia it is found at least in Milutin's charter of AD 1300, which is practically the same text, as the Virgino charterY But here we also find a quite similar word, &Hfb., 24 which undoubtedly has a similar meaning. I consider the term 'birk' to be of interest, since it not only originated from a quite ancient period of the Bulgarian state system but also suggests the nature of the tax income, being related to the meaning of 'ruler' and 'sovereign', something I have mentioned in the presentation of the word in the glossary. Another term for general designation of state titles through compulsory payments by the population is AO"f,.OA"b.l<."b. ('dohodak}, which is Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 369-70. 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. 23 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 614. 24 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 572, 573, 597, 598, 624, 651, 696, 699. 19

20

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

401

found only in the Virgino chrysobull; however the word has different 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 territory 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 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 1631,42· Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 1515• 16 43 M• 18 82,83, 85· 27 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 122. 28 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 15736· 29 Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 335. 30 Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 50. The last words marked in italic are simply missing in the translation of Ivan Dujcev. 25 26

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 designation 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 consideration 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

31

32 33

34

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 15 14· Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 411, 461, 609, 680, 704. Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 146. Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 146.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

403

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 people, 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 officersbee, 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,

Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 9,14-15· Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 29. 32· 37 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 181oo· 38 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 55· 39 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 1o· 40 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 152. 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 rulersSolovjev, 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. 35

36

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 translation 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

49

50 51

DRH, ser. B, vol. I, No. 12, 23, 39 etc.; Institutii feudale, pp. 158-60. Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption jiscale, pp. 74-6. Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption fiscale, pp. 127-8. Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 357-61 (as well as the indicated therein older literature).

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

405

komod. 52 This is mentioned also by D. Angelov, who practically supports the same opinion and defines it as a tax in kind. 53 G. TsankovaPetkova 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-breeding 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 Bulgaria. 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 Milutin'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

Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 45-6. 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. Jahrhundert for das Athoskloster Iberon (Abhandl. der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., 28), 1949, p. 77. 54 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 161. 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 documents of the Serbian rulers: Solovjev, Mosin, Grtke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 442-4. 52

53

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. TsankovaPetkova, volobershtina is a tax imposed on a pair of oxen and on the arable land per pair of oxen. 64 This combination between draught animals 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 production 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, volobershtina 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 questionable; but I have preferred to discuss it here-at least at the terminological 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

NovakoviC. Zakonski spomenici, p. 620 LXXVII. 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. 60

61

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

407

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 strengthened 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 designations 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 considers 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 Speleotissa 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 ittela Iter, hauptsachtlich auf Grund der Brie.fe des Erzbischo.fs Theophylaktos von Achrida, Mtinchen, 1937, p. 40 ff. See also the work of Solovjev, Mosin, Grtke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 442 ff.; Kazhdan, Agrarnye, p. 122 ff. 69 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 84. 70 Theophylacti Achridensis Epistulae, ed P. Gautier, Thessalinique, 1980, no. 26, l. 22 71 Inalclk H., "The Problem of Relationship between Byzantine and Ottoman Taxation", Akten des XI. Interna. Byzant. Kongresses (1958), Miinchen, 1960, p. 241. 72 Institufii feudale, pp. 99-100.

408

CHAPTER FIVE

no doubt that it followed its Byzantine prototype and was a land and production levy, not a draught animals levy. The latter are mentioned only as a measure for the area ploughed with them. It is difficult to say whether only the transliterated Greek designation alone was used or the Slavic designation as well. 3.1.1.3

Dimnina (A'AIMbHHH~) is a poll tax imposed per household; its designation 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 volobershtina, 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 maintains 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 obvious even from the designation, which is a loanword from the Greek

73

74 75

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 18 88· Danailov, "Stranitsa iz dArzhavnoto stopanstvo", pp. 46-7. 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.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

409

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 Apparently, 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 designation 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 alreadythis is a poll tax imposed on households. As far as its identification with the Byzantine oikomodion or with the Bulgarian komod is concerned, 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 designation 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 Byzantine Ko:1tVt.K6v is called that, but the meaning of the term is the same (Solovjev, Mosin, GrCke povelje srpskih vladara, pp. 451-2). 81 Institufii feudale, pp. 201-2.

410

CHAPTER FIVE

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 monastery.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 interpretation 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 studies 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. TsankovaPetk 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 mentioned 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 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 20· Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 28 75 , 78 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 53 75 , 78 • Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65. 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. 82

83 84

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

411

has not been sufficiently clarified either for the Empire or for mediaeval 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 variety of the well-known 'dykeraton' or 'hexapholon'. The most recent study is by Nicholas Oikonomides; it is based on a review of the available 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

88

Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65.

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. 89

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. TsankovaPetkova 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 91

92 93

94 95

Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 13, 2o. Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 1o1· Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 31· Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 42-3. Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 145. Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 90-5, 140-1, 160-1.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

413

volobershtina 96 or with dimnina. 97 M. Andreev subscribes to the common 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 surrounding 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 mentioned 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.

Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 160-1 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. 104 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 620. 96

97

414

CHAPTER FIVE

Komod is especially interesting for this study, for the term was borrowed from the Greek language but the earliest information available 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 Byzantine Empire and later became the name for a specific tax payable in money. It can be found in the Bulgarian documents, together with the similar word for the person in charge of collecting it-perperak. Perper ("ner'l.nerA/ner'l>ner'l>") is mentioned in the Virgino and Zographou chrysobulls but not always in the sense of tax. Thus in the Zographou chrysobull the word designates only the monetary unit. It refers to the fifty perpers from the payment of which the hagiorite monastery was exempted from paying by the basileus after the intervention of the Bulgarian tsar, and not to a specific tax. 108 Unlike this, in the Virgino chrysobull there is reference both to the coin and the monetary tax: "... neither volobershtina nor perpera, nor dimnina .. ." i.e. the taxes the monastery was exempt from were listed. 109 In addition to this information, there is mention of perperaks, i.e. the officials collecting this tax,

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

106

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

415

in the Rila and Vitosha chrysobulls. 110 Both texts are identical and the perperaks are cited among the tax officers. The authors who have studied the issue are unanimous that the perper refers to a monetary tax-the word itself suggests this. Beyond that, however, opinions differ. M. Lascaris is inclined to see in the perper a kind of customs duty (similar to the Byzantine 'koummerkion'); and in the perperak, a special customs officer.m D. Angelov views it as being some vague kind of monetary tax. 112 M. Andreev also maintains a similar position. 113 According to G. Tsankova-Petkova this was a basic monetary tax, similar to the Byzantine xcipay~ (charagma), which had acquired its designation from the golden coin im£pn:upov. 114 In Byzantium the payment of taxes in money, especially the procedure and calculation in charagma, 115 was related mainly to land tax. Having in mind that monetary relations were incomparably better developed in the Empire than in mediaeval Bulgaria, I do not believe we have grounds for drawing direct parallels. This is also reinforced by the fact that no state title of such a designation, originating precisely from the name of the coin hyperpyron/perper, is known to have existed in the Byzantine fiscal system. The term was known in Serbia and there are multiple quotations, but one should bear in mind that they mostly refer to the coin and not to the tax. A special study of the local sources will be necessary for further clarification, but it is out of the scope of our direct tasks. However, I would like to draw attention to the only quotation of 'perperak' in a document of tsar Stephen Dusan: "... H OTrz. COK~ H AHMHHHe H nepnerb.K~, H AeCeT,Kb. mHTHOrb. ... " 116 It becomes clear from the context that it does not mean an official but the tax itself. Unfortunately there are no other details concerning its nature. In Walachia a tax by the designation of nepneprz. was known since the

Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 27 54 , 29 9; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 54 • Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 49 note 3. 112 Angelov, "Prikhodi", p. 403; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 147. 113 Andreev, "Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", pp. 91-2. 114 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 145. It should be taken into account that the words xapay~a (charagma, nomisma) and i>xepm>pov are first of all names for coins. However, the former is used also as a name for a specific tax, which apparently served for the construction of the Bulgarian term. 115 It is worth mentioning that the Byzantine institution charagma passes over to the Ottoman financial system and is known as a tax named harac. 116 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 680. 110 111

416

CHAPTER FIVE

15th century (the respective tax in Moldavia was called 'leul pe bute').U7 It was a state monetary duty within the Principality imposed mainly on commercial goods and products such as fish and wine.U 8 All this proves that the only sure thing we could state about the perper is that it refers to a monetary tax, collected by officials called 'perperak'. Any other more specific clarifications could lead to random conclusions. Having in mind and highlighting the uncertainty of these statements, I dare to say that the comparison with the Walachian institution suggests a reference to a levy on commerce. This comes close to what M. Lascaris has written earlier, although I shall not be too specific and I am only proposing these ideas as a matter for debate. 3.1.1.7

Otrotzina (or otrochina) is mentioned only once in a Greek text by archbishop Theophylactus of Bulgaria. 119 Because of the nature of this source, the word is available only in Greek transcription6tp&rt~tva. There is no doubt, however, that the reference is to a Slavic term derived from otrok (O'I''AfO~'A), which designated a specific category of peasants, which we shall discuss further on. It is in connection with this category that we should seek the meaning of this kind of state duty. It should be noted that its nature is not quite clear, which is due to the fact that the source base amounts to a single reference. G. Litavrin seems inclined to define otrotzina as a tax payable by the lord for the right to have serfs. 120 After some hesitation, G. Tsankova-Petkova suggests the hypothesis that it refers to a tax payable by the landless peasants-serfs (otroks). 121 About a decade ago Nicholas Oikonomides touched upon this issue in his work on the fiscal relations in the Empire. He mentions otrotzina in the section dedicated to paroikiatikon but defines the title as similar to the Byzantine aktemonitikion (aK't'll~OVt'rtKtOV) and raises the question as to whether this was a kind

117 DRH, ser. B, vol. I, No. 31 pp. 223-4 (document ofJanuacy 15, AD 1467); Dicfionarul elementelor romdne~ti, p. 173. 118 I nstitufii feudale, p. 355, for the coin itself, see p. 359. 119 Theophylacti Achridensis Epistulae, no. 12, I. 22; Leroy-Molinghen, "Trois mots slaves", pp. 116-7; Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 106; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 83. 120 Litavrin G. G., "Krestjanstvo Zapadnoj i Jugo-Zapadnoj Bolgarii v XI-XII veke", Uchenye zapiski Instituta slavjanovedenija AN SSSR, t. XIV, 1956, p. 337. 121 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 106 note 129.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

417

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

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

418

CHAPTER FIVE

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

129 Mijatovic C., "Financije srpskog kraljevstva, II, Izvori za financijski dohodak u XIII i XIV veku", Glasnik Srpskog utenog druStva, IX (26), Belgrade, 1869, p. 175; Danailov, "Stranitsa iz dArzhavnoto stopanstvo", pp. 48-50; Angelov, "Prikhodi", p. 404, Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 146; Lishev Str., Za stokovoto proizvodstvo vav feodalna Bulgarija, Sofia, 1957, pp. 98-9; Andreev M., Kutikov VL, "Dogovorat na dobrudzhanskija vladetel Ivanko s genueztsite ot 1387 g. (Prinos kAm izuchavaneto na mezhdunarodnite dogovori na srednovekovna Bulgarija", Godishnik na Sojijskija universitet. Juridicheski fakultet, t 51, 1960, No. I, p. 12; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64. 130 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 49 note 3. 131 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 145, 146, 162. 132 Oikonomides, Fiscalite et exemption jiscale, p. 171. m Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 151, 254, 172, 187; Mijatovic, "Financije", p. 175 ff. 134 I nstitufii feudale, pp. 490-2. 135 0 n the regulation of trade in mediaeval Bulgaria, see: Biliarsky, "Reglementation du commerce", pp. 99-117.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

419

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

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

136 See: Kutlkov VL, "Bulgaro-vizantijskijat dogovor ot 716 g. Pravo-istorichesko izsledvane", Godishnik na Sofijskija universitet, Juridicheskifokultet, t 65, 1974, No.1, p. 69 ff. m Gjuzelev V., "Les relations bulgaro-venitiennes durant la premiere moitie duXIV• siede", Etudes historiques, t. IX, 1979, p. 72 ff. 138 de Sacy baron Sylvestre, "Memoire sur un traite fait entre les G~nois de Pera et un prince des Bulgares", Histoire et memoires de 11nstitut Royal de France, Academie des inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, t. VII, Paris, 1824, pp. 292-326; Andreev, Kutikov, "Dogovor1l.t", passim. 139 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 103 ; Popovic, "Povelja bana Tvrtka I Kotromanovica Dubrovniku", p. 155. 140 Danailov, "Stranitsa iz d1l.rzhavnoto stopanstvo", pp. 44-5. 141 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 226-9; Angelov, Andreev, Istorija, p. 146, Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 162.

420

CHAPTER FIVE

the same document, and this, I think, is a sufficient reason for such conclusion as to the obviously identical nature of the levy. A separate problem is raised by with the reference to 'tsarina' in the Virgino chrysobull, which is closely related to the original king Milutin's chrysobull of AD 1300. Was this not a purely Serbian fiscal institution, fallen by chance in the inauthentic document? In Serbia there is a lot of data on 'tsarina' but there the term means either customs 142 or customs duty, and also 'the imperial exchequer'. 143 I consider this second meaning to be similar to the meaning found in the beginning of the Vir gino chrysobull; it should also correspond to demosion and demosia, found in lines 79 and 93 of the same chrysobull. 144 3.1.2. Fees, charges and various rights

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

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

142 The quotation is incomplete: N ovakoviC. Zakonski spomen ici, pp. 78 III, 90 III, 167, 171 XVI, 179 VI, 182 III, 190 I, 196 II, 209 II, 211 II, 434 III, 464 IV, 500 I, 609 VI, 614 XXXII, etc. 143 The quotation is incomplete: Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 392 II, 617 L, 618 LIII, 619 LXII, etc. 144 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 15 14• 18 79, 93·

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

421

topic define it as related to the use of pastures for the livestock. Thus, G. Tsankova-Petkova defines travnina as a "tax on the use of mountainous pastures", which "was payable in money"Y 5 Further in her book the author defines 'travnina' as identical with 'gornina' and as a 'fee' for using the pastures. 146 This is not the place to clarify the difference between 'tax' and 'fee', 147 but it is evident that the institute under question has been defined without a profound study of the matter. On the other hand, M. Andreev also sees in travnina something resembling a fee for the use of pastures. 148 D. Angelov has devoted more attention to this state title in his study of the monastery economy. 149 He calls it a "charge for using the lord's land", which was usually paid in kind, though a combined form of payment was also applied. It is obvious that the author mixes the 'feudal annuity', which is an income governed by private law, with duties and taxes under public law. In order to say something more, one should address the richer data of the neighbouring countries with similar legal systems. In the Serbian sources travnina is mentioned many times. 150 At some places in the documents it is quoted among the corvees (f~&OTE u.~rcTR~ HH), which leaves the impression it was one of them. 151 Nevertheless, we know of at least two texts that quite clearly relate the payment of travnina to livestock pasture, shelter and hibernation in the mountains. 152 To this data one should also add 'travnina ovcha' (sheep's travnina). Article 197 of the Law Code of Stephen Dusan provides more detailed information on travnina. It stipulates that if anyone spends the winter in the ruler's estates, they shall be obliged to pay travnina of one animal

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

422

CHAPTER FIVE

per hundred. 153 Thus, the term refers to a percentage payment in kind for a certain use of the territory. Certainly, the Byzantine sources are the richest in information on the respective legislation in the Empire. I have indicated in the glossary that the term corresponds to the Greek £vv6~tov and data on it should be correlative to the fiscal title in question. It represented a charge on livestock-except on draught animals for land ploughing, which were taxed in relation to farm production-and was substantiated as a charge for using the pastures. 154 It was paid at six-month periods in summer and winter and its structure and nature suggest to the researchers to define it as identical with the tithe; initially it was a rent for use of the pastures. With its further development it was increasingly assimilated as being part of the taxes and eventually became a permanent state title imposed on the owners of livestock, not a charge for use of the pastures. 155 It was payable by everybody regardless of their social status. It seems that in the cases of taxation privileges for the monasteries, the travnina was not paid to the state but to the beneficiary of the privilege. 156 3.1.2.2

Gornina (ropb.HHHA) is mentioned twice in the Zographou chrysobull of tsar John Alexander. 157 Its origin is Slavic-from POfA (i.e. 'mountain')-and the meaning is obvious. The context, in which the term is mentioned, is that of zhitarstvo and gradozidanie. It refers to the fact that the Zographou Monastery had to pay to the Byzantine authorities fifty perpers for 'zhitarstvo, gornina and gradozidanie' and the tsar managed to exempt them from this liability. This gives us reason to believe it was related to various kinds of liabilities the monastery redeemed itself from by paying some fixed amount. The other

1s3 Novakovic St., Zakonik Stefana Du5ana cara srpskog 1349 i 1354, Belgrade, 1898, p. 145 art. 197. 154 Ostrogorsky, Steuergemeinde, pp. 57 -8; Solovjev, Mo8in, Grcke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 431; Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, p. 53; Dolger Fr., Aus den Schatzkammern des heiligen Berges, Mi.inchen, 1948, pp. 31, 208; Xanalatos, Beitriige zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, _p. 41; Ka.zhdan, Agrarnye, pp. 123-4; Schmid G., "Byzantinisches Zehntwesen", JOB, 6 (1957), pp. 45-110; SchUbach E., Byzantinische Metrologie, Mi.inchen, 1970, pp. 262-3; Harvey A., Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 900-1200, Cambridge, 1989, p. 104. Iss Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 75. 1s6 Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 76. 157 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 23 5o, 5s·

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

423

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

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

424

CHAPTER FIVE

into account that these texts pertain to mediaeval Serbia (the Vir gino chrysobull is obviously related therewith) and not to Bulgaria. The term 'planina' (nA.avtva or nAav'l'(vft) is also found in many Byzantine documents mainly from the 14th century although the earliest reference dates as far back as the 12th century and is in a document of Andronikos I Comnenos in favour of the Great Laura monastery, dated 1184, concerning the region of Moglen. 164 Without any claims to comprehensiveness, here we could quote Michael IX Palaeologos' chrysobulls of 1299/1300 and 1319,165 a chrysobull of his father, Andronikos II Palaeologos (1319) 166 and of his son Andronikos III Palaeologos (1319, 1329, 1332,),167 as well as a charter of 1305 168 The same word occurs also in the documents of the Mount Athas monastery of Iviron, 169 and in many other places. It is noteworthy that the word nA.avwft is quoted also in the Greek-language documents published by the Serbian rulers, having there the legal meaning of a type of property or estate, not of a geographical concept. 170 The term has been a subject of interest mainly with relation to the Slavic toponymy in Greece. Analysing it from this aspect, Ivan Bozilov states that it proves the presence of a Bulgarian population in the village of Radolivon. 171 We could subscribe to this statement but it does not concern our study of a specific fiscal institution. Therefore, the question remains open as to how the term was adopted in the Byzantine official vocabulary of that epoch and reflected in the imperial documents. Obviously, the term was about a type of property and most likely borrowed from the Slavic legal terminology. How did this happen? This question also remains open but it seems to me that it is related to the Serbian invasion in Macedonia and its annexing in the end of 13th and the beginning of the 14th century. Thus, the above-mentioned, welldescribed in the Serbian sources term planina probably penetrated the Byzantine vocabulary as a designation for a type of property. This is 164 Actes de Lavra, vol. I, No. 66lines 1, 14; BoZilov, Bulgarite vav Vizantijskata imperija, p. 47, note 342. 165 Actes de Chilandar, vol. I, No. 18lines 51-3, No. 43line 51. 166 Actes de Chilandar, vol I, No. 42lines 137, 142. 167 Actes de Vatopedi, vol. I, No. 68line 79, vol. II, No. 78line 37; Actes de Chilandar,

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

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

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

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

425

hardly inconsistent with the reference to the word in the 12th century, not only because it is relatively isolated but it also refers to another geographical region and is in another context. I would like to reiterate that here it does not refer to toponymy but is a legal property term. It is worth mentioning that the term gornina is not typical for Serbian documents. Therefore, one may ask whether the Serbian planiatiko is not some kind of toll on the use of a type of property, called 'plan ina'. M. Andreev's discussion on the question is not very specific and detailed, but in all probability he defines 'gornina' as a charge payable by the peasants for the use of pastures in the forests and mountains. 172 On the other hand, G. Tsankova-Petkova defines the term in question as a "tax (and later on in the presentation it becomes a 'fee'-undoubtedly a more correct term-the remark is mine I. B.) on the use of mountain pastures" and obviously places it on the same footing with travnina. 173 Therefore, it is obvious that only G. Ilinsky's view that it refers to a corvee related to ore-mines differs significantly. The other authors centre their views on the use of mountains and particularly the pastures therein. The specified theses are based mainly on the interpretation of the name of the fiscal institution. D. Angelov refers to a similar Byzantine phenomenon. Obviously, the search for parallels with the neighbouring countries is the best way for clarifying the actual meaning of this liability in mediaeval Bulgaria. The designation 6ptK'fi can be found in the Empire, and I think the Slavic term 'gornina' was borrowed from there (from opoc; = rop~. 'mountain'); 174 N. Oikonomides defines it "as right of common use of the mountain forests and lumbering, payable to the owner of the estate". 175 N. Svoronos does not go into details about this revenue and categorises it under "other taxes". 176 A similar term can be found in documents from Walachia and Moldavia: gor~tina. 177 It has two meanings: one is a fee on sheep and swine for grazing them in the mountain pastures, and the other is a type of customs duty for foreigners who

Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 146. Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 146, 162-3. 174 It is notable that, as regards the order oflisting the various state titles in the formula of protection, the Bulgarian chrysobull follows the example of the Byzantine one (cn
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 connotation 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 question whether the term is not purely Serbian or else a part of the Bulgarian 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 precisely, 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

179 180 181

Danailov, "Stranitsa iz dArzhavnoto stopanstvo", p. 47. Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123. Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 349. Dujcev, "Ezikovi belezhki kAm srednovekovnite bulgarski pametnitsi", p. 311.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

427

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, defining them, like I. Dujcev, as fees for the right to use or to build protected 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 fiscal 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

182 183 184 185 186

Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 222. Tsankova-Petkova, 2'a agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 110 see also notes 160, 162-3. Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 146. Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 614 XXXII. Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 1o1·

428

CHAPTER FIVE

koshara/ = livestock pen) and legal connotation. In this regard Nicholas 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 definitely due to the scanty source base. Considering this situation, it can only be stated that kosharshtina was a type of revenue related to stockbreeding, 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 relation 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 wellcovered 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. 188 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 1o1· 189 NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 620 LXXVII. 190 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 125. 191 Dujeev, "Ezikovi belezhki kll.m srednovekovnite bulgarski pametnitsi", pp. 192

Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 222.

309-11.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

429

as a "toll on using livestock pens". 193 Finally, M. Andreev defines slonovshtina 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 unfortunately 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 nonsensical 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). 194 Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 146. 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 apparently 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 Romanian 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 context 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 parallels 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. 197 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 162. 198 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, pp. 63-4. 199

I nstitufii Jeudale, 60.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

431

tion of some public liability, which from a state fee was transformed into an income in favour of the incumbent of the privilege. 3.1.2.6

Diavato or diabaton (AH~&~To), as evident from the designation, is a charge for passing through a certain place. The term can be found in the Virgino and Rila chrysobulls. 200 In both cases it is in the protection 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 monastery people as a whole, while in the Rila chrysobull people carrying on trade were specified as exempt. G. Tsankova-Petkova defines diavato 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 clearerthe nature of the place for passing is specified. Besides, the context in which diavato is quoted is more clearly related to commercial activities, which were obviously taxable by the state.

llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 19 103, 28 74 ; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 53 74 • 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. 202 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 146. 203 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 163. 204 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, pp. 63-4. 200 201

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 representatives. 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 transportation services in general, provision of food and shelter, as well as other necessary goods and assistance for passing troops. Similar is the obligation for provision of support and collaboration with passing repre-

205

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 157

206

Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 335.

34,36·

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

433

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 borrowed in the Greek language at such an early stage that for Bulgaria it undoubtedly is a loanword from Greek and an example of the general 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) mandatory 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 gramota, 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· 212 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 31· 213 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 124. 214 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 110, 114, 160. 215 Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 123.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

435

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 designation 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 military 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 Byzantine 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

Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64. 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; Oikonomides, 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). 216

217

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 conclusions 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. However, 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 transliteration 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 connotation 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

220 221 222 223

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 18 87· Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 198; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 149. Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 160. Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

437

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 messengerscouriers 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 accommodation 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
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 headquarters 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 obligations 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

Olkonomides, Fiscalite, pp. 94-7. 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. 225 226

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

439

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 obligation 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 Bulgarian 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

Novakovic, Zakonik Stefana Du5ana, pp. 96, 122-3, 146. Institufiifeudale, pp. 517-8. 230 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 23 5o, 5s· 231 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 54; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 m Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 9• 233 Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 146. 234 Angelov, "Prikhodi", p. 403. 228 229

54•

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 elaborate 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 zhitarstvo as a tax paid to the state, and a major one at that? It should not

Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64. Biliarsky, 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. 235 236

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

441

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, turning 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 inkind supply of the above-mentioned products collected for the needs of the administration and the army. 244 In fact this position was maintained before her by D. Angelov, who practically equates nametak with some of the corvees related to the support of the administration, similar 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 charter 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 243 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123. 244 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 110, 134, 147, 160. 245 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 215. 246 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 609, 614, 620. 247 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 680. 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 abovementioned 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 provoke 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

Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 411 IV. Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 427, 455, 456, 767. 251 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 32· 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. 254 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 124. 24 g

250

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

443

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. Psomozemia 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. 257 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 540, 545, 566, 727, 791.

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 commanders. 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.

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 u· Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 117, 142. 260 Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 149. 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. 258 259

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

445

3.2.1.7 Obligations regarding combat animals and animals used for transportation 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 citation 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 vineyards 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' (= haymowing) 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 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 56· Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 12· 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. 262 263

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 furnishing 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 languagefdnar (from Latin foenarius). 270 The hay is of vital importance for stockbreeding and for farm production in general, but we are interested in its significance for the defence in connection with support of the cavalry. Therefore, I would like to note that the right of administration 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 representatives of the administration, the postal services or the army. Similar obligation existed also in Serbia: grain is mentioned in the chrysobull Novakovic, Zakonik Stefana Du5ana, p. 32 art. 34, pp. 55-6 art. 68, p. 188. I nstitufii feudale, p. 198. 270 DRH, ser. B, vol I, p. 110 No. 56; Institufiifeudale, p. 198. 271 DRH, ser. A, vol. I, p. 16 No. 11; DRH, ser. B, vol. I, p. 224 No. 131; Institutii feudale, pp. 56-7, 112. 272 I nstitufii feudale, p. 113. 273 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 32· 268

269

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

447

of king Milutin for the St. Stephen Monastery in Banjska. 274 Surely it existed also in the Empire, in Walachia and Moldavia, as well as all over Europe, and data from there is more detailed and not limited only to mention of the name of this duty. Another obligation of the population was to provide pasture for the service animals. The mentioning thereof in the Virgino chrysobull is not quite clear. It refers to a prohibition to pasture horses on church territories. 275 3.2.2. Transportation-related corvees

Transportation-related corvees were among the most significant inasmuch 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 formula 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 transportationrelated 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 connotation of the term. G. Ilinsky defines it as an obligation of the

274

Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 627.

275

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 18 91· Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 33· Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 11 •

276 277

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 awaynot 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 peasants 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 specialisation in the transportation of various materials, etc. 285 I suppose

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 124. Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 148. 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. 278

279

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

449

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. Reference 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 practice and not an exception. In the chrysobulls are cited also horses, donkeys, oxen, etc. The Virgino 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 corveeapparently for transportation. This citation is right before the mention of 'podvoda', which strengthens the impression that a transportationrelated obligation was meant. The Rila chrysobull says the following: " ... neither a man of his (of StJohn, of Rila Monastery) shall be taken

286 287 288

Institufii feudale, pp. 84-5, 366. Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 104· Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 33·

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 inherited 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 animals 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 fortresses 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

289 290 291 292

293 294

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 62-
TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

451

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 gradozidanie 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 undisputable 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 military 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 military 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

llinskij, Gramoty, p. 124. Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 160. 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. 295 296

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 regarding the existence of redemption in Bulgaria. It refers to the Empire and the Bulgarian tsar had intervened in favour of the Zographou Monastery. 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 countries. 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.

Troianos, KacrtpoK'nma, p. 49; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 111. 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. 302 303

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

453

3.2.3.2 Mostnina

(MOCT'AHHH~, from "most/uocrr"A" = "bridge") is an obligation of the population and there is no unanimous position on its substance 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. TsankovaPetkova 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 "yeupa./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

Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 16 3o• 19 103· Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 123. 309 Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 228. 310 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 162. 311 Ferrari della Spade, Immunitil, pp. 137-8; Dolger, Finanzverwaltung, p. 62; Karayannopoulos, Finanzwesen, p. 181; Oikonomides, Fiscalite, p. 109. 307 308

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/kastroktisia, 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 knowledge 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 compulsory 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 compulsory 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. 314 I nstitufii feudale, p. 366.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

455

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 detaining 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 designations 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; Snegarov, "Spahii-nemokhamedani", pp. 83-6; Cvetkova B., "Novye dannye o khristijanakhspakhijakh 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 Hercegovine, 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. 317 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 314-7.

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 traditions 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 popular 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-

Teodosije Hilandarec, Zitije svetoga Save, Belgrade, 1984, pp. 189-92. 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. 318 319

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

457

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

321 322 323 324

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

458

CHAPTER FIVE

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

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

459

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 countries, 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 obvious they were connected with service animals trained to take part in the hunt-rapacious birds and hunting dogs. Apparently, the population 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 population 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 obligation 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 reference 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 harvesting), 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

330 331

Bojanic-Lukic, Vidin i Vidinskija sandzhak, p. 178. Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 1o2·

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 importance 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 security 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.

NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, p. 616; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 322. 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. 333

334

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

4.

461

FISCAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURES

Terminology in this field has most strongly preserved the original Byzantine lexis. Some of the designations have been directly transcribed 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 animals 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 treasury. Record of vestiarios can be also found in Serbia where there is even a preserved portrait of one such official, the protovestiarios Constantine.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 destiny of Romanians, records on vestiars in Walachia and Moldavia are much more abundant. In addition, there is evidence about the service

Danailov, "Stranitsa iz darzhavnoto stopanstvo", p. 43. 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. 338

339

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. Koledarov 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 correspondence 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

342 343

I nstitufii feudale, p. 504. Supraslski ili Retkov sbornik, p. 120 25•

We find it in Serbia-see: NovakoviC, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 161, 199. 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 344

345

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

463

but I do not believe that in our case it entirely repeats this particular meaning. Indeed, at least in one of the two quotes, what we have is rather the meaning of "treasury". It should be related to the term tsarina mentioned in the same chrysobull.349 All this makes things quite vague, especially taking into account the specific character of the inauthentic 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 institution 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 connotation. 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 continued in Bulgarian state as well. It seems that in Serbia a cadastre had not been set up-at least according to the opinion of K. Jirecek. 354 In

victory of Klokotnitsa, was to appoint "soldiers, strategists and public tax (fuw,6cna !JlopoA.oyruJ.a'ta) collectors"-Acropolita Opera, I, p. 43. 349 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 15 14• 18 79, 93· 350 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 181oo• 25 2s· 351 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 353-4. 352 Illinskij, Gramoty, pp. 19 112, 25 31 ; Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 5 13• 353 Litavrin, Bolgarija-Vizantija, pp. 223-4. 354 Jirecek. Staat und Geselschaft, II, p. 67.

464

CHAPTER FIVE

Walachia and Moldavia there was a cadastre and it was drafted by special 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 acknowledged 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 interrelated, 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 reference 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. 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-tekstologichni 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, Institutsiite, pp. 370-2. 360 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 120. 361 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 40-1. 356

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

465

correspondence this official is related to the apodochia and to keeping 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 provintsialnoto upravlenie", pp. 26-7. 363 Andreev, "Traits specifiques du systeme fiscal", p. 90. 364 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 108, 114 note 179. 365 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63.

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 Cantacuzene, 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 highranking person of the metropolitan nobility, but the text does not provide 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 archetype. 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, Institutsiite, pp. 163-4. 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.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

467

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 highnecked garment with pearl buttons in front and on the sleeves, a metalplated 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

370 371 372 373

374 375

376 377

Guilland, "Protovestiaire", p. 205. Guilland, "Protovestiaire", p. 220. Verpeaux, Pseudo Kodinos, p. 153. Kovacevic, Srednevekovna no5nja balkanskih slovena, pp. 58-9. Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", p. 261. Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 97, 174-5, 198, 200, 213, 236, 601. Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 158 77• Novakovic, "Vizantijski cinovi i titule", pp. 262-3. 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 praefectus.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 delivery 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 reporting 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,

Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, p. 218. Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, p. 218. 380 DRH, ser. A vol I, No. 10, p. 14; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, p. 223. 381 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. 383 Grigora~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 271-3; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 219-20; Georgescu, Strihan, Judecata domnpeasca, pp. 134-5; Institufii .feudale, pp. 502-3; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 158-9. 384 Grigora~. Institufii feudale din Moldova, pp. 271-2; Stoicescu, Sfatul domnesc, pp. 221-2, 226; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 159. 378 379

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

469

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 reminiscent of the protovestiarios. Among the personal attendants of the sultan 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 neighbouring countries, and before all, its closest neighbours Serbia, Walachia and Moldavia, the institution of the protovestiarios preserved the functions it clearly had in the Byzantine Empire. Moreover, it was considerably better defined and more closely related to the fisc and management 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 imperial 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 responsibility for the ruler's treasury and its revenues and expenditures. The source records we have available allow us to maintain only this assertion. 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 Government 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 administration 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 fiscal 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 Byzantine 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 wideranging 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 completely 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.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

471

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 competences 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 Bulgarian 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 Bulgarian 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, obviously, 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

Litavrin, Bolgarija-Vizantija, pp. 222-3. 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. 399 Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 102-3. 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 • 394

395

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 particular details about his office. This fact, as well as the difficulty involved in making a comparison with the Byzantine administrative system, complicates the process of defining the institution. Nonetheless, K. Jireeek and G. Ilinsky defined the apodochator as part of the fiscal administration.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

402

Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 609, 620. Ireeek, Istorija na bulgarite, p. 445; Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 120. Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 40-1. Dujcev, SBK, II, p. 323.

403 404 405 406 407

14;

Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 193

Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, pp. 153-4. Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 370-2.

14 •

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

473

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 transliteration 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

Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 54 ; Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 29 9• Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64. 410 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 680. 411 DRH, ser. B, vol. I, No. 31, pp. 223-4; Dicfionar elementelor romane~ti, p. 173; Institufii feudale, pp. 355, 359. 408

409

474

CHAPTER FIVE

cannot be claimed, as it refers to a later age and to a much more developed 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 reference to an official in charge of the taxation of commercial goods. Probably the perperaks had definite authority within the fiscal services. 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.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

475

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 collecting 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 profile 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 responsible, 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. References to them can be also found in Serbian mediaeval documents. 417 It is interesting that in all three cases of mentioning this type of desetkars 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 evidence 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 Vitosha 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 combined 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 concentrated 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 production) 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,

I nstitufli feudale, p. 149. llinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 100, 25 29 , 27 55 , 29 10; Dujeev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 55. 420 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 407, 411, 614. 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· 423 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 407, 411, 467, 614, 767. 424 I nstitufii feudale, p. 149. 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, 418 419

No. 99, p. 63. 426 On the Romanian principalities, see Institufii feudale, pp. 11, 295-6.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

477

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 mentioned, such as great and small, corn, wine. There is no evidence of profiled officials in charge of these. It is quite interesting that all desetkars 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 assertion 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 exposition 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

428

Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 25 3o, 27 s:t. Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 368-70.

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 conquest 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 general. 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

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 18 1oo· 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 429

430

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. 432 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 411, 614, 620, 671, 680.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

479

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 onomatopoeic 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 organisation 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 indicated 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 mention 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

Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 375. 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• 438 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 411, 614, 620, 671, 680. 433

434

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 protoierakarios, 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 obviously created problems for the people and possessions of the monastery, 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.

° Cvetkova, "Sokolarstvoto", pp. 66-7.

44

441

Blliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 374-9.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

481

ters. 442 The quote in the first of the listed documents is questionable because it is a supplement made by M. Lascaris; for his part, M. Andreev suggested another reading. 443 The term is found in different 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 especially, 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 accompanied the ruler at war as well. They also performed the obligations of guards of the sultan and we might say that these were people of his close entourage. Unfortunately, we do not have any evidence on imperial hunt services in Tolrnovo and our interest should be focused on the provincial officials. Earlier in the exposition I already discussed records on hunting corvees and some kind of taxation on dogs, which probably comprised taxation on hunting. I think the special features of the psar's service should be identified and studied mainly along this line.

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

482

CHAPTER FIVE

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

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

447 448

449 450

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27

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

54·

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

483

in my book devoted to institutions.451 In my present view, the zhitar would be an official in charge of supplies, requisitions or obligatory buy-up of corn for the needs of the state and the army. This interpretation is a result of relating the institution with that of zhitarstvo. Due to the delicate nature of the series of assumptions we have to accept, we need to look for their verification in the fiscal systems of neighbouring countries. We find records on corn tithe in Serbian documents,452 but their identity with corn-trade has been rejected. Of greater interest are records from Walachia and Moldavia where we find two services with similar names-jitnicer and jitar. The jitnicer is a typically Moldavian institution,453 which we meet for the first time in 1558 r. in the inscription of "Carstea, jitnicer of Suceava". 454 In the 16th century it was still among the so-called category of sluga-i.e. underservants-and it occupied a higher position in the 17th century, when Dimitrie Cantemir ranked it 7th in the Divan (Council) of the ruler, a fact that gives reason to include it among the court dignitaries holding positions in the central state administration. His responsibilities were related mainly to the provision, storage and distribution of grain. He was assisted in his duties by second and third jitnicer and by camara$ and diac of the granary. 455 In Walachia this service appeared later, evidently under Moldavian influence, and did not last long. The Moldavian jitnicer was a higher official in the central administration and cannot in any way be compared with the Bulgarian zhitar, who was minor provincial official. Probably in any case their service was some kind of similar care for the granary, but as regards corntrade we cannot say anything. The difference in this case is clear: it is either taking care for provision of grain to the court, or possibly taking care for some kind of indispensble deliveries. It is interesting that Evliya <;: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

Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 361 ff. Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 467, 614, 680, 767. 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. 451

452

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 obligation having the nature of an indispensable delivery; by this definition 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, reference 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 special 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 countries 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

I nstitufii feudale, pp. 255-6. 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· 460 Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 364-6. 461 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, pp. 614, 620. 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. 456

457

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

485

revenue. 465 Moreover, wine has always been an important part of people'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 provision 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 institution 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

465 466 467 468 469 470 471

Institufii feudale, p. 502. Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 364-6. Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 27 56 , 29 12; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 56• Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 366-8. Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 16 41• 17 63,69• 25 22.24• 27 47· Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 19 1o2· 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 activities 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 benefited 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 "apokrisiarios", designating the same institution.478 Nahodnik is mentioned

m Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 65; Blliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 368. 473 I nstitufii feudale, pp. 112-3. 474 Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 29· 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.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

487

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 similar 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, accommodation 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~
479 llinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 57; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 57; Biliarsky, I nstitutsiite, pp. 392-393. 480 Laskaris, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 38; Dujcev, SBK, II, pp. 322, 348; Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota, p. 153; Koev T., "Die Institution der Apokrisiarioi", Etudes balkaniques, 1978, 4, pp. 57-61; Andreev, Angelov, Istorija, p. 153; Andreev, "Sluzhbite na provintsialnoto upravlenie", p. 12, Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 64. 481 Novakovic, Zakonski spomenici, p. 680. 482 Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 25 29, 57 5?: Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 57· 483 Ireeek, Istorija, p. 446; Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 121; Slovnik jezyka staroslovenskho, VIII, p. 430. 484 Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 63, Biliarsky, Institutsiite, p. 382.

488

CHAPTER FIVE

low in the hierarchy, and in charge of some specific tasks, but he was not responsible for the overall organisation of this obligation.

4.6.3.2 Other officials responsible for building corvees were the so-called varnichi (&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 document. 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 participated 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 interpretation and will focus only on the categories having a certain degree of dependency or benefits from the exemptions granted to the landowner, 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"

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 27 57; Dujcev, Rilskata gramota, p. 52 57. Biliarsky, "Trois institutions meconnues", pp. 102-3; Biliarsky, Institutsiite, pp. 384-5. 485 486

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

489

5.1 The term f~&rz.. (slave) has quite a few meanings in Bulgarian mediaeval 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 "subordinate", "dependent", which, in turn, lexically repeats the historical development of slavery which originated from the placing of individual 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 workers 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 consequently has become an issue of particular interest to Marxist historians. 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

492 493

494

Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenlja, pp. 72-3. Ilinskij, Gramoty, pp. 18 77, 78, 25 23· Ivanov, BSM, p. 415. Solovjev, Mo8in, Grtke povelje srpskih vladara, p. 475.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

491

D. Angelov discussed otroks in his research published in 1958:~95 He made an overview of the presence of otroks in documents from Serbia 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 "feudal 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 dependent 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 tendency 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 "childsubordinate" and "slave". 501 The latter meaning seems to have formed

Angelov, Agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 108-13. 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. 498 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 75. 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. 495 496

492

CHAPTER FIVE

the name given to this category of dependent population. This dependence, 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 douloparoikoi and douleutes. 503 As I already noted, my argument their similar and obviously lower position than that of the paroikoi and the connotation 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 dependants. 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 population called otroks and offers a further confirmation of the transplantation (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 documents 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

Novakovic, Zakonik Stejana Dusana, art. 46. 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. 502 503

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

493

a major category of dependent population. These were people from villages, who possessed land of their own and who became dependent 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 cultivate 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 corresponds 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 different from hired labourers (H~HUHH~'ll.), who worked on someone else's

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 16 39, 50-51· Tsankova-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. 506

507

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 (HAeme

ll.ij.IG

(rre_xHHTAfb.) Clf\T'll.

HAH

is mentioned only in the Mraka chrysobull 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 difference 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 "feudal lord". 513 D. Angelov wrote several times about this category of population. 514 He practically did no more than to underline the importance of artisans for the monastery farm, and, as far as the technitars' status and characteristics are concerned, he stated they were dependent 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 widespread. We find it in a document, dating from 1330, about the monastery 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,

Ilinskij, Gramoty, p. 25 23· 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. sll

SI2

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

495

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 succeeding 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 usually 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 Bulgaria, 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 historiography, 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 communities 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 country, and there was a comparatively orderly organisation of artisans, the existence of which in mediaeval times cannot be simply claimed without 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 promises 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 Cosmas 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) usually attending to cattle for pay. 520 G. Tsankova-Petkova defines them as tenant farmers. 521 However, both authors agree on one thing: they define the Slavic word H~HMI:.HHI~rz. as corresponding to the Greek j..Ltcr9CO't6c;. Here I could add that the above-mentioned Slavic word Mb.W has the same

518 Milev Al., Grittskite zhitija na Kliment Okhridski, Sofia, 1966, p. 136; Begunov, Kozma prezviter, p. 388. 519 Lishev, Za genezisa na feodalizma, p. 177. 520 Istorija na Bulgarija, t II, p. 362. 521 Tsankova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, pp. 148, 177.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

497

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 Bulgaria 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 derivative 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 protected, 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 !
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 reservations 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 substantiated. 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 borrowed from Greek and were then incorporated into the Slavic language, which was Bulgaria's official language. Others were loan translations

528 Lishev, Za genezisa na feodalizma, pp. 145 ff., 171 tf.; Tsank.ova-Petkova, Za agrarnite otnoshenija, p. 90 and note 53, pp. 94, 95, 105, 136; Istorija na Bulgarija, t. II, p. 360 ff.

TAXATION AND FISCAL LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS

499

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 Orthodox 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 previously 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 establishment 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 element 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 consideration 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 essentially 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 administrations, 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 coincide with the earthly ecclesiastic organisation, with the hierarchy in the visible world, with the administration and all the human elements

2

3 4

Mila.S, Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, p. 227. Mila.S, Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, pp. 228-32. 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 organisation 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 Universal 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 (territorial 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 organisation, 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 countries 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 autocephalous 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 government. 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 administration,although it was integrated in what we maygenerallycall the political

Mila.S, Pravoslavno tsarkovno pravo, p. 661 ff. Nikolova B., Neravnijatpi1 t na priznan ieto. Kanonichnoto polozhenie na bulgarska ta tarkva prez Srednovekovieto, Sofia, 2001, p. 75 ff. 6

7

GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL VOCABULARY

505

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 priesthood 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 incorporate 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 institution 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 On these issues, see: Biliarsky, Hierarchia. L'ordre sacre, pp. 52-61. 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. 8

9

506

CHAPTER SIX

relations; in this way, law becomes something eternal, unchanging, 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 allencompassing and direct legal effect as it does for the Jews and Muslims; 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 established 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 ecclesiastic 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 ecumenical 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 regulate 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 14 Milas, Pravoslavno 15 Milas, Pravoslavno 16 Mila8, Pravoslavno 17 Mila8, Pravoslavno

tstlrkovno pravo, pp. tsiirkovno pravo, pp. tsiirkovno pravo, pp. tstlrkovno pravo, pp. tstlrkovno pravo, pp.

39-44. 44-6. 49-53. 47-9. 54-8.

GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL VOCABULARY

507

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 ecclesiastic 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 organisation; 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 ofTurkicMongol 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 contrary, about thirty terms and words are of Slavic origin, and fourteen are Latin. I believe this proportion is due to the non-representative nature of the sample, which, for its part, is due to the choice of texts on which the glossary is based.

2.3 The same can be said about a group of words that are liturgical terms with a legally relevant quality. There are about ten of these in the

GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL VOCABULARY

509

glossary, of which two are Greek and two are translated from Greek originals. The Slavic words are five in number and the Latin are two. Having in mind the enormous influence of Constantinople on Slavic liturgy and the fact that practically all liturgical texts were translated from Greek, this proportion can be explained only by the choice of sources from which the glossary was built. There are no liturgical sources among them. 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, organisations, ritual, law, etc., determines the nature of the terminology used; these terms find a place-at least partially-in the documents of rulers. 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 liturgical texts accomplished in Great Moravia or in Preslav, literally followed 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 similar 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 archetype. The other twelve words are either designations of various episcopal 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.

GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL VOCABULARY

511

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 Patriarchate 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 culture 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 designations 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 influence 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 comparatively 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 disciplinary 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

Nlkolova. Neravnijat pat na priznanieto, p. 17 ff. 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. 20 21

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 predominance 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 translated 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 designations 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

GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL VOCABULARY

513

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: parvoprestolen (= first-throne), from the Greek 'protothronos', and one word of Italian origin: post (an office position), which we cannot consider 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 explanation 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 development. 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. Bulgarian 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 construction 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 monasteries 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 second cited word would be a calque of the term iepo~6vaxo~, to which it fully corresponds in structure and meaning. The theme of 'wilderness' provokes justifiable interest, for it reveals one of the characteristic 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.

GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL VOCABULARY

515

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 struggle 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 interesting 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 essentially 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. However, there is one other important point: in fact, the Byzantine influence 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 institution 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 civilisation, 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 vocabulary 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 substitute 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, Instoduction 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 juridical 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 stabilise 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 history 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 uncertain 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 concludes that the language of the translator St. Methodius, archbishop of Pannonia, is recognisable and that his language and norms belong to

6

7

Ivanov, Toporov, "0 jazyke drevnego slavjanskogo prava", pp. 221-2. Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, p. 29.

520

CONCLUSION

the classical Palaeoslavic sources. 8 I would like to draw special attention 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 nomination 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 different 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. Bulgaria 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 9

Tsibranska-Kostova, Formirane i razvitie, pp. 110-3. 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 vocabulary 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 steadfastly 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 (=18571858).

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), Monachii 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 slavistiche, 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 (=Forschungen 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 mezhdunaroden 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 srednovekovna sarbija spored gramotite na bulgarskite i srabskite vladeteli ot XIIIXIV 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, Miinchen, 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 publichnopravna 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 Veroffentlichungen 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, starobulgarskoto >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 bulgarska 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 srednovekovnata 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 administrativno 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, Organizareajudeciitoreasca, 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 Terminology, 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 eunuques (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", Byzantinoslavica, 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 Bollandiana, 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 Kulturgeschichte 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 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. - , "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 letopisjakh. 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 Magnificent, Cambridge, 1913. Magdalino P., "The Not-so-secret Function of the Mystokos", Revue des etudes byzantines, 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 Scienciarum 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 Bulgarischen 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. Filosofskoistoricheski 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 srednjega veka, Srpska Kraljevska Akademija. Posebna izdanja, CXX, Belgrade, 1937, VIII+l49 p. Radoslavov Tsv., "Titlite na bulgarskite vladeteli", Izvestija na bulgarskija arkheologicheski institut, V, 1928/1929, pp. 159-186. Rajkova M., "Sur Ia terminologie juridique medrevale", Revue des etudes sud-est europeennes, 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. Mikloshichu, 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 pamjatnikam, 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 '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 Abraham 234 accusator 81 accuser 81, 154 acolyte 60 Ac~ 293, 300,444a 261 Adriatic 9, 41, 188, 467, 512 adulterer 126 adulterium 126 adultero 126 adultery 90, 126, 139-140, 156, 166 adversarius 143 aedificare 75 aedifitio 75 Aegean Sea 374 aerikon 410-411 aes 411 Africa 363, 515 aga 385 agazonum et stabuli praefectus 338 agazonum magister alias co miss 338 ager 100 aktemonitikion 416, 492 alagator 378-380, 455 alagion 378 Albania 188-189, 322 Albanian 39, 92, 114, 118-119, 144, 171, 177, 188-189, 199, 360, 467 Alexander, sebastocrator 279, 281, 298, 302 Alexander eel Bun/Alexander the Good (prince of Moldavia) 323, 468 Alexander the Great 238, 239 Alexandria 108, 238, 239, 504 Alexandrine Library 243 Alexias 295, 300, 309 Alexis, sebastos from Stenimachos 312 Alexis I Comnenos, emperor 276, 295-296, 300, 303, 306, 309, 326, 342, 356 Alexis III Angelos, emperor 296 Alexis Slav, despot 24, 54, 104, 149, 151, 229, 279-282, 292, 294, 334, 407, 433 Ali <;a~ from Sofia 458 aliegena 78 all-faithful 217

Altar 170 Anastasius Bibliothecarius 349 Anatolia 270 Ancestor-Creator 187, 200 anchorite 128 Andrew Palaeologos 290 Andronikos I Comnenos, emperor 424 Andronikos II Palaeologos, emperor 424 Andronikos III Palaeologos, emperor 424,456 angel 519 Anglo-Sax 101, 110, 117, 138, 162, 172, 174 ango 154 Anna Comnena 295,297, 300,309 anointed 86, 114-115, 223 anointment 114, 223 Anonymous Homily 12, 18, 47, 197 Ansbertus 370 Antioch, town 504 Antiquity 10, 187 a 5, 250, 275, 315, 497, 504, 518 aplekton 436, 437 apocryphon 350 apodochator 27, 461, 464-465, 471-472 apodochia 412, 464-465, 472 apokrisiarios 486 apostle 227, 337, 502 apostolic 362, 502, 521 applicatum 122, 436 Arabic 149, 495-496 Aramaic 145 Arbanashka 360 Archangel Gabriel 191 Archangel Michael 29 archbishop 28, 510 archbishopric 83 Archbishopric ofOchrid 395,414 Archiereus 28 archont 272 archypresbyter 125 argentum 142 ariko 409-411 aristocracy 29, 38, 152, 193, 205, 250, 258,262,295,304-305,319,368-369 Ark of the Covenant 255

540

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Armenian 52, 68, 88, 118, 145, 159, 362

armophylax 354 army 40, 42, 45, 68, 75, 84, 87, 92, 95, 111-112, 122, 139, 157, 176, 181,221, 253, 261, 263, 355, 361, 362-363, 373, 378,385-386,434-435,437,440-441, 443, 445-447, 450, 454, 478, 483, 485-486 arpa emini 483 art 3, 144, 201, 232 n. 49, 236, 240, 260,495 artisan(s) 144, 494-496 a~p 486 Asenide(s) (or Asen) dynasty 220-222, 280,282,398,471 Asenovgrade 22 Ashina 259 Asia Minor 122, 142, 252 n 95, 372, 374, 384-385, 437 n. 224 asomatic 502 Asparukh,khan 186,395 assembly 40-41, 179, 251-259, 394 Assyro-Babylonian 145 asylum 121, 145, 162, 173, 179 Athonite 229 atmanct 458, 480 augustus 135, 303, 308 autocephalous 504, 511 autocrat 133, 214, 236, 288 autocrator 133, 295 auxiliator 115, 117 Avar(s) 88, 366, 368 Avestan 32, 41, 46, 50-51, 58, 61, 65, 68, 71, 73-74, 76, 85, 92, 94, 99, 113, 117, 134, 136-137, 140, 149, 152-153, 158-159, 162, 166-168, 172-173, 180

bagain 29, 265, 270 bagatur 351-352 bagh 29

bagrenitsa 225-226 bagrenoroden 226 bajan 29,31

balabanct 458, 480 Balkan Peninsula 69, 189, 265, 362, 454,476

Balkan(s)

1, 5, 9, 31, 87, 112, 116, 128, 145, 150, 165, 171, 188, 218, 265, 278, 287, 290, 293-294, 297, 311, 317, 323, 332, 334, 336, 340, 343-344, 347, 355, 362, 362 n. 277, 363, 365, 379, 382, 384-385, 387-388, 395, 404, 407, 409, 435, 435 n. 217, 446, 452, 455-456,

459,462,468-467,474,479,484,490, 495, 512 BalSa III 356 Baltic 73, 75, 141-142, 368 ban 48, 198, 265, 270, 343, 348, 463 Banja 423 Banjska 447 Banjska Monastery 429 banner 148,225-227,352 Baptism 86, 257 barbarian 40, 183, 193, 208, 213, 363 ba~ defterdar 324 Basll, archbishop 339 Basll II Bulgaroctonos 83, 395, 211, 414, 493, 499 Basll Lupu, prince of Moldavia 386 Basileuousa Polis 237, 456 basileus 102, 116, 133, 135, 195, 203, 212-214,221,223-224,226-227, 245,262-263,276-277,280,282-283, 286-287,289,290,293,295-300, 306-307, 309, 313, 317, 321, 324, 326-327, 330, 332, 337, 340, 342, 346, 348-349, 354-355, 361, 368, 378, 382, 414, 439, 466, 505 Batoshevo 22 Bavarian 85, 128, 366 bazdar 458 baya 29 beatus 123, 127 bee-keeper 129, 476 beg- 29, 85, 265 beglerbeg 480 Bela-Alexis 276 Belaour 233 bellatores 250 bellum 132 Benjamin 255 Berislav, sebastos 24, 312 bestia 461 Bethlehem 219 Bible 197-198, 200, 202, 232, 236-238, 243, 246, 519 biblical 151, 190 n 9, 211,213, 233-234, 237-238, 241-242,244, 246, 249,255 bicephalous eagle 289 bir 400 birk 399-400, 477 bishopric 66-67, 125 bishop(s) 29, 37, 44, 64, 66-67, 76, 93, 108, 195, 225, 275, 365, 498, 503, 507, 510-511, 514 Bitolja, town 19, 215

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Black Sea 228, 294 blood revenge 188-189 Bogdan. zhupan 371 bogomil 64, 512 bolla 38, 152-153, 362 bolla kaukhan 153, 362

Bojana, village 22, 280, 301-302 boliar/in/ 265, 270 boliarka 265

Booty 89, 166, 169, 171-172 Boril, tsar 226, 302 Boris-Michael, khan 192, 194, 209-211, 236, 253, 258

Bosnia 254, 333, 342, 348, 511 Bosnian 65, 318, 322, 331, 348, 467, 511

IL

24

Bosphorus 250, 456 Botevgrade, town 24 Boyar(s) 38, 192-193, 242, 246, 249-250, 280, 283, 311-312, 323-324, 344, 369, 371, 468, 482 Bozhenishki Urvich 24, 268 IL 8, 310, 371 Bozhenitsa, village 310-311, 371 brani~tari 338, 446, 486 B~ov (Kronstadt), town 10, 18, 69, 107, 116, 147, 230, 264, 266-267, 370, 476 IL 425 bread 68,148,442-443,446 brod 429 brodarina 430 brodina 430 brodnina 397, 429-431, 453 brudina 39, 430 Bucak (or Budjak) 386 Budget Act 394 Bulgar(s) 1, 3, 29-31, 33, 38, 60, 88, 109, 133, 152-153, 186, 193, 207-208, 210-211, 218, 221, 231, 265-267, 274, 305, 312, 328-329, 333-334, 350, 352-354, 362-363, 365-367, 369, 385, 390-391, 395, 400, 414 Bulgaria 1-4, 7, 9-11, 18, 41, 59, 66, 69, 74, 80, 83, 89, 92, 109, 135-136, 139, 147-148, 187, 200-203, 205-212, 214-218,220-225,227-230,233-234, 236, 238-239, 242, 247-248, 250-255, 257-260,263-268,272,274-275, 277-286,289-290,292-295,297-299, 302-306, 308-312, 314-317, 319-328, 332-333, 334 IL 191, 336, 338-340, 344, 346-348, 351 n. 245, 352-362, 365-370, 373-377, 381-383, 386, 389,

541

390,395,398,400,402,404-408, 410-416, 418, 420, 424-427, 432-433, 435-436,440,442,444,446,449, 450-452, 454-456, 461-466, 469, 471, 475,478,480,484-486,489,491-492, 494-499, 504, 509, 511, 513-514, 516-521 Bulgarian(s) 1-13, 26, 28-33, 38, 40-41, 45, 48-50, 52, 55, 62-63, 69, 73-74, 76, 80-81, 83, 85, 87-88, 102, 107, 123-125, 128, 136, 141, 147, 149, 152, 155, 164, 166, 183 IL 1, 185-186, 192, 193-194, 201-203, 207-212, 214-216, 219, 226-233, 235-241, 243-244,247-256,260-262,264-275, 279-285,287,291-294,297-298, 300-302, 305-306, 308, 310-315, 317, 319-325, 327-330, 332-334, 336-338, 341, 344-347, 349-359, 361-365, 367-379, 381-392, 393 IL 3, 395-398, 400-404,406-409,411-414,415 IL 114, 417-420, 424, 425 n. 174, 426-427, 432,434,436,438-444,448-450,452, 456, 459-460, 462-463, 466, 470-471, 473-476,478-481,483,486,489-490, 492, 495, 498-499, 507-508, 510-511, 513-517, 520-521 bulla aurea 137, 149, 228-229 biirger 70, 128, 147, 266, 366 n. 290 Busmantsi, village 371 byre 29 Byzantine 2-3, 5, 9, 36, 42, 62-63, 66, 88, 92, 106-107, 124, 132, 135, 144, 148, 161, 166, 195, 200-203, 208-212, 214-226, 230, 232, 234, 236, 239-240, 247,250,260,262,264-265,267-269, 274-275,277-282,284-287,289-303, 305-311, 313-314, 318-337, 339-340, 342-349, 351, 353-360, 362-363, 369, 372-378, 380-383, 389, 390-392, 395-399, 404, 407-409, 410, 412-416, 418, 422, 424-425, 427, 429-430, 433, 435-436,439-442,444,448,450-454, 456-458,461-463,466-473,476, 479-481, 484, 486, 492-493, 498-499, 505, 508-509, 511-514, 516, 519, 520-521 Byzantine Commonwealth 3, 201, 208, 214, 217, 232, 262, 398, 516, 520 Byzantine Empire 2-3, 66, 92, 107, 148, 195,212, 218, 221, 224-225, 240 IL 62,262,264,274-275, 278, 280, 291, 294, 298, 301, 306, 308, 310-311,

542

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

314, 325-326, 330, 332-334, 336-337, 339-340,342,344-345,347,353-354, 356-357,359,363,372-375,377-37~

380, 382-383, 390-391, 395, 39~ 412, 414, 422 n. 154, 433, 450, 463,469, 479, 484, 498, 505, 50~ 513, 520 Byzantium 55, 83, 92, 113, 213, 217, 263, 383, 385, 415, 443, 448 11. 284, 461, 467, 470, 490, 514 cadastre 50, 110, 130, 425 nn. 174, 176,463-464,471 caesar 58, 150, 192, 211, 268, 275, 277, 281, 295, 298-299, 302-305, 307, 319 Caius Julius Caesar 302 faktrct 458, 480 faktrctba~t 480 cmra~i, town 19 calu~ar 387 calva 52 camara~ 324, 469, 483 camerae praefectus 323, 468 canon 34-36, 77-78, 80, 99, 114, 120, 126, 138, 162, 171, 503 canon law 13, 32, 34-35, 64, 67, 76, 83, 89, 90, 93, 104, 113, 140, 162, 503-508 Cantacuzene, Byzantine family 296 canton 80 capital 38, 129, 150, 218, 227, 237, 250, 260 11. 127, 270, 282, 312, 314, 327, 336-337, 339, 342, 344, 349, 367, 381, 383, 456, 458-459, 476 capitaneus 375-376 capitano 375 n. 329, 376 capitanus 375-376 captain 376, 381, 389 captive 162, 164, 171 caput 375 career 145 Carstea, jitnicer of Suceava 483 castellum 80 castle 80, 164, 265 castrum 55-56, 80, 86 casula 84 ca tastifi I ca tastihi 464 Catholic 502, 504 altun 80 Caucasian 109, 228 Caucasus 316 caulae 84 causidicus 125 cavalry 27, 83-84, 139, 142, 355, 378, 380-383,386,445-446,455,485 faVU~ 270, 385

Celestial Turks 258 cella 80, 357 Celtic 137, 144 Cenobitic 103 centurio 378 ceremony 289-291, 298-299, 327-328 chancellery 56,60,89, 227 chancellor 148, 342, 344 chancery 270, 291, 293, 317, 337, 339-341,343-344,345-348 Chantak, village 9 charagma 415 charge(s) 394, 396, 401, 418-420, 426-428,454 Charlemagne, king and emperor 85, 213-214 chartophylax 147-148 chelnik 363-365, 462 chelnik of the treasury 364 chergubylia 21, 265, 270 chergubylstvo 265 chertog 207, 312 cherubim 502 Cherven, town 22, 25 chetkat 349 chieftain 45, 188 Chigochin 350 chigot 274, 349-353 Chilandari monastery 448 chin 271 Chinese 148 Chiprovtsi, town 495 chiton 316 chlamys 316 chora 101, 148, 271, 359, 360 Christian 2-3, 98, 170-171, 190, 192-196, 199-201, 206, 208, 232, 234-235,238-241,243-244,256,260 n. 127, 332, 362 n. 277, 369, 371, 379, 385, 455, 501-502, 504 Christianity 1, 3, 112, 134, 191-192, 194, 197, 201, 203, 208-210, 212, 221, 223, 239-241, 243, 251, 253, 265, 390, 396, 501, 504, 509, 516 christus 86 Chronicle of Ioannina 278 Chronicle of Morea 278 chrysobull(s) 9-10, 19, 26, 74, 87, 90, 98, 103-104, 228-229, 293, 310-311, 325-326, 342-343, 370-371, 373, 375-378, 380-384, 386-387, 389, 399, 401-403, 405, 408-410, 412, 414-415, 417,419-420,422-431,433-434,436, 438-450, 452-453, 459-460, 462-463,

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

470-471,472-478,482,484-488,490, 492, 494, 497 chrysobullon sigillion 229 chrysobullos horismos 229 Chsounos 367 Church 25, 27, 29, 50, 65, 67, 86, 115, 118, 124, 144, 148, 152, 161, 166, 180-181, 235, 237, 240, 243, 314, 337, 399-400, 421 n. 152, 447, 498, 501-511, 51~ 516, 520 chvanchi 274 fiftlrk 45, 73, 407 city 35, 40-41, 55-56, 69, 95, 116, 125, 128, 145, 147, 150, 164, 218, 227, 237, 254, 264, 266-267, 307, 312, 327, 336, 345, 365, 370-373, 383-384, 388, 451, 478, 495, 511 civil law 36, 47, 71, 78, 122, 142, 504 clan 40, 82, 96, 110, 132, 164, 188, 218, 222, 259, 388 clausura 81 clergy 99, 115-116, 123, 134, 497-498, 509-510, 512-513, 515 clirics 493, 498 Codex Clozianus 12, 18, 197 Codex Suprasliensis 30, 41, 62, 64, 81, 133, 139, 211, 226, 254, 256, 325, 368, 462 coin(s) 11-12, 25-26, 74, 82, 109, 142, 177, 203, 276, 285, 293, 294, 411, 414-415, 416 n. 118, 473 coliba~ 108 coloni censiti 493 colophon 26 comes 27, 30, 43, 58, 80, 83, 85, 89, 102, 107-108, 110, 128, 157, 164, 191, 194-195, 201, 211, 225, 275, 303, 306, 315, 318, 321, 325, 329, 336-339, 341, 354, 364-366, 371, 373-374, 378, 380-382, 387-388, 401, 411, 414, 416, 461,470,475-476,478,482,487, 489-490,492,495,518 comes ofthe/imperial/stables 336-337 comes sacrae vestis 321 comes with horses 380-381 comestabulus 266, 336, 338-339 Comitopouloi 221, 414 comis 446 comiiel 381 commander 29,40,45-46,52, 55, 59, 69, 80, 147, 239 n. 60, 297, 356, 357, 362-363, 366, 368-369, 372-373, 379, 381, 385

543

commater 165 commercium 86, 419 Commune

102-103, 147

communico 84 Comnenos dynasty 295, 306, 375 Comnenos, Hadrian 306 Comnenos, Isaac 295, 309 Composed Zographou Chyrosobull 312 condemnation 56, 105, 133 confugere 121 coniux 141 Conon de Bethune, crusader 296 consanguineus 154 consecration 49, 104 Constantine the Great, emperor 30, 44, 226,237,239-240,275,303 Constantine V Copronymus, emperor 252, 349, 354 Constantine VII Prophyrogennetus, emperor 31, 71, 250, 361, 368 Constantine IX Monomachos, emperor 309 Constantine Tich Asen, tsar 7-9, 19, 25, 222, 248, 282-283, 310 Constantine Ceroularios, patriarch 309 Constantine, despot 279, 284-289, 294 Constantine, protovestiarios 461 Constantine Kostenechki 374 Constantine Mannasses, chronicler 30, 210, 226, 232, 236-237, 245, 249, 257 Constantine Palaeologos, sebastocrator 296 Constantine ~erban, prince ofWalachia 385 Constantinople I, 38, 139, 195, 203, 206, 208, 212, 216-218, 221-223, 226-228, 230, 237, 239, 250-252, 260,262,264,270,274,276-277, 279-280,282-285,287,290-291, 294-296, 298-299, 301, 307, 313-314, 316, 320, 324, 327, 329, 330, 332, 334-335, 337-338, 340, 345, 347, 354-356, 375, 382, 383, 390, 395, 398, 454, 456, 466, 479, 499, 501, 504, 509, 511-514, 520 Constantinopolitan synaxarium 259 constitutio 146 constitution(s) 146, 190 n. 9, 203, 205, 507 constitutional 187, 205 consuetus 103 consularius 248 continere 140

544

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

contostablos 306 contract(s) 57, 68, 71, 81-82, 91-92, 103, 166

contributor

57 convent 252,412 coquus 111 cornu 132 corona 225 Corpus Christi 502 Cortes 393 corvee(s) 35, 40, 53, 55, 66, 75, 84, 94, 108, 112-113, 130, 142, 145,261, 339, 384, 393, 396, 402, 410, 419, 421, 423, 425, 428-429, 432, 433 n 208, 434,436,438,440-443,445-451, 453-455,457,459-460,477-482,485, 487-488 Cosmas the Presbyter 12, 19, 41, 47-48,155,496 Costin, Miron, chronicler 386 Council 37, 50, 71, 115, 128, 140, 178, 210, 226, 248-251, 252 n 95, 254-256, 323, 339, 343, 358, 468, 483, 501, 503, 507, 510 court 58, 66, 122, 129, 143, 178-179, 230, 232, 254, 261-263, 269-270, 276-277,281-282,284,286,291,295, 297-298,307,310,312-318,320-324, 326-336, 339, 346-347, 352, 354, 358, 381-383, 391, 401, 432, 446, 455-457, 466,469,476,479-480,483 craft 144, 495 craftsmen 491, 493-495 creator 75, 140, 187, 200, 223 Credo 501 crime 56, 85, 127, 157, 159, 173, 188, 196 Crimea 156, 386 Crimean 220 Croatia 481 Croatian 107,347,368 crown 37, 51-52, 60, 223, 225, 227, 283,285-289,300-301 Crown giver 223 Crusaders 276, 370 cucinae praejectus 336 Cultural Hero 187, 200 Cumans 136, 385 cum mater 87 cup-bearer 66, 274, 328-330, 332-333 cura 115, 315 curae palatiorum 316 cura palatii 315 curare 315

curopalates

269, 270, 304-305,

314-320

custom(s)

I, 86, 126, 150, 185, 187-188, 194, 198-199, 313, 352, 415, 417-420, 425, 430, 506, 518 Customary 103 customary law 185, 188, 198 Cyril, saint 194-195, 201-202, 303, 362, 521 Cyril, metropolitan of Kiev 293 Cyrillic 21, 202, 225, 247, 274-275, 304, 320, 359, 391, 433, 499, 508, 512 Dagon 255 dairy 29, 426, 427 Dalmatian 432 dalmatlc 288

dan' 399, 402 Dandolo, Enrico, doge 279 Danube, river 214, 248, 333, 335, 348, 449, 357, 371, 376, 449, 467, 476, 512

Danubian principalities

5

dapifer 335-336 dare 112, 321, 326, 330, 349, 399, 416, 439,498

daughter

159, 276, 279, 282-283, 289, 511, 516, 520 David, king 244 deacon(s) 503, 512 De administrando imperio 361, 368 n 302 debitor 60 debitum 60 debt 60,122,152,407 Decani, monastery 423 decima 475 decimator 475 decurio 59 dedets 64, 511-512 defterdars 324 Dejan 277 demosia 420 demosion 420 depotatus 505 derventc1 379, 455 desert 128, 514-515 desertum 128 desetina 475 desetkar 404, 461, 474 desetkar ovchi 476 desetkar pchelni 476 desetkar svinni 475 desetnic 378, 475 desetnik 264, 378

545

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

desjatak 402 despot 8, 26, 35, 54, 58, 104, 149, 151, 217, 229, 268, 275-300, 302-305, 320, 364, 407, 419, 433 despotate 278 despoteia 278 despotitsa 289 Dessislava 301 Deuteronomy 196-197, 242 diabaton I diavato 417, 430-431, 453 diac 469, 483 diadem 60, 225 Digenis Acritas 239 dijma 404, 475 dijmar 475 dijmt'.lrit 404 dlkanikion 317 Dimiter, zhupan 365, 367, 369 Dimiter from Musina 129, 476 Dimitrie Cantemir, prince of Moldavia 483 dimnina 397, 408-409, 413-414 dimosia 462 dimosion 462 Diocletian, emperor 303 dioiketes 470 ditare 102 Ditsevg, Bulgar dignitary 259 divan 247, 483 Divine Revelation 232, 244, 506 divinity 36, 134, 502, 518 divitission 301 divorcium 132 dizmarstvo 404 Dobrich, town 20 Dobromir 341, 344 Dobrotitsa, despot 284, 293-294 Dobrudja 294, 365, 367 Dobrun 322, 467 dodge 90, 279 doganct 379, 458, 480 doganctba~t 379, 458-459, 480 dohodak 400-401, 418 IL 129 Dojran 22 Dolna Kamenitsa, village 25, 283, 285-286,288-289 domestikoi 312-313 dominare 44, 54 dominus 54, 81, 215, 275 domus 61 donare 112 donatio 57 donor 57, 86 donum 57, 112

Doucas, Isaac

301

douleutes 492 douloparoikoi 492 D ragalevtsi, village 10 Dragas, John, despot 277 Dragoman, kastrophylax 377 Dragoslav, despot 285 Drinov, Marin 26 droggarios 249 Dromos 450 druzhina 62, 230, 231 driava 224, 268 n. 7 Dubrovnik(Ragusa) 9, 19, 41, 43, 60, 62, 74, 80, 87-88, 98, 102, 104, 109, 125, 128, 140, 143, 229-230, 251, 254, 256, 264, 267, 284, 299, 399, 401-402, 417, 432, 467 duka 356 Dulo 218 Durazzo, town 339 dux 45, 62-63, 269, 317, 356-357, 373-376 dvor 230, 318 dvornic(s) 317-319, 343 dykeraton 411 Eastern Roman Empire

101, 193

ecclesia 61, 152 Ecclesiastes 242 ecclesiastical 28-29, 51-52, 61, 65, 67, 76-77, 79, 89, 93, 115, 118, 121, 125-126, 134, 138, 140, 144, 147, 152, 180, 196, 227, 314, 346, 498, 502, 508 ecclesiasticus 152, 246 Edoga 4, 6, 19, 161, 166, 171, 195-197 Ecumenical 50, 115, 226, 295, 506 Ecumenical Councll!s 37, 226, 501, 503,507 Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople 504, 511 Egyptian 242-243 Ekthesis nea 291, 299 Eltimir, despot 279, 281, 284, 294 emere 87 emperor 9, 30, 85, 133, 211-213, 217, 224,226-227,236,238-240,245-246, 252, 275-276, 279-280, 282, 301, 303, 305, 308-309, 312-313, 316, 330, 339, 346, 348, 383, 507 Empire 5, 43, 85, 94, 102, 113, 135, 151, 196, 202, 208, 214-217, 219, 221, 224-225,227-228,233,235,238-239, 242, 260, 262, 264, 270-271, 275-276, 282,284,286,291,293,295-298,

546

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

300-304, 306, 308-309, 311, 313, 315-316, 320-321, 330, 340, 355-356, 359-360, 368, 374-375, 395, 397-398, 404, 406, 410-416, 419, 422, 425-427, 433-435,441,443-444,447-448, 451-452, 456, 462, 467, 470, 478, 481, 497, 499, 504-505 empress 150, 223 emstvo 401, 432 encomion 231-233, 235-237, 240-243, 246 English 54, 61, 65, 76, 205 enohiar 331 epicernius I epikernios 66, 274, 330 epilourikon 345 Epiphany 338 Epirus 278, 313, 340, 364 episcopal 28-29, 67, 109, 510, 512 episcopus 67 epoireiai 414 Ermiar 367 Escorial taktikon (see also Taktikon of Oikonomides or Scorialensis) 337 esnaf 496 Etats generaux 394 Eucharistic 256, 502 Eunuch(s) 43, 263, 321, 326-328, 330, 334,466 Eurasian steppe 1, 3, 40, 192, 207, 218, 270,366,368-369,390 Europe 2, 186, 200-212, 221, 257, 332, 363, 439, 447, 489, 501 European 69, 188, 199, 203, 213, 230, 239, 253, 257, 262, 337, 366, 372, 404, 493 Euthymius, patriarch 30, 44, 51, 75, 96, 99, 149, 226-227, 270, 312, 344 Evliya <;:elebi 483 exactor 121 exarch 65 exsecrari 124 eyewitness 133 Ezigaton 349

faliigyel6 147, 266 fanar, finar 446, 486 faveo 53

facio 65 facultas 60, 61 faingl 266

gardener 487

fee 39, 47, 53, 59, 84, 137, 143-144, 399, 413, 421, 423, 425, 429-431, 435, 440,453 feria 108 fero 76 fidelis 34, 51, 52 fides 39, 171 firmare 118 First Bulgarian Empire 3, 29, 31, 69, 152, 211, 250-251, 266, 305, 353, 365, 398, 414 First Ecumenical Council 37, 226, 501 fiscal 27-28, 40, 42, 45-46, 50, 55, 59, 63, 69, 73-74, 83, 86, 92-93, 109, 111, 113, 121, 129-130,261,266, 268, 323, 342, 352, 374-375, 387-388, 390, 392, 394-399, 402, 404, 406, 408-412, 415-416, 418, 420, 422-431, 434,436-440,442,444-445,451, 453,463-464,468,470-472,474,477, 482-483,485,498-499 flag 148-149 foenarius 142, 446 fold 29,84 folnagy 147 folnog 147, 266 ffinok 147, 266 fornicate 35, 126, 139, 155 fornication 36, 90, 166 fornico 126 forum 145, 147 Frankish 213-214, 512 Frederic I Barbarossa, emperor 370 (transfer to letter B[No, I thnk it is better to be cited here on F than on B - Ivan Bil.]) French 61, 77, 324, 332, 355, 515 frumenti 69 fumilrit 409 furium 85 Gabrovo, town

fair 108, 120, 140, 145, 147, 394 faith 39, 71, 78, 120, 158, 170-171, 184, 187, 190, 192-196, 199, 232, 239-240, 243, 507, 509-510 faithful 52, 217-218, 502-503, 519 falconer 53,383,456,458,478,480

22

Genoa 63, 477 Genoese 419 gens 132 genu 82 genus 82 George I Terter, tsar 283-284, 294 George II Terter, tsar 220 George Acropolites 312

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

George Brankovic, despot 277, 462 n. 345 Georgian 109, 207, 228 gephyra 453 gephyrosis 453 gerakar 455, 461, 478-480 German 39, 42, 46, 48, 54, 61, 63, 65, 70, 76, 82, 85, 90-91, 95, 101, 110, 118, 128, 147, 159, 163, 166-167, 170, 207, 264, 267, 323, 339, 361, 468,472 Germanic 35, 42, 86-88, 90, 110, 148, 152, 155, 166, 177, 207, 209, 214, 266, 273, 511-512 geron 138 Giacomo di Pietro Luccari 284 Giannis/lani 362 Gigen 19 Giray 220 Glagolitic 20, 202 glava 271 godmother 165 GOktiirk 258 Golesh 19 gornina 397, 421-423, 425-426, 439-440, 450 gor~tina 425 Gospel 54, 192, 195, 197, 240-241, 521 go~odar 215,271-272 go~odin 215, 271-272 gost 511 Gothic 42, 47-48, 50-53, 60, 63, 65, 68, 90-91, 148, 150, 207, 508 Goths 211 government 12, 55, 97, 205, 254, 261, 333, 339, 372, 393, 466, 480, 504, 510, 511 governor(s) 46, 80, 85, 123, 133, 271, 297, 307, 319, 349, 362, 367, 370, 372-374, 376 grad 360,452 gradar 461, 487 Gradets, village 22-23 gradobliudenie 460 gradozidanie 422-423, 439-440, 450-452, 454, 488 grammatik I grammatikos 269, 340-341, 344, 347-348 grand favu~ 270 grand dux 269 grand echanson 332 grand logothete 269, 306 grand primmicerius 269 grand zhupan 216, 296

547

grates 71 great captains 376, 389 great comes

336-339, 380-381

great comes of the imperial stables 336 great comis 446 great defterdar 324 great dux 63,317,356-357 great grammatik 348 great hunter 481 great kliuchar 358 Great Laura, monastery 424 great logothete 340-344, 348 Great Migration of Peoples 186 Great Moravia 87, 194-195, 202, 361-362, 509, 512, 521 Great Preslav 51, 221 great primmicerius 306, 326-328, 331, 379 great vataf 388-389 great vizir 340-341 great voevoda 46, 361 great zhupan 367, 369 Greece 19, 23, 424 Greek 3, 5, 9, 27-35, 37-38, 40, 42-46, 48-51, 53-63, 65-68, 70-71, 73-86, 88-89,91-95,97-102, 104-111, 115-136, 138-141, 144, 146-152, 154-155, 157-175, 177-180, 183, 200,202,207-218,223-226,230-231, 233-236, 241, 243, 247, 249, 252, 254-257,260,263-276,278,290, 292, 299, 302, 303-304, 308, 315, 317, 319-321, 325-326, 330-334, 337, 340-341, 345-347, 349-350, 353-354, 356-367, 369, 372, 375, 377-378, 382-383, 389, 391-392, 396-398, 401, 403n 45,404-409,411-412,414, 416-417, 422, 424, 429, 431-436, 438 n 226,443-444,448,451-452, 454,461-462,464-466,471-473,475 n 417,476,478-479,480-481,486, 490, 493, 495-499, 507-510, 512-517, 520-521 Gregoras, Nicephorus 362 Gregory Dobropisets 371 Gregory Presbyter and Monk 245 Gregory Tzamblak 374 guard 35, 40, 92, 108, 139, 145, 149, 315-316, 378, 383-384, 388, 441, 457, 460 guardian 40,80, 377,384 guilt 42, 47, 50, 56, 97, 152, 156 Gypsies 122 Gypsy 107

548

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

habitus 77 Hadrianopolis, town 259 Hagiorite 414, 440-441 Hagioritic 9 Hagios Germanos 19 Hairetisms 235 Halil, zhupan. son of Ibrahim bin Hac1 371 Hamartolos, George 249 Hambarli. village 362, 363 Hann 147 Harold Hardrada, king of Norway 350 harp 244 hazinedarba~1 324, 469 Hazine-i Amire 324 Hazine-i Hassa 324 head 27, 29, 40, 45, 50, 52, 63, 76, 80, 88-89,97, 122, 138, 143, 164, 188-189, 217, 232, 240, 259, 271-272, 277, 286, 311, 321-323, 325, 341, 344, 355, 365, 369, 371-373, 375-376, 379, 385, 455, 464, 480, 502-503, 510 Hebrew 27, 86, 238, 243, 256, 514 hegoumen(os) 76, 138 Henri. emperor 279-280, 282 herald 77 hereditare 96 heres 97 heresy 35, 67, 114 heretic 64, 67, 98 hermit 118, 128, 371 hermitage 128, 515 Herzog 361 Heterodox 77, 120 hetman 386 hexapholon 411 hierarchy 212, 262, 282, 285, 295-298, 303-304, 306, 316, 320, 327, 330, 335, 337, 340, 342, 346, 348, 355-356, 367, 380, 382, 384, 389, 469, 477, 479, 481, 488, 502-504, 505, 511 hieromonk 76, 135 Hinat, sebastos 24, 312 Hincmar, archbishop of Reims 192, 257 Hittite 107, 149, 181 Hochdeutsch 51, 65, 70 hodostrosia 454 Holy Apostles 337, 502 Holy Ghost 506-507 Holy Scripture 71, 151, 197, 213, 233, 236,239,241-244,246,506,515 Holy See 290, 337, 339 Holy Tradition 506

Holy Trinity 49, 50, 502 homicide I homicidium 47, 145, 147 Honorius III, Pope 296 horismos 9, 74, 228-229 horugva 207, 226 hosiomartyr 127 hosios 51 hospitium gratuitum 444 hosrismos 104 hostis 54, 124 Hreljo, protosebastos and kesar 303, 307 humus 73 Hungarian!s 40, 85, 88, 147, 179, 264, 266-267, 368, 276, 280, 290-291, 319, 370 Hungary 216,276,294,332 Huns 88 hunt 45, 47, 89, 111, 157, 456-457, 459,479-482 hunting 45, 53, 84, 89, 129, 433, 453, 455-459, 479-481 hyperpers 439-440 hyperpyron 415 Iani

362 152 Icelandic 53, 70, 73, 86, 110, 117-118, 121, 138, 141, 148-149, 153, 169, 172, 177 ichirgou boila 152-153 idiorhytmic 89 idolatry 76 imitari 116 immotus 98 impedire 78, 107 imperare 101, 151 imperator 151, 213 imperial 30, 58, 60, 74-75, 77, 82, 85, 88-89, 92, 97-98, 104, 109, 114, 117, 124, 129, 137, 139, 149-151, 193, 203, 208, 210, 212-214, 221, 224, 226-230, 233-235, 238, 242, 247, 260, 263, 268, 275, 277, 280, 283, 285, 288, 290, 293-295, 298, 302-303, 313-314, 325-326, 328, 330, 333-341, 344, 348, 371, 377-378, 396, 419-420, 424, 433, 448,450-451,455-456,461,469-470, 476,479-482,485-486,505,507 imperial cupbearer 328, 330 imperialis 149 imperium 151 impertitio 112 Indian 53, 101, 137 indictio 77

ic

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Indo-European 30, 35-36, 38-39, 41-45, 47-48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60-61, 63-65, 74-76, 81-82, 84, 86, 89-95, 97, 100-103, 105-108, 110, 112-114, 119-122, 124-125, 128-130, 132-133, 137-139, 141-143, 145-146, 154-155, 157, 159-163, 166-171, 173, 175, 177, 180, 275, 366, 489-490, 497, 517 inimicus 47 Innocent III, pope 149, 227, 336, 339 insignia 151, 224-228, 285-286, 288-289, 295, 298, 300, 303, 316-317, 320, 331, 462, 467, 479 intercessor 73, 115, 117, 125 ira 104 Iranian 39, 88, 228, 351-352, 362 Irish 60, 62, 82, 91, 95, 101, 114, 141, 145-146, 152, 167, 174, 178 Isaac 295, 301, 309 Isaiah 242, 245 Islam 190-191, 505-506 Islamic 2, 191, 220 ispravnic 79 Israel 151, 190 n. 9, 213, 224, 241, 244-245,255-257 Italian 62, 80, 121, 128, 495-496, 513 itzirgou boila 362 iudex 143, 318 iudex curie 318 iudex et palatinus curie nostre 318 iudex generalis 318 iudicare 143 iudicium 143 iugum 73 iuppanum 370 ius 120 iustitia 120 iustus 120 Ivailo, tsar 354 Ivanovo, village 23 Iviron, monastery 424 Izbornik I Izbornik of AD 1073 231, 233 izgonchia 486

jail 35, 73 Jambol, town 23 janissary 385, 457, 481, 486 Jeremiah, prophet 239 Jerusalem 237, 239, 245, 256, 504, 514 Jerusalem typicon 514 Jesus Christ 49, 102, 149, 151, 192, 197, 215, 227, 235, 237, 239, 289, 502

549

Jewish 71, 190-191, 241 Jews 190-191, 506 jitar 483 jitarit 440 jitarstvo 440 jitnicer 483 Joasaph copy 156 Job 242 John 220 John Alexander, tsar 9, 19, 25, 220, 222, 232-237, 239, 241, 283-284, 287-288, 294, 310, 341, 399, 412, 419, 422,482 John I Asen, tsar 219, 227 John II Asen, tsar 8-9, 18-19, 25, 230, 279, 310, 412, 462 n. 348, 486 John III Asen, tsar 282

John Asen, tsars, two sons of tsar John Alexander 284, 288, 300 John VI Cantacuzene, emperor 278, 283, 300, 321, 324, 466

John Dragoslav 293 John Exarch 231 John Oliver, despote 277, 293, 423 John Shishman, tsar 10, 19, 25-26, 220, 283-284, 287-288, 302, 310, 373, 378, 380, 384, 403, 423 11. 160, 439, 443, 473, 482, 487 John Sratsimir, tsar 10, 18, 25, 69, 116, 147, 211, 230, 370 John Stephen, tsar 220, 283, 325, 344, 466 John Teeter, despot 284, 293-294, 419 John Uglesa, despot 277 John Vladislav, tsar 19, 215 Joshua 239,246,257 Joshua ben Sira 246 Judah 213 Judaic 191 Judaism 190, 505-506 Judea 151 judex 69, 370 judge(s) 18, 59, 99, 105, 143, 172, 178, 197, 240-241, 285, 288, 312, 318, 320, 420, 437, 454, 461, 463, 470,482 Jurech, protobistial 322, 467 juridical 18, 31-32, 34-36, 47, 49-50, 58, 60, 64, 69, 73-75, 81-82, 84-85, 88, 94-95, 104, 109, 112, 114, 117, 119, 121, 126, 156, 164-165, 193, 201, 503, 518, 520-521

550

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

jurist 124, 346 justice 120, 173, 184, 254, 318-319, 346, 373, 386, 389-390, 401, 432 Justinian, emperor 275 Justinian II, emperor 305 Justin II, emperor 316

kliriks 414, 498 kliritsi 115 kliuchar 357-358 kliuchnik 357

kabbadion 286, 306, 317, 327, 335 kalfa 340

knjaz 209-211, 216, 266, 273 knjaiestvo 225 Koloman I, tsar 219 komad 412 komada 412 komod 405-406, 408-410, 412-414, 427-428,440,499 konar 379 Konig 88, 209 Kordil 362 Kormchaja 8, 18 kosharshtina 426-429 koumerk 417-419, 431 koummerkiarioi 417 koummerkion 415, 419 kraguyar(s) 443, 455, 478-480 kraishte 265 kral 85, 213-214, 265 n. 5 kralstvo 225 Krftn, town 279 Krepcha, village 20,464 Krichim, town 23 Kriva Palanka, town 23 Krum,khan 210,251,259,362 n. 277 ktitor 333 Kuman, despot 294

Kalojan, tsar 149, 219, 227, 281, 298, 301-302, 356 Kalotina, village 25 Kalugeritsa, village 23 kamara 286 kanartikin 218 Kanun 188-189 Kanunname 458,480 Kanunname of sultan Mehmed II 324, 469 Kanzellariat 339 kapnikon 408 kapuagast 324 Kardam, khan 210 Kartvelian 109 Karvouna, town 293 Karydochorion, village 23 Kasimbek, protostrator 354-355 kastel 265 kastroktisia 451-452, 454 kastroktista I I kastroktistes 55, 451 kastrophylax 377-378 katepanikion 271, 372-374, 376 katepano 375-376 kathisma 437, 444 katun 265 Kekaumenos 36, 363-365 kellar I kelar 80, 357-358 kephalia 271, 371-375, 377-378, 473 Kera Thamara 288 kesar 58, 211-212, 268 khagan 186-187,210 khaganate 186 khan 208, 210-211, 258, 349, 363, 395 Khazar 259 Kichevo, town 429 Kiev, town 8, 280, 292-293 Kievan Rus' 461 king 40, 62, 85, 205, 213-214, 223, 239,241-242,244,246 kingdom 85, 225, 253 kinship 183, 186-187, 189, 281-282, 284, 287, 410 Kiurigir 367 kleisoura 271, 359, 360, 417

Klokotnitsa

9, 463 n. 348

kmet 265, 269 knez 267,273,377

lagator 379, 455 Landtag 393 Latin 31, 33-34, 40-43,45,47-48, 51, 53-54, 58-59, 61-63, 65, 69, 73-75, 77, 79, 80-84,86-87, 91, 95, 98-101, 108, 110-112, 116, 119, 121-122, 125, 132, 134-135, 138, 141, 143, 145-147, 149-152, 154, 157, 163-165, 170-171, 180, 184 n. 1, 199-200,211,213, 215, 248-249,252,264-266,271,27~ 278279, 296, 302, 308, 315, 318-320, 323, 326, 335, 336-338, 340, 345, 347, 357, 374-375, 378, 396,401,411, 419, 436, 446, 461, 468,493, 508-510, 512, 515 latrocinium 131 law 1-3, 5, 11-13, 17, 31-37, 42, 44-45, 47, 51-52, 55, 58, 63-65, 67-69,71,75-78,80-83,87,89-90, 93, 95, 98-99, 101, 103-108, 113-116, 120, 122, 126-127, 129, 134, 136, 138,

551

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES 140, 142, 145, 158, 161-162, 164, 166, 170-171, 175, 184-203, 205-207, 216, 218, 223-224, 260-262, 264, 273, 278-279, 333, 362, 365, 373, 390, 394, 397-398, 401, 417, 421, 430, 432, 460, 493, 499, 501, 503-510, 517-520 Law Code of tsar Stephen Dusan 343, 421,439,445-446,450,452,492 Law for Judging the People 3, 5-6, 18-19, 83, 156, 173, 175, 195-198, 206,269,361,366-367,396,490 Law for the koumerk 417

Law for the ~ahinct and faktrct of the sancak (district) ofVidin 458 Lazar Brankovic Lebedia 361

277

legatus 97 legislator 71

legitimus 72 Leo III, emperor 249 Leo VI the Wise, emperor 312, 452 Leon 362 Lettish 33, 39-40, 46-47, 52, 61-62, 70, 76, 82, 92, 114, 116, 133, 141-142, 145-146, 149, 164, 167, 169-171 leul pe bute 416 Leviticus 196 lex 71 liber 134 libertas 134 libra 165 Libri Basilicorum 493 limes Romanus 512 List of the Bulgar Princes 218, 221 Lithuania 38, 333 Lithuanian 39, 46-48, 52-53, 55, 61, 63, 65, 70-71, 76, 82, 92, 111, 114, 116, 133-134, 136, 141-142, 145, 152, 157, 163-164, 167, 169-171, 177-178 littera 109 liturgical 138, 202, 216 n. 16, 223, 256-257, 302, 312, 503, 508-510, 516 Liturgik.on 138 liturgy 89, 196, 502, 509 locus 95 logoflt de taina 347 logothete(s) 51, 89, 269, 306, 324, 340-344,348,450,466,468 logothete of the vestiaria 324, 468 logothete tou Dromou 450 logothetehood I logothetstvo 342 London Gospel 232-235, 240, 245, 279, 285, 287-288

lord

8, 31, 36, 54, 58, 158, 195, 215-216, 271-272, 275-276, 279, 285, 293, 296, 358, 370, 416, 446, 490-494, 498 Lord God 51, 53-54, 75, 220 loros 225, 285, 288 Lovech, town 38, 292 lucrum 121 Ludovic 283 luere 110

Macedonia

22-23, 54, 239, 307, 340, 364, 370, 381-382, 424, 475, 495 Macedonian 239 Macedonian dynasty 345, 376 magister agazonum 338 magister mensarum 335 Magna Charta Libertatum 205 magnus provisor 318 Magyar 400, 418 major-domo 316 Malachi 242 Malalas, John, chronicler 83, 249 malefactor 75 Manichaean 511-512 manifestatio 103 Mannus 167 mantle 301 Mantzik.ert, town 374, 376 Manuel Asen, despot 300 Manuel I Comnenos, emperor 236, 276 Manuel Philos, Byzantine writer 301 marginal note 17, 26, 210 n. 4, 423 Mark 51, 192, 234 marriage 38, 68, 91, 98, 112, 122, 166, 176-177,197-198,235,284 marscalcus 318 marshal 355 martolos 455 martyr 95, 127 master 81, 124, 194, 233, 271-272, 275-276,491-493,495-497 matrimony 38, 112, 119, 122, 131, 166, 168, 170, 176-178, 235, 507 Matthew 234

Matthew Basarab, prince ofWalachia 385

Matthew Ninoslav, ban of Bosnia

348

mechenosha 274, 349, 351-353 Mediterranean 489, 516

megas doux 63

145, 165, 189, 192, 213,

552

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Mehmed II, sultan 324, 469, 480 Melenikon, town 104, 151, 229, 310 membrum 95 merchant(s) 9, 54, 62, 74, 86-87, 107, 116, 141, 145, 418 Messembria, town 417 messenger 66, 77, 97, 486 mesto 359, 360 Methodius, saint and archbishop of Great Moravia 194-195, 201-202, 303 n. 91, 362, 519, 521 metochia 436 Metochites, Theodore 306 metropolitan 8, 51, 93, 104, 125, 127, 148, 151, 280, 292-293, 435, 437, 466, 510 Michael II Asen, tsar 9, 19, 25, 62, 74, 302, 399, 401, 417, 432, 467 Michael lii Shishman Asen, tsar 25, 195,220,283-284,294 Michael Asen, tsar, son of the tsar John Alexander 283 Michael VIII Palaeologos, emperor 355 Michael IX Palaeologos, emperor 424 Michael, despot 284, 286-289, 294 Middle Ages 1, 2 n. 1, 3, 5, 8, 12-13, 36, 88, 186, 189, 200-201, 205, 214, 216 n. 16, 228, 239, 242, 247, 250, 261, 273, 325, 333, 329, 365, 368, 369-371, 395-397, 403, 405 n. 57, 406,443-444,446,450,455,480,489, 496, 501, 504-505, 507, 518, 520-521 Mihanovich's Minaeum 249, 350 military 40, 45-46, 55, 59, 62, 69, 80, 83, 92, 122, 136, 139, 157, 159, 176, 187, 231-232, 236, 239 n. 60, 241, 250,257-258,262,264,270,273,277, 286, 297, 308, 319, 321, 327, 332, 337, 345, 349, 352, 354-358, 360, 362-363, 366-369, 371-380, 382-383, 385-387, 388-389, 433, 435, 437, 439, 444-446, 450-451, 454-455, 458, 460, 465-466, 478,480-482,485 Milvian Bridge 240 ministerium 130 Mircea eel B1l.tran, prince of Walachia 323 Mircea vod1l. 20 misceo 174 missal 138 mistotoi 497 Mita, logothete 341, 344 mitat 412, 427, 445, 461, 482 mitatlonl 122, 428, 434-437, 437, 444

Mitos 308 Mizpeh 255 modia 395, 413 Moglen, town 424 Mohammed, Muslim prophet 191 Moldavia 2, 38, 45, 66, 73, 79, 89, 92, 113, 136, 214-216, 247-248, 285, 318-319, 321-323, 325, 332-333, 335, 337-338, 340, 344, 348, 358, 369, 380,385-386,388-389,399,404,407, 409,416,425-426,439,446-447, 449,461-462,464,468-469,475-476, 483-484 Moldavian 240, 244, 317, 331, 333, 335-336, 338, 343, 358, 386, 483 Momchil 296 monachus 78-79, 153 monarch 205, 210, 223, 274 monastery 8-10, 27, 29, 71, 76, 78, 89, 91, 93, 100, 103, 107, 117-118, 128, 130, 138, 141, 170, 229, 244 n. 68, 357 n. 265, 371, 399, 401, 403, 405, 408,410-412,414,417,420-424,427, 429, 430-431, 436, 439, 441, 444-445, 447-448,449-454,459-460,463-464, 473, 480, 482, 494-495, 497, 513, 515 money 28, 53, 60, 82, 89, 109, 165, 181, 293, 402, 408, 414-415, 421, 446, 452,473-474,477 Mongol 29, 31, 148, 207, 225, 508 monk 39, 73, 76, 78-79, 93, 95, 103, 117, 128, 135, 138, 153, 237, 245, 305, 308 monotheism 212 monotheistic 191, 519 morals 1, 184, 192 Moravia 155, 194 Moravian 32, 156, 166, 174, 195-196, 269 Moravians 194, 196 Moravism 94, 155 Mordovian 88 Morea 278, 291 Mosaic law 37 Moscow 4 n. 5, 9 n. 10, 15, 18,26-29, 33, 39, 41-42, 53, 62-63, 70, 77, 83, 87, 96, 151, 196 n. 19,232,237, 351 n. 242, 388 n. 370, 455 n. 315, 518 n. 3 Moses 190, 234, 241, 245 Mostich, chergubylia 21, 351 nn. 243, 245 mostnina 397, 431, 453-454 Mount Athos 9, 75, 424, 443, 514 Mount Sinai 190

553

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Mourtagon, khan 259 Mraka chrysobull 19, 310-311, 375, 399,402-403,412,433-434,442, 445-449,468,470,475,477,486-487, 494 mulcta 53 A!undSchenk 332 M urfatlar 20 Musina, village 129, 476 Muslim(s) 98, 191, 290, 372, 506 Mutimir 481 mystikos 271 nn. 13, 14, 340, 345-347 mythopoetical 518

oblast 101, 271 n. 16, 360, 372 n. 319 obshtina 264 obshtinski 264 obventio 61, 401 occidere 145, 193 n. 12 occupatio 104 Ochrid, town 83, 166, 301, 395, 414, 496

Octavian Augustus, emperor odaba~t

Odartsi, village 20 Oecumene 214, 224

ojfikion 466 Ognyan, sebastos

nachalnik 271-272, 365 nachalo 271-272 Nagy-Szent-Mikl6s

366, 367 n. 295

nahiye 480 nahodnik 486 namestnik 273 nametak(s) 427, 440-442, 459, 484-485 Narration of Isaiah 350 nastoinik 271, 273 navy 355-357 negligentia 97 Nehemiah 256 Nemanides 222, 296 Nemanja, Stephen 296

nemets 183 Neophyte 100, 201 Nevsha, village 23 New Rome 221, 237, 262, 520 New Testament 234, 241, 243, 506 Nicaea 37, 226, 280, 296, 335, 501 Nicephorus III Botaniates, emperor 309,326

Nicephorus, patriarch 252 Nicephorus Melissenos 295 Nicetas Choniates 348, 355 Nicholas 1st, Pope 192-193, 257 Nicopolis, town 341, 371 ni~anct

340-341

nobelissimus 304, 315, 319 nobiltty 29, 38,193,250,262,466

Nomocanon 8, 519 norma 119-120 Norman 287 Norway 350

Notitia Dignitatum 315 Novgorod, town 26 novice 117 Numbers 26, 196, 367, 456

308

324

311-312, 371

oikomodion 408-409, 412-414,417,499 Old High German 52, 61, 65, 70 Old Testament 190, 194, 196, 213, 220, 223-224, 233, 239, 241-246

Orner Avni 458 Omourtag, khan 210, 259, 362

Oration on Heresy

12, 19, 496 49 ordo 152, 271, 299, 304, 314-315, 317, 319, 325 Oreshak, village 21 Oriakhovo, town and village 10, 494 Orkhon, river in Mongolia 186 orphan 130, 136, 489 Orthodox 4-5, 75, 102, 120, 192, 202, 234-235, 260 n. 127, 262, 284, 290, 311, 314, 340, 390, 398, 435, 499, 502-504, 506-507, 511, 516, 520-521 Orthodoxy 120,234,240,243,504,514 Osman family 220 Osmanli(s) 136, 214, 247, 265, 371, 385n. 362,386,391 Osmar, village 23 Ossetian 88, 94 otrok 416, 488, 490-495 otrotzinalotrochina 416-417, 490, 492 Ottoman 29, 45, 73, 85, 136, 291, 324, 340, 364, 371, 379, 381, 384-386, 407, 415 n. 115, 435 n. 217, 454, 478, 481, 483, 486, 496 Ottoman Empire 220, 324 n. 160, 363, 371, 407, 455, 457-458, 469, 479-481, 486 n. 446 Ovchepole 101 ox, oxen 73, 75, 132, 397, 406-407, 417, 447, 449-450

ordination

Pachymeres, George

354-355

nuntius 77, 97

padalishte 436-437, 443-444, 447

nuptials

Padishah

38, 68, 176

324

554

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

pagan 1, 3, 40, 44, 52, 65, 71, 76, 112, 123, 171, 174, 192, 198, 208, 210-213, 218, 243, 258-259, 275, 305, 363, 369, 504, 519 paganus 112, 171 paharnig 332 paharnik 331 paharnok 332 palace 43, 153, 230-231, 242, 263, 269-270, 312-314, 317-320, 371, 456, 481 palace curator 269-270, 314, 317, 319-320 Palaeologos 283, 290, 296, 306-307, 330-331, 335, 346, 355-356, 374, 424, 456 Palaeologos dynasty 282-283, 317, 330, 335, 346, 356, 374 Palaeoslavic 31-33, 36, 38-45, 47-54, 58, 60, 62, 68, 70-72, 78-79, 81-82, 84-88, 90-92, 94-114, 116-125, 127, 129-137, 139, 141-146, 148-149, 152-154, 157, 161-177, 179-181, 209, 266, 329, 366, 520 palatinus 318-319 palatium 315

Palauzov (Spyridon Palauzov and Palauzov's copy of the Synodikon) 26, 49-50, 52

Palestinian 89

palitsa 208, 225 panate 171 Panegyric forSt Dimitrios ofThessalonica 374

panis 148 Pannonia 519, 521 Pannonian 174 papa 108,227 a 37,336 papacy 290 papal 194

paraggareia 261 433-434, 443, 446 pclrct'.Uab 386, 389 paroikiatikon 416 paroikos 45, 108, 115, 407, 409, 417, 433,438,488,491-495,497-498

paroikos-aktemon 417 paroikos-boodatos 417 paroikos-zeugaratos 417 Parvomaj, town 21

parvoprestolen 513 pascere 108 Paterikon 328, 350 PAtnluti. village 240

patriarch 51, 109, 123, 247, 271, 291, 299, 365, 510

Patriarchy 148

patrimonium 31, 37, 64, 346 patrimony 31, 61, 91, 138, 163, 430 Paul Claudiopolites, metropolitan of Melenikon 54, 104, 151

Pax Romana 242 Pazardzhik, town 21, 351

pechat 207, 228 Pechenegs 136,252 a 95,385 Peloponnesus 372 pen 29,84,426-428, 429a 193 penal 13, 33, 35-36, 44-45, 47, 52-55, 64-65, 67, 71, 75-78, 80-81, 90, 95, 99, 101, 105, 114, 120, 124, 126-127, 145, 161, 164, 166, 170-173, 189, 319, 389, 398, 507 penitence 32, 36, 83, 99, 118, 197 penitential 44-45, 48, 78, 126 Pera, Genoese colony 419 peribrachia 301 Pernik, town 21 perper 414-416, 418, 436, 439, 473-474 perpera 343,408,414 perperak 414-416,461,473-474 Persia 66 Persian 66, 73, 85, 88, 136, 153, 231, 247,384-385,433,495-496 person 4, 11, 30, 33, 36, 38, 40, 43, 47, 55-57, 59, 63-65, 67, 71, 74, 82, 86, 98, 103, 113, 117, 120, 122, 124, 129, 134, 136, 147, 155, 162-165, 169, 173, 179, 183, 188, 197, 212, 215-218, 231-232,237,262-263,267,269,274, 289, 293-294, 310-311, 316, 320, 322, 331, 334, 339, 340, 341, 347-348, 352, 367-371, 379, 383, 387, 414, 417, 466, 469,472,474-476,480,487-488,491, 507, 509-512 pesjaks 444 Pesnivets 232, 234-235, 241 Peter, tsar and saint 219, 227, 236, 314, 396 Peter, sebastocrator 281, 298-299, 302, 401,432 Peter, logothete 341 Peter Deljan, tsar 253, 363 petitio 125 pharaoh 242-243 Philip, logothete 344, 466 Philip, priest 232, 236 philochrist I philochristus 149

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Phllos, Manuel 301 Phllotheus 304, 316, 320, 334, 354, 382 Phocas, emperor 249 Phrygian 73 pincerna 306, 317, 331-333, 334 n. 191 pious 217, 224, 233, 236, 243 pisets 461, 471 pittakia 34, 43, 125, 138, 291 nn. 53-54, 292 n. 55, 299 planina 110, 423-425 plebs 110 pleo 110 Pleven, town 19 Pliska, town 21, 23 Plovdiv, town 21, 23, 387, 478 n. 431 pobirchia 265, 400, 477 podvoadA 113,449 podvod 448 podvoda 443,447,449 Poland 332-333, 363 police 40, 144, 376, 388-390, 433, 455, 459,460

Polish 318, 387, 468 polytheism 212 pomazan 223 pomazanie 151, 223 ponos 448 Pontlfex 149, 227 pop 115, 497, 512 pope 149, 227, 290, 510 popoviani 115, 497-498 populus 154 Porphyrogennetus 30, 116, 226, 361 possessio 141 post 70, 95, 128, 341, 448, 454, 481, 513

postelnic 355 postoy 435 potca 119 potestas 44, 101, 275 povar 461, 486 praefectus 323, 336, 338, 364, 468 praktor(s) 377-378, 461, 470, 474 predel 359-360 prefect 133 prelate 28, 43, 76, 293 Preljub 303 presbyter 41, 47-48, 76, 116, 121, 127, 155, 172, 496, 503, 512, 514

Preslav, town 21, 23, 51, 202, 221, 314, 351 nn. 243, 245, 367, 509, 521

Prespa, town 19 Pribo, sebastos and protosebastos 308, 312

305,

555

priest 28, 39, 44, 52, 71, 76, 79, 99, 106-107, 116, 121, 135, 172, 212-213, 232, 236, 497, 512 priesthood 115, 134, 505 Prilep, town 307 primicerius 88, 122 primmicerius 122, 265, 269, 306, 326-328, 331, 379 primmikirios 265 prince 13, 62, 88, 132, 165, 193-195, 209, 211, 218, 221, 219, 227, 252 n. 95, 266, 273, 276, 316, 318, 324, 331-332, 338, 345, 367-368, 385, 419 n. 138, 446, 468 princeps 88 Principality (-ties) 2, 5, 39, 88-89, 214-215, 225, 248, 304, 318-319, 323, 332-333, 335-337, 343-344, 348, 376, 378, 380-381, 385-386, 416, 418, 430, 446, 454, 462, 467-468, 476 n. 426, 486 Principate 303 principium 272 priplata 402 priselitsa 408, 435-439, 444 prison 73, 145 privilege 121, 326, 396, 420, 422, 431, 453 privilegium 121 Procopius of Caesarea 275 prodltor 126 Promised Land 191 property 8-9, 31, 36, 53, 58, 61, 71, 74, 77, 89, 98, 100, 102, 108-110, 119, 121, 130, 138, 140-142, 174-175, 309, 346, 371, 394, 408, 420, 423-425, 444-445,493 prophet 191, 241, 246 prosecutor 154 prostagma 228, 342 protalagator 379 protekdikos 124 protolerakarios 456, 480 protokeliot 357, 358 protokelliotes 269 protopapas 512 protopop 125 protopresbyter 124-125, 512 protopriest 124 protosebastos 268, 305-308, 320 protospatharios 274, 349, 351, 354 protostrator 269, 354-355, 382 protothronos 513 protovestiarion 324

556

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

protovestiarios 266, 269, 321-322, 324-326,461,466-469 provincia 101 provisor curie 318 provod 448 provost 88, 165 Prussian 47-48, 51-53, 65, 68, 70-71, 82, 101, 114, 133-134, 142, 163, 170, 177 Prut, river 338 Psaca 301 Psalms 70, 242 Psalter 232, 234-235, 341 psar 455,461,479-481 Psellos, Michael 309, 348 Pseudo Kodinos 270 n. 12, 271 IL 14, 277,285-287,289-291,297-301,302 IL 84, 303, 306-307, 309 IL 114, 314 IL 130, 316-317, 321-322, 326-327, 330-331, 334 n. 193, 335, 337, 342, 345-346, 354 n. 253, 355-356, 372, 379 IL 342, 466 niL 367-368,467,479, 481 Pseudo-Callisthenes 238 psomozemia 441-443 Ptolemaeus 233, 242-243, 245 Ptolemaeus I Soter, pharaoh 242 Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus, pharaoh 243 public law 206-207, 216, 218, 223, 261-262, 278, 362, 365, 394, 397, 421, 460, 517 purgar 128, 266 puto 99 Qur'an 2, 191, 220

rabotati 271, 273 rabotnik 271, 273 Radolivon, village 424 Radoslav, sebastocrator, brother of tsar Smilets 298, 302 Ragusa (Dubrovnik) 9, 41, 74, 254, 477 Ragusan 74,86, 102,141,267 Raoul 306 Ravna, village 21, 219 n. 19 Raxin, protovestiarios 324, 466 regalium magister 332 Regino, abbot 253, 257 regio 73 regnum 85, 151 regula 120 Reims, town 192, 257 reiskutab 341

reisulkutab 341 remissio 125 renova tio 10 1 Republic 9, 19, 41, 43, 74, 88, 109, 125, 143, 213, 221, 251, 254, 267, 432, 467 Res Publica 235 n. 56, 504 responsibility 32, 42, 50, 105, 156, 168, 333, 373, 411, 469, 475 Revelation 71, 190-192, 232, 240-241, 243-244,246,505-507 rex 85, 151, 211 n. 7, 213-214 rex sacrorum 213 rhetor 124, 133 Rhodope Mountains 296 Rhomaioi 203 Richter 69, 370 Rila 166, 227,268IL 7, 370-371,382 Rila chrysobull 10, 26, 87, 104, 229, 310-311, 383, 399, 403, 410, 417, 423 n. 160, 430-431, 433-434, 439, 442, 445, 449, 470, 475, 477, 482, 485, 487-488 Rila Monastery 10, 449 Rila Narrative 370 ritual 89, 114, 123, 174, 193, 223, 235, 263, 277, 290-291, 297-299, 307, 314, 317, 332, 335, 469, 509, 511 rob 50,273 Roman 77, 203, 208, 211-214, 227, 238, 239, 242, 247, 249-251, 260, 315, 351, 454, 502, 504, 510 Roman Empire 92, 101, 193, 213, 290, 302-303, 315, 338, 443, 450, 504 Roman law 2, 87, 199, 200-201, 264 Roman Paterikon 328, 350 Romance of Alexander 238 Romania 19, 20, 240 Romanian(s) 2, 69, 80, 85, 90, 119, 128, 138, 145, 150, 318-319, 323, 338, 347, 355, 357-358, 366-368, 371, 376, 378, 381, 386-389, 399, 409, 418, 426, 430, 440, 446, 461, 475, 484 Romanian principalities 39, 215, 323, 336, 378, 385, 418, 454, 468, 476 n.476,486 Romans 192, 203, 216 Rome 108, 213, 221, 223, 237-238, 250, 262, 303, 339, 516, 520 Rostislav, prince 194-195 Roussokastron 233 Royak 24 ruby 287 rufet 496

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Rus'

219, 400, 461

Rusalii 387 Russe, town 23 Russia 5, 38, 214, 237, 269, 357 n. 265 Russian 6, 31, 40-41, 47, 58, 90, 94-95, 106, 139, 154, 166, 202, 210-211, 244 n. 68, 249, 254, 269, 352, 364, 367, 387-388, 400, 410 Ruyno 21 Sabaoth 239n. 60,241 Sabin, khan 251, 252 sacerdos 79 sacrament(s) 86, 235, 290 n. 49, 502-503, 506, 507 sacrifice 70, 118, 179, 394 sagbanlar 481 ~ahinc1 458, 480 sailor 84 samodrzhets 214-215 Samuel, tsar 215, 242, 255, 395-396, 414, 499 san 265,270 sancakbeg 459 Sanskrit 32-33, 46-47, 50-52, 55, 58, 61, 62, 70, 74, 76, 92, 94-95, 99-100, 111, 113-114, 116, 134, 152-153, 157-158, 162, 166-170, 173, 179 satrap 370 Savet 247 Saviour 223, 227, 234, 238, 244, 502, 506 Saxon 128, 147, 154, 266-267, 370, 495 Scandinavian 400 sceptre 70, 107, 136, 141, 208, 225, 227, 240, 287-288, 307, 317, 322, 326-327, 331, 335, 467 seep tru m 136 Schatzmeister 323, 468 Schism 131 schole 382 scribere 130 scriptor 56 Scylitzes, John 211, 252, 395, 414 Scythia Minor 293-294, 367 seal(s) 11, 21, 26, 72, 74, 89, 109, 218 n. 18, 228-229, 242, 293, 305 n. 94, 334 n. 192, 341, 343-344, 351, 352, 353 sebastocrator 54, 58, 135, 268, 275, 277, 279, 281, 294-305, 312-313, 320, 401,432 sebastos 24, 135, 268, 295, 297, 307-312, 320, 371, 373, 376

557

Second Bulgarian Empire 3, 31, 38, 74, 208, 238, 250, 267 n. 6, 275, 280, 317, 328, 333, 361, 375, 377, 391, 398, 471, 480,498-499 Second Ecumenical Council 501 secretarius 271, 345, 347 secretary 324, 340, 346-348, 468 segbanlar 457 sejm 205, 394 Seldjuk 270 Semalto, village 9 senar 445-446,461,485-486 Senate 41, 221, 231, 246-250, 339 senator(s) 231, 248-250 senex 138 senokos 445 sentinel 40, 139, 384 Septuaginta 243 seraphim 502 serasker 385 serbazdaran 480 Serbia 2, 5, 9, 24-25, 38, 41, 55, 69, 85, 98, 119, 125, 134-135, 214, 216, 222, 247,268,273,277-278,284-285,287, 290, 292-294, 296, 299, 303, 307-309, 311, 317, 319, 322-323, 325, 333, 335-336, 342-344, 355-356, 364-365, 370, 372, 374, 376-377, 379, 381-382, 389, 399, 400, 402-406, 415, 417-418, 420, 424, 426-428, 435-436, 440, 444-446, 450, 452, 454, 456-457, 461-463,467,469-470,474-476, 478-479,484,486,491,493-494 Serbian 2, 7, 9, 31, 39, 41, 61, 69, 80, 85, 87, 110, 117, 150, 215, 238, 245, 247, 268 n. 7, 272, 276-278, 286, 290, 292, 294, 296, 301, 303, 304-305, 307, 309, 318, 321-322, 331, 335, 340, 348, 357-358, 366, 369, 370, 372-373, 376-377, 382, 403, 405, 409, 413, 419-421, 423-426, 429, 435, 438-443, 444 n. 261,448,452,460,467,470, 472-473, 475-479, 481, 483-485, 490-491, 493, 496 serdar(s) 265, 270, 384-386, 443 Serenissima Respublica 63 Serenissima Signoria 63 Sergius, comestabulus 336, 339 Serres, town 9, 38 ser~ahinc1 480 servi casaN 492 servo 149, 180 servus 106 Sextus lulius Africanus 248, 255-256

558

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

seymenler 457, 481 Sharia 2, 191 Shishman 10, 19, 25, 26, 220, 283, 284, 287-288, 294, 310-311, 373, 378, 380, 384, 403, 423, 439, 443, 473, 482, 487 Shumen, town 21, 23-25 sigillion 229, 292, 407 Sillstra 19, 21 silver 25, 142, 229, 293, 367 Sirmium 499 sitarkia 406, 439, 440 Sivin, zhupan 367, 369 skaranikon 286, 306, 317, 327, 345 skiadion 286, 300, 306, 317, 327, 335 Skopelos, town 371-372 Skopje, town 7 IL 7, 9, 19, 125, 148, 215, 286, 297 Slanderer 81, 154, 163, 181 slave 33, 47, 106, 116, 130-131, 158, 172, 174-177, 196 1L 20, 197, 273, 489-492, 517 n. 1 slavery 130,174-175,273,488-490 slaves 22, 63, 106, 281 IL 36, 416, 491, 493 Slavia Orthodoxa 5, 240, 521 Slavic 3, 30, 33, 54, 57, 66, 69, 73, 75, 83-85, 89, 91, 93, 95, 98, 102, 108, 141-142, 145-146, 150-152, 159-161, 164, 173, 183, 194, 196, 200-202, 207-215,225-226,228,230,236,240, 248-249,255-256,260,263-264,266, 269, 273-274, 278, 290-292, 304, 315, 317-321, 323, 325-326, 329, 333-334, 336, 338, 340, 344-345, 349, 351-354, 358, 361-362, 365-370, 373, 378, 383, 387, 390-392, 396-397, 399-400, 407-408, 413, 416, 422, 424-425, 433, 435-436, 449, 454, 461-462, 464, 466-468,473-474,479,481,484-485, 487, 489, 493, 496, 498-499, 508-515, 519, 521 Slavonic 56, 95, 198, 210, 509 Slavs 1, 4-5, 82, 145, 150, 195, 207, 211, 213, 228, 231, 248, 260, 362, 366, 368-369, 376, 512 slonovshtina 426-429 slovo 197 IL 25, 230, 252 n. 95 sluga 137, 483 Smilets, tsar 220, 284, 302 smoke 63,408-409 soc 406,440 soce 406 Sofia 3 n. 3, 4 IL 5, 8 IL 8, 10, 11 1L 20, 12 niL 21-23, 15, 19-28, 30, 32,

35--36,44,46, 59, 65, 69-70, 83, 99, 114, 129, 137, 151, 154, 184, 193, 195, 210,215,219-220,223-224,22~22~

231-232, 235, 238 1L 5~ 242 1L 65,247 IL 74, 250 IL 89,251 IL 90, 254 n. 105, 255 IL 107, 259 IL 126, 260 IL 127, 268 niL 7-8, 269, 275 IL 22, 280 IL 34, 287 n. 43, 301 IL 81, 308 IL 109, 324 IL 159-160, 341 niL 207,209, 347 IL 227, 350 n. 240, 351 n. 243-244, 352 n. 246, 368 IL 303, 370 IL 307, 371, 373, 384 n. 35~ 393 niL 2, 4, 394 IL 7, 417 n. 128, 418 1L 129, 458, 460 1L 337, 478, 479 n. 434, 486 n. 475, 496 IL 158, 504 n. 7, 510 IL 19, 511 sokalnik 491 solidus 74 Solomon, king 244, 246 sorceress 52 spahi 371 spatharios 92, 351-353, 378 spatharocandidatos 350-351 spatharoioi 92 spectabilis 315 Sphrantzes, George 278, 290 spouses 131, 166, 176 Sratsimir, despot 284, 294, Sredets, town 64, 511 St Artemios 256 St Clement 249 St Clement of Ochrid 496 St Constantine 226, 240, 250 St Cyril 194-195, 201-202, 362 St Fourty Martyrs 24 StGeorge 7, 9, 117, 338, 408, 412, 419, 436

St George Zographou, monastery 9 St Gregory of Agrigento 350 St Gregory the Theologian 341 St Helena 30, 44, 226, 240 St Isaakios 256 St Joachim ofOsogovo 273 n. 19,490 StJohn 449 StJohn Chrysostomos 243 StJohn of Rila 227, 371 St Methodius 194-195, 201-202, 362, 519

St Nicetas 350 St Nicholas 9, 25, 310, 494 St Nicholas Mracki, monastery 494 St Panteleimon 301 St Paraskeva-Petka 51 St Paul 192 StPeter 227

559

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

St Philothea 344 St Philotheia 270 St Romil of Vidin 371 St Sabbas of Serbia 365, 456 St Sava 245, 247 St Stephen Monastery 447 Sts Cosmas and Damian 47 stable(s) 29, 81, 146, 184, 234, 336-339, 379, 514

stabuli praefectus 338 Stanicene 25 Stanislav's synaxary 101 stare 124 starets 138, 153, 511 Statute 71, 120, 144, 146, 245, 388, 393, 513

staulocomes (-mites) 354 Stenimachos, town 22, 268 n. 7, 310 Stephen Decanski, king 335, 423, 457 Stephen Dragutin, king 441, 448 Stephen Du8an, tsar 277-278, 285, 296, 307, 335, 343, 377, 415, 421, 423, 431 IL 201, 438 n. 226, 439, 441, 446, 450,452,457,473,487,492 Stephen LazareviC, despot 277, 364 Stephen the First-Crowned, king 296

Stephen the Great, prince of Moldavia 240

Stephen Tomas, king of Bosnia 342 Stephen Uros, tsar 423 Stephen Uros II Milutin, king 7, 9, 268 IL 7, 283, 305, 349 n. 234, 370, 377, 381-382, 389, 400, 405, 413, 420, 427-428, 438, 441, 447-448, 450, 457, 460,472,474,478,485 steppe 1, 3, 31, 40, 69, 88, 192, 207, 210 IL 3, 211, 218, 221, 231, 265, 270, 366, 368-369, 390, 400 stolnig 335 stolnik 24, 129, 138, 269, 270, 334-336, 476 Stoudios monastery 514 strana 359-360 strategos 361-363, 365, 374 strator 354, 380, 382-383 stratornic 355 Strez, sebastocrator 279, 281, 298, 302 stroinik 511

Strymon, river 9 Sublime Porte 338 subscribere 113 sudbina 432

sultan 85, 265 IL 5, 324, 338, 340, 342, 379, 454-455, 457, 469, 478 n. 431, 480-481, 483, 496 Sunnah 191, 220 supremus dapifer 336 supremus iudex curie 318 supremus provisor 318 supremus thesaurarius 323, 468 suzerain 279 Jacob Svetoslav, despot 8, 26, 279-282, 285, 292-294 Swedish 70, 101 sword 21, 91, 180, 329, 351-352, 355, 378 sword-bringer 21, 351-352 Symeon, tsar 203, 208, 209-211, 219, 230-233, 236, 242, 243-246, 258, 314, 350, 396, 409 IL 80 Symeon Metaphrastes 350 synagogue 256 syncellus 144 Synedrion 256 Synkellos, George 248, 255-256 Synklit 246-251 Synodicon 13, 26, 49-50, 52, 64, 96, 99, 111' 114-115, 118, 124, 226, 268, 279, 290, 303-305, 317, 319, 326, 341, 344, 357-358, 511

Tables of the Law 190 Tagchi 21, 351-353 tagma 92 tainik(s) 269-270, 271

IL

13, 340-341,

345-347 tajnik 347 taktikon 304, 337

Taktikon of Leo VI 378 TaktikonofOikonomides (Scorialensis) 337

tamga 352 tamgaci 351 tamparion 286, 300, 322, 467 Tarchaniotes 306 T1l.rgovishte, town 20 T1l.rnovo/ Veliko T1l.rnovo, town 24, 38, 129, 150, 224, 237, 271 n. 16, 277, 280-283,285-286,297,299,307, 313-314, 325, 328, 330, 336, 338-340, 344, 347-348, 352 niL 246, 249, 365, 371, 383, 456, 476, 479, 481 Tartar(s) 33, 220, 352, 386 tax 27, 33, 45, 57-59, 61, 63, 65, 68-69, 73, 83, 86, 96, 106, 109-110,

560

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

122, 130, 132, 144, 323, 338-339, 342, 379, 389, 39-423, 425-429, 432, 439-442,445,458,462-465,470-477, 482,484-486,490,492,499 tax cadastre 110, 130, 463, 471 taxation 28, 42, 68-69, 84, 87, 109, 205, 393 n. 3, 394-395, 397-398, 402, 404, 406, 407 n. 71, 408, 412, 422, 442,474-477,481,484,490,499 teacher 57, 147, 195, 246 technitar 494-495 Telerig, khan 349 Telets, khan 251 Temple 61, 70, 149, 180, 256, 502 temp/urn 152 tenebrae 145 tenere 62 tepchi 355 terra 73-74, 359, 360 n. 70 Tervel, khan 305 teskerecz 341 testament 54, 71, 104, 151, 154, 190-191, 194, 196,213,220, 223-224,233-234,239,241-246, 506 text 4-9, 11-12, 17-19,26-27,41, 47-49, 51, 60, 66, 69, 71, 80, 83, 87-89, 92, 96, 99, 106, 111, 113-115, 118-119, 121-122, 129, 132, 140-141, 143, 150-152, 155, 161-162, 165, 171, 175, 179-180, 186-187, 192-200, 210, 213, 217, 225-226, 231-233, 236, 239, 241, 243-245, 248-249, 256, 264, 270, 291, 293, 299, 302-304, 311-312, 314-315, 318-321, 325-326, 336, 341-345, 347-348, 350-351, 354, 356, 363-364, 370-371, 373, 377-390, 399-403, 406, 410, 412, 416, 419-420, 427, 432, 439-441, 449, 452, 464, 466, 471, 475, 478, 490-491, 496-497, 518-519 theme 68, 233, 246, 374, 359, 514, 515 Theme of Bulgaria 499 Theme of Paris trion 499 Theodora, tsaritsa 287 Theodore Doucas Angel Comnenos, emperor in Thassalonica 313 Theodore II Laskaris, emperor 282, 287 Theodore Scutariotes, chronicler 312 Theodore Svetoslav Terter, tsar 25, 220,284 Theodosius 236, 247, 305, 308 Theodosius II, emperor 236

Theodosius of Chilandari 247 theology 501-502, 504 Theophanes the Confessor, chronicler 248, 252, 255, 349, 354 Theophilus, emperor 245, 246 Theophylactus of Bulgaria, archbishop 106, 407, 416, 451, 496 thesaurarius 323, 468 thesaurarius magnus 468 thesaurus 141 Thessalonica, town 313, 374 Thessaly 340, 372, 438 n. 226, 443 thezawrarius 323, 468 Thomas Palaeologos, despot 290 Thrace 372 Thracian 73, 134 throne 49, 125, 127, 139, 142, 207, 218-220, 222-227, 235, 248, 251, 276, 279-280,283-284,288,295-296,307, 316, 513 thronus 127, 139 timar 371, 379, 458 tithe 59, 129, 331, 333, 378, 397, 402-406,412,422,440,442,446,461, 474-477,483-484 tithe officers 402-404 Tiurkiut 186 Tocharic 40 toparch 342 topp 385 topshtikal 389-390 town 55-56, 80, 442, 465, 494-495 traitor 126 Transylvania 74, 128, 147, 266, 370-371,475-476 rravnina 420-422,425,427-428 rravnina ovcha 421 treasure 141, 240, 366 treasury 43, 141, 165, 321-325, 346, 364,368,461-463,466-469,475 Treatise on the Letters 374 Treskavets 301 tribal 29, 183, 189, 205, 258, 361, 368, 393 tribe 82, 110, 132, 186, 189, 193, 208, 255, 273, 387 tribunal 143, 178, 254 tributa publica 58 trophy 166, 169, 171, 172 Tsamblak, great primmicerius 326 tsar 7-10, 18-19, 22-23, 25-26, 41, 46, 52, 62, 66, 69, 74, 86, 104, 113-114, 116-118, 133, 138, 141, 147, 149-151, 203, 207-213, 215-219, 220, 222,

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

226-227,229-237,241-248,258,260, 274,278-285,287-290,294,298,302, 310-312, 314, 325, 334-336, 339-341, 343-345, 348, 350, 355-358, 370, 373, 376, 378, 380, 383-384, 395, 399, 401-403, 412, 414-415, 417, 419, 422-423, 430-432, 438-439, 441-443, 446,450,452,454,456-459,466-467, 473,476,480,482,486-487,489,499 Tsar Asen, village 19 tsarina 419-420, 430-431, 445, 463 tsaritsa 150, 287 tsarstvie 225 tsarstvo 3 n. 2, 151, 203 n. 29, 225, 271 n. 16, 352 n. 249 Tsok 349 Tsouzmen, sebastos 312 tunic 286, 300 turban 345 Turkic 29-30, 33, 38, 40, 69, 84, 109, 133, 148, 152, 186 n. 4, 211, 225, 264-265, 270, 274, 328-329, 333, 349, 351, 353-354, 366, 368-369, 384-385, 387, 388, 391, 396, 400, 414, 479, 508 Turkic Empire 186 Turkish 29, 85, 384-385, 407 Turks 136, 252 n. 95, 258, 265, 291, 384-386, 391 typicon 71, 144, 514 Tzigaton 349 u~

85,265

uc-beg 265 Uy-beyi 266 Ukrainian 387-388 unctio 114 unction 114, 223 U ralic 88, 179 Urum (Uron) 276 usba~l 381 Uspensky's Taktikon 382 Ustiuga 26 Uzunca Sevindik, 478

vadimonium 65, 401 Valach 122 values 1, 13, 183-186, 190, 196, 198, 200, 245, 395, 516 varna 418 Varangian 350 varar(s) 384, 443, 459, 460 Vardan 362 Varna, town 21, 23-24, 53, 219 n. 19, 352 n. 250

561

varnichi 384, 461, 488 Varsanojievskaja 18 vataco 388 vataf 381, 387 n. 368, 387-388, 389 vatag 387-388 vataga 387-388 vatah 265, 270, 381, 387, 388 vataman 388 v1l.ta~ 387 n. 368, 388 v1l.tav 387 n. 368, 388 vatazhka 387 Vatopedi 9, 18, 22, 229, 268 n. 7, 311, 373, 375, 377, 399, 402-403, 431 n. 201,434,471,474,480,484 Vatopedi chrysobull 8, 18, 310, 399, 410, 412, 433-434, 464-465, 470-472, 474-475, 484, 486 vattas 388 veche 20, 41, 251-252, 254-256, 264, 365 n. 289 vechnik 251, 264 vectigal 57 venatus 89 vendere 123 vendetta 94, 113, 152, 189, 199 Venetian(s) 417, 419 venets 225 vengeance 105, 188-189 Venice 62-63, 102, 306, 418, 477 venor 111, 157 ventsodatel 223 vestiar 461 vestiarion 321, 325-326, 461-462, 466, 468-469 vestiarios 43, 269, 321, 325-326, 461-462,468 vestiarium 43, 461 vestis 321, 461 vicar 221 vicus 136 Vidin, town 22-23, 55, 233, 285, 293, 371,458, 459n. 330 vigil 139 villanus 493 villicus 147 vinar 461, 484-485 violation 116, 155, 168, 173-174, 417, 518 vira 400, 410 Virgino 7, 9, 19, 69, 74, 98, 268 n. 7, 310-311, 325, 370-371, 373, 375, 377, 380-383, 387, 389, 399, 400-403, 405-406,408-410,412-414,419-420, 423-424, 426-431, 433-435, 438, 441,

562

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

445,447-450,453,459,462-463, 470-471,474-476,478,480,484-486, 490,492,497 Virgino chrysobull 7, 9, 19, 69, 74, 98, 310, 311, 325, 370-371, 373, 375, 377, 380-383, 387, 389, 399, 400-403, 405-406,408-410,412-414,419-420, 423-424, 426-431, 433, 438, 441, 445, 447-450,453,459,462-463,470-471, 475-476,478,484-485,490,492,497 vis 96 vistierie 462 vistiernic 323, 468 vita 100 Vitosha chrysobull 10, 19, 107, 371, 373, 378, 383-384, 386, 403, 439, 443, 445,447,470,473,475,478,485 Vitosha Mountain 10 Vladimir, sebastos 312 Vladimir-Rasate, khan 209, 251 Vladislav, despot 294 Vladislav Grammatik 370 Vladislav Milutinovic 322 Vladko, sebastocrator 301 vlast 151, 272 vlastel 271-272 voevoda 46, 216, 269-270, 274 n. 21, 323, 360-365 Voisil, despot 284, 294, 302 Vojhna, kesar 303 vojnuk(s) 379, 455 IL 315 Volga, river 387 volober 405 volobershtina 397, 405-406, 408, 413-414,427,436,440-441 vornic 318 voynuks 455 Vrana 356 Vratsa, town 24 VukaSin, king 277

Walachia 2, 38, 45, 66, 73, 79, 89, 92, 108, 112, 136, 147, 214-216, 247-248, 285, 318-319, 321-323, 325, 331-333, 335, 337-338, 340, 343-344, 348, 358, 369, 380-381, 385-386, 388-389, 399,

404,407,409,415,425-426,439, 446-447,449,461-462,464,467-469, 473-476,483-484 warfare 45 warrior 45, 112, 132, 235, 238, 371 watacha 387 wataha 387 widow 51 witch 52 witness 81, 117, 133, 140, 172, 177, 196-197,247 wreath 223, 225 wysthernik 323, 468

Yanuka, ban

478

yeni yeri 486 Yugoslav

287, 300, 348

Zajecar, town 24 Zechariah, prophet 242 zemlya 359-360 Zeno, Marino 279 Zeta 356 zeugar(s) 45, 405 zeugaratikion 406-407, 412, 440 zeugari 407, 450 zeugarion 395 zeugologion 406-407 zevgar 406 zevgelie 406 zhitar(s) 439-440, 461, 482-483 zhitarstvo 397, 406, 422-423, 439-440, 441,450,482-484 zhitnitsa 464 zhupa 69-70,265,270,370 zhupan(s) 69-70, 265, 270, 296, 365-371 zhupania 370 zhupan-tarkan 367 Zlatostruj 231, 233, 243 Zletovo 101 Zographou Bulgarian History 471 Zographou chrysobull 9, 19, 414, 422, 439,440,450,452,482 Zographou Monastery 422, 452

GREEK INDEX

&ppa

27 &ya:9oefY'(eaia: 34 uya:96v 33 &ya:J.Loc; 99, 148 uyya:peia: 66, 433 n. 208 and 209, 434 n. 210 uyya:peoeiv 66 &yya:pos; 66 aria 1s1 uyvoia: 157 uyopti 145 uyopa~ro 87, 162, 164 liyopos; 107 ayxro 154 &.yro 361 &.Bwxv 433 n. 209 uBui~eo~os 168 uBuiA.mos; 168 aei 123 ueptx6v 28, 132, 144 u~iJJ.Lto<; 155 O:t!J.OJ.l.t~a:t 164 a:'tpecrts; 67 a:ipenx6s; 67 a:iaxp6tTJ<; 32 a:t'tTJJ.l.O: 125 a:i'tia: 156, 42 a:ix¢A.OYto<; 171 UKtVTJ'tO<; 98 UKpDU'tTJ<; 172 UK'tTJJ.l.OVt'ttKtOV 416 UK'tiJJ.LroV 41 7 uA.a:ya'trop 27 aA.A.6'tpws 160-161, 167, 181 aU6qroA.os 78 &.A.oyov 378 aJ.L1teA.c:Ov 156 UVO:"(VcOa'tTJ <; 27 uva:yprupru<; 11 0 uva:BiBroJ.Lt 158 uva:tpero 179 uva:ipecrt<; 131 UVO:t<JJCI)V'tO<; 32 uva:xa:ivroats; 10 1 UVO:~OptK6<; 150 150 uva~rop UVO:J.l.UP'tTJ'tO<; 32 &va:cpa:ipe'to<; 99

uva:cpepro 49 &.vecrts; 12 5 uveu1topoc; 168 uviJp 167 UVOJ.l.O<; 56 UV'tlJ.l.l'ta:'ttKtOV 435 aV'ttma'tTJ <; 14 3 UV'ttbtKO<; 14 3 al;ia: 275 U1ta:pVEoJ.l.O:l 170 a1ta:'taro 90 uJtetpia: 168 u1teA.a:aia: 160 a1teA.a:uvro 160 a1teAru9epoc; 177 fi1tATJK'tOV 122,436 a1tay pa:cprus 11 o uJtobtroKro 176 uJtoBoxa'trop 27 a1toboxfl 465 u1toB6xwv 27,465,472 U1tOKa:9ta'tTJJ.l.l 158 u1toKa:'tama:crts; 171, 180 u1toxoup01ta:A.a'tTJs 317 &1toxptataptoc; 28, 77 U1tOA.eA.UJ.l.EVTJ 129 a1toA.uro 105-106, 170 U1tOJ.l.l'tO:'ttKtOV 435 a1topero 163 a1totivew 110 upyopopooA.A.to<; A.6yoc; 229 n. 46 aprup6s 142 upxero 159 &poupa; 100 &.p-to<; 148 UPXetV 101 apxiJ 97, 272 upxtmtcrK01tO<; 28 aPXtepapxos 28 UPXtepa:'truoV'to<; 433 n. 209 uPXtepeus; 28 UPXlJ.l.O:VbphTJ<; 29 uPXtcr'tpa:ny6s; 29 fiPXOJ.l.O:l 156 fiPXro 132 UPXOOV 43-44,88,97,132,156-157, 160, 165, 272, 361 n. 274, 365, 367 n. 300

564

GREEK INDEX

ucre~eta

33 56 uc:r6v9eto<; 32 ata:l;ia 33 &nfLO<; 32 &tta: 107 a:i>9evteum, a:U9evtei:v 44, 272 ai>9evt~<; 54,158,215-216,272 !lU'tOKpatmp 133,135,214,295 a:Ut6<; 133 uqxnpem 158

&=

&~peat<;

10 5

aq>tepo!J.!lt 1s9 uq>op\Setv 105 ~yaivo.;

29 30 40 150-151, 291, 299 BamA.eia II6A.t<; ISO ~a:mA.ei>ew 151 ~a:crtA.ei>.; 150-151,233,275,242 ~mA.uo:6.; 149 ~ecrnaptov 43 ~ecrnapw.; 43 ~ia: 96, 169 ~ui~m 168, 17 3 ~!..&~ 157 ~eave.; 31 ~~96.; 115, 117 ~otA.a 349 BoA.t&~e<; (pl.) 250 Bo-DA.yapot 308, 364 ~0'\)A.e'l)'tt KO<; 178 ~ooA.-fJ 41 ~piOcrt<; 132 ~1t'ttS(I) ~ap~apo.; ~a:crt.A.eia:

yap.ei:v 116 yap.et-fJ 160 yap.t Kii'l<; 166 yepaKt 478 yepmv 515 ye!p'l)pa 94 yeq>Upmm<; 94 rfl 73-74, 359 yl..&q>m 53 yviaw.; 123 yoveu<; 132, 176 y6vu 82 yo'U~Mt!l'ttKOV 129, 403 rp&p.p.a; 1o9 ypap.p.a;nK6<; 56 ypaq>ew 130 ypa:!Jlll 300

IL

45

yuvaiov 160 yuv-fJ 68, 160, 167 M:vewv

60 59 59, 404

~eKaPXO<; ~EK!l'tet!l ~epm 179

OC0"1tOtV!l 43 occr1tma p.oo 54, 291, 299 ~£0"1tO't£ta 43, 175 ~£0"1t0t~<; 54, 58, 158, 215, 233, 275, 277,291,299 ~~p.6crux 58, 462-463 ~~p.6crwv 60, 165, 462 ~TJp.~XPXo<; 88 ~ta:~ivm 59 ~ta:~'ttKOV 59 ~ta:~a'tOV 39, 431 IL 201 ~ta:ocm 52 ~t&~~p.a 52, 225 ~~tKim 59 ~ta:~tK6<; 59 ~ta:Ql9eipm 180 ~ta:ytyvmcrK6 p.evo.; 15 5 ~ta:A.Um 131 ~ta~!l'tOV 59, 431 ~t&~p.a 60 ~taKOV0<; 60, 137 ~ta~ei>yvup.t 176 ~t!l~UytOV 132 ~toocrKaA.o.; 57 ~tOOcrKOO 96 ~i~p.t 112, 159 120 ~tKaiov 120 ~tK!ltO<; ~tKmoc:r6v~ 120 ~tKatrop.ata 120 ~Ktp.~m 171 ~top9oi)v 79 oop.o.; 2 n. 1, 61 oot~<; 57 ~'UA.et& 130, 490 ~'\)A.eoo 1 ~'I)A.euetv 273, 490 ~-oA.~ 175 ~uA.o.; 106, 131, 137, 175-176, 273 ~-61; 62-63, 356, 374 ~oxei:ov 27 ~pooyyo.; 249 ~'Uvameia: 177 O&pov 57, 112 £rrpaq>etv EyKA.~!J.!l

f.9vtKO<;

so 56 112

565

GREEK INDEX

£9vos; 154 EWIDAOV 76 ewmA.oA.a1:pda 76 dpTJvo1totos; ~acrtA.rus; 242 dcr6S'T]J.La 61, 40 1 dcr6Stos; 61, 401 EKbtKO<; 94, 167 EKiitcOK(J) 162 EKKA'T]cria 61, 152, 181 EKKA1Jcrtacr'ttK6<; 152 imi1t1:m 170 EAE.'Y'XOt 81 iA.ru9epia 134 iA.ru9epos; 134, 171 , 176 iA.ru9epms; 134 eU1JVo<; 65 iJ.L!IDA.m 157 EJ.L1t01it~EtV 107 EJ.L7tP1JcrJ.L6<; 157 ivliol;6'ta1:o<; 291, 299 EVV6J.LtoV 144, 422 EVVOJ.LO<; 72 £vocrts; 166 EV'tOATI 161 igxpxos 65 101 Ei;r.tKOVt~(J) ifjA.acrt<; 433 n. 209 £/;t<; 77 E/;oJ.LOAoyEtV 78 il;opia 172 il;op~m 172 igoucria 44, 101, 156 igoucrui~uv 44 £gu ~tA.alies; ooo E1ttXV(J) 80, 375 E1t!lPXEtV 101 btapxia 101, 161, 360 i1ti 'tils 1:pa1te~1JS 138, 334-335 E1tt~OUAEUID 162 E1ttKepavvuJ.Lt 66, 329 imKepvws; 66, 329-330, 334 E1tt!JK01t0<; 67 E1ttcr1:a1:em 273 imcr'ta1:1J<; 273 E1ttcr1:1jpt~EtV 118 £1to<; 41 EpyOJ.Lat 89 EP1JJ.Lta 515 EP1JJ.L01tOAh1J<; 128 Ep1]J.LO<; 128, 515 EpJ.L6ID 515 £crm ~tMbe<; 250 hatpEta 231 e1:mpos; 62, 231

hep61iol;os; 77 d:ryevecr1:a1:o<; 299 EUiioKta 34 EVEpy&'T]J.La 34 EVAoyEtv 34 evA.oyia 34 EW tcr1:6<; 34 ev1topem 163 e£1topos; 156 eupicrKm 169 eooe~da 35 EOOE~<; 34-35,291-292 34 eoo1:e~pavos; EOO'tE(J)tXV(J) 34 emEA.fis 168 e-6'tuxecr1:a1:o<; 291 e'l)xfi 303, 315 i~ptcr1:1JJ.L t 97 £x9pa 157 ix9p6s; 47, 177-178 £xm 163, 250 ~aKavov ~aK6Vt

71 71 zeJ.LeA.m 73 ~euyapa'ttKtov ~euyapt 407 ~euyaptov 73

45, 405-406

~ruyeA.tov 73 ~rurvuJ.Lt 178 ~ruyoA.bytov 45,406 ~'Tj'tem

~TI1:1Jcrt<;

162-163 433

TIYEJ.Lovia 277 TIYEJ.l.OOV 45 TIYoUJ.LEVO<; 76 i!i9ws; 51 9eoapecr'to<; 38 9e61i01:o<; 37 eebs; 291 9eoo'tE1t'tO<; 37 9eocrmcr1:6<; 38 9e6~pV..os; 37 9w~p6~o<; 37 9w~p6pos; 37 9eoxapaK1:o<; 37 9f!A.Eta 160 91lA.fi 160 91]craup6s; 141 9p6vos; 127, 139, 225 eura1:1JP 1s9 9ucrtronf!ptov 170

566 lEJ.W.t 157 iepax&pwc; 53, 479 iepal; 478 iep&PJCTIS 76 iep&-re'U!J.!X 134 iepe6c; 79, 135, 172 iepoJ.L6vaxoc; 76, 135, 514 iepoo pyia 134 iepa6pyoJ.Lat 134 tVbt~CtOS 77 lO't11).1t 124 iox6c; 86, 164 xa9UJJ.La 66,107,444 xatv6c; 154 xai:crap 211, 277, 302, 315 KUK6bol;,oc; 75 K!XK01tOtCCO 7 5 xaMyepoc; 79 K!XV!Xp"ttKElVOS 218 K!XVcOV 119-120 K!X1tVtK6V 63,408-409 Kattvol.oyia 63, 409 n. 80 Kattv6c; 408 xap&~wv 84 mpa~oc; 84 KUPVTt 146 xam€Uov 80 K!X
GREEK INDEX

KI.TtpOVOJ.LElV 96 KI.TtpOVOJ.ll!X 61,64 KI.Ttpov6J.LOS 97 xl.ivo!J.!Xt 82 xl.ottl\ 85, 169 KOJ.L~CV"tOV 252 KOj.LCV"tOV 252 fi. 95 K6J.1TtS 83, 337 K6J.LTtS -roo ma-6/.o'U 337 K6J.LTtS "tOJV ~acrt/.tKOJV f)1t1tOJV 337 Koj.L).1€pKtOV 418 K6PTt 157-158, 160 KOO"j.1tK6c; 82 K60"J.LOS 82 KO'UpEUCO 170 KO'Up01t!XM"tlJ KtOV 317 KO'UpOttaM-rTtc; 303, 315, 320 KO'Upottal.a-rl\crcra 317 xp&~co 479 xp&I.Ttc; 85 Kp!X"tCCO 62,133,140,225 xp&-rtmoc; brott6"tTtc; 233 Kpa"tta"tOS Kpa-rcop 233 xp&-roc; 62 Kplj.L!X 56 xpivuv 143 Kptatc; 143 Kpt-rl\ptov 143 Kpt"tl\c; 143 KpU1t"tCO 141, 164 !CtElVEtv 145 !Ctlt!J.!X 141 !CtlJ"tCO p 86 !Ct~CO 86 l('l)vtyecrwv 89 l('I)VTtY6c; 129,457,481 cip 81, 308 l('l)ptax6v 152 l('I)PtUPXTIS 272 l('l)pt&pxco 272 44, 54 1('1) pteue tv l('l)ptx6v 152 cipwc; 54, 158, 215, 272, 275 l('l)cOV 481 xcol.uco 38, 48 KCOJ.1Tt"t11S 164 KcOJ.LTt 164 l.a6c; 89, 166 l.a-6pa 88 l.et-rooyia 89 I.Tta"tl\c; 131 l.t~&ba 89 l.hpa 165

567

GREEK INDEX

l..oyo9ecnov -tcro crtpanwmroo 451 l..oro9klt~ 342 l..oyo9kTJ~ 'tOOV CJ£Kpe-tcov 342 /Jryo~ 74, 89, 137, 149, 177, 229 n. 46, 230, 341 Mate; 131 l..uco 131, 176 IJ.(iretpo~

Ill

IJ.IXKIXpW'tiX'tO~

123 jUivopa 24, 84 IJ.IXVOptanKbv 84, 427 ~J.apropeco 172, 178 jUipro~ 117, 177 jUiaaco 95 JIZYal..e3tupavemam~ 317 JIZYIXAoO~IX'tO~ 321,467 JIZYcxMmpe:rticna-t~ 291, 299 J~ZYal..oc; I pir~ 164, 233, 250, 269 )ley~ oo-o~; 356 )ley~ KOV'tOO'taU~ 337 11ey~ ~..oroee't'l'\~ 342 11ey~ 1tpt)1tKftp~ 328 )1£96ptOV 91 )1£iyvl))1t 173 )1£tAtov 114 )1£1..waoevv6)1toV 476 11epo~ 126 )1£CJaMT\K'tOV 437 )1£'tclOoCJtc; 112 )1£'texco 91 )1£'toxfl 91 )1£'t6JCtOV 91 )LTJ VO)lt)l~ 98 111'\P~ 95 )11'\'tihov 92 )11'\'tporool..{'t'l'\~ 93 )1t)1£ia9at 116 )1ia9to~ 167 )1ta9~ 94,166,497 )1ta9ooro6~ 96, 496-497 )LVT\~ 160-161, 167 )10tJ(;£ta 126 )!OtJCeUCO 126 )10tx6~ 126 )!OtJCOO 126 )10A'I>J31)o1300U~ /Jryo~ 229 n 46 )10VIXJC6~ 73,93, 153,514 )LOV~ptoV 93 )LOVWrtpta 181 11ovil 433 n. 209 )16V~ 93 Momv61tol..tc; 308 )11tWrtwa 31

)1'1>pc:.Ovco

114 271, 345-346 154 154

)1'1>crttK6~

)LCOpta )1COp6~

va6~ 181 ve)LCO 48, 65, 99, 163 ve6qroto~ 100 VtKT\ql6po~ Ill NtK6Aao~ Mho~ 308 VO)lfi 144 VO)lt)LCO~ 98, 161 v6)1ta)1a 74, 177 vo)1o9roia 161

V0)1o9mt~

71

v611~ 71, 161 VO)LO'tt~)lt 158

voo9roia

96

vco13£Maat)10~

303, 315

l;{qlet n)LCOpeco

180

6 btl. -til~ -tp~T\~ 138, 334-335 6otr6~ 45 oOocrtpCOCJia 94,454 606crtp~ 94 61)0'1) Ka'tWrtaatc; 94 oi&x 52 oiKeio~ 123 oi~~ 131, 176 oiKtoV }80 oiK000)1£iv 7 5 oiKoOO)lfi 75, 94 oiKo)lbowv 83, 412 oiKOVO)lta 77 oiKOV6)10~ 77 oiK6~ 180, 408, 493 oiK00)1£VtK6~ 50 oivo~ptov 484 oiv6)1£'tpo~ 42 (F)otvo~ 42 oivox6o~ 331 0)160ol;~ 49 0)169£~ 49 o)169povo~ 49 OV£t0tCJ)16~ 13 3

om

to4

6p9ol>ol;ia

120

6p960ol;o~ 120 6p96~ 132 op~co

104, 167 53, 425 6pta)1~ 104 op~ 53,425

optKft

568 6pcpav6c; 130, 136 omop.ap-tupoc; 127 ocrtoc; 123, 127 &tpoKoc; 490 &tpc.ln~tVCt 106, 490, 416 6cpetA.&qc; 60 6cpEiA.TJp.et 60 ocptc; 168 1tettliE'6ew 79 IIetA.ettoA.6yoc; 291 7tetvetrfl c; 51 1tetvaywc; 51 1tetveutuxecrtatoc; 291, 299 1tetVTJyOptov 107-108 7tetviepoc; 51 7tetv6moc; 51 mxvn11oc; 51 1tetVtOKpatrop 51 1tetvu7tepcre~crtoc; 306 1tet1t1tcxc; 116, 512 7tetpet~CtlVCO 127, 175 1tetpetyyapel.et 433, 448 7tetp6.1iomc; 126 1tetpet1tE!J.1tCO 172 1tetpCttTJpE.tV 35 oop9evoc; 64, 159 7tetp0tK£lV 122 1tetpOtKtetttK6V 106 mxpotKOS 108, 493 1tapro 158 1tettptetfJXTJS 109 7tet9ro 39, 171 xEVTJS 168 1tept~6A.wv 109 1tE.p1tUpaKtS 109, 473 1ttYKEPVTJS 66, 329-330, 332, 334 1tt1tpMKCO 174-17 5 1ttcrttc; 158 1ttcrt6c; 34, 51-52, 217 1tAnvw6. I 1tAetVTJvlJ 424 1tl..a.ap.a 35 xA.acrtTJ c; 7 5 7tAmvel;l.et 89 1tAi19oc; 110 1tATJp6ro 159, 163 1tA.oucrtoc; 36 1tMUtt~ew 102 1tAoutoc; 37 1t0tero 152, 155, 160 1tOtvlJ 113, 163 1t0Ae!J.toc; 124, 176 1t6Ae!J.oc; 132, 156 1toA.t9da 159, 161

GREEK INDEX

1t6A.tc; 56, 150, 159 1tOAuet!J.&.ptTJtoc; 93 1tOVTJptet 36 1tOVTJp6c; 168 1tOptK6V 39 1topvda 36, 90, 166 1topveuro 155 1t6pvoc; 36 1tOpcpUpet 30, 223 1topqropoyeVVlJtOS 30, 116, 223 1tpawa 42, 156 1tpetetet 99, 168 1tpetKtopE'6rov 433 7tp&Ktrop 121 1tpetti 99, 168 1tpettic; 50, 99, 168 7tpm~teptov 115 7tpm~tepoc; 116, 121 7tpecr~uc; 97 7tpmeA.tt~a 438 IL 226 1tptp.!J.tK'ftptoc; 122, 326 1tptppTJcrftc; 169 7tpompecrn 157 1tpo~tobeKettdet 476 7tpo~toxotpolieKettda 403, 476 1tpol361iot 448 1tpoli&TJc; 126 1tpocrliexo!J.ett 158 7tpoa9{JKTJ 17 3 7tpocr!J.etptupero 178 7tp6crolioc; 61, 121, 401 1tp6crtetl;tc; 111 1tpocrcpe'l}yetv I 1tpoocpE'6yro 121, 173 7tpocrcpeuyrov 173, 179 7tpocrcprovero 171 1tp6crro1tov 165 7tpoxdptcrtc; 303, 315 1tprotE.KbtKOS 124 1tproto~ecrttetpl.et 467 1tproto~ecrttetpl.crcret 467 7tproto~ecrtt6.ptoc; 466 7tproto9p6voc; 125 1tprotoi:epaKapwc; 479 1tprotoKei..A.tc.lnTJc; 357 1tprotOKUVTJY6c; 481 1tprot01tet1tcxc; 124-125 7tprotocre~crtoc; 306, 308 7tUp 157 1tCOAelV 123 1tCOI..ero 171 petyytetttK6v 4 35 pet9U!J.lCt 166 Pil!J.et 177

569

GREEK INDEX

pill; 85 pfrtmp 133 ptvoK61ttiD 180 pw6c; 180 p&yu 169 :Ea:P
134

cre~atoKpatmp 135,277,299 cre~a:atoc; 135,295,306,308-309

LE!J.EA.T\ 73 crt-y{Utov 229, 433 crtta:plcia: 68, 425, 439-440 crttapKWtc; 440 crua:pKtcr!J.6c; 440 auapxia 440 crttaPXoc; 68 crh01) 69 crK'i11ttpov 70, 136 mcrtJt't(J) 136 ari>A.oc; 172 cr!J.ilvoc; 257 cr1ta:9aptoc; 92, 350 crta:crta~(J) 254 ataatc; 254 crtE!J.~ 73 crtepym 139 crtE<pa:voc; 52,225 crtE
cruatpc:mc&tT\c; crxit!J.a: 139 crm!J.a: 176

62

ta:~uMptoc; 160, 367 n. 300 taA.a:vtov 142 tal;tc; 32-33, 152, 155 't!X1tEtv6t; 138 tatum 144 'tEKVOV 160 teA.oc; 57

-r£xv11

144, 495

't£XVT\'tUPT\t; 144, 495 'tT\tam 144 'tt!J.Tt 181 'tlVID 113, 152 'tt91'\!J.t 65, 89, 162, 341 't01ttK6t; 115 t61t0c; 95, 161, 167, 359 tpa1te~a: 334 tcreMyya:c; 364 'tU1ttK6V 144 tu1ttm 179 tuq>Mm 175 'tiDUp'tiDUV!X 1t1'\l.,e ~ID1t!XV 367 \S1ta:vSpoc; 167 {)1tUPXIDV 60 l)1tEpftq>avoc; 154 uitEPJtupaKtc; 473 u1tEp1tupov 109,414-415 U1t1'\peaia: 130, 137-138, 277 u1toypaq>ew 113 u1t68emc; 165 U1tOM!J.~UV(J) 99 u1tovo8eum 174 uJt6ata:crtc; 163 u'l'tMc; 43 u'l'lMta:toc; 125, 217 U'lf6ID 49 q>a:vepmmc; 1o3 lp!Xp!J.!XKEta 45 q>E~Of.J.!Xt 145 q>epm 76 q>Seipmv 160, 173 q>tA.Oxptcrtoc; 149 q>Mym 33 q>6~c; 145 q>6voc; 47, 145, 147 q>opoA.oyia: 61 q>6poc; 147 q>ocrcratoc; 157 q>pftyYU!J.t 102

570

GREEK INDEX

q~povri~

115

qrol..ariJ 145 qn)A.al; 139 qroMaaco 35, 180 qn)co 60 xaio~

70

xap!X'YJI.Il

415

:x;ap-tool..apux; 'toU j}ro'tuxpiou 321 :x;ap-toqn)A.al; 147 XetJI.!X

74

:x;etpmdm'tco 172, 174-17 5 :x;etpO'tOvta 49 :x;peo~

49

xp=eiv 159 :x;pta)la 114, 223

XpW't&;

86, 291

Xp1>aol3m>IJ..w~ 230 :x;p1>a6j3oo/J..w~ Alry~

149

:x;p1>a6j3oo!J..ov 149 :x;p1>a6j3oo!J..ov aty(Uwv

229

:x;p1>a6j3oo!J..o~ 74, 137 :x;p1>a6j3oo!J..o~ opw)16~ 229 :x;p1>a6j3oo!J..o~ Airy~ 74, 137 :x;p1>a6~

74, 161

xropa 7o, 139, 148, 359 :x;cop!l!pwv 168, 100 :x;copf.ov 136

voxfl

'lfCO)ltov

63 148

'lfCO)lO~TJ)lta

148, 433 n. 209

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX 27, 514 132 MA.rA.'I'Ofb. 27, 378 A.HA.rHOC'M. 27 A.nO,A.OXA.'I'Ofb. 27, 471-472 A.nOAOXHA. 27, 464 A.nOAOXH~b. 472 A.nOKfHCH~'l> 28 A.fHKO 28, 132, 144, 409 A.fXHGn HCKOn'l> 28, 510 A.fXHEfA.fX'l> 28 A.fXHEfEH 28, 29 A.fXHEfEHC'I'B:O 29 A.fXHMA.HAfH'I"l> 29, 514 A.fXHC'I'fA.'I'Hr'l> 29

1>.1!:1!:.\

A.EfHKOC

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

RA.rf'l>

I

RA.r'l>f'l>

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

34 34

34

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

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

572 111!,A.o\

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX 39

I!:A'l>eHII'\TH

39, 111

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

39 39 39, 512

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

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

370

370

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

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

1!:.\j)b.fb.

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

44

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

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

83

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX

125

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

I

rf'IIWI>H'l.

ltb.AOitHLI,b.

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

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

51 292

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

rA~~.~tb.

rAO&b.

53, 455, 478

52 53

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

56 57

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

Ab.&HA'l.

51 51

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

rGfb.Kb.fb.

rO~AH'I'H

573

Ab.HHh1

Aflr'l.

574

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX

.·

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

a

A

Wb.

370

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

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

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

IKGHH'I'&.\

76

1Kfb.'I'Hif

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

n'-\7>

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

365, 366, 370

366 70, 225 70, 76

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

71

71

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

I

~.\roHeHHif

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

71

160 160

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

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

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

76 76, 514

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

76

H~'KiHA'b

KMK,'I'Afb.

244

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

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

HlfiA11.H,'I'H

KA~A'I'H

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

KM'I'focfHAA;!'b

I

KM'I'focfHAAKb.

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

KA'I',nAHO

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

76

80, 377

575

576

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX MOr~'l'b.

87

KO\ff'Z>

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

164 265,269

1.10/\H'I'KA

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

K'l>HHro\

I

K~yonMo~>.'I'HCI>

303, 315

81

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

1\HKb.Ao\

hH)(O~I.I'IlHHhl

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

89 165 /\HLI,~ MKH4J~ 89

/\H)('l>

Mr~'l''l>

I

Mrocp'"''l>

89, 90, 370

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

MlKH'I'H

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

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

91, 93, 514 91, 93 237 MOH.)(MIO&HK'l> 93, 514 MOHo\)('1. 146, 180 MOfH'I'H 146 1.10f7> 93, 453 I.IOC'I"1. 93, 453 MOC'I''l>HHHo\ 115 M04Jb. 94, 166 M7>Ab.hOC'I'b. 94,166-167,496 Mb.4Ao\ 167 l.lb.4Ab.HHK'1. 94 1.1 b.C'I'H'I'~/\1> 94, 105, 167 Mb.C'I'b. 167 Mb.C'I'b.HHK'l> 50 M'llHIA'I'H 94, 115, 167, 359 M'llC'I'O 167 1.1~<\'l'o\IA 95, 167 1.1~<\'I'HLI,o\ 41,95, 161,167 1.1~'1. 95 M~Ko\ 95 M~%NHK'1. 95 I.I~~H'I'H

90, 166

245 90 90, 166, 494 1\IO,A.H 166 hto,A. b.CK'l>l H 105, 131 1\m~H'I'H

NAKO,A.'l> Hb.A'l>

MM'1.lK~N'1.

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

90

I.I~JKAA 91 91 1.1~'1'~)(<\'I'H I.I~'I'O)(HIA

91 91, 514 M~'I'O)('l> 350 M~~~NOC~LI,'l> 91, 351 I.I~~OHOWo\ ~..~~~'1.1 1.11>~'1. 91 237 I.IHMC'I'HK'l> 92, 356 MHMC'I'b. 114 MH/\'1.

95 97

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

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

514

I

95

HAKO,A.H'I'H

/\10&'1.1

MM'l>lK~No\

257

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

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

Mo\r~NHLI,o\

MONM'I"1.1f'1.

MONM'I"1.1fb.CK'1.

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

K~f'l>

I

MONM'I'Hf'l>

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

Kvyonoho~>.'I'HCI>

93 303

166, 197

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

I

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

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

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

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

97

1.1 Hfb.CK'l>IH

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

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

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

MHf'l>

138

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

N~K'Ilfb.HHK'l>

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

98

98 98

H~,A.KHlKHM'l>

365 365

98

98

96-97, 223

577

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX

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

157

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

ori>N'l.

N'O'M.HAI\teM'b

OAfb.lKb.N lite

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

OKfb.A'N'l.IH

OC'I'b.KI1'1'11

I

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

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

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

0&11,6.b.

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

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

I

0&11.11~11'1'11

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

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

I

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

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

105 170 105

onnO'fC'I'H'I'H

I

105, 176

onn,4JA.'I'H

106, 129,

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

106, 416, 490, 494 170 106

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

101, 169

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

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

I

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

nb.KOC'I'I1'1'11

I

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

105

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

osorA.'1'1l'I'H

102

578

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX

nAAHHA'I'HKO

nOHOC~

nAAHH Hoi.

non~%HHh1

423 110

nAA'I'H'I'H

I

nNbK'l>

110

nAA4JA'I'H

110, 122

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

nA~H~HHK'l>

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

448

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

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

121

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

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

579

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

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

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

""f"'

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

580

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX CAOKOnOAOIIIH'I'~Ab.

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

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

fMKOA'b

CAOKOC'bnHCb.'I'Mb.

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

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

CA

CA

234

13 3 81 133 133 116

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

Cb.MOKHAb.U,b.

133 133, 356 133 133, 214, 236

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

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

Cb.IA'b

Cb.IA'b~HH

137

lllb.&i>HHK'b

CAO Wb.'I'H

?6,

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

IIIH'I'H

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

CA

581

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX

65 141 141 C'bU~Wb.'I'H C'bN~M'b 246,251,253,255-256 256 C'bH~U~HHK'b 141 C'bn.l.KOC'I'H'I'H 38 C'bnM.l.'I'H I C'bn.l.C'I'H 141 c'bnymr'b 256 C'bC'I'O/\~H HK'b 156, 160 C'b'I'KOfH'I'H 256 C'b'l'fb.n~7,NHK 178 C'beii\A'b 178 C'b%'1'<\HHI\1 178 C'b%'1'<\'I'H C~f~&fO 142 142 C~f~&f~HHK'b 142, 226 C~AMH4J~ 142 C~A~'I'H 142, 485 C~Hb.f~ 142, 485 C~HO 485 C~HO KOCH'I'H 142 C~ NO KOC'b 105, 143, 170 Cii\AH'I'H 143 Cii\AH4J~ 143, 178 Cii\AHIA 143, 170, 178, 143 Cii\A'b 143, 432 Cii\A~&HHA 143, 178 cmnoC'I'A'I"b 143, 178 cmn~r~ 143, 178 cmn~f~HHK'b C~rKAH'I"b I CHrKAH'I"b 246-247, 249, 250 ~Hw..'b I ~rK~/\'b 144

C7>A 1lhl.'I'H

C'bKf01tH4J~

351 270, 344-345 84-85, 144 '1'.1.'1'~ 144 'l'b.'l'~&b. 144, 409 'l'itb.fHKO 155 'l'ltOfH'I'H 118 'I'Itf'l.A'b 179 'l'~n~'I'H 119 'I'~'I'H 144, 494 'I'~)CHH'I'b.f~ 144 'I'HnHK'b 144, 389 'I'OnijJHKM~ 144, 420 'l'fb.it~HHH.l. 335 '1'fb.n~7,0C'I'fOH'I'~/\~ 144 'l'f'brOitb.'I'H 144 'l'f'br'b 179 'l'f~&b. 311 '1'0\ffU.H 'I'~M.~. 145 145 'I'~M~HHU,b. 145 O~&HH U,b. 'l'.l.r~H

'l'b.HHHK'b

~

&H'I'H

I

0\f&Hitb.'I'H

145, 179

145 179 0 &~r'b 145 0~&'1liiiH4J~ O~KOfH7,N~H'b 145 164, 179 01KfM'I'H &OH

olMb.ftA'I'H

I

,uopH'I'H

146, 180

127 o1nOAO&H'I'H 180 0 f~7,b.'I'H HOC'b 146 146, 180 146 0 C'l'fOH 146, 180 0 C'l'fOH'I'H O~~Kb.'I'H U~~~U'b 180 146 0 'l'ltf'bAH'I'H 241 0 'l'ltf'bi!IA~HH~ 146-147 0 ~~HHK'b 147 0 ~H'I'~/\~ 146-146 O~~H'I'H 0 C'l'b.lt'b

O~C'I'fO~HHh1

147 147 147 147

cf.l.HrH'b/\'b ipoAHOr'b <poyoc'b <J>,H'b

)Cb.f'I'ocp~AA/i'b 147 148 148 )CI\~&'b 148 )COAA'I'AH 148 )COAA'I'AHC'I'ItO 32, 61, 97, 148 )COAH'I'H 148, 359 )COfb. 148, 225 )COfmr'bl 119 )CO'I'~'I'H I )C04Jm 149, 180 )CfAM'b 303,314-315, 317, )CfAHH'I'~/\~ nOAA~ 319-320 149, 180 )CfAHH'I'H 149, 228, 230 )CfHCOKO\f/\'b 149, 218, 236 )CfHC'I'O/\kl&Hit'b )1:/\.l.K'b

U,Af~K'b

149

I U.b.f~Krf.l.A'b 150 150, 419 149-151,211-212,237, 350,356 U.Af~ 149 U.Af~CK'b 151 U,b.f~C'I'KHI\1 151, 292, 421 U.b.f~C'I'KO 151 U,Af ~C'I'KOKA'I' H 245 U,lt~'I'A 245 U,lt~'I'~U,~ 152, 180 U.f~K'blt~H'b 152, 181, 399 U.f~K'bl 150, 233 U,~Cb.f~

U.b.fHrf<\A'b U,b.fHHb.

582

OLD CYRILLIC INDEX

152, 181 150-151,211-212,243

%&AN~

329 329

%&AH~IH

~t.&AHI>~HH ~AWHHK~ ~GAO

66, 331-333 364-365

%1\t.HHK~ fH~t.HH%CK~

%fHOfH~t.U,t. ~GfHI>U,t. ~HPO'I'HH~

%&AHI>U,t.

328-329

153 32 181

%C'I't.H~IH

325, 462

39

%'I'm

~IOIK~IH

39

I ~H~ 349-350 32, 152, 155 32, 152, 155, 249 ~HH~ 32, 153 ~HC'I'H 33 ~H'I'H'I'H ~f~n~HH I ~f~n~Htll. 328-330 ~ft.r~&~ll\t.C'I'&O 153 152-153 ~ft.r &~lAtA. 153, 515 ~fi>HO ~t.U,t. 153, 515 ~fi>HOC'I'Afi>U,t. 153 ~fi>H~ 153, 181, 512, 515 ~fi>Ht.U,t. 153 ~fi>Ht.~t.CK~ 153 ~fi>Ht.~t.C'I'KO 153 ~fi>Ht.~t.C'I'&OKA'I'H 153, 230-231, 312 ~ft.'l'or~ 329 %&AH0&A'I'H

~HHH'I'H

I

32

%C'I't.

WHWMAH~

311 81, 154, 181

Wt.n~'l't.HHK~

155

4JG'I'A

181

4JIO/KAHH

ffiiKt.HHK~

ffifOA~

I miKHK~ 154

ffifOAt.C'I'&O

103

IJI.&H'I'H

bi.~~IK~ bi.'I'H

154

154 89, 49

154