As one of the highest dignitaries, the despot was entitled to issue official acts. Despots, particularly those who governed substantial territories as local lords, probably maintained chanceries of their own. Following the Byzantine model, their solemn documents would normally have been argyrobulls—acts authenticated with a silver seal, also described as “silver-sealed words.” They differed from chrysobulls, the gold-sealed charters of the emperor or the Bulgarian tsar. Byzantine practice itself was not entirely uniform, however, so this distinction should not be treated as an absolute rule.
The charters of Serbian despots do not provide a secure basis for reconstructing Bulgarian practice. They depart considerably from the Byzantine model, while Serbian despots displayed a lasting tendency to issue chrysobulls. This may be associated with the distinctive political position of John Uglješa and with the fact that, in the fifteenth century, the Serbian despots were themselves the rulers of the state. These circumstances have no direct Bulgarian parallel. For the same reason, it cannot be assumed that Bulgarian despots regularly signed their documents in red ink, a privilege associated with supreme sovereign authority.
The earliest specific piece of evidence is the sigillion of Despot Alexios Slav, dated January 1220. A sigillion is an official document authenticated with a seal. The act follows the Byzantine formulary throughout and therefore reveals little about any distinctive Bulgarian practice. After the territories around Melnik were incorporated into the Bulgarian Empire after 1230, the chancery traditions of Alexios Slav may have influenced Bulgarian diplomatics, although this remains conjectural.
The letter sent by Jacob Svetoslav to Cyril, Metropolitan of Kyiv, may also be regarded as the product of a Bulgarian despot’s chancery. It survives in three copies, in each of which it is combined with a note by John Dragoslav, although the message itself can be distinguished from the added text. The letter opens with an address to the metropolitan and speaks in the first person on behalf of the despot.
Its original documentary form has nevertheless been lost: the signature, seal, and other external features do not survive, and part of the text itself is probably missing. The acts of the Bulgarian despots are consequently known only in fragmentary form, and their regular formulary, means of authentication, and position within the wider system of the tsar’s chancery cannot be established with confidence.
As one of the highest officials, the despot had the right to issue official documents. Despots, especially those who ruled large territories as local lords, probably had their own chanceries, or writing offices. Following Byzantine practice, their formal documents would normally have been argyrobulls: acts sealed in silver, also called “silver-sealed words.” These were different from chrysobulls, the gold-sealed charters of the emperor or the Bulgarian tsar. But Byzantine practice was not fully consistent, so this difference should not be treated as a hard rule.
The surviving charters of Serbian despots are not a firm guide to Bulgarian practice. They differ quite a lot from the Byzantine model, and Serbian despots also continued to issue chrysobulls. This may be linked to the special political position of John Uglješa and to the fact that, in the fifteenth century, the Serbian despots were themselves the rulers of the state. There is no direct Bulgarian parallel. For the same reason, we cannot assume that Bulgarian despots regularly signed their documents in red ink, a privilege linked to supreme sovereign authority.
The earliest specific evidence is the sigillion of Despot Alexios Slav, dated January 1220. A sigillion is an official document authenticated with a seal. This act follows the Byzantine model throughout, so it tells us little about any distinctive Bulgarian practice. After the territories around Melnik were brought into the Bulgarian Empire after 1230, the chancery traditions of Alexios Slav may have influenced Bulgarian diplomatics, that is, the way official documents were made and used, although this remains conjectural.
The letter sent by Jacob Svetoslav to Cyril, Metropolitan of Kyiv, may also be treated as a product of a Bulgarian despot’s chancery. It survives in three copies, and in each one it is joined with a note by John Dragoslav, although the message itself can still be separated from the added text. The letter opens with an address to the metropolitan and speaks in the first person on behalf of the despot.
Even so, its original documentary form has been lost. The signature, seal, and other outward features no longer survive, and part of the text itself is probably missing. As a result, the acts of the Bulgarian despots are known only in fragmentary form, and their usual wording pattern, their means of authentication, and their place within the wider system of the tsar’s chancery cannot be established with confidence.
Bulgarian despots were high nobles who could issue official documents, and some likely had their own offices for writing them. In theory, these documents may have used a silver seal, while the emperor or tsar used a gold seal. But the evidence is weak, so we cannot be sure this was always true.
The earliest known example is a sealed document from Despot Alexios Slav, dated January 1220. It follows the usual Byzantine style, so it does not tell us much about a special Bulgarian way of doing things. After 1230, when the areas around Melnik joined the Bulgarian Empire, his older customs may have had some influence.
Another important text is a letter from Jacob Svetoslav to Cyril, the metropolitan of Kyiv. But it survives only in copies, and parts are missing. Because of this, we do not know enough to say exactly how Bulgarian despots wrote, sealed, or filed their documents.