Insignia of the despot

At the court of the Second Bulgarian Empire, insignia were not merely ornaments but a visible language of power and rank. Meaning could be conveyed by the form of a crown, the colour and cut of garments, a staff, shoes, and even horse trappings or a tent. No Bulgarian written description of a despot’s costume survives. The principal domestic evidence consists of the portrait of Despot Michael in the church at Dolna Kamenitsa and the miniature of Despot Constantine in the London Gospels.

The coinage of Jacob Svetoslav is an additional but more difficult source to interpret. He appears frontally in armour, wearing a loros—a long ceremonial band—and a stemma, or crown of imperial type. The image follows predominantly Western models and probably expresses the sovereign ambitions of the lord of Vidin rather than the normal insignia of the despot’s rank.

Because the Bulgarian evidence is limited, Byzantine ceremonial provides a necessary basis for comparison, although it does not prove that the court at Tarnovo reproduced it in full. The court treatise attributed to Pseudo-Kodinos, compiled around the middle of the fourteenth century, gives a detailed description of a Byzantine despot. His skiadion, a ceremonial hat, was covered with pearls and bore the dignitary’s own name embroidered in gold.

His tunic and the outer garment called a tamparion were red, although the tunic had no military emblems. His stockings were also red, while his shoes combined violet and red and were decorated with eagles worked in pearls. The same two-colour scheme was repeated on the straps, saddle, and saddlecloth, while his white tent was covered with small red eagles.

The skaranikon—another formal court cap—was set with precious stones, and the kabbadion, a long court robe, could be violet or red. Children who held the dignity of despot did not wear their own skiadia inside the palace. The Bulgarian images do not attest such an elaborately regulated and sumptuous uniform.

Not all proposed supplementary images can be used with equal confidence. In the frescoes at Pološko, John Dragushin is dressed as a despot even though there is no secure evidence that he held the title. An inscription identifies his father as Despot Eltimir, but the suggestion that the son inherited the costume without the dignity itself does not resolve the difficulty. The monument also belongs to a Serbian context. The attribution of a coin found at Skopje and inscribed ‘ДЕПОТЬ КОНСТАНТИНЬ’ remains uncertain. Portraits of Serbian despots may offer useful comparisons, but the situation in Serbia was different, especially in the fifteenth century, when its rulers themselves normally held the dignity of despot.

The crowns of Michael and Constantine differ substantially. Michael’s crown consists of a metal circlet and a stiff textile base. It is set with rubies and emeralds and covered with pearls, while a rectangular projection at the front holds a large, shining stone. Two pearl pendants descend in front of his ears. This form appears archaic and resembles crowns used by early Constantinopolitan, Bulgarian, and Norman rulers, although it has no exact parallel among Balkan despots of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

Constantine wears a simpler gold circlet with plaques at the front and sides, each bearing a large red gemstone; it too is edged with pearls. The contrast may reflect both the interval of about half a century between the portraits and the different origins of the two men’s dignity: Michael was a tsar’s son, whereas Constantine was a tsar’s son-in-law. Byzantine ceremonial likewise distinguished between these two categories of despot.

Both despots hold signs of authority, but these are not identical. In his right hand Michael carries a cross covered with pearls and precious stones. A comparable attribute appears in portraits of the Constantinopolitan emperors after Theodore Laskaris, and with Tsar Ivan Alexander and the young Tsar Ivan Shishman in the London Gospels, but not in the known portraits of Serbian despots. Constantine holds a red staff with a simple double-conical finial. Similar staffs are carried by the three imperial daughters, including his wife, and also by Empress Theodora and Tsar Ivan Asen.

In the manuscript, only the sovereign ruler and his heir carry crosses and wear loroi. They alone also have closed crowns, although Ivan Shishman’s crown lacks side pendants. Ivan Asen wears a circlet resembling that of his brother-in-law Constantine. This visual system suggests that the cross was primarily a sovereign insignia rather than an obligatory attribute of every despot.

The garments of Michael and Constantine are similar in construction. Both wear a long dalmatic—a ceremonial tunic—with two rows of embroidered double-headed eagles down the front. Their garments fasten in the middle and are crossed by gold-woven bands edged with pearls; in Constantine’s fully preserved portrait, such a band also borders the lower hem. Michael’s robe is more richly decorated and has shorter sleeves, but its dark-blue colour is more significant, since it differs from the expected red or purple. Beneath it is a white shirt with ornamented cuffs, a comparatively late element of court dress. Michael’s belt resembles the imperial loros, but it is not draped over the left arm and differs from it in several details.

Only Constantine’s portrait supplies evidence about footwear, since the lower portion of Michael’s image has been lost. The despot’s shoes are darker than those worn by the other members of the imperial family and appear to combine a lighter and a darker section. The relationship between their colours resembles the distinction between his robe and that of his imperial father-in-law. The cushion beneath his feet is likewise darker and resembles the cushion used by Ivan Asen. Such details show that the artist distinguished carefully between the status of the people represented, although the precise rules governing the colours cannot be recovered.

The dress of the despots’ wives provides still less certain evidence. Although Kera Tamara is explicitly described by a feminine form derived from the title of despot, her costume does not differ from those of her sisters. Within the composition, she appears primarily as a tsar’s daughter. Michael’s wife wears a closed crown with ear pieces, a double-headed eagle, and numerous pearls, all of which emphasize her elevated position. The feminine title, however, derived from the dignity of the husband, so a wife’s insignia reflected his rank rather than denoting an independent office. Significantly, the Byzantine description of the despot’s costume does not discuss the dress of the wives separately.

The surviving monuments demonstrate neither complete adherence to nor deliberate rejection of the Byzantine model. Michael and Constantine wear sufficiently similar garments to reveal a shared courtly approach, but the differences between them make it impossible to define a strict Bulgarian uniform. These variations may have resulted from chronology, personal rank, and the distinction between a tsar’s son and a tsar’s son-in-law. Michael’s portrait has a strongly sovereign character even though his costume is not the usual dress of a tsar: this impression is reinforced by his cross and by the image of Christ blessing the despot and his wife from above. It is not known precisely when such a system of Bulgarian despotal insignia was established or when it ceased to operate.

At the court of the Second Bulgarian Empire, insignia were not just decoration. They were a visible way of showing power and rank. A crown, the colour and cut of clothing, a staff, shoes, or even horse gear and a tent could all send a message. No Bulgarian text describing a despot’s outfit has survived. The main evidence from inside Bulgaria comes from the portrait of Despot Michael in the church at Dolna Kamenitsa and the miniature of Despot Constantine in the London Gospels.

Jacob Svetoslav’s coinage is another source, but it is harder to read. On the coins he is shown facing forward in armour, wearing a loros, a long ceremonial band, and a stemma, that is, a crown of imperial type. The design mainly follows Western models. It probably reflects the ruler’s own ambitions in Vidin rather than the normal insignia of a despot.

Because the Bulgarian evidence is so limited, Byzantine court practice is the main point of comparison. Even so, it does not prove that the court at Tarnovo copied it exactly. A court handbook linked to Pseudo-Kodinos and compiled around the middle of the fourteenth century describes a Byzantine despot in detail. His skiadion, a ceremonial hat, was covered with pearls and had his own name embroidered on it in gold.

His tunic and the outer garment called a tamparion were red, though the tunic had no military symbols. His stockings were also red. His shoes mixed violet and red and had eagles made in pearls. The same two-colour pattern appeared on the straps, saddle, and saddlecloth, and his white tent was covered with small red eagles.

The skaranikon, another formal court cap, was set with precious stones. The kabbadion, a long court robe, could be violet or red. Children who held the rank of despot did not wear their own skiadia inside the palace. The Bulgarian images do not show a uniform this carefully regulated or this lavish.

Not every extra image that has been suggested can be trusted equally. In the frescoes at Pološko, John Dragushin is dressed as a despot, even though there is no firm proof that he actually held that title. An inscription calls his father Despot Eltimir, but the idea that the son inherited the costume without the dignity itself does not settle the issue. This monument also belongs to a Serbian setting. The coin found at Skopje and inscribed ‘ДЕПОТЬ КОНСТАНТИНЬ’ is also uncertain in its attribution. Serbian depots may provide useful comparisons, but Serbia was different, especially in the fifteenth century, when its rulers themselves usually held the title of despot.

The crowns of Michael and Constantine are quite different. Michael wears a crown made of a metal band with a stiff cloth base. It is covered with pearls and set with rubies and emeralds. At the front is a rectangular piece holding a large bright stone, and two pearl pendants hang down in front of his ears. This form looks old-fashioned. It recalls crowns used by early rulers in Constantinople, Bulgaria, and Norman lands, but it has no exact match among Balkan despots of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

Constantine’s crown is simpler. It is a gold band with plaques at the front and sides, each with a large red stone, and it is also edged with pearls. The difference may come from both the roughly half-century gap between the portraits and the different source of each man’s dignity. Michael was a tsar’s son, while Constantine was a tsar’s son-in-law. Byzantine ceremonial also made a distinction between these two kinds of despot.

Both men hold signs of office, but they are not the same. In his right hand Michael carries a cross covered with pearls and precious stones. A similar object appears in portraits of the Constantinopolitan emperors after Theodore Laskaris, and with Tsar Ivan Alexander and the young Tsar Ivan Shishman in the London Gospels, but not in the known portraits of Serbian despots. Constantine holds a red staff with a plain double-conical top. Similar staffs are carried by the three imperial daughters, including his wife, and also by Empress Theodora and Tsar Ivan Asen.

In the manuscript, only the ruler and his heir carry crosses and wear loroi, meaning ceremonial bands. They alone also wear closed crowns, although Ivan Shishman’s crown has no side pendants. Ivan Asen wears a circlet like that of his brother-in-law Constantine. This visual pattern suggests that the cross was mainly a sovereign sign, not something every despot had to carry.

Michael and Constantine also wear similar clothes in their construction. Both have long dalmatics, ceremonial tunics, with two rows of embroidered double-headed eagles down the front. Their garments close in the middle and are crossed by gold-woven bands edged with pearls. In Constantine’s fully preserved portrait, one such band also trims the lower hem. Michael’s robe is more richly decorated and has shorter sleeves, but its dark-blue colour matters more, since it is not the expected red or purple. Under it he wears a white shirt with decorated cuffs, a relatively late feature of court dress. Michael’s belt looks like the imperial loros, but it is not draped over the left arm and differs from it in several details.

Only Constantine’s portrait tells us anything about footwear, because the lower part of Michael’s image has been lost. The despot’s shoes are darker than those worn by the other members of the imperial family and seem to combine a lighter part with a darker one. Their colour contrast is similar to the difference between his robe and that of his imperial father-in-law. The cushion under his feet is also darker and resembles the cushion used by Ivan Asen. Such details show that the artist was careful to mark differences in status among the people shown, even though the exact colour rules cannot be recovered.

The clothing of the despots’ wives is even harder to interpret. Kera Tamara is clearly described with a feminine form based on the title of despot, but her dress does not differ from that of her sisters. In the scene itself, she appears mainly as a tsar’s daughter. Michael’s wife wears a closed crown with ear pieces, a double-headed eagle, and many pearls, all of which underline her high position. But the feminine title came from her husband’s dignity, so a wife’s signs of rank reflected his standing rather than marking an office of her own. It is also important that the Byzantine description of the despot’s costume does not treat the wives’ dress separately.

What survives shows neither full copying of the Byzantine model nor a clear rejection of it. Michael and Constantine wear clothes that are close enough to show a shared court style, but the differences between them make it impossible to define a strict Bulgarian uniform. Those differences may come from date, personal rank, and the gap between a tsar’s son and a tsar’s son-in-law. Michael’s portrait has a strongly sovereign look, even though his costume is not the usual dress of a tsar. That impression is strengthened by his cross and by the image of Christ blessing the despot and his wife from above. We do not know exactly when this Bulgarian system of despotal insignia began or when it stopped being used.

At the court of the Second Bulgarian Empire, clothes and crowns showed rank and power. The best evidence comes from two portraits: Despot Michael in Dolna Kamenitsa and Despot Constantine in the London Gospels. A coin of Jacob Svetoslav may also show a ruler’s high hopes, but it is hard to read.

The Bulgarian images do not show one fixed despot’s uniform. Michael and Constantine wear similar rich court dress, but their crowns, staffs, shoes, and decorations are not the same. Michael looks more like a ruler in his own right, while Constantine’s signs of rank are simpler.

By comparing these images with Byzantine court customs, it seems the Bulgarian court followed some shared ideas but not all of the same rules. The dress may have changed with time and with family status. This makes the portraits important because they show how the Bulgarian rulers wanted power to be seen.