The problem of the “despotates”

In the Byzantine and Bulgarian political systems, despot was a high dignity associated with rulership, not an office with defined administrative duties. It does not follow that every despot governed a special type of province called a despotate. The existence of such an institution would require a stable connection between a particular territory, its ruler, and his title of despot. The sparse Bulgarian evidence reveals no such pattern.

The letter of Despot Jacob Svetoslav to Cyprian, metropolitan of Kyiv, contains the phrase “деспотъ болгарьского.” Its most natural meaning is “Bulgarian despot”: it indicates political affiliation rather than rule over a territorial “Bulgarian Despotate.” Nor does the formula reveal who granted the title. Latin documents are even less reliable as evidence for the local system of titles. A Venetian act of 1313 calls Michael Shishman “Michael dispoti Bulgarie,” while a letter of Pope Benedict XII presents Petritsa, the wife of Despot Sratsimir, as “Petrisse ducisse Carnon”—duchess of Kran. Such formulas recast Balkan realities in Western titular language and cannot by themselves establish the existence of a territorial institution.

The Byzantine terminology applied to Voysil is more precise but still ambiguous. John Kantakouzenos calls him “δεσπότης Μυσίας” and “τῶν Μυσῶν δεσπότης,” respectively despot of Mysia and despot of the Mysians. The context does not permit these expressions to be treated as the official style of a governor of a Mysian despotate. Nor is the word used merely in its general sense of “lord,” since Voysil received and subsequently retained the formal dignity of despot. He recovered territories south of the Haemus largely through his own efforts, while the Byzantine emperor appears to have used the high title to attract him as an ally. The phrases reflect complicated political relations rather than a clearly constituted province.

A document of 1391 includes in the style of the Wallachian voivode Mircea the Elder the formula “Myrcius ... ac terrarum Dobrotici despotus.” The dignity of despot is indeed associated with lands here, but it belongs to Dobrotitsa, not to Mircea, who was not a despot. The Wallachian ruler is listing territories he had acquired and identifies them through their former ruler. The document’s Latin language and Western model explain the wording better than the supposition of a legally constituted Despotate of Dobrudja.

Vidin is the region for which such continuity has most often been proposed. It is associated with the despots Jacob Svetoslav, Michael Shishman, and Michael, the son of Michael Shishman, although the last man’s connection with Vidin is probable rather than certain. He is known from the frescoes at Dolna Kamenitsa. The sequence is not continuous, however: Shishman and Belaur are not attested with the title of despot, while Ivan Sratsimir was a tsar. After Jacob Svetoslav, it is not even certain that Vidin immediately continued as a separate political unit.

The later simultaneous existence of the domains of Shishman and of Darman and Kudelin in the northwestern lands likewise does not indicate a preserved territorial tradition. Of four representatives of the local Shishman dynasty, only two held the dignity of despot. After becoming tsar, Michael Shishman entrusted Vidin first to his son and then to his brother Belaur, probably to secure a reliable base against pressure from Serbia and Hungary. Following Belaur’s defeat, the region appears to have remained under direct rule by the tsar for more than a decade.

Ivan Sratsimir’s later independence resulted from a dynastic conflict and from his removal as a former “junior tsar”—a co-ruler or designated heir. His use of the imperial title of tsar rather than that of despot further contradicts the idea of a continuing Despotate of Vidin.

Dobrudja also remained in the hands of one family for more than half a century, but hereditary possession was not the same as a despotate. The only local ruler unquestionably attested with the title was Dobrotitsa; his brother Balik is not called a despot. Despot John Terter was probably a real historical person, but at least initially he ruled at the same time as his father and held different lands centred on Drastar. His example therefore does not demonstrate the regular transmission of a single territory together with the dignity of despot.

Three holders of the dignity of despot were active in the lands south of the Balkan Mountains during the first quarter of the fourteenth century, but they do not form a common institutional succession. The association of Despot Sratsimir, the father of Ivan Alexander, with Kran rests chiefly on the Western designation given to his wife Petritsa and remains conjectural. Eltimir unquestionably controlled the region, but his rule was not part of a permanent sequence linking him with the other two. Voysil arrived as a claimant to the throne at Tarnovo, not as an appointed governor of a particular despotate. Another brother of Tsar Smilets pursued similar aims while holding the title of sebastokrator, demonstrating that such political claims were not tied to one particular dignity.

The proposed Despotate of Lovech rests almost entirely on a manuscript colophon—a short note added by a scribe—which mentions the “pious Despot Alexander,” the future Tsar Ivan Alexander. The same text also names his son Michael Asen, suggesting dynastic confidence and an idea of succession. This testifies to the family’s real power in the region, but it does not prove that Lovech was a legally defined territory whose ruler necessarily bore the title of despot.

The word “despotate” itself is not a modern scholarly invention. It occurs in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, especially in Western texts concerning Epiros and the Morea, and probably spread from them into Greek and Slavonic usage. It is found in John Kantakouzenos, George Sphrantzes, the Chronicle of the Morea, and the Chronicle of Ioannina; a related formula also appears in the titulature of Tsar Stefan Dušan. In many cases the word is simply a geographical designation for Epiros, without strict political or legal meaning. The expression “despotate of the western lands” in Serbian imperial titulature likewise denotes the annexed territory of Epiros. The related Greek term despoteia in charters of Serbian rulers is not sufficient evidence for a separate state structure.

In the Bulgarian case, therefore, it is impossible to identify a distinct territorial institution in which possession of a region produced the title of despot or the title conferred a defined right to the region. Byzantine narrative writers do not describe despotates as a special form of political organization, and official documents do not define their powers, boundaries, or rules of succession. In medieval usage, the word could informally mean no more than “the lands of the despot.” There is consequently no Bulgarian despotate whose establishment and disappearance can be precisely dated; the label should be used descriptively rather than as a strict legal term.

In the Byzantine and Bulgarian political systems, despot was a very high rank linked to rulership, not a post with fixed administrative tasks. That means we should not assume that every despot ruled a special kind of province called a despotate. For such an institution to have existed, there would have had to be a regular link between one territory, its ruler, and the ruler’s title of despot. The limited Bulgarian evidence shows no such pattern.

The letter of Despot Jacob Svetoslav to Cyprian, the metropolitan of Kyiv, includes the phrase “деспотъ болгарьского.” The most natural reading is “Bulgarian despot,” which points to political identity, not to rule over a territorial “Bulgarian Despotate.” The phrase also does not tell us who gave him the title. Latin records are even less dependable for local title systems. A Venetian act of 1313 calls Michael Shishman “Michael dispoti Bulgarie,” while a letter from Pope Benedict XII refers to Petritsa, the wife of Despot Sratsimir, as “Petrisse ducisse Carnon” — duchess of Kran. These western-style labels translate Balkan realities into Western terms, so they cannot by themselves prove that a territorial institution existed.

The Byzantine wording for Voysil is more exact, but it is still unclear. John Kantakouzenos calls him “δεσπότης Μυσίας” and “τῶν Μυσῶν δεσπότης,” meaning despot of Mysia and despot of the Mysians. The context does not allow us to treat these as the official title of a governor of a Mysian despotate. At the same time, the word is not being used only in the loose sense of “lord,” because Voysil received, and later kept, the formal dignity of despot. He won back lands south of the Haemus mainly on his own, and the Byzantine emperor seems to have used the high title to win him over as an ally. So these phrases show a complicated political relationship, not a clearly organized province.

A document from 1391 gives the Wallachian voivode Mircea the Elder a style that includes “Myrcius ... ac terrarum Dobrotici despotus.” A voivode was a ruler or military leader. Here the title of despot is indeed connected with lands, but those lands belong to Dobrotitsa, not to Mircea, who was not a despot. Mircea is listing territories he had taken over and identifying them by the name of their former ruler. The Latin wording and the western model behind it make more sense than the idea of a legally defined Despotate of Dobrudja.

Vidin is the region for which a lasting territorial link has most often been suggested. It is tied to the despots Jacob Svetoslav, Michael Shishman, and Michael, the son of Michael Shishman, though the last man’s connection with Vidin is likely but not certain. He is known from the frescoes at Dolna Kamenitsa. Even so, the sequence does not run smoothly. Shishman and Belaur are not known as despots, and Ivan Sratsimir was a tsar. After Jacob Svetoslav, it is not even sure that Vidin immediately remained a separate political unit.

The later overlap between the domains of Shishman and of Darman and Kudelin in the northwestern lands also does not show that an old territorial tradition was preserved. Out of four members of the local Shishman dynasty, only two held the dignity of despot. After becoming tsar, Michael Shishman gave Vidin first to his son and then to his brother Belaur, probably to keep a dependable base against pressure from Serbia and Hungary. After Belaur was defeated, the region seems to have stayed under the tsar’s direct rule for more than ten years.

Ivan Sratsimir later became independent because of a dynastic struggle and because he had been removed from his position as a former “junior tsar” — that is, a co-ruler or designated heir. The fact that he used the imperial title tsar rather than despot also goes against the idea that a Despotate of Vidin continued as a stable institution.

Dobrudja was also held by one family for more than fifty years, but hereditary control was not the same as a despotate. The only local ruler who is certainly known with the title was Dobrotitsa; his brother Balik is not called a despot. Despot John Terter was probably a real person, but at least at first he ruled at the same time as his father and held different lands centered on Drastar. So his case does not show that one territory and the title of despot were regularly passed on together.

Three holders of the dignity of despot were active in the lands south of the Balkan Mountains in the first quarter of the fourteenth century, but they do not form a single institutional line of succession. The link between Despot Sratsimir, the father of Ivan Alexander, and Kran rests mainly on the Western title given to his wife Petritsa, so it is only a guess. Eltimir certainly controlled the area, but his rule was not part of a fixed sequence connecting him to the other two. Voysil came as a claimant to the throne at Tarnovo, not as an appointed governor of some specific despotate. Another brother of Tsar Smilets pursued similar aims while holding the title of sebastokrator, which shows that such political ambitions were not tied to one title alone.

The supposed Despotate of Lovech rests almost entirely on a manuscript colophon — a short note added by a scribe — that mentions the “pious Despot Alexander,” the future Tsar Ivan Alexander. The same text also names his son Michael Asen, which suggests confidence in the family’s position and a sense of succession. This shows that the family had real power in the region, but it does not prove that Lovech was a legally defined territory whose ruler had to be a despot.

The word “despotate” itself is not a modern scholarly invention. It appears in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, especially in Western texts about Epiros and the Morea, and probably moved from there into Greek and Slavonic usage. It is found in John Kantakouzenos, George Sphrantzes, the Chronicle of the Morea, and the Chronicle of Ioannina; a related form also appears in the titles used by Tsar Stefan Dušan. In many instances the word is simply a place-name for Epiros, with no strict political or legal meaning. The phrase “despotate of the western lands” in Serbian imperial titles likewise refers to the annexed territory of Epiros. The related Greek word despoteia in charters issued by Serbian rulers is not enough to prove the existence of a separate state structure.

So, in the Bulgarian case, we cannot identify a separate territorial institution in which holding a region automatically gave someone the title of despot, or the title itself gave a defined right to the region. Byzantine narrative writers do not describe despotates as a special kind of political organization, and official documents do not set out their powers, borders, or rules of inheritance. In medieval use, the word could mean nothing more than “the lands of the despot.” For that reason, there is no Bulgarian despotate whose beginning and end can be dated exactly; the term should be used as a description, not as a strict legal label.

In medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium, “despot” was a high title for a ruler. It was not the same as a fixed job or a special province. The evidence does not show a stable rule that one land always belonged to one despot.

Some sources call rulers like Jacob Svetoslav, Michael Shishman, Voysil, and Dobrotitsa “despot,” but the words are often loose or written in a foreign style. They do not prove a legally set “despotate.” In places like Vidin, Dobrudja, Kran, and Lovech, the title was linked to family power or politics, not to a clear state office.

Sometimes a ruler had lands, and sometimes the title came first. But the records do not show clear borders, fixed powers, or steady succession for a Bulgarian despotate. Even when a family kept control of a region, that did not mean the region was a despotate.

So there was no single Bulgarian despotate that can be clearly dated from start to finish. The word “despotate” could just mean “the lands of the despot,” not a separate legal state.