Origin of the title of despot

The Greek word δεσπότης has ancient Indo-European roots. Its first element, δεσ-, derives from an old form associated with words for a house or household, while the second, -πότης, is related to the Latin potis and potestas and conveys ability, power, and mastery. The original sense was “master of the household,” but already in Antiquity the term acquired the broader meaning of a lord or ruler. During the pagan period it roughly corresponded to the Latin dominus and did not denote a specific institution. After Constantine the Great, both κύριος and δεσπότης became customary designations for the emperor; the former acquired a more strongly religious character, while the latter became increasingly associated with the ruler. Procopius of Caesarea credits Justinian I with introducing δεσπότης as an imperial form of address. This usage remained widespread into the twelfth century and continued to appear on coins until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The word was also used in addressing senior churchmen, without ever losing its general sense of “lord.” The imperial designation must therefore be distinguished from the later court dignity. The emergence of despot as a separate rank is conventionally dated to 1163. Some interpretations place its creation under Michael V, when John the Orphanotrophos was called a despot, and several other supposed examples from before 1163 have also been identified. Their contexts, however, suggest that the word probably meant no more than “lord”; at that time Caesar remained the highest dignity below the emperor. The specialized title was created by Manuel I Komnenos for the Hungarian prince Béla-Alexios. As heir in Hungary and connected by marriage to the imperial dynasty, Béla was also regarded as a possible successor in Byzantium. The arrangement anticipated a personal union, in which two distinct states would be ruled by the same monarch. His Hungarian designation Urum or Uron meant “my lord” and was therefore equivalent in sense to δεσπότης, indicating that the new Byzantine dignity also reflected a Hungarian dynastic tradition. Béla-Alexios did not retain it for long, but the title survived as an important rank. It formed part of the transformation of the court hierarchy that had begun under Alexios I Komnenos. Until 1204, a despot was an imperial son-in-law and prospective heir. Consequently, only one person could hold the title at a time, and it was not bestowed when the emperor had a son to succeed him. Alexios Palaiologos and Theodore Laskaris, both married to daughters of Alexios III Angelos, held it in this capacity. After 1204, and particularly after the Byzantine restoration in Constantinople in 1261, the dignity became more widely available and ceased necessarily to indicate an heir. It was thereafter a high court rank without a permanent office or precisely defined functions. Medieval Serbia adopted the Byzantine model but adapted it to its own political circumstances. The earliest Serbian despots are attested before the imperial coronation of Stefan Dušan, so their titles must have been conferred from abroad, either by Constantinople or by Tarnovo. The surviving evidence does not establish which of the two courts was responsible in each case. During the fourteenth century the Serbian emperors themselves granted the dignity to Jovan Oliver, Dejan, John Komnenos Asen, Vukašin, John Uglješa, John Dragaš, and others. Unlike ordinary courtiers, these despots generally governed extensive provincial territories, particularly in former Byzantine lands conquered by Serbia. After Stefan Dušan’s death, many of them achieved considerable autonomy; John Uglješa even used the title autokrator, meaning a ruler who claimed independent sovereign authority. In the fifteenth century, when there was no longer a Serbian emperor, the dignity was again obtained from Constantinople and was borne by Serbia’s rulers themselves, including Stefan Lazarević, Đurađ Branković, and Lazar Branković. This development altered the position of the title, but it is not in itself sufficient reason to treat “Serbian Despotate” as the institutional name of the medieval Serbian state.