The title of despot in Bulgaria

Despot was a court dignity—that is, a rank in the hierarchy surrounding the ruler—rather than an office with a clearly defined administrative department. It occupied the highest position below the tsar or basileus and ranked above the sebastokrator. The Bulgarian evidence primarily reveals the political prestige of its holders; by itself it proves neither uniform official duties nor the necessary government of a separate territory.

In the late Byzantine system, the dignity of despot was closely connected with the imperial household. Before 1204 it was bestowed on imperial sons-in-law designated as heirs. The Latin emperors at Constantinople continued to employ the highest Byzantine titles but altered their dynastic meaning. Doge Enrico Dandolo and his successor Marino Zeno were called despots although neither was an imperial son-in-law or heir. Alexios Slav likewise received the title as a son-in-law of Emperor Henry, but he had married Henry’s illegitimate daughter and is unlikely to have been regarded as a future emperor.

Alexios Slav is the first known Bulgarian to hold the dignity of despot. Henry was both his father-in-law and his suzerain, so the title did not initially come from Tarnovo. Slav nevertheless appears in the Bulgarian Synodikon alongside Strez and the sebastokrator Alexander. Following Ivan Asen II’s victory in 1230, the Bulgarian state absorbed much of the former territory of Theodore Komnenos, including Slav’s lands. This makes it likely that Tarnovo recognized his existing dignity and incorporated it into its own political order.

The case of Alexios Slav did not establish a Bulgarian tradition of making royal sons-in-law despots and heirs. Only two other despots of the Second Empire are known to have been sons-in-law of rulers: Eltimir, lord of Kran, and Despot Constantine, portrayed in the London Gospels. It is uncertain whether Eltimir received the rank because of his marriage, and neither man was an heir to the throne.

The next well-attested Bulgarian holder was Jacob Svetoslav. He probably received the dignity from Constantinople, but Bulgarian records also recognize him as a despot: he is styled as such in his letter to the metropolitan of Kyiv and in the Boyana book of commemorations. As a powerful local ruler in the northwestern Bulgarian lands, he attained considerable autonomy and began to use the title of tsar as well. That title appears both in Hungarian royal documents and in commemorative records.

The three known Bulgarian despots of the thirteenth century occupied exceptionally strong positions. Alexios Slav was a descendant of the Asen dynasty and a claimant to the crown; Jacob Svetoslav ruled with near independence and presented himself as a tsar; George Terter was the dominant figure in Tarnovo before taking the throne himself. All three obtained the title through external involvement—from the Latin emperor, probably from Nicaea, or with the decisive assistance of the Byzantine basileus. This could strengthen their independence from the Bulgarian tsar. The dignity may therefore have competed with the title of tsar or resembled a sovereign rank in thirteenth-century Bulgaria, but the limited evidence does not permit a firm conclusion.

It is uncertain when Bulgarian tsars began to create despots themselves. This may have happened only around the time of Eltimir, but the proposition can neither be proved conclusively nor dismissed. The title unquestionably existed in Bulgarian territory during the thirteenth century, although the cases of Alexios Slav, Jacob Svetoslav, and George Terter were all connected with foreign powers. The dignity of sebastokrator appears to have been more characteristic of the Tarnovo court at that time. Strez, Alexander, and Peter were influential sebastokrators; the first two belonged to the ruler’s closest circle, while Peter dominated political life around 1253. This did not alter the formal precedence of the despot, but it suggests that the title was not initially fully integrated into the Tarnovo court.

The relationship between the two dignities changed in the fourteenth century. The number of known Bulgarian despots increased, while no sebastokrators are attested. The medieval “Prayer for the Investiture of a Caesar and a Despot,” which does not mention the sebastokrator, is also significant. This does not prove that the rank was formally abolished, but it suggests that it had become unusual in Bulgaria. Around the turn of the fourteenth century, the Tarnovo tsars began to confer the title of despot more regularly, probably as part of a broader adoption of Byzantine court and governmental models. For Bulgarian boyars, receiving the dignity from Constantinople had by then become exceptional.

Kinship remained important, but in the thirteenth century it connected the despots both to Tarnovo and to the foreign court from which their title came. Alexios Slav was Emperor Henry’s son-in-law and a nephew of the early Asen rulers. Jacob Svetoslav received the dignity after marrying a daughter of Theodore II Laskaris; through her he was also related by marriage to Constantine Asen, whose wife was her sister. George Terter became the brother-in-law of Ivan Asen III and was thereby connected with the Palaiologoi. The importance of the dynastic bond is indicated by the insistence that George divorce his first wife before entering the new family arrangement.

The foreign origin of some titles complicated the relationship between tsar and despot. In hierarchical terms, a recipient entered the system of the ruler who had granted the dignity; when it came from Byzantium, the basileus at Constantinople stood at the summit of that system. This did not necessarily determine actual political dependence. Alexios Slav and Jacob Svetoslav changed allies and suzerains, some of whom did not possess an imperial title. Titulature alone therefore cannot establish whose supreme authority they recognized at any particular moment.

Under the Palaiologoi, Byzantium developed a dynastic pattern: the eldest son and heir received the title of basileus, while younger imperial sons could become despots. The highest dignities thus remained within the ruling family and helped regulate the succession. Bulgarian rulers also frequently gave the title of tsar to an heir as co-ruler, but no corresponding tradition of making their younger sons despots became established.

The only probable Bulgarian example of the Byzantine model is Despot Michael, known from the frescoes at Dolna Kamenitsa. His father, Michael III Shishman, proclaimed his elder son Ivan Stefan tsar, while Michael appears to have been one of the younger sons. Four sons are known from Michael III’s marriage to a daughter of King Milutin. A contemporary narrative devotes considerable attention to Shishman but gives him no title, while the sole reference to Louis—a Neapolitan document—likewise says nothing about his rank. Despot Michael alone is therefore insufficient evidence for an established rule.

Ivan Alexander pursued a very different dynastic policy. All his known sons bore the title of tsar, a case without a direct Bulgarian precedent. Michael Asen, Ivan Sratsimir, and Ivan Shishman may be understood as heirs designated successively or concurrently, but this explanation does not apply to the other two sons known as Ivan Asen IV and Ivan Asen V. The ruler evidently made a deliberate choice to elevate his direct descendants as tsars, and consequently no despots are found among them.

The circle of Bulgarian despots in the fourteenth century extended well beyond the immediate royal family. No brother of a reigning ruler is known to have received the title directly from him: Eltimir was not invested by his brother George Terter I, nor Voisil by his brother Smilets. Constantine and probably Eltimir were royal sons-in-law, but other holders were only distantly related. A late Ragusan report describes Michael III Shishman as a cousin of Theodore Svetoslav, although the connection was indirect and arose from George Terter I’s second marriage. If Despot Sratsimir received his title from Theodore Svetoslav, his kinship was of the same remote kind; if he received it from Michael Shishman, he was the latter’s brother-in-law. Ivan Alexander was Michael III’s nephew and probably received the dignity from him. Dobrotitsa and his son Ivan Terter were not related to the Bulgarian ruling dynasty, although their policies were closely connected with Constantinople. In Bulgaria, as in Serbia, the dignity of despot thus largely lost its exclusively dynastic character.

It remains uncertain how far Bulgarian tsars used the title to reward foreigners. Byzantium bestowed it on powerful rulers and magnates to draw them into its political orbit, and such a grant expressed a claim to imperial supremacy. There is insufficient reason to believe that Manuel, the brother of Theodore Komnenos, received the dignity from Ivan Asen II after marrying the tsar’s daughter. No suitable examples are known from Wallachia or Moldavia. The only probable field for Bulgarian grants was Serbia before 1346, when Stefan Dušan assumed the title of tsar and began creating despots in his own right. Despot Dragoslav probably received his dignity from Tarnovo rather than Constantinople. This isolated case suggests that Bulgarian rulers may have conferred the title beyond their borders, but it does not demonstrate a lasting or widely employed policy.