The palace offices

The palace offices did not constitute a single post but a group of dignities and positions surrounding the tsar. Although some of their duties resembled personal service, medieval monarchy drew no clear line between the ruler’s household and central government. Together with the imperial chancery, the court was where decisions were prepared, envoys received, dignities conferred, and access to the monarch regulated. Palace officials were therefore courtiers, dignitaries, and participants in government at the same time.

The Byzantine palace supplied the principal model for this system. Its ceremonial order, known as taxis—an ordered hierarchy of people, places, and actions—was understood as an earthly reflection of the order of heaven. A dignitary’s rank was expressed not only by his title but also by the position he occupied in relation to the emperor during audiences, festivals, and religious ceremonies. Service to the ruler consequently acquired political and religious significance: the court visibly demonstrated who stood close to supreme authority and how society as a whole was arranged in relation to it.

The conditions for adopting this model in Bulgaria emerged as early as the tenth century. Symeon I’s assumption of the imperial title and its recognition under Peter I laid the foundations of a Bulgarian political ideology closely related to that of Byzantium. Preslav, and later Tarnovo, were presented as imperial cities capable of rivalling Constantinople. The first Asen rulers even sought recognition from Frederick I Barbarossa for the “crown of the Greek empire.” These imperial claims became more pronounced after Ivan Asen II’s victory at Klokotnitsa in 1230 and the restoration of the Bulgarian patriarchate in 1235.

Under Constantine Tikh Asen, Tarnovo was praised as a stronghold of Orthodoxy against the ecclesiastical policy of Michael VIII Palaiologos and as a kind of New Constantinople. This ideology provided an appropriate setting for a court constructed on Byzantine lines. The Bulgarian system was not an exact copy, however. The tsardom lacked the resources needed to support the large personnel and exceptionally elaborate ritual of the court at Constantinople. Moreover, palace power in Byzantium was balanced by the army, the Church, the provincial aristocracy, and certain older institutions, while government in Bulgaria was more strongly concentrated around the monarch and his immediate entourage.

The surviving sources do not permit the reconstruction of a complete list of the palace offices at Tarnovo. Liturgical texts associated with the literary work of Patriarch Euthymios contain prayers for the tsar, his “palace,” his attendants, and the army. The Slavonic word polata could denote either the palace or the people serving within it. The spurious Zograf chrysobull, whose narrative is set in the reign of Leo VI the Wise, uses the phrase “Ѡ САМОГО ЧРЪТОГА ЦРѢКА”—“from the royal chamber itself.”

Although the document is not authentic, the Bulgarian word chertog, meaning a palace or royal chamber, reveals how its compiler imagined the ruler’s court. Hagiographical accounts of the reception of relics in the capital likewise mention boyars and prominent men, but they usually do not allow the courtiers to be distinguished from the rest of Tarnovo’s aristocracy.

A particularly important piece of indirect evidence is provided by George Akropolites and Theodore Skoutariotes. When Theodore Komnenos Doukas proclaimed himself basileus at Thessalonica, he appointed despots, great sebastokrators, domestikoi, protovestiarioi, and other representatives of imperial rank. The narrative mocks his ignorance of established ceremonial order and describes some of his actions as “Bulgarian” and “barbarous.” This hostile characterization does not demonstrate the existence of an entirely separate Bulgarian system. It points instead to an attempt to reproduce Constantinopolitan forms that, in the eyes of Byzantine observers, were being applied incorrectly. The account indirectly reflects court practice at Tarnovo, where the ruler of Thessalonica may have encountered a similar but already adapted model.

Palace posts combined office with dignity. The domestikos, protovestiarios, and other officials had particular duties, but their titles also determined their position in the hierarchy and their proximity to the tsar. Some of the highest dignities could be conferred only by a ruler claiming imperial rank. During the fourteenth century, officials attached directly to the Byzantine palace gained greater importance, and a comparable tendency is plausible in Bulgaria, where personal access to the tsar offered considerable political influence. Bulgarian evidence is nevertheless too limited to establish the exact order of offices, their everyday responsibilities, or the names of all their holders. Nor do surviving collective palace seals, coins, or sets of insignia illustrate the system as a whole.

A significant difference between the Byzantine and probable Bulgarian models concerned eunuchs. In the earlier Byzantine Empire, several palace offices were reserved principally or exclusively for them. These included the parakoimomenos, the attendant who slept near the imperial bedchamber; the protovestiarios, originally the head of the ruler’s wardrobe; the papias, who guarded and administered the palace; and attendants at the imperial table. Eunuchs also held other positions in central and provincial government and could occasionally become senior churchmen or military commanders. This continued despite secular and ecclesiastical prohibitions against castration and despite frequently hostile public attitudes.

The Byzantine hierarchy distinguished between office and title. Eunuchs could hold almost any administrative post, but certain supreme dignities symbolically associated with imperial authority remained closed to them. In palace ceremonial they surrounded the basileus as representations of the angelic powers: they covered their faces with their white sleeves, supported visitors during audiences, and presented the insignia of authority at coronations. They also participated in rites by which a ruler returning from a campaign passed from the image of a warrior to that of a Christian emperor. Their presence formed part of an eastern court ideology that presented the monarch as a living icon of the divine order.

There is no direct evidence for eunuchs at the courts of Preslav or Tarnovo. The presence of offices of Byzantine origin, such as protovestiarios, does not prove that their Bulgarian holders were eunuchs. After the eleventh century, the role of eunuchs diminished even in Byzantium, particularly under the Komnenoi and as Western influence increased during the age of the Crusades. The Slavonic terms kazhenik and skopets emphasized physical mutilation and carried negative meanings rather than the angelic symbolism of Byzantine ritual. In the absence of positive evidence, eunuchs cannot be regarded as a usual or important component of the Bulgarian court.

Bulgarian palace culture spread through the Orthodox Church, translated literature, contacts with Byzantium, and the retinues of Byzantine princesses who married Bulgarian rulers from the reign of Peter I onwards. The conscious effort of the tsars to present Bulgaria as an Orthodox empire and Tarnovo as an imperial city was decisive. The model first developed at Preslav was restored and modified in the capital of the Second Bulgarian Empire. The sources record no formal abolition of the palace offices; as a general institutional environment, they disappeared with the dissolution of the Bulgarian royal courts during the Ottoman conquests at the end of the fourteenth century.

The palace offices were not one single job. They were a set of ranks and posts that surrounded the tsar. Some of their tasks looked like personal service, but in medieval monarchy there was no sharp divide between the ruler’s household and the central government. Along with the imperial chancery, the court was the place where decisions were prepared, envoys were received, honors were granted, and access to the ruler was controlled. Palace officials were therefore at once courtiers, holders of rank, and people involved in government.

The Byzantine palace was the main model for this arrangement. Its ceremonial order, called taxis, meaning a carefully arranged hierarchy of people, places, and actions, was seen as an earthly version of the order of heaven. A dignitary’s rank showed itself not only in his title but also in where he stood beside the emperor during audiences, festivals, and church ceremonies. Service to the ruler thus had political and religious meaning. The court made visible who was closest to the highest authority and how society was ordered around it.

Bulgaria was ready to adopt this model as early as the tenth century. Symeon I took the imperial title, and its recognition under Peter I laid the basis for a Bulgarian political idea closely linked to Byzantium. Preslav, and later Tarnovo, were presented as imperial cities that could rival Constantinople. The first Asen rulers even tried to win recognition from Frederick I Barbarossa for the “crown of the Greek empire.” These imperial claims became stronger after Ivan Asen II’s victory at Klokotnitsa in 1230 and the restoration of the Bulgarian patriarchate in 1235.

Under Constantine Tikh Asen, Tarnovo was praised as a fortress of Orthodoxy against Michael VIII Palaiologos’s church policy and as a kind of New Constantinople. This way of thinking gave a fitting setting for a court built on Byzantine lines. But the Bulgarian system was not an exact copy. The tsardom did not have the means to support the large staff and extremely elaborate ritual of the court at Constantinople. Also, power at the Byzantine palace was balanced by the army, the Church, the provincial aristocracy, and some older institutions, while in Bulgaria government was more tightly centered on the monarch and those closest to him.

The surviving sources do not let us rebuild a full list of the palace offices at Tarnovo. Liturgical texts connected with Patriarch Euthymios’s literary work include prayers for the tsar, his “palace,” his attendants, and the army. The Slavonic word polata could mean either the palace itself or the people serving there. The fake Zograf chrysobull, whose story is set in the reign of Leo VI the Wise, uses the phrase “Ѡ САМОГО ЧРЪТОГА ЦРѢКА” — “from the royal chamber itself.”

Even though the document is not genuine, the Bulgarian word chertog, meaning a palace or royal chamber, shows how its writer imagined the ruler’s court. Hagiographic accounts, that is, saints’ lives, about the arrival of relics in the capital also mention boyars and leading men, but they usually do not let us separate courtiers from the rest of Tarnovo’s aristocracy.

Important indirect evidence comes from George Akropolites and Theodore Skoutariotes. When Theodore Komnenos Doukas declared himself basileus at Thessalonica, he appointed despots, great sebastokrators, domestikoi, protovestiarioi, and other holders of imperial rank. The account mocks his ignorance of proper ceremony and calls some of his actions “Bulgarian” and “barbarous.” This hostile description does not prove that Bulgaria had a completely separate system. It suggests instead an attempt to copy Constantinople’s forms that Byzantine observers thought were being used wrongly. The story may indirectly reflect court practice at Tarnovo, where the ruler of Thessalonica may have met a similar but already adjusted model.

Palace posts combined duty and rank. The domestikos, protovestiarios, and other officials had specific tasks, but their titles also fixed their place in the hierarchy and how close they stood to the tsar. Some of the highest dignities could be given only by a ruler claiming imperial status. In the fourteenth century, officials directly attached to the Byzantine palace became more important, and a similar trend is likely in Bulgaria, where close access to the tsar could bring great political power. But the Bulgarian evidence is too thin to determine the exact order of offices, their daily duties, or the names of all who held them. The surviving group palace seals, coins, and sets of insignia also do not show the whole system.

One major difference between the Byzantine model and the likely Bulgarian one concerned eunuchs. In the earlier Byzantine Empire, several palace offices were mainly or only for them. These included the parakoimomenos, the attendant who slept near the imperial bedchamber; the protovestiarios, originally the head of the ruler’s wardrobe; the papias, who guarded and managed the palace; and attendants at the imperial table. Eunuchs also held other posts in central and provincial government and could sometimes rise to be senior churchmen or military commanders. This continued despite civil and church bans on castration and despite often hostile public opinion.

Byzantine hierarchy also separated office from title. Eunuchs could hold almost any administrative post, but some top dignities linked symbolically to imperial power were closed to them. In palace ceremony they surrounded the basileus as images of the angelic powers: they covered their faces with their white sleeves, supported visitors during audiences, and brought the signs of authority at coronations. They also took part in rites through which a ruler returning from a campaign moved from the image of a warrior to that of a Christian emperor. Their presence belonged to an eastern court idea that presented the monarch as a living image of divine order.

There is no direct evidence for eunuchs at the courts of Preslav or Tarnovo. The existence of offices of Byzantine origin, such as protovestiarios, does not show that the Bulgarian holders of those posts were eunuchs. After the eleventh century, eunuchs became less important even in Byzantium, especially under the Komnenoi and as Western influence grew during the age of the Crusades. The Slavonic words kazhenik and skopets stressed bodily mutilation and carried negative meanings, not the angelic symbolism of Byzantine ritual. Without positive evidence, eunuchs cannot be seen as a normal or important part of the Bulgarian court.

Bulgarian palace culture spread through the Orthodox Church, translated books, contact with Byzantium, and the entourages of Byzantine princesses who married Bulgarian rulers from the reign of Peter I onwards. The tsars’ deliberate effort to present Bulgaria as an Orthodox empire and Tarnovo as an imperial city was decisive. The model first created at Preslav was brought back and changed in the capital of the Second Bulgarian Empire. The sources do not record any formal abolition of the palace offices; as a wider institution, they disappeared when the Bulgarian royal courts broke down during the Ottoman conquests at the end of the fourteenth century.

The Bulgarian ruler’s palace was not just a house. It was also part of the government. The people there helped run the state, received visitors, and set the rank of important men around the tsar.

This court was shaped mostly by the Byzantine model. Bulgarian rulers from the 900s onward wanted their cities, first Preslav and later Tarnovo, to look like imperial capitals. This became stronger after Ivan Asen II’s victory at Klokotnitsa in 1230 and the return of the Bulgarian church leader in 1235.

But Bulgaria did not copy Byzantium exactly. Its court was smaller and less rich, and power was more centered on the tsar and his close men. We do not know the full list of offices, but titles at court still gave men power and access to the ruler. This court system lasted until the Ottoman conquest at the end of the 1300s.