Epikernios

Bulgarian sources record the name in forms such as “epikernii,” “epikernin,” and “ipnikernin.” It was borrowed from the Greek ἐπικέρνιος and πιγκέρνης, related to the verb ἐπικεράννυμι, “to mix.” Its original sense points to the preparation and serving of wine. The Bulgarian office formed part of Tarnovo’s broader adoption of court practices from Constantinople.

In Byzantium the epikernios is attested as early as the reign of Leo VI. Descriptive titles meaning “the emperor’s cupbearer” or “chief cupbearer” were also employed, and separate officials served the emperor and empress. They were responsible for the palace wine and poured it at ceremonial banquets. Direct access to the ruler gave the office an importance far beyond its routine duties. The earliest known holders were eunuchs, but in the late Byzantine period the dignity passed to other aristocrats. A fourteenth-century ceremonial list ranks the pinkernes fourteenth.

The epikernios combined a dignity with an active office. Some Byzantine officials received it for its position in the hierarchy even though their military or provincial careers prevented them from serving regularly in the palace. This did not erase the ceremonial functions inherent in the institution itself. A Byzantine ceremonial manual describes the epikernios as wearing garments similar to those of the megas primikerios, another senior palace dignitary, but without a staff. No evidence survives for distinctive Bulgarian clothing, an official seal, or coinage belonging to the epikernios.

Comparable offices existed at other Balkan courts. A funerary inscription from Treskavica Monastery, dated to 1362, calls Dabiživ the “enohiar” of Tsar Uroš; the word derives from the Greek οἰνοχόος, “cupbearer.” In Bosnia, a charter issued by Ban Matej Ninoslav in 1240 places the peharnik immediately after two senior secular officers. The varying names did not alter the office’s essential character: responsibility for the ruler’s wine and participation in formal receptions.

The better-documented Wallachian paharnic provides a particularly useful comparison. The earliest local form, pichernic, appears in a charter of Mircea the Elder dated 8 January 1392 and probably represents Greek πιγκέρνης transmitted through a South Slavic language. During the fifteenth century the paharnic regularly sat in the ruler’s council. He tasted the drink as a precaution against poisoning and personally presented the cup on major feast days. His more important economic work included supervising the ruler’s vineyards and cellars and collecting revenue from wine production. Assistants, table servants, and cellar keepers worked under him. The Wallachian great paharnic later acquired military responsibilities, while by the end of the eighteenth century the rank had become honorific.

In Moldavia the corresponding dignitary was usually called the ceașnic, or cupbearer. The office appears in a treaty with Poland dated 6 October 1407, while a charter of 16 September 1408 names the cupbearer Ilia. The Moldavian office had a more extensive staff, including second and third paharnics who supervised the ruler’s vineyards in particular districts, but there is no evidence of military powers. Terms such as pichernic, paharnic, and ceașnic reflect different Byzantine, South Slavic, and Polish-Lithuanian influences. The Wallachian and Moldavian parallels help to indicate the possible functions of the Bulgarian epikernios, but they do not prove that his office had the same organization.

Bulgarian evidence is sparse and comes mainly from personal inscriptions, ecclesiastical texts, and one Byzantine document. The earliest directly datable example is the thirteenth-century ring of the epikernios Peter. For the fourteenth century, the former epikernios and later monk Silvester is known, as is the great epikernios Sratsimir. The Synodikon—a liturgical list of persons to be commemorated—and references to kinship with the ruling dynasty demonstrate the high social position of these men. No palace registers survive to reveal how the office operated in everyday government.

Holders of the dignity also participated in monastic patronage. The Life of Theodosius of Tarnovo mentions an “Epikernios’s monastery,” and a similar name occurs in a colophon to a manuscript collection. The two references may concern the same religious house, but this is uncertain. The name suggests a ktetor monastery, meaning an establishment founded or restored by a private patron who received rights of commemoration and representation within the church. Sratsimir, for his part, donated the village of Marmarin on the lower Struma to Zograph Monastery. These cases demonstrate the wealth and religious patronage of men who held the title.

The Shumen inscription explicitly calls Sratsimir “great epikernios,” whereas the epithet “great” is absent in the records of Peter and Silvester. It is possible that a great epikernios headed a department containing junior epikernioi and other subordinates. There is no direct evidence for such an organization, however, and every known Bulgarian holder belonged to the highest court circle. The omission of the epithet in a particular text therefore does not prove the existence of a separate lower dignity.

The Bulgarian epikernios’s principal ceremonial duty was most probably to supervise the tsar’s wine and serve the ruler at formal banquets. By analogy with Byzantium and the Danubian principalities, the great epikernios may also have administered the royal vineyards, cellars, and wine revenues. Neither these economic responsibilities nor his presumed supporting staff is directly attested in Bulgaria. It is also possible that some aristocrats received the title solely as a mark of rank, particularly if they lived permanently far from Tarnovo.

The epikernios Peter is known only from an inscribed ring discovered near Aytos before the First World War. Its palaeographic features date it to the thirteenth century. The inscription gives Peter’s name and title and identifies him as a cousin of the tsar, but it does not reveal which ruler was his relative. His elevated ancestry makes it likely that he was a great epikernios even though the epithet was not inscribed. The ring’s findspot may point to activity in Thrace, but the object could have arrived there by chance. It is therefore impossible to determine whether Peter actually served at the royal table or held the dignity honorifically.

Silvester is known from the Palauzov copy of the Synodikon of Boril. The text presents him as a monk who had formerly been epikernios to Tsar Ivan Alexander and commemorates him as deceased. He probably adopted the name Silvester when he entered monastic life, leaving his secular name unknown. His placement near members of the ruling family suggests esteem, but the Synodikon is not a reliable table of court precedence. The proposed identification of Silvester with Sratsimir is chronologically possible but lacks sufficient documentary support.

Sratsimir is the best-attested Bulgarian epikernios. In 1344 John V Palaiologos confirmed his donation of the village of Marmarin to Zograph. The Greek charter presents Sratsimir as a relative of the Bulgarian tsar and as a man connected by kinship to the Byzantine dynasty. The other principal testimony is the Shumen inscription of Sraco, produced during the reign of Ivan Shishman between 1371 and the Ottoman conquest of the city in 1388. Sraco identifies the great epikernios Sratsimir as his grandfather. Taken together, the two documents place the dignitary’s main period of activity in the second quarter of the fourteenth century. He held high office early in Ivan Alexander’s reign, and his career may have begun under Michael Shishman.

The confirmation of Sratsimir’s donation may also have had a diplomatic purpose. After the death of Andronikos III Palaiologos in 1341, Byzantium entered a civil war. In 1344 the government of Anna of Savoy and Alexios Apokaukos sought to win Ivan Alexander’s support and made territorial concessions in Upper Thrace. In this context, a favorable decision concerning the gift of an influential Tarnovo aristocrat may have been intended to secure his cooperation. This interpretation remains conjectural, but it shows how Sratsimir’s personal authority and the rank of great epikernios could acquire political significance.

Sratsimir had a family, and his reputation survived at least until the time of his grandson Sraco. There is no direct basis for identifying him either with the monk Silvester or with the unnamed founder of the “Epikernios’s monastery.” Bulgarian evidence for the dignity ends in the fourteenth century, and the Shumen inscription already looks back upon Sratsimir’s earlier prominence. No act abolishing the office is known, nor can it be established whether it survived until the final years of the Tarnovo Tsardom.

Bulgarian sources give the name in forms such as “epikernii,” “epikernin,” and “ipnikernin.” It comes from the Greek ἐπικέρνιος and πιγκέρνης, which are linked to the verb ἐπικεράννυμι, “to mix.” The word originally referred to preparing and serving wine. In Bulgaria, this office was part of Tarnovo’s wider borrowing of court customs from Constantinople.

In Byzantium, the epikernios is known from as early as the reign of Leo VI. Writers also used descriptive titles such as “the emperor’s cupbearer” and “chief cupbearer,” and there were separate officials for the emperor and the empress. Their job was to handle the palace wine and pour it at ceremonial banquets. Because they had direct access to the ruler, they mattered far more than their everyday duties might suggest. The first known holders were eunuchs, but in the late Byzantine period the rank passed to other nobles. A fourteenth-century ceremonial list places the pinkernes fourteenth in rank.

The epikernios was both a court dignity and an active office. Some Byzantine officials received it because of where it stood in the hierarchy, even when their military or provincial careers kept them from regular palace service. That did not remove the ceremonial duties built into the office itself. A Byzantine ceremonial manual says that the epikernios wore clothing similar to that of the megas primikerios, another senior palace dignitary, but without a staff. For Bulgaria, no evidence survives of special clothing, an official seal, or coinage for the epikernios.

Similar offices also existed at other Balkan courts. A funerary inscription from Treskavica Monastery, dated to 1362, calls Dabiživ the “enohiar” of Tsar Uroš; the word comes from the Greek οἰνοχόος, meaning “cupbearer.” In Bosnia, a charter issued by Ban Matej Ninoslav in 1240 places the peharnik right after two senior secular officers. The names varied, but the role stayed much the same: caring for the ruler’s wine and taking part in formal receptions.

The Wallachian paharnic is especially useful because it is better documented. The earliest local form, pichernic, appears in a charter of Mircea the Elder dated 8 January 1392, and it probably reflects the Greek πιγκέρνης brought in through a South Slavic language. In the fifteenth century, the paharnic regularly sat in the ruler’s council. He tasted the drink to guard against poisoning and personally offered the cup on major feast days. His more important economic duties included overseeing the ruler’s vineyards and cellars and gathering income from wine production. Under him worked assistants, table servants, and cellar keepers. Later, the Wallachian great paharnic also took on military duties, and by the end of the eighteenth century the rank had become only honorific.

In Moldavia, the matching official was usually called the ceașnic, or cupbearer. The office appears in a treaty with Poland dated 6 October 1407, and a charter of 16 September 1408 names the cupbearer Ilia. The Moldavian office had a larger staff, including second and third paharnics who watched the ruler’s vineyards in specific districts, but there is no sign that it had military powers. Words such as pichernic, paharnic, and ceașnic show different Byzantine, South Slavic, and Polish-Lithuanian influences. The Wallachian and Moldavian examples help suggest what the Bulgarian epikernios may have done, but they do not prove that the Bulgarian office was organized in the same way.

The Bulgarian evidence is limited and comes mainly from personal inscriptions, church texts, and one Byzantine document. The earliest example that can be dated directly is the thirteenth-century ring of the epikernios Peter. For the fourteenth century, we know of the former epikernios and later monk Silvester, as well as the great epikernios Sratsimir. The Synodikon, a liturgical list of people to be remembered in prayer, and references to kinship with the ruling dynasty show that these men stood high in society. No palace records survive to show how the office worked in daily government.

Men who held the dignity also supported monasteries. The Life of Theodosius of Tarnovo mentions an “Epikernios’s monastery,” and a similar name appears in a colophon to a manuscript collection. These two references may point to the same monastery, but that is uncertain. The name suggests a ktetor monastery, meaning a monastery founded or rebuilt by a private patron who gained rights of remembrance and representation in the church. Sratsimir, meanwhile, gave the village of Marmarin on the lower Struma to Zograph Monastery. These examples show the wealth and religious patronage of men with the title.

The Shumen inscription clearly calls Sratsimir “great epikernios,” while the word “great” does not appear in the records of Peter and Silvester. It is possible that a great epikernios led a department that included junior epikernioi and other subordinates. But there is no direct proof of such an arrangement, and every known Bulgarian holder belonged to the highest court circle. So the absence of the title “great” in one text does not prove that there was a separate lower rank.

The Bulgarian epikernios most likely had a main ceremonial role: overseeing the tsar’s wine and serving the ruler at formal banquets. By comparison with Byzantium and the Danubian principalities, the great epikernios may also have managed the royal vineyards, cellars, and wine income. Still, Bulgaria provides no direct evidence for these economic duties or for any staff under him. It is also possible that some nobles held the title only as a sign of rank, especially if they lived permanently far from Tarnovo.

Peter is known only from an inscribed ring found near Aytos before the First World War. Its paleographic features, that is, the shape and style of the writing, place it in the thirteenth century. The inscription gives Peter’s name and title and says that he was a cousin of the tsar, but it does not identify which ruler was his relative. Because of his high family background, he was probably a great epikernios even though that word is not written on the ring. The place where the ring was found may suggest activity in Thrace, but it could also have reached there by chance. For that reason, we cannot tell whether Peter actually served at the royal table or held the title only as an honor.

Silvester is known from the Palauzov copy of the Synodikon of Boril. There he appears as a monk who had earlier been epikernios to Tsar Ivan Alexander, and the text remembers him as dead. He probably took the monastic name Silvester when he became a monk, which means we do not know his secular name. His placement near members of the ruling family suggests respect, but the Synodikon is not a dependable list of court rank. The suggested identification of Silvester with Sratsimir fits the dates, but there is not enough documentary evidence to support it.

Sratsimir is the best-attested Bulgarian epikernios. In 1344, John V Palaiologos confirmed his donation of the village of Marmarin to Zograph. In that Greek charter, Sratsimir appears both as a relative of the Bulgarian tsar and as someone tied by kinship to the Byzantine dynasty. The other key source is the Shumen inscription of Sraco, made during the reign of Ivan Shishman, sometime between 1371 and the Ottoman conquest of the city in 1388. Sraco says that the great epikernios Sratsimir was his grandfather. Taken together, these two texts place Sratsimir’s main period of activity in the second quarter of the fourteenth century. He already held high office early in Ivan Alexander’s reign, and his career may have begun under Michael Shishman.

The confirmation of Sratsimir’s donation may also have served a diplomatic aim. After the death of Andronikos III Palaiologos in 1341, Byzantium fell into civil war. In 1344, the government of Anna of Savoy and Alexios Apokaukos tried to win Ivan Alexander’s support and made territorial concessions in Upper Thrace. In that setting, a favorable decision about the gift of an important Tarnovo noble may have been meant to secure his help. This remains only a guess, but it shows how Sratsimir’s personal standing and the rank of great epikernios could carry political weight.

Sratsimir had a family, and his name was still remembered at least by the time of his grandson Sraco. There is no firm basis for identifying him either with the monk Silvester or with the unnamed founder of the “Epikernios’s monastery.” Bulgarian evidence for the office ends in the fourteenth century, and the Shumen inscription already looks back on Sratsimir’s earlier importance. No document tells us that the office was abolished, and we cannot say whether it survived into the last years of the Tarnovo Tsardom.

The Bulgarian court in Tarnovo had a high office called the cupbearer. It came from Byzantine court customs. The job was to handle the tsar’s wine and serve it at formal banquets. It was also a sign of very high rank.

We know only a few men who held it in the 1200s and 1300s, including Peter, Silvester, and Sratsimir. Sratsimir is the best known. He was close to the tsar and gave land to a monastery. Records also show that he was called a “great” cupbearer.

This office mattered because it shows how Bulgarian rulers copied court life from Constantinople. It also shows that the men who held it were powerful nobles, not just servants. They could be rich, well connected, and active in church gifts.