Taxation and the treasury

“Fiscal offices” is a collective designation rather than the name of a single medieval department. It includes collectors of taxes and customs duties, officials who received payments in money or kind, and people who organized angariai—compulsory labour, transport, lodging, or provisioning owed to the state. Some of these officials probably belonged to military, palace, or hunting establishments. They are grouped together because they dealt with obligations imposed on the population, not because they necessarily formed one centralized service.

The fiscal administration of the Second Bulgarian Empire was based on the Byzantine system already operating in the territories taken over by the Asen dynasty after the uprising of 1185. Many names of offices and taxes are Greek or Slavic renderings of Greek terms. This influence was not due solely to the preceding two centuries of Byzantine rule: Bulgarian institutions had adopted models from Constantinople as early as the First Empire. George Akropolites and Theodore Skoutariotes report that after his victory at Klokotnitsa in 1230, Ivan Asen II installed garrisons, strategoi, and collectors of state revenue in the Byzantine fortresses that submitted to him. Fiscal organization thus stood alongside military and provincial government among the first structures introduced into newly conquered territories.

Taxes were public obligations used to finance defence, central and provincial administration, communications, and other necessary activities that did not themselves produce income. They should therefore not be equated with rent owed to a landowner. When a monastery or another privileged proprietor received the right to collect particular state dues, this was an exemption or an assignment of revenue, not a transfer of sovereignty. Estate servants could bear the same titles as imperial officials without possessing their public status.

The tithe was among the most widespread levies and is attested in the Vatopedi and Mraka charters. It applied to agricultural or pastoral production and was probably normally rendered in kind, although its actual rate need not always have been exactly one tenth. Its collection was associated with the desetkari and probably with more narrowly specialized officials such as grain and wine collectors. The accumulated produce was kept by an apodochator, an official responsible for receiving and storing it. The Bulgarian tithe has close parallels in the Byzantine dekateia, in Serbia, and in the Romanian lands. Another major levy was the dimnina in the Virgin Charter, a tax assessed by house or hearth, related to the Byzantine kapnikon and independent of the size of the harvest.

The zeugarion, also called volobershchina in Slavic, appears in the Vatopedi, Rila, and Virgin charters. It derived from the Byzantine zeugarion or zeugaratikion and is generally understood as a land tax based on the area that could be worked by a pair of oxen. A similar principle survived later in the Ottoman Çift resmi. The volobershchina has been identified with the komod, the zhitarstvo, and the Serbian soč, but the evidence is insufficient. The zhitarstvo, known from the Zograf Charter, clearly concerned grain production and was probably collected by a zhitar. It may have been related to the Byzantine sitarkia or may have represented a tithe on grain, but its precise character remains disputed.

The perper is the only known Bulgarian levy in this group whose name securely indicates payment in money. It is mentioned in the Virgin and Zograf charters, while its collectors, the perperaki, appear in the Rila and Vitosha charters. The object on which it was assessed is unknown, but the occurrence of similar names in Byzantium, Serbia, and the Romanian lands shows that it was not an isolated Bulgarian phenomenon. Its existence demonstrates the importance of monetary transactions alongside payments in kind.

The koumerkion was a state customs duty on trade. Its name ultimately came from the Latin commercium but entered Bulgarian through the Greek κουμέρκιον. It appears in the treaty of Michael II Asen with Dubrovnik, the Dubrovnik Charter of Ivan Asen II, and the Rila Charter of Ivan Shishman. Customs privileges are also addressed in Ivan Alexander’s charter for the Venetians and in the treaty of Despot John Terter, son of Dobrotitsa, with the Genoese. The disputed Virgin Charter uses the term tsarina, which may reflect Serbian intervention in the text. The Dubrovnik Charter mentions a “Законъ о коумеркиѣ”, a “law of the koumerkion.” It is uncertain whether this referred to a written enactment or merely to established practice, while customs arrangements were commonly defined by treaties and imperial privileges.

The koumerkion could be collected at fairs, mountain passes, roads, bridges, river crossings, towns, and villages. This implies a network of customs points throughout the empire, although the surviving sources do not permit a secure reconstruction of its personnel. The vamesh has sometimes been presented as a Bulgarian customs official on the evidence of a Wallachian charter. That document, however, belongs to Radu Prasnaglava and the 1420s, by which time the medieval Bulgarian state no longer existed. It therefore does not demonstrate the presence of Bulgarian officials north of the Danube, and the vamesh cannot confidently be included among the offices of the Second Empire.

The komod, attested in the Vatopedi, Virgin, and Mraka charters, appears to have been an additional payment benefiting fiscal officials, perhaps those who assessed taxable property or production. The nametak may have served a similar purpose, although the two terms were not identical, since they occur together in an authentic chrysobull—an elaborate imperial charter furnished with a gold seal. An opposing interpretation regards the komod as a land tax related to the volobershchina and the zhitarstvo. Its connection with the Byzantine oikomodion makes the explanation as an official’s due more likely, but the matter is not conclusively settled. There is no direct evidence for regular salaries paid to fiscal officials. In addition to the komod and nametak, apodochators probably received the apodochia, although the amount of these revenues is unknown.

The work associated with the fiscal apparatus also included the organization of angariai. Kastroktisia, called gradozidanie in Slavic, required the population to participate in the construction and maintenance of fortresses. It appears as “градъ ѕидати” in the Virgin Charter and as καστροκτισία in a document from Mesembria. The gradar and varnich were probably connected with this obligation. Guarding fortresses and prisons served defensive and policing purposes and may have been supervised by the varar. Psomozemia covered the provision of bread, wine, fodder, and other supplies to the army. Even haymaking had a military purpose because it supported the cavalry; the responsible senar therefore cannot easily be classified as exclusively a fiscal or a military official.

The mitaton and prishtelitsa were obligations to lodge and feed travellers on state service, apparently distinguishing between military units and civilian officials. Transport obligations supplied animals, carts, or human labour for the army, provincial government, and communications system. Similar uncertainty surrounds the kraguari and psari, who probably belonged to the organization of the imperial hunt, and the mitar and povar, who may have supplied provisions to the army. Such cases demonstrate why officials concerned with dues and angariai cannot automatically be treated as members of a single financial department.

The population also paid fees for the use of particular facilities or resources. The kosharshtina concerned sheepfolds on imperial land, the trevnina covered pastures, and the gornina applied to highland grazing. The meaning of the slonovshchina is obscure, but it was probably connected with sheltering herds. The mostnina was paid for crossing a bridge. In another context, the term dimnina has also been interpreted as a road fee or, more probably, a charge at a river ford, illustrating the uncertainty of the terminology. The detailed organization used to collect these payments is unknown. Fines also entered the treasury, but they were punitive rather than fiscal exactions. They were probably imposed by judicial, policing, or administrative authorities, including fiscal officials when an offence fell within their competence.

Imperial charters reveal increasing specialization during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In protective formulas—clauses forbidding named categories of officials from disturbing privileged estates—the Vatopedi Charter lists only three officials connected with the fisc, whereas the Rila Charter names fifteen collectors of revenue or organizers of obligations. These lists are illustrative rather than exhaustive, so the difference does not by itself prove a fivefold expansion. It nevertheless points to a more complex and differentiated administration in the late fourteenth century. The growth in officialdom may have reflected heavier taxation, but it was also connected with the wider crisis of a state that controlled less territory and a smaller population while facing intense military pressure.

The Vitosha Charter permits the hypothesis that two lines of authority existed within the provincial fisc. Some administrative and military offices are presented as belonging to the local kephale, the governor of the province. The praktor, probably responsible for local taxation, appears in this group. A second series, composed mainly of specialized fiscal officials, is textually separated from it and described as belonging “to my tsardom.” This may mean that they were appointed or directed by the central government and represented the ruler’s immediate interests. The interpretation is plausible but not certain: it remains unknown where these officials resided, whether they had permanent districts, whether they were dispatched for particular assignments, and how they related to the praktor.

The position of individual fiscal officials in documentary lists probably depended on the importance of the revenue they collected and the extent of their authority. The surviving documents do not permit the reconstruction of a complete hierarchy, nor do they record distinctive insignia, official seals, or coinage attached to these offices. Taken as a whole, the fiscal administration was among the best-attested and most specialized parts of the government of the Second Bulgarian Empire. It was established under the early Asen rulers, developed throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and ceased to exist as a Bulgarian imperial structure with the Ottoman conquest. Some fiscal forms and names have later Ottoman parallels, but this alone does not prove the direct survival of every individual office.

“Fiscal offices” is not the name of one medieval department. It is a broad label for several kinds of officials: tax and customs collectors, people who received payments in money or in goods, and those who organized angariai, meaning compulsory labour, transport, lodging, or supplies owed to the state. Some of these officials may have worked for the army, the palace, or the royal hunting grounds. They are grouped together because they dealt with duties imposed on the population, not because they necessarily formed one single central service.

The fiscal system of the Second Bulgarian Empire grew out of the Byzantine system already in place in the lands taken over by the Asen dynasty after the uprising of 1185. Many office names and tax names are Greek, or Slavic versions of Greek words. This influence did not come only from the previous two centuries of Byzantine rule. Bulgarian institutions had already borrowed from Constantinople in the First Empire. George Akropolites and Theodore Skoutariotes say that after his victory at Klokotnitsa in 1230, Ivan Asen II placed garrisons, strategoi, and collectors of state revenue in the Byzantine fortresses that surrendered to him. So fiscal organization, along with military and provincial rule, was one of the first systems set up in newly conquered areas.

Taxes were public obligations meant to pay for defence, central and provincial administration, communications, and other necessary tasks that did not themselves bring in money. They should not be confused with rent owed to a landowner. When a monastery or another privileged owner received the right to gather certain state dues, this was an exemption or a transfer of revenue, not a transfer of sovereignty. Estate servants could hold the same titles as imperial officials without sharing their public rank.

The tithe was one of the most common taxes and is mentioned in the Vatopedi and Mraka charters. It applied to farm or livestock production and was probably usually paid in kind, though its actual rate did not always have to be exactly one tenth. Its collection was linked to the desetkari and probably to more specialized officials such as grain and wine collectors. The gathered produce was kept by an apodochator, an official who received and stored it. The Bulgarian tithe has close parallels in the Byzantine dekateia, in Serbia, and in the Romanian lands. Another major tax was the dimnina in the Virgin Charter, a charge assessed by house or hearth, related to the Byzantine kapnikon and not dependent on the size of the harvest.

The zeugarion, also called volobershchina in Slavic, appears in the Vatopedi, Rila, and Virgin charters. It came from the Byzantine zeugarion or zeugaratikion and is usually understood as a land tax based on the amount that a pair of oxen could work. A similar idea later survived in the Ottoman Çift resmi. The volobershchina has been linked with the komod, the zhitarstvo, and the Serbian soč, but the evidence is too weak to be sure. The zhitarstvo, known from the Zograf Charter, clearly dealt with grain production and was probably collected by a zhitar. It may have been connected to the Byzantine sitarkia or may have been a tithe on grain, but its exact nature is still debated.

The perper is the only known Bulgarian levy in this group whose name clearly shows that it was paid in money. It is mentioned in the Virgin and Zograf charters, while its collectors, the perperaki, appear in the Rila and Vitosha charters. We do not know what it was charged on, but similar names in Byzantium, Serbia, and the Romanian lands show that it was not only a Bulgarian institution. Its existence also shows how important cash payments were alongside payments in goods.

The koumerkion was a state customs duty on trade. Its name ultimately comes from the Latin commercium, but it reached Bulgarian through the Greek κουμέρκιον. It appears in the treaty of Michael II Asen with Dubrovnik, the Dubrovnik Charter of Ivan Asen II, and the Rila Charter of Ivan Shishman. Customs privileges are also discussed in Ivan Alexander’s charter for the Venetians and in the treaty of Despot John Terter, son of Dobrotitsa, with the Genoese. The disputed Virgin Charter uses the term tsarina, which may reflect Serbian interference in the text. The Dubrovnik Charter mentions a “Законъ о коумеркиѣ”, a “law of the koumerkion.” It is not clear whether this meant a written law or simply established practice. Customs rules were often set by treaties and imperial privileges.

The koumerkion could be collected at fairs, mountain passes, roads, bridges, river crossings, towns, and villages. This points to a wide network of customs points across the empire, although the surviving sources do not let us reconstruct the staff with certainty. The vamesh has sometimes been treated as a Bulgarian customs official on the basis of a Wallachian charter. But that document belongs to Radu Prasnaglava and the 1420s, by which time the medieval Bulgarian state no longer existed. It therefore does not prove the presence of Bulgarian officials north of the Danube, and the vamesh cannot safely be counted among the offices of the Second Empire.

The komod, mentioned in the Vatopedi, Virgin, and Mraka charters, seems to have been another payment that went to fiscal officials, perhaps those who assessed taxable property or production. The nametak may have served a similar role, though the two terms were not the same, since both appear together in an authentic chrysobull, that is, an imperial charter with a gold seal. Another view is that the komod was a land tax connected with the volobershchina and the zhitarstvo. Because it is linked with the Byzantine oikomodion, the explanation that it was an official’s due is the more likely one, but the issue is still unresolved. There is no direct evidence for fixed salaries paid to fiscal officials. Besides the komod and nametak, apodochators probably received the apodochia, though we do not know how large these revenues were.

The fiscal system also handled angariai. Kastroktisia, called gradozidanie in Slavic, required people to help build and maintain fortresses. It appears as “градъ ѕидати” in the Virgin Charter and as καστροκτισία in a document from Mesembria. The gradar and varnich were probably linked to this duty. Guarding fortresses and prisons served both defence and policing, and may have been overseen by the varar. Psomozemia covered the supply of bread, wine, fodder, and other goods to the army. Even haymaking had a military use because it supported the cavalry, so the senar cannot easily be placed only among fiscal or only among military officials.

The mitaton and prishtelitsa were duties to house and feed travellers on state business, apparently with a distinction between military units and civilian officials. Transport duties provided animals, carts, or human labour for the army, provincial government, and communication system. Similar uncertainty surrounds the kraguari and psari, who probably belonged to the organization of the imperial hunt, and the mitar and povar, who may have supplied provisions to the army. These cases show why officials connected with dues and angariai cannot automatically be treated as parts of one financial department.

People also paid fees for using certain places or resources. The kosharshtina was linked to sheepfolds on imperial land, the trevnina covered pastures, and the gornina applied to mountain grazing. The meaning of the slonovshchina is unclear, but it probably had to do with sheltering herds. The mostnina was paid to cross a bridge. Elsewhere, the term dimnina has also been taken to mean a road fee or, more likely, a charge at a river ford, which shows how uncertain the terminology is. We do not know the exact machinery used to collect these payments. Fines also went to the treasury, but they were penalties rather than fiscal dues. They were probably imposed by judicial, policing, or administrative authorities, including fiscal officials when the offence fell within their powers.

Imperial charters show greater specialization in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In protective formulas—clauses that forbid named officials from disturbing privileged estates—the Vatopedi Charter lists only three fisc-related officials, while the Rila Charter names fifteen collectors of revenue or organizers of obligations. These lists are examples, not complete rosters, so the difference does not by itself prove a fivefold increase. Even so, it points to a more complex and more divided administration in the late fourteenth century. The growth in officials may have been caused by heavier taxation, but it was also tied to the wider crisis of a state that controlled less land and fewer people while facing strong military pressure.

The Vitosha Charter makes it possible to think that two lines of authority existed within the provincial fisc. Some administrative and military offices are shown as belonging to the local kephale, the provincial governor. The praktor, probably in charge of local taxation, appears in this group. A second set, made up mostly of specialized fiscal officials, is set apart in the wording and described as belonging “to my tsardom.” This may mean that they were appointed or directed by the central government and represented the ruler’s immediate interests. The idea is plausible, but not certain. We do not know where these officials lived, whether they had fixed districts, whether they were sent out only for particular tasks, or how they were related to the praktor.

The place of individual fiscal officials in documentary lists probably depended on how important the revenue was that they handled and how much authority they had. The surviving documents do not allow us to rebuild a full hierarchy, and they do not mention special insignia, official seals, or coinage tied to these offices. Taken together, the fiscal administration was one of the best documented and most specialized parts of the government of the Second Bulgarian Empire. It took shape under the early Asen rulers, grew during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and ended as a Bulgarian imperial structure with the Ottoman conquest. Some fiscal forms and names later appear in Ottoman parallels, but that does not by itself prove that every individual office survived directly.

The Second Bulgarian Empire had a big system for collecting taxes and duties. It was built on the older Byzantine model. After his victory at Klokotnitsa in 1230, Ivan Asen II also set up garrisons and revenue collectors in the towns he took. This system helped pay for the army, government, and roads and travel.

People paid several kinds of taxes. Some were paid in food or livestock, like the tithe on farm produce. Others were paid on homes, land, or in money. There was also a customs duty on trade. These payments were collected in towns, at roads, bridges, passes, and markets.

The state also made people do compulsory work. They helped build and repair fortresses, carried goods, fed soldiers and travelers, and provided transport. Some officials handled these jobs, but they did not all belong to one single office. Some worked for the army, the palace, or the hunt.

Over the 1200s and 1300s, the fiscal system became more complex. This shows that the empire had a highly organized government. It ended with the Ottoman conquest, although some later tax ideas were similar.