Kaisar

Kaisar was a court dignity whose name derives from the Greek καῖσαρ, itself borrowed from the Latin Caesar. In the early Roman Empire the word designated the emperor, but in Late Antiquity it gradually became a distinct rank. In Byzantium the title was long reserved for members of the ruling family and occupied the summit of the court hierarchy. Under Alexios I Komnenos it was placed below sebastokrator, and later also below despot. Despite this decline in rank, the kaisar retained considerable prestige, special formulas, and insignia associated with imperial authority. The title is well attested in fourteenth-century Serbia, where it was held by Preljub, Vojihna, Hrelja, and other magnates.

The evidence for the Second Bulgarian Empire is much less secure. An obscure royal funerary inscription from the Church of the Forty Martyrs in Tarnovo cannot establish whether the title was in use. The only substantial testimony is a prayer or rite for the investiture of a kaisar, despot, and other titled persons. It survives in several Slavonic copies. The oldest known version occurs in a Bulgarian Synodikon; other versions are found in the fourteenth-century Solovetsky service book, manuscript no. 954 of the National Library in Sofia, a seventeenth-century episcopal service book, and a fifteenth-century Serbian book of rites. Service books and books of rites are ecclesiastical manuscripts containing prayers and ceremonies for different occasions.

The Greek model for the prayer concerns the investiture of a kaisar, nobelissimos, and kouropalates. Kaisar appears in every known Slavonic version, whereas nobelissimos is omitted, probably because that dignity had disappeared by the end of the twelfth century. Kouropalates occurs only in the Synodikon text, where its spelling reproduces the Greek form with unusual precision. Most Slavonic headings add the despot and a general reference to other greater or lesser lords. The body of the text follows the Greek prayer relatively closely, but the altered heading indicates that the translator was not working entirely mechanically. He probably adapted the rite to a later setting in which the despot and kaisar belonged among the highest titled dignitaries.

The Greek version reflects the court hierarchy of the ninth to eleventh centuries, when kaisar, nobelissimos, and kouropalates stood at the top of the order of precedence. The inclusion of the despot in the Slavonic headings points to a later institutional setting. The omission of the sebastokrator is harder to explain. In Bulgaria it may be connected with the absence of known fourteenth-century holders and with the title’s general decline in the late Byzantine world. The Serbian copy complicates the issue because it dates from the fifteenth century, when Serbia no longer had kaisars either. It may preserve a fourteenth-century Bulgarian translation, but this cannot be established conclusively.

In the heading of the prayer the kaisar is listed before the despot. This order does not mean that the kaisar held the higher rank. In the late medieval hierarchy the despot stood above him. The kaisar probably retained the first position from the Greek model, where tradition placed him before the nobelissimos and kouropalates.

The investiture rite makes the existence of the dignity in Bulgaria plausible, but it does not provide decisive proof. No Bulgarian kaisar is known by name, and there is no independent record of a particular appointment. If the title was indeed part of the Bulgarian system, it must have belonged to the very highest level of the court aristocracy. The surviving evidence reveals nothing definite about its administrative duties, political authority, or Bulgarian insignia. Byzantine descriptions of clothing and emblems illustrate the general model but cannot automatically be treated as evidence for practice at Tarnovo. The lack of corroborating testimony remains the strongest objection to the institution’s existence, although several other high Bulgarian titles are likewise known from only a few references.

The Bulgarians had encountered the title long before the Second Empire: Tervel received it from Justinian II. This single grant does not demonstrate that the dignity continued to exist in the First Bulgarian Empire. The words kaisar and tsar ultimately share the Latin root Caesar, but tsar probably entered the Slavic language directly from Latin or through Gothic rather than through the Greek καῖσαρ. The dignity was most likely introduced anew during the Second Empire as part of a hierarchy fashioned on the Byzantine model.

The medieval Bulgarian texts point principally to the fourteenth century, but they do not establish the precise dates of the title’s introduction or disappearance. The seventeenth-century copy demonstrates the survival of a textual tradition, not necessarily the continued use of the dignity. Even if it existed, the title was evidently rare.

Kaisar was a court title. Its name comes from the Greek καῖσαρ, which was borrowed from the Latin Caesar. In the early Roman Empire, the word meant the emperor himself, but in Late Antiquity it slowly became a separate rank. In Byzantium, the title was long kept for members of the ruling family and stood at the top of the court order. Under Alexios I Komnenos it was placed below sebastokrator, and later also below despot. Even so, the kaisar still carried great prestige, along with special words of address and symbols linked to imperial power. The title is well documented in fourteenth-century Serbia, where Preljub, Vojihna, Hrelja, and other great lords held it.

The evidence for the Second Bulgarian Empire is much weaker. A vague royal tomb inscription from the Church of the Forty Martyrs in Tarnovo cannot prove that the title was used there. The main evidence is a prayer, or rite, for the investiture of a kaisar, despot, and other titled people. This text survives in several Slavonic copies. The oldest known version is in a Bulgarian Synodikon; other versions appear in the fourteenth-century Solovetsky service book, manuscript no. 954 of the National Library in Sofia, a seventeenth-century episcopal service book, and a fifteenth-century Serbian book of rites. Service books and books of rites are church manuscripts that contain prayers and ceremonies for different occasions.

The Greek original of the prayer is for the investiture of a kaisar, nobelissimos, and kouropalates, all court ranks. The word kaisar appears in every known Slavonic version, but nobelissimos is left out, probably because that rank had disappeared by the end of the twelfth century. Kouropalates appears only in the Synodikon version, where its spelling closely follows the Greek form. Most Slavonic headings also add the despot and a general reference to other higher and lower lords. The main body of the text stays fairly close to the Greek prayer, but the changed heading shows that the translator was not simply copying word for word. He probably adapted the rite to a later setting in which the despot and kaisar belonged among the highest court dignitaries.

The Greek version matches the court order of the ninth to eleventh centuries, when kaisar, nobelissimos, and kouropalates stood at the top of the ranking system. The fact that the Slavonic headings include the despot points to a later setting. The absence of the sebastokrator is harder to explain. In Bulgaria, this may be connected with the fact that no fourteenth-century holders of the title are known and with the general decline of the title in the late Byzantine world. The Serbian copy makes the matter more complicated, because it dates from the fifteenth century, when Serbia no longer had kaisars either. It may preserve a fourteenth-century Bulgarian translation, but that cannot be proved.

In the prayer heading, the kaisar is named before the despot. That order does not mean that the kaisar was actually higher in rank. In the late medieval hierarchy, the despot stood above him. The kaisar probably comes first because the Greek model also placed him before the nobelissimos and kouropalates, and the translator kept that traditional order.

This investiture rite makes it likely that the dignity existed in Bulgaria, but it does not prove it beyond doubt. No Bulgarian kaisar is known by name, and there is no separate record of a specific appointment. If the title really belonged to the Bulgarian system, it must have been among the very highest court ranks. The surviving evidence tells us nothing firm about its official duties, political power, or Bulgarian symbols of office. Byzantine descriptions of clothing and emblems show the general pattern, but they cannot automatically be taken as proof of how things worked in Tarnovo. The lack of other supporting evidence is still the strongest argument against the title’s existence, although several other high Bulgarian titles are also known from only a few references.

The Bulgarians knew the title long before the Second Empire: Tervel received it from Justinian II. But this single grant does not show that the dignity continued to exist in the First Bulgarian Empire. The words kaisar and tsar both go back to the Latin root Caesar, but tsar probably entered Slavic directly from Latin or through Gothic, rather than through the Greek καῖσαρ. The title was most likely introduced again during the Second Empire as part of a court system shaped on the Byzantine model.

The Bulgarian medieval texts mainly point to the fourteenth century, but they do not show exactly when the title began or when it ended. The seventeenth-century copy proves that the text tradition survived, not necessarily that the dignity itself was still in use. Even if the title did exist, it seems to have been rare.

Kaisar was a very high court title in the medieval world. It came from the Roman word for Caesar. In Byzantium it was once near the top of the court, but later it ranked below the despot.

For Bulgaria, the evidence is weak. The main proof is a church prayer for giving this title to someone. Copies of this prayer survive in Bulgarian and Serbian books, mostly from the 1300s and later. No Bulgarian ruler with this title is known by name.

The prayer suggests that Bulgaria may have used the title in the Second Bulgarian Empire. But it does not prove this for sure. It also does not tell us the holder’s duties or symbols.

The title was probably brought back in Bulgaria as part of a court system copied from Byzantium. It was rare, and if it existed, it belonged only to the very highest nobles.