Houndsman

The designation is attested in the Virgino, Mrachka, Rila, and Vitosha charters. It has also been proposed as a restoration in a damaged passage of the Vatopedi Charter, but an alternative reading exists, making this attestation uncertain. The recorded forms include “псаръ,” “пѣсаръ,” “песъкаци,” “пескаци,” and “чар.” The principal term is Slavic and derives from “пьсъ,” meaning dog. None of the documents identifies an individual holder of the office by name.

Useful comparisons come from medieval Serbia, where “псар” or “пѣсар” occurs repeatedly in rulers’ acts. An early example appears in a charter associated with Prince Mutimir and dated to 892. Documents from the reigns of Stefan Uroš III Dečanski and Stefan Dušan mention a levy on dogs called “дън пса.” Charters of Stefan Vladislav, Stefan Uroš II Milutin, and Stefan Dušan also record corvée—compulsory labor or service owed to the authorities—in which animals, including dogs, could be requisitioned. Exemption from another related obligation was expressed by the formula “ни пьсъ хране,” meaning that a person was not required to rear a dog for the court. A comparable duty existed for hunting birds.

The most likely explanation is that Bulgarian houndsmen participated in organizing the ruler’s hunt. Byzantium had the office of the “κυνηγός,” or hunter, a term connected with the Greek words for dog and leading. The late Byzantine protokynegos (“πρωτοκυνηγός”) occupied the forty-first place in the court hierarchy and performed chiefly honorary palace duties. Despite the similar sphere of activity, there is insufficient evidence to identify the Bulgarian houndsman with this Byzantine dignity or to assign him the same standing at court.

A later comparison is offered by the Ottoman court. The Janissary corps included units called “segbanlar” or “seymenler,” whose name has been explained as referring to men who led dogs. They were divided into 34 ortas of 40–70 men each, served in the sultan’s hunt, and accompanied him on campaign, where they also acted as guards. This example shows how a hunting service could acquire a permanent organization and close access to the ruler, but it does not prove direct continuity from the Bulgarian institution.

There is no direct evidence for a separate department of houndsmen at the court in Tarnovo, but an organized tsar’s hunt certainly existed. Such a hunt is mentioned in the Life of Saint Sava of Serbia, while Bulgarian charters refer to hunting and fishing grounds. It has been proposed that hunting was an exclusive right of the Crown which the ruler could grant through a charter, but this cannot be demonstrated conclusively. It is more certain that houndsmen were officials whose interventions could burden local communities. They may have collected dogs reared as an obligation, supervised their feeding and training, or required peasants to participate in the tsar’s hunt with their own animals. These duties could have been combined. The people required to rear dogs, however, should not necessarily be identified with the houndsmen themselves.

The appearance of the houndsmen near the end of official lists in the charters suggests a low position within the provincial administration. Local houndsmen may have belonged to a wider organization directed from the court, but no such structure is documented. The sources associate the office with no distinctive insignia, seals, or coins. The documentary record establishes its presence in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries but does not reveal either when it was created or precisely when it disappeared.