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.

This title is found in the Virgino, Mrachka, Rila, and Vitosha charters. Scholars have also suggested restoring it in a damaged passage of the Vatopedi Charter, but another reading is possible, so this evidence is uncertain. The forms recorded in the sources are “псаръ,” “пѣсаръ,” “песъкаци,” “пескаци,” and “чар.” The main word is Slavic and comes from “пьсъ,” which means dog. None of the documents names a specific person who held the office.

Helpful parallels come from medieval Serbia, where “псар” or “пѣсар” appears again and again in rulers’ charters. One early example is a charter linked to Prince Mutimir and dated to 892. Documents from the reigns of Stefan Uroš III Dečanski and Stefan Dušan mention a tax on dogs called “дън пса.” Charters of Stefan Vladislav, Stefan Uroš II Milutin, and Stefan Dušan also record corvée, a form of compulsory labor or service owed to the authorities, in which animals, including dogs, could be taken for use. Another related duty could be waived with the formula “ни пьсъ хране,” meaning that a person did not have to raise a dog for the court. A similar obligation existed for hunting birds.

The most likely explanation is that Bulgarian houndsmen took part in arranging the ruler’s hunt. Byzantium had an office called the “κυνηγός,” or hunter, a word linked to the Greek ideas of dog and leading. In late Byzantine times, the protokynegos (“πρωτοκυνηγός”) stood forty-first in the court ranking and mainly had honorary duties in the palace. Even though the two roles were similar, there is not enough evidence to identify the Bulgarian houndsman with this Byzantine rank or to say that he held the same status at court.

A later comparison comes from the Ottoman court. The Janissary corps included groups called “segbanlar” or “seymenler,” a name that has been explained as meaning men who led dogs. They were organized into 34 ortas of 40–70 men each. They served in the sultan’s hunt and went with him on campaign, where they also guarded him. This shows how hunting service could turn into a fixed organization with close access to the ruler, but it does not prove that the Bulgarian office continued directly into the Ottoman one.

There is no direct proof that Tarnovo had a separate office of houndsmen at court, but an organized tsar’s hunt certainly existed. The Life of Saint Sava of Serbia mentions such a hunt, and Bulgarian charters refer to hunting and fishing grounds. Some scholars have argued that hunting was an exclusive right of the Crown, one that the ruler could give out by charter, but this cannot be shown for certain.

What is clearer is that houndsmen were officials whose actions could place heavy demands on local people. They may have collected dogs that were being raised as an obligation, watched over their feeding and training, or required peasants to join the tsar’s hunt with their own animals. These tasks could have overlapped. Even so, the people who had to raise dogs should not automatically be identified with the houndsmen themselves.

The fact that houndsmen usually appear near the end of official lists in the charters suggests that they held a low place in provincial administration. Local houndsmen may have belonged to a broader system controlled from the court, but no such organization is documented. The sources connect the office with no special insignia, seals, or coins. The records show that it existed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but they do not tell us when it began or exactly when it disappeared.

Medieval Bulgarian charters from the 1200s and 1300s mention a court job linked to dogs and hunting. The word was Slavic and seems to mean a houndsman, but the records do not name any person who held it.

The houndsmen probably helped with the ruler’s hunt. They may have gathered dogs, fed and trained them, or made villagers bring dogs for the tsar’s hunt. The office seems to have been low in rank and could burden local people.

There is no clear proof of a separate houndsmen office at the Bulgarian court in Tarnovo. We also do not know exactly when it began or ended. Similar jobs existed in Serbia and later at the Ottoman court, but this does not prove they were the same.