1.The officials of communications
This general designation encompasses various officials involved in carrying information and travelling between the ruler’s centre and the provinces. The evidence comes mainly from the protective formulas of chrysobulls—rulers’ charters authenticated with a gold seal—which exempted particular monasteries and estates from interference by specified officials. These texts mention apokrisiarioi, izgonchii, and nakhodnitsi. The surviving list is undoubtedly incomplete and cannot be treated as a full record of the communications administration of the Second Bulgarian Empire.
The sources do not reveal the service’s chain of command, internal hierarchy, or precise division of responsibilities. Nor is it known how communications were coordinated with road maintenance, local government, and the central administration. Some of the terminology and documentary formulas are Greek, but this is insufficient to reconstruct a directly adopted Byzantine postal organization or to define how Bulgarian practice differed from it. Mounted military units may have helped carry messages and provide replacement animals along the route, but there is not enough evidence for a securely attested network of relay stations.
The inclusion of these officials in protective clauses shows that their duties could impose burdens on the population. They probably did not collect regular taxes, but while travelling they could demand transport, animals, food, fodder, and lodging. Charters therefore placed them alongside fiscal and other officials whose access to exempt estates was restricted. The communications system consequently depended not only on specialist messengers but also on services owed by the communities along their routes.
2.The obligations
One important obligation was the podklada, the compulsory provision of transport for state purposes. It served travelling officials and armies and probably also supported the carriage of taxes collected in kind. A charter of Stefan Dušan contains the phrase “prokoda poklisar,” associating a comparable transport obligation with an envoy. A charter of Mircea the Elder dated 11 May 1409 mentions podkoza and podklada, probably as related duties. The terms prokoda, pokoz, and ponos are also known in Serbia, while podklad, although attested there, appears to have been less characteristic. A similar Balkan practice survived into the Ottoman period under the name vozarlık.
Travelling officials could also benefit from psomozemia, an obligation to supply foodstuffs. Documents sometimes use this Greek term, while others list particular provisions such as bread, wine, and fodder. Another burden, the priselnitsa, comprised lodging and more general support for representatives of authority passing through a community. These obligations did not exist solely for the communications service: the army was the principal consumer of transport and supplies. Messengers nevertheless depended on the same system because their official duties required continual travel within the country or abroad.
A Mesembrian charter for the monastery of the Theotokos Eleousa contains the obscure Greek word “βάρξ.” Its position in a protective formula makes it possible that the word designated an official forbidden to trouble the monastery’s estates. Its proposed interpretations vary greatly, however, ranging from a person connected with payments or collections to a troublemaker or wanderer. The Greek text does not permit the secure reconstruction of an official title, so this piece of evidence must be treated with considerable caution.
No insignia, seals, or coins can be securely associated with these officials, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their rank. Documents of the Second Bulgarian Empire demonstrate the existence of several kinds of messengers and communications agents, but they provide no precise first or last date for the institution as a whole. Evidence from neighbouring states and the charter of 1409 demonstrates the longer survival of transport obligations, not necessarily the uninterrupted existence of a particular Bulgarian office. Because the sources are sparse, the organization of communications, the relationship between central and local authorities, and the possible connection with the mounted military establishment remain uncertain.
This broad label covers several officials who carried messages and traveled between the ruler’s center and the provinces. Most of what we know comes from the protective clauses in chrysobulls, which were rulers’ charters sealed with gold. These clauses protected certain monasteries and estates from interference by named officials. They mention apokrisiarioi, izgonchii, and nakhodnitsi. But the surviving list is certainly incomplete, so it cannot be taken as a full record of the communications administration of the Second Bulgarian Empire.
The sources do not show the chain of command, the internal ranking, or the exact split of duties within this service. Nor do they explain how communication was linked with road upkeep, local government, and the central administration. Some of the terms and formulas in the documents are Greek, but that is not enough to prove that Bulgaria simply copied a Byzantine postal system or to show exactly how Bulgarian practice differed from it. Mounted military units may have helped carry messages and provide fresh animals along the route, but the evidence is too thin to prove a fixed network of relay stations.
The fact that these officials appear in protective clauses shows that their work could place real burdens on the people. They probably did not collect regular taxes, but while traveling they could demand transport, animals, food, fodder, and lodging. That is why charters placed them alongside fiscal and other officials whose access to exempt estates was limited. The communications system therefore depended not only on trained messengers, but also on services that communities had to provide along the routes they used.
One major duty was the podklada, the required provision of transport for state use. It served traveling officials and armies, and it probably also helped move taxes collected in kind. A charter of Stefan Dušan uses the phrase “prokoda poklisar,” linking a similar transport duty to an envoy. A charter of Mircea the Elder dated 11 May 1409 mentions podkoza and podklada, probably as related obligations. The terms prokoda, pokoz, and ponos are also known in Serbia, while podklad, although found there, seems to have been less typical. A similar practice survived in the Balkans into the Ottoman period under the name vozarlık.
Traveling officials could also benefit from psomozemia, an obligation to provide foodstuffs. Some documents use this Greek term, while others name specific supplies such as bread, wine, and fodder. Another burden, the priselnitsa, meant lodging and more general support for representatives of authority passing through a community. These duties were not created only for the communications service. The army was the main user of transport and supplies. Still, messengers depended on the same system, because their work required constant travel inside the country and abroad.
A Mesembrian charter for the monastery of the Theotokos Eleousa contains the unclear Greek word “βάρξ.” Because it appears in a protective clause, it may have referred to an official who was forbidden to trouble the monastery’s estates. But the word has been interpreted in very different ways, from someone connected with payments or collections to a troublemaker or a wanderer. The Greek text does not allow a secure identification of an official title, so this evidence has to be handled with great caution.
No insignia, seals, or coins can be safely linked to these officials, and there is not enough evidence to establish their rank. Documents of the Second Bulgarian Empire show that several kinds of messengers and communications agents existed, but they do not give a precise beginning or end date for the institution as a whole. Evidence from neighboring states and the charter of 1409 shows only that transport obligations lasted longer; it does not prove the uninterrupted survival of a specific Bulgarian office. Because the sources are so limited, the organization of communications, the link between central and local authorities, and any connection with the mounted military establishment all remain uncertain.
In the Second Bulgarian Empire, there were officials who carried messages and traveled between the ruler and the provinces. We know about them mostly from royal charters with gold seals. These charters protected monasteries and estates from being bothered by such officials. But the surviving records are incomplete.
These travelers could place a burden on local people. Villages and estates might have to provide horses, carts, food, fodder, and lodging. This was part of a wider duty to help the state move people and goods. It also helped armies and tax transport.
The sources do not show exactly how the system worked. We do not know its full rank order or whether there were relay stations. A charter from 1409 and examples from nearby lands show that these transport duties lasted a long time, but the exact Bulgarian office is still uncertain.