Chancery and messengers

The imperial chancery

The Imperial Chancery prepared, drafted, and authenticated the written acts of the Bulgarian ruler. It was not a government in the modern sense, but it stood close to the centre of power and transmitted the tsar’s will to subjects, ecclesiastical institutions, and foreign powers. No regulations, staff lists, or detailed descriptions of its work survive. Its organization must therefore be reconstructed chiefly from the names of individual officials and from documents produced or processed by the service.

The Byzantine model

The principal model came from Constantinople. The Byzantine imperial chancery had a tradition extending over many centuries and was among the services most closely trusted by the basileus. Alexios I Komnenos created the office of the “λογοθέτης τῶν σεκρέτων,” which coordinated different administrative departments; in the later Byzantine period comparable functions were exercised by the megas logothetes, or great logothete, and by the mesazon, the emperor’s senior intermediary and coordinator. Most ordinary chancery officials, however, did not receive high ceremonial rank solely because of their duties. The Byzantine hierarchy of titles was therefore not identical with the machinery that actually conducted government.

The Tarnovo chancery adopted Byzantine official names, offices, and methods of drafting acts, but it was not an exact copy of its Constantinopolitan model. Bulgaria had different resources, political circumstances, and administrative traditions. Byzantine influence was part of a broader Balkan phenomenon: the Serbian chancery also had to serve conquered Greek-speaking territories, while Slavic, Greek, and Latin chancery practices later coexisted in Wallachia and Moldavia. Such comparisons help explain the Bulgarian institution, but they cannot replace the missing direct evidence.

For at least part of the period, the Bulgarian Imperial Chancery was probably headed by the megas logothetes. Other known personnel included lower-ranking logothetes, the tainik or mystikos—a trusted official associated with confidential affairs—and the grammatikoi, educated secretaries and scribes. Documents and inscriptions also mention people described simply as writers, but their membership in the ruler’s service usually cannot be demonstrated. Neither the complete staff nor a permanent division of responsibilities can be reconstructed.

The kinds of document

The documents broadly followed Byzantine rules for structuring and authenticating official acts. Their names were often Greek loans or Slavic translations: a chrysobull was a charter authenticated with a gold seal; horismos derived from a Greek term for a sovereign command; and “gold-sealed word” was a Slavic expression with a similar meaning. Characteristic sections and formulas of Byzantine charters were also adopted. Bulgarian examples could nevertheless be shorter or less ceremonial, while the small number of surviving texts makes it impossible to determine whether such features were general practice.

The largest surviving group consists of grants and charters of privilege for Bulgarian and Athonite monasteries. The predominance of documents concerning the southwestern regions is primarily the result of preservation, since the monasteries of Mount Athos maintained their archives for centuries. Monasteries around Tarnovo probably also possessed acts issued by Bulgarian rulers, but their archives have not survived. Chrysobulls were among the chancery’s most solemn and legally significant products, and consequently preserve not only information about grants and privileges but also important expressions of imperial ideology.

Commercial documents reveal a more practical side of chancery work. Ivan Stratsimir’s Brașov Charter is brief and largely devoid of elaborate rhetoric because it regulated the limited rights of merchants from that important Transylvanian town. The earlier Dubrovnik Charter of Ivan Asen II likewise served commercial relations, but it was more solemn and reflected wider political objectives. The contrast between the two acts shows that their form was adapted to the recipient and to the significance of the particular ruling.

The chancery also participated in preparing international treaties, although such texts require caution because they resulted from the intentions and documentary practices of both parties. Michael II Asen’s treaty with Dubrovnik regulated political and economic matters, while its form was also influenced by the republic’s highly developed Slavic chancery. Ivan Alexander’s privilege for the Venetians survives only in Italian copies, so the form of the original Tarnovo document is uncertain. The treaty between the Dobrudjan despot Ivan Terter, successor to Dobrotitsa, and the Genoese appears to reflect Genoese rather than local chancery practice.

Official correspondence survives in even smaller quantities. The letters exchanged by Kaloyan and Pope Innocent III demonstrate that soon after the restoration of the Bulgarian state the court already possessed trained personnel capable of conducting complex international negotiations. A message from Ivan Alexander to the Venetian doge Andrea Dandolo and several related texts also survive. The letter of Despot Yakov Svetoslav to Cyril II, metropolitan of Kyiv, and the message of Patriarch Theodosios of Tarnovo to the monks of Zograph are valuable evidence for the wider written culture of the period, but they were not direct products of the Imperial Chancery.

The languages of the chancery

Slavonic was the principal language of internal acts and was also used in part of the chancery’s foreign correspondence. This tradition later exerted a strong influence on the chanceries north of the Danube. Some international instruments were probably bilingual, although no certain Bulgarian examples survive. Kaloyan’s contacts with Innocent III were conducted in Latin, which was probably also used in relations with Italian merchants and perhaps with Hungary. Greek chancery activity in Tarnovo is attested by the acts through which Ivan Alexander granted privileges to the monasteries of Mesembria. Correspondence with Byzantium was likewise probably conducted in Greek, continuing a practice known since the reign of Symeon I.

Multilingual work required not only command of Slavonic, Greek, and Latin but also familiarity with the different conventions governing official documents. The logothetes probably prepared the contents and legal form of an act, while the grammatikoi performed the calligraphic writing. The megas logothetes may have supervised its final preparation and sealing. Bulgarian tsars did not personally sign their charters in the Byzantine manner, but the documents were unquestionably issued with their authorization and in their name. No distinctive insignia of office or personal seals can be securely associated with individual chancery officials.

This proposed sequence of work is based mainly on comparisons with neighbouring states and cannot be demonstrated in every detail. The surviving evidence reveals an educated and relatively well-organized service that could adapt Byzantine models to Bulgarian needs and to different foreign partners. At the same time, it does not allow the institution’s internal development to be traced or the precise date of its disappearance to be established. Late evidence from Vidin and Dobrudja must be considered separately and does not by itself demonstrate continuity with the central chancery at Tarnovo.