Founding a Monastery on Athos Under Early Ottoman Rule: the Typikon of Stauroniketa

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197

brill.com/ends

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule: The typikon of Stauroniketa

Zachary Chitwood Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, FB 07, Historical Seminar, Byzantine Studies, Jakob-Welder Weg 18, 55099 Mainz, Germany [email protected]

Abstract

The best-attested and most important endowments of Orthodox Christians in the medieval world were created by means of foundation charters (ktetorika typika). Via a typikon, a founder or ktetor was able to regulate the present and future functioning of his (invariably monastic) endowment, often in minute and voluminous detail. Of particular interest for the topic of this special issue of ENDS are some post-Byzantine monastic foundation charters, which hitherto have received almost no scholarly scrutiny. Among these charters is the testament of the patriarch Jeremiah i for the Stauroniketa Monastery on Mount Athos. His monastic charter demonstrates the continuity of Byzantine endowment practices in the first centuries of Ottoman rule, yet also underlines new difficulties for monastic founders attempting to adapt the quintessentially medieval Christian practice of composing typika to the strictures of an Is- lamic legal regime.

Keywords

Ottoman Empire – monasticism – patriarch – Orthodox Christianity – Mount Athos – typika

In this article some of the strands of continuity and change which character- ize Greek Orthodox foundation practice in the transitional period from the last phase of the Byzantine Empire to the first centuries of Ottoman rule will

174 Chitwood be explored.1 In doing so, first an overview of some general characteristics of Byzantine endowment culture will be given, before moving into the period of the first century and a half after the fall of Constantinople. Finally, an English translation of the founding charter (typikon / τυπικόν) of the Athonite monastery of Stauroniketa, the first translation ever of the document, is appended to the end of the article. A question worth posing at the start of this essay is what exactly consti- tutes a foundation. There is no way to tailor a definition of endowments which would satisfy every historical context, but at a most basic level a foundation or endowment is a sum of capital dedicated by its founder for a particular purpose, whose functioning is financed by the revenues produced by the endowment.2 Unlike a donation, a foundation is not a one-time immediate act, but rather an endeavor meant to last over the long term, if not forever. The deed of founding is replayed continuously between the founder and beneficiaries, in the Christian context usually in the form of liturgical commemoration of the former.3 For the East Romans or Byzantines, the main types of endowments were churches, philanthropic institutions and monasteries, though the last of these proved a much more durable form of foundation and, especially after the turn of the first millennium ce, completely predominates in the surviving source material.4 While churches and piae causae were often subjected to

1 This article is a revised form of a presentation given at the conference “Imperial Subjects and Social Commitment: An Endowment History from 1750 to 1918” (Nov. 16th–18th, 2016) at the Department of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies at the University of Vienna. I would like to thank the organizers (Stefano Saracino, Nathalie Soursos and Maria Stassinopoulou) for inviting me to present and to submit my contribution to this special issue. I presented the content of this paper a second time at the biennial meeting of the Deutsche Arbeitsgemein- schaft für die Förderung Byzantinischer Studien (Mainz, Feb. 16th–18th, 2017). I profited a great deal from comments and questions from both venues, as well as from the suggestions of the two anonymous reviewers. 2 For recent attempts at defining foundations in an intercultural context, see in particular Bor- golte 2014; Borgolte 2017: 2–3. 3 All Byzantine foundations fell under the category of “foundations for the salvation of the soul”, in which the founder expected that his endowment of material goods would contribute to the salvation of his own soul. Borgolte 2015 has recently argued that the first foundations of this sort arose not in a Christian context, as has long been assumed, but in a Zoroastrian one. 4 Chitwood 2014a: 215. Regarding the various forms of Byzantine endowments or foundations (with references to the broader scholarly literature on the subject), see Chitwood 2014d. The closest thing to a complete listing of archival documents stemming from Middle and Late

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 175 the authority of the official church, and in particular of the local bishop, monasteries, with their self-perpetuating communities of monks, were naturally inclined to assert their independence against local hierarchs. This independence was achieved in two principal ways: firstly, by subordinating a monastery to the theoretical, though it seems in practice mostly pro forma, control of another ecclesiastical figure, especially the patriarch of Constantinople. So- called “stauropegial” (so-called because the patriarch claimed jurisdiction over the institution through his “fixing of a cross” [stauropegion / σταυροπήγιον]) monasteries are attested as early as the end of the ninth century.5 Secondly, a monastery could also attain self-governing status, whereby it claimed independence from all ecclesiastical and temporal authorities.6 This second type of independent status first appears with the Great Lavra on Mount Athos in the middle of the tenth century, and was claimed with increasing frequency thereafter. The peculiarities of Byzantine monasticism, which knew no monastic or- ders comparable to those from the Medieval West, as well as the propensity of Eastern Roman founders to minutely regulate the administrative and financial aspects of their foundations, both contributed to creating a context in which a uniquely Byzantine genre of foundation document, the so-called ktetorikon typikon (κτητορικὸν τυπικόν), arose. A ktetorikon typikon, which one can rough- ly translate as a “founder’s charter”, was a text in which the founder or ktetor (κτήτωρ) laid out, often down to the most mundane of minutiae, not only the regulations of the monastic life which the monks or nuns of the foundation were to follow, but much else besides.7 It is one of the great achievements of Byzantine Studies of the last quarter-century that the major Byzantine

Byzantine monasteries is Smyrlis 2006: 23–31. For the Athonite material in particular, see Morris 2008. The much sparser documentation for churches and piae causae is not compre- hensively collected within any one publication, but one can consult the general overview of charitable institutions in Miller 2008, as well as the more general history of Byzantine foundations in Thomas 1987. 5 Kazhdan and Talbot 1991; Chitwood 2016c: 562. 6 The phenomenon of “free” or “self-governing” monasteries is well-studied in the various publications of John Thomas, in particular Thomas 1985 and 1987: 214–243. The more recent scholarship on the subject is listed in greater detail in Chitwood 2016c: 563–564. 7 Including: the administration of the monastery; the relationship of the foundation to the founder’s family and heirs; regulations concerning the oversight of the endowment, the precise contents of which were sometimes listed in a separate inventory or brebeion (βρέβειον); and the status of the monastery to the relevant ecclesiastical and state authorities. The best analysis of this “genre” remains Galatariotou 1987, even though her binary classification

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access

176 Chitwood

ktetorika typika were translated and provided with a historical commentary by John Philip Thomas and Angela Constantides Hero in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, a work which spans five volumes and 61 such founders’ charters.8 Yet typika were not a strictly Byzantine phenomenon: there were also numerous typika composed for Orthodox monastic foundations during the Ottoman Empire. The most prominent examples include: most of the typika surviving for the monasteries of the monastic federation of Meteora in Thes- saly; the founding charter for the Leimonos monastery on the island of Lesbos; and the founder’s rule and testament for the Athonite monastery of Stauronik- eta, the only one of the twenty foremost monasteries today on the Holy Moun- tain which was founded after 1500.9 In fact, even medieval typika continued to be of great value in Ottoman society: they were accepted as valid documentation in the Islamic judge’s or qadi’s court, for instance in property disputes.10 Though the end goal of using a medieval typikon as a claim to property in legal cases seems to have always

of these documents into “aristocratic” and “non-aristocratic” categories is not universally shared: see Chitwood 2014b: 401–403. 8 Though there are important medieval founders’ charters stemming from the Byzantine world, even in Greek, which did not find their way into the corpus. Thomas’ and Hero’s Herculean labor, completed under very trying circumstances over almost fifteen years, was nonetheless a seminal achievement: see bmfd vol. 1, 1–20. Medieval Greek typika not found in the corpus include the charter of George of Antioch for his church of St. Mary’s of the Admiral in Palermo (which includes some Arabic as well; George of Antioch, Char- ter for St. Mary’s of the Admrial), or the Chrysobull of Alexis iv and John iv of the Grand Komnenoi for the Pontic Monastery of the Pharos (dated to the year 1432). Were one to expand the remit to “Byzantine” typika not written in Greek, then a number of Slavic, Georgian even Armenian documents could be added. It is indicative of the unfortunate yet enduring gulf between Byzantinists and specialists on Early Modern Greek history that the considerable research within Byzantine Studies over the past few decades on typika has not, at least to my knowledge, achieved any resonance in the scholarship on Greek Orthodox foundations after the end of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 as well as vice versa. 9 The details of typika for various monasteries of the monastic federation of Meteora are discussed in Nicol 21975: 139–140 (typikon of the brothers Nektarios and Theophanes for the monastery of Barlaam, recorded in their testament of the year 1542); 145–146 (typikon of the brothers Maximos and Joasaph for the monastery of Rousanou, written in the year 1545 and almost a verbatim copy of the aforementioned typikon of the brothers Nektarios and Theophanes). The testament / typikon of Ignatios, priest-monk and founder of the Monastery of Leimonos, was written in 1530: for an edition of the document, see Ignatios, Typikon of Leimonos Monastery. 10 Fotić 2005: 68–72.

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 177 been the issuance of an official Ottoman document confirming a plaintiff’s claim, their effectiveness as evidence is indicated by the large numbers of forg- eries we find.11 In fact, Ottoman legal documents refer to typika as vakfıyye or vakıfnâme, terms for the charter of an Islamic foundation, showing that the state authorities were able to accommodate Orthodox endowments within the legal regime.12 The process of Orthodox monasteries’ recognition as Ottoman endowments proceeded alongside the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. While the first securely documented instance of an Orthodox monastery having its properties recognized as waqf, rendered in the Greek translation of the original Ottoman charter as bakoufia, had already occurred in 1373 for the Mace- donian Monastery of St. John Prodromos in Serres, the Athonite monasteries had received the same recognition perhaps around 1350; their counterparts in Meteora achieved this same status by the reign of Bayezid i (r. 1389–1402).13 In an edict of 1430, Murad ii (r. 1421–1444; 1446–1451) granted Athonite monasteries and their extensive agricultural landholdings the same tax exemptions as Islamic endowments.14 Under Islamic law, including the Hanafi school of jurisprudence on which the Ottoman legal system was based, Christian churches and monasteries could be repaired and maintained, but not founded.15 This prohibition must have presented the founders of monasteries after the collapse of the Byzantine state with a dilemma, since they could not portray their foundations as cre- ations ex nihilo. Yet, as shown below in greater detail, this presented no great hindrance to the author of our typikon, who took pains to present his endeavor as a “re-foundation”, even though it is clear that this was a legal fiction. In what follows, this article intensively engages with a text, namely the typikon of the Athonite monastery of Stauroniketa, in order to demonstrate elements of continuity and change in view of the radically changed circumstances which Orthodox founders found themselves under Ottoman rule. As already mentioned, Stauroniketa is the only main Athonite monastery, by which I mean a mone (μονή) or monasterion (μοναστήριον) and not a more mod- est foundation such as a skete (σκήτη, a small monastery) or kellion (κελλίον, a

11 Fotić 2005: 68; 72. In addition, the typika themselves were always supplemented by the testimony of witnesses. 12 Fotić 2005: 69. 13 Kolovos 2016: 103–104. 14 Kolovos 2005: 199; Kolovos 2016: 104–105. 15 A good discussion of the origins and development of Islamic law with regard to Christian endowments such as churches and monasteries is given by Pahlitzsch 2016.

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access

178 Chitwood hermitage), to have been founded in the post-Byzantine period.16 Its archive contains 101 legal documents issued between the years 1533 und 1800.17 Many of these documents are either unedited or edited in rather unsatisfactory editions, and even many of these editions are exceedingly difficult to find. This applies as well to the text I would like to discuss today, the founding charter of the monastery. The first documents stemming from the archive of Stauroniketa are confir- mations of the sale of Stauroniketa by the monastery of Philotheou to the abbot and patriarchal official (exarchos) Gregory Geromeriates, issued in the year 1533.18 Gregory was already an accomplished reformer of monasteries, having improved the monastery of Geromeriou (Γηρομερίου) at Thesprotia in Epiros and refounded a monastery dedicated to St. John the Theologian, which was made a dependent monastery of the former.19 At that point the site of the monastery only consisted of a tower, a wall or enclosure and a long-ruined church. For the price of 4,000 aspers at the time of sale and thereafter 100 aspers annu- ally, to be paid to the monastery of Philotheou, Gregory and his descendants were granted the ownership of the site of Stauroniketa. The treatment of monasteries as private property, which after the Gregorian Reforms of the eleventh century ceased to exist in the Latin Christian world, had a long and productive history in the Byzantine Empire, and in fact, as we see here, continued to be of great importance in the post-Byzantine world.20 In these first documents of the Stauroniketa archive, Gregory expressed a desire to retreat there, rebuild the church and form a new monastic community in memory of his brother,

16 Sketes, which arose on Athos in the first half of the sixteenth century, soon became a flourishing part of the Holy Mountain’s monastic culture: see Speake 2012: 140–141. 17 Although the first modern efforts to research its archives began in the early decades of the twentieth century under the monk Gabriel Stauroniketianes, it was the pioneering work of Nicholas Oikonomides, who in 1970 wrote an article summarizing the contents of 26 documents issued between 1533 and 1699, that first subjected the foundation’s archival holdings to the scrutiny of modern scholarship: cf. Oikonomides 1970. Building upon the work of Oikonomides, Antonis Giannakopoulos published a monograph in 2001 which offered summaries of the remaining legal documents of the monastery until the end of the eighteenth century. 18 Giannakopoulos 2001: 22–33 (no. 1); 33–34 (no. 2). On Gregory Geromeriates, see Stroum pakes 2005: 103–106. On the history of the monastery, see Müller 2005: 104–105; Patrinelis 1974. 19 Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 17, 304–305. 20 See Chitwood 2016b, where the diachronic prominence of proprietary churches and monasteries in Byzantium is emphasized.

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 179 the monk Kallistos, as well as his ancestors.21 In May of 1536 Gregory received a patriarchal confirmation from Jeremiah i of his purchase of the monastery.22 Gregory, however, did not live to see the completion of his refoundation, and probably died before January of the year 1538. Instead his close friend and fellow Epirote, the patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah i (patriarch 1522–24, 1525–45), managed to acquire control of Stauroniketa.23 Jeremiah had earlier in his patriarchate helped to restore another monastery, Hosios Loukas in Boeotia.24 During a visit to the famed monastery in 1530 he expressed a desire to refound it, as the monastery had by then fallen into dire straits: “It has become bereft of its earlier wealth and prosperity; it has come to grief due to the absence of its monks and of the manifold imperial subsidies which used to exist for it.”25 By 1536, the year in which Jeremiah issued a patriarchal document for Hosios Loukas, the patriarch had succeeded in cooperation with the local clergy and population in organizing the restoration of the monastery. The loss of imperial subsidies and the decline in monastic life described for Hosios Loukas could have applied to many famed Byzantine foundations which struggled to survive the transition to Ottoman rule. Despite the broadly conciliatory attitude of the Ottoman authorities to Orthodox monasteries, the increasing prevalence of idiorrhythmic monasticism, whose communities could be supported from smaller endowments than those of their communal counterparts, is indicative of shrinking monastic fortunes. It was in this context that Jeremiah undertook the founding of Stauroniketa. It is the testament (diatheke / διαθήκη) and rule for the monastery, which he issued before March of 1545, perhaps in the period between May of 1541 and October of 1543.26 What emerges is a founder clinging strongly to the conven- tions of a quintessentially Byzantine genre, with no mention of any contemporaneous circumstances. In fact, if one did not know the dates and names associated with the typikon, then in terms of its style it could have been written in the tenth as much as the sixteenth century.27

21 Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 22, 314–316. 22 According to Giannokopoulos 2001: 34–36 (no. 3). 23 The most comprehensive study of the patriarch Jeremiah i’s life is now Stroumpakes 2005. 24 Stroumpakes 2005: 102–103. 25 Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 21, 311–314, here 311–312. 26 For dating the typikon to between May of 1541 and October of 1543, see Giannakopoulos 2001: 46–51 (no. 5); for dating it before March of 1545, see Stroumpakes 2005: 112–113. The testament is analyzed in some detail in Stroumpakes 2005: 112–116. Reprint of the text of the typikon in Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 43, 352–364. 27 Stroumpakes 2005: 112–3 also sees the patriarch’s testament as a clear example of a ktetorikon typikon. A ktetorikon typikon, it should be remembered, is a scholarly (and not a

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access

180 Chitwood

The first part of the typikon is a paean to Saint Nicholas, to whom Jeremiah was particularly devoted.28 Jeremiah’s language is at once both highly sensual, yet also very business-like: he describes his obligation to Saint Nicholas as a debt, which the patriarch can only partly repay by dedicating a church to the saint. The next section of the typikon describes how the monastery of Stauroni- keta came into the patriarch’s possession.29 First of all, Jeremiah takes pains to point out that the site of the monastery had been completely deserted before the monk Gregory Geromeriates had undertaken to refound it. Once again, we must note that the entire process of founding Stauroniketa was presented as a refoundation, even though none of the surviving documentation preserves any institutional memory of the institution which had previously existed on the site of Stauroniketa.30 Though a monastic institution with the name of “Straboniketas” (literally “cross-eyed Niketas”) is mentioned in an Athonite document as early as April of 1012, it appears to have been dissolved shortly after 1153, when it is mentioned for the last time before its later refounding.31 The most important reason why Stauroniketa was presented as an act of refounding, however, was due to the prohibition of Islamic law on the building of new Christian churches and monasteries: thus to my knowledge not only Stauroniketa, but all the major monastic foundations of the post-Byzantine period, including Leimonos on Lesbos and the monasteries of the Meteora monastic federation, are presented as acts of refounding, even though this was essentially a legal fiction.

contemporaneous) definition, and oftentimes testaments that found and regulate monasteries are classified by scholars as ktetorika typika. 28 Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 43, 352–354. 29 Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 43, 354–355. 30 Though a monastic institution named Stauroniketa(s) (or Straboniketas) seems to have existed in the same place as early as the eleventh century, it had by the sixteenth century been abandoned for hundreds of years. The concept of a new or re-founder had a long and illustrious history in Byzantium, and oftentimes newer founders came to overshadow the first founders: cf. Chitwood 2014c: 64; Jordan 2007: esp. 414; Mullett 2007. Though it was quite plausible that there did indeed exist remnants of earlier monastic communities there, that can be said of all of Mount Athos, which has since at the least the ninth century housed a vast federation of monks practicing various degrees of communal life. De- scribing a previous foundation as ruined or deserted sometimes masked other problems in a previous monastic community, such as a dispute over the election of an abbot. For example, this has been plausibly suggested for the Athonite Monastery of Xenophontos in the late eleventh century; see Morris 2007: 446–449. 31 Patrinelis 1974: 18.

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 181

More than the site of the previous monastic community, the factor that en- sured the area of Stauroniketa would again house a monastery was determined by its geographic location and climate, which Jeremiah himself describes in some detail. Its site had a good coastline and favorable winds for sailing, and its soil was suitable for every sort of agriculture, including the planting of vineyards.32 Not wishing the failed foundation of the monk Gregory to remain unoccupied, the ruling council of the Holy Mountain, the Synaxis, beseeched the patriarch to take control of the monastery. By the middle of the sixteenth century the Synaxis, by supervising the sale and exchange of monastic sites on Athos, had been profiting from a lucrative market for monastic land for some five hundred years.33 Having attained a concession (described as an ekdosis / ἔκδοσις) from the Synaxis giving him ownership of the monastery, the patriarch then proceeded to improve it considerably. Any improvements would have proved short-lasting had Jeremiah not first completed a wall around the settlement, including towers, in order to protect the new community from pirates. In contrast to most of the medieval period, the monks of Athos under Ottoman rule actively de- fended their mountain from attack, as the survival of cannons, either complete or in fragments, within monasteries from this era (intended for use on ships owned by the Athonite monasteries) attests.34 In addition to fortifications, the patriarch had a church dedicated to St. Nicholas constructed, as well as a refectory, hospices (nosokomeia / νοσοκομεῖα) and cells, together with other necessary buildings. After clearing the land, vineyards, gardens and olive trees were planted outside the monastery, and a canal was dug to provide the monks with fresh water. The patriarch endowed the church of St. Nicholas with many books of both parchment and paper, altar clothes, precious treasures, icons and liturgical vessels. For the monastery’s endowment, the typikon specifies that Jeremiah provided Stauroniketa with dependent monasteries (metochia / μετόχια), buildings and incomes (tropoi / τρόποι) for the support of the monastic community. Regarding the monastery’s endowment, which is only briefly discussed in the typikon, it is worth pointing out that another source, the so-called Historia

32 The suitability of a site for a monastic institution was, as Alice-Mary Talbot has shown, often discussed in typika, with some founders in particular showing an appreciation for the presence of water and arable land: see Talbot 2007: esp. 54–55. 33 On this situation already in the tenth and eleventh centuries, see Morris 2010: 181–2. 34 Theocharides 1996: 206–214. Some late Byzantine sources do attest to clerics and monks actually participating as armed combatants against the Ottoman Turks, yet this instances were consistently condemned by the ecclesiastical authorities; see Balivet 2007: 61–62.

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access

182 Chitwood politica et patriarchica Constantinopoleos, written in the mid-sixteenth century and ascribed to Manuel Malaxos, which mentions the founding of Stauroni- keta, adds a detail not mentioned in the typikon, namely that the estates endowed to the monastery were mülk, that is, full property under Ottoman law.35 Other documents from the Stauroniketa archive give more precise information regarding the monastery’s endowment. Jeremiah purchased a territory next to the village of Pinaka on the Kassandra peninsula from an Ottoman timar- holder for 48,600 aspers; in time this would become one of the monastery’s most productive metochia.36 A firman of Suleiman the Magnificent from the year 1549 has the monks of Stauroniketa and Jeremiah’s family inherit a large chiflik, called Gero-Loulou, on the island of Lemnos.37 A further document from the monastery’s archives dating from 1547 has the priest Daniel of Lem- nos receive immovable property from Jeremiah’s estate, which included six houses in the village of Karapas; yet in this case it is not clear if these houses became part of the monastery’s endowment, and if so, when.38 Clearly, Jeremiah was a wealthy patriarch, and the question then arises as to how he gathered such a considerable fortune. One plausible theory is that the source of the money with which Jeremiah built and endowed Stauroniketa must have come from the numerous fees and taxes which he collected on be- half of the Ottoman state; indeed, his patriarchate, one of the longest and most stable of the early Ottoman period, witnessed an increasing fiscalization of the patriarchal office.39 It is also likely that Stauroniketa served at least in part as a way of retaining the wealth he had acquired as patriarch, which would

35 Manuel Malaxos, Historia politica et patriarchica Constantinopoleos 169, line 15–170, lines 2: “And this patriarch, kr. Jeremiah, refounded the monastery of Stauroniketa from its foundations, renaming it Great Nicholas, in the middle of the Holy Mountain, where it was deserted. And he had constructed a very large and wondrous church with narthexes, and described it most beautifully and illuminatingly. He had cells for the monks, towers and a refectory constructed. And he had built a great and powerful encircling wall, and he adorned it like a castle. He endowed it with various precious treasures, both gold and silver, and many properties, or mülk (μούλκια), for the support of the monks.” On the His- toria itself, see Papademetriou 2015: 24, passim. 36 Stroumpakes 2005: 110. 37 Suleiman i, Firman for Gero-Loulou. Given that the Greek Loulou appears to be a rendering of the Arabic word lu’lu’ (“pearl”), a popular slave and eunuch name, this chiflik may have belonged to a Christian in Ottoman service. I would like to thank Maria Mavroudi for this suggestion. 38 Karapas Grant. 39 Papademetriou 2015: 120–137.

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 183 otherwise have been confiscated by the state at his death, and thus Jeremiah’s foundation probably also functioned as a tax haven.40 A discussion of the jurisdiction under which the monastery fell was an important component of Byzantine typika, and we see here as well that Jeremiah saw fit to discuss this issue. Much of the history of Byzantine religious foundations can be characterized as a struggle, whereby founders sought to acquire independence from ecclesial and temporal authorities for their endowments. The work of John Philip Thomas in particular has demonstrated that, from the tenth century, when the Great Lavra on Mount Athos became the first monastery to attain this status, founders increasingly acquired and claimed independent status for their foundations.41 Another way of circumventing the authority of the local bishop was to place a foundation directly under the authority of the patriarch. This is in fact what Jeremiah did for Stauroniketa: he described it as both independent (adouloton / ἀδούλωτον) and “untrampled (akatapateton / ἀκαταπάτητον) upon by any hierarchical, episcopal or some other authoritative body.”42 Via his patriarchal stauropegion or “erection of a cross”, Jeremiah decreed in his typikon that Stauroniketa was subject only to the patriarch of Constantinople. The remaining part of the typikon consists of the patriarch’s exhortations to the abbot and monks of his foundation.43 The monastic rule for Stauroni- keta is quite standard for the typika genre: its only noteworthy features are a strong emphasis on the communal life and condemnations of idiorrhythmic practice, which became increasing prominent on Athos in the Ottoman period.44 The salvation of the soul of the founder, which in many medieval typika is discussed in great detail,45 is here only cursorily mentioned: “In all of your prayers and petitions, both communal and private, commemorate our Grace

40 Papademetriou 2015: 125, where the accusation of simony voiced by the Historia, which Papademetriou plausibly dismisses as an unfair characterization of the practice of pay- ing customary fees to the patriarch at the installation of ecclesiastical officials, is also discussed. 41 See n. 6 above. 42 Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 43, 355–356. 43 Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 43, 356–362. 44 Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 43, 356–357. It repeats the by this point well-established prohibition of any creatures of the female sex (Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 43, 356). One of the very few aspects of fiscal management discussed is the use of estate managers or oikonomoi (Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 43, 357). 45 Chitwood 2016a: 148–157.

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access

184 Chitwood unceasingly, so that I might find mercy and forgiveness for my many sins on the Day of Judgment.”46 To conclude: the typikon of Patriarch Jeremiah i for his (re-)foundation of Stauroniketa clings closely to the standards of the medieval genre of founding charters. In the words of Graham Speake: “In short, this is every bit a traditional Byzantine foundation in a post-Byzantine world.”47 Bizarrely, there is not a single reference in the document to the Ottoman authorities, or indeed any indication at all, other than the date, which would allow the typikon’s audi- ence to place the charter in the Early Modern period. As we have seen, its sole concessions to the changed circumstances of Orthodox foundations during the period of Tourkokratia is the presentation of Stauroniketa as a “refoundation” to circumvent the prohibition on founding new churches and monasteries. Though we must await studies of other post-Byzantine typika to confirm the tendencies in the typikon of Stauroniketa, at least in this charter there is a strong element of continuity with regard to medieval practice.

Translation of the Typikon of Stauroniketa

Note: Below is a translation into English, and indeed the first translation of any sort, of the Testament and Rule of the patriarch Jeremiah i (1522–24, 1525–46), composed before March of 1545, perhaps in the period between May of 1541 and October of 1543. In providing a translation, I hope not only, as outlined above, to encourage further scholarship on post-Byzantine founders’ charters, but also to make the content of this typikon available to a wider readership, including those who cannot read Greek. There are two diplomatic editions of the text: the first was published by Gerasimos Smyrnakes in 1903, the second by Gabriel Stauroniketianos in the periodical Gregorios ho Palamas in 1919.48 The text of these (identical) editions was then reprinted in Michael Stroumpakes’ monograph on Patriarch Jeremiah i.49 Given the relative inaccessibility of the first two printings of the text, the translation follows the text in Stroumpakes with the relevant page numbers in brackets []. Editorial insertions are also in brackets. In the translation below Greek terms in the original and in translit- eration are at points inserted after their English translations in parentheses ().

46 Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 43, 361. 47 Discussion of Stauroniketa in Speake 2012: 138–140, quotation at 140. 48 Smyrnakes 1903: 124–132; Stauroniketianos 1919. 49 Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts, no. 43, 352–364.

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 185

Translation

Our Grace has been able to grant and offer an honorable and worthy r epayment to the exceedingly pressing debt to all the other saints, on account of their petitions before God, since they are filled with his goodness; they have repudiated and struggled beyond [their] nature through virtue and purity, and still further through praxis and thought have pleased God and thus been named saints, becoming like friends of God, who by [his] nature as alone holy has dealings [with them] of his own will. [353] [This debt] is more laborious than all work, yet more desirable and delightful than any goal pleasing to God, just as the heartening psalm of the Prophet David [states], who called out and said to the Lord “But your friends, O God, have been greatly honored by me; their rule has been greatly strengthened.”50 The most wondrous among the saints and hierarchs, the Great Nicholas, whom the Church of Myra has had as a patron, the entire world honors most warmly as a leader and help when in difficulties, and exchanges what it can for God-pleasing works, and already from his youth, so to say from his prime, he himself became a great debt, laid up in the furrows of [his] intents through inexorable exaction. [Our Grace] intended to demonstrate the desire of such a most blessed hierarch through burning desire, with longing [to demonstrate] the longing every hour and every day adding to the succor that has come about from him in manifold fashion each time and to the redemption from pleasures, [to demonstrate] all yearning for, affection and love for him and to dedicate, if possible, with those very means and offerings that are pleasing to God. [Our Grace], after having considered and pondered this [matter] from many angles as well as with trepidation, and then heatedly sought a solution, it seemed necessary and exceedingly fitting to erect a reverend monastery to the joyful name of my Saint Nicholas and [raise up] the glory of him who diverts everything that is not originally so to the only word of our God, for the honor of such a preeminent servant and as a refuge and salvific dwelling of those holily entering the solitary life and, as is likely, the angelic constitution, and thus to consecrate such a divine longing to him, the Great Nicholas. And in many ways [our Grace] demonstrated the repayment of the debt owed to him by rendering it a little at a time, including the manifold good things for it [the monastery]; through his intercessions and petitions to God and prayers from the known and perceivable; or to say it more clearly, he ransomed it from enemies seen and unseen. And by each (means) ransom is paid, for such a work shall offer no small help for pious souls and the prudent, but it shall also provide something spiritually beneficial and, in and of itself,

50 Psalms 138 (139): 17.

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access

186 Chitwood salvation and joy that is great and ineffable to the servant of God, Nicholas, [354] by joining the same station as the heavenly intent of those rejoicing with unutterable joy, as the Lord said to each person repenting animatedly and by mercifully imitating those both in all affairs and in this. There is found on the Holy Name of Athos the reverend monastery, which has long been called Stauroniketa, deserted and fallen into complete ruin, except that the monk Gregory Geromeriotes [Geromeriates] had built a wall around it a short time before. And then after his death it was in danger of being completely abandoned. Then our Grace, after seeing the accuracy of the report [of its perilous state] with our own eyes, sought out and explored its entire territory and recognized that it possessed a good coastline and mildness of sailing winds, and was well-suited to every sort of agriculture and everything necessary for the planting of vineyards, and he restored it and appropriated it as he was able not only by asking and seeking it out, but by the general request and petition of all the entire divine Synaxis of the Holy-Named Mountain, at whose head was the most holy man of God … and select abbots and the rest of the venerable elders of all the reverend and holy, great and imperial51 monasteries and lauras (λαύραι), as well as of the sketes (σκῆται).52 Earlier they had written to our Grace quite often, and asked about this [matter] and laboriously beseeched [us], and then all of them came there in person, and of one accord asked [our Grace] to quickly take the aforesaid monastery and, if we were willing and able, to refound and better it.53 And thus to make all of them [i.e. the monks] fearless and unconcerned with the raiding of maritime pirates and the abuses of brigandage and of tempestuous weather, namely by a fortifica- tion, refounding, improvement and arming of the said remaining monastery

51 Though the Byzantine Empire had in the century after its final demise passed out of living memory, a monastery which had received imperial patronage or been placed under imperial jurisdiction continued to designate itself as “imperial” (basilike / βασιλική) as an honorific, a practice which continues to the present day. 52 The mentioning of sketes, which were smaller monastic institutions, alongside the more traditional monasteries and lauras (on the Byzantine laura see now the study of Schrei ner 2017), attests to their growing importance in the post-Byzantine period. Life in a skete was characterized by the monks not celebrating a daily communal mass, by praying the Jesus Prayer unceasingly, by supporting themselves by means of their own hands and by abstentious diet. Indeed, the skete was an even more important monastic form of orga- nization outside of the Mediterranean context, namely in Muscovy and Early Modern Russia: see most recently Beljakova 2016. 53 As pointed out in the study preceding this translation, this portion of the document uses terminology (here anaktisasthai / ἀνακτίσασθαι, literally “to rebuild”) which emphasizes that the monastery was refounded rather than built ex novo.

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 187 opposite Protaton and of the entire Skete of Karyon, which is established on the boundary between the great and holy monasteries of Iviron and the one called Pantokrator. And with the petition and opinion of all these [persons], it rekindled our existing desire and enflamed it threefold, and our Grace did not at all delay, but as soon as [355] we were able, we took control of this reverend and holy monastery with a written concession (ekdosis / ἔκδοσις) of all of those of the most holy Protos and the select elders there of the Synaxis, with the de- scription made by them on the spot and a delimitation of its boundaries and the rest of the local documents and the privileges pertaining to the place. And [our Grace] variously and in manifold ways refounded it [the monastery] and improved the reverend and holy church, and just as much raised it up as very beautiful and pleasant from its very foundations to the God of all in the name of his great servant Nicholas. For there a small monastery was ringed by some cells which were founded by the aforementioned Gregory. Cells, a refectory, hospices (nosokomeia / νοσοκομεῖα),54 as well as other necessary buildings and towers for the wall55 were constructed most beautifully, and, because it was possible in that place, first [the land] was cleared, and then vineyards, gardens and olive trees were planted outside [the monastery], and ever-flowing water and a canal were brought to the same holy monastery with much toil. And our Grace enthusiastically endowed the said reverend monastery of our Nicholas with many holy books great and small, of parchment and paper, altar cloths and reverend and sacred treasures, icons and the rest of the sacred and divine liturgical vessels, and assigned to it dependencies (metochia / μετόχια), buildings and incomes (tropoi / τρόποι) sufficient for those being monks in Christ there. After all these things were accomplished with the assistance and aid of God, and [our] supplications were accepted through the succor of the most blessed and divine Nicholas, contrary to mortal expectation, as a fitting end for the monastery, our Grace deemed it necessary to define what is exceedingly compulsory concerning the privileges of the said holy and divine monastery of my saint, Nicholas, and to stipulate regarding the spiritually edifying life of those brothers in Christ being monks in it and to order its virtuous state, since we have learned that faith without works and works without faith are dead.

54 While from late antiquity until the Fourth Crusade the word nosokomeion (νοσοκομεῖον) or xenon (ξενών) might have indicated a hospital, nosokomeia in a late and post-Byzantine monastic context would have been small hospices. 55 Peripyrgoma (περιπύργωμα) is not found in the standard dictionaries (Liddell and Scott, Lampe, Trapp), though one finds the verb peripyrgoo / περιπυργόω (“to reinforce with towers” [“mit Türmen bewehren”]) in Trapp.

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access

188 Chitwood

Whence it is first demonstrated through its seal-bearing patriarchal document in the validity of the holy and divine canons and the pious laws in the Holy Spirit, that this holy monastery of my Nicholas is independent (adouloton / ἀδούλωτον) and [356] untrampled (akatapateton / ἀκαταπάτητον) upon by any hierarchical, episcopal or some other authoritative body, and is subject only to the oversight of the universal Great Church of Christ, as a [monastery] erected by the stauropegion (σταυροπήγιον) of the Patriarchate. Then, by the shared opinion of all of the most holy priest-monks and simple [i.e. not ordained] monks in it, and by the decision of the select fathers of Synaxis of the holy and holy-named mountain, the abbot is installed, and it is commanded that our said monastery is to be excellently communal, [just as] the rule lays out in writing and establishes, which discusses the aforesaid abbot of [the monastery] and also makes provision for his successor. Change nothing, O most reverend man and abbot of this our monastery, of the rule and canon of the communal monastic life, but live purely and without guile according to all of the commandments clearly laid out by the Holy Fathers, to the extent that you are able. Possess no worldly goods or things, nor shall you store up wealth individually [lit. “idiorrythmically” / ἰδιορρύθμως] for yourself, not even a single coin.56 You shall not divide your soul and heart into another state and condition against the spiritual brothers and sons entrusted to God, neither to those of your own flesh [relatives] or friends, nor shall you give them anything of the monastery while living or by means of a testament. [Instead], distance yourself from the world and do not share in the world, even if perhaps some persons should come to our congregation and then you, who has put away all things female, shall think regarding them according to the imitation of the rest, and you shall not have any animal from the female sex for domestic use, nor shall you receive in your reverend monastery a beardless young boy to live there nor be put up there for any period of time, and be entirely on guard until your last breath that all possessions are held in common in the brotherhood, indivis- ible and with nothing owned privately for alienation. Be sincere in both body and soul in the impartiality of love to all your spiritual fathers and brothers and sons. Do not have dealings with laypersons in ritual brotherhood or be a

56 So-called “idior[r]hythmic” monasticism, whereby monks only practiced communal life to a limited extent and were allowed to accumulate private property, take their meals in their cells and were governed by a council instead of an abbot; see Talbot 1991. This form of monastic life was relatively exceptional before the late Byzantine period but experi- enced a golden age on Mount Athos during the transition from Byzantine to Ottoman rule. Smaller endowments and the loss of state subsidies meant that a strict communal life was more difficult to maintain.

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 189 godparent, or [have] other friendships.57 Locally grant to the managers (oikonomoi / οἰκονόμοι) money where necessity requires it.58 And thus let the one possessing [357] entirely the power and administering these things piously by the knowledge and opinion of the reverend Synaxis of the elders under you swiftly receive word as to how they are administrating. And possess no fine garment or frivolity, but dress and wear shoes in a paternal fashion with the rest of the monks. And do not be luxurious by diverting [funds] to expendi- tures on your dwelling or entertaining guests away from here. Nor shall you have anything profitable59 or excessively repaid60 without necessity and thereby forsake your own monastery. You shall not consent to the brothers under you leaving [the monastery] without examination wherever they want, know- ing that time spent outside the cell and business with temporal matters begets spiritual death, according to Saint Anthony. You shall not leave your flock and exchange it for another, nor advance to a higher office. Do not hinder the dis- tribution for the benefit of the poor by land and sea, nor degrade the office of hospitality, which our Grace prescribed for our spiritual benefit and for those aiding this very monastery in word and deed. You shall not honor a person more than that brotherhood beneficial to Christ, which exceeds every man and holds in the present age. Do not draw back even to the point of physical harm from the observance of the divine laws and commandments and salvific ordinances. And we commend these matters to your holiness, O abbot; and to those pious men who will succeed you, and to the rest of the reverend brothers in Christ and to the children being monks in our holy, patriarchal and reverend monastery, our Grace prescribes with indissoluble and awesome bonds and tasks [you] to follow God and Our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and the

57 Ritual brotherhood, though often forbidden or condemned in monastic rules and by the church leadership, was widely practiced by monks; on which see now the comprehensive study of Rapp 2016. Much the same can be said for monks serving as godparents, a repeatedly condemned practice that nevertheless was quite common in Byzantine and post-Byzantine monasticism: see Macrides 1987: 144. 58 Patriarch Jeremiah is here referring to managers of the monastery’s estates, on each of which would have been a dependent monastery (metochion / μετόχιον). The terminology for the managers of such an estate, where a manager (oikonomos / οἰκονόμος) supervised a community of monks (called metochiarioi / μετοχιάριοι), in this document follows medieval practice: the vocabulary for these metochia and their managers is discussed in Smyr- lis 2002: 248. 59 Leg. polyprosodon (πολυπρόσοδον) for polyproodon (πολυπρόοδον). 60 The adjective polygyreuton (πολυγύρευτον) is not to be found in the standard dictionaries, but perhaps should be read as a variant of polygeraston (πολυγέραστον, “excessively repaid” [“vielfach vergolten”]), which is attested in Trapp.

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access

190 Chitwood most-blessed Nicholas and to obey purely, by treating you and the abbots who follow you as our own person, and to live with one another in all charity and harmony, and in obedience to one another to flock together as one flock and live according to the soul. For the holy fathers acquired this [knowledge] by apostolic commandment, and through discernment and experience and much time have found what is beneficial, and rather judged it to be the best and least dangerous [form of monastic life], I mean, that monks live together commu- nally and together look toward and look out for the goal of salvation. For there but one heart [358] in the communal life (koinobion / κοινόβιον) of all, and one will and one desire and one body, fitted together from different limbs, all being monks in the fulfillment of Christ, just as the divine Paul truthfully and finally and without dissimulation demonstrated to the leader and every subordinate. True submission of subordinates to the abbot is shown in this way, not only by refraining from the wicked according to the counsel of the abbot, but also by accepting to do what is praiseworthy without his prompting. As for self- control and bodily mortification, I would not maintain that they are unable to be something useful. For if someone doing what is best for himself volun- tarily61 uses those asking about his own impulses, then it is better than having earlier erred and being corrected; the price of obedience is greater than cor- rection through self-control, just as Saint Athanasios the Athonite so well prescribed. We command that those eating together are thus united in the grace of the monastic profession, and together perform the entire service in the holy Church of God, singing the nightly and daily offices in the typikon62 at all times, which all of the holy monasteries of this holy-named mountain use according to the church custom. And perform every church service resolutely and enthusiastically lift up the burdens of the more simple [i.e. the non-ordained] monks, struggling with all ability and purpose, taking each one as the grace of God, direct your souls either in word or deed, fixing in the brothers the ad- monitions, exhortations and teachings and keeping the rules and holy ascetic commandments of the pious fathers until your last breath. These very matters I commend to you, most holy abbot and all the lead- ers of this our reverend patriarchal monastery and encourage you in the Holy Spirit. And as for the rest of you, O fathers and brothers in Christ and spiritual children of our Grace, those practicing monasticism in this our reverend monastery, endeavor with all enthusiasm and good opinion to keep peace with one another and offer unshaken harmony with all power and treat one

61 Leg. ethelonti (ἐθελοντί) for ethelontei (ἐθελοντεί). 62 Namely the liturgical typikon (on which see Taft 1991), not the ktetorikon typikon (the document translated here).

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 191 another with God’s love, lest [359] there arise among you divisions, dissensions, strife, selfish friendships, deceit or temporal friendships and partnerships. In- stead, let there be among you marks of spiritual fruit, which are, according to Anthony the Great, namely:63 faith, charity, peace and forbearance, kindness and goodness, mildness and self-control. Accurately keep and hold fast to these, so that if someone is found among you – which I pray should not be the case! – who attempts with Satanic aid to dissolve this your communal rule and state and to divide the body of the brotherhood with plausible arguments, wickedness, mischief and other diabolical excuses, let not anyone of you associate with such a person, but instead expel and drive him out from your family, as we pronounce him a corrupter and ancient falsehood, so that he instead might be rent from the part of the saved, as was said above. And earnestly pray against someone trying such things, so that his memory may be utterly obliterated from the earth and his name be wiped out from the book of the living and not written with the just. But if someone is found assisting him, let him share his fate. And possess for all your brothers a good disposition and spiritual charity, not only to those loving and honoring you, but even for those hating and afflicting you, according to the Lord’s commandment, and to those intro- ducing to you temptations and evils. Indeed, it is necessary to love them all the more and to have mercy on those attempting and endeavoring to do evil to you, according to the law of the God, since they who dishonor themselves give you the greatest profit. For you know well of these matters and have learned from experience and been confirmed in many instances how those endeavoring to do evil profit you the most in body and soul. Furthermore, also preserve the charity, peace, honor and graciousness, just as you know well our Grace sought to maintain, with the one found at the time as the most holy Protos and the other most holy abbots of the reverend monasteries of this holy-named mountain and those of the Synaxis. And by serving well and with the fear of God performing the services of our said monastery unceasingly, [360] may they be thought worthy by all of you of fitting honor and repose, with them also having leave and welcome eagerness to do what is fitting for necessities of the monastery, having as a workshop the very duty of the salvation of their souls. Once the abbot has passed via death to what are surely the eternal monasteries, after all of you have gathered together and carefully taken counsel and revealed your opinions at length, you shall install a new abbot impartially and dispassionately, whom God will consent to via the vote and choice of the ma- jority [of the monks]. Appoint and confirm him thus, and then obey him in all matters as much as you are able to do so. He shall also have all power in this,

63 Leg. delade (δηλαδή) for dela de (δῆλα δὴ).

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access

192 Chitwood your reverend monastery, and authority on any sort of occasion over spiritual, bodily and all other administrative matters, being not at all hindered or bound up by anyone, arranging everything that ought to be especially good piously and in the Holy Spirit, and shepherding your family in Christ. And if, on account of my sins, time should bring someone governing for the corruption, perversion and damage of the souls of your brotherhood, which I pray is not so and that, if such a person be found, may he not remain uncor- rected. Instead, let all of you take counsel collectively and heartily agree to cast out that [person] at once from your spiritual direction, and then nominate and select another, who seems to you to be fitting in all respects and able to restore our holy and patriarchal monastery and [able to work] for the spiritual preservation and benefit of all you brothers serving as monks in the monastery. And such a person should suffice, acting well and governing in a matter pleasing to God in all respects, until the end of his life. And may all these matters be accomplished with divine assistance, and may they remain without deficiency and undisturbed forever, entirely for the glory of the Lord and our God and Savior Jesus Christ, for the honor and service and purification of our spiritual affection and disposition of our holy father Nicholas, famous among saints, and for the spiritual benefit and preservation of those wanting to be saved by this monastic and angelic habit. [361] And you, O fathers and brothers in Christ who are serving as monks in this our reverend patriarchal monastery, think unceasingly of the salvation of our soul, observe all the ordinances and exhortations of our Grace without trepidation, and endeavor to maintain your communal condition and constitution genuinely and faultlessly until the end of each of your lives, as much as you are able to do so. Think also not to in any way neglect mercy and hospitality to the poor, as well as peace and pious charity. Wholeheartedly execute the ascetic commands and ordinances of our divinely inspired and holy fathers, and [think also] that all of you together, young and old, the first and least, sin- cerely are subordinate and obedient to your abbot, submitting to his command and word on every occasion. For someone opposing his command shall par- take of divine wrath and eternal punishment and irremediable banishment. Preserve your angelic profession without deceit. In hating the world, do not return to the things of the world. After having been loosed from the bonds of passion, as those who willingly reject all pleasures and mortal affairs of this present life, do not enter into corporeal habits. Nor on account of contempt turn away from your athletic condition, thereby becoming the malignant joy of evil spirits, but rather persevere in the race of your asceticism until the end, so that you may acquire the unfading crown of endurance and righteousness from God, and being led by humility, be deniers of your own will. And in all of

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 193 your prayers and petitions, both collectively and individually, ceaselessly commemorate our Grace, so that I might find mercy and remission for my many sins on the Day of Judgment. And if you think upon these things, you shall be blessed, provided you observe all these [matters] completely and wholeheartedly until your last breath. The choir of saints shall receive you, wearing crowns, in the kingdom of heav- en, and you shall enjoy eternal good things from the true God and Jesus Christ, our savior, the impartial and just judge, through the entreaties and petitions of our exceedingly blessed and glorious matron, the Theotokos and ever vir- ginal Maria [and] [362] our father among the saints, the archbishop Nicholas of Myra in Lycia, the Wonderworker, and of all the saints from time immemo- rial pleasing to him. Amen. + Jeremiah, by the grace of God archbishop of Constantinople, the New Rome, and ecumenical patriarch.

Bibliography

Primary Sources bfmd = Ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero. Byzantine Monastic Founda- tion Documents. Washington (dc) 2000. Chrysobull of Alexis iv and John iv = Ed. V. Laurent. “Deux chrysobulles inédits des empereurs de Trébizonde Alexis iv – Jean iv et David ii.” Aρχείον Πόντου 18, 1953, 241–278, at 256–270 (Chrysobull A). George of Antioch, Charter for St. Mary’s of the Admiral = Ed. S. Cusa. I diplomi Greci ed Arabici di Sicilia. Palermo 1868: 68–70 (no. 5). Ignatios, Typikon of Leimonos Monastery = “Ἡ διαθήκη τοῦ κτήτορος Ἰγνατίου ἱερομονάχου καὶ πνευματικοῦ πατὸς.” Eκκλεσιαστικὴ Aλήθεια 4, 1882–1883, 74–77. Karapas Grant = Ed. Gabriel Stauroniketianos. “Ἔγγραφον ὀθωμ. ἰδιοκτητικόν (χοδζέτιον) ἀναφέρον διά τά ἐν τῇ νήσῳ Λήμνῳ 6 ὀσπίτια τῆς Mονῆς Σταυρονικήτα μετὰ ἐξαρτημάτων καί ὑδρομύλου ἐν τῳ χωρίῳ Kαραπάς κείμενα.” Γρηγόριος ὁ Παλαμᾶς 4, 1920, 599–600. Manuel Malaxos, Historia politica et patriarchica Constantinopoleos = Ed. Immanu- el Bekkerus. Historia politica et patriarchica Constantinopoleos. Epirotica. Bonn 1849. Patriarch Jeremiah i, Acts = Ed. Michael Stroumpakes. Iερεμίας A’- Πατριάρχης Kωνσταντινουπόλεως (1522–1546). O Bίος και το Έργο του. Athens: 277–370. Sultan Suleiman i, Firman for Gero-Loulou = Ed. Gabriel Stauroniketianos. “Φερμάνιον τοῦ Σουλτάνου Σουλεϋμάν Χάν A΄ τοῦ Nομοθέτου, ἀναφέρον διά τό ἐν τῇ νήσῳ Λήμνῳ Mετόχιον τῆς Mονῆς Σταυρονικήτα, τὸ ἐπονομαζόμενον τοῦ Γέρο-Λούλου.” Γρηγόριος ὁ Παλαμᾶς 4, 1920: 598–599.

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access

194 Chitwood

Secondary Literature Balivet 2007 = Michel Balivet. “Église et clercs byzantins dans l’épopée turque.” Byzan- tinische Forschungen 29: 49–78. Beljakova 2016 = Eleva V. Beljakova. “Der Skit als besondere Organisationsform mön- chischen Lebens.” Ed. Ludwig Steindorff and Olivier Auge. Monastische Kultur als transkonfessionelles Phänomen. Beiträge einer deutsch-russischen interdisziplinären Tagung in Vladimir und Suzdal. Berlin and Boston: 101–117. Borgolte 2014 = Michael Borgolte. “Interkulturelle Perspektiven: Stiftung – Mittelalterli- che Sprachgebrauch und moderner Begriff.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Band i: Grundlagen. Berlin: 19–23. Borgolte 2015 = Michael Borgolte. “Foundations ›for the Salvation of the Soul‹ – an Exception in World History?” Medieval Worlds 1: 86–105. Borgolte 2017 = Michael Borgolte. “Five Thousand Years of Foundations: A Typology from Mesopotamia to the usa.” Endowment Studies 1: 60–95. Chitwood 2014a = Zachary Chitwood. “Griechisch-orthodoxe Christen: Periodisierun- gen.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Ge- sellschaften. Band i: Grundlagen. Berlin: 212–229. Chitwood 2014b = Zachary Chitwood. “Griechisch-orthodoxe Christen: Schriftzeug- nisse.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Band i: Grundlagen. Berlin: 397–410. Chitwood 2014c = Zachary Chitwood. “Griechisch-orthodoxe Christen: Stiftung – Mittelalterliche Sprachgebrauch und moderner Begriff.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Band i: Grund- lagen. Berlin: 57–70. Chitwood 2014d = Zachary Chitwood. “Griechisch-orthodoxe Christen: Typologisierun- gen.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Ge- sellschaften. Band ii: Das soziale System Stiftung. Berlin: 212–229. Chitwood 2016a = Zachary Chitwood. “Griechisch-orthodoxe Christen: Gedenken und Kultus.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Band ii: Das soziale System Stiftung. Berlin: 147–165. Chitwood 2016b = Zachary Chitwood. “The Proprietary Church and Monastery in Byz- antium and the Eastern Christian World.” Viator 47.3: 27–46. Chitwood 2016c = Zachary Chitwood. “Griechisch-orthodoxe Christen: Stiftungsorgan- isation.” Ed. Michael Borgolte. Enzyklopädie des Stiftungswesens in mittelalterlichen Gesellschaften. Band ii: Grundlagen. Berlin: 554–567. Fotić 2005 = Aleksandar Fotić. “Non-Ottoman Documents in the Kâdis’ Courts (Môloviya, Medieval Charters): Examples from the Archive of Hilandar Monastery (15th–18th C.).” Ed. Colin Imber, Keiko Kiyotaki and Rhoads Murphey. Frontiers of Ottoman Studies: State, Province, and the West, vol. 2. London and New York 2005: 63–73.

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 195

Galatariotou 1987 = Catia Galatariotou. “Byzantine Ktetorika Typika: A Comparative Study.” Revue des études Byzantines 45: 77–138. Giannakopoulos 2001 = Antonis Giannakopoulos. Aρχείο της I.M. Σταυρονικήτα. Eπιτομές εγγράφων, 1533–1800. Athens. Jordan 2007 = Robert Jordan. “Founders and Second Founders: Paul and Timothy.” Ed. Margaret Mullett. Founders and Refounders of Byzantine Monasteries. Belfast: 412–442. Kazhdan and Talbot = Alexander Kazhdan and Alice-Mary Talbot. “Stauropegion.” Ed. Alexander Kazhdan et al. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York and Ox- ford: vol. 3, 1946–1947. Kolovos 2005 = Elias Kolovos. “Negotiating for State Protection: Çiftlik-Holding by the Athonite Monasteries (Xeropotamou Monastery, Fifteenth-Sixteenth C.).” Ed. Co- lin Imber, Keiko Kiyotaki and Rhoads Murphey. Frontiers of Ottoman Studies: State, Province, and the West, Vol. 2. London and New York: 197–209. Kolovos 2016 = Elias Kolovos. “Christian Vakıfs of Monasteries in the Ottoman Greek Lands from the Fourteenth to Eighteenth Centuries.” Ed. Sabine Mohasseb Saliba. Les fondations pieuses waqfs chez les Chrétiens et les Juifs. Du Moyen Âge à nos jours. Paris: 103–127. Macrides 1987 = Ruth Macrides. “The Byzantine Godfather.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 11: 139–162. Repr. Ruth Macrides. Kingship and Justice in Byzantium, 11th–15th Centuries. Aldershot et al. 1999: no. i. Miller 2008 = Timothy Miller. “Charitable Institutions.” Ed. Robin Cormack, John Hal- don and Elizabeth Jeffreys. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford and New York: 621–629. Morris 2007 = Rosemary Morris. “Symeon the Sanctified and the Refoundation of Xe- nophontos.” Ed. Margaret Mullett. Founders and Refounders of Byzantine Monaster- ies. Belfast: 443–464. Morris 2008 = Rosemary Morris. “Documents. Athos.” Ed. Robin Cormack, John Haldon and Elizabeth Jeffreys. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford and New York: 136–143. Morris 2010 = Rosemary Morris. “Reciprocal Gifts on Mount Athos in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” Ed. Wendy Davies and Paul Fouracre. The Languages of the Gift in the Early Middle Ages. Cambridge and New York: 171–192. Mullett 2007 = Margaret Mullett. “Founders, Refounders, Second Founders, Patrons.” Ed. Margaret Mullett. Founders and Refounders of Byzantine Monasteries. Belfast: 1–27. Müller 2005 = Andreas Müller. Berg Athos. Geschichte einer Mönchsrepublik. Munich. Nicol 21975 = Meteora. The Rock Monasteries of Thessaly. London 1975. Oikonomides 1970 = Nicholas Oikonomides. “I.M. Σταυρονικήτα. Kατάλογος τοῦ ἀρχείου.” Symmeikta 2: 437–459.

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access

196 Chitwood

Pahlitzsch 2016 = Johannes Pahlitzsch. “The Development of Christian Waqf in the Early and Classical Islamic Period (7th to 15th C.).” Ed. Sabine Mohasseb Saliba. Les fondations pieuses waqfs chez les chrétiens et les juifs. Du Moyen Âge à nos jours. Paris: 33–55. Papademetriou 2015 = Tom Papademetriou. Render unto the Sultan. Power, Authority and the Greek Orthodox Church in the Early Ottoman Centuries. Oxford. Patrinelis 1974 = Christos Patrinelis. “The History of Stavronikita Monastery.” Ed. Chris- tos Patrinelis, Agapi Karakatsanis and Maria Theocharis. Stavronikita Monastery. History – Icons – Embroideries. Athens: 17–38, 219–221. Rapp 2016 = Claudia Rapp. Brother-Making in Late Antiquity and Byzantium: Monks, Laymen, and Christian Ritual. Oxford. Schreiner 2017 = Peter Schreiner. “L’organizzazione del lavoro e l’approvvigionamento dei monasteri a Bisanzio.” Monachesimi d’oriente e d’occidente nell’alto medioevo: Spoelto, 31 marzo-6 aprile 2016. Spoleto: vol. 2, 919–944. Smyrlis 2002 = Konstantinos Smyrlis. “The Management of Monastic Estates. The Evi- dence of the Typika.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56: 245–261. Smyrlis 2006 = Kostis Smyrlis. La fortune des grands monastères byzantins. Fin du Xe- milieu du xive siècle. Paris. Smyrnakes 1903 = Gerasimos Smyrnakes. Tὸ Ἅγιον Ὄρος. Athens. Speake 2012 = Graham Speake. “‘The Ark of Hellenism’: Mount Athos and the Greeks under Turkish Rule.” Ed. Graham Speake and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. Mount Athos: Microcosm of the Christian East. Oxford, Bern et al.: 139–160. Stauroniketianos 1919 = Gabriel Stauroniketianos. “Διαθήκη τοῦ ἀειμνήστου Πατριάρχου Ἱερεμίου A’ τοῦ καὶ κτίτορος τῆς ἱερᾶς Mονῆς τοῦ Σταυρονικήτα.” Γρηγόριος ὁ Παλαμᾶς 3: 564–572. Stroumpakes 2005 = Michael Stroumpakes. Iερεμίας A’- Πατριάρχης Kωνσταντινουπόλεως (1522–1546). O Bίος και το Έργο του. Athens. Taft 1991 = Robert Taft. “Typikon, Liturgical.” Ed. Alexander Kazhdan et al. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York and Oxford: vol. 3, 2131–2132. Talbot 1991 = Alice-Mary Talbot. “Idiorrhythmic Monasticism.” Ed. Alexander Kazhdan et al. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York and Oxford: vol. 2, 981–982. Talbot 2007 = Alice-Mary Talbot. “Founders’ Choices: Monastery Site Selection in Byz- antium.” Ed. Margaret Mullett. Founders and Refounders of Byzantine Monasteries. Belfast: 43–62. Theocharides 1996 = Ploutarchos Theocharides. “Recent Research into Athonite Mo- nastic Architecture, Tenth-Sixteenth Centuries.” Ed. Anthony Bryer and Mary Cun- ningham. Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism. Papers from the Twenty-Eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1994. Aldershot and Brookfield (Vt.): 205–221.

endowmentDownloaded studies from Brill.com10/01/20211 (2017) 173-197 10:01:33AM via free access

Founding a Monastery on Athos under Early Ottoman Rule 197

Thomas 1985 = John Philip Thomas. “The Rise of the Independent and Self-governing Monasteries as Reflected in the Monastic Typika.” Ed. Nomikos Michael Vaporis. Byzantine Saints and Monasteries. Brookline (Mass.): 21–30. Thomas 1987 = John Philip Thomas. Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Em- pire. Washington (dc).

endowment studies 1 (2017) 173-197 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 10:01:33AM via free access