“Xenophontos in the Ottoman Documents of Chilandar (16th-17th C.)”

XENOPHONTOS IN THE OTTOMAN DOCUMENTS OF CHILANDAR ( 16"-17" C.) Almost as a rule the archives of any Athonite monastery cover a part of the history of at least a few other monasteries.' Mostly relating to monastic estates, the preserved documents usually refer to their boundaries and the disputes over them. These were likely to arise without the monasteries ne- cessarily being adjacent. as evidenced by the example of Xenophontos and Chilandar. Decisive was the fact whether some of their metochia shared a common boundary. either on Mount Athos or elsewhere. A rich collection of Ottoman documents kept in Chilandar offers a wealth of data on sever- al Athonite inonasteries.2 Fortunately for the elucidation of its history, Xenophontos holds an important place among them. Xenophontos and its monks x e mentioned in more then twenty Ottoman documeilts. Their number becomes remarkably larger when the documents are added that are indirectly related to the major controversy that arose between Chilandar and Xenophontos. A change for the worse in the relations between Chilandar and Xenophon- tos in the course of the 16'11 and 17th centuries was due to the question of the right to a large metochion in the village of i:lq Ev, laying on the coast of Kalamaria. Besides this prolonged dispute, where claims to the entire llletochion were laid, another one, though far less h a r m f ~ ~broke l, out over the encroachment upon the fixed boundaries at Aghios Philippos on Mount Athos itself. To the third group of documents belong those where mention I This paper, in shortened version, was pre- zhornik 9 (1 997) 163--17 1 idem, "The sented on the international symposi~lni1000 Collection of Ottoman Docunlents in the Years of the Xenophontos Mona.rtery, held Monastery of Hilandar (Mount Athos)", in Athens, November 27-28, 1998. Balkanlnr 1.e Italya'do jehir vc nianastlr a r ~ i v l e r i n d e k i Tirrkqe bclgclet semincsi 2 A. Fotic, ,,Zbirka turskih dokumenata LI (16-17 Knsln, 2000). Ankara: Tiirk Tarih Arhivu manastira Hilandara", Hilandarski Kurumu 2003, 3 1-37. is made of some other Xenophontos' metochia unrelated to the disputes A L I I\$/\Nl)/\R r o I~ L between the two monasteries, as well as those referring to the moillts of Xenophontos in their capacity as witnesses in the disputes Chilandar had with other monasteries. The metochion (nzefoh, or ~iftlik.as it was nlore often called during the Ottonlan rule) located within the synor of U$ E? by late-16111-century sources was in fact an old metochion of Xenophontos. the centre of which had for centuries been in the village of Stomion. Its area in the mid-14'11- century is estimated to have amouilted to 2,422 nlodioi. Xenophontos obvi- ously kept it even after the Ottoman occupation. It is only from 1537138, however, that date the earliest information about it, concerning the media- tion of Theonas, metropolitan of Thessaloniki, in the issue of staking out a boundary between the metochion of Xenophontos and that of St. Paul monastery in Avramitai. Thenceforward until the middle of the 18th centu- ry no trace of it can be found in known documents. It has not been known that during this time the metochioil changed hands. Certainly for over a half-century. undeniably between 1584 and 1640. it belonged to Chilandar. The iinpressioi~that it was continually held by Xenophontos has been derived froin more recent sources confirmiilg the metochion belonged to it in the mid-1 8'11 century. and late as well.3 As the use of several toponyms associated with the metochion in the peri- od of Ottoman rule may arouse some confusion, their clarification appears essential at this point. Although mentioned in the document of 1.537138, the toponym Stomion had by that time fallen out of use. An administrative reorganization having been carried out in the region as early as the beginning of the 16'11 century, into common use came the name of a new village, U$ Ev. the lirst mention of which, so far as I know, falls into the year 1507. In its gradual growth, the tiCEv syilora eventually embraced the areas of the former villages of Ko~uinoutzoulou and Neochorion, including Avramitai in the beginning period, a meto- chion of the St. Paul monastery. In the (zuccets of 1507 and 1509 of St. Paul's, the same village is referred to under two names: Koumoutzoulou and U$ Ev. The former gradually vanished, and the latter was sonletimes (1 586, 1595 and 1604) to be referred to as Yefii Koy, which is nothing else but the Turkish translation of Neochorion. As in the 19'11 and early 20t" 3 J . Lefort, l~Sllage.rde Aducidoine A'o/ice.r IVerzeichnisscn zlnd Kar/enit,cr.ken, Berlin: lristo~,iql~eset t o p o g ~ a p h ~ r l l ~ .SIII. e s lo Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1984, 333, 339, 635; .b/oc$r&ine orientalc 021 .\//oven Age I . Lo .4cte.r de .\'enoplion, ed. diplomatique par D. Ckalcidir/lre occide~rtale, Paris 1982, Papaclilyssanthou, Paris 1986, 3 1 ; Acres cic 173-176; P. Bellier, R.-C. Bondoux, j.-C. Lui.ra. IV, par P. Lemerle, A. Gui,llou, N. Cheynet, B. Geyer, J.-P. Grelois, V. Kravari, Svoronos, D. Papach~yssanthou,S. Cirkovid, Paris 1982, 104: '1. K. BaoSpapt~AAqq, 'Avk~soracplppavla hcpopijvra &iq r a kv e des voyagezos, present6 par J . Lefort, Paris X~poov~iow KaooavGpaq ~ a 6AAaxoG i +S 1986; 255; E. Kriiger, Die Siedll~ngsnarnen X a A ~ t s r G q dnjploK0p~va C I E T O X I,2//a- ~, G~.iechisch-~Llokedoniens lrach onitlichen ~ (1 973) 277. K C ~ O I ' L K13 SIINOPI IONTOS IN 'TI IL' centuries the names Uq Evler and Neochorion were also in concurrent CY['TOMAN D( )(IUMENTS OF C'I~IILANIIAR use, that shows that the medieval name Neochorion. contrary to what has ( 1 6 ~ ~ ~ - C.) 17~"~ been lhought so far. had never been forgotten. In the 16'11 and 17Ll' cen- turies, the UC Ev synora, cutting across the metochion of Xenophontos (of Chilandar), bordered upon that of the village of Karvia (present Nea Silata) in the east. In the south it opened onto the coast not only travers- ing the metochion of Xenophontos (of Chilandar) but also to the west of it. uC Ev can be positively identified with the present hamlet of Neochorakion (few kilometres northwest of Nea Kalikratia. near the vill- age of Aghios Paulos).4 U? Ev seems not to have belonged to only one "master of the land" (,c.cilzib-iari). Avramitai. the metochion of St. Paul's, belonged to a tinlor. at least in 1548. At the time it was in the hands of Chilandar, this former metochion of Xenophontos belonged to a hiis? of grand vezirs, which is likely to have been the case even before it was sold. The hciss of grand vezirs in the sanjak of Thessaloniki did not constitute an undivided terri- torial unit. Its centre was in the village of Belaftse, after which it was named. Such passages as the following should not, therefore. come as a surprise: "... from the monks of the monastery of Chilandar ... who farm [the metochion] within the synor of the Balaftse hii,yses. which are dependant on the lcc~3ci of Thessaloniki" (... Selcinik icrr,cl.crnu / C h i ' Bcdiifqe hrlsslan sinonndrr zii-G'ut eden .. Fili7ndi7r. rncrncistzr.~riihlh- 1er.indc.n...). There is no doubt whatsoever that the quotation refers to the metochion in U q Ev.5 At the time of confiscation and redemption of monastic estates in 1568169, this metochion of Xenophontos - if we are dealing with it and we proba- bly are - was registered in the imperial cadastral register (defter) as the "chifilik in Avramitai" (qiftlik &r Avriinik [sic!]).6 In order to redeem the property Xenophontos seems. however. to have run into heavy debts, as many Athonite monasteries did. The debt must have been a drag for over a decade. On September 6, 1578. the representatives of Xenophontos. the 4 Lefort. liillages, 77-80, 83-84. 175; on topography. also in: A. Fotic. Svetl1 (ior~r I'aysoges, 225: Kruger, 389, 525, 527. 579; i Nilanclar 11 O ~ / ~ i ~ l ncal:~ti.ll ~ k o n ~/YI,'-.Y1'11 St. Paul Monastery Archive, Turkish docu- vek, Beograd: BalkanoloSki institut SANU, ments, K/3 1, K/32, Kt20 (summary in V. Manastir Hilandar, Sveti arhijerejski sinod BoSkov, ,,Jurucite i svetogorskite manas- Srpske pravoslavne crkve, 2000. 346-347 tiri", Etnogeneza nu J~~rzrcitei nivnolo and (1,. n. Korjay~hpyqq,H ~ ~ ~ C O /lo114 V L K ~ naselll~a/7ie na Ralkanot, materijali od ilgioo flabloo ~ a r ar p O O W / I ~ I ~mpio(So, IK~~ Trkaleznata masa odriana vo Skopje na 17 i @Eooahovi~q: University Studio Press I8 noemvri 1983, Skopje 1986, 63lno. 6): 2002, 70-74. Ba~bakanllk A r ~ i v i . TT, 723, s. 1056; 5 CMAT, 12/12/26, 121'1 215 1 , 11108, 8/57. Chilandar Monastery Archive, Turcica (fur- 8/60, 2il l i a . The same applies to the nieto- ther: CMAT). box 12. file 12, doc. ?. chion of Zograpliou in Portaria (ChlAT 12/12/26. 13i12/28, 12112134. 12/12/33, ?!I 14; BBA, TT, 723. s. 1052). See also 121'1 2129 ( [IC. I<vli), 1211213 1 . 12112/17. Fotic, S\.rto (;orw I Ililat7rlc~1~, 317. ant1 12112/63, 12/12/55. i O i i Koy: CMAT, Korjay&hpyq<, ti cr()w~,r~/j [ro\-/j .-f;lior~ 12/12/53 (summary in: V. BoSkov - D. 7 a o 70-74. B a l ~ f ~ is c modern Bojanic, .,Sultanske povelje iz manastira K o h ~ ~ ~ao village v, north of Lake Langada Hilandara", Hilandarski zbornik 8 ( 1 99 1) (Paysages, 2 1 1 ; Kruger, 60, 252. 60 1 ). 194-195lno. 69), 1213611 (summary in: ibi- denz, 198;no. 79), 12112/49. The d'Lscussion 6 BBA, TT, 723. s. 1056 moilks Makarios, the son of Petar (Maknri Petre) and Marko "sold" the A L E K S A N D A R FO'I'IC' inetochion near U~ Ev to a Husein Celebi, the son of Hasan, for 20,000 akqes, but they immediately took a one-year lease on the very metochion at 3,000 aliqes.7 Contracts of the kind were not alien to Ottoman practice. They did not really denote a sale, but a lending of money at a rate of inter- est. In fact, the fraudulent sale burdened the monks of Xenophontos with a debt of 20,000 cili~escharged with interest at a rate of 15%. They retained the inetocl~ion,but pledged as a securit)..* Tt would seem that the monlts did not repay the capital the followiilg year. They deferred payinent instead for another five years, until December 1584, when the monks Andoil and Visarioil (Pnpn veled-i And6n vc PZpZ ~leled-iThiiriy6n) cleared the debt officially and thus revoked the fraudu- lent sale." It is noteworthy that the payment was made with the money raised by selling the metochion to Chilandar, effected only a few days before. They first "sold" (bey ') the land to Chilandar for 20,000 akqes with perinission granted by Mehmed vo)/voda on behalf of the "master of the land", i.e. the grand vezi~~. A factual sale of the state-owned land being impracticable, this must denote a transfer of the right of usufruct. Oilly a few days after the pern~issioilhad been granted, the representatives of thc two monasteries, pGpn AndGn of Xenophontos and pfipG P L ~ 01' ~.v~ Chilandar. probably hego~un~ens at that time also, as 1ater.composccl in Thessrilonilti a httcccl for tlie sale of the entire property, including I'ai-m- land. for 38,000 crlcqes. ' 0 Chilandar thus acquired a large metochion and Xenophontos got rid of its lingering debts. Nonetl~eless,the matter was far from being over. Hoping to recover the property, the hegoumen of Xenophontos soon lodged a deinaild that the sale be annulled, thereby opening a dispute that was to illark the following, over half-a-century long. period. Before going into the 7 CMAT. I211 2 2 ; FotiC. .S~,e/tr L'o/.~r i way. See N . ('agatay, "Rib:) and Interest l ~ i l ( ~ / ~ ~347. l(r/~, ('onccl?t and Uanki~le in thc Ortonran Eliil~irc",.S/r/ciitr I.sltr//ri~~tr 3 1 ( 1970) 53-68; 8 Various interpretations of tlie Qu'ran A . Sueeska, ,,Vakufski krediti LI Sarajevu (11 ~nostly prohibit charging interest. However, svjetlu sidiila sarajevskog kadije ir gcldi~ie as it proved a necessary instrument for tlie 973. 974 i 975 - 1564165166)". (;( .l/.i//jnh economic growth, schemes of its legaliza- I'i~tri~/iogfirkztl/e/n rr S~~~.njei.r/ I I ( 1954) tion were devised at a rather early date of 343-379; R. C. Jennings, "1,oans ancl Credit Islamic Iiistory. According to Hanefit in Early 17th Century Ottonlail .ludicial school. prevailing with the Ottomans, a so- Kscords. The Sharia C'o~it~ot Anatolin~i called "lawful evasion of the Shari'ah" Kak seri", Jor~/.riulof' i i i ~i;~.o/io/~iic ~ tr/icl ((iile-i .,c.ri.'iiq)e)was permitted. The lending S'OC~I~II l l i , ~ / o / O/ , ~ , / / ~ e( 1 11 , i l i XVI, 11-111 of lnoney at interest was permitted by law in (197.;) IF..' 1 9 1 . It is i ~ i ~ s ~ c s t ithat n ? onl! Ottoman Empire, although with restrictions the Icrl?i IT,>\.' (sale). L v a i sn?plo!cil ir! 011s on rates placed (soliietimes?i by sultan's I I ~ I C C\C J ~ . the alrcaci! ~;icntioni.d,ilos- \ /.:,;)111 orders. In 1601 blehmed I11 prohibited rates er sl~cciiii.it~ons eupectc~!to be i b ~ ~ nind exceedilig 15% (CMAT, 8!591, but early S L I C ~colirrilcts. I 1 7[l1century judicial sicci1.v of Kayseri slio\\ a rate co~nmonlyset at 20%. Contracts of 9 CMAT. 12112i28 (24. 12. 1554-22. 01. that kind (of the type hey' bi-1-i.s/iglLII, or 1585 I according to the Gregorian calendar bey' hi-I-i'efii, i.e. "sale with the right ot rev- 03. 01 - 01. 02. 1585). ocation") were not obligatory. Not at all I0 CMAT, 12/12/26 (24. l I - 03. 1210A-13. rare, even among the 'irlen12, were contracts 12. I584), 12112129 (04-13114-23. 12. in which interest was not concealed in this 1584); Fotit, Sileln Gora i Hilnnclar, 348. SI,:NOPIION'I'C)S IN I'HE details of the dispute. something nlore should be said about the metochion OTTOMAN DOC(ibltN'fS O F CtIIL,AND!\R itself. ( l(,".lI- 1 7 "H C ) Judging by the notes on the back of the documents, among the monks of Chilandar the metochion in U$ Ev was called "Old metochion" (,Yturi /~.zetoh)Il.perhaps because it had always been a metochion, no matter wliose, and in order to distinguish it from their own near-by nietochion in the village of Karvia. known also as "New metochion" (hi)\);rneroh). Although the name Tsuli metochion has so far been associated with tlie period after the first half' of tlie 18'11 ce~itury- i.e. the time the ~iietocliion was in the hancls of Xenoplio~itos'nionl;s again - ~t had also been i l l L I ~ C while the estate was held by Chilandar. Its earliest mention I'alls into tlie year 1614. when it was registered as ( ' i l l i\JIin6 n511qzf/lik. In 1637 it was called ('fill h4etiT(zi.12 linfortunately, this information cannot help us eluci- date the origin of the name. The metochion was regarded as a distinctive unit. I t used to be described as "belonging within the synora O E U G EL.". or as the "qiftlik near UG Ev". It was situated on the village borderland. Roughly described more than once, it boundaries are not a matter of doubt: it was bounded by "the coast. by tlie synor of tlie village of Kanria. by the synor of the village o1'Agliios l'aulos and by thc synor of tlie village of i'iC Ev" (LIC~IJY? LL,/I\,e K~II.I~I\ 1.' I I ~ ~ I/{~rrl,e I ~ sin5r11e re A 1 ~ 7r'Z\vlG nirli I C L I ~,siniTrile JI~ \*e ~ L I I . I Y - L i'q. IT19 In these descriptions the phrase "synor ol'tlie village ~ i n 6 r i l ern~rh~lfid~lz~r). of uCEv" was often omitted, while "the synor of the village of Karvia" was replaced once with "the public road" (I~rr-ik-i'umm). 13 Judging by what Xenophontos pledged in 1578, the area of farmland amounted to approximately 1,000 u'iiniims (about 92 hectares'). If this be a fact, by the year 1629 Chilandar had enlarged the metochion by 2.000 ~kjniims,which gives a 3,000-~iiiniimarea of fields (about 276 hectares). Although the original area was thus tripled. it remains unkno~vnwhen and Iiow it occurred. I t is possible that Xenophontos had neglected a nuniber of' fields which the monks of Chilandar put in order i l l a short time. As early as 1586 hegounien Pajsije testiiied ahout the inonks having pulled 0111 thorns, cleared the plots overgrown with trees. and prepared the land that had not been yielding income. Not all 2,000 diiniims are likely to have been obtained in that way, but nothing points to an additional purchase of land either. They grew wheat, barley, oats, horse bean, sweet vetch and chickpea. 14 Besides fields, the nietochion embraced waste ground, vineyards ( 1 569: 1629: two diirzums) and vegetable gardens (1 569: zemiry-i hcstiin). No refe- rence to cattle exists. The centre of the metochion at the time of the 1584 purchase consisted of a pirgos (hi~k6.r:hirguz), mentioned also in 1569, I I CMAT, 12/12/34, 12/12/33. 17/12/51, 12/12/31. 12/12/47, 12/12/63. 12/12/55. 12/12/60, 12/12/55, 14 CMAT, 12112/2, 12112153 (summary in: 12 CMAT, 8168, 12112/61; FotiC, Sveta BoSkov-BojaniC, 194195lno. 69), 12112/63; Cora I H i l a n h , 348. FotiC, Sveta Cora i Hilnndat., 348-349. 13 CMAT, 12112/2, 12112129, 12112/34, lour ground-floor houses, a hayn~owand a stable. They were surrounded A I E ~ ~ A N D APRCI I( by a yard, two donums in area. There is also a record of two caris, five ba- rrels, and farming implements. In a copy from the 1598 cadastral defier, where both illetochia of Chilandar (in Karvia and in ~q Ev) seem to have been registered as one. there is also a record of a church. The question remains with which of the two metochia it should be associated. The meto- chion of Xenophontos must have had a church before that date. Before it passed to Chilandar. the monks of Xenophontos had, according to the fer- mans of 1601 and 1604. unlawfully built a k e ~ i ~ b i i nore maniistrr (both terins are used in a single document!). It most probably means they were renovating an old church. 111 the course of time, until 1609, the monks of Chilandar erected several buildings in the inetochion. As early as 1629. besides the pirgos and the l~aymow.tl~erewere eleven chambers (oln), i.e. buildings, two stables and a barn, but only one old cart.15 According to the 1569 imperial cadastral defter, the metochion was liable to pay the tithe. But, however, all tithe duties were paid to the hiis? i ~ o ) ~ \ ~ o - do by annual lump sum (her \tech-i n~aktfi',kesin? tarikile). In 1595 the kesiin amounted to 6,000 akqes. and in 1604 to 8,000 akqes. The difference was caused by a fall in the value of the akqc, not by a tax raise, the two amounts being equal in value - 50 gold coins.i6 Not long after the purchase, as early as November 1589, Chilandar had to pledge the inetocl~ionin order to raise 35,000 u&c;es.In the usual. n ~ l l - ltnown way, tllrough '-sale with the right of revocation", the "sold" tile inetochion to El-hacc Hanlza Cavug. immediately taking out a one-).ear lease at 5,000 akqes. The latter sum was actually an interest at a rate of 14,29%. It is unknown how long the metocllion remained in pledge." Sometime before march 1613. by all means not before 1609, the metocllion was talteil over by Jewish creditors against an old debt which, charged with interest. had increased to enormous 153,000 akqes. The debt had obvious- ly nothing to do with the inetochion itself. According to the complaint Chilandar lodged, there were no legal grounds for the take-over because the estate had not been pledged as a security. Although the reconveyance of the inetochio~lto Chilandar had been ordered if the complaint proved justified, and despite the fact that the debt had mostly been paid, the Jew Musa Meralti still held the property in May 1614. It is certain that the monks re-entered it before May 1618.15 During the first half of the 17th century, Chilandar used to lease out the inetochion in ~q Ev as It proved more rewarding than running the enor- mous estate on their own. It was not an isolated case. Many large metochia of the Athonite monasteries were leased out. Early ir, September 1629 in 15 CMAT. 12/12/29. 12/12/34. 12/12/15, 1/108, 8/60, 211 13a; FotiC, Si-e/n Gortr i 12/12/63, 1211213 1 , 8/57, 8/60, 12/12/25: Nilnrirlar, 349. Fotic, Si~efnGor.a i Ifilandnr, 349. That the 1 7 C M ~ T , 2/12/33; Fotic. Sl,ela chamber (ota) often meant separate building ~ i l ~349, ~ d ~ ~ . (ev) was confirmed in CMAT, 12/12/55 and in BBA, TT, 723, s. 1052. 18 CMAT, 8/59, 8/67, 2/122b, 8/68, 12112/37; FotiC, Sijela Cora i Hilandar, 16 BBA, TT, 723, s. 1056; CMAT, 12/12/51, 349-350. S~'N(IPF[ONTOSIN'rl-LE Thessaloniki. the representatives of Chilandar made ~vitha Mustafa Celebi, OTI'OMAN DOCLIMIN'I'S (IFCI lII,AND.AR the son of late El-hacc Ali. a contract for a three-year lease on the meto- (!hlt1.-1711I c.! chion. In order to avoid misunderstanding. the (~iiccetcontained a precise description of the domain: besides its boundaries and the exact area of fields, all major possessions to be taken over by Mustafa Celebi were list- ed. including the amount of seeds in the barn. Mustafa Celebi took an obli- gation to pay his rent in kind. or at least that is what the formulation was. His annual obligation to Chilandar consisted of 220 rntrz~~rs of wheat. 150 intrzzlrs of barley. 10 mzlztrrs of horse bean. and 1 mzrzur of chickpea. More than six and the half tons of grain at a conservative estimate! '"nother ten- ant known by name, who died before April 1637. is Mehmed, the son of Abdullah. 1-5s annual rent was still higher: 300 muztrrs of wheat. 150 mz~zursof barley, 50 mtlzzrrs of oats: and 20 rnzlzurs of horse bean. Almost ten tons of grain! Since he died heirless. the emin of the Thessalonilci Beyt iil-mil, the Jew Avriihim, the son of Y6,sef; showed at the metochion in order to take over his property. He demanded a compensation from Chilandar for the seeds already sown. After much bargaining they reached an agreement that Chilandar should pay 130 @tlrQes.*OThe case implies that the tenant furnished the seeds himself. The entire period of Chilandar's administration was marked by its key dis- pute with Xenophontos over the right to hold the metochion in U~ Ev. Having raised the money by selling the metochion to Chilandar in December 1584.. Andtin, hegournen of Xenophontos, cleared the debt and discharged the metochion from pledging. The t r ~ u b l e sfor Chilandar. how- ever, were only to begin. As soon as the metochion had become unpledged, And6n changed his mind and claimed it back from Chilandar. As the monks of Xenophontos started harassing those of Chilandar in the fields. prohe- 19 CMAT, 12112163. The rn~rzl~rlmiiziit. is a Ottonian Empire, Bloo~nington 1993, 445). dry volumetric nieasure for grain and salt, A 11111zz11.of salt in Thessaloniki being dften used also as a measure of area. In 57,726 kg, a Thes.mloniki ni~rzz~r of grain Byzantine times a po0jodp1ov was the same should be about 19,242 kg. CMAT, 12/12/63 as 11061oq. Ottoman documents reveal that a specifies the use of the Tiies.saloniki tnl~zzrr nizl:zrr of salt in Dubrovnik, Novi and Risan (der-anhur-i Selanik mlrzllrile). In addition at the end of 1 sthcentury was equal to 57, to this calculation and although the data are 239 kg. In the same period, it corresponded not official, it should be noted that in the to exactly 45 okka (57, 726 kg) in Thessa- second half of 19t11century a rnlrzur of grain Ioniki, to 32 okka (41, 049 kg) in Valona, corresponded to 45 okka (57,72 kg), 3,5 and to 50 okka (64,14 kg) in Scutari. Being pzlds (57,33 kg), and in 1908. also to 50 a volumetric measure, a mzrzzrr of salt can- okka (64,14 kg). At the same time a rnzrzzrr not be equal in weight to a rnuzzrr of grain. of barley equaled 35 okkn (P. Uspenski, The ratio of their respective weights is Pen3oe plrteSestvie 1. atonskie m o n m l i r i i approximately 3: 1 (depending on humidity). skiti I S - l j god11,f . I , ot. I, Kiev 1877, 340; rj Although the standard po0jodp~ov(p061oq) Sava Hilandarac. s o i j n ~ a n a s / i ~ . n of grain equaled 12.8 kg, it varied from 12,s Hi1nnda1.0, ed. by T. Jovanovic, Beograd to 17 kg at the widest in Byzantiu~n and 1997. 81; M. S. MilovanoviC, illo or ir srp- the surrounding regions ( E . Schilbach, .rko; car.sko; lallri Hilendarlr na Svero; G o r i , Byzanlinisci~e Metrologie, Munchen 1970, 11, Beograd 1908. 25). This makes sense if 96, 188; H . 1nalc1k. "Introductio~i to the mlrzzrr was not taken as a unit of volu~ne Ottoman Metrology ", Errcica, XV ( 1983) but of weight (?!). 346; idem, "Yiik ( H i m l ) in the Ottoman Silk Trade, Mining and Agriculture", in: idem, 20 CMAT, 12112161, 12112160; Fotic, Sveta The Middle East and the Balkans zrnder /ire C o r a i Hilandar, 350. gouineil Pajsije appealed to the Sultan's Court for help. In June 1586 the A I ~ E K S A N D A RF o r I C sultail ordered to the lzi(?'t of Thessaloniki to make an inquiry and prevent any further harassment should the complaint prove truthf~~l. He eve11 assigned one of his qavuJes, Mehmed, to see that his order be properly ca- rried out. The following month, although they had two years old permi- ssion, monks of Chilandar asked another one from the hFq,y voyvoda, to buy the entire metochion! Permission was granted after a payment of an 800- ulcqe-tax on tapu, because hiss voyvoda had estimated the value of the fields at 8,000 nkqes. (Less than two years before, they were estimated at 20,000 al~qes!).~' The questid11 is why the voyvoda took the resnz-i tapu twice. The obtain- ineilt of another title deed was probably inteilded to substantiate the Chilandar's case by documenting that everything had indeed been done with the knowledge of the "master of the land". It is well-known that a sale (transfer) of farinland without the knowledge of the "master of the land" was not valid, which was exactly pointed by representatives of Xenophontos. After the sultan Mehmed 111 came to the throne, Chilandar renewed in 1595 a ferman formerly issued to prohegoumen Pajsije. The two docu- nleilts are identical: the names of Piiy.6, Andiini, and even Mehmed C a v u ~ , were simply copied, the only difference being in lu~ri.r. and in dates. That the dispute had not been settled is obvious from the fact that Chilandar moillts wasted no time but prepared the ferman promptly. Similar orders were procured also in 1601 and 1604: in order to obtain the former, the monlts of Chilandar did not hesitate to visit the grand vezir in military camp in Belgrade amidst the war, while the latter was also issued at the intervention of the grand vezir, probably not because he was particularly sympathetic to Chilandar but rather in order to secure regular revenues from his has,?. The statement of the 1604 special order that Chilandar has only been holding the metochion for eight years and the naming of previ- ous prohegoumeil Pajsije as the plaintiff show that it was just a renewal of seine earlier, now lost, ferman of 1 592193.'2 The represeiltatives of Xenophontos were persistent in their claims. Chilaildar monlts seem to have decided to appease them, at least for a while, by way of a well-founded trial in Thessaloniki. 111 Octobar 1608. hegoumen Ilarion and Luka, probably il\onoinos of the metochion, recluest- ed a confrontation before the @&.They told their side of the story, where- as the representatives of Xenophoi~tos.Daniasltin (PiipZ DZ;~iu,ykini?)the elder Mitrophan (?) (Yero MGti.Lfj21~i3) and the elder Gerilla~l( f i r 5 Gernziini), denied once more that here had becn a sale. Chilandar, how- ever, produced four Muslim witnesses confirnling that a "clean irrevocable sale" had been effected 24 years (of the hijrah) before. This testimony, written down in the huccet, becalve yet another incontestable Shari'ah 21 CMAT, 12/12/26, 12/12/29, 12/11/28, 22 CMAT, 12/36/1 (summary i n : BoS- 12112/53 (summary in: RoSkov-BojaniC, kov-BoianiC, 198INo. 79), 8/57, 8/60, 194-1 951110. 69), 1 2112/34; Fotic, Svetcr 1 211 2/49; FotiC, Sveta Gora i Hilandor, 35 1 . Gorcr i /iilandar, 35 1 . SENOI'I~IC3N'I'OS II\; '1.1 Ir proof ill favour of Chilandas. to ~vhichin Ma!. 1609 was added a ferman O I ' I ' O M A N IDOC'l lhll!NTS 01:CI I I I A N I I A R banning an!. dispute o1.u an estate held for more than ten !.ears. As thc C. 1 monks of Xenophontos referred also to the fact that the metochion was donated to their inonasterjl (kriii,siivu ~;u/cidz~r). Chilandar procured a fbl1.i stating that "no \)okrf'isvalid if donated by the infidels to a churcli" ( k e f i ~ r - eniiii keiiis~lur~iiu vakj'ctdilgi ~zrleriii~ ' ~ lcii i f 'iz i de@ldiii.). Namely. on the one hand. the Shari'ah and the kanin prohibited endowment of state- - owned land. while. on the other. the title to a property in absolute owner- shi11 (miilk). subject to endowment. could not be given to a churcli itself. hut only to mol~lis.As a matter of' fact, these arguments had provided grounds for the confiscation of monastic estates in 1568169. The same fer- man also forbade ha!-assment under pretext that the metochion was n Xenophontos' ~~trltrf: The ver! fesman proves tlie monks of Chilandar were rather wise litigants. They may not ]lave been well-accluainted with the Shari'ah and legal terms. but they certainly knew how to choose qualitied advisors. Through a skilful play on the general and the straight legal mean- ings of the term "churcli ~yukrf'(kcni.sLr 11uh+), they even succeeded in mak- ing the accusers' arguments turn against themselves!'" With those two documents secured. Chilandar was well-prepared for tlie reopening of the case. As a ~nultipleretrial of a cast: was strictly proliibit- ed by lam. it is obvious that Xenophontos had provided support by certain Ottoman 01. ecclesiastical circles. .4new attack early in June 1609 Iaunchecl by tlie liegournen of Xenophontos Varlaam (I'Gi.lnni), the elder Sermano (?) ( f i c ~ SennLrnG r ?). and Grigorios (LigGi-i).was a complete i ~ i l u r e To . begin with, the accusers declared that in 1584 they "liad agreed wirh Chilandar to take a Shari'ah loan" of 38,000 ~~lcqes, with the metochion as a "pledge" (rehii !arikile). Nothing of that was written in the original lzuccet. They continiued that because of a legal ban of pledging iarmland, "they had stated falsely" ( m u ~ G i ~ l ' a t i,!criir e n kdzrb) that they had sold the metochion by way of "irrevocable sale" (hey '-i hi! ilc hey' eyledzlk). Before the "master of the land" they had. also "falsely", asserted the irrevo- cable transfer of the fields to the monks of Chilandar, who thus had had to pay the tax on t ~ r p then~selves ~i and liad taken the tlrptl. All that argiumen- tation was senseless because there was no need for such a type of' contract. ?'he other. quite opposite, type of contract ("the sale with the right oi'rev- - c + ; o ~ l " )was widely used for uhat tlie monks of Xenopliontos stated they nact wanted to icalize. That type of contract was well known to them as could be seen from the lzuccet of 1578. When Xenophontos had raised the money to repay the debt. continued the hegoumen of Xenophontos, 23 CkIAT, 1211713 1 , 8/66, On the meanings Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away: Athos and of the term kenisic l9ohfiand the permitted the Confiscation Affair of 1568-1 569", forms of endowing p r o p e q to Christian :\'fot~tit,4f/io.s in /he 14/1~.-16/hCen/t~rte,s monasteries. see A. FotiC, "The Official i 4), Athens 1997, ( ' . 4 0 ( o i ' ~ ~ ( SI;L(/ICIKT(X Explanations for the Confiscation and Sale of 149-200, and E. Kermeli, "Ebii's Su'iid's Monasteries (Churches) and Their Estates at Definitions of Church vakfs: T h e o ~ y and the Time of Selim 11". 7i11~icn XXVI ( 1 994) Practice in Ottoman Law". l.slnnii~.I,rn11: 33-54; idem, ,,Sveta Gora u doba Selima [I", Tlleoty and P~.nctice,London: I . B. Tauris, Hilnndarski zbornik 9 (1997) 143-162; J. C. 1997. 141-156, with different interpretation Alexander (Alexandropoulos), "The Lord of church vak~fi. Chilandar refused to reconvey the metochion and fields on the pretext of it 1\ F ~SANLII\II 101'C all having been acquired by way of irre~ocablesale. as it mas really wri- tten in the original document. The accusers finished their statement claim- ing again the metochion back. The representatives of Chilandar, headed by hegoumen Ilarion, retorted that there had indeed been irrevocable sale and a valid transfer of the fields to new holders. They also emphasized the fact that the hii:(s voy~oduhad issued the tapu upon their payment of the tax, as well as that the estate was their "purchased property" held in indisputable possession for twenty five years. As a conclusive proof of irrevocable sale they produced the tztlccet of the previous year, and additionally substanti- ated their case by the ferman confirming that the land was of the one who had been farming it for more then ten years. It was no use for the repre- sentatives of Xenophontos to negate the !zzlccet. its validity being con- firmed by the three Muslims who had witnessed to its drawing-up. The accusers could submit no proof whatsoever of their allegations. The key words "revocable sale" were not mentioned in presented documents, so the kii"i had no ground to believe them. Abiding by the ferman, the kG&i could only order Xenophontos to stop harassing Chilandar by further alle- gations.24 Xenophontos monks, however, did not comply with the verdict. "Relying 3n some people" (ba'zz kimesnelere istiniid ile), they brought up the alle- gations anew. As the mark was thus overstepped. the monlii of Thessaloniki himself lodged a complaint with the Sultan's Court submitting an account of what had been happening in the preceding t u o years. In September 1609 the sultan ordered that a Shari'ah case twice decided should by no means be reopened or the accusers heard; all the more so as the suit in question had first been filed twenty four years before. Finding the ferman to be remarkably important. Chilandar renewed it in May 16 18.25 Nothing seems to have happened until May 1640, when the fraternity of Xenophontos plucked up courage to start legal proceedings again. In replay to the well-known allegations which hegoumen NikOlu, the son of Dim6, and the monk iMi&iil, the son of Ycibek6 (sic!) (perhaps YiinkO?). made without introducing new evidence, Chilandar produced official and valid judicial documentation. The decision of the n2onlii of Thessalonilti was pre- dictable: in keeping with the previous court decision and the sultan's order, he dismissed the allegations and ordered that Chilandar should retain the metochion as heretofore. His hiiccet is the last among the documents pre- served at Chilandar concerning the metochion in uG Ev.26 What kind of understanding the hegoumens of Chilandar and Xenophontos came to in 1584 will probably always remain unknown. Judging by wri- tten traces, documents issued by the Ottoman authorities, none of which hints to a loan or a pledge, there is no doubt that Chilandar indeed pur- chased the metochion, and by way of irrevocable sale. In justification of them having been deceived, the monks of Xenophontos could not even 24 CMAT, 12/12/47; Fotid, Si3eta G'ora i 25 CMAT, 12/12/25, 12112/37; Fotic, Siqeto Hilandor, 352. Gora I t-lilandar, 352-353. 26 CMAT, 12/12/55. XEN(~)PFIONTOSIN TI-IF plead ignorance of the Shari'ah regulations. 7'hat its sepreseiltatives were O.I'l'(:)MAN IIOCIJMENI'S 01: CHII.ANI)AII well-acquainted with the terms of a contract lor pledging realty agains~a ( I ~ ' ~ I J171 L II ) loan. i.e. for sale with the right of revocation, is evidenced by exactly the saille contract the). had illade before with another person. What becanle of the metochion after 1640 will probably be revealed by some other docu- ments. It is not unlikely that Chilandar gave up disputing and eventually came to an agreement wit1 Xenophontos. I11 any event, since the mid-18th century Xenophontos was in the possession of the metochion again. The toponym of Aghios Pllilippos is situated in the iininediate vicinity of Giovanitza to the north-northwest of it, about two kiloinetres to the ilortll of the coast and some three kilometres to the west of the monastery of Zographou. Only this toponym has survived of which was originally a small independent monastery, the earliest mention of which dates from the 11"' century. Sometime during the first two decades of the 14th century it became a metochion of Xenophontos. Probably about the year 1346, Xenophontos sold a plot of land - a meadow with a metochion (building ?) - to Chilandar for 130 hyperpera. About a century later, a dispute arose between the two monasteries over the illeadow at Aghios Philippos. By the decision of the Holy Syilaxis of Mount Athos of 1466167, the sale was con- firmed and thereby the right of Chilandar to the meadow in dispute.17 No mention of Aghios Philippos being made in the 1569 vaklfniime and hudiidnime of Chilandar, it may be inferred that it was not a detached estate, i.e. an estate beyond the synora of Chilandar monastery lands. According to the vabfnGme of Xenophontos, issued in the same year, now lost, and the hiiccets of 1636 and 1641, Aghios Philippos (Ayo Filibe, Ayi Filibe) was a place (mevzi ') within the synora of Chilandar. The metochion of Xenophontos, according to it's vaklfnime, submitted in 1636 as a proof to the kGdi consisted of "a building and a four-doniim vineyard, all of that [being bounded] on all four sides by the land [which belongs] to the valczfs of the monastery of Chilandar".2s The vakzfniin?e (or villcfiyye) of Xenophontos, a crucial proof of possession, was also to be referred to in the 1641 documei~tof settlement between the two monasteries. which the hegoumen of Xenophontos wrote in Cyrillic letters and presented to the 27 A. Papazotos, "Recherches topogra- Graeca Chilandarii, Ljubljana 1948, no. 12. phiques au Mont Athos", Ge'ographie his- See also FotiC, Sveta Cora i Hilandar, 261. torique du hfonde .Uc!diterrane'en, ed. H . A hrweiler, Paris 988, 6 ; cle 28 ... silt lie seb 'in ve tisa 'mi 'e va&fi,v,velerii ,finophon, 23, 26-28; ,lctes de Chilandar, ibriiz eylediiklerinde mei:ii'-i metkzir AyG pllblits par L, petit et B, ~ ~ ~ ~Filipe'de b l vZki' ~ olan~ Dir , bZb el? ve dor; ~ , ~ ~, ~ ,t i ~; ~ k~ ; ; ~ X I ,X ( 19 ~ 15 1~ pri-~ ~ doniini ~ ,bag kyeri nleikiir IkrenGf' n?anGs- loienie 1, no, 75; s t , M , r;imitrijevi6. //r/n/ii ei~&Gfindanolztb r:c hi-I-kiilliyye ,,Dokumenti llilendarske arhive do XVll] cfl'uf-i erb 'a.srnda olan Zruzi /iiei.&it~~ veka"., Snomenik < SKA LV ( 1922) 20-2 1 : V. Filiindir nla~iistlr~niiiei,@finda~~ old//g/ hlo4in in A. Eovre, Llodatki na grikin2 /isti- va&fi~)yelerinde mestiir i9e n~z~sarrah nam Hilandaria. Szlpplementa ad acta oln~airn. . . (CMAT, 21 1 73). monlts of Cl~ilandar:"and we. the monks of Xenoph, have been awalded 4 A I I I\$ \NI).\IZ t o r I( C I ' O ~ L I I ~ Iof S grapeviile. as written down in our \~crlirfniirne"(11 notlcovarllue ' AOYAOYMA AOqIA K A K O IlAM'h Ct' nUhlt' OY K A K O Y n A A - IlAM'h ~ ~ ' N O U I A N W (4,M MU).The statement the Chilandar monks made before the Shari'ah court in I641 about the metochion of Xenophontos being within the synora of Chilandar (rnmniist~rzn~zz .s~nt%-i dnhilinde), as described in Xenophontos' 11ukrfiiiin7e.was also confirmed bq the representatives of the Holy Synaxis appointed by thirteen monasteries.2" The above mentioned Ottoman huccers are the only to refer to the meto- chion of Xenophontos as being bounded on all sides by the land ill Chilai~clar'spossession. They certainly carry considerable weight the very boundary being confirmed both by the vcrk~fniirneand the testimony given I3y the representatives of the majority of Athonite monasteries. Several soiwces. however, provide inexorable evidence that the metochion of Xenophontos at Aghios Philippos and that of Esphigmenou in Giovanitza shared a colllnlon boundary from the tlloment Xenophontos purchased Aghios Philippos until 1746 (in 1568 as well). That means both before and after a part of the estate was sold to Chilandar. In the course of one of their ilumerous disputes with Esphigmenou, even the representatives of Chilandar themselves described in 1583 before the court of Siderokavsia that the metochion of Esphigmenou in Giovanitza was bordering in the north 011 the "places of the Xenophontos monastery". Although no speci- fic reference to Aghios Philippos was made there. Xenophontos could hardly have had another sizeable estate in the inmediate kicinity. Aillong other witnesses to appear to the court in mentioned case of 1583 were called Anu'cTt7, the son of Miirk6, and Hrist6fitl6, the son of Kiizlniin. both from Xenophontos. The docume~ltsof Esphigmenou dating from 1745146. however, situate the Xenophontos' domain of Aghios Philippos to the east of the estate Esphigmenou held in Giovanitza.30 How could all these accounts be brought in accord? It may be assumed that during the numerous disputes between Chilandar, Espl~ign~enou and Zographou over Giovanitza31, Chilandar prxured a temporary incorpora- tion (at least in 1569. and again in 1636-1 64 1) of the part of Giovanitza bordering on the Xenophontos' domain of Aghios Philippos. Chilandar had to claim legal protection of the right to its part of the estate near '4ghios Philippos against the monks from the Xenophontos' metocl~ion.As early as the spring of 1586, it secured a ferman forbidding the monks of Zographou and Xenophontos to encroach upon its property in Giovanitza.32 Half a century later, before the beginning of the summer of 1636, the monks of Xenophontos overstepped the fixed boundary once more and planted se- 29 CMAT, 21176; Dimitrijevii, 27; Fotic, 31 CMAT, 1177, 1178, 1211018, 1180, 1179, Si.e/u Go1.o i Flilnndtrt,. 26 1-262. 1181, 1213513, 1211012, 1213716, 1211013, 1211015, 1111014: ,clctes tl'E,sphigtr7inoz1. 3 0 .!Icfe.r (/e .Yi~io/~/ion, 27-28: A cre.r tl'L,;.rphi- 1906, no. 28; ,~L~IL..S rie Zogrnphoti. ~ ~ ~ l b l i e s gn:n?eno~~, ed. diplo~natiquepar J. Lefort. Paris par W. Regel, E. IKllrtz ct B. ICorablev, 1973, pp. 87-88. no. 24; Actes d ' E s p h i g ~ ~ ~ ; n o ~ ~ , I;iznn/iisliij I',.ernennik Xlll (1907) Pri- publies par le R. P. Louis Petit et W. Regel, loienie ,, nos, 61-64, Vizantii.skii C?eitiennik XI I ( 1906) Priloienie 1, nos. 32. 34; CMAT, 1211018, 1180; Fotic, Sveta 32 CMAT, 1211012 (summary in: BoS- (Gorn i Ililrmdnr, 262-263. kov-BojaniC, 193-1 94/No. 66). S E N ~ P I ~ O N ' I ' OI NS 1'1 11: veral ~ / d n i i l ~with ~ s vine - on the land Cliilandar "had beell holding fi-om the 0I"I'OMAN IlO( 'IJMENI'S imperial coilquest to that moment" (fi,/!z-i /Iiilciiniden Au UMLI ~/eki17%th! II , 01: CI I I I . A N L I A R I ~ - ~ I I L7 I . r ~ ta..srrl.rufitnzz~zdolan arcri1711~~. dulzl ...), as the representatives of Serbian moilastery declared. As the Chilandar did not bring a suit to the court of Siderokavsia. but to that of Thessaloniki, some preparatoiy steps migl~thave already been taken. which inay be additioilally corroborated by the fact that a ~zz:ib@irof the imperial bostinczs, Meluned Aga, came fi-om Istailbul for the occasion. At the request of Teodosije, hegoumen of Chilandar. that an inquiry should be held and the moilastery's vcikrfniirnes inspected, on June 24 (July 4, by Gregorian calendar) the representatives of the two monasteries assembled at Aghios Philippos along with ail emissary of tlle nlonlZ of Thessaloniki, muderris Meluned. the son of Ferhad; the mentioned nzubi,yir: the %hi! of Mount Athos Dei-vi~Aga with a few attendants, and the representatives of the Holy Synaxis of Mount Athos appointed by at least twelve monasteries. Incontrovertible evidence, the vakrfnii17ze of Xenophontos, having been exam- ined, the representatives of Xenophontos, hegouinen Yosif, the son of h.lavr6, and Nestori, the son of Kosfanfin, were ordered to remove the ~unlawf~~lly planted vineyard and give up the land disseized.33 An identical suit being filed a few years later, it is obvious that the order was not carried out. This time relief was requested directly froin the Imperial Diviin. A new r?ztlhii~irof the imperial hG.stil.tczs, Islain Aga. was sent by the sultan with an order to settle the dispute once and for all. At tlic beginning of 164 1 the court delegate gathered at Aghios Philippos the re- presentatives of Chilandar and Xenophontos, and prosecuted the inquiry with the participation of the Holy Synaxis' representatives and the local bostiincz crew. The vakzfnime and other documeilts in favour of Chilandar were additionally endorsed by the Synaxis' representatives. As the repre- sentatives of Xenophontos - hegoumen YGsif; Afilziil, the son of Miloye; Serafio[n], the son of NikO; Mitiyo, the son of A4ihiiil; and Yosif, the son of B a ~ i y k o(?) - failed to introduce any new evidence, the verdict could be but identical with the previous. The result of the trial was the huccet issued on January 22lFebruary 1, 164 1. The z a h ~ of t Mount Athos and the repre- sentatives of Synaxis were ordered by the hostiincz-hap crgu from Istanbul to remove the arbitrary markers placed by Xenophontos monl<s, and to stake out the estates in keeping with the vakzfnZn7e and the latest verdict. An act of Xenophontos' written in Cyrillic letters coinplying with the ver- Jlct of 1641 has also been preserved, stamped with the Ottomail, Chilandar's and Xenophontos' seals, and signed by hegoumen Josif, p6p Mihail, pop (J)eftimije, p6p Misail, Serafim and the elder Teodosije. This document constitutc; an interesting supplement to the decision made by the &iicIi of Thessaloniki. The Xenophontos was given consent by Chilandar to cut down trees in its surrounding woods without asking per- mission, for fuel, for the vineyard or for the reparation of cells. Violators of the verdict were to pay a tremendous fine of 1,000 gtrriijes!'J 33 Chl.i\T, 21173; Fotic, S11eta Cora i The fer~iianissued prior to the trial has riot Hilanda~.,263. been preserved. It is referred to in CMAT, 211 76; FotiC, Svrta Cora i Hilandar, 263. 34 Chl.i\T, 21176, 111807; Diniitrijevic, 27.  ALEKSANDAR FOI-le The rest of Ottoman documents at Chilandar contain only passing refer- ence to certain metochia of Xenophontos in Komitissa, near Terissos and in Georgila. The closest to Mount Athos among these was a tisl~ingplace in Komitissa (Tiilyiin-i nziihi der t~rjurruf-ike~ijiin-iIksenGf) referred to in a copy from the imperial cadastre defter from April 4-1 3114-23, 1630. The same fishing place is referred to in the defter made after the confiscation and redemp- tion of monastic estates in 1568169 (Tiilyiin-i mZhi der mevii '-i Kiimiqi~te). It is confir~nedrecently that Xenophontos acquired one fishing place in 14'11 century. Although it was not named in the document, it was, most probably, the fishing place in Komitissa." Fishing places (T& o.raoti6ta) in the bay of Ierissos. near Provlaka, and especially in Komitissa, were renowned both in the Middle Ages and under Ottoman rule. They were held by almost all Athonite monasteries.36 As Komitissa belonged to the kuiii of Siderokavsia, itself within an imperial hii;;, so-called "Hii,~; of Ierissos", all the issues the monks had to settle were a concern of the emin or 'iimil, in charge of raising revenues from imperial mukZta 'a.37 A metochioil of Xenophontos situated about two kilometres to the south- west of Ierissos has been known since the beginning of the 14tI1century.jx It was obviously maintained even after the Ottoman conquest. 'There is no doubt it was redeemed after the 1568169 confiscation, being registered in the then composed imperial cadastral defter as: "Provlaka qiftlik near the village of Ierissos" (Ciftlik-i Provliikn der kurb-i karye-i Erisos). Being entered just below the metochion, a 16-doniim vineyard is likely to have also belonged to it.39 Plots of the metochion were registered on July 3, 1573 as bordering on the fields belonging tc the metochion of Chilandar in Koruna. That is the date Chilandar succeeded in recovering this estate after quite a while. Although the centre of the Chilandar's metochion was situ- ated to the northwest of Ierissos. the estate obviously was not an undivid- ed unit of land, as evidenced by microtoponyms along its boundary show- ing that many fields were scattered to the south and southwest of lerissos. One of 21 fields of Chilandar was "at the Xenoph place, and bounded by the road, a field of Xenoph. a waste ground and a pear tree" (... ve ikSenof' niim mevzi'de tnrik ile ve ikSenGf'tarlasile ve hiill yer ile ve amriid crgaqile 35 CMAT, 6/15; BBA, TT, 723, S . 1056; K. 37 CMAT, 12/37/30, 12/37/39, 12/37/50, Xpuaoxoi'Gqq, ' A V ~ K ~ Okyypa'po TO 716 r6 12/37/55 and elsewhere. ctaraaiStov)) q q poviiq S~vocpGvroq,read at the conference. 38 ,4ctes cle .Yinophon. 47-44; 1. n a x a - yy&koq,E i F j a s ~ qyta r 6 ipqptrtail 11~roxta 36 G. Ostrogorski, .,Komitisa i svetogorski ,qi : I E p , a a o ~ ,Byrn,7tina 13-2 manastiri", ZOornik i.u~toi~aVizan/oloSkog 1587-1 588, 1600. itistitrltn, XlIl ( 197 1 ) 223-226; BBA. TT, 723, s. 1048-1058. 39 BBA, TT, 723, s. 1056. XENoPHONToS IN THE mahdcd bir kzt 'a tarlamufi ...). Another field, entered just below the latter, OTTOMAN DOClJMENTS OF C I ~ ~ I I A N D A R was situated "near the olive grove of the monastery of Xei~ophand bound- ( 1 6 ~ ~ - 1c.) 7 - ~ ~ ~ ed by a drinking-fountain and the olive grove" (... ve Ik.~enofmnnZstzrznzfi zeytiinligi (curbinde qqme ile vc? zeyfiinlili ile nza!ldiid hir Iizl 'a tarlrrmufi ...)." What was called "the Xenoph place" was probably the centre of Xenophontos' metochion. This inetochion, just like t l ~ eadjacent one of Chilandar, belonged to an imperial hii.ss, called "HGss of Ierissos".'l The only medieval metochion in the Strymon region was situated in Ezova. No trace of it after the 14'11 century can be found.42 Until the discovery of the 1542 fennail of Chilandar, nothing ever poi~ltedto the existence under Ottoman rule of any Xenophontos' inetocl~ion in the Stryinon region. Unfortunately, the fennan offers rather scarce data: the inonks of Chilandar and Xenophontos lodged a complaint with the Imperial Court against some Muslims doing them serious damage by grazing cattle at their pastures in the village of Georgila. Those pastures were registered in the defter in the name of the monasteries with an annual lump sum of 1,000 akqes. The monks also accused the said persons of unlawfully cutting down trees in their woods. Of course, on June 15-24, 1 5 4 2 , the @di of Serres was ordered by the sultail to investigate the complaint and to prohibit further encroaclunent.43 Georgila, or in Ottoman sources more often referred to as Yiii,gila, was an old medieval village existent until World War 11, now abandoned. It was situated 5,5 kilometres to the east-northeast of Nigrita. The Georgila syno- ra traversed, at least in 1586, the large metochion of Chilandar, reached the Strymon and bordered on the synora of the villages Fetiik (west-north- westwards) and Iftiiliyu (east- southeastward^).^^ 40 CMAT, 1/50, 1/51, 1/52. Chilandar was chion Koruna see Fotic, Sveta Coi-a I not in continuous possession of its meto- Hilandar, 298-3 04. chion in Koruna. Its possession from before 41 CMAT, 1/46, 1/48, 1/50, 1/51, 1/52, 1/65, 1481 to 1542 has been ascertained. 21196, 12/1/18. Sometimes between 1542 and 1568169 it was sold only to be bought back in 1573. 42 Acte.r cje .k'iiiophoi7, 45-46. Besides, Chilandar daes not seem to have held it thro~rghout the l 7th century. The 43 CMAT, 712 1 (summary ill: BoS- monks re-entered it nnly in 1719. See kov-BojaniC, 180Ino. 30). CMAT, 712 (published I;-: V. BoSkov, 44 P[y~.age.s,15 1 1 52; Kriiger, 132,765; 1-1. .,Dokumenti Bajazita I 1 u Hilandaru (Sveta W. Lowry, "The Fifteenth C e n t u ~ yOttoman Cora)", Pi.i/ozi ZN ori;ental/irl fi1ologr;rt Ik'ilayet-i hlt.~i,diX.:its 1,ocation. Population X X X I (1 982) 152-1 53), 7/13 (published in: and Taxation", H~lilranist ar7cl Schol(~!. BoSkov-BojaniC, 201-204), 7/14 (summary Essays in Honor of':lndieos Tietre, ed. 1-1. in: ibidem, 176lno. 22), 7/16 (summary in: W . Lowry - D. Quataert, Istanbul - ihicieni. 177ino. 24), 611, 711 7 (summary in: Washington 1993. 23, 25; CMAT, 1188. ibidem, 178/no. 25), 1/23, 1/27, 1115. 1/50, Considering that the 1586 document on 115 1, 1/52, 21196, 21197, 12/1/22. The boundaries (CMAT, 1/88) reveals some sig- remains of a pirgos of Chilandar, Kpo6va~. nificant news about toponymy, these should can still be seen half a way between Ierissos be pointed out. l'he hiiccet seems to be the and Cape Klisouri (Povsage.~, 158; earliest reference to the village of f i t & naxayytho~,1586).On Chilandar's meto- (Phitoki), presently known as Anthi  'P9 I-E9 1 'elle8 f 8 9 'LS6 ~ 1 In4 'ZLE-89E '.~uPuD/!H ! 0.103 01aAS '?!lOd -LI"S] ' u y !J~+J z-py[13 .rul.da]u~2aly?z.d!1,( aas e l ! Z ~ o a ~u!) uo!q3olaru s,Jepuepqg u o al7, !li~ulzy 'u!Sl!qyo9 .L . N aas ehozg .aJojaq uaaq aheq lsnru I! q 3 ! q ~JO e ~ o u L s U! 9 sy!u!z,( aql u o . ~ ',,al!31i~nf" 'hoyzog 9p aql u ! q l ! ~' s o u ! ~ ~ u ( LJO) !y!~led 'sa3e[l!h Su!~noqq3!au OM^ a q l j o auo ruoy uo!lepos '(9~-sz (9861 ) A l X ' U ~ Z U ~ ~ Y-~lSOP!lS "/O+J -s!p Lq padolahap L I U ! U I J11~ ~'(8811 ' L V N ~ ','E LL !Jagaa J ! J ~ V L JO uo!l!sodruo3 JO tt9 ',,al!3n~n[" ' ~ o y s o g )985 1 LI!p a w q ales aql JO uo!le~ap!suo3aav ~(SSP[-PSPI) -uo3aJ 'aZe[l!~JO S ~ J U J S aql paluwS seM 'H 6 ~ JO 8 S ~ J J ~JOS eaJv aql JOJ ~als!Saa I! ZPS 1 aJojaq auqlaruos .arueu sl! Lq pal1e3 snsua3 ueruollo uv,. 'snu!sJn . p ~Lq aq 01 pasn no!snorunollnoy JO uo!y3olaru P ~ ~ VSEE-PEE P) '8L6 1 a ! d o y ~'!yshoue!ol~ 'V a S ~ e l aqL '( 1 [ z-0 L Z ' ~ 1 1 ~ 8U), u . m u a ~ d 1 ,j,y po .rarJapuas!dod ua.u;do Lq .pa ' ~ 'ya" -ru!s r! seM I! o I s I pue P ~ I PUaaMlaa '(0 1 z po~au~o!y.suopaya~u au a ~ a l ! ~ oaz ~ s !luau ! 'S66 1 SaUaylv ' ( ' s a[,jX la a,jX;) uo!8:7>117s -1ZYOP !YSJlY 18811 '(09 '0s '8P '9P 'EP 'ZP ap l a s?.r.racy ap sj1yu.l sa7 'elleg .g : 8 9 - ~ 9 'OP 'ZE 'SZ 'sou/l6 I-8L 1 '?!ue!og-hoysog (S66 1) AIXXX ~ l l l l ! I ~ ~o ! ~ ~ o / ~u.II u ~ :u! sa!Jeululns) 0 llL1Z 1 'ZZILIZ l 'EEIL -0pu.4 y!u.4oq~'.,!3!1~~~10ld!p ! O Y S ~ J S! [oys!!~ 'OEIL '6ZIL ' 1 l/L/Z I 'ePEIL 'E llL1Z 1 'L LIL '(P I -uez!h S o p d 'ey!Jled op aalald PO'' '?!AOLI![ '01 'sou/os 1 - 6 ~1 ',,!l~~au~iiyoa" '~oy~og -OA!Z .~q) ealald Jauuoj L I L I ! B S! ~ U ~t~li!l_nlJI :u! sa!Jelumns) 8/L '6l/L/Zl ' L v N 3 SP .(L i '8z 1 'SP ' ~ a S t y y i ~ z ~ 'sa8usiiud) .hralseuow s o l u o y d o u a ~j o lsed ayl j o a 8 p a l ~ o u ym o pualxa snyl pue ~$3123 Mau auros Ieai\al ileur y 3 ! y ~'s~uauru3ophrnlua:, Ir161 pue ,,,81 ayl lai\o 8uro8 apn13u! ileur y m a s a l m o u! dals lxaN .palsueqxa ilqalayl uaaq ai\ey ~ e p u e ~ ! j o a ~ y 3 . ayl 1 ~ u! p a ~ l a s a l dsa!mlua3 11111 puv q191 ayl j o smaurn3op u e u r o ~ oayl u! pau!eluo:, soluoqdouax uo elep aqJ 9p'sp~ag aqlol8u!o8 urolj uraql p a l u a ~ a l dpue syuoru aql pa!IInq 'alg uo ~ 1 1 B1. ~I ~ U ~ U$as I osIe lnq aX!lg#/~ . . ur. uorsuournoIlno2 j o ley$ pue e118.1oag ur uoqde.18ozjo alulsa ayl uo sol'?~~nq .raleM .r!ayl pazel8 61uo lou sy)?.r,nAa y i .sleap~oa s . 1 0 ~q 8 n o ~ y passed l aAeq pino:, noyde.180~pue .repue1!r~3j o v!y3olau1 aql luq 'lawurns leyl urs!uegjn.r qaql j o aua3s ayl aure3aq eale al!lua aqL '11 p!zeiiea joJ13jim ayl uo e ~ o z u! g paluas 'sy1z~l.z~ j o s~g,cu"anayl j o auros urolj 8u!pnau! uaaq ai\er[ 01 il~aygale Z ~ S I u! lnoqe pau!e~duro:, syuour ayl ley1 sur!IsnM ayl 'saureu qayl ilq 8u!8pnl sb-sazraSj o g ~ nayl j 01 paSuo1aq $1 1 pea1 le w o l j pue bauy!Z j o gzny ayl 01 a1y.M e I O ~pay3uuu uayl seM 11 'yjlSjSa~.z-~a&l!~arll 01 pa8uoIaq a8q1ri\ aql ilmlua:, ,[,s1 ayl j o j ~ e y .ralleI arIl UI .jyg&.~ayl 01 pas!e.r aq 01 panu!luo:, a8cll!,z ayl j o lerll apqM 's.?gij ~e!ladur! ayl 01 paq!nse aI!yh\ e l o j seh\ Jepuvpy3 j o rro!yr~olaur arll rrro.1~s a n u a ~ a ayl l ' 0 9 ~ 1a19~aqarrr!lauros '.mu!!] e u ! q l ! ~SEM 'u!y3olarrr s,.repuepq3 Su!pn13u! -e1!8loag j o a8e11!i\ aIoyM aql .pleMuo 28s 1 a.rojaq uro.rj il~luanbasqnspue ' 0 9 ~ 1ilpeau 01 ilmlua:, L ~ ~ s ~ -aql ~ ! uuro.r+~ I maii e ~ 2 3 , )00b ; ~ 01 palunoure soluoydouax jo sa!lg!qe!I paleur!lsa ayl ' Z ~ S1 U! p!ed runs 1elol ayl wold ' ~ 81spue bog 1 uaaMlaq $sea1le '.repue[!q~>j o aJnl -sed aql uo pasodur! seM &!~!qe!1-sa3,);n-oog v ' S U I ~ Sdurn1 [enuuv 6q ',puel ayl .JO lalseur,, ayl 01 suo!leS!~qo ~ e ! ~ u e uqayl g paIIgIuij sa!lalserrorrr yioq 'iC[sno!i\qo .la!sea leyMauros y3lcasal amluq 1apua.I pue ueur.raj aql u! elcp yo 114!3~e3s arIl ~ o du j ayeur lualxa LIE 01 ileru uo!y3olaur sb~eprre1!y~ arIl 01 il1~10 Ja.Ja.1 leyl sluarrrusop aqJ .(auole JepucI!y3 01 paSuolaq ai\vy lrlS!ur s p o o ~at[!) s p o o , ~j o .!11qeqo~d 'pue 'pazesS a[ue3 .raylo pue (l.ull~llh'z.? izS) so~vjjuiq.ralv.hi a.rarlM -alnlsed e j o pals!suo:, uo!r13olarrr arll l c ~ psalou oslc uvrrr.raj arlJ .asrro leyl lsn[ 01 pal.rajal s! 'iCl!u!3!i\ aleIparrrur! u! Su!aq st. uvur.raj ayl ur paqu3sap .soluoydouax j o amlsed ayl 'sluaurn3op u v r u o l ] ~ .?I.I.~:I UV~NVSY~IF/ uazop e ~ a ~ o ' ou i!pa.rlaja.r e1!8.1oag u! ~epue1!r13jo a-rnlscd a 8 . y c a y 1 u n AJIEKCAIIJJAP (DOTMI KCEHOQOHT Y OCMAHCKHM AOKYMEHTMMA MAHAC'TMPA XMJIAHAAPA (1 6-1 7. BEK) O C M ~ H CAK OKMYMeHTM CaqyBaHM y apXMBy MaHaCTMpa XMnaHnapa npy)Kajy M H O W T B O nOAaTaKa 0 APYrMM CBeTOrOPCKMM MaHaCTMpMMa. F p o j ~ o c r raKBMx nonaTaKa ~ a j ~ r e ~je~ fpiee3 y n ~ a~~ ~ u r e i l e u e ~ cnopeka ~ j c ~ ~ xOKO ~ e b aMnM qMTaBMY MeTOXa. O C M ~ H C AOKYMeHTMKM M 3 XklJIaH~apn ca nonauMMa o Kce~ocbo~ry. H,MX AeaAeceraK. Mory ce nonenwrl.1 y rpyne s e 3 a ~ 3a e cnop OKO MeroYa y ~ a n a ~ a p ~ceny j c ~YLI o EB ~ M OKO nocena y CB. a ~ n ~ KOA n yJ O B ~ H IY3 ~U ~ . HeKonMKo nocpeAtrMx nonararca rooopm M o H,MX, KC~HO@OHTOBMM nOCeAMMa y KOMMTMCM, KOA K o p y ~ eM Y CTPYMCKOM Ceny reoprwna. n o OCMaHCKOM O C B O ~ ~ & YKC~HO$OHT je 3aAp)KaO C B O ~OrPOMHM MeTOX Y ~ a n a ~ a p ~ceny j c ~CTOMMOH. o~ OA 16. seKa, raj Merox ce CMewra y cMHope cena yq E B (H~OXOPMOH. J ~ HKej). M Merox je nyro BpeMeHa 6 ~ y0pyKaMa Apyror BnacHMKa. OnrepeheHM AyroBwMa, MoHacM K C ~ H O ( ) Ocy H Ts a~n a r a n ~ ~ e r o xcse AOK ra KoHavHo HMCY npoAanM X m n a ~ n a p u ~1584. ~ a ronclHe. Xwna~napra je n p ) ~ a ocse no 1640. n p ~ ~ p e ~ 16 e 1311 ~ o 4.. ronwee. Merox je 6wo s a n o x e ~KOA j e ~ p e j c ~KpenMropa. ~x Aoc~opaucbeMMuhetbe ,qa je KC~HO$OHT TOKOM LIMTaBe OCMaHCKe RJlaCTM HenpeKMAHO Ap)KaO MeTOX y y ~ l E B 3aCHOBaHO ~ je Ha AOKYMeHTMMa M 3 18. BeKa. Ayra M YnOpHa cybe%Zl X ~ n a ~ n a pM aK C ~ H O $ O H TBeposarHo ~ cy Ha ~ p a j yoner BpaTMna osaj MeTox y PyKe MOHaXa K C ~ H O @ O H T ~ . O C T ~ JAOKyMeHTM M OAHOCe Ce Ha MeTOXe MnM AenOBe MeTOXa MaHaCTMpa K c ~ H o ( ~ ) o HnaubaK T~: y C T P ~ M C K O M ceny J o p r ~ n a l r e o p r ~ n(1542). a noKanMTeT, &MBa M MaCJlMkbaK y ~ J ~ M ~ MKHoMp y ~ eKOA J ~ ~ M C(1 572173) O C ~ M p ~ 6 o n o ~ ~y m KOMMTMCM ~e (1628). C~CBM je MM3BeCHO Aa y XMJIaH~apy,~ e b O yCMaHCKMM AOKYMeHTMMa M 3 18. H 19. BeKa ~ O C T O ~j W 0 W AOKyMeHaTa K O ~ M 61.1 MOrnM ~ U T MOA Ba)KHOCTM 38 M C T O P M ~ YK c e H o @ o ~y~TOM a nepwony.  ISSN 0584-9853 c P n c K A AKAAEMMJAHAYKA M YMETHOCTM XMJIAHAAPCKM OAEOP YPEAHMK BOJRCJlAB KOPAR