Byzantine Vatopaidi: a monastery of the high Aristocracy

Nikolaos Oikonomidιs

The earliest evidence for the existence of a significant number of monks on the Holy Mountain comes from the middle of the 9th century. To begin with there were solitaries who lived in remote areas of the wild peninsula. At a later time they organised themselves into small groups, and already by 908 they had a central administration which was represented by the ‘first solitary’, that is, the ‘Protos’, as the elected leader of the Athonites was subsequently named*.

During this initial stage there were no large monasteries and attempts to introduce the coenobitic system were resisted by the hermits. The first large coenobium, the Megiste Lavra, was founded by St Athanasius the Athonite, and was officially recognised by the first typikon* (observance) of the Holy Mountain, the famous Tragus, which was signed by the Emperor John Tsimiskes in 972¹. In the years that followed other coenobia also made their appearance – among them the Monastery of Vatopaidi.

With regard to the foundation of the Monastery, two traditions exist². We shall not concern ourselves here with the second; it first appears in the 16th century and ascribes the Monastery’s foundation to Constantine the Great, its destruction to Julian the Apostate (361-363), and its restoration to Theodosius the Great (379-395). We shall confine ourselves to the older tradition, which, although it contains certain inaccuracies, comes very much closer to the historical truth. According to this tradition, three noblemen from Adrianople, Athanasius, Nicholas and Antony, came to the Holy Mountain while the Megiste Lavra was being built³ and, in obedience to the promptings of St Athanasius the Athonite, ‘re-founded’ Vatopaidi. It would appear that these three individuals were historical persons. When the Monastery is mentioned for the first time in 985, the name of the Abbot was indeed Nicholas⁴. One of his extremely active successors, named Athanasius, is known from evidence which dates from between 1020 and 1048.  In 1142 there is a reference to another Abbot of the name Antony⁵.

Conclusion: the Monastery was founded before 985, probably by Nicholas, who was from Adrianople and who, from the outset, was acquainted with St Athanasius of the Lavra. The fact that the signature of this Nicholas does not appear in the Tragus of Tsimiskes permits us to assume – and only to assume – that the Monastery had not been founded by 972⁶. We do not know whether there was, at an earlier time, another hermitage or even the ruins of ancient buildings on its site. It seems that the subsequent Abbots, Athanasius and Antony, gained considerable benefits for the Monastery, and for this reason they were also considered as founders.

The importance of a monastery on the Holy Mountain is made evident by its place in the hierarchy. From the beginning, the Megiste Lavra of St Athanasius obtained and retained a primacy among the Athonite foundations. Vatopaidi began humbly. In 985, Abbot Nicholas is the last to sign after all the other monastic delegates to the Protaton. Presumably, he represented a small establishment which had only recently appeared on the Holy Mountain.

The situation, however, changed fairly quickly, undoubtedly because Vatopaidi, where coenobitic monasticism was practised⁷, acquired a large number of monks and expanded rapidly. As early as 1010 it was reckoned along with the Megiste Lavra and the Monastery of Iveron as a foundation able to assimilate other smaller establishments – as one of the ‘great ones’ of the Athonite community⁸. And this increase in its power is reflected in its position in the monastic hierarchy. To begin with, the second founder, Athanasius (1020-1048) signs the documents of the Protaton low on the list. Later, around 1040, he approaches the summit of the Athonite hierarchy, immediately after the representatives of Lavra and Iveron⁹.

The creation of a humble but at the same time dynamic Vatopaidi Monastery was the work of the probable first founder, Nicholas. Its development and its progress to near the top of the Athonite hierarchy was the work of the second founder, Athanasius, also from Adrianople. When in 1045 the Emperor Constantine Monomachus issued the typikon of the Holy Mountain¹⁰, the prominent place of Vatopaidi had definitely been recognised. It was an establishment of large dimensions with a great number of monks and considerable prestige, as it would appear from the following stipulations in the typikon:

The concurring opinion of the Vatopaidi Abbot Athanasius as well as those of the Protos and the Abbots of the Lavra and Iveron is regarded as a necessity and is always noted independently, even in the taking of general regulative decisions, such as, for example, the expulsion of the beardless from the Holy Mountain. Furthermore, the Abbot of Vatopaidi had the right to go to Karyes with four servants, the same number as the Abbot of Iveron – whereas the Lavra’s Abbot had six, and all the other abbots only one each. Unlike any of the other abbots, the great Abbots of the Lavra, Vatopaidi and Iveron, as well as the Protos of the Mountain, had the right to be attended by one of their servants even in the meetings of the Holy Assembly (Hiera Synaxis).

While all the monasteries were forbidden to have large ships, an exception was made for a few large establishments. Some possessed ships because of imperial privilege (Lavra, Iveron); others because of particular needs. The Monastery of the Amalfitans, for example, had a definite need for a ship so that it could communicate with the Amalfitan community in Constantinople and with its homeland in Italy. Also, by an absolute exception, the Monastery of Vatopaidi had need of a ship, presumably because of its large population.

As a well-populated monastery, Vatopaidi also had need of a yoke of oxen so that the bread of the brotherhood could be prepared. At that time, the number of monks must have exceeded a hundred and so their monastery acquired the privilege of having a yoke, while the Lavra, which had 700 fathers, required four yokes for the same purpose. In spite of its seniority and its undoubted wealth, Iveron was most likely smaller, since there was no provision even for a yoke of oxen.

 In the typikon of Monomachus, the Abbot of Vatopaidi is ranked in the hierarchy before the Abbot of Iveron. For the first time, he occupies the position immediately after the Abbot of the Lavra – a position which he was to assume once again in the 14th century.

The rapidly acquired ascendancy of Vatopaidi can be explained by an examination of the origins of the founders and, evidently, of at least some of its earliest monks. Adrianople, the capital of the Byzantine theme (province) of Macedonia, was known as the place of origin and residence of the great aristocratic families of the Balkans. They farmed the fertile lands of the region and lived in relatively close proximity to Constantinople – a circumstance which allowed them to come and go relatively easily from their lands to the Queen of Cities, where they were assured of a large market for the sale of their agricultural produce. The families of Bryennius and Tornicius, who aspired to claim the imperial throne in the 11th century, had Adrianople as their headquarters. The same also held true of the Batatzedes, the Glabades, the Branades, and the Tarchaneiotes, who represented the cream of the aristocracy in the western part of the Empire and whose power would increase when the larger part of Asia Minor fell into the hands of the Turks after 1071¹¹. We can, therefore, connect the creation and the development of the Monastery of Vatopaidi with these circles in Adrianople. They constituted a stable base for the Monastery. We must not forget that the Byzantine landed aristocracy greatly prospered in the 10th century and successfully resisted the attempts of the emperors to impose limitations upon it by means of legislation. The position of the aristocracy was further reinforced in the 11th century when the imperial endeavours proved futile, and especially when its distinguished representatives, the Comneni, seized the throne in 1081. At such a point in history, it was inevitable that Vatopaidi should flourish as well. Thus, it began life as a monastery of noblemen, without having secured even one imperial donation to begin with. But very quickly it rose to great heights, just like the landowning aristocratic families of the time.

An imperial donation, nonetheless, was not slow to come – most probably during the abbacy of Athanasius himself. The Emperor Constantine Monomachus (1042-1055) granted Vatopaidi a solemnion, that is, an annual allowance in cash from the imperial treasury, a sum which Michael VI raised to 80 gold coins. The sum was considerable, but it certainly could not compare with the solemnia of the imperial monasteries, such as those of Iveron and the Lavra. During the same period theirs approached 600. Moreover, the great economic crisis which disrupted 11th-century Byzantium had begun. Isaac Comnenus (1057-1059), as part of a general policy of economies, cut back by half the allowance to Vatopaidi, but one of his successors added a further 32 gold coins, and thus Vatopaidi ended up by receiving one litra, that is, 72 gold coins, annually. Meanwhile, however, Byzantium’s currency had lost two-thirds of its value¹².

At the height of the economic crisis, which was accompanied by a total lack of confidence in the devalued currency, the state, in order to secure some real income, was forced to turn to imposing certain taxes in kind. Most important, land tax, which had formerly constituted the basis of the public economy, entirely lost its importance. At the same time, public finance revenues from extra-ordinary taxes and services, either demanded in kind or converted into pecuniary payments on arbitrary criteria, increased. The farming out of taxes to avaricious private citizens became a common practice.

Vatopaidi, like all the aristocrats of the 11th century, was impelled to seek (after some delay) the protection of the Emperor. In 1080 it secured from Nicephorus Botaniates exemption (excussia) from the extra-ordinary taxes on all of its properties located in Peritheorion, Chrysoupolis, Kassandra, and those close to Thessaloniki, together with the right to install on them 50 tax-exempt peasants (paroikoi). In 1082 the Abbot Sergius Tourkopoulos received more substantial privileges from Alexius Comnenus. He renounced the (devalued) annual solemnion and in its place secured total tax exemption on a number of the Monastery’s properties. In this way the tax farmers were denied the right to visit the land holdings of the Monastery, which thereby were protected from their excessive demands. In the same document, the Monastery’s right to pasture its animals on the Mountain and to maintain its two yoke of oxen for the making of bread – not one yoke, as in 1045: a circumstance which shows that the number of monks must in the meantime have increased significantly – ratified¹³.

From this period Vatopaidi can be seen to be laying claim to some extent to the leading position which was held by the Megiste Lavra. In the document above it is clearly recorded that the privileges relating to the animals would be maintained for as long as similar privileges were also held by the Lavra.

From other sources we learn that Vatopaidi also procured a special privilege, namely, that its Abbot be confirmed by royal command¹⁴. In other words, the Monastery had acquired special access to the palace. At the same time, it kept up its contacts with high society. In 1098, the kouropalatissa Maria Basilacaena left to Vatopaidi in her will two of her icons: a Deisis with silver ornamentation, and a Baptism, as well as several ecclesiastical books¹⁵. And the position of Vatopaidi in the hierarchy at Karyes tended to be establis   hed between two non-Greek monks: after the Georgian representative of Iveron and before the Italian representative of the Amalfitans.

The information that we have on Vatopaidi in the 12th century is very limited by virtue of the fact that the archives of that period which have survived from the entire Mountain are very few in number. We learn that the Monastery had a property at Provlakas (today’s Nea Roda) and that it came into conflict over the boundaries with the inhabitants of Hierissos¹⁶. We are informed of the names of several of its representatives at the Council in Karyes, where they steadily maintained the same hierarchical position, that is, after Iviron.

In the closing years of the century the Serbian monks Symeon and Sabbas first came to Vatopaidi and then restored the Monastery of Chilandari, securing by means of a chrysobull of Alexius III Angelus its independence from Vatopaidi¹⁷.

The Latin conquest of 1204-1205 disrupted life all over the Mountain. The Byzantines, however, soon returned to the area, which was annexed to the Empire of Nicaea. Vatopaidi enhanced its position even further, since it also acquired the title of ‘Imperial Monastery’, attested for the first time in 1287¹⁸. Presumably the acquisition of this title was related to the rise to power of the dynasty of the Palaeologues with Michael VIII, who is known to have depended on the support of the aristocracy. Consequently, it would have been natural for Vatopaidi to have sided with him.

In the same year, 1287, Joseph, the Abbot of Vatopaidi, adds to his signature that he considers his monastery “the first lavra of the Holy Mountain”. However, this description does not recur in the Byzantine era.

The ascription to the Monastery of the title of imperial was never questioned, and this style was constantly repeated. In 1301 the Emperor Andronicus II Palaeologus simply ranks Vatopaidi among the chief and illustrious monasteries of the Mountain¹⁹. Later, however, the Vatopaidinoi were gradually to overtake the Monastery of Iveron in the hierarchy. A first attempt is attested in 1322, but the precedence of Vatopaidi over Iveron becomes established only from 1362 onwards²⁰.

Tradition has it that in 1301 Vatopaidi had lost all its former prosperity, having suffered untold hardships at the hands of pirates of unknown identity, most probably Italians²¹. Furthermore, from another document we learn that Vatopaidi had suffered the forfeiture of a part of its holdings because the state needed money in order to drive out unspecified foreign conquerors from Macedonia. As compensation for these losses, Vatopaidi acquired as a dependency the Monastery of Aghioi Anargyroi* in the vicinity of Philippi²². It seems that these difficulties were probably insignificant and certainly of a temporary nature.

Andronicus II, who donated precious vessels to the Monastery and, it seems, defrayed in part the cost of its beautiful wall-paintings, also issued a chrysobull* in 1301 in which he ratified all Vatopaidi’s possessions: Vatopaidi held a metochi* in Thessaloniki and properties in the region of Serres and Strymon, as well as in Chalcidice (Zavernijkeia, Semelton, Voditsa, Chotolivos, Kali Ammos, Raphalion, Krimota, Aghios Mamas, Siderokafsia, Prosphorion, and many others). As one might have expected of an important 14th-century Athonite monastery, Vatopaidi, in spite of the difficulties that we have referred to, owned a great deal of landed property. And it continued to increase its land holdings without interruption by installing an apiary within the Mountain, claiming lands from the neighbouring monasteries of Verriotou and Esphigmenou, purchasing (?) a new property at Ermilia in Chalcidice (before 1307), renting the fields of Theodora Comnena Senacheirena near Xanthi (1308), and accepting as a gift donated by the nobleman Sarantinos the rich Monastery of St John the Baptist at Petra in Beroea (Veria) (1328-1329)²³. There were impressively large gifts of properties in different parts of Macedonia, especially in Serres and Zichna, as well as on Lemnos, donated by one of the wealthiest women of the period, herself the mother of the subsequent Emperor John Cantecuzenus, Theodora Angelina Cantecuzena, sometime between 1337 and 1341²⁴. Here again, Vatopaidi was seeking the support, not of the Emperor, but of the very high aristocracy, at the head of which was the Cantecuzenus family. It was from this family that other property and treasures owned by Vatopaidi would come, such as the outstanding illustrated manuscripts of the Emperor John VI himself, and the celebrated ‘Jasper’ which belonged to the Despot Manuel Cantecuzenus.

The aristocratic character of the Monastery is also made clear from the position it adopted on the subject of Hesychasm, which at that time divided Byzantine society. This mystical religious practice, which strove for the direct contact of the faithful with the Divine through prayer and ascetical exercises, had in the 14th century become accepted with fanatical fervour by certain monastic circles. However, it also aroused serious opposition in others, chiefly because of certain naive excesses indulged in by various zealots. The aristocrats recognised and supported the Hesychasts but held aloof from their extreme positions. The same was true of the Monastery of Vatopaidi. Many Hesychast leaders who were later recognised as saints, such as Germanus the Athonite (later Abbot of the Lavra), Gregory Palamas, Sabbas, and Macarius Macris, lived and worked miracles at Vatopaidi. But the Monastery did not welcome some of the excesses of the Hesychasts.

During the period of the great civil war, 1341-1347, the whole of Macedonia was overrun by Stefan Dusan’s Serbs. But more important, both Macedonia and Thrace were laid waste by the forays of the Turks who came as allies of the belligerents, chiefly of John Cantecuzenus, and who occupied themselves with looting and the enslavement of the local population, thereby preparing for the final conquest by the Ottomans over the ensuing thirty years. The Abbot of Vatopaidi, Gregory, an acknowledged spiritual figure of the time, who also took part in the synodical tribunal at trials of monks, attempted to reduce as far as possible the consequences of these disruptions. From John VI Cantecuzenus, who eventually emerged as victor of the civil war, he succeeded in obtaining as a gift the Constantinopolitan Monastery of Psychosostria, including its land holdings, to be used as a place of rest and retreat for the Vatopaidi monks who went there²⁵. From Stefan Dusan, who had conquered Macedonia, he succeeded in obtaining the ratification of the properties of Vatopaidi and a guarantee of their protection from the power of the zupans, that is, the Serbian governors of the region. Later, the successors of Dusan, the Tsar Voihna and the Despot John Uglesha, ratified the possession of the old properties and granted new ones. But there were also problems with the Serbs when they confiscated ecclesiastical properties to give to their soldiers²⁶.

But since the situation in Macedonia remained in a state of flux and everyone presumed that the Serbian occupation would one day end, Vatopaidi sought a simple measure of guarantee for the future: it succeeded in obtaining the ratification of all its old properties and privileges from John V Palaeologus in 1356²⁷. In actual fact, however, the Byzantine Emperor ratified the ownership of lands over which he had no effective control during that period.

 In this way the Monastery came to be seen as one of the few institutions that inspired a sense of security in that turbulent era. Increasingly, aristocrats can be seen to have granted or bequeathed to Vatopaidi a part of their fortune, seeking in return that they be accepted as monks, and thereby securing board, lodging and care in their old age. This kind of security was sought by the monk Arsenius Tzamblakon, the former Great Papias*, when in 1355 and 1356 he donated properties at Prinari in Thessaloniki and at the Gallikos. Several of these holdings had been abandoned because of the wars; others were located in Serb-occupied areas. But this problem did not affect the Monastery, which was able to receive revenue from them and which agreed to provide this nobleman-monk each year with four diakonies, that is, four times the amount of food to which an ordinary monk was entitled²⁸. This detail indicates that the principles of idiorrhythmic monasticism had also begun to penetrate the Monastery of Vatopaidi. These permitted a number of monks at least to have a separate apartment and to maintain their own servants.

Many other similar ministrations are known, such as those of the knight Michael Tzamblakon (1370)²⁹. As a further and more striking example we could mention the former Serbo-Byzantine ‘Emperor’ of Thessaly John Uros Palaeologus, who, having now lost his throne because of the Turks, withdrew in 1394 to the Mountain as the monk Ioasaph and puchased five adelphata from Vatopaidi³⁰.

The granting of adelphata, that is, an agreement between the monastery and an individual which secured for the latter, usually against a payment of 100 hyperpyra*, an annual allowance in kind (certain amounts of wheat, oil, wine, and pulses, which corresponded to a portion for a ‘brother’ – adelphos – of the Monastery) for the remainder of his life, now became normal policy, even when the recipient did not become a monk of the Monastery but continued to live as a layman³¹. It is clear that the Monastery, by virtue of the assurances which it succeeded in securing from the Byzantines, Serbs, and Ottoman Turks, enjoyed ‘credit’. Consequently it guaranteed a kind of ‘old age pension’ for anyone who had the means to purchase it in cash or with a piece of land. It received payment in cash and gave from the surplus of its agricultural produce. In order for this system to operate, the chief requirement was that the Monastery should always be reliable in meeting its obligations. And Vatopaidi was highly successful in this kind of transaction.

One other aspect of the economic role of the Monastery was that many rich men deposited with it large sums of money and valuable jewels for safekeeping. Others sought refuge in the Monastery as monks to protect themselves from the powerful of the day – and in these instances we see that those who were powerful did not dare to approach the Monastery itself, but attempted to exert pressure by harrassing its non-Athonite possessions. This is precisely what happened in the case of the Great Domesticus* of Serbia Raul, who took the Monastery’s animals by force from properties in Serres in order to extort the settlement of a monk’s debt³².

Thus with the numerous upheavals, there was an increase in the donations of the Emperors (tax relief in 1336 for the Monastery’s ship³³) and of pious nobles, who always showed a certain preference for Vatopaidi. The Great Stratopedarches* George Astras donated a property at Moudros on Lemnos before 1359, to which his heirs added others³⁴. In 1362 another Great Stratopedarches, Demetrius Tzamblakon, donated an estate at the Gallikos, about which he clearly states that he had suffered from the forays of the Triballi accursed of God, that is, the Serbs³⁵. The former Protostrator* Manasses Tarchaneiotes donated a small monastery in Thessaloniki³⁶, the Great Domesticus Alexius Lascaris Metochites granted land at Aghios Mamas, Chalcidice (1369)³⁷, the priest-monk Niphon donated the Church of St John the Evangelist with land and a vineyard on Lemnos (1373)³⁸, and the priest-monk Ignatius Chortatzes granted an immovable property in the vicinity of the Church of St Demetrius in Thessaloniki to the Monastery (1375)³⁹.

The increase in the Monastery’s property occurred in a turbulent era and its management presented problems. Frequently, it was considered advantageous to hand over the maintenance of the properties to a secular manager, especially churches which were in ruins⁴⁰. In case of the fields, such as at Moudros and Ermeleia, the danger of pirate attack obliged the Monastery to construct towers⁴¹. This was the period of the first Ottoman conquest in the Balkans and the times were difficult. After the Battle of Maritsa in 1371, Serbian rule in Macedonia collapsed. Manuel Palaeologus, who was then established in Thessaloniki, re-conquered the Serbian-held lands and in order to finance the defence of the country, confiscated half of the holdings of the monasteries of Mount Athos and of Thessaloniki and gave them to soldiers as pronoiai. But to no avail. In 1383 the Ottomans conquered Serres; in 1384 they began the blockade of Thessaloniki; and in 1387 they occupied it. The Holy Mountain, which had secured privileges from the Ottoman Sultans even before they came to the area⁴², passed smoothly under Ottoman rule and was able to retain its properties. Only in some exceptional cases were there some small incidents with monastic lands which suffered under the conquerors.

For the regions of Thessaloniki and the Holy Mountain, the first Turkish occupation ended after the crushing of the Ottomans at Ancyra by Tamerlane (1402) and with the treaty of 1403 between the Ottoman Prince Suleyman and Manuel II Palaeologus⁴³. The Holy Mountain remained under the jurisdiction of Constantinople⁴⁴; Thessaloniki acquired its own Emperor, John VII, and later its own Despot, Andronicus, the son of Manuel. The Monastery of Vatopaidi swung between the two semi-independent powers. Circumstances, however, continued to be difficult and finances were tight. There were still a few donations of land in Macedonia (and indeed in Lemnos, which remained in Byzantine hands). John VII divided the public revenues of Kassandra among six monasteries, among which was Vatopaidi; Manuel II and the Despot Andronicus provided a number of tax concessions. Other gifts in cash came from Serbia⁴⁵. However, everything was now on a smaller scale. In 1420 the situation in Byzantine Macedonia was difficult because of Turkish incursions, while in 1423 Thessaloniki was handed over to the Venetians in the hope that they would be in a position to defend it. The Holy Mountain passed once more under Turkish sovereignty. Thessaloniki was seized by the Turks in 1430.

The Monastery of Vatopaidi continued to hold a leading position in the monastic republic. It continued to receive donations from the nobility, particularly from Serbia, and to distribute adelphata. It maintained contacts with Constantinople. The Emperor borrowed from it those books  he could not find in the City and requested the attendance of a representative of the Monastery at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1437 -1439). But the life of the Monastery now continued under a new regime, that of Turkish rule as such, which was to last for almost five centuries.

Notes:

*The history of the Holy Mountain during the Middle Ages is now known to us thanks to the monumental work of Papachryssanthou (1992).

1. Actes du Protaton, 1975, no. 7.
2. The traditions relating to the foundation of the various monasteries of the Holy Mountain constitute a separate genre of literature which flourished in the monastic republic from the 16th century onwards. They are repeated in the various histories of Athos: in the ‘Patria of the Holy Mountain’ and in the ‘Partial Narration’, in the various pilgrim’s guides (proskynetaria), in the histories of Athos written in the 19th century by Porfyrij Uspenskij, Gedeon, Vlachos, Pistis, and others. The most complete record is to be found in the ῞Αγιον ῎Ορος of Gerasimos Smyrnakis, which was first published in Athens in 1903. The details given below are drawn from Smyrnakis.
3. At this point the clearly erroneous date of 938 is given.
4. Actes d’Iviron, 1985, No. 7, lines 5, 63.
5. Papachryssanthou, 1992, pp. 236-237.
6. The only Abbot Nicholas who is mentioned in the Tragus is the calligrapher and founder of the monydrion of the same name between the Monastery of Koutloumousiou and the Monastery of Docheiariou.
7. According to an unverified tradition, the same Athanasius the Athonite laid down the ‘conventions’ and the ‘regulations’ of the Monastery of Vatopaidi.
8. Actes de Xéropotamou, 1964, No. 2, line 22.
9. Actes d’Esphigménou, 1973, No. 3, line 36.
10. Actes du Protaton, 1975, No. 8.
11. On Adrianople as a centre for aristocratic families, see Cheynet, 1990, esp. p. 232.
12. Goudas, 1926, No. 3.
13. Goudas, 1926, Nos 2 and 3.
14. Actes de Xénophon, 1986, No. 1, line 68.
15. Actes d’Iviron, 1985, No. 47, line 31.
16. Actes d’Iviron, 1985, No. 50, line 31.
17. Actes de Chilandar, 1910, Nos. 3 and 4.
18. Actes de Kutlumus, 1945, No. 3, line 26.
19. Regel, 1898, No. 2.
20. Actes de Chilandar, 1910, No. 77, line 59. Actes de Kastamonitou, 1978, No. 5, line 37.
21. Regel, 1898, No. 2.
22. Goudas, 1926, No. 4.
23. Regel, 1898, No. 2. Dölger, 1948, No. 105. Actes de Saint Pantéléèmôn, 1982, appendice II. Actes d’Esphigménou, 1973, Nos 11, 12, 13. Actes de Docheiariou, 1984, No. 10, line 64. Arkadios, 1919, pp. 438-439. Theocharidis, 1962.
24. Mavrommatis, 1987, pp. 74-92.
25. Arkadios, 1937, pp. Á et seq, 954 et seq .
26. Soloviev – Mosin, 1936, No. 18. Arkadios, 1919, pp. 330-331. Theocharidis, 1962, No. 4. Mosin, 1939, p. 168.
27. Goudas, 1927, pp. 238-241.
28. Theocharidis, 1961-1963, pp. 133-138.
29. Theocharidis, 141 et seq.
30. Beis, 1909, pp. 271-273.
31. Actes de Docheiariou, 1984, p. 255.
32. Mosˇin, 1939, p. 155 et seq.
33. Regel, 1898, No. 7.
34. Actes de Dionysiou, 1968, p. 48. Goudas, 1927, pp. 246-248.
35. Theocharidis, 1961-1963, p. 138 f.
36. Goudas, 1927, pp. 244-245.
37. Regel, 1898, No. 8.
38. Arkadios, 1919, pp. 435-436.
39. Rokkos, 1920, pp. 633-635.
40. For example, Zerlentis, 1918, pp. 221-223. Rokkos, 1920, pp. 631-632. Theocharidis, 1961-1963, p. 150 et seq.
41. Arkadios, 1919, pp. 430-431. Actes de Docheiariou, 1948, p. 48.
42. Oikonomidès, 1976, pp. 1 -10.
43. Zachariadou, 1983, pp. 268-296.
44. Arkadios, 1919, p. 443 et seq.
45. For example, Arkadios, 1919, pp. 333-334; 335-339; 429-430; 433-434. Alexandros, 1922, pp. 86-87. Dölger, 1956, p. 100. Mosˇin, 1939, pp. 165-167. Actes de Xéropotamou, 1964, No. 28.