3 September, 2018

The First Post-Byzantine Period (15th-16th Centuries)

The First Post-Byzantine Period (15th-16th Centuries)

Kriton Chrysochoidis


The history of the Monastery in the post-Byzantine and modern periods should on no account be regarded as a finalised composition. It is no more than a first approach to and evaluation of a small part of the testimonies and documents. The massive Greek, Turkish and Romanian archive, which covers this period particularly, is almost entirely unexplored. The real history of Vatopaidi will not be written for some time to come.

In 1423/24, as is well-known, the Holy Mountain of Athos finally fell under Ottoman domination1. However, contacts between the Athonites and the Ottomans had already begun some decades earlier, when large areas of Macedonia in which the estates which were of vital importance for the survival of the monasteries chiefly lay were conquered. To begin with, the new civil authority showed itself favourably disposed towards the concerns of the monks as to the preservation of their autonomy, the recognition of their possession of their metochia*, and the safeguarding of the privileges which they had won.

In spite of this, the new situation could not be compared with the Christian rule which was now over. Taxes were imposed on the Holy Mountain itself and on the metochia which lay outside the Athos peninsula, large tracts of landed property were lost, and arbitrary behaviour on the part of the tax and other state officials now became a familiar phenomenon.

The effect of this new state of affairs on the Athonite monasteries was direct. The result was economic hardship, a reduction in the number of monks, and the slackening of the institutions of administration within the monasteries and among the Athonite community more generally.

These changes were not without their effect on the hitherto prosperous Monastery of Vatopaidi, which until the last years of the 16th century attempted to keep a balance between survival, conservation and adaptation, on the one hand, and development and exploitation of what it had retained, on the other, within the legal framework of the political system of the conqueror. It was to the achievement of these objectives that the monks of Vatopaidi devoted their energies.

At a very early stage, in 1426, they were forced to have recourse to the Porte and to the judicial authorities (kadis) in order to obtain the recognition of the very ownership of their estates, to safeguard the possession and exploitation of those whose ownership was contested, not only by Ottomans, but also by Christians, to obtain protection from the high-handedness of tax officials, and to obtain more favourable terms of taxation, particularly for its metochia beyond Mount Athos. A series of firmans of the Sultans Murat, Mehmet II, Bayiazet II, Selim I2 – to mention only the earliest, though the majority of the most important Ottoman documents of the Monastery constantly revert to these issues down to the end of Turkish rule – and decisions of kadis demonstrate the particular concern of the Monastery for these matters, and at the same time reveal the many problems which the monks had to face.

We do not know the extent of the loss of property of the Monastery, since a complete list of the metochia which it had in the last years of the Byzantine Empire is not yet available3. According to a vakufname* issued in 1569, after the general confiscation of all monastic estates and their redemption by the monks, the Monastery had, outside Athos, farm land and urban property in the following areas: Prosphori, Ammouliani, Aladiava (this must have included the Proavlakas area), Ormylia, Isvoro, Sidirokafsia, Aghios Phokas, the village of Pandoleon, Aghios Mamas, Thessaloniki, Un Kapan, Serres, Zavernikeia (Zichna region) and Moundos on Lemnos4. Although the document does not appear to record all Vatopaidi’s possessions – for example, there is no mention of the Spilaiotissa Monastery and the other monastic houses at Meleniko, which it demonstrably held as metochia in the year when the document was issued – and the names of important and profitable Byzantine metochia pass before us in the document, the losses must have been particularly heavy. We know that large and fertile areas were alienated from their Christian owners and ceded to spahis. In addition, many estates, though they were not confiscated and their owners did not change, nevertheless remained uncultivated5.

Our information on the Monastery’s burden of taxation is still sparse. We do not know what percentage of tax represented the Monastery’s share for property within Mount Athos of the total lump-sum taxation of the Holy Mountain6. It must, however, have been among the highest paid by the monasteries, since it never ceased to be one of the largest and most populous of the Athonite foundations. In the case of its possessions outside Mount Athos, it made concerted efforts to avoid taxation on the tithe system with the other corresponding taxes on produce, and to pay tax, rather, according to the more favourable lump-sum (maktu) system. This, anyway, was the aim of all the monasteries. The amount of the lump-sum taxation remained fixed for long periods, while at the same time it left little scope for the arbitrary exactions of the tax officials. It would seem that Vatopaidi was successful in this, at least in the case of fairly large and profitable metochi such as Proavlakas, Ormylia, Aghios Mamas, and Ammouliani7. This favourable arrangement was on occasion achieved by the intervention of Christian officials of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, in 1508, through the intervention of Radul, Prince of Wallachia, the Monastery paid a lump-sum tax of 697 aspra for a metochi near Thessaloniki8.

The resources of the Monastery in the 15th and almost to the end of the 16th centuries were derived, apart from donations from Christian princes, chiefly from the exploitation of the area belonging to it on the Holy Mountain itself and of the metochia9. Apart from the revenues coming from farm land, fish-farming was practised, and there were the saltpans of Ammouliani, while on the same island the raising of sheep and goats seems to have been more favoured, since frequent visits by pirates precluded agricultural production10. At that period the Monastery also had urban property. In Thessaloniki it bought, in 1547, a house which belonged to the metropolitical see for 5,000 aspra11 and possessed an important complex of workshops, the value of which was assessed in 1558 at approximately 1,000 gold florins. Nevertheless, the possession of the latter did not prove profitable, particularly at that period12. We do not know the extent of the alms missions which all the monasteries of the Greek East engaged in, in order to meet imperative regular needs and economic eme-rgencies. It seems, however, that the renown of this old and aristocrat foundation was such as to prompt even non-Orthodox leaders to be fervent advocates of support for it. In 1456, Alfonso, King of Spain, issued a document requiring that assistance should be given to monks of the Monastery travelling within his territory in search of economic aid. Moreover, a penalty of 10,000 florins was fixed for those who did not heed this order13. In 1512, William, Marquis of Monferrato, warmly urged Christians to come to the aid of the Monastery14. In the Orthodox Greek world alms missions must have already been undertaken by the mid 16th century, since in 1551/52 there is evidence of the presence in the Ioannina area of the “traveller” Prohegumenos Martyrios15.

However, in spite of economic hardship and the shrinkage of its property, the Monastery, as compared with the other Athonite monasteries and in the context of the difficuties of the new political system, continued to be a large and important monastic foundation with manifest prestige. This fact can be seen from the flow of dedications of monasteries to it as metochia and from the direct dependence upon it of a large number of senior prelates.

The annexation of monasteries as metochia on the part of their proprietors or re-founders had always as its motive the survival of the votive foundation in question. This means that they were convinced that Vatopaidi was an institution which could ensure their survival and development16.

In May of 1485, or a little earlier, the monk Maximos, whose secular name had been Manouil Chrysaphis, dedicated the monastic house of the Life-Giving Spring near Meleniko with its important movable and immovable property17. A similar gesture was made in 1558 by the Metropolitan of Zichna, Neophytos, who dedicated the Monastery of St Parasceva of Koumanitzis, which was in his diocese18.

Down to the beginning of the 17th century, and later, a considerable number of monasteries and churches came into the possession of Vatopaidi, though the documents in this connection which have survived nowhere mention the Monastery. The presence, however, of these documents in the archive leads to the conclusion that their proprietors, re-founders or their successors dedicated these foundations to the Monastery. This must have been the case with: a. the Church of St George of Zyrmi, which was in the diocese of the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, which in 1476 was ceded by the monk Makarios Glavas to the priest-monk Theodoulos Metaxas, together with its movable and immovable property;19 b. the monastic house (monydrion) of St Demetrius, which was “outside Kastro” in the province of Mideia, which, having been restored by the priest Georgios Poudaios, was recognised in 1589 by a letter in the form of a sigillium* of Patriarch Ieremias II as free. A few years later, in 1597, the Patriarch Theophanis Karykis counselled the Metropolitan of Mideia not to interfere in the affairs of the monydrion;20c. the Monastery of Christ the Saviour at Karitza in the province of Phanari, which was built by the priest-monk Porphyrios and subsequently recognised as stavropegic* by the Patriarch Raphael II in 160621.

Throughout the period from the mid 15th century and the whole of the 16th, and much later, an unusually large number of prelates seem to have had direct relations with the Monastery. Distinguished members of the Vatopaidi community occupied episcopal thrones, rising even to the office of Patriarch, while large numbers of bishops on their retirement chose Vatopaidi as their domicile.

In 1486, the Abbot of Vatopaidi Manassis was elected Metropolitan of Serres, and in 1491 ascended the patriarchal throne, taking the name of Maximos. After his retirement in 1497 he withdrew to the Monastery, where he died in 150222. In 1490, the Protosyncellus* of Vatopaidi Methodios was elected Metropolitan of Veria23. After his retirement, he must have returned to the Monastery before 1503, while he was still living on the Holy Mountain in 150624. The list of bishops who, either as former Vatopaidi monks, or as those who in their retirement chose the security of Vatopaidi for the rest of their lives is a long one. One could mention by way of indication the Metropolitan of Old Patras Kyrillos (elected in 1467)25, the former Bishop of Mithymna Malachias (1503), whom St Theophilos the Myrrhobletes* met during his short stay there26, the Metropolitan of Christianoupolis Mitrophanis (translated from the Bishopric of Soloi in 1568)27, the former Bishop of Monemvasia Ieremias (died in the Monastery in 1572 as the monk Ioannis)28 and the former Archbishop of Ochrid Parthenios (elected in 1607, having been Bishop of Avlonas)29, who was still living in the Monastery in 161430.

Special mention should be made of the long stay at Vatopaidi of the learned former Metropolitan of Thessaloniki Makarios. Makarios seems not to have belonged to the Vatopaidi community as a monk. In 1507 he was elected Metropolitan of Corinth31, whence he was translated to Thessaloniki. After his retirement, before 1527, he withdrew to Vatopaidi, where he died after 20 years spent as the monk Mikhail on 12 April 1546. The time he spent at the Monastery was marked by his gift to the library of a host of pricless manuscripts, some indication of this man’s learning32.

The ability of the Monastery to produce such prelates must be linked with its economic prosperity in the terms of the period. We know that the appointment of bishops, particularly during the Ottoman period, entailed considerable expense, which could be more easily met chiefly by monks coming from a rich monastery. To the same reason, which was a guarantee of a secure and quiet life in a troubled age, must be ascribed the influx of former church leaders wishing to spend the rest of their days at Vatopaidi. Moreover, the prestige which the Monastery had enjoyed since Byzantine times made it even more attractive to members of the ecclesiatical hierarchy.

Consequently, although in the Byzantine period Vatopaidi had been the monastery of the secular aristocracy of the Empire, in the post-Byzantine period it would seem that it became the monastery of the ecclesiastical aristocracy of the Orthodox East.

The relative prosperity and the feeling of security which the Monastery had been able to create can also be seen reflected in the continuation after the Ottoman conquest of the institution of adelphata*. According to an older Byzantine custom, distinguished laymen and clerics bought adelphata, had themselves enrolled as brothers in the Monastery and thus ensured the means of livelihood for life, on payment of the appropriate price33. For example, in 1432, the Kolitzi (Kolitsou) tower and six adelphata* were ceded for life to the Great Voivode Radoslav Michaljevic and his brother Mihal for 600 hyperpyra* and thirty libras of silver34. The same tower was taken over in 1503 by the former Protos Cosmas, who paid 5,000 aspra for an adelphaton35, while two years earlier, in 1501, the Prohegu menos Iov received a kelli* in the same area of Kolitsou and bought an adelphaton* for 2,000 aspra36.

In spite of its relative prosperity, there does not seem to have been any building activity of note at the Monastery in this period. The projects carried out were few in number and, as far as we can tell, relied more upon the benefactions of Danubian princes37. Around 1492-95, with a grant from the princes of Wallachia, the Chapel of St John the Baptist (clearly the Baptist’s tower) was repaired, while the fortified arsanas* was built in 1495/96 at the expense of Stephen, Prince of Wallachia38. Some more extensive undertakings, probably having to do with the catastrophic results of the great earthquake of 1511, which did damage on Athos, were due to the generosity of Neagoe Basarab, Prince of Wallachia (1512-1521). This prince, a firm friend of Mount Athos and the spiritual child of the Ecumenical Patriarch Niphon II, who was canonised in 1517, in 1515/16 roofed the katholikon with lead, rebuilt the Tower of the Blessed Virgin and the Chapel of the Holy Girdle, built the wine store, the kitchen, the buttery, “the flour store and the storehouse for wheat”, and the baths, and restored many other buildings39.

The support given by the princes and officials of the Romanian provinces to the Monastery in the 15th and 16th centuries does not seem yet to have extended to donations of metochia and land. Although generous, it was confined to gifts of money and the financing of work at the Monastery. Neagoe, the Prince of Wallachia mentioned above, famed for his lavish donations to many Athonite monasteries, ordered an annual subsidy to Vatopaidi of 9,000 aspra, which was increased to 10,000 (of which 1,000 were to be spent on the Monastery’s infirmary) from Vlad Vintila40. In 1552 the Prince of Wallachia handed over as emergency aid to the emissaries of the Monastery Sophronios and Neophytos 200 gold florins and a silver vessel, while Prince Alexander Lapusneanu, in 1560, dedicated to the Monastery a caravanserai in Thessaloniki which he had bought from a Turk for 65,000 aspra41.

We do not know how many monks were living at the Monastery before the Turkish conquest. However, from the late 15th century onwards the Monastery is mentioned as one of the four with the largest numbers, if not often as that with the most monks. In 1489, Isaïas of Chilandari put the number of monks at 33042. Although Isaïas gives relatively large numbers for all the monasteries, in the particular case of Vatopaidi he must be very near the truth. In an Ottoman tax ledger of 1520, the monks number 27143. In the middle of the century, the Abbot of Chilandari Païsios mentions 320 monks44, while in a Russian account of the Holy Mountain written by Athonite monks in 1560/61 there is evidence of 270 monks45. In 1584, the emissary of the Tsar Ivan to the Holy Mountain, Ivan Mes’enin, who undertook the distribution of alms in memory of his father, Ivan the Terrible, though giving the number of monks at the other monasteries, omitted Vatopaidi. He mentions only the presence of 80 monks at a nearby, unnamed, skete46. These data, even if not always absolutely accurate, give evidence of a stable population at that period, which leads to the conclusion that the Monastery did not have to cope with any particular emergencies or crises which would have brought about a drop in numbers. The figure of 80 monks as the population of the Monastery mentioned in the vakufname of 1569 cannot be accurate47. Moreover, similar documents of all the monasteries issued at approximately the same date give exceptionally small numbers which do not correspond to the true picture of the population of the Holy Mountain of which we have evidence.

Vatopaidi’s sacristy at this period does not seem to have been particularly poor, judging from the inventory of 159648. Although it is difficult to discover when the sacred objects came to the Monastery, we must suppose that most of the items recorded must have dated from earlier periods. Today, only a small number of objects date from the 16th century49. Nevertheless, the existence of many and, as it would seem, imposing vestments must be ascribed to the presence of many retired bishops who left them on their deaths to the Monastery.

There does not seem to have been a great deal of artistic activity in the second half of the 15th and in the 16th century. The presence, for example, of the Cretan icon painter Theophanis Strilizas and his pupils on the Holy Mountain does not seem to have ‘appealed to’ Vatopaidi. This must be regarded as only natural. The brilliant Palaeologue paintings still retained all their glory and vitality, making any further intervention seem a superfluous innovation.

Nevertheless, there was a distinct concern with literature, even if not linked with any particular great names. It was this, together with the reputation of the Monastery’s library, which led the famous scholar and saint Maximos the Greek (Mikhail Trivolis) to choose, around 1506, Vatopaidi as the monastery of his repentance50. During his ten years’ stay he must certainly have made the acquaintance of another Vatopaidi man of letters, the priest-monk Savvas, renowned and authoritative translator of church books into Slavonic, who was originally chosen rather than Maximos for the mission to Russia.

As to the internal functioning of the Monastery, in spite of the more general trend towards the idiorrhythmic way of life which prevailed as early as the 14th century and was precipitated by the Ottoman conquest, on 27 January 1449, the Monastery, by a decision of the monks themselves, ceased to be idiorrhythmic and became coenobitic. For the “greater confirmation and sureness of this holy and revered act”, the occasion was attended, as signatories of the relevant instrument, by the Abbot of Chilandari, Romanos, the Abbot of Zographou, Markos, the Abbot of the Russians, Chariton, the Abbot of Kostamonitou, Vasileios, the Dikaios of Aghiou Pavlou, Zacharias, and the Abbot of Vatopaidi, priest-monk Gennadios51, who should be identified with the priest-monk Gennadios whom we hear of in 1415 and later as Prohegumenos (1440-1442)52. The terms which are usually set out in documents dedicating a coenobium are not included in the decision. It stated only that four memorial services and a Liturgy after 40 days with kolyva* will be held for departed monks, whose names will be recorded in the Vravion (Book of Commemoration). We do not know how long this coenobitic arrangement, even in a loose form, lasted. It should be regarded as certain that although the Monastery remained formally a coenobium, in reality, as was the case with all the monasteries of the Holy Mountain, the idiorhythmic pattern imposed itself both on internal organisation and on the way of life of the monks.

A fresh attempt to reconfirm and reconstitute the coenobium took place in 1574 during the Patriarchate of Ieremias II and belonged within a more general endeavour of the Patriarchate to reform monastic life. This concerned not only Vatopaidi but also the Megiste Lavra and other, non-Athonite monasteries (e.g., Patmos, the Leimon Monastery on Lesvos). Although this movement is presented as the initiative of the monasteries, a leading role in it was played by the Patriarch of Alexandria Silvestros, who initiated the procedures on the spot53.

But this endeavour, in spite of the appalling excommunications which were threatened by the patriarchal epistles, must also have remained a dead letter. The fact that we have evidence of a host of Abbots before 1449 and down to the 17th century does not suggest the functioning of a coenobium. Here the office of Abbot was primarily a ritual one, it was bestowed on important figures who had performed noteworthy services for the Monastery (successful accomplishment of an alms mission, beneficial management of a metochi), lasted for only a short time, and was undertaken on many occasions more than once by the same person. In this sense, after the Ottoman conquest, the following are recorded as Abbots of Vatopaidi (though they do not complete the list): Theophanis (1426, 1432), Gennadios (1449), Theoliptos (1466/67), Manassis (1483, already mentioned as subsequent Metropolitan of Serres and Patriarch Maximos), Kyrillos (1496, 1503 and 1504/5), Symeon (1501, 1504), Neophytos (1506), Kallistos (1541), Sophronios (before 1550), Martyrios (1550, 1558), Maximos (1566/77), Neophytos (1569/70), Ephraim (1578), and in the 17th century Pachomios (1613, 1614), Grigorios (1619), Romanos (1644), and Maximos (1654)54.



  1. Schreiner, 1975, No. 63/4, p. 473, and 1977, pp. 422-423.
  2. Vatopaidi documents of the Sultans Bayazet II and Selim I were recently published by Salakides, 1995, though very few of these concern the Monastery directly.
  3. On the Monastery’s metochia, see the article by Ioakeim Papaggelos, The Metochia in Greece, etc.
  4. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, No. Ψ/Γ (the Greek translation of the document has been used with every reservation). On the confiscations of the monastic estates a little before 1519, see Fotic, 1994, pp. 33-54.
  5. By way of indication, in 1489 the metochi at Moudros on Lemnos is described as deserted, but it was not 30 years later in 1519 (Lowry, 1986, p. 251, note 55 and p. 253, note 59).
  6. The lump-sum tax which the Holy Mountain paid in 1519 was 27,000 aspra, while around 1520, it was 25,000 aspra (Lowry, 1981, pp. 128 and 129, note 43).
  7. See, for example, Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 2, Proavalkas: No. Φ/ΑΙ (1506), No. Φ/ΑΒ (1519). Ammouliani: No. Y1 (1481), No. Y6, 7 (1489), but not as to the sheep there. Square 2, Ormylia: No. M2 (1511). Aghios Mamas: No. N1 (1482) and 2 (1471). The dates of the Ottoman documents noted are recorded in Anthimos’s manuscript catalogue and are used with every reservation.
  8. Salakides, 1995, pp. 71-74 and 83-84.
  9. Contestations raised by other monasteries as to the possession of various regions within Mount Athos and beyond were resolved in favour of Vatopaidi (e.g., region of Stoumbos and Kelli of St Nicholas Houliaras by the Pantocrator Monastery [1507-1597, Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, No. Ω 24,32a,39a and 39b; cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 47, No. 15]; Rosomitis fish farm by the Monastery of Iveron [1528-1533, Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, No. Φ 15,16,17; cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 47, Nos 11 and 13]; Prosphori metochi by the Chilandari Monastery [1499, Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, Nos X 6,7,9; cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 46, No. 8]).
  10. The Monastery had a fish farm at Rosomitis (1528-1533, Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, Nos 15,16,17) and an octopus farm in the coastal area near Ormylia [1496, 1501, Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 2, Nos M 31,36]. For the saltpans of Ammouliani, see Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, Nos Y 24 and Y 26 (1515, 1597). In 1514 there were 5,000 sheep on the island, while the land remained uncultivated because of pirate raids (op. cit., No. Y 4). A little before 1587 there is evidence of another pirate raid (op. cit., No. Y 16).
  11. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 3, No. 81.
  12. The following documents deal with the troubles of the Monastery over the workshops, in which the Bishop of Diavleia and his heirs were involved: Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 3, Nos 51, 51a and 51b (1550-1576). Cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 48, Nos 16, 17.
  13. Regel, 1898, No. XVI, pp. 51-53.
  14. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 3, No. 109.
  15. Memo in the manuscript Vat. 249 (Arkadios – Eustratiadis, 1924, p. 54).
  16. Annexations-donations of monasteries as metochia of Athonite monasteries is a usual phenomenon more in the 17th and particularly in the 18th centuries and was due, inter alia, to the skill of the Athonites in managing and conserving the foundations and their ability to ensure a favourable ecclesiastical and political framework for their operation.
  17. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 2, No. Ξ 3 (13). The document is undated, the only indication of chronology being that it was issued in the month of May. It must date from before 1486, since in April of that year Patriarch Symeon issued a document (Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 2, No. Î 4; see Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 46, No. 5) by which the relations of the metochi with the Metropolitan of Meleniko were regulated (commemoration of his name and payment of an annual kanonikon of ten aspra).
  18. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 3, No. 88.
  19. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 3, No. 128, 2. The document is signed, inter alios by Neophytos, Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, whose name is unknown to the episcopal lists.
  20. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 5, No. 8. Cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 49, Nos 21 and 23. The monydrion must have been dedicated to Vatopaidi after 1597.
  21. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 5, No. 10. Cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 50, No. 24. The same applies to a monydrion in the Bishopric of Agathoupolis, which, restored by the local Bishop, Romanos, was recognised in 1702 by Patriarch Gavril III as a free coenobium (Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 5, No. 14. Cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 55, No. 44).
  22. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 5, No. 4. Cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 46, No. 6. A memo at the end of the document states: “† he fell asleep in the year 7011 in the month of December 19 of the indict 6 † in the great monastery of Vatopaidi and was buried honourably in the right part of the church:”.
  23. Gedeon, 1918, p. 230; Oudot, 1967, pp. 16-21, No. XXXIX. Cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 46, No. 7.
  24. He signs on a document of the Monastery concerning a matter relating to the former Protos Cosmas in 1503 (Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, No. Ω 280 and on a document of the Protos Mitrophanis in 1506 (Actes de Kutlumus, 1988, document No. 50).
  25. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 5, No. 3. Cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 46, No. 4.
  26. He signs on the same document as the former Bishop of Veria Methodios (Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, No. Ω 28). He is unknown to the list of bishops of the Metropolitical See of Mithymna.
  27. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 5, No. 7. Cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 48, No. 18.
  28. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 1888, pp. 122-123 (extract from the ‘Patria of the Vatopaidi Monastery’). On his tombstone there were also inscriptions concerning the burial of Metropolitan Makarios of Christianoupolis and Metropolitan Nektarios of Evripos (this information is contained in the manuscript ‘History of the Vatopaidi Monastery’ of Arkadios, p. 371).
  29. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 5, No. 45 (Parthenios is not known to the episcopal lists of the Archbishopric of Ochrid).
  30. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 5, Codex 1, f. 1.
  31. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 5, No. 6. Cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, pp. 46-47, No. 9 (the patriarchal sigillium of his election as Metropolitan of Corinth).
  32. Glavinas, 1973, pp. 167-176. On his manuscripts, see also the article by Erich Lamberz on the library of Vatopaidi and its manuscripts. Makarios is credited with the curious family name of Kovalov. This, however, must be the result of a misreading by all those who have published up to now the autograph note on manuscript No. 761, f. 2b (the so-called Psalter of Constantine Monomachus), which belonged to his library (Θησαυροί 1991, Vol. 4, pp. 292-293, with earlier bibliography). The note gives his grandfather as monk Savatios and not “Savatios Kovalov”. Furthermore, a note on the same manuscript, which gives the owner as Constantine Monomachus, is written in the hand of Makarios.
  33. On the Byzantine adelphata, see Zivojinovic, 1968, pp. 241-270; Zivojinovic, 1964, pp. 291-303; N. Oikonomidès, 1976, pp. 6-8.
  34. Laskaris, 1935-1936, No. 10, pp. 21-22 (offprint).
  35. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, Nos Ω 28 and Ω 29 (the former Protos Cosmas took the name of Kassianos). Square 5, No. 39.
  36. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, No. Ω 26.
  37. A letter of the Monastery, which must date from after 1527/28, informs the “lord Constantinos Kounoupis” that with the money of his donation building materials have been bought for the erection of a guesthouse. Since it is not sufficient for the completion of the work, the Monastery seeks further support (Patriarchal Library of Jerusalem, ms. 370, ff. 169-170). We do not know whether the building was finally erected. On the dating of the collection to which the document belongs, see Simonopetra, Athens 1991, pp. 265 and 381.
  38. Nasturel, 1986, pp. 89-90 and 99-100. For the arsanas, see also Xyngopoulos, 1970, pp. 106-108.
  39. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 1888, p. 122 (extract from the ‘Patria of the Vatopaidi Monastery’); Nasturel, 1986, pp. 90-93.
  40. Nasturel, 1986, pp. 94. At the end of the 16th century it is likely that the Monastery already had a small metochi in Wallachia (op. cit., p. 96).
  41. Nasturel, 1986., pp. 100-101. In consideration of an important donation in Thessaloniki, the Vatopaidi monks Maximos, Ecclesiarch, and Sophronios, Prohegoumenos*, brought to the Prince the skull of St John the Evangelist.
  42. Khitrovo, 1889, p. 263. In none of the documents quoted is it made clear whether the monks of the dependencies are included in the figures.
  43. Lowry, 1981, p. 123 (the most populous monastery; Megiste Lavra comes next with 200 monks).
  44. Khitrovo, 1889, p. 280.
  45. Leonid, 1882, p. 14.
  46. Muraviov, 1858, p. 143.
  47. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, No. Ψ/Γ.
  48. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, No. Ω 56.
  49. See the chapter by Anna Ballian on the silverware in the Monastery’s sacristy.
  50. Obolensky, 1988, pp. 201-219 (particularly on his stay on Athos, pp. 205-207). For the bibliography on Maximos, see Podalsky, 1988, pp. 89-97. For a full account of the work of Maximos, see in Ivanov, 1969 (on a little essay which he composed for the Vatopaidi Monastery, see p. 197, No. 328).
  51. Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, No. Ω 25. No patriarchal document has been preserved ratifying the decision of the monks. Such a document was probably not issued, given the ecclesiastical crisis which was going on in Constantinople at that time (Patriarch Grigorios III left Constantinople in 1450).
  52. PLP, No. 3647.
  53. Alexandros Lavriotis, 1892-1893, pp. 371-372 (incomplete publication of a sigillium of Ieremias from a copy). See also Archive of the Vatopaidi Monastery, Square 1, Nos Ω 35 and 36. Cf. Eustratiadis, 1930, p. 48, Nos 19 and 20 (with the erroneous date 1575). On the Megiste Lavra, see Lavriotis, 1892-1893, pp. 356,363-364; Kourilas, 1931, pp. 105-123; Meyer, 1894, pp. 215-218. On the Patmos Monastery, see Miklosich, 1890, pp. 266-275 and 277-281.
  54. The list of Abbots given by Theophilos, 1972, pp. 115-117, includes those who are encountered with the title of prohegoumenos, on the supposition that they actually served as Abbot.