!

" #
$ % $&

' ()*)+) , - . / "

!" # $
" %&'(

The origin and formation of the Ottoman Empire, a complex historical process
which occurred over the course of the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries,
remains the vexata questio for generations of Ottomanists. Heath Lowry, whom we
honor in this volume (I, particularly, as an indebted Greek protégé for many
summers at the Başbakanlık Arşivi in Istanbul, and during my short stay in
Princeton), has masterfully contributed an inspiring book on the Nature of the Early
Ottoman State to this ongoing discussion. Among the many thought(provoking ideas
proposed by Lowry there, one finds the notion of an “Ottoman Syncretism”, a
syncretic, especially Islamo(Christian, Ottoman reality, “to which we must look for
an explanation of Ottoman success in embracing the multitude of peoples divided
by culture, language, religion, and history”. Lowry proposed this idea based on an
elaboration of the notion of the Ottoman policy of istimalet (actually proposed by
Halil İnalcık), “meeting halfway” in order to win over the conquered populations,
through concessions especially to Balkan Christians.1 This paper will focus on the
concessions granted by the Ottoman Sultans to the monks of Mount Athos, a
significant religious center for the Balkan Orthodox populations, during the
formative period of the Ottoman Empire; I will present especially the ferman issued
by Sultan Murad II in favor of the Athonite monks immediately after the conquest of
Salonica in 1430,2 as a rather clear example of the policy of istimalet. At the same

1
Heath W. Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State, New York 2003, p. 91(92 and 112; Halil Inalcik,
“The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans”, Turcica 21(23 (1991), p. 409.
2
The document was presented by Vassilis Demetriades, “Athonite Documents and the Ottoman
Occupation”, Mount Athos in the 14th 16th Centuries (=Athonika Symmeikta 4), Athens 1997, p. 47 (short
time, I will discuss how this “halfway” policy also contained the terms by which the
monks, as subjects of the Sultan, had negotiated or even redefined their role in the
emerging Ottoman society.

Salonica had surrendered to the advancing Ottoman forces in 1387, during

the reign of Murad I; already from 1383, after the conquest of Serres, the Ottomans
had conquered its hinterland. Salonica and its area, including Mount Athos, lived
under Ottoman rule until 1403, when, following the defeat of Bayezid I by Timur in
Ankara in 1402, the Byzantines recuperated the city, as well as Chalkidiki, and the
western bank of Strymon valley. Byzantine rule lasted until 1423, when, as a
consequence of the Ottoman blockade of Salonica’s hinterland, which had started
the previous year, Andronikos Palaiologos surrendered the city, this time to the
Venetians.3 Lastly, on 5 Receb 833/29 March 1430, Thursday, Salonica fell to the
army of Sultan Murad II, after a four(day siege. The city was pillaged by soldiers;
however, during the following days the Sultan expelled them and moved his camp
to the winter stream of the nearby Gallikos river. There, he issued a decree ordering
the reconstruction of the city; he also freed noble citizens and ordered them to
resettle in Salonica. Afterwards, the Sultan again advanced his camp to the Vardar
River. From there he sent messengers ordering all those citizens who had left the
city before the conquest to return and acquire their properties. He then sent one
section of his army to attack Jannina and moved elsewhere.4

commentary) and 56 (facsimile); cf. also Actes de Vatopédi III, forthcoming, App. XI, no. 3; and my
preliminary analysis in Elias Kolovos, “To Hagion Oros kai e sygkrotese tes Othomanikes
Autokratorias” [Mount Athos and the Formation of the Ottoman Empire] in Tonia Kioussopoulou
(ed.), 1453: The Fall of Constantinople and the Transition from the Medieval to the Early Modern Period,
Herakleio, Crete University Press, 2005, p. 107(119.
3
For a detailed account of the Byzantine, Ottoman and Venetian rule in Salonica between 1382 and
1430, see Nevra Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins: Politics and Society in the Late
Empire, Cambridge 2009, p. 41(115.
4
See, in detail, Speros Vryonis, Jr., “The Ottoman Conquest of Thessaloniki in 1430”, in Anthony
Bryer and Heath W. Lowry (eds), Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society;
Papers given at a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982, Birmingham – Washington 1986, 281(321,
based on the account (diegesis) of the conquest attributed to John Anagnostes. G. Tsaras (ed.), Ioannou
Anagnostou Diegeses peri tes teleutaias aloseos tes Thessalonikes, Salonica 1958; cf. now Paolo Odorico,
2
 Two weeks after the final conquest of Salonica, on 11 Receb 833/14 April
1430, the monks of Mount Athos presented themselves to Murad II and obtained
from the Sultan an important decree, transliterated and translated below. Since the
text of the Greek detailed account of the conquest of Salonica, the Diegesis, does not
provide the exact days of the movements of Murad II and our decree, as usual with
many early Ottoman documents,5 does not record a place of issuance, we cannot
know the exact location of the hearing: but it should have taken place in the camp
of the army outside Salonica, either near Gallikos or near the Vardar River.

The Athonites had already submitted to Murad II in 1423/24, after the

surrender of Salonica to the Venetians. According to a later short chronicle, their
capitulation had the consent of Andronikos Palaiologos, the last Byzantine despot of
Salonica. Thus, they traveled to Edirne to meet the Sultan.6 They should have
obtained a decree then; however, nothing has survived or has been discovered yet.
Thus, it makes perfect sense that, when the monks learned about the fall of Salonica
in March 29, 1430, they moved hastily to meet the Sultan again in order to confirm
their status.

The document Murad II issued in favor of the Athonite monks reads as follows:

[Tuğra:] Murad bin Mehemmed Han muzaffer daima

1) Sebeb i tahrir i tevki i hümayun ve bais i takrir i hükm i nafiz meymun lâzımü’n
nafız fi’l aktar
2) oldur ki: Darendegân i misal i şerif Ayanoros keşişleri ahkâm ve temessükât i
3) sabıka gösterdiler ki Kosiniça adlu köylerinün hasılınun yarusın
4) merhum babam tabe serahu zamanında tutageldüklerin ve gayr köylerde mezkurîn
5) keşişlerün vakıflarından ve atalarından kalmış mülklerinden her ne var ise
6) mutasarrıf olıgelmişler eyle olsa ben dahi ol hükmleri müsellem ve mukarrer

Thessalonique: Chroniques d’une ville prise / Jean Caminiates, Eustathe de Thessalonique, Jean Anagnostes,
Toulouse 2005.
5
Paul Wittek, “Zu einigen frühosmanischen Urkunden I(VIII”, La formation de l’Empire ottoman,
London 1982 (reprinted from the Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Wienna, 1957(1964,
vol. 53, p. 300(313, vol. 54, p. 240(255, vol. 55, p. 132(141, vol. 56, p. 267(284, vol. 57, p. 102(117, vol. 58,
p. 165(197, vol. 59, p. 201(223), p. 304. Cf. also on this issue Hans(Georg Majer, “Some Remarks on the
Document of Murad I from the Monastery of St Paul on Mount Athos (1386)”, Mount Athos in the 14th
16th Centuries (=Athonika Symmeikta 4), Athens 1997, p. 37(38.
6
Peter Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, Vol. I, Vienna 1975, p. 473.
3
7) tutub bu hükmi verdüm ki ber karar ı sabık mutasarrıf olalar ve dahi süvari
değerinden
8) ne kim evvelden muayyen olmış nesne var ise girü verdüm süvari değerinden
9) ve gayr avarız i divaniyeden ötürü müslimandan ve gâvurdan hiç aferide
10) mani ve muarriz olub üşendürmeye andan girü Ayanoros taallükâtından
11) ne kadar vakfları var ise benüm destürsüz ve bunlarun destürsüz
12) kimesne girmeye ve adamlarından artuk kimesne hükm etmeye ve denizden
13) kuruya gemileri buğday ve arpa ve gayr ne çıkaracak olur ise kimesne üşendürmeye
14) yine vakıt gerekse geleler bunda zikr olınan mülkleri ve yerleri ki evailden
15) tutagelmişlerdür girü ellerinde ola kendüler yiyecek tahılların alalar
16) artuk buğday almayalar ve dahi Kelemerye tevabinde ve Sutumurnozda
17) ve Kosinicada ne kadar köyleri ve bağları ve bağçeleri varsa
[the text continues upside down in the right margin:]
18) ve koyunları varsa muaf ve müsellem ola
19) merhum Gazi Hüdavendigâr dedem tabe serahu zamanında
20) nice olageldilerse girü eyle olalar ol vilayetlerün
21) kadı ve subaşıları bunlardan nesne aldurmayalar
22) ve haraciler güc etmeyeler ve dahi ulakdan suhradan
23) ve doğancıdan ve segbandan ve mecmu avarız i
24) divaniyeden emin olalar mutalaa kılanlar alamet i
25) şerife hükmin tahkik bilüb itimad kılalar
26) tahriren fi’l hadi aşer mine Receb i sene selas ve selasin ve semanmiye

[Imperial Tuğra of] Murad bin Mehemmed Han semper victor

The reason for the writing of this imperial document and the cause of the
recording of this auspiciously powerful order, which should be obeyed by all in
all regions, is the following:
The bearers of this illustrious edict (misal i şerif), the monks of Mount Athos,
have presented old orders and documents. According to them, in the time of my
late father [Mehmed I] – may his grave be pleasant to him – they used to hold
half of the revenue of the villages named Kosinitza; in other villages as well, the
aforementioned monks also used to enjoy endowments (vakıflar) and freehold
properties (mülkler) they had inherited from their fathers. This being so, I
admitted and confirmed these orders myself. I issued the following order: they
should enjoy [their endowments and freehold properties] according to the old
custom. Moreover, I returned [to them] whatever was earlier designated as the
price of the mounted soldiers (süvari değeri). As for the other extraordinary taxes

4
 (avarız i divaniye), no Muslim or infidel should contest or cause harassment [to
the monks]. Moreover, nobody should enter without my or their permission to
any of their endowments (vakıflar), which are dependent from Mount Athos. No
longer should their men have authority [over them]. Nobody should take the
wheat, the barley, and whatever their ships unload to the land from the sea. In
time of need, they should come again; their aforementioned freehold properties
and lands (mülkleri ve yerleri), which they used to enjoy customarily, should be
again in their hands. They [the monks] should take their produces to feed
themselves. No longer should they [the men] take the wheat [of the monks]. All
of their villages, vineyards, orchards, and sheep, in the area of Kalamaria, in
Strymon and Kosinitsa, are exempt (muaf ve müsellem). They should be as they
used to be in the time of my late grandfather Gazi Hüdavendigâr – may his grave
be pleasant to himself (. The kadıs and subaşıs of these districts (vilayet) should
take nothing from them. The collectors of the harac have no authority over
them. [Finally,] they should be exempted from courier service (ulak), forced
labor (suhra), falconer service (doğancı), hound keeping service (segban), and
from all extraordinary levies in labor (avarız i divaniye).
Those who read [this] should trust the order of the exalted monogram of the
Sultan. Written on the 11th [day] of Receb of the year 833.

" )) *
The decree of Murad II (1421(1451) ratifies earlier documents issued by his
ancestors (ahkâm ve temessükât i sabıka), which were presented to his court by the
Athonite monks. At least two documents had been presented to Murad II: one by his
late father (l. 4: merhum babam), Mehmed I (1413(1421), concerning, as explained
below, the properties and revenues of the Athonite monasteries on the mount
Kosinitsa (Pangaio, see below), in the area east of the Strymon river, which had
remained under Ottoman rule after 1403; and at least one by his “late grandfather
Gazi Hüdavendigâr” (l. 19: merhum Gazi Hüdavendigâr dedem). Murad II’s grandfather
was Bayezid I (1389(1402); however, as Phokion Kotzageorgis has recently noted, it
was Murad II’s great(grandfather, Murad I (1362(1389) who was known with the

5
epithet “Hüdavendigâr” (“lord”, or, rather, “emperor”).7 Contemporary references
from the tahrir of Arvanid (1431/32) refer to Murad I with this title without
mentioning his name (Hüdavendigâr emriyle, etc.), suggesting that it was already used
as an epithet for him.8 However, in the collection of Feridun’s documents of the
Sultan, the title was used also Bayezid I, and for later Sultans, to Selim I, as well.9 In
either case, these references to the older documents constitute an important source
for the status of the Mount Athos monasteries under the Ottomans before 1430 for
the early Ottoman history as well.
The first lines of the decree of Murad II (ll. 3(6) summarize a document
issued by his father, Mehmed I, concerning the properties and revenues of the
Athonite monasteries in the “villages (sic) named Kosinitsa” and in other,
presumably neighboring villages. The document of Mehmed I might have been
issued during the short siege of Salonica by this Sultan, in 1416.10 Another document
of Murad II from the archives of the Vatopedi monastery, dated 1426, orders the
beglerbeg of Rumeli, Yusuf, to maintain the status of Mount Athos, as was settled in
the reign of his father, Mehmed I, protecting the monasteries from visits by the
Ottoman kuls: this might be a reference to the same or a similar document issued in
1416.11

7
Phokion Kotzageorgis, “To Hagion Oros mesa apo ta othomanika eggrafa tou 15ou aiona” [Mount
Athos through the Ottoman Documents of the Fifteenth Century”, in To Hagion Oros ston 15o kai 16o
aiona [Mount Athos in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries], Conference Proceedings, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 2012, p. 75. For an explanation of the title, see Irène
Beldiceanu(Steinherr, Recherches sur les actes des règnes des Sultans Osman, Orkhan et Murad I, Munich
1967, p. 162(163.
8
Halil İnalcık, Hicrî 835 tarihli sûret i defter i sancak i Arvanid, Ankara 1954, p. 147 (index).
9
EI2, sv. “Khudāwendigār” (Cengiz Orhunlu); Feridun Bey, Mecmua ı Münşeatü’s Selatin, Istanbul
1274/75, p. 118, 124. Cf. also Wittek, “Zu einigen frühosmanischen Urkunden” II, p. 244(246.
10
Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire 1300 1481, Istanbul 1990, p. 87; On the siege see also Doukas, Decline
and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, An Annotated Translation of “Historia Turco(Byzantina” by
Harry J. Magoulias, Detroit 1975, p. 123(125; David Balfour, Politico Historical Works of Symeon
Archbishop of Thessalonica (1416/17 to 1429), Wien 1979, p. 129(131
11
Demetriades, “Athonite Documents”, p. 45 (commentary) and 54 (facsimile); Actes de Vatopédi III,
forthcoming, App. XI, no. 2.
6
 Kosinitsa was the name of the Mount Pangaio until the modern times. No
village, however, was named after the mountain; a monastery on the mountain, on
the other hand, was named after it (monastery of Kosinitsa). We would suggest that
the rather odd reference to the “villages named Kosinitsa” (Kosiniça adlu köyleri)
refers actually to the villages of the mountain Kosinitsa (Pangaio). Many Athonite
monasteries had properties from the Byzantine years on the northern slope of the
mountain.12 The document of Mehmed I, as ratified by his son, had recognized the
properties of the Athonite monks on Mount Kosinitsa and elsewhere as their
endowments (vakıfları) and freehold properties they had inherited by their fathers
(atalarından kalmış mülkleri).
The earliest known reference to monastic properties recognized as
endowments and freehold properties by the Ottomans survives in a Greek
translation of an original document of Murad I dated 1373 in favor of the monastery
of Prodromos, near Serres, which was conquered ten years later. In that document
Murad I had aknowledged the properties of the monks, their villages, estates (Gk.
ktemata: apparently mülks, or emlâk), vineyards, fields and their endowments (Gk.
vakoufia: vakıfs).13 The freehold properties of the monks, as explained in our decree
of 1430, were the properties the monks had inherited from their families; the
endowments should have been those properties that were donated to the
monastery by pious Christians, or by the monks themselves. In any case, it seems
that Mehmed I might have been ratifying in his turn an earlier document by Murad
I on the status of monastic properties.
Moreover, Mehmed I, according to the decree of his son, had also recognized
the right of the Athonite monasteries to collect half of the revenues from the

12
Actes de Lavra IV, p. 112(117; Actes de Vatopèdi I, p. 36; Actes de Chilandar I, p. 67(68; Actes d’Iviron II, p.
56(59; III, p. 43(44; IV, p. 12; see also Jacques Lefort, “Population and Landscape in Eastern Macedonia
during the Middle Ages: The Example of Radolibos” and Heath W. Lowry, “Changes in Fifteenth(
Century Ottoman Peasant Taxation: The Case Study of Radilovo (Radolibos)”, in Anthony Bryer and
Heath W. Lowry (eds), Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society; Papers given at a
Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982, Birmingham and Washington, D.C., 1986, p. 11(22 and 23(38
respectively.
13
See Elizabeth A. Zachariadou, “Early Ottoman Documents of the Prodromos Monastery”, Südost
Forschungen 28 (1969), p. 1(12.
7
villages specifically on Mount Kosinitsa (Pangaio). How should we explain this
reference to the “half of the revenues” of the villages? The arrangement reminds us
the well(known general confiscation of “half” the properties of the Athonites, of the
monasteries of Salonica, and of every other monastery in Macedonia, ordered by the
Byzantines after the battle of Marica (1371) and before the Ottoman conquest of
Serres, Chalkidiki, and Salonica in the 1380s.14 It could have been possible that
Murad I had recognized in the case of the monastic estates on Mount Kosinitsa
(Pangaio) the earlier confiscation by the Byzantines, letting the Athonite monks
retain half of their revenues. And Mehmed I had recognized their right to the half of
the revenues as well.
Following the summary and the confirmation of the document of Mehmed I,
Murad II presented his own order (l. 7: bu hükmi verdüm ki). It is not clear what
exactly he reproduced from the document of his “late grandfather Gazi
Hüdavendigâr”, who is mentioned further down, in the line 19 of his decree (l. 19:
merhum Gazi Hüdavendigâr dedem). I would suggest that despite the wording of the
decree and the use of the first person by Murad II, most of the provisions discussed
below on the status of Mount Athos were actually repeating earlier arrangements
made by Murad I, most probably after the conquest of Chalkidiki in 1384.

First of all, the victorious Sultan declared his respect for the property rights
of the Athonite monasteries, “according to the old order” (ber karar ı sabık mutasarrıf
olalar). Secondly, he suspended whatever had been designated earlier for “the price
of the mounted soldiers” (süvari değeri); he adds that no Muslim or infidel should
any longer harass the monks asking for “the price of the mounted soldiers” or other
extraordinary taxes (avarız i divaniye). I have found no other reference in the
Ottoman or the Byzantine sources to this “price of the mounted soldiers”, which at
any rate appears to have been one of the extraordinary taxes. I would suggest that
this was a tax equivalent to a service of providing light cavalry to the army. Another
suggestion might be that it was money, or provisions, asked for by bands of
mounted soldiers for their maintenance during their tours in the countryside. We

14
See in detail Kostis Smyrlis, “The State, the Land and Private Property: Confiscating Church and
Monastic Properties in the Palaiologan Period”, in D. Angelov (ed.), Church and Society in Late
Byzantium, Kalamazoo 2009, p. 66(79.
8
should note especially that according to our document the “price of the mounted
soldiers” and the extraordinary taxes were imposed not only by Muslims, but by
“infidels” as well. It appears that Murad II, or already Murad I, after a protest by the
Athonite monks, suspended this extraordinary tax.

Moreover, Murad II continued his order banning the entrance to the

Athonite properties, described in this case as endowments (vakıflar) in total, without
his or the monks’ permission. This was a very special privilege, granting protection
status to the Athonite properties, which had been suffering visits by the militia
during the successive wars of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth
century. We have already referred to another document of Murad II from 1426
granting protection to the Athonite monasteries from visits by kuls. Our document
makes also a reference to the “men” (adamları), most probably of the military
officials, who were not allowed any authority over the monastic properties.

The document of Murad II goes on to establish protection for the

communication between the Athonite properties and the monasteries on Mount
Athos. The Sultan orders that “nobody should take the wheat, the barley, and
whatever their ships unload to the land from the sea”, transported from their
freehold properties and lands in order to secure their maintenance. Communication
was vital for the monks, who were dependent for their survival on the products of
their dependencies in the countryside of Macedonia. It is well known that the
Athonite monasteries had ships for the transport of their products, and for trade as
well.

Finally, Murad II confirms in favor of properties of the Athonite monks,

including villages, vineyards, orchards, and sheep, in the areas of Kalamaria
(Chalkidiki), Strymon valley and Kosinitsa (Mount Pangaio) their general exemption
from the extraordinary taxes. This exemption was clearly dated from the reign of
“Gazi Hüdavendigâr”, i.e., Murad I, if we are to follow Phokion Kotzageorgis’
suggestion. The final lines of our document analyze in details the Athonite monk’s
exemption status from the extraordinary taxes: “The kadıs and subaşıs of these
districts (vilayet) should take nothing from them. The collectors of the harac have no
authority over them. [Finally,] they should be exempted from courier service (ulak),

9
forced labor (suhra), falconer service (doğancı), hound keeping service (segban), and
from all extraordinary levies in labor (avarız i divaniye).”15 Extraordinary tax(exempt
groups constituted a significant percentage of the population in the Ottoman
provinces, usually as a reward for services to the state. Clerics, and monks, however,
were also exempted.16

Concluding remarks: When the Athonite monks presented themselves to the

victorious Ottoman Sultan outside newly conquered Salonica, with the documents
of his ancestors in their hands, Murad II was eager to confirm their previous
protective status under Ottoman rule, dating back to the first years of the Ottoman
conquest of the area of Salonica. The Athonite properties in Chalkidiki, the Strymon
valley, and Mount Pangaio, remained in the hands of the monks, as freehold
properties and endowments, protected from visits by the military and exempted
from the extraordinary taxes, and their production was to be sent by sea without
any tax obligation to the monasteries on Mount Athos. These were important
concessions by the previous Ottoman Sultans, ratified by Murad II as well, aiming at
accommodating the religious institutions of the Christian subjects of the Sultans
into the new Ottoman order, a clear example of the policy of istimalet.

Starting probably in 1432/33, according to the testimony of Ioannis

Anagnostis,17 a series of Ottoman surveys (in 1445,18 1478,19 1498/99,20 1527,21 156822)

15
For the extraordinary taxes, see Wittek, “Zu einigen frühosmanischen Urkunden” II, p. 247(255;
John Chr. Alexander, Toward a History of Post Byzantine Greece: The Ottoman Kanunnames for the Greek
Lands, circa 1500 circa 1600, Athens 1985, p. 460(474.
16
See Linda T. Darling, Revenue Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the
Ottoman Empire, 1560 1660, Leiden and New York, 1996, p. 87(89; Halil İnalcık, “The Status of the Greek
Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans”, Turcica 21(23 (1991), p. 421 and ff.
17
E. A. Zachariadou, “Ottoman Documents from the Archives of Dionysiou (Mount Athos) 1495(1520”,
Südost Forschungen 30 (1971), p. 25.
18
N. B. Nedkov (eds), Fontes Turcici Historiae Bulgaricae, series XV XVI [=Turski izvori za Balgarskata
istorija, serija XV(XVI], II, Sofia 1966, p. 388(429.

19
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, TT 7 and MM 17748.
20
Todorov and Nedkov (eds), Fontes Turcici, II, p. 430(467.

21
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, TT 403.

10
began to register in detail the various properties of the Athonite monasteries in the
area of Salonica and Serres. A study of these registrations shows that the Athonites
were in many cases able to retain, and even expand their properties, which were,
however, incorporated into imperial or governors’ havass, military zeamets, timars,
as well as mülks and vakıfs that were distributed by the Ottoman Sultans.23 However,
the Athonite monks retained a general protective status for their properties.
According to a 1485 decree issued by Bayezid II that renewed earlier documents
granted by Murad II and Mehmed II, respectively, the Mount Athos monks
maintained the use (tasarruf) of their churches, houses, vineyards, mills and fields in
the provinces (nahiye) of Serres and Thessaloniki. No individual had the right to
confiscate their properties. In fact, the Ottoman officials were required to return
them to the monks. The officials were also compelled to uphold the Sultanic and
customary law (kanun ve adet). On their side, the monks were not allowed to
abandon their properties, but were required to register them in the registers and to
maintain their architectural form (i.e., not to expand them without permission).
The same decree for the Athonite monks was also renewed by the later sultans,
Selim I, Suleiman I and Selim II.24

Furthermore, the monks of Mount Athos also held documents regarding the
taxation of the Mount Athos Peninsula itself. As Heath Lowry has shown, the
sixteenth(century Ottoman survey registers indicate that the monasteries possessed

22
Tapu Kadastro Kuyud(ı Kadim, TK 186 and 553 and Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, TT 723 (copy).
23
E. Kolovos, “Katalipsi tou chorou kai monasteriake gaioktesia sten othomanike Chalkidike”
[Settlement Patterns and Monastic Land Properties in Ottoman Chalkidike (15th(16th c.], in To Hagion
Oros ston 15o kai 16o aiona [Mount Athos in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries], Conference
Proceedings, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 2012, p. 107(125.
24
See Demetriades, “Athonite Documents”, p. 50 and 67 (photograph). The document of 1485 has
been found, so far, as a prototype at the Monastery of Iviron and as a copy at Lavra. The decree was
renewed (tecdid) by Selim I (12 June 1512): the document has been published and commented on by G.
Salakides, Sultansurkunden des Athos klosters Vatopedi aus der Zeit Bayezid II und Selim I, Thessaloniki
1995, p. 74(77, 84(85. The same document was also renewed by Selim II: a copy, without a date, has
been traced in the archive of the Xeropotamou Monastery. This document mentions that the
documents issued by Selim I and Suleiman I are renewed. I have published this document in Kolovos,
“To Hagion Oros kai e sygkrotese tes Othomanikes Autokratorias”, p. 118.
11
earlier edicts that set out their payment of tax in the form of a flat sum (ber vech i
maktu), instead of delivering the poll tax and tithe for the crops produced on the
Mount Athos Peninsula (bedel i cizye ve ösr i hububat ve bağceha ve bustanha). Indeed,
in many instances, the monasteries agreed to their exemption from paying tithe
through paying a flat tax on their properties outside of Mount Athos as well. At the
same time, these documents also suggest that they were exempt altogether from
paying extraordinary taxes25.

The monks of Mount Athos were not passive subjects to the Ottoman Sultans.
They negotiated their protection from the Ottoman state so as to secure their
survival and, for the most part, their economic interests. The monasteries generally
formed important institutions of economic and social life in the Balkan provinces.
They were also ideological mediators of a message of allegiance to the Ottoman
rule.26

The construction of the Ottoman Empire was not merely a matter of conquest or
just a result of hard(won battles. In some aspects, it was a question of the successful
incorporation of Byzantine Orthodox Christian populations into the emerging
Ottoman society. The religious institutions, and especially the monasteries, played
an important part in this evolution, retaining at the same time their position within
the social hierarchy of the Orthodox populations. This incorporation was achieved
through the protection by the Ottomans of those individuals or institutions who
offered their political submission, and this in turn contributed to the formation of a
multidimensional, or, as Heath Lowry has suggested, a “syncretic” Ottoman reality.

25
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, TT(70, p. 9, TT(403, p. 1043 and TT(723, p. 181. H. W. Lowry, “A Note on
the Population and Status of the Athonite Monasteries under Ottoman Rule (Ca. 1520)”, Wiener
Zeitschrift fur Die Kunde Des Morgenlandes 73 (1981), p. 231(232 and 243(245. At the time of Bayezid II,
the flat tax of Mount Athos amounted to 10.000 akçes: see Salakides, Sultansurkunden, p. 81(83 and the
documents in pp. 68(71 (1497 and 1499, respectively). According to the document of 1499, after the
monks’ protest, the flat tax that reached 25.000 akçes and which was already registered, was
cancelled and the Athonite monks would again pay 10.000 akçes, as before.
26
See Alexander (Alexandropoulos), “Athos and the Confiscation Affair of 1568(1569”, p. 149(151.
12