was accompanied and helped by archontes.41 Furthermore, in order to tap new sources of revenue, the patriarchs began to organise more extensive tours to territories situated outside the borders of the Ottoman Empire, but containing an Orthodox population, such as the Danubian principalities.42 The scattered pieces of information that have been preserved are unfortunately a quite inadequate guide to the exact sums received in taxes by the patriarch from the clergy. Furthermore, decisions taken by synod on these matters were often modified or rescinded, making it still more difficult to reach any conclusion with the remotest statistical validity.43 It is only certain that the sums collected varied from place to place depending on the prosperity of the different sees.

Apart from taxation - regular and extraordinary - the patriarchs had other sources of revenue. By the terms of his berat the patriarch was responsible for supervising the management of the financial affairs of metropolitans, bishops, abbots and even priests, including such general activities as the fairs organised on the feast day ofthe dedicatee ofthe local church. Also within the patriarch's remit came the properties administered by the clergy, such as vineyards, mills, fields and gardens, and even holy springs (hagiasmata). The monasteries still possessed fairly important landed estates, sometimes in full property (mulk), but more often only in usage (tasarruf). In normal circumstances, the manager of a monastery's properties was the abbot, who, however, came under the patriarch's direct jurisdiction. Metropolitan and episcopal sees as well as parish churches also possessed landed properties. It seems that the patriarch received a tithe from their agricultural production. He might also inherit the property of priests and monks who died without leaving heirs or a will.44 Another source of income for the patriarch and all clergymen came in the form of the presents which they received after the performance of a religious ceremony, such as a christening or a wedding.

Given that metropolitans and bishops relied for their revenue on the Greek Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire, they could only be established

41 Inalcik, 'The status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans', 428-31. Cf. Zachariadou, AsKaTovpKiKa'syypa<pa, 102-3.

42 P. Konortas, 'Les contributions ecclésiastiques: patriarchike zèteia et basilikon charatzion, Contribution a l'histoire économique du patriarcat oecuménique aux XVe et XVIe siècles', Actes du Ile Colloque international d'histoire, économies mediterranéennes: equilibres et intercommunications, XIIIe-XIXe siècles (Athens: Centre of Neohellenic Studies, 1986), III, 219-55.

43 D. G. Apostolopoulos, O "Ispos KccSil; toO narpiapxslou KavaTaVTivownôAstxis aro B'p.iao ToOIE'alccva: Tàp.ôvayvwaTaa'n'apâyiiaTa(Athens: Centre of Neohellenic Studies, 1992), 157-8, 161-2,167-8.

44 Zachariadou, AéKaTovpKiKà'éyypa<pa, 92-3, 105,172.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment