About the Fiscal Status of the Greek Orthodox Church in the 17th Century

Full text

ecently scholarship has showed a growing interest to the status of
the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate under Ottoman rule.
1
The worldwide
florescence of the Ottoman studies and especially the publication of
Ottoman sources have greatly contributed to this development.
2
The
berat documents have been meticulously analyzed and the researchers
revealed the legal and political framework in which the institution of
Patriarchate developed during the Ottoman period. In this article I try to
clarify the taxation of the Patriarchate in the 17th century in conjunction
with the taxation of Mount Athos. The analysis will reveal that similar
developments had happened to both religious foundations and that these
developments depended on the general financial situation of the Otto-
man state.
Phokion P. KOTZAGEORGIS 67
Dr. Phokion P. KOTZAGEORGIS, Dept. of Modern History, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, 54006 Thessaloniki, HELLAS.
e-mail∞: phokion@hist.auth.gr
1
See for example∞: H. INALCIK, “∞The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Under
the Ottomans∞”, Turcica 21-22 (1991) 407-36∞; P. K
ONORTAS, Othomanikes theoreseis gia
to oikoumeniko patriarcheio, 17os -arches 20ou ai. [Ottoman Attitudes for the Ecumeni-
cal Patriarchate, 17th c.-beginning 20th c.], Athens, 1998.
2
See∞: H. INALCIK, “∞Ottoman Archival Materials on Millets∞”, in∞: B. Braude-B. Lewis
(eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. The Functioning of a Plural Society,
t. 1, N. York, 1982, 437-49∞; E.A. Z
ACHARIADOU, Deka tourkika eggrapha gia te Megale
Ekklesia (1483-1567) [Ten Turkish Documents for the Great Church (1483-1567)],
Athens, 1996∞; and the older study of J. K
ABRDA, Le système fiscal de l’ Église orthodoxe
dans l’ Empire ottoman (d’ après les documents turcs), Brno, 1969.
R
ABOUT THE FISCAL STATUS OF
THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH IN
THE 17th CENTURY
Turcica, 40, 2008, p. 67-80. doi: 10.2143/TURC.40.0.2037135
© 2008 Turcica. Tous droits réservés.
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 67

According to the most recent view, the Patriarch was considered by
the Ottoman State as the owner of a tax farming unit (iltizam), which he
owned through a document of appointment, the berat. In order to keep
joining this kind of revenue, the Patriarch was obliged to pay some
taxes.
3
The taxation system of the Greek Orthodox Church has not been
sufficiently clarified yet. However, until the end of the 16th century the
following situation seems to prevail.
4
The Patriarch was appointed
(nasb) by the State after he had paid to the Public Treasury a tax called
pe≥ke≥ (in Greek sources peskesion, literaly meaning ‘a gift’). The
appointment was fulfilled through the promulgation of an imperial order
(ferman).
5
This tax was introduced, according to Greek sources, in ca
1465 and initially amounted to five hundred gold pieces (floria). The
State permission to the Patriarch to execute his duties as a public officer
was given by the promulgation of a berat. The berat was promulgated
after the Patriarch had promised to pay to the Treasury an annual tax
called haraç (in Greek sources charatzion).
6
According to Greek
sources, this tax was introduced in 1474 and initially amounted to two
thousands gold pieces. So, the Patriarch had to pay a dual taxation, one
tax annually and the other at the occasion of his appointment or the
enthronement of a new Sultan.
7
This tax system is similar (if not identi-
68
PHOKION P. KOTZAGEORGIS
3
For this view see especially∞: A.G. PAPADEMETRIOU, “∞Ottoman Tax Farming and the
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate∞: An Examination of State and Church in Ottoman Society
(15th-16th Century)∞”, unpublished PhD Diss., University of Princeton, 2001. The same
view is expressed by the above mentioned studies of Konortas and Inalcık.
4
The following picture is mainly depended on the Greek sources from the 16
th
cen-
tury, which are more specific.
5
This kind of document seems not to be preserved. However, in the Ieremias I’s berat
(1525) there is a sentence according to which, after the person had been appointed
through the promulgation of a ferman, he paid the “∞customary gift∞” (pe≥ke≥) and got the
berat∞: “∞darende-i men≥ur-i me≥hur (…) Yeremya hüzzane-i amireme sene (…) adet-i
pe≥ke≥ (…) teslim etdügi ecilden mazul olan Yaniko yerine patrık nasb edib sene-i (…)
bervech-i maktu hüzzane-i amireme (…) teslim eylemek ≥artı üzere bu berat saadet ayatı
virdüm∞” (Z
ACHARIADOU, Deka tourkika eggrapha, 177 [Ottoman text]). Moreover, the
below analyzed document for the Greek-Orthodox Metropolitans’ appointments points
out that a Metropolitan was appointed to his post through the promulgation of the ferman.
See below p. 71. This interpretation was first suggested by P. Konortas (P. K
ONORTAS,
Othomanikes theoreseis, 168-9).
6
In the Ottoman sources there is no mention of the term haraç regarding the taxes of
the Patriarch. The relevant term was maktu, which literally is not a name but a method of
payment of the tax. I use the Greek term, although I know that it has a vague meaning in
Greek.
7
The clarification of the fiscal status of the Patriarchate till the end of the 16th cen-
tury has greatly been enhanced by the following studies∞: P. K
ONORTAS, Othomanikes the-
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 68

cal) with the farming-out system (iltizam, malikâne) based on this “∞tax
duality∞”.
8
The primary sources (Greek chronicles and berats) stopped
mentioning these taxes side by side at the end of the 16th century. How-
ever, if one argues that the iltizam nature of the Patriarch office had
remained intact in the 17th century, we have to admit that the dual pay-
ment was continued on afterwards. Since the extant sources were not
helpful for solving this problem, the researchers have suggested different
hypotheses.
In the Greek sources of the 17th century the term haraç was not men-
tioned.
9
In the Ottoman texts we encounter only the pe≥ke≥. The last
term appeared in a register of the financial department named “∞Office of
the Bishopric Tax-Farmings∞” (piskopos mukataası kalemi). The cadastre
dated from 1052/1640-1, referred to all the subordinate administrative
units of the Patriarchate (metropolitanates, bishoprics etc.), and gave the
tax amounts they owed to the State. In this document, the Patriarch
was registered to pay twenty thousands piaster (kuru≥), which was the
equivalent of one hundred and five okkas meat per day for the imperial
gardeners’ corps (hassa-ı bostancıyan ocagı). Halil Inalcık, the editor of
the register, suggests that this last tax had substituted the pe≥ke≥, which
according to the tendency of the 17th century had been transformed from
an extraordinary tax (a “∞gift∞”) to an annual payment.
10
The same
author, discussing the tax «∞∞zarar-ı kassabiye referred to in the berats of
the 17th century, argues that it was a tax introduced in the late sixteenth
century to meet the enormous state expenditures covering the difference
of the fixed state and market prices of meat supplied for the divisions of
the standing army in the capital∞∞». He asserts that it was a miri tax (i.e.
for the State) and distinguished it from the annual tax, called miri rusum
or mal-ı miri or patrıklık. He concludes that these two taxes constitute,
ABOUT THE FISCAL STATUS OF THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH 69
oreseis, 167-71∞; E.A. ZACHARIADOU, Deka tourkika eggrapha, 79-89 and esp. 82-83,
where it is stated that according to the Greek sources, in the first decade after the capture
of Constantinople (1453-1464) the Patriarch did not pay any regular tax. For the amounts
of the two taxes till the end of 16th century see∞: P. K
ONORTAS, “∞He othomanike krise tou
telous tou 16ou aiona kai to Oikoumeniko Patriarcheio∞” [The Ottoman crisis of the end
of 16th century and the Ecumenical Patriarchate], Ta Istorika 2/3 (1985), 55-63.
8
From the rich bibliography on iltizam system see for example∞: F. MÜGE-GÖÇEK,
“∞Mültezim∞”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2
nd
edition, v. VII, Leiden, 1993, 550-51.
9
In fact, there are no Greek sources from that period, dealing with the tax system of
the Patriarchate.
10
H. INALCIK, “∞The Status∞”, 423. See the text of the register in H. INALCIK,
“∞Ottoman Archival Materials∞”, 441-44.
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 69

along with zitiye, the most important taxes the Patriarchate paid to the
Ottoman fisc.
11
In the most recent study on the status of the Patriarchate in the
Ottoman period a discussion of this change in the taxation is processed.
According to the author, Paraskevas Konortas, the change has to deal
with the establishment of the finance office related with the bishops’
tax farming (piskopos mukataası kalemi). This establishment might be
founded, according to Konortas, as a result of the numismatic reform of
the 1640/1. The author concludes∞: «∞∞It is highly probable, due to the
economic crisis which preceded the fiscal reform, or a little bit after the
monetary change happened, that the Ottoman administration reevalu-
ated the payments the Patriarch paid to the Porte, by transforming the
“∞haraç∞” into the payment for the provision of the bostancıs.∞∞»
12
A
synodical decree of 1654 speaks for the annual payment of the zarar-ı
kassabiye, while in the only known patriarchal berat of the 17th cen-
tury (for Dionysios III of 1073/1662), published only in Greek transla-
tion, pe≥ke≥ and zarar-ı kassabiye are referred to as the two main taxes
of the Patriarchate.
13
The amounts of these taxes, according to the
berat, were one million akçe for the first one, and two hundred ninety
thousands and three hundred akçe for the second. In the register of
piskopos mukataası kalemi of 1640/1, the amount for the meat tax was
twenty thousands kuru≥ or one million and six hundred thousands
70
PHOKION P. KOTZAGEORGIS
11
H. INALCIK, “∞The Status∞”, 424. For zitiye see∞: P. KONORTAS, “∞Les contributions
ecclésiastiques “∞Patriarchikè Zèteia∞” “∞Basilikon Charatzion∞”∞: Contribution à l’histoire
économique du Patriarcat œcuménique aux XV
e
et XVI
e
siècles∞”, in∞: Centre des
Recherches Neohelléniques/Fondation Nationale de la Recherches Scientifique (ed.),
Actes du II
e
colloque international d’histoire. Économies méditerranéennes, équilibres et
intercommunications (XIII
e
-XVI
e
siècles), III, Athens 1986, 217-255. The zitiye was not
paid to the state treasury. For the introduction of the zarar-ı kassabiye see also∞: S. F
ARO-
QHI, Towns and Townsmen of Ottoman Anatolia. Trade, Crafts and Food Production in
an Urban Setting, 1520-1650, Cambridge 1984, 233, 236, 238 and 241.
12
P. KONORTAS, Othomanikes Theoreseis, 171-73.
13
D.G. APOSTOLOPOULOS-P.D. MICHAELARIS, He Nomike Synagoge tou Dossitheou.
Mia pege kai ena tekmerio [Dossitheus’ Legal Collection. A Source and a Document],
Athens 1987, no. 174 and 718 [in Greek]∞; M. G
EDEON, Episema tourkika grammata
aphoronta ta ekklesiastika hemon dikaia [Official Turkish Letters Regarding our Ecclesi-
astical Rights], Athens 1910, 9-10. The original of the berat seems to be housed in the
Lavra Monastery of Athos. Another berat of the 17th century is known only through a
French summary. A Greek translation can be found in the M. Gedeon’s book, Op.cit., 98-
99. In this text it only the pe≥ke≥ is mentioned, which was amounted to 9,000 “∞aspers∞”.
See the discussion on this tax by S. P
ETMEZAS, “∞L’organisation ecclésiastique sous les
Ottomans∞”, in∞: P. Odorico et al. (ed.), Conseils et mémoires de Synadinos, prêtre de Ser-
rès en Macédoine (XVII
e
siècle), Paris 1996, 510 n. 48.
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 70

akçe.
14
What is the relation between these amounts∞? Was the pe≥ke≥ or
the haraç substituted by the zarar-ı kassabiye∞? When and why was the
new system introduced∞? Was the dual tax system, always in existence
by the second half of 15th century, abolished∞?
A register of Metropolitans and Bishops’ appointments (tayin defteri)
sheds more light on this issue. According to the introductory title, the
register is dated from 1705 (1 Muharrem 1118/25.4.1705). It contains
the résumés of the appointment berats of some metropolitans and bish-
ops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as they were kept in the
finance department.
15
The formula used for each appointment is as fol-
lows∞: metrepolıdlık-ı kefere-i vilayet-i [the place] ve tevabıha derühde-i
[name of the new metropolitan] nam rahib becayı≥-ı [name of the former
metropolitan] nam rahib ki [the reason of the change] ba arz-ı patrık-ı
Istanbul ve ba ferman-ı ali elvakı fi [date]. Pe≥ke≥-i kadim [amount in
akçe]. The register was compiled after the enthronement of the Patriarch
Gabriel III in August, 1702.
16
The registrations are not ordered chrono-
logically and extended over a time span between 1052/1642 — 1117/
1706.
17
In the first page there is a note, on the fiscal status of the Patri-
archate at that period. The text underlines a change that occurred in the
26th of Cemaziyülevvel 1097/20.4.1686. By the promulgation of an
imperial rescript (hatt-ı hümayun), the Sultan abolished the payment of
the pe≥ke≥, which amounted to ten loads (yük), or one million akçe, and
substituted it with the equivalent of the value of one hundred okka meat
per day for the provisioning of the imperial gardeners corps.
18
The
ABOUT THE FISCAL STATUS OF THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH 71
14
I use the equivalent 1 kuru≥ = 80 akçe (≤. PAMUK, “∞Money in the Ottoman
Empire∞”, in∞: H. Inalcık-D. Quataert (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the
Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914, Cambridge 1995, 964 Table V∞:6).
15
Ba≥bakanlık Osmanlı Ar≥ivi (BOA), Maliyeden Müdevver (MAD), no. 19146.
According to the archive catalogue, it was a cadastre for the appointment of the Greek-
Orthodox clerics (Rum Rüesa-ı Ruhaniyesi Tayin Defteri). It is of much interest that in the
relevant text for the nomination of the Patriarch of that period, it is explicitly underlined that
the Patriarch can hold his post for a three-year period (Rumiyan Patrigi üç sene ber tahvil
olmak üzere). This is a direct connection of the Patriarch office with the iltizam system.
16
Patriarch Gabriel III was active in the office between the middle of August 1702
and 17.10.1707.
17
The archive catalogue says 1057-1117.
18
MAD 19146, p. 1∞: “∞tevcihiye canıb-ı miri virilügelen on yük akçe pi≥ke≥leri refi‘
ve mukabilesinde beher yevm yüzer vukıyya lahm bahası içün dahı ocak-ı mezbureye
beher ≥ehr 33,333 akçe lahm bahası virüb∞”. Since I have no other information, I suggest
that this change may be connected with the Austrian War of 1684-99, when the increas-
ing needs for provisions of the army caused the change of another annual tax into a sub-
stitute for the provisioning of a corps.
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 71

amount was fixed at four hundred thousands akçe. Apart from this tax,
the Patriarch had to pay the equivalent of one hundred and five okka
meat per day for the same corps bervech-i ocaklık. Taking into account
the prices of the meat for the first tax, we can assume that the second
amounted to four hundred and twenty thousands akçe.
The interesting thing one can point out in this change is that the new
arrangement concerns the transformation of a tax paid in cash into a tax,
again paid in cash but for the provisioning of an army corps. This sug-
gestion reminds us H. Inalcık’s view that the zarar-ı kassabiye was
introduced at the end of 16th century in order to meet the extraordinary
expenditures of the army and the problem in provisioning it. I suggest
that the two changes had the same motive and they were separated from
each other by almost a century.
Judging from the above mentioned document the pe≥ke≥ had not been
abolished till 1686. So, it may be true that the haraç or maktu of the 16th
century had been transformed to zarar-ı kassabiye at the very end of the
16th or the beginning of the 17th century.
19
The surprising thing is that
the new arrangement prescribed a much lower tax for the Patriarchate∞:
four hundred thousands akçe instead of one million. Furthermore, one
may wonder what the twenty thousands kuru≥ of the 1641 register really
represented. If we keep in line with the dual tax-system of the 16th cen-
tury, these differences can not be sufficiently interpreted. It is difficult
for the two taxes of the former century to be connected with these of
the 17th.
Let us now turn to the taxation of Mount Athos peninsula, which has
some common elements with that of the Patriarchate and therefore we
can clarify the latter through the analysis of the former. The “∞monastic
society∞” of Athos, as it is called by the Orthodox people, had been con-
sistently and directly dependent on the Patriarchate during the Ottoman
period, without being under the jurisdiction of any metropolitan or
bishop.
20
This situation suggests a privileged hierarchical status inside
72
PHOKION P. KOTZAGEORGIS
19
This is the opinion of P. Konortas, but he relates the change with the monetary
reform of 1640/1 (P. K
ONORTAS, Othomanikes theoreseis, 171-74).
20
For the relations between the Patriarchate and the Athonite peninsula in the second
half of the 15
th
century see∞: D. APOSTOLOPOULOS, “∞To Aghion Oros sta sozomena patri-
archika eggrapha tis protes meta ten Alose periodou (1454-1500)∞” [Mount Athos in the
survived patriarchical documents of the period after the Conquest of Constantinople
(1454-1500)], in∞: Mount Athos in the 14
th
-16
th
centuries, Athens 1997, 89-98. In this arti-
cle, Apostolopoulos proves that the relations between the two Orthodox foundations were
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 72

the Patriarchate administrative apparatus. The Athonite peninsula had
gained a privileged tax status from the Ottoman state at least from the
first half of the 15th century (1430) — while a tradition of the granting
of some privileges went back to the reign of the sultan Orhan
21
— and
had noticed a change in this status probably in the same period with that
of the Patriarchate. Furthermore, Mount Athos is well documented
through its rich Ottoman archives, while this is not the case for Metro-
politanates and Bishoprics or even the Patriarchate proper.
According to the oldest known berat, issued by Murad II in 833/1430
for Athos, the monks had gained some privileges. It was forbidden to
any state official to enter the peninsula∞; the timar system was not
applied into the peninsula, while monks’ properties were recognized
under the status of vakıfs and mülks∞; therefore, the monks were neither
taxed for the products they produced inside peninsula, nor paid poll-tax
or any other extraordinary taxes.
22
Instead of these privileges, the
monks paid only an annual lump sum (maktu‘), which at the end of the
15th century amounted to ten thousands akçe. Until the end of the 16th
century Mount Athos paid only this annual tax to the public treasury,
which in 976/1568 was increased to seventy thousands akçe, as a result
of the confiscation crisis.
23
In the next known official Ottoman docu-
ment — the above mentioned 1640/1 register — there is a double reg-
istration for Athos. First, the monks paid the annual tax, now of the
amount of two hundred thousands akçe. Second, they paid another two
ABOUT THE FISCAL STATUS OF THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH 73
re-established thirty years after the conquest of Istanbul that is in 1486. They were inter-
rupted in the aftermath of the Council of Florence in 1439.
21
For this legend see∞: E.A. ZACHARIADOU, “∞Some Remarks about Dedications to
Monasteries in the late 14th Century∞”, in∞: Mount Athos in the 14th-16th Centuries,
Athens 1997, 27-28.
22
Photograph and abstract of this important document see in∞: V. DEMETRIADES,
“∞Athonite Documents and the Ottoman Occupation∞”, in∞: Mount Athos in the 14th-16th
Centuries, Athens 1997, 47 and 56 (photo no. 5). For an analysis of the document see∞:
E. K
OLOVOS, “∞Negotiating for State Protection∞: Çiftlik-Holding by the Athonite Monas-
teries (Xeropotamou Monastery, Fifteenth-Sixteenth C.), in∞: C. Imber et al. (eds.), Fron-
tiers of Ottoman Studies∞: State, Province, and the West, London-N. York 2005, vol. II,
197-201.
23
The known documents relevant to the fiscal status of Mount Athos until the “∞Con-
fiscation Affair∞” of 1568 are as follows∞: G. S
ALAKIDES, Sultansurkunden des Athos-
klosters Vatopedi aus der Zeit Bayezid II. und Selim I., Thessaloniki 1995, 68-71 (doc. 9,
10) [Bayazid II’s reign]∞; H.W. L
OWRY, “∞A Note on the Population and Status of the
Athonite Monasteries under Ottoman Rule (ca 1520)∞”, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde
des Morgenlandes 73 (1981), 128-30 [Süleyman’s reign]∞; J.C. A
LEXANDER, “∞The Lord
Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away∞: Athos and the Confiscation Affair of 1568-1569∞”,
in∞: Mount Athos in the 14th-16th Centuries, Athens 1997, 149-200 [Selim II’s reign].
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 73

hundred thousands akçe as zarar-ı kassaban and kirpas baha (for food
and wearing) of the imperial gardeners.
24
This tax seems to remain sta-
ble until the census of the peninsula in 1178/1764, while the first one
had by then been increased and exceeded six hundred thousands akçe in
1764.
25
However, although the information on Athos taxation drawn
from the two censuses of 1568 and 1764 were adequate enough to clar-
ify the tax picture, this is not the case for the interval of the two cen-
turies.
In my view, the problem of when and why Athos paid a tax to the
imperial gardeners is connected with the presence of a deputy of
bostancı ba≥ı (the head of the imperial gardeners’ corps) in the Athonite
peninsula under the title of hasseki, also known in the Greek sources as
zabıt or aga. Since the prohibition of the entrance of Ottoman officials
into Mount Athos was respected by the State, the appearance of such a
person on the peninsula was well observed and witnessed in the sources,
Greek and Ottoman. This official, apart from being the fiscal deputy of
the bostancı ba≥ı on Athos, was a kind of judicial authority of the
monastic community. It seems that he substituted the head of the tradi-
tional Athonite authority of protos. Three Ottoman and one Greek docu-
ments of between 1613-15 referred to an Ottoman official of the imper-
ial gardeners stationed on Athos. It seems highly probable that this
person was first established in 1613.
26
I surmise that the presence of the
hasseki on Athos presupposed the development of a kind of relations
between the monks and the gardeners’ corps. Greek bibliography, albeit
74
PHOKION P. KOTZAGEORGIS
24
INALCıK, “∞Archival Materials∞”, 442. As it will be clarified below, the note that the
second tax was ordered in the year 1063/1652 does not refer to the appearance of the tax,
as Inalcık suggests, but to the amount of it.
25
For this census see∞: E. BALTA, “∞Landed Property of the Monasteries on the Athos
Peninsula and its Taxation in 1764∞”, in∞: A. Temimi (ed.), Mélanges Prof. M. Kiel,
Zaghouan 1999, 135-59.
26
The oldest known Ottoman document referring to an Ottoman official stationed on
Athos is from the Chilandar monastery and dated from 1613. For this and the other doc-
uments see∞: A. F
OTıC, Sveta Gora i Hilandar u osmanskom Carstvu, XV-XVII vek [Mount
Athos and Chilandar in the Ottoman Empire, 15th-17th c.], Belgrade 2000, 56∞;
E. K
OLOVOS, “∞Chorikoi kai monachoi sten othomanike Chalkidike kata tous 15o kai
16o ai. [Villagers and Monks in the Ottoman Chalkidike during the 15th-16th c.]∞”,
unpubl. PhD diss., Thessaloniki 2000, v. I, 147-48∞; Ph. K
OTZAGEORGIS, He athonike
mone tou Agiou Pavlou kata ten othomanike periodo [The Athonite Monastery of St. Paul
during the Ottoman Period], Thessaloniki 2002, 43-45. It is worth mentioning that the
institution of protos was observed at least until 1593, judging from the persons held this
post (D. P
APACHRYSSANTHOU, Ho athonikos monachismos. Arches kai organose [The
Athonite Monasticism. Origins and organization], Athens 1992, 400).
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 74

without mentioning sources, asserts that Mount Athos formed part of the
hass of bostancı ba≥ı during Süleyman’s reign (in 1525).
27
As Ottoman documents from a later period clearly stated, Athos was
incorporated in the revenues of the imperial gardeners corps under the
form of ocaklık.
28
This means that although the peninsula was incorpo-
rated into the then dominant tax system of iltizam via the ocaklık form,
it had a privileged status as deviation from the practice was observed∞:
the peninsula was not dependent on the three-year term of different tax-
farmers, but the administrator of the revenue remained always the same
and, in addition, he was not a single person but an institution.
29
This
means that his administration on Athos was theoretically permanent and
exceeded the life-time period, as for example was the case in the
malikâne system.
So, what was the taxation of Athos in 17th century∞? An important
ferman, still unpublished, can help us to clarify the situation.
30
It is an
imperial order (hatt-ı hümayun) in the form of “∞sebeb-i tahrir∞”, issued
by the sultan Mehmed III in 15 Zilhicce 1008/28.6.1600, at the request
of a certain monk, whose name is illegible. The text of the ferman is as
follows∞:
ABOUT THE FISCAL STATUS OF THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH 75
27
Modern Greek bibliography erroneously refers to the incorporation of Athos into
the revenues of gardeners’ chief in 1525, when sultan Süleyman founded the said corps.
See for example∞: K. V
LACHOS
, I hersonessos tou Agiou Orous Atho kai ai en afti monai
kai oi monachoi palai te kai nin [The Peninsula of Mount Athos and the monks and
monasteries on it, in past and present], Volos 1903 [repr. ed., Thessaloniki 2005], 90-
91.
28
The earliest Athonite Ottoman document known to me referring to the fiscal status
of the peninsula is dated from 1688. It is a certified copy of a ferman and is unpublished.
See∞: Archive of the monastery of St. Paul monastery’s Ottoman Archive (SPOA),
Dossier 6∞: Kriaritsi, no. DT/6 (I Cemaziyülevvel 1099/4-13.3.1688) [hereafter∞: SPOA, 6,
DT/6]. For other documents of the late 17th and 18th centuries see∞: Kolovos, “∞Chorikoi
kai monachoi∞”, v. III, nos 346 (1692/3), 372 (1711), 391 (1727), 422 (1758). The fact
that in fermans of 1584 and 1591 prohibiting the local officials’ oppression of Athonite
properties there is no mention of the tax responsibility on behalf of the imperial garden-
ers’ corps probably means that the peninsula had not by then incorporated into the ocaklık
system (SPOA, 6, DT/17, 19 Rebiyülevvel 992/20.3.1584∞; SPOA, 5a, K/3, selh-i ≤aban
999/22.6.1591).
29
For the term ocaklık see∞: H.GIBB-H. BOWEN, Islamic Society and the West, v. I/1,
London 1950, 48.
30
The ferman is held in the archive of the “∞Holy Community∞” (Hiera Koinoteta) of
Athos in Protaton, Karyes. A photograph of this document is published in∞: V. D
EMETRI-
ADES, “∞To othomaniko archeio [The Ottoman Archive]∞”, in∞: Hiera Koinotes Agiou
Orous (ed.), Thessavroi tou Protatou [Treasures of Protaton], Mount Athos 2000, I, 171
(photo 63). I study the document based on this photograph.
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 75

Sebeb-i tahrir-i tevki-i refi-i hümayun oldur ki
Ayanoroz keniseleri rahibleri her sal bervech-i maktu teslim-i hazine
edegeldikleri
bin yedi racibinin cizyeleri ki yetmi≥ bin akçedir meblag-ı merkum içün
be≥yüz doksan üç sikke-i filori ve yirmi altı nakd-ı akçeyı <Lvbn> nam
zimmi
i≥bu sene-i seman ve elf Zilhicce’nin yedinci gününde ordu-yı hümayu-
nunda
olan hazine-i amireye teslim etmegin temessük içün i≥bu hükm-i hümayu-
num
virildi ≥öyle bilesin alamet-i ≥erife itimad kılasın
tahriren fil-yevm el-hamis-i a≥er ≥ehr-i Zilhicce min ≥uhur sene-i seman
ve elf
bi yurd-ı [illegible].
The document states that the Athonite monks paid per year a lump
sump of seventy thousands akçe, which for that year was equivalent to
five hundred ninety three gold coins and twenty six akçe (a ratio of
1∞:118), instead of paying their per capita tax (cizye). The document was
issued because the monks paid the tax out. According to this document∞:
a) the annual lump sum of Athos was paid for the Treasury instead of the
capitation tax∞;
31
b) although the State was in the middle of a serious
financial crisis the amount remained stable from the assessment of 1568
till the end of the century∞; c) the amount of the per capita tax was paid
according to a low rate of seventy akçe.
32
Thus, the substitution of the
capitation tax was the only official and regular (annual) tax paid by the
monks to the State until 1600. In the last quarter of 16th century and in
contrast with the financial crisis of the State the tax remained stable at
the rate of seventy thousands akçe. By 1640/1 it was increased at the rate
of two hundred thousands (increase of 200%).
33
A second tax was intro-
duced in the first decade of the 17th century for the provisioning with
76
PHOKION P. KOTZAGEORGIS
31
In fact, this is what former Ottoman sources of 1497, 1499 and ca 1530 had stated
for the lump sum tax (S
ALAKIDES, Sultansurkunden, 82-83 [the document says haraç]∞;
L
OWRY, “∞A Note∞”, 128-29).
32
The fact that the document states that the whole amount corresponded to 1,007 per-
sons (the number probably was not real) implies that the assessment of the tax was at
70 akçe. For comparison reasons I underline that the tax rate of cizye in ca 1600 was at
200 akçe (L. D
ARLING, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy. Tax Collection and Finance
Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560-1660, Leiden-N. York-Köln 1996, 110
table 5).
33
Since there is no known census on the peninsula for the first half of 17th century,
the new tax assessment might be caused by the monetary reform of 1640/1 or by a previ-
ous one.
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 76

meat of the imperial gardeners. A record in a codex of the Athonite
Community, dated from the end of the 17th century (1696), is of inter-
est, because it lists some amounts for the tax payment before the reeval-
uation of the taxation system of peninsula in 1764.
34
The record enu-
merates the amounts the deputies of Athos in Istanbul had borrowed in
order to pay the tax of the peninsula (the charatzi). The whole amount
was three thousands five hundred thirty nine kuru≥ and eighty akçe. For
the gardeners’ corps they paid the standard two hundred thousands akçe,
now in kuru≥ (one thousand six hundred sixty six kuru≥ and eighty akçe∞:
one thousand five hundred as zarar-ı kassabiye and the remaining as kir-
pas bahası). The remaining one thousand eight hundred and seventy
three kuru≥ (or two hundred twenty four thousands and seven hundred
sixty akçe) should correspond to the lump sum tax of Athos for the State
Treasury. On the basis of this source one may argue that the tax situation
during the 17th century did not change. Roughly speaking four hundred
thousands akçe were the dual regular and official payment of the
Athonite monks to the State.
35
Two important elements may be drawn from the preceding analysis∞:
first, the relation of Athonite taxation with the gardeners’ corps∞; second,
the timing and the nature of the tax change on the peninsula. The rela-
tionship between Athos and the gardeners’ corps started at the same
period with the transformation of the patriarchal tax haraç or maktu into
a substitute for the provisioning of the same corps. The reason for this
change was the difficulties of the State, as Inalcık has pointed out. These
difficulties were also behind the change of the other “∞old∞” tax, that of
pe≥ke≥ at the end of 17th century. Thus, the growing needs of the State
for food supply caused the transformation of the Church taxes from in
cash to a monetary substitute of in kind payments.
36
The relation the
ABOUT THE FISCAL STATUS OF THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH 77
34
Ch. GASPARES, Archeion Protatou [Archive of Protaton], Athens 1991, 12 (no. 22).
Edition of the entry in∞: G. Alexandros L
AVRIOTES, “∞To Agion Oros meta ten othomanike
kataktese [Mount Athos after the Ottoman occupation]∞”, Epeteiris Etaireias Byzantinon
Spoudon 32 (1963), 222-23.
35
Next to them, there were a variety of extraordinary taxes, which, although at first
Athos was exempt, were paid by the monks at least from the end of the 16th century. See
the publication of such a ferman for the payment of tekalif-i ≥akka taxes by Athos in∞:
V. B
OSKOV, “∞Jedan ferman Mehmeda III u Hilandaru iz 1601. godine∞”, Istorijski Casopis
29-30 (1982-83), 181-87. Due to these taxes, I suppose, the Greek sources of the end of
16th and beginning of 17th centuries referred to a seven hundred thousands akçe debt of
the Athonite peninsula. For the relevant sources see∞: Ph. K
OTZAGEORGIS, He athonike
mone, 44 n 78.
36
The transformation of Church taxes into substitutes of in kind payment is observed
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 77

Patriarchate had established with the gardeners’ corps influenced the
incorporation of Mount Athos into these corps’ revenue unit.
37
The new
tax of Athonites was probably introduced as the contribution of Athos
on the tax of the Patriarchate. The cadastre of 1640/1 speaks for this
interpretation. If we admit that the incorporation of Athos into the gar-
deners’ fiscal revenue took place in ca 1610, we can surmise that the
transformation of patriarchal haraç/maktu into zarar-ı kassabiye hap-
pened earlier, in the first decade of the 17th century. In the case of
Mount Athos there was not a simple tax change, but the introduction of
a new tax. Sources from the 18th century (1764) showed that the penin-
sula paid a dual tax, the two hundred thousands akçe (then one thousand
six hundred sixty six kuru≥ and eighty akçe) for gardeners’ corps and six
hundred thirty three thousands and six hundred akçe (five thousands two
hundred seventy nine kuru≥ and forty akçe) for the imperial treasury
(ceb-i hümayun).
38
Although the tax for the gardeners’ food supply
remained stable in an inflatory century, the state tax was increased at
approximately 200% in a period of at least seventy years and was ten-
fold the rate of the 1568 assessment.
To sum up∞: the changes in the fiscal status of the Greek Orthodox
Church were directly influenced by changes in the State finances, as was
the case for the next chronologically important fiscal change with the
introduction of the malikâne system.
39
The Patriarchate changed one of
the two main taxes (i.e. the haraç/maktu) paid to the State at the begin-
ning of the 17th century. The second (i.e. pe≥ke≥) was changed in 1686.
Both of the taxes were transformed into amounts for the meat supply of
the imperial gardeners’ corps. Mount Athos was added a new tax at the
78
PHOKION P. KOTZAGEORGIS
in other monastic foundations in the same period as well. See for Patmos monastery∞:
N. V
ATIN, “∞Les Patmiotes, contribuables ottomans (XV
e
-XVII
e
siècles)∞”, Turcica 38
(2006), 145-46∞; and for Leimonos monastery in Lesbos island∞: S.N. L
AIOU, “∞Alliances
and Disputes in the Ottoman Periphery∞: The Monastery of Leimon (Mytilene) and its
Social Environment in the 17th Century∞”, in∞: XIV. Türk Tarih Kongresi, II/II, Ankara,
2005, 1394-95.
37
This suggestion stands in an opposite position from the generally expressed opinion
by some scholars that the monks were responsible for inviting and bringing an Ottoman
officer (the aga) in the peninsula, and thus to incorporate their peninsula into the hass of
bostancı-ba≥ı. My interpretation suggests that the initiative came from the State and in
connection with the situation in the Patriarchate.
38
BALTA, “∞Landed Property∞”, 141.
39
For the effect of this system in the fiscal status of the Patriarchate, see P. KONOR-
TAS, Othomanikes theoreseis, 175-76.
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 78

beginning of the 17th century, again for the meat supply of the imperial
gardeners’ corps. Since we are not adequately informed on both cases,
by comparing them I argue that there is a connection between them. The
situation implies that fiscal changes in the senior church (the Patriar-
chate) could affect the ‘inferior’ (Mount Athos). So to speak, the influ-
ence between them was not only in the spiritual level but also in the sec-
ular one. Thus, the spiritual and administrative hierarchy in the Greek
Orthodox Church was reflected in the taxation picture as well.
ABOUT THE FISCAL STATUS OF THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH 79
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 79

Phokion P. KOTZAGEORGIS, About the Fiscal Status of the Greek Orthodox
Church in the 17
th
Century
While this is not the case for the 16
th
and 18
th
centuries, the 17
th
century is
inadequately documented concerning the Greek Orthodox Church taxation sys-
tem. This century is however of a crucial importance for the study of the
changes that occurred in the taxation system between the 16
th
and the 18
th
cen-
turies. The present article analyses the 17
th
century extant sources and combines
them with those from the other centuries. From this study we can infer that a
change happened at the very end of the 16
th
century. Due to the financial crisis
and the growing need for military supplies, the State changed the annual tax of
the Patriarchate into a substitute amount for the meat supply of the imperial gar-
deners corps. At the same period, precisely at the beginning of the second
decade of the century, Mount Athos had to pay a similar tax in addition to the
annual maktu tax paid to the State since the 15
th
century. Thus the taxation of
the hierarchically subordinate establishment was increased by the higher estab-
lishment as well as the former’s contribution to the payment of the latter.
Phokion P. K
OTZAGEORGIS, Le statut fiscal de l’Église orthodoxe grecque au
XVII
e
siècle
Le XVII
e
siècle est insuffisamment documenté en ce qui concerne le système
d’imposition de l’Eglise orthodoxe grecque, alors que ce n’est pas le cas pour
les XVI
e
et XVIII
e
siècles. Ce siècle est pourtant d’une importance cruciale en
ce qui concerne l’étude des changements apparus dans le système d’imposition
entre XVI
e
et XVIII
e
siècles. Cet article analyse les sources du XVII
e
siècle qui
existent encore et les combine à celles des autres siècles. De cette étude nous
pouvons déduire qu’un changement est survenu à l’extrême fin du XVI
e
. En rai-
son de la crise financière et des demandes croissantes pour l’approvisionnement
de l’armée, l’Etat modifie la taxe annuelle du Patriarcat et la remplace par un
montant destiné à l’approvisionnement en viande du corps des jardiniers impé-
riaux. A la même période, précisément au début de la seconde décennie de ce
siècle, le Mont Athos dut payer une taxe similaire en supplément de la taxe
annuelle maktu, payée à l’Etat depuis le XV
e
. Ainsi la taxation de l’établisse-
ment hiérarchiquement subordonné fut augmentée par l’établissement supérieur,
ainsi que la contribution du premier au paiement du second.
80 PHOKION P. KOTZAGEORGIS
2015-09_Turcica40_05_Kotzageorgis 02-07-2009 09:10 Pagina 80