Georgios Charizanis

Thrace is an area that played an important historical role during the Byzantine centuries (4th-15th), since it was the immediate surroundings of the capital Constantinople and its protective shield.
Thrace's wealth was based mostly on agriculture, on grain cultivation of the fertile plains created by its rivers, on its vineyards, gardens and orchards, on livestock and on the pastures that fed its numerous flocks, but also on other sources, such as fishing from the exploitation of its vivaria (fish farms), hunting and the production of salt in the salt marshes that existed in various places and locations. In addition, in Thrace, as in other regions of the Byzantine Empire, there were important cities with a developed urban economy, as well as ports, where significant commercial transactions, buying and selling of products and other goods took place.
The administrative system of Thrace, like that of the Byzantine Empire, over the centuries, did not remain unchanged, but changed and adapted to new developments and dangers that appeared from time to time. Thus, from the proto-Byzantine administration of Thrace with the six provinces (among which was the province of Thrace itself with headquarters in Philippopolis), in the middle Byzantine period the institution of themata was organized, especially for Thrace, and, in order to deal with the Bulgarian danger, the theme of Thrace was founded (7th century) and then other themes of the Thracian area were created.
In the ecclesiastical sector of Thrace, there was the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, but also important metropolises, such as Herakleia, Philippopolis, Traianopolis and Hadrianopolis with subordinated bishoprics.
Monasticism also developed in Thrace, as three important monastic centers were organized (Papikion, Ganos, and Paroria), two large priory cenobitic monasteries were founded (Petritziotissa or Petritzonitissa in 1083 and Kosmosoteira Bera in 1151/1152), as well as numerous other small and large monasteries.
Thrace had to be crossed by various enemies, who aimed at the capital Constantinople, its wealth and treasures. Goths (4th c.), Huns (5th c.), Avars and Slavs (6th-7th c.), Bulgarians (7th c.), later Cumans and Pechenegs (11th-12th c.) and in the later period Turks (14th -15th century) are the main enemies, who attacked and caused havoc, from time to time, in
Thrace, the capital Constantinople and in general the Byzantine Empire.
Therefore, the history of Thrace is very important during the Byzantine centuries, because it is intertwined with the history of the capital Constantinople and with the history of the Byzantine Empire itself, which from a certain point onwards, in the later period, was identified solely as Thrace and it was Thrace itself. As Thrace was narrowed and shrunk, the cordon around the capital Constantinople tightened, until its final fall by the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

The Region of the Saint Basileios (Langada) and Bolbi Lakes in Late Byzantine Times (11th-15th c.). The Athonite Metochia

The basin of the Saint Basileios (Langada) and Bolbi Lakes is flat, rich, fertile and productive. During the Byzantine era, it played an additional and secondary role in relation with the city of Thessaloniki. In fact, its role was substantial, because through the agricultural and other products that it produced, it contributed to the general economy of the Byzantine Empire, which principally was agricultural.
The present study deals with the metochia, the possessions and other properties which Athonite monasteries acquired in the region during the later Byzantine times (11th-15th c.). Land owners and possessors (pronoiarioi) in the basin of the Lakes in Byzantine times numbered both secular, middle and large landowners, the State and the Church, together
with monasteries and monasteries of Athos in particular. Drawing upon detailed research into documents from Athos, the study deals in chronological order with metochia and properties gradually acquired by some of the older
and larger monasteries of Athos in the basin of the Lakes. Such monasteries are the Great Lavra, the Vatopedi, the Iviron, the Esphigmenou and other monasteries of the Holy Mountain such as the Chilandar, the Zographou, the
Xenophon, the Xeropotamou and the Kutlumusiou.
Where it is possible to locate these metochia, we can do so with great accuracy. This can be done through consideration of documents from Athos. The study also examines matters of economic interest regarding the cultivation
of land, vineyards, herd, taxation and paroikoi connected with the monasteries of Athos and the Lake basin.

The foundation (establishment) and the beginning of operation of the Athonic State

In the past, many researchers have refered to the history of the Holy Mountain and Athonic monasticism. Nevertheless, despite all these studies, the question regarding the time of establishment of the Athonic monastic State remains unenlightened and obscure.
The purpose of this study - which consists of four parts - is a detailed presentation of the beginning of Athonic monasticism (until 1045) based on a thorough - when possible - examination of the Holy
Mountain documents and sources.
Th e Introduction - where a brief reference to the history of Athos before the settlement of the fi rst hermits is made- is followed by the first part of the study, where the traditions and legends which were created in the course of time, and the theories which were formulated regarding
the beginning of the Athonic State are presented. Furthermore, on the basis of historical evidence, the fi rst known hermits in the Holy Mountain are presented (Peter Athonite, Holy Euthymios the Younger, John Kolovos), as well as the fi rst monasteries which were established in
Athos and its surroundings.
Th e second part deals with the imperial documents which were edited on behalf of the Athonic State by the emperors Basileios I Macedon (867-886), Leon VI the Wise (886-912) and Roman I Lecapenus (920- 944) by which the administrative and economic independence of the
Holy Mountain was established and secured. In addition, an extensive presentation is attempted of the borders and the central organisation and administration of the Athos monasteries (Protos, Synaxis, etc.).
In the third part the conditions which existed in Athos before the foundation of the monastery of the Great Lavra are presented. According to the historical evidence the hermits in the Holy Mountain lived a hard and diffi cult life. In that time the fi rst modest and small Athonic monasteries appeared (Klementos, Pyrgou or Saint Basileiou, Xeropotamou, Vouleuterion). Furthermore, the establishment of the Great Lavra by Saint Athanasios the Athonite with the support and the generous
economic assistance of the emperor Nicephorus Phocas (963-969) is presented. The so-called First Typicon, which was edited in 972 by the emperor John Tsimiskes (969-976) attempted to resolve the problems that arose within the Athonic State because of the quick and enormous
growth of the Great Lavra.
Finally, in the fourth part the Athonic mona steries which were established aft er the foundation of the Great Lavra are presented in detail. New serious problems were created by the sudden increase of the number of monasteries in the Holy Mountain. The Typicon edited by the emperor Constantin IX Monomachos in 1045 tried to resolve these problems. Though its main goal being the achievement of harmony and balance between spiritual life and economical growth, the Typicon did
not succeed to prevent large mona steries from concentrating more and more wealth and to annex little and less important monastic establishments.

MONASTICISM IN THRACE DURING THE BYZANTINE CENTURIES
In this study is presented the question of monasticism in the region of Thrace during the early, middle and late byzantine period. We examine the appearance, the area, the organisation of various monasteries and monastic centres and the types of monastic life. We also proceed in a detailed presentation, in chronological order, of the byzantine monasteries of Thrace, with the exception of those of Constantinople.
The study consists of the introduction and five parts. In the introduction are examined the causes of appearance and the geographical spread of monasticism. There is also a brief presentation of the administrative and ecclesiastical organisation of the byzantine Thrace.
In the first part, an answer is given to the question of chronological appearance of monasticism in the examined area. Monasticism came in Thrace from the East (Syria,Egypt) during the last decades of the 4th century. The first monasteries in Constantinople and the castellion (=fortified monastery) of Halmyrissos were founded during the period mentioned above.
In the second part, is stated that after the end of the iconoclastic persecutions (843), monasticism in Thrace started to flourish. Among the other monasteries, two monastic centres of great importance made their appearance during the 10th and 11th centuries : Ganos and Papikion.
The prosperity and development of monasticism in Thrace continued in the late byzantine period (third part). At that time the famous monasteries of Theotokos Petritzonitissa near Stenimachos (1083) and Theometor Kosmosoteira in Vera (1151-52) were established, as well as the important monastic centre of Paroria by Gregorios Sinaites (14th century).
The fourth part deals with certain monasteries of Thrace, which, according to the tradition and other theories, are believed to have been established during byzantine centuries. It reffers also to the lands, vineyards, pastures and properties that some monasteries outside Thrace had in this region.
In the fifth and last part is concluded that one of the most important characteristics of monasticism in Thrace was the coexistence between monks who lived in solitude and monastic communities; in addition the social welfare and the cultural contribution of monasticism in Thrace were undoubted. Finally it is also demonstrated that the Ottoman conquest of Thrace (2nd half of the 14th century) had serious consequences and caused a lot of disturbances to the monastic life and stability of monasticism in Thrace

Georgios Chr. Charizanis, The island of Samos, the monastic centre of Latros and the monastery of Patmos in the Byzantine Times.
 
  The purpose of this paper is to examine the relations between the island of Samos, the monastic centre of Latros in Asia Minor and the monastery of Patmos in the Byzantine Times.
  The island of Samos and the monastic centre of Latros were in close relation, since Saint Paul the Younger (+15th December 955), the famous hermit of Latros and founder of the monastery of Stylos, practiced solitary life in Samos in the first half of the 10th c. and spiritually influenced the island.
  Relations between the monastic centre of Latros and the monastery of Patmos also existed. Saint Christodoulos (+16th March 1093), the great hermit of the Palaestinian desert, found refuge in Latros, in order to avoid the Turkish advance, and from there he went to the island of Patmos and established the monastery of Saint John in 1088. He salvaged the books and manuscripts of the monasteries of Latros from the plunders of the Turks, by carrying them to Constantinople and placing them in the Church of Saint Sophia.
  Further spiritual relations existed between the monastery of Patmos, the monastic centre of Latros and the island of Samos, as the library of the monastery of Patmos provided books to the monastic centre of Latros, and the hermits and monks of Samos.
  The Turkish advance in Asia Minor led the monastic centre of Latros to abandonment and decline during the last quarter of the 13th-beginnings of the 14th c. The monastery of Patmos submitted to the sultan Mehmed II in the Summer of 1453, and the island of Samos was conquered by the Ottoman Turks two decades later, in 1475.

The article aims to explore the importance of the city of Trebizond as a centre of education and learning and also birthplace of famous men during the 7th-11th centuries. In the early Byzantine period, Trebizond was an important city and a port of the Pontos Polemoniakos province. During the 7th-11th centuries, Trebizond was part of the Armeniakon theme and then capital of the Chaldia theme. It offered elementary and perhaps secondary education, although university studies were available in Constantinople itself. Typical of such a path of study are the educational careers of St. Athanasius the Athonite and Ioannes Xiphilinos, who after an elementary and perhaps secondary education in their native Trebizond, moved to Constantinople for higher studies.
St. Athanasius the Athonite founded the Lavra monastery in 961-963 and introduced coenobitic monasticism to Athos, whilst Ioannes Xiphilinos became patriarch of Constantinople (1064-1075). Another notable born in Trebizond was Tychikos, who educated the students at a higher level in Trebizond and was responsible for the spread of knowledge as far as Armenia, through his student Anania Shirakatsi (7th c.). St. Nikon “Metanoeite” was from the Pontos Polemoniakos province and his missionary work in Crete and Peloponnese during the 10th c. was enormously important. All of these men offered great services to the Byzantine empire.

The present study investigates the subsequent fate of the two Byzantine emperors, Alexios III Angelos (1195-1203) and Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouflos (1204), after their escape from Constantinople, at a time when the Crusaders and the Venetians of the Fourth Crusade arrived, in late June 1203, and conquered Constantinople (12th-13th April 1204). Both emperors were interested - as it seems - mainly in the imperial power and its preservation, as well as in the salvation of themselves and not in the salvation of the Byzantine Empire, which is why they escaped from Constantinople in those critical moments for Byzantium. Their end, of course, was bitter and inglorious.

Στόχος του παρόντος άρθρου είναι να καταδείξει τη σπουδαιότητα της Τραπεζούντας ως κέντρου παιδείας και γραμμάτων και ως γενέτειρας ονομαστών ανδρών στην περίοδο από τον 7ο έως τον 11ο αιώνα. Η Τραπεζούντα λοιπόν, ως περιφερειακή πόλη - κέντρο των ανατολικών περιοχών της Βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας και σημαντικό λιμάνι του Ευξείνου πόντου, παρείχε κατά τη διάρκεια της παραπάνω περιόδου (7ος -11ος αι.) στοιχειώδη και πιθανόν και μέση εκπαίδευση. Εάν επιθυμούσε κάποιος να πραγματοποιήσει ανώτερες- πανεπιστημιακού επιπέδου σπουδές, θα έπρεπε να ταξιδέψει στην πρωτεύουσα της αυτοκρατορίας την Κωνσταντινούπολη. Χαρακτηριστικές είναι οι περιπτώσεις του οσίου Αθανασίου του Αθωνίτη και του Ιωάννη Ξιφιλίνου, που, αφού έλαβαν μια πρώτη μόρφωση στην Τραπεζούντα, έφθασαν στη συνέχεια για ανώτερες σπουδές στην Κωνσταντινούπολη.Ο Αθανάσιος συνέδεσε κατόπιν το όνομά του με την ίδρυση της μονής της Μεγίστης Λαύρας και τη θεμελίωση του Αθωνικού κοινοβιακού μοναχισμού (10ος αι.), ενώ ο Ιωάννης ανήλθε τελικά στον πατριαρχικό θρόνο της Κωνσταντινούπολης (11ος αι.). Για τον άγιο Νίκωνα τον Μετανοείτε δεν έχουμε λεπτομέρειες για την εκπαίδευσή του. Επιπλέον, ιδιαίτερη είναι η περίπτωση του Τυχικού, ο οποίος επέστρεψε στη γενέτειρα πόλη του την Τραπεζούντα, δίδαξε σε αυτήν σε ανώτερο - πανεπιστημιακό επίπεδο και της έδωσε –σε μια δύσκολη γενικά για το Βυζάντιο εποχή (α΄ μισό του 7ου αι.)– την αίγλη μιας πόλης-κέντρου ανώτερων πανεπιστημιακών σπουδών.
Οι παραπάνω ονομαστοί άνδρες που κατάγονταν από την Τραπεζούντα προσέφεραν επίσης με τη δράση τους πολύτιμες υπηρεσίες στη Βυζαντινή αυτοκρατορία. Ο Τυχικός πέρα από το γεγονός ότι δίδαξε και μόρφωσε σε ανώτερο επίπεδο τους νέους στη γενέτειρα πόλη του, συνέβαλε ταυτόχρονα και στη διάδοση της γνώσης και των επιστημών μέσω του μαθητή του Ανανία στην Αρμενία (α΄ μισό του 7ου αι.). Ο όσιος Αθανάσιος ο Αθωνίτης, με την ίδρυση της μονής Μεγίστης Λαύρας, οργάνωσε τον Αθωνικό μοναχισμό σε κοινοβιακά πρότυπα και έδωσε νέα πνοή και ώθηση γενικότερα στον Ορθόδοξο μοναχισμό. Επιπρόσθετα μεγάλο ήταν το ιεραποστολικό έργο του αγίου Νίκωνα του Μετανοείτε στην Κρήτη, αλλά και στην Πελοπόννησο (10ος αι.). Τέλος, ο Ιωάννης Ξιφιλίνος που ανήκε στον κύκλο των διανοουμένων και των λογίων του 11ου αι., με την ευρυμάθειά του και τις ειδικές γνώσεις του στη νομική επιστήμη, διέπρεψε στον πατριαρχικό θρόνο της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως.

Thassos in the 14th century through the Athonite documents
    The purpose of this article is to present - through the examination of the Athonite documents - the general situation in the island of Thassos during the late Byzantine period and most particularly in the 14th century. Throughout the research, it is noted that the references of the Athonite documents to Thassos, its locations and regions, are directly related to the possessions and share holdings held by the Athonite monasteries (such as Lavra, Pantocrator, etc.) on the island. It is noteworthy that many of the location names have been preserved and are still in use to this day.
    An economy, such as the Byzantine, which was basically rural, the Athonite documents provide valuable information on the crops and occupations of the island's inhabitants, who were also agricultural: they used to grow grain, while on the island there were vineyards, olive groves, orchards, almond trees, walnuts, and other fruit trees. There were also watermills for grinding the wheat and wine presses. All of the above shows that the inhabitants of Thassos - like other regions of the Byzantine Empire - based their survival mainly on the land and pursued the self-consumption and self-sufficiency.

This article first introduces the beginnings of monasticism in Thessaloniki during the Early Byzantine period and then investigates the monastic movement in the city and its region after the end of Iconoclasm (843). The conclusions drawn are the following: The monasticm arrived in Thessaloniki in the 5th century from the East. Until the end of the 12th century, small and large cenobitic monasteries (male as well as female) were established in the city and outside its walls. The life and actions of great Saints, men and women, played an important role in the monastic movement of the city. Monks came to Thessaloniki from various regions both from the East (Asia Minor, Isauria, Galatia, Iberia-for example Saint Gregory Decapolites, Saint Efthymius the Younger, Saint Hilarion), as well as from the West (Sicily and Calabria, as Saint Elias the Younger and Saint Fantinus the Younger). Extreme forms of solitary life were known but were not common. There were dendrites and recluses (έγκλειστοι) monks (Saint David of Thessaloniki and Adolas), as well as stylites monks (Saint Efthymius the Younger and other stylites monks mentioned in the Life of Saint Gregory Decapolites). Moreover, there seems to have been a connection between the monks of Thessaloniki and the monks of Egypt, the cradle of the monastic movement (at least until Iconoclasm). In addition, there was communication between the monks of Thessaloniki and those of other monastic centres, such as Olympus of Bithynia (Saint Gregory Decapolites, Saint Efthymius the Younger) and Athos (Saint Efthymius the Younger and others). Finally, the closest mount for isolating and practicing asceticism for the Thessalonians - besides Athos - was Mount Chortaitis (Chortiatis) (there, Saint Photius the Thetallos, probably the father of Saint Theodora of Thessaloniki as well as many other anonymous monks, practiced ascetic life).

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relations between the two states of Byzantium and Bulgaria during the periods of peace (7th - 10th c.). With the exception of the times of tension between the two states, there have certainly been periods of peace, reconciliation, and creative cooperation between them. These were mainly: 1) in the first half of the 8th c., when Tervel was the ruler of the Bulgarians (691/703-718/724) and then, 2) in the 9th c., after 815, during the rule of Omurtag (814-831) and his successors, and 3) in the 10th c., after 927, when Peter was the ruler of the Bulgarians (927-969).

In this paper, the conquest of Heraclaea of Thrace (nowadays Ereğli or Marmaraereğlisi) by the Genoese in 1351 is presented in detail. The causes which led to the conquest of the city are examined. Additionally, what is further examined is the situation in which the city was in combination with the efforts undertaken, after the conquest, by the metropolitan of Heraclaea Philotheos Kokkinos (1347-1353) and then patriarch of Constantinople (1353-1354, 1364-1376), in order to return the scattered inhabitants back to their city and to restore life again in Heraclaea. What is concluded is that the Byzantine Empire, a century before its final conquest by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, cannot oppose – because of its weakness – a strong defense against its enemies. Furthermore, the Byzantine dominion and the seas had become the ground of action and competition of foreign forces (in the specific case of the Italian cities of Venice and Genoa). The Byzantine Empire had nothing to win from this competition. On the contrary, it was humiliated and had to confront with disasters (for example, the above-mentioned conquest of Heraclaea).

From the bishopric of Byzantium to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. 

The purpose of this article is to examine the establishment and the first steps of the bishopric of Byzantium as well as the course of transformation to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.  Byzantium was established at about 660 BC by colonists of Megara of Attica. According to the tradition, apostle Andrew taught Christianity to the city and the region. The first church and bishopric of Byzantium appeared on the opposite shore of the Keratios gulf (Golden Horn), in Argyroupolis, in the place of today Galatas, where apostle Andrew built a Christian church and consecrated bishop Stachys (38-54 AD). Later on, bishop Kastinos (230-237 AD) transferred the see of the bishopric into the city of Byzantium.  The bishopric of Byzantium was initially attached to the bishopric of Heraclea of Thrace (ancient Perinthos, nowadays Marmaraereglisi). However, when in 324 AD Constantine the Great (324-337 AD) founded the city of Constantinople, the New Rome that became the capital of the Roman (Byzantine) empire, the bishopric of Byzantium entered a new era.  The bishopric of Byzantium, which was initially attached – as it was aforementioned – to the bishop of Heraclea and exarchos of the Thracian dioecesis, became independent for political reasons and was upgraded to a Patriarchate in 381 AD (2nd Ecumenical Synod) and more especially Ecumenical Patriarchate (from the end of the 6thc.). The reason was its placement in the capital of the Byzantine empire, Constantinople, and the ecumenical mission and goals of the empire.  Furthermore, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as a reaction to the Papal Church, that with insistence attributed its establishment to the apostle Peter, aiming to support its claims about the primacy of Rome toward all the other Christian Churches, developed the idea of apostolicity of the Church of Byzantium and Constantinople. Therefore, the tradition which linked apostle Andrew with the Church of Byzantium was emphasized especially from the 7th c. onwards.

Chrysoupolis and Krousovos on the mouth of Strymon River through the Athonite documents

The purpose of this article — based on the research and study of the Athonite documents — is to demonstrate the importance and the economic role of both Chrysoupolis and Krousovos in the region of the mouth of the Strymon River during the last Byzantine centuries. Chrysoupolis, castron, fortress or city, was situated in a very significant spot, on the left/east bank of the Strymon River, near its mouth, as well as the sea i.e. the Strymonic or Orphanou gulf. A rich and fertile inland, the plain of Serres, reached the northern edges of the city. Chrysoupolis, which succeeded in the region during the Byzantine period the early Christian Amphipolis, had a skala/port and a saline for the production of salt. The Athonite monasteries (Lavra, Vatopedi, Esphigmenou and Pantocrator) obtained gradually in the region pieces of land and other properties inside the castle of Chrysoupolis. Chrysoupolis is mentioned in the documents of Athos of the Byzantine period until the end of the 14th century. After the Turkish conquest, Chrysoupolis continued to survive until the midst of the 16th century, when it was ruined and abandoned by its inhabitants. On the other side, the chorion/village of Krousovos of the Katepanikion of Strymonos was situated on a hill, on the right/west bank of the Strymon River, 4km away from its mouth. Krousovos was a metochion, in the possession of the Esphigmenou monastery of Mount Athos; nowadays it is identified with the ruined and abandoned village of Palaia Ano and Kato Kerdyllia. Krousovos, as well as other villages of the Byzantine countryside, had a slight fall in its economic figures, as it is concluded from the praktika/records of 1318 and 1321 — an indication of the general decline of the Byzantine Empire that was evident at that time. Furthermore, the civil wars of Byzantium during the first half of the 14th century and the gradual conquest of Thrace and Macedonia by the Turks in the second half of the century onwards, worsened the situation and weakened economically the Byzantine cities and villages.

The emperor John III Doukas Vatatzis (1222-1254) and his economic policy.

This article examines the external and internal policy of the emperor John Vatatzis and especially his economic policy.
John Vatatzis, who descends from Didymoteichon of Thrace, was one of the most well-known emperors of the Byzantine state of Nicaea. He continued the work of his predecessor Theodor I Lascaris (1204-1222), sta-bilized the state of Nicaea and extended its borders both in Asia Minor and in Haemus peninsula. In the battle of Poimanenon in north west Asia Mi-nor in 1225, he defeated and he expelled the Latins almost from the whole region of Asia Minor. In 1246, in one of his expeditions, he succeeded a de-cisive victory against Bulgarians as well as the state of Epirus and the bor-ders of his state, the state of Nicaea, reached until the Hebrus river to the north and to the valley of Axios river to the west. In December of the same year, he entered, without special resistance, the city of Thessaloniki.
In the field of the internal policy of the state of Nicaea and particu-larly the economic policy, Vatatzis – as a philanthropist – generously pro-vided hospitals, houses for the poor and other philanthropic institutions. He rebuilded churches and donated to monasteries properties and other revenues. He settled Coumans as soldiers, giving them land, placed them near the eastern borders, for the defense of the state against the Turks.
The goal of his economic policy was the autarkeia, the self-sufficient system in products and food of his state. He organized himself the imperial estates, the zeugelateia, in order to make them an example for the citizens of his state (Nicaea).
He gave military pronoiai, i.e. land for agriculture of small or medi-um extent with its incomes to many native soldiers, in order to support the army. Furthermore, he granted big estates, in a hereditary way, to mem-bers of byzantine aristocracy of Constantinople and other aristocrats, who served as officials to the state and contributed to the administration.
In the field of commerce, he followed a protective policy. He prohib-ited the citizens from buying luxury products and especially clothes from abroad. This measure was against Venice and the Italian cities. The citizens of Nicaea must be sufficed in whatever the Byzatine land produced and in whatever the Byzantine hands created.
The Byzantine state of Nicaea, in the political and economic field, during the era of Vatatzis, had an extensive growth and was in an undoub-tedly better condition than in the past. Vatatzis – the Merciful Emperor – for the fact that raised the state of Nicaea, for the fact that he was a philan-thro-pic and decent character and for his virtues and his talents, half a cen-tury after his death († 3 November 1254, in Nymphaion of Asia Minor), he became a Saint of the Christian Orthodox Church and is honoured as a Saint until nowadays.

“Rhodope: Mountain Chain of Revolutions and Centrifugal Trends in Late Byzantium”.

The mountain chain of Rhodope expands to the north of the plain of contemporary Komotini and Xanthi, east of the valley of Nestos river and south and west of Hebrus river. Rhodope was a place of settlement of the Slav tribe of Smolenoi or Smoleanoi and later of other heretical peoples (Manichaeans, Paulicians/Bogomils and Armenians). The Byzantine State tried from time to time in various ways to lead these peoples towards the Orthodox Christian faith, although they did not seem to be devoted to the Byzantine authorities.
The purpose of this paper is through the examination of the following cases: a) of the Bulgarian (or Vlach) Ivangos, first cousin and murderer of the czar of the Bulgarians Asen I in the end of the 12th c. (1196), who established his own ephemeral principality in Rhodope, b) of the Bulgarian Momitzilos (Hajduk Momčilo), who also set up an autonomous principality in the south Rhodope approximately in the middle of the 14th c. (before 1345) and c) of Matthew Cantacuzenus, elder son of the emperor John VI Cantacuzenus (1347-1354), who organized his own dominion in the southeast slopes of Rhodope and in Volero before 1357, to demonstrate how in fact centrifugal trends and instability developed in the above mentioned mountainous region especially during the last byzantine centuries. These centrifugal trends are indications of the political weakness and the decomposition of the Byzantine Empire, due to the insufficiency and paralysis of the central government of Constantinople.

Landed Property (Metochia) of the Monasteries of Athos in Byzantine Thrace (11th-15th c.)

The monasteries of Mount Athos (Holy Mountain) possessed landed property (metochia) on the Athonite peninsula, in Chalkidiki, in the city of Thessaloniki and its surroundings, in the valley of the Strymon River, generally in Macedonia, but also on the islands, for example on Lemnos, Thassos and Saint Efstratios, in Thrace and other regions of the Byzantine empire.
It appears from the archives of Athos that the monasteries of Vatopedion, Great Lavra, and Pantocrator owned landed property (metochia) in Thrace.
The first Athonite monastery that acquired landed property in the area of Thrace was the monastery of Theotocos Vatopedion. Vatopedion owned the following estates (metochia) in Thrace:
In Peritheorion (Anastasioupolis) and its region
1) the land of Salama, in the region of Peritheorion (before 1080).
2) a metochion inside the castle of Peritheorion (before 1080).
3) the monastery of Saint Georgios in Kalamitzion (Kalamitziotou), with a land of 1500 modioi, north/northwest of Peritheorion, nowadays in the villages of Sounion and Monachoi, between Komotini and Xanthi (May 1305).
In Xantheia (modern Xanthi) and its region
4) the land of Sellarion, nowadays near the village of Seleron, about 9 km east of Xanthi (May 1305).
5) the planene (mountainous pasture) τοῦ Βοὸς τὸ Πηγάδιν (the Ox-well) on the mountains of Xantheia, north of modern Xanthi (May
1305).
6) the metochion of Saint Panteleimon in Xantheia (1329). Inside and around Constantinople various properties, included
7) the monastery of Theotocos Psychosostria in Constantinople with all its dependences inside and outside the City, with total land
counting 1600 modioi (1349).
In Lake Porous (Vistonis)
8) 120 hyperpyra annually from the revenue coming from the lake (1369).
9) the vivarion (fish-farm) of Saint Theodoros in the aforementioned lake (1371).
The monastery of Great Lavra acquired its first estates in Thrace during the 2nd decade of the 12th c. It possessed there the following
metochia:
1) the proasteion (or chorion) of Adrinou, measuring 334 modioi, in Delkos (1115).
2) houses and other lodgings for rent inside the castle of Traianoupolis and also vineyards and fields in the surrounding area (1115).
In Constantinople and its region
3) the monastery of Theometor Zoodochos inside the City (1332).
4) the choria (villages) Agourina and Kentenariou in the region of Parapolia, west of Constantinople, between Athyra and Region, with fields of 800 modioi and other land (1334).
5) the xenon of Saint Panteleimon and houses, workshops and money-exchanging tables inside the City at the gates of Prodromos and Holy
Resurrection (annual revenues from rents at 900 hyperpyra) (1342).
6) the metochion and kathisma of Saint Demetrios at the Plateia gate of Constantinople (1367).
7) the vivarion (fish-farm) Golemi Vasilik in Lake Porous (Vistonis) (1371).
In Ainos (modern Enez) and its region
8) the monydrion of Saint Georgios Omvrokladon in the city of Ainos (1428 or 1443).
9) the monydrion of Saint Theodoros in the Kissos castle (1428 or 1443).
10) an anonymous monydrion in Megarision (1428 or 1443).
11) other possessions (palaiostasia, houses, vineyards, fields) in the city and the region of Ainos (1428 or 1443).
The monastery of Christ Pantocrator owned the vivarion (fish-farm) of Papagiania by the Nestos River in Thrace (1394).
In conclusion, the monasteries of Athos (Vatopedion, Lavra, Pantocrator) possessed estates (metochia) in Thrace and other regions of the
Byzantine empire, by which the necessary revenues for their preservation and survival were assured.
The metochia they possessed in Constantinople, provided them access to the decision-making centres of the political and ecclesiastical
authorities.
Finally, apart from the strong economic role the metochia of the Athonite monasteries retained, they were also centres of spiritual influence
of the Holy Mount monasticism to the local societies, with which they maintained a close relation and contact

LETTERS AND STUDIES IN THESSALONIKI DURING THE BYZANTINE CENTURIES (THROUGH THE LIVES OF THESSALONICAN SAINTS AND OTHER SOURCES)

The information we have about letters and studies and generally the education in Thessaloniki during the Byzantine era is inadequate, especially concerning the Early and Middle Byzantine period. The information spectrum is widened during Later Byzantine years, when the Heamus peninsula – because of the forward movement of the Turks in Asia Minor – obtains special interest for Byzantium.
Through the examination of the Lives of Thessalonican saints, of saint Porphyrios bishop of Gaza (395-420), of Constantine the Philosopher (saint Cyrillos, 827- 869), of the holy Germanos Maroulis or Hagiorite (1252-1336), of saint Sabas the Younger (1283-1349), of saint Isidoros Boucheiras, patriarch of Constantinople (1347- 1350), of the holy Macarios Macris (1383-1431) and other sources, the purpose of this article is to investigate the letters and studies and generally the education provided in the city of Thessaloniki.
The conclusions that arise are the following:
1. Although the information is inadequate and there are gaps, higher (of university level) education does not seem to be provided in Thessaloniki. What was provided however, was elementary and secondary (ἐγκύκλιος) education, during the Byzantine era and especially in the Later period.
2. We have neither details about the number of the schools that functioned in the city nor the number of the students attending classes in them.
3. There is a clear distinction between secular education, the “out lessons”, the “out letters” and the “divine or holy lessons”. It is a relationship – as it is repeatedly referred to – between a maid and a lady.
4. The attempt of saint Isidoros Boucheiras to succeed, as a teacher, in the conjunction between the ancient greek, secular education and the christian, divine learning for the profit of his students, is remarkable.
5. Finally, the lessons of the secular education were almost the same during the Byzantine era, as they were during the Hellenistic and Roman period. The students of Thessaloniki, as well as the other students of the Byzantine empire, were taught mainly – as it is derived from the above examined Lives of saints – the lessons of the literature circle, especially grammar, poetry, rhetorics and philosophy or logic, while from the lessons of the scientific circle (arithmetics, geometry, music, astronomy), it is mentioned that saint Isidoros Boucheiras was taught – among other lessons – harmony (music).
Therefore, as it is pointed out by Demetrius Kydonis, Thessaloniki in the field of education and spiritual movement could be compared, in fact worthily, especially during the Later Byzantine era, to the ancient Athens of Demosthenes and Plato.

Settlements of people in Thrace during the Byzantine centuries

The purpose of this paper is to present the settlements of people (foreigners or citizens of the Byzantine empire) that have taken place during the byzantine centuries in the area of Thrace.
By the term Thrace, we mean during the early byzantine period, except for the province of Thrace, the extended region of dioecesis Thraciae, the borders of which were from the Aegean sea to the Danube river. Later from the 2nd half of the 7th c., the thema of Thrace was organised (680-687) from the south of the Haemus mountains (nowadays Stara Planina) to Constantinople. As a matter of fact, the thema of Thrace was split and other themata were formed.
The mission of the Byzantine empire was the preservation and the maintenance of the borders inherited from the Roman imperium. Furthermore, a stable policy of settlements of people in its regions followed with specific goals: the demographic density of population, the agricultural and economic policy of cultivation of deserted lands and the collection of taxes, the state security and defense, the internal social order and the religious peace.
During the centuries, people that were hostile to Byzantium made from time to time invasions, plundered or conquered its regions. They sometimes settled permanently in its lands, either taking advantage of the weakness or the tolerance of the Byzantine state, or after an agreement (foedus) with the Byzantine emperor. People having settled in the extended region of Thrace were the Goths (4th c.), the Huns (5th c.), the Slavs (7th c.), the Bulgarians (last quarter of the 7th c.), who established their own state (681), the Petchenegs or Patzinacs (in
the middle of the 11th c.) and finally the Ottoman Turks (after the middle of the 14th c.).
Except for the settlement of foreigners, obligatory settlements of people, who were citizens of the Byzantine empire or came from its boundary regions, were made in Thrace from time to time for various reasons by decisions of the central government. Such people were the Isaurians (end of the 5th c.), the hereticals monophysites Syrians and Armenians, from the east borders of the Byzantine empire (8th and beginning of 9th c.), the Manichaeans (Paulicians), also from the east provinces of the Byzantine empire, who settled in the region of Philippopolis (nowadays Plovdiv) (2nd half of the 10th c.), as well as Bulgarians from the
state of czar Samuel or other populations from Macedonia and Thessaly, who were settled in the region of Voleron, nowadays the Greek Western Thrace (1st quarter of the 11th c.).

Papikion -  Ganos - Paroria. The famous monastic centres  of the Byzantine Thrace, Komotini 2016.

Monasticism came to Thrace from the East. In Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, the first monasteries were established in the end of the 4th c. (the monasteries of Isaacios or Dalmatou, Diou, Rufinianai or Saint Hypatios in Chalkedon and Akoimetoi). In the extended region of Thrace and particularly in the northeast end of the early byzantine dioecesis Thraciae, in the province of Scythia Minor, near the mouth of Danube river, established during the reign of the emperor Arcadius (395-408) from the Armenian soldier Jonas the castellion (fortified monastery) of Halmyrissos.  Generally for the monasticism of Thrace during the early Byzantine period until the final end of the Iconoclasm in 843, the information is not complete and not adequately detailed. After the end of the Iconoclasm and the restoration of the internal peace in the Byzantine Empire, from mid-9th c. and afterwards, monasticism in Thrace had remarkably flourished. Small and large monasteries, as well as three major monastic centres were established in Thrace: Papikion, Ganos and Paroria.  The purpose of this article is to show the significance and importance of the three aforementioned monastic centres for Thrace.  Papikion was founded in the south of Rhodopi mountain, north, northwest from the byzantine Mosynopolis and the contemporary city of Komotini. Its beginnings are dated to the 1st half of the 11th c. The Protos was responsible for the administration of the monastic centre. Monasteries which were included in the Papikion monastic centre were probably the following: of Cosmas Tzintziloukios or Theometor Tzintziloukiotissa, of Saint Georgios (it is not certain whether it is the same with the monastery of Saint Georgios Vroulokepou) and of dikaios Antonios. Archeological evidence found in the south slopes of Papikion mountain proves the existence of other monasteries. In Papikion, holy Maximos Kausokalyvites (+1365) practiced solitary life for a
19

period of time, as did saint Gregorios Palamas (1296-1359), later metropolitan bishop of Thessaloniki.  The other important monastic centre of Thrace was this of Ganos situated in a distance of 15 km southwest from Rhaedestos (nowadays Tekir dağ). It was extended along the northwest shore of Propontida (sea of Marmara). Its beginnings are dated to the 10th-1st half of the 11th c. According to seals, we know that the superior of this monastic centre was a protos. From the number of byzantine and postbyzantine monasteries which were established formerly there, there are only ruins nowadays. In Ganos, Athanasios practiced solitary life and afterwards became patriarch of Constantinople (1289-1293, 1303-1309) and also holy Maximos Kausokalyvites, became here a monk.  Paroria, the third famous monastic centre of Thrace, owe its establishment and reputation to holy Gregorios Sinaites (+1346). They are placed in the north slopes of Strantza mountain (nowadays Yildiz dağ), in the borders of contemporary Turkey with Bulgaria. During the 14th c, Paroria were the borders between Byzantium and Bulgaria. Holy Gregorios Sinaites came and settled finally in Paroria after 1335. There he established a great central lavra and other three smaller lavrae and organised an important international monastic centre. He accepted significant economic assistance and other donations from the czar of Bulgarians, Ivan Alexander (1331-1371). After the death of Gregorios Sinaites, his disciples spread the ideas of Hesyhasmus in Bulgaria, Serbia and other regions of the Haemus peninsula.  Generally, the spiritual and cultural contribution of the aforementioned monastic centres of Thrace (Papikion, Ganos, Paroria) was during the last Byzantine centuries, continuous and invaluable

Salt, salines and the “halycarii” of Thessaloniki in the later Byzantine years

Salt was in the antiquity and Byzantine era and is still nowadays an important element of nutrition and preservation of food (salted fish, meat, vegetables, cheese). Together with other products, salt belonged to the so-called “prohibited” products, in these which in Byzantium their sale or export to barbarians was forbidden. In fact, the above legislation from time to time was violated and was not always fully applied.
Salt was produced in various regions of the Byzantine empire. In Macedonia salines existed for example in Chalkidiki, in the mouth of Strymon river and in Thessaloniki. The existence of a saline near Thessaloniki is mentioned already from the 7th c., when emperor Justinian II after his campaign against Bulgarians and Slavs came victorious in the  town in 688 and donated to the church of Saint Demetrios the saline of Thessaloniki and its revenues.
The purpose of this article is to locate – if possible – the exact position of the saline or the salines in the region of Thessaloniki and to study the guild of “halycarii”, who had a leader a “protalycarios” and worked as well as exploited the saline.
The conclusions, which are derived, are the following:
It is certain from Athonic documents of the first half of the 14th c. that salines in Thessaloniki existed during the later Byzantine era to the east of the town, on the east coast of the Thermaic gulf.
Salines existed, however, during the Byzantine period and to the west side of the town, although this is not confirmed from the Byzantine sources, but only later from subsequent Turkish documents.
Finally, the “halycarii” had, because of their profession, as it is derived from a document of Dionysiou monastery in the Holy Mountain of September 1415, a significant economic presence in the later Byzantine years, before the conquest of Thessaloniki (1430). The exploitation of salines was a profitable and productive activity, which brought revenues to the “halycarii” themselves and also to the Byzantine state.

Theophanes in his Chronography accuses the emperor Constantine IV –the so called Pogonatus (668-685)– for the fact that in 680, during his campaign in the region of down Danube against the Bulgarians, he was defeated by this “dirty and filthy (as he characterizes it) nation (people)” and apart from this he was also forced to “the disgrace of the Romans (Byzantines)” by paying annual contributions to them.
The purpose of this article is to examine –throughout the period of the 7th to the end of the 10th c.– the way in which the Byzantines faced the Bulgarians, the new invaders in the northern borders of the Byzantine Εmpire, in the Danube river.
Following the aforementioned defeat of the Byzantines, the Bulgarians settled in 681 between the Haemus Mountains and the Danube river, region that belonged until then to the Byzantine Εmpire and set the foundations for the establishment of a Slav- Bulgarian state, which had Pliska as its capital.
Theophanes characterizes the Bulgarians as “nation (people) dirty and filthy”, probably because, until their christianization in 864, the Bulgarians were pagans and sacrificed to their own gods. Their subordinated Slavs were pagans as well and because they were numerous, they assimilated progressively their conquerors, the Bulgarians. Furthermore, in this article, the causes of the aforementioned defeat of the emperor Constantine IV are explained.
The basic conclusion –among the others– is that the Byzantine Εmpire was never reconciled with the idea of the settlement of the Bulgarians and the establishment of a Slav-Bulgarian state by them in its northern borders, south of the Danube. Its objective was the expulsion or the submission of the Bulgarians and therefore, repeated campaigns were carried out against them during these centuries
(7th- 10th c.). Peace arrangements were realized by need or under the pressure of the facts (victories of the Bulgarians – defeats of the Byzantines – aggressive policy of the Arabs to the east borders).

ASSISTANCE REQUESTS FROM BYZANTINE MONKS TO FOREIGN LEADERS (14th -15th CENTURY)
From the end of the 13th - beginning of the 14th c., the Byzantine Empire was in a situation of decline and weakness. Enlightened spiritual fathers, abbots and monks, due to the difficulties of the Empire, requested assistance, especially financial, for their monastic establishments, not only from the Byzantine emperor, who was unable to contribute, but also from foreign leaders.
In this study, we examine the following cases: 1st) of the saint Gregory Sinaites, founder of the monastic centre of Paroria in Thrace during the 1st half of the 14th c., 2nd) of Chariton, abbot of the monastery of Koutloumousi in Mount Athos during the 2nd half of the 14th c., and 3rd) of the educated monk Macarios Makres, abbot of the monastery of Pantocrator in Constantinople during the 1st half of the 15th century. All of them asked for assistance
not only domestically and from the Byzantine emperor, but also from abroad and foreign leaders.
Our purpose is to show clearly the anxious attempt of the above fathers to assure economic aid for their monastic establishments by addressing these requests, both domestically and abroad.
From the examination of the aforementioned cases we can draw the fol lowing conclusions:
1. Both Gregory Sinaites (t 27 November 1346) and Chariton (tl381) requested assistance for their monastic establishments from different leaders.
However, the main and important assistance, which is emphasized in the sources, came from the Bulgarian tsar Ivan Alexander (1331 -1371) and the voevode of Hungaro-Wallachia John Vladislav ( 1364-137 4) respectively.
2. It is notable to state that John Vladislav asked from Chariton, in exchange for his donations, special treatment for the Hungaro-Wallachian monks, who exercised solitary life in the monastery of Koutloumousi.
3. In the case of Macarios Makres (died 8 January 1431), during the 1st half of the 15th c., the economic margins were too narrow, so he requested assistancefor his monastery, specifically from the Serbian leader Stephan Lazarevic (1389-1427).
4. Finally, in all three cases (of Gregory Sinaites, of Chariton and Macarios Makres) we could say that we have forerunner forms of the phenomenon of zeteia, for which we observe great growth and expansion during the Ottoman occupation. In those centuries, due to the poverty and the economic
needs, patriarchates, churches and monasteries sent delegations, missions and traveller-monks to Wallachia, Moldavia and Russia in order to collect the charities of the faithful people and the donations of the foreign leaders.
In the cases examined here, we observe the following special characteristic: these zeteies are not addressed to the mass of faithful people, but to specific leaders, the assistance and donations of whom are requested.

An Attempt of Athonite Abbots to Meet Emperor Vasileios II (976-1025). Some Remarks

In the Life of Saint Athanasios Athonite the attempt of a number of Athonite abbots to meet the emperor Vasileios II (976-1025) is sufficiently described. The abbots’ purpose was to slander Saint Athanasios, whom they considered responsible for their subordinate position in relation
to the “old fathers”, to the emperor.
John Phakenos, the protos of the Holy Mount, was deceitfully convinced to be the leader of the mission to the emperor Vasileios II, who was at that time in Macedonia with his troops, preparing the war against the barbarians (i.e. the Bulgarians). To the abbots’ and John Phakenos great surprise, on their way to the emperor, they met Saint Athanasios with other monks, who were on their way back from the emperor, whom they had already met. Being extremely  embarrassed, the abbots tried to apologise. Only the protos revealed the plot to Saint Athanasios and asked for forgiveness. The abbots continued their way to the emperor but, to their bad luck, they were captured by the “Turks”, who at the time, were not enemies but allies of the emperor. The “Turks” undressed the abbots and left them naked in the street. Saint Athanasios was such a philanthropist that he gave clothes to the abbots, who were
brought in front of him, forgave them and they all returned happy to their cells.
The facts mentioned above raise some questions, which this paper aims to answer:
1) When is exactly the attempt of the Athonite abbots to meet the emperor Vasileios II dated?
2) Where was the emperor at the time and what were his plans?
3) Who were the so called “Turks” mentioned in the Life of Saint Athanasios Athonite?
Concerning the first question, a date between March or November 991 and September 994 is supported, because John Phakenos holds the office and signs as protos from November 991. Although the Athonite abbots failed to meet the emperor, it is certain that Vasileios II met Saint
Athanasios Athonite during this period.
Concerning the second question, evidence derived from the Life of Saint Athanasios Athonite, John Skylitzes and the Encomium of holy Photius the Thessalian prove that the meeting took place in Thessaloniki or perhaps somewhere in the plain located to the west of the city, where
the emperor had camped with his army. The presence of Saint Athanasios and holy Photius was due to the emperor’s need to seek moral support and the comfort of the prayers of holy men, just before continuing the war against the Bulgarians. Photius was a monk practicing solitary
life at the foot of the mountain Chortiatis and Vasileios II called for him.
In addition, the emperor sought allies in order to surround the Bulgarians both from North and West. In the period 991-994 he came to negotiations with the Croats and the Serbs. The latter sent delegates, who tried to come to the camp of Vasileios II from the sea.
Finally, as regards the real identity of the so called “Turks”, who are mentioned in the Life of Saint Athanasios to have captured the Athonite abbots, they were probably Hungarians, who are reported to have settled in the valley of Axios river (Vardar) in the middle of the 10th century.
After the final victory of Vasileios II over the Bulgarians, the Hungarians settled were under the archbishopric of Bulgaria (Achrida) (in 1020), while those living in the valley of Axios river (Vardar) consisted the bishopric of “Vardariotes or Turks”, that belonged to the metropolis
of Thessaloniki.

THE POSSESSIONS OF LAVRA ON THE ISLAND OF SAINT EUSTRATIOS UNTIL THE TURKISH ATTACK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 14th CENTURY

At the beginning of the 14th century and particularly before December of 1305, the Turks carried out an attack against the island of St Eustratios (of Neoi), which was a possession of the Athonite monastery of Great Lavra. The abbot of the monastery, monk Gerasimos, required from the archbishop of Lemnos and Imbros to provide in his archbishopric a kathedra, i.e. an agricultural piece of land with residence for the monks of St Eustratios in order to settle there and save themselves from the Turkish danger. The archbishop granted the monks of St Eustratios and generally Lavra the little monastery of Theotokos Kakaviotissa, which is still existing on the southwest part of the island of Lemnos.
In this study is offered a short review of the history of St Eustratios (of Neoi) during the Byzantine period; the origin of the name of the island is specified and it is emphasized that the island is attested from the second half of the 9th century onwards. At that time the island of St Eustratios (of Neoi) was uninhabited and for a short period of time (865/866) served as a place of ascetic living for St Efthymios the Younger (t 15.10.898) and the hermits
John Kolovos and Symeon.
About 976-984 the island of Neoi (St Eustratios) was donated by the emperor Basileios II (976-1025) to John Iberian (died 14.6.1005), a nobleman from Iberia (nowadays Georgia). The latter donated the island to Lavra because of his friendship with St Athanasios the Athonite (died 5.7.1001 or 1004), the founder of the monastery of Great Lavra. According to the Vita of St Athanasios, the island was donated directly from the emperor Basileios II to the monastery
of Lavra.
Since then the island of Neoi (St Eustratios) was a place of solitary life for the younger monks of Lavra. In addition, Byzantine emperors such as Romanos IIIArgyros (1031), Nicephoros III Botaneiates (1079), Michael VIII Palaeologos (1259), Andronikos II Palaeologos (1298) and Andronikos III Palaeologos (1329) confirmed with chrysobulls the rights of possession of the
Lavra monastery upon the island.
In conclusion, since the time that St Eustratios became a dependency of Lavra on the last quarter of the 10th century and until the beginning of the 14th century, the island was continually under the possession of Lavra and life went on peacefully and undisturbed.
At the beginning of the 14th century the Byzantine Empire being in a state of decline was unable to resist against Turkish danger. The Turkish tribes had conquered almost the whole Asia Minor -with exception of some cities and ports- and they had founded small and expanding states (emirates).
The Emirate of Mentese and the one of Aydin were the first ones which started piracy into the Aegean sea. Perhaps the first or the latter attacked the island of St Eustratios. It is at that time that the monks of the island found shelter in the little monastery of Kakaviotissa on the island of Lemnos.
During the same period similar cases appeared: monks from northwest Asia Minor abandoned their monasteries or monastic centers because of the Turkish danger and sought shelter in the monasteries of Thrace in the European region.
The island of St Eustratios -because of the raid of the Turks- was abandoned and deserted during the 14th and 151h century. New inhabitants settled down again on the island in 1540.

The anchoret Procopios, the saint Porphyre bishop of Gaza (395-420) and the appearance of monasticism on the island of Rhodes
The purpose of this article is to examine the appearance and the first steps of monasticism on Rhodes, as well as to study the organization and the operation of this early period of the monastic life on the island.
Rhodes, the biggest of the islands of the Dodecanese, in the early Byzantine period was part of the province of Islands (provincia insularum) or Cyclades, which was a part of the "dioecesis" of Asia (dioecesis Asiana), which belonged to the prefecture of the East (praefectura praetorio per Orientem). Christianity on the island began to spread possibly
in the middle of the 1 rst century A.D. Ecclesiastically, Rhodes was the centre of the metropolis of the Cyclades from the late 4th century.
Monasticism on the island seems to have appeared around the end of the 4th century. Terminus ante quern must be considered the year 400 A.D. The Life of saint Porphyre, bishop of Gaza (395-420), refers to the anchoret Procopios, who led a monastic life on Rhodes around 400 A.D.
In the same year, saint Porphyre, with other bishops of Palestine, travelled to Constantinople so that they would insure the issue of an imperial order for the destruction of the pagan temples in Gaza. During their travel, they stopped on Rhodes. On the island, they met the anchoret Procopios, whose assistance in the successful outcome of their mission
was valuable.
The form of monasticism on Rhodes was the solitude type, of small solitary groups, guided by a spiritual father, like Procopios. Perhaps the latter was in charge of the spiritual guidance and supervision not only of his solitary group, but also of others, which may have existed on the island, as he was highly estimated, due to his ascetic life and his foresight.
The appearance of monasticism on Rhodes is attributed to the general spirit of the spread and development of monasticism noticed in that period, from the second half of the 3rd century and during the 4th century in several regions of the Byzantine Empire: Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Constantinople, Thrace.

«Incestuous relationships of Byzantine emperors. The cases of Heraclius ( 610-641) and Manuel I Komnenos ( 1143-1180) and the attitude of the Church».
In this article a detailed reference is initially made to the phenomenon of incest in antiquity and in the way it was confronted by the mosaic law, the roman law and Christianity.
As we proceed, what is being investigated are the incestuous relationships developed by the Byzantine emperors Heraclius (610-641) and Manuel I (1143- 1180), who in specific cases have violated and ignored the ethical and other kind of rules, as well as the common sense, which had already developed in their time. On the one hand, Heraclius married by second marriage his niece Martina, daughter of
his sister Mary, whereas Manuel I had for almost a decade (1152-1162) sexual relations with his niece Theodora, daughter of his sister Evdokia. Furthermore, a reference is made to the attitude of the Church and especially to the Patriarchate of Constantinople on this issue.
What is apparent is that both in the case of Heraclius, who formally committed incest, as he married his niece Martina, and in the case of the incestuous relationship of Manuel with his niece Theodora, which has certainly not resulted in marriage, the religious power declined against the secular. At the will of the emperor, the church fathers have failed to adequately raise the stature and to prevent the
«illegality» and «sin» of either an incestuous marriage (as in the case of Heraclius), or of an incestuous relationship (as in the case of Manuel I).

ALEXANDER THE GREAT THROUGH THE WORK OF BYZANTINE CHRONICLE-WRITERS (UNTIL THE END OF THE 10th CENTURY)
The purpose of this article is to examine the opinion the writers of the Byzantine chronicles (such as John Malalas 6th c., John Antiocheus 7th c., the anonymous of the Paschalion chronicle 7th c., George Syncellus 9th c., George the Monk 9th c. etc.) had about Alexander the Great and his origin.
Also their ideas about his activity and work are investigated -how Alexander namely, started his campaign against Dareius and the Persians after the death of his father Philippe, the regions he conquered, how he reached Palestine and the way the Jews reacted, the reforms he made when he abolished the Persian empire, his reaching India submitting Poros, the incident with the queen Kandake, and his death in Babylon. Through the Byzantine chronicles
our aim, therefore, is to sketch the personality and activity of this great King.
The Byzantine chronicle-writers face Alexander and his achievements with admiration. Nevertheless, the information they provide is not in detail and at some points is historically inaccurate. On the other hand, in a lot of cases they are reliable, which indicates that they had knowledge of the historic past.
The Byzantine chronicle-writers know the historical sources and also use facts and evidence from the various versions of the novel of PseudoKallisthenes, such as the case of Alexander's birth from pharaoh Nectanavo or the incident with the queen Kandake. In other cases they draw information from the Old Testament, as in the interpretation of prophet Daniel's vision about the fight of the ram (king of Persians) with the billy-goat (king of Greeks) or they take into account the Jewish traditions, for example Alexander's arrival to Jerusalem and his worship to the temple of God.
Generally, the legendary element is emphasized. Alexander is presented as a hero, who is connected with Achilles, since his mother Olympias was descended from the Kingdom of Molossoi of Epirus, in which, according to the tradition, the ancestor was Achilles. Additionally, Alexander is presented as a God, son of Ammon, since he was born, according to a version, from the pharaoh Nectanavo of Egypt, who was identified with God Ammon-Sun.
Finally, Byzantine chronicle-writers consider Alexander as a familiar and not a stranger, who fights for Byzantines and liberates territories which were lost. The references of the Byzantine chronicle-writers and other intellectuals about Alexander and his father Philippe have been continued during the following (after the 10th) centuries and especially during the Late Byzantine period. In these crucial times for the Byzantine empire, kings, princes and
scholars refer to Alexander in order to take courage and strength to confront the various enemies of the empire.

THE PROTOSTRATOR ALEXIOS AXOUCHOS, THE SEBASTOKRATOR ALEXIOS KOMNENOS AND THE MONASTIC CENTRE OF MOUNT PAPIKION (2nd HALF OF THE 12th CENTURY):
PROFILE QUESTIONS AND OTHER TASKS
The protostrator Alexios Axouchos and the sebastokrator Alexios Komnenos, illegitimate son of the emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180), have something in common with one another: both of them were accused of conspiracy against the emperor and were arrested.
The first against Manuel I in 1167 and the second against lsaakios II Angel in 1191. Then they were forced to become monks and to settle in a monastery of the famous monastic centre of Mount Papikion in Thrace. This paper examines the personality, character and activities of these two important Byzantine officers, as well as the reasons why they were arrested for conspiracy.
The protostrator Alexios Axouchos, who was born in 1120, was the elder son of the great domesticos John Axouchos, of Persian(= Turkish) origin. At first Alexios enjoyed the favour of the emperor Manuel I, who entrusted him with important and difficult missions. Nevertheless Alexios was accused (a) that he had secret discussions with the Seljuk sultan of Iconion Kili~ Arslan II (1156-1192), (b) that he collaborated against the emperor with Aaron-Isaakios, a magician of Jewish origin, and finally ( c) that he attempted to murder the emperor Manuel I in Sardike (nowadays Sofia) in April 1167. For all these reasons Alexios was arrested for conspiracy. His property was confiscated and he was forced to put on the monastic frock in a monastery on Mount Papikion in Thrace.
Similar was also the case of the sebastokrator Alexios Komnenos. Alexios, who was born in 1160/61, was an illegitimate son of the emperor Manuel I. He was accused of conspiracy against his father-inlaw emperor Andronikos I Komnenos (1183-1185), which was revealed in Jime 1185. Consequently Alexios was put into prison, he was blinded and closed in a tower near the entrance of the Euxeinos Pontos (Black sea). He was called back from exile and be retired in his properties at Drama. Later he was accused and arrested for conspiracy against the
emperor Isaakios II Angelos in 1191. His property was confiscated, and he became by force a monk at the monastic centre of Mount Papikion. He settled in the same monastery, in which formerly the protostrator Alexios Axouchos had practiced solitary life.
To become a monk by force is contrary to the holy canons. Therefore Theodosios, the protos of Papikion, sent a letter to Theodoros Balsamon, patriarch of Antiocheia and famous canonist, in order to ask his advice about this spiritual matter. Theodoros Balsamon in his answer emphasized that to put someone in the monastic habit without former experience was contrary to canon law.

The policy of emperor Manuel I Comnenos (1143-80) and his successors towards Armenia Minor.
Manuel I Comnenos was an emperor who developed a grandiose external policy to Haemus peninsula (Hungary, Serbia), to the West (Italy) and to the East (Selchukids Turks, Latin principalities).
Concerning Armenia Minor in Cilicia, Manuel I continued the policy that his father emperor John II Comnenos (1118-43) had started with the campaign of 1137, which ended with the complete submission of the Cilician Armenia.
However, the situation soon was changed. The Armenian prince Thorns II (1144- 69), who was imprisoned in Constantinople, managed to escape and come to Cilicia, where he revolted against Byzantine dominion and conquered Vahka, Anazarbus and other castles. Under the command of emperor Manuel I, Byzantine army arrived in Cilicia in the autumn of 1158. The Armenian rebel was submitted
and the whole region was brought back under Byzantine control. But the results of the above military operation did not last long enough. Hostilities between Byzantines and Armenians were started again after a short period of time and the byzantine governors of the region were unable to control sufficiently the situation.
As a result emperor Manuel I established from 1165 diplomatic tactics, which aimed at the unity of faith and the union of the churches: The Byzantine Orthodox and the Armenian. The ulterior motive was to join even more tightly with Byzantine empire the Armenian populatiion of Cilicia and to create a common front towards Turkish danger. However, the discussions which followed with the
Armenian catholicus Nerses the Gracious (1166-73) had no substantial result.
The negotiations for the union of the two churches were repeated during the following years, but unfortunately came to an end without success. The above, in combination with the decline of Byzantine empire during the reign of Alexius III Angelus (1195-1203), drove the Armenians and their prince Levon II ( 1187-1219) to establish relations with the German emperor and the Pope.

This article refers to the metropolitan bishop of Corfu (Kerkyra) Nicolaos, who was on his ecclesiastical throne during the reign of the byzantine emperor
Alexios I Comnenos (1081-1118). Also deals with the struggle between Byzantium and the Normands in the west provinces of Byzantine State and partricularly in the area of the Ionian sea (1081-85). Although Normands with their leader Robert Guiscard made serious efforts to conquer Corfu, finally they were defeated and their leader died in Kephallonia (1085).
Moreover it is stated that after the year l 084 the archbishopric of Corfu raised in a metropolitan bishopric and perhaps its first metropolitan bishop was
Nicolaos. His predecessor was archbishop Vasileios. We surely know that Nicolaos participated with other bishops, political and ecclesiastical officers in the
synod that took place in Blachernes in Constantinople (1094/95). We also know that Nicolaos had correspondence with the archbishop of Achrida Theophylact
(1089-1118 or 1126). In addition, he probably participated in the synod, which examined the case of Eustrate, metropolitan bishop of Nicea (1117).
A poem, which was written by Nicolaos, informs us about the problems and difficulties that he faced in his church and his intention to resign from the
metropolitan see of Corfu and become a monk. It is not certain that finally Nicolaos abdicated from his metropolitan bishopric.
Besides this poem, his writing work was very rich. He wrote an extensive commentary on the ascetic chapters of the Holy Maxime the Confessor. He also
wrote an epigram about Holy Cross and another about Saint John Chrysostome. The last mention about Nicolaos comes from a six lines poem, which was written by him in the year 1125/26 and concerns the hymns of Symeon the New Theologian.
From the facts which were mentioned above, we conclude that probably Nicolaos was metropolitan bishop of Corfu from 1084/85 to 1125/26. As his
successor is cited someone Theophanes.

The Beginning of Monasticism in Thessaloniki. Thessalonican Martyrs and Monastic Establishments, which appeared in Town till the Opening of Iconoclasm (726).

This article deals with the expansion of Christianity in Thessaloniki, as well as the organization of its first christian church. in 49 A.O. It refers to the Thessalonican martyrs who found death (martyrdom) during the persecutions of the emperor Diokletianos (like Domninos, Florentios, greatmartyr Dimitrios and his student Nestor, Luppos, Anysia, Matrona, Alexander, Theodoulos and Agathopus, Agapi, Irena, Chionia and many others) and mostly it discusses the appearance of monasticism in Thessaloniki.
The basic conclusion of the article is that monasticism appeared in the town -according to the archaeological evidences and the written sources- most likely during the 5th century. According to the information we have, untill the beginning of Iconoclasm (726), there were three known monasteries in Thessaloniki: a) The monastery of martyrs Theodore and Mercury the Koukouliates or Aproeton; it was established before 465-4 70 and it was there where holy David (450-535/41 ), who came from Mesopotamia, practised solitary life. b) The monastery of the prophet Zacharia (Latomou) in the location «Latomia», which was established in the end of the 5th century and c) the monastery of Saint Matrona, located outside the walls of Thessaloniki with strong fortification. It existed about the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 7th century.
The period of Iconoclasm had bad consequences on the town's monastic life. After its end, monasticism in Thessaloniki started to develop again in support with the appearance of the first hermits in the Holy Mountain and the establishment of Atho's divine state.

Δημήτριος Αντ. Κουντουράκης, Παπίκιον όρος και ιβηρική αριστοκρατία του Βυζαντίου. Η Μονή του Αγίου Γεωργίου, η Μαρία η Αλανή και ο Γρηγόριος Πακουριανός,
Ιερά Μητρόπολις Μαρωνείας και Κομοτηνής, Γραφικές Τέχνες «Μέλισσα», Κομοτηνή
2021, σελ. 551. , Βυζαντινός Δόμος 31 (2023) 457-459.

Alexios G.C. Savvides, Bosphorus/Bosporos (Boghaz-ici) from Byzantine to Latin and Ottoman times ( 4th-15th centuries). Constantinople viewed from the north-east water currents ..., Αθήνα 2020 (Εκδόσεις Ηρόδοτος), σσ. 242 [ISBN: 978-960-485-381-6]

Rosa Benoit-Meggenis, L’empereur et le moine. Les relations du pouvoir
impérial avec les monastères à Byzance (IΧe-XIIIe siècle) [Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée No 73], Lyon: Publications de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 2017, σσ. 304.