BULGARIA MEDIAEVALIS 8 (2017)
PIECES OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THE MONASTERY FOUNDED BY ST. KLIMENT OF OH... more BULGARIA MEDIAEVALIS 8 (2017) PIECES OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THE MONASTERY FOUNDED BY ST. KLIMENT OF OHRID
Contemporary knowledge of historical and cultural development of Bulgarian monasteries dated between the ninth century and the eleventh century is limited to a large extent due to the dearth of written sources. Th ere are records about the existence of plentitude of convents which turned into mediaeval Bulgarian cultural centres. Some of them accommodated schools and scriptoria which have produced not only genuine pieces of literature, but also translations from foreign languages were conducted and copied, and miscellanea collections were compiled. Th ese monasteries have formed the backbone of Preslav and Ohrid literary schools. Yet, the issue where these centres were located or what was their historical development over the centuries is still puzzling the academic community. On the one hand, archaeological excavations off er new pieces of evidence about Bulgarian convents, but on the other hand, their publications hold certain inaccuracies and inconclusiveness. Th e monasteries founded by St Kliment and St Naum of Ohrid – disciples of St Cyril and Methodius – are well outlined in copious pieces of written evidence as to their founding, while fragments of data depict their later development. Unlike the state of knowledge about many other monasteries, their 548 Summaria exact locations are known to the modern scholars. A number of bits of data about the monastery founded by St Kliment of Ohrid were inserted in the two Lives of St Kliment – these being his Long Life of Th eophylact of Ohrid and his Synoptic Life of Demetrios Chomatenos – and in various scribal notes and epigraphic inscriptions. Th e archaeological data adds to these written records. Th e monastery has been excavated in four stages in 1942–1943, 1965, 1999–2002 and 2007–2016. Archaeological fi ndings – albite incompletely – have been presented in academic journals and publications. By comparison and analysis of diff erent source data – and in spite of its fragmentary qualities – one may sketch the general chronological framework of St Pantaleon monastery’s functioning in Ohrid. Th e St Kliment’s Lives clearly present the story of saint’s founding the monastery in the end of the ninth century and its role until the Ottoman conquest of Ohrid. Most detailed accounts about its history date from the fourteenth century. One may distinguish several renovation stages of monastery’s church. Various marginal notes and epigraphic inscription reveal the names of monastery’s sponsors and some of its hegoumenoi. Th e issue of when the monastery’s church was converted into a mosque remains to be solved in the future. Th e available sources allow me to conclude that this transformation should be dated to the end of the sixteenth century – beginning of the seventeenth century. I think that Prohor, Archbishop of Ohrid was the last sponsor who commissioned monastery church renovation as following his death he was placed in St Kliment’s grave. It is noted as the end that the monastery church is rebuilt following the reconstruction of architects Todor Paskali and his daughter Tania Paskali. While the aim of Macedonian scholars and politicians was to revive the monastery of St Kliment, one may ask the question whether the new construction works did not aim to annihilate the few remaining pieces of evidence from the monastery founded by St Kliment of Ohrid.
The article deals with a journey of Kolasija Metropolitan
Bishop Michael to the Holy Lands which... more The article deals with a journey of Kolasija Metropolitan Bishop Michael to the Holy Lands which started in October 1656 and ended in June 1657. Based on a report filled at Posolskii Prikaz of the Russian government, the author reconstructs his itinerary – the Holy Mountain Athos, Egypt, St. Catherine’s monastery of Sinai, Jerusalem and its surroundings, Constantinople, Wallachia, Moldavia, and Russia. The report on the Black Saturday prior to the Easter and the skeptical description of the miracle of the Holy Fire are unique for an Orthodox pilgrim. The issue offers insights into the ecclesiastical politics in the Ottoman Empire in the 1656/7. Kolasija Metropolitan Bishop Michael has met with Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople and Antioch at various stages of his journey. He has offered glimpse into the certain issues that troubled the Orthodox community such as for instance the rivalry between the current and former Patriarchs of the Peč Patriarchy Maximus and Gabriel.
Political and spiritual borders on the Balkan Peninsula changed during the Ottoman domination per... more Political and spiritual borders on the Balkan Peninsula changed during the Ottoman domination period. The 14th century various state formations were subdued and included in a foreign state. Whereas up to that moment Christianity had been protected and supported by the Orthodoxal rulers, in the new political situation clergy became dependent on the foreign authority professing different faith. The Church lost a part of its properties even since the period of the conquests and the clergymen were made to pay additional taxes in order to obtain the right of ruling their own bishoprics. The Church was searching for new sources of incomes and quickly addressed the Russian State which gradually has turned into a protector of the Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Russian Archives keep number of documents giving testimonies about travelling of Balkan clergies to the Russian lands and about the “charity” they have been given. Such visits and donations have been recorded as marginal notes and captions in some books. Names of two metropolitans from Kolasia (today Kolusha – a residential quarter of Kyustendil) who have travelled to the Russian lands are found in the preserved records –Visarion the Metropolitan from the end of the 16th century and Mihail the Metropolitan from the 17th century middle. Visarion the Metropolitan is mentioned in a letter by Gervasiy the Abbot from Ossogovo (Ossogovo Mountain). The aim of the visit is unknown but it could be assumed that he aimed at finding subsidies for his bishopric’s churches. This visit is the earliest recorded travelling of clergies from Bulgarian lands to Russia. The second metropolitan – Mihail, visited the Russian lands three times. The first time in his position of a bishop of Vetar and twice as a metropolitan. During his visits he succeeded in obtaining donations for various churches on the Balkans mainly books, liturgical garments and church utensils. During his second travelling he was also given funds to visit the Holy Land. This travelling of him is evidenced by a note in Posolsky Prikaz (Ambassadorial Office List). From the preserved documents various details about the personality of the Kolasian Metropolitan and his contacts with the Russian Ruler are revealed. Different documents from the office of Posolski Prikaz have been published recently and it’s quite probably to find other bishops of Kolasia and clergies visiting Russian rulers for “charity”. These records provide one more important aspect of our church history and explain the connections between Christian clergy coming from the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Ruler.
Kalina Mincheva
Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies “Prof Ivan Dujčev”, University of Sofia
Data o... more Kalina Mincheva Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies “Prof Ivan Dujčev”, University of Sofia Data on the Monasteries’ History and Number in the Regions of Štip and Kočani (XVth-XVIIth century) Summary tovo. The Ottoman tax registers of 1519, 1550 and 1570/73 provide information on its privileged status, which it lost in the second part of the sixteenth century; its properties, donations and tax obligations. The metochions of monastery of Lesnovo, such as the Pirg skete are noted down as separate taxation entities, although the other contemporary sources indicate that they are part of it. While reconstructing the monastery’s history, the author points out that Metropolitan Michael, the Christian Orthodox head of Kolasiya (Kyustendil) to whose eparchy the monastery belonged, established the first contacts with Russian rulers. The monastery received two donations and a charter entitling its monks to visit Russia every six years and of charitable donations of a hundred rubles. The metochion of monastery of Lesnovo, the Dormition of the Mother of God – Pirg skete founded between the fourteenth and the sixteenth century, is recorded as a separate monastery in the Ottoman documents. The earliest written records about it dated from the sixteenth century when the scribal activity of the monastery of Lesnovo was transferred there. The study contributes to the administrative transformations in the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire by not- 225 ing that the skete was recorded in the registers of 1519 and 1550 as part of nāḥiyah of Štip while in the defter of 1570/73 the border between territorial units moved and it was written down as part of nāḥiyah of Kočani. The rest of the monasteries recoded as tax entities are known only from the Ottoman tax registers. Twelve of them are located in nāḥiyah of Štip while seven are in nāḥiyah of Kočani. The tax revenues collected of them are minimal and rarely the defters mention monks. It seems that the local population took care of their buildings and exploited their property. These monasteries do not exist at present and the memory of their location and existence is lost within the local population. There might be a number of reasons for their abandonment. On the one hand, this could be due to the economic crisis and inflation processes in the sixteenth - and the seventeenth - century Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, monasteries cease of existence could be due to the depopulation of the area as a result of the wars between the Ottoman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire in the second half of the seventeenth century. In 1689 detachments of the Holy Roman Epire’s army captured the towns of Štip and Veles and this move provoked the Karposh uprising in the area between Kyustendil and Skopje. The Janissaries corps and Tatars sent by the Ottoman authorities to suppress the rebels devastated the area and burned a number of churches and monasteries. The Ottoman authorities forbade the local population to restore the old churches or to build new ones. The author arrives at the following conclusions: On the one hand, the monasteries recorded in the Ottoman tax registers in nāḥiyah of Štip and nāḥiyah of Kočani might have been autonomous entities under the Metropolitan of Kyustendil. They most probably were founded earlier in the Middle Ages and although they altered their functionality they remained as sacral places where local population gathered during the church festivities. On the other hand, the author surmises that all or part of these monasteries were in effect metochions of larger monasteries, such as for instance the Dormition of the Mother of God – Pirg skete, which was a part of the monastery of Lesnovo. The author proposes that two more of surveyed monasteries – Pchelarino nearby the village of Yamiste and Saint John near the village of Dobrevo were also metochions of the monastery of Lesnovo. It is reasonable to believe that the rest of the monasteries recorded by the Ottoman officials were also metochions of the monastery of Lesnovo or of another unknown large monastery in the region. The third explanation offered by the author merges the two hypotheses above that quite likely some of the described monasteries were independent while others were subsidiaries, part of larger monasteries. The author does not exclude the probability that the Ottoman officials included by mistake or applied the term monastery to a church or a chapel located in the vicinity of the village, as is the case with the church of the village of Dolna Bogoroditsa. At the end of the period the only active monasteries were the monastery of Lesnovo and its skete the Dormition of the Mother of God – Pirg.
BULGARIA MEDIAEVALIS 8 (2017)
PIECES OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THE MONASTERY FOUNDED BY ST. KLIMENT OF OH... more BULGARIA MEDIAEVALIS 8 (2017) PIECES OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THE MONASTERY FOUNDED BY ST. KLIMENT OF OHRID
Contemporary knowledge of historical and cultural development of Bulgarian monasteries dated between the ninth century and the eleventh century is limited to a large extent due to the dearth of written sources. Th ere are records about the existence of plentitude of convents which turned into mediaeval Bulgarian cultural centres. Some of them accommodated schools and scriptoria which have produced not only genuine pieces of literature, but also translations from foreign languages were conducted and copied, and miscellanea collections were compiled. Th ese monasteries have formed the backbone of Preslav and Ohrid literary schools. Yet, the issue where these centres were located or what was their historical development over the centuries is still puzzling the academic community. On the one hand, archaeological excavations off er new pieces of evidence about Bulgarian convents, but on the other hand, their publications hold certain inaccuracies and inconclusiveness. Th e monasteries founded by St Kliment and St Naum of Ohrid – disciples of St Cyril and Methodius – are well outlined in copious pieces of written evidence as to their founding, while fragments of data depict their later development. Unlike the state of knowledge about many other monasteries, their 548 Summaria exact locations are known to the modern scholars. A number of bits of data about the monastery founded by St Kliment of Ohrid were inserted in the two Lives of St Kliment – these being his Long Life of Th eophylact of Ohrid and his Synoptic Life of Demetrios Chomatenos – and in various scribal notes and epigraphic inscriptions. Th e archaeological data adds to these written records. Th e monastery has been excavated in four stages in 1942–1943, 1965, 1999–2002 and 2007–2016. Archaeological fi ndings – albite incompletely – have been presented in academic journals and publications. By comparison and analysis of diff erent source data – and in spite of its fragmentary qualities – one may sketch the general chronological framework of St Pantaleon monastery’s functioning in Ohrid. Th e St Kliment’s Lives clearly present the story of saint’s founding the monastery in the end of the ninth century and its role until the Ottoman conquest of Ohrid. Most detailed accounts about its history date from the fourteenth century. One may distinguish several renovation stages of monastery’s church. Various marginal notes and epigraphic inscription reveal the names of monastery’s sponsors and some of its hegoumenoi. Th e issue of when the monastery’s church was converted into a mosque remains to be solved in the future. Th e available sources allow me to conclude that this transformation should be dated to the end of the sixteenth century – beginning of the seventeenth century. I think that Prohor, Archbishop of Ohrid was the last sponsor who commissioned monastery church renovation as following his death he was placed in St Kliment’s grave. It is noted as the end that the monastery church is rebuilt following the reconstruction of architects Todor Paskali and his daughter Tania Paskali. While the aim of Macedonian scholars and politicians was to revive the monastery of St Kliment, one may ask the question whether the new construction works did not aim to annihilate the few remaining pieces of evidence from the monastery founded by St Kliment of Ohrid.
The article deals with a journey of Kolasija Metropolitan
Bishop Michael to the Holy Lands which... more The article deals with a journey of Kolasija Metropolitan Bishop Michael to the Holy Lands which started in October 1656 and ended in June 1657. Based on a report filled at Posolskii Prikaz of the Russian government, the author reconstructs his itinerary – the Holy Mountain Athos, Egypt, St. Catherine’s monastery of Sinai, Jerusalem and its surroundings, Constantinople, Wallachia, Moldavia, and Russia. The report on the Black Saturday prior to the Easter and the skeptical description of the miracle of the Holy Fire are unique for an Orthodox pilgrim. The issue offers insights into the ecclesiastical politics in the Ottoman Empire in the 1656/7. Kolasija Metropolitan Bishop Michael has met with Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople and Antioch at various stages of his journey. He has offered glimpse into the certain issues that troubled the Orthodox community such as for instance the rivalry between the current and former Patriarchs of the Peč Patriarchy Maximus and Gabriel.
Political and spiritual borders on the Balkan Peninsula changed during the Ottoman domination per... more Political and spiritual borders on the Balkan Peninsula changed during the Ottoman domination period. The 14th century various state formations were subdued and included in a foreign state. Whereas up to that moment Christianity had been protected and supported by the Orthodoxal rulers, in the new political situation clergy became dependent on the foreign authority professing different faith. The Church lost a part of its properties even since the period of the conquests and the clergymen were made to pay additional taxes in order to obtain the right of ruling their own bishoprics. The Church was searching for new sources of incomes and quickly addressed the Russian State which gradually has turned into a protector of the Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Russian Archives keep number of documents giving testimonies about travelling of Balkan clergies to the Russian lands and about the “charity” they have been given. Such visits and donations have been recorded as marginal notes and captions in some books. Names of two metropolitans from Kolasia (today Kolusha – a residential quarter of Kyustendil) who have travelled to the Russian lands are found in the preserved records –Visarion the Metropolitan from the end of the 16th century and Mihail the Metropolitan from the 17th century middle. Visarion the Metropolitan is mentioned in a letter by Gervasiy the Abbot from Ossogovo (Ossogovo Mountain). The aim of the visit is unknown but it could be assumed that he aimed at finding subsidies for his bishopric’s churches. This visit is the earliest recorded travelling of clergies from Bulgarian lands to Russia. The second metropolitan – Mihail, visited the Russian lands three times. The first time in his position of a bishop of Vetar and twice as a metropolitan. During his visits he succeeded in obtaining donations for various churches on the Balkans mainly books, liturgical garments and church utensils. During his second travelling he was also given funds to visit the Holy Land. This travelling of him is evidenced by a note in Posolsky Prikaz (Ambassadorial Office List). From the preserved documents various details about the personality of the Kolasian Metropolitan and his contacts with the Russian Ruler are revealed. Different documents from the office of Posolski Prikaz have been published recently and it’s quite probably to find other bishops of Kolasia and clergies visiting Russian rulers for “charity”. These records provide one more important aspect of our church history and explain the connections between Christian clergy coming from the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Ruler.
Kalina Mincheva
Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies “Prof Ivan Dujčev”, University of Sofia
Data o... more Kalina Mincheva Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies “Prof Ivan Dujčev”, University of Sofia Data on the Monasteries’ History and Number in the Regions of Štip and Kočani (XVth-XVIIth century) Summary tovo. The Ottoman tax registers of 1519, 1550 and 1570/73 provide information on its privileged status, which it lost in the second part of the sixteenth century; its properties, donations and tax obligations. The metochions of monastery of Lesnovo, such as the Pirg skete are noted down as separate taxation entities, although the other contemporary sources indicate that they are part of it. While reconstructing the monastery’s history, the author points out that Metropolitan Michael, the Christian Orthodox head of Kolasiya (Kyustendil) to whose eparchy the monastery belonged, established the first contacts with Russian rulers. The monastery received two donations and a charter entitling its monks to visit Russia every six years and of charitable donations of a hundred rubles. The metochion of monastery of Lesnovo, the Dormition of the Mother of God – Pirg skete founded between the fourteenth and the sixteenth century, is recorded as a separate monastery in the Ottoman documents. The earliest written records about it dated from the sixteenth century when the scribal activity of the monastery of Lesnovo was transferred there. The study contributes to the administrative transformations in the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire by not- 225 ing that the skete was recorded in the registers of 1519 and 1550 as part of nāḥiyah of Štip while in the defter of 1570/73 the border between territorial units moved and it was written down as part of nāḥiyah of Kočani. The rest of the monasteries recoded as tax entities are known only from the Ottoman tax registers. Twelve of them are located in nāḥiyah of Štip while seven are in nāḥiyah of Kočani. The tax revenues collected of them are minimal and rarely the defters mention monks. It seems that the local population took care of their buildings and exploited their property. These monasteries do not exist at present and the memory of their location and existence is lost within the local population. There might be a number of reasons for their abandonment. On the one hand, this could be due to the economic crisis and inflation processes in the sixteenth - and the seventeenth - century Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, monasteries cease of existence could be due to the depopulation of the area as a result of the wars between the Ottoman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire in the second half of the seventeenth century. In 1689 detachments of the Holy Roman Epire’s army captured the towns of Štip and Veles and this move provoked the Karposh uprising in the area between Kyustendil and Skopje. The Janissaries corps and Tatars sent by the Ottoman authorities to suppress the rebels devastated the area and burned a number of churches and monasteries. The Ottoman authorities forbade the local population to restore the old churches or to build new ones. The author arrives at the following conclusions: On the one hand, the monasteries recorded in the Ottoman tax registers in nāḥiyah of Štip and nāḥiyah of Kočani might have been autonomous entities under the Metropolitan of Kyustendil. They most probably were founded earlier in the Middle Ages and although they altered their functionality they remained as sacral places where local population gathered during the church festivities. On the other hand, the author surmises that all or part of these monasteries were in effect metochions of larger monasteries, such as for instance the Dormition of the Mother of God – Pirg skete, which was a part of the monastery of Lesnovo. The author proposes that two more of surveyed monasteries – Pchelarino nearby the village of Yamiste and Saint John near the village of Dobrevo were also metochions of the monastery of Lesnovo. It is reasonable to believe that the rest of the monasteries recorded by the Ottoman officials were also metochions of the monastery of Lesnovo or of another unknown large monastery in the region. The third explanation offered by the author merges the two hypotheses above that quite likely some of the described monasteries were independent while others were subsidiaries, part of larger monasteries. The author does not exclude the probability that the Ottoman officials included by mistake or applied the term monastery to a church or a chapel located in the vicinity of the village, as is the case with the church of the village of Dolna Bogoroditsa. At the end of the period the only active monasteries were the monastery of Lesnovo and its skete the Dormition of the Mother of God – Pirg.
Uploads
Books by Kalina Mincheva
Papers by Kalina Mincheva
PIECES OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THE MONASTERY FOUNDED BY ST. KLIMENT OF OHRID
Contemporary knowledge of historical and cultural development of Bulgarian monasteries dated between the ninth century and the eleventh century is limited to a large extent due to the dearth of written sources. Th ere are records about the existence of plentitude of convents which turned into mediaeval Bulgarian cultural centres. Some of them accommodated schools and scriptoria which have produced not only genuine pieces of literature, but also translations from foreign languages were conducted and copied, and miscellanea collections were compiled. Th ese monasteries have formed the backbone of Preslav and Ohrid literary schools. Yet, the issue where these centres were located or what was their historical development over the centuries is still puzzling the academic community. On the one hand, archaeological excavations off er new pieces of evidence about Bulgarian convents, but on the other hand, their publications hold certain inaccuracies and inconclusiveness. Th e monasteries founded by St Kliment and St Naum of Ohrid – disciples of St Cyril and Methodius – are well outlined in copious pieces of written evidence as to their founding, while fragments of data depict their later development. Unlike the state of knowledge about many other monasteries, their 548 Summaria exact locations are known to the modern scholars. A number of bits of data about the monastery founded by St Kliment of Ohrid were inserted in the two Lives of St Kliment – these being his Long Life of Th eophylact of Ohrid and his Synoptic Life of Demetrios Chomatenos – and in various scribal notes and epigraphic inscriptions. Th e archaeological data adds to these written records. Th e monastery has been excavated in four stages in 1942–1943, 1965, 1999–2002 and 2007–2016. Archaeological fi ndings – albite incompletely – have been presented in academic journals and publications. By comparison and analysis of diff erent source data – and in spite of its fragmentary qualities – one may sketch the general chronological framework of St Pantaleon monastery’s functioning in Ohrid. Th e St Kliment’s Lives clearly present the story of saint’s founding the monastery in the end of the ninth century and its role until the Ottoman conquest of Ohrid. Most detailed accounts about its history date from the fourteenth century. One may distinguish several renovation stages of monastery’s church. Various marginal notes and epigraphic inscription reveal the names of monastery’s sponsors and some of its hegoumenoi. Th e issue of when the monastery’s church was converted into a mosque remains to be solved in the future. Th e available sources allow me to conclude that this transformation should be dated to the end of the sixteenth century – beginning of the seventeenth century. I think that Prohor, Archbishop of Ohrid was the last sponsor who commissioned monastery church renovation as following his death he was placed in St Kliment’s grave. It is noted as the end that the monastery church is rebuilt following the reconstruction of architects Todor Paskali and his daughter Tania Paskali. While the aim of Macedonian scholars and politicians was to revive the monastery of St Kliment, one may ask the question whether the new construction works did not aim to annihilate the few remaining pieces of evidence from the monastery founded by St Kliment of Ohrid.
Bishop Michael to the Holy Lands which started in October 1656
and ended in June 1657. Based on a report filled at Posolskii Prikaz of the Russian government, the author reconstructs his itinerary – the Holy Mountain Athos, Egypt, St. Catherine’s monastery of
Sinai, Jerusalem and its surroundings, Constantinople, Wallachia,
Moldavia, and Russia. The report on the Black Saturday prior to the
Easter and the skeptical description of the miracle of the Holy Fire
are unique for an Orthodox pilgrim.
The issue offers insights into the ecclesiastical politics in the
Ottoman Empire in the 1656/7. Kolasija Metropolitan Bishop Michael has met with Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople and
Antioch at various stages of his journey. He has offered glimpse into
the certain issues that troubled the Orthodox community such as for
instance the rivalry between the current and former Patriarchs of
the Peč Patriarchy Maximus and Gabriel.
Russian Archives keep number of documents giving testimonies about travelling of Balkan clergies to the Russian lands and about the “charity” they have been given. Such visits and donations have been recorded as marginal notes and captions in some books. Names of two metropolitans from Kolasia (today Kolusha – a residential quarter of Kyustendil) who have travelled to the Russian lands are found in the preserved records –Visarion the Metropolitan from the end of the 16th century and Mihail the Metropolitan from the 17th century middle.
Visarion the Metropolitan is mentioned in a letter by Gervasiy the Abbot from Ossogovo (Ossogovo Mountain). The aim of the visit is unknown but it could be assumed that he aimed at finding subsidies for his bishopric’s churches. This visit is the earliest recorded travelling of clergies from Bulgarian lands to Russia.
The second metropolitan – Mihail, visited the Russian lands three times. The first time in his position of a bishop of Vetar and twice as a metropolitan. During his visits he succeeded in obtaining donations for various churches on the Balkans mainly books, liturgical garments and church utensils. During his second travelling he was also given funds to visit the Holy Land. This travelling of him is evidenced by a note in Posolsky Prikaz (Ambassadorial Office List). From the preserved documents various details about the personality of the Kolasian Metropolitan and his contacts with the Russian Ruler are revealed.
Different documents from the office of Posolski Prikaz have been published recently and it’s quite probably to find other bishops of Kolasia and clergies visiting Russian rulers for “charity”. These records provide one more important aspect of our church history and explain the connections between Christian clergy coming from the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Ruler.
Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies “Prof Ivan Dujčev”, University of Sofia
Data on the Monasteries’ History and Number
in the Regions of Štip and Kočani
(XVth-XVIIth century)
Summary
tovo. The Ottoman tax registers of 1519, 1550 and
1570/73 provide information on its privileged status,
which it lost in the second part of the sixteenth century;
its properties, donations and tax obligations.
The metochions of monastery of Lesnovo, such as
the Pirg skete are noted down as separate taxation
entities, although the other contemporary sources indicate
that they are part of it.
While reconstructing the monastery’s history,
the author points out that Metropolitan Michael, the
Christian Orthodox head of Kolasiya (Kyustendil) to
whose eparchy the monastery belonged, established
the first contacts with Russian rulers. The monastery
received two donations and a charter entitling its
monks to visit Russia every six years and of charitable
donations of a hundred rubles.
The metochion of monastery of Lesnovo, the
Dormition of the Mother of God – Pirg skete founded
between the fourteenth and the sixteenth century,
is recorded as a separate monastery in the Ottoman
documents. The earliest written records about it dated
from the sixteenth century when the scribal activity of
the monastery of Lesnovo was transferred there. The
study contributes to the administrative transformations
in the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire by not-
225
ing that the skete was recorded in the registers of 1519
and 1550 as part of nāḥiyah of Štip while in the defter
of 1570/73 the border between territorial units moved
and it was written down as part of nāḥiyah of Kočani.
The rest of the monasteries recoded as tax entities
are known only from the Ottoman tax registers.
Twelve of them are located in nāḥiyah of Štip while
seven are in nāḥiyah of Kočani. The tax revenues
collected of them are minimal and rarely the defters
mention monks. It seems that the local population took
care of their buildings and exploited their property.
These monasteries do not exist at present and the memory
of their location and existence is lost within the
local population. There might be a number of reasons
for their abandonment. On the one hand, this could be
due to the economic crisis and inflation processes in
the sixteenth - and the seventeenth - century Ottoman
Empire. On the other hand, monasteries cease of existence
could be due to the depopulation of the area
as a result of the wars between the Ottoman Empire
and the Holy Roman Empire in the second half of the
seventeenth century. In 1689 detachments of the Holy
Roman Epire’s army captured the towns of Štip and
Veles and this move provoked the Karposh uprising
in the area between Kyustendil and Skopje. The Janissaries
corps and Tatars sent by the Ottoman authorities
to suppress the rebels devastated the area and burned
a number of churches and monasteries. The Ottoman
authorities forbade the local population to restore the
old churches or to build new ones.
The author arrives at the following conclusions:
On the one hand, the monasteries recorded in the Ottoman
tax registers in nāḥiyah of Štip and nāḥiyah of
Kočani might have been autonomous entities under
the Metropolitan of Kyustendil. They most probably
were founded earlier in the Middle Ages and although
they altered their functionality they remained as sacral
places where local population gathered during the
church festivities.
On the other hand, the author surmises that all or
part of these monasteries were in effect metochions of
larger monasteries, such as for instance the Dormition
of the Mother of God – Pirg skete, which was a part of
the monastery of Lesnovo. The author proposes that
two more of surveyed monasteries – Pchelarino nearby
the village of Yamiste and Saint John near the village
of Dobrevo were also metochions of the monastery
of Lesnovo. It is reasonable to believe that the rest
of the monasteries recorded by the Ottoman officials
were also metochions of the monastery of Lesnovo or
of another unknown large monastery in the region.
The third explanation offered by the author merges
the two hypotheses above that quite likely some
of the described monasteries were independent while
others were subsidiaries, part of larger monasteries.
The author does not exclude the probability that
the Ottoman officials included by mistake or applied
the term monastery to a church or a chapel located
in the vicinity of the village, as is the case with the
church of the village of Dolna Bogoroditsa.
At the end of the period the only active monasteries
were the monastery of Lesnovo and its skete the
Dormition of the Mother of God – Pirg.
PIECES OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THE MONASTERY FOUNDED BY ST. KLIMENT OF OHRID
Contemporary knowledge of historical and cultural development of Bulgarian monasteries dated between the ninth century and the eleventh century is limited to a large extent due to the dearth of written sources. Th ere are records about the existence of plentitude of convents which turned into mediaeval Bulgarian cultural centres. Some of them accommodated schools and scriptoria which have produced not only genuine pieces of literature, but also translations from foreign languages were conducted and copied, and miscellanea collections were compiled. Th ese monasteries have formed the backbone of Preslav and Ohrid literary schools. Yet, the issue where these centres were located or what was their historical development over the centuries is still puzzling the academic community. On the one hand, archaeological excavations off er new pieces of evidence about Bulgarian convents, but on the other hand, their publications hold certain inaccuracies and inconclusiveness. Th e monasteries founded by St Kliment and St Naum of Ohrid – disciples of St Cyril and Methodius – are well outlined in copious pieces of written evidence as to their founding, while fragments of data depict their later development. Unlike the state of knowledge about many other monasteries, their 548 Summaria exact locations are known to the modern scholars. A number of bits of data about the monastery founded by St Kliment of Ohrid were inserted in the two Lives of St Kliment – these being his Long Life of Th eophylact of Ohrid and his Synoptic Life of Demetrios Chomatenos – and in various scribal notes and epigraphic inscriptions. Th e archaeological data adds to these written records. Th e monastery has been excavated in four stages in 1942–1943, 1965, 1999–2002 and 2007–2016. Archaeological fi ndings – albite incompletely – have been presented in academic journals and publications. By comparison and analysis of diff erent source data – and in spite of its fragmentary qualities – one may sketch the general chronological framework of St Pantaleon monastery’s functioning in Ohrid. Th e St Kliment’s Lives clearly present the story of saint’s founding the monastery in the end of the ninth century and its role until the Ottoman conquest of Ohrid. Most detailed accounts about its history date from the fourteenth century. One may distinguish several renovation stages of monastery’s church. Various marginal notes and epigraphic inscription reveal the names of monastery’s sponsors and some of its hegoumenoi. Th e issue of when the monastery’s church was converted into a mosque remains to be solved in the future. Th e available sources allow me to conclude that this transformation should be dated to the end of the sixteenth century – beginning of the seventeenth century. I think that Prohor, Archbishop of Ohrid was the last sponsor who commissioned monastery church renovation as following his death he was placed in St Kliment’s grave. It is noted as the end that the monastery church is rebuilt following the reconstruction of architects Todor Paskali and his daughter Tania Paskali. While the aim of Macedonian scholars and politicians was to revive the monastery of St Kliment, one may ask the question whether the new construction works did not aim to annihilate the few remaining pieces of evidence from the monastery founded by St Kliment of Ohrid.
Bishop Michael to the Holy Lands which started in October 1656
and ended in June 1657. Based on a report filled at Posolskii Prikaz of the Russian government, the author reconstructs his itinerary – the Holy Mountain Athos, Egypt, St. Catherine’s monastery of
Sinai, Jerusalem and its surroundings, Constantinople, Wallachia,
Moldavia, and Russia. The report on the Black Saturday prior to the
Easter and the skeptical description of the miracle of the Holy Fire
are unique for an Orthodox pilgrim.
The issue offers insights into the ecclesiastical politics in the
Ottoman Empire in the 1656/7. Kolasija Metropolitan Bishop Michael has met with Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople and
Antioch at various stages of his journey. He has offered glimpse into
the certain issues that troubled the Orthodox community such as for
instance the rivalry between the current and former Patriarchs of
the Peč Patriarchy Maximus and Gabriel.
Russian Archives keep number of documents giving testimonies about travelling of Balkan clergies to the Russian lands and about the “charity” they have been given. Such visits and donations have been recorded as marginal notes and captions in some books. Names of two metropolitans from Kolasia (today Kolusha – a residential quarter of Kyustendil) who have travelled to the Russian lands are found in the preserved records –Visarion the Metropolitan from the end of the 16th century and Mihail the Metropolitan from the 17th century middle.
Visarion the Metropolitan is mentioned in a letter by Gervasiy the Abbot from Ossogovo (Ossogovo Mountain). The aim of the visit is unknown but it could be assumed that he aimed at finding subsidies for his bishopric’s churches. This visit is the earliest recorded travelling of clergies from Bulgarian lands to Russia.
The second metropolitan – Mihail, visited the Russian lands three times. The first time in his position of a bishop of Vetar and twice as a metropolitan. During his visits he succeeded in obtaining donations for various churches on the Balkans mainly books, liturgical garments and church utensils. During his second travelling he was also given funds to visit the Holy Land. This travelling of him is evidenced by a note in Posolsky Prikaz (Ambassadorial Office List). From the preserved documents various details about the personality of the Kolasian Metropolitan and his contacts with the Russian Ruler are revealed.
Different documents from the office of Posolski Prikaz have been published recently and it’s quite probably to find other bishops of Kolasia and clergies visiting Russian rulers for “charity”. These records provide one more important aspect of our church history and explain the connections between Christian clergy coming from the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Ruler.
Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies “Prof Ivan Dujčev”, University of Sofia
Data on the Monasteries’ History and Number
in the Regions of Štip and Kočani
(XVth-XVIIth century)
Summary
tovo. The Ottoman tax registers of 1519, 1550 and
1570/73 provide information on its privileged status,
which it lost in the second part of the sixteenth century;
its properties, donations and tax obligations.
The metochions of monastery of Lesnovo, such as
the Pirg skete are noted down as separate taxation
entities, although the other contemporary sources indicate
that they are part of it.
While reconstructing the monastery’s history,
the author points out that Metropolitan Michael, the
Christian Orthodox head of Kolasiya (Kyustendil) to
whose eparchy the monastery belonged, established
the first contacts with Russian rulers. The monastery
received two donations and a charter entitling its
monks to visit Russia every six years and of charitable
donations of a hundred rubles.
The metochion of monastery of Lesnovo, the
Dormition of the Mother of God – Pirg skete founded
between the fourteenth and the sixteenth century,
is recorded as a separate monastery in the Ottoman
documents. The earliest written records about it dated
from the sixteenth century when the scribal activity of
the monastery of Lesnovo was transferred there. The
study contributes to the administrative transformations
in the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire by not-
225
ing that the skete was recorded in the registers of 1519
and 1550 as part of nāḥiyah of Štip while in the defter
of 1570/73 the border between territorial units moved
and it was written down as part of nāḥiyah of Kočani.
The rest of the monasteries recoded as tax entities
are known only from the Ottoman tax registers.
Twelve of them are located in nāḥiyah of Štip while
seven are in nāḥiyah of Kočani. The tax revenues
collected of them are minimal and rarely the defters
mention monks. It seems that the local population took
care of their buildings and exploited their property.
These monasteries do not exist at present and the memory
of their location and existence is lost within the
local population. There might be a number of reasons
for their abandonment. On the one hand, this could be
due to the economic crisis and inflation processes in
the sixteenth - and the seventeenth - century Ottoman
Empire. On the other hand, monasteries cease of existence
could be due to the depopulation of the area
as a result of the wars between the Ottoman Empire
and the Holy Roman Empire in the second half of the
seventeenth century. In 1689 detachments of the Holy
Roman Epire’s army captured the towns of Štip and
Veles and this move provoked the Karposh uprising
in the area between Kyustendil and Skopje. The Janissaries
corps and Tatars sent by the Ottoman authorities
to suppress the rebels devastated the area and burned
a number of churches and monasteries. The Ottoman
authorities forbade the local population to restore the
old churches or to build new ones.
The author arrives at the following conclusions:
On the one hand, the monasteries recorded in the Ottoman
tax registers in nāḥiyah of Štip and nāḥiyah of
Kočani might have been autonomous entities under
the Metropolitan of Kyustendil. They most probably
were founded earlier in the Middle Ages and although
they altered their functionality they remained as sacral
places where local population gathered during the
church festivities.
On the other hand, the author surmises that all or
part of these monasteries were in effect metochions of
larger monasteries, such as for instance the Dormition
of the Mother of God – Pirg skete, which was a part of
the monastery of Lesnovo. The author proposes that
two more of surveyed monasteries – Pchelarino nearby
the village of Yamiste and Saint John near the village
of Dobrevo were also metochions of the monastery
of Lesnovo. It is reasonable to believe that the rest
of the monasteries recorded by the Ottoman officials
were also metochions of the monastery of Lesnovo or
of another unknown large monastery in the region.
The third explanation offered by the author merges
the two hypotheses above that quite likely some
of the described monasteries were independent while
others were subsidiaries, part of larger monasteries.
The author does not exclude the probability that
the Ottoman officials included by mistake or applied
the term monastery to a church or a chapel located
in the vicinity of the village, as is the case with the
church of the village of Dolna Bogoroditsa.
At the end of the period the only active monasteries
were the monastery of Lesnovo and its skete the
Dormition of the Mother of God – Pirg.