SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF A TAX:

THE METROPOLITANS AND BISHOPS PKE

(SECOND HALF OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY)
Phokion P. Kotzageorgis*

The incorporation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople into the Ottoman

state mechanism was accomplished through fiscal integration and, particularly,
the imposition of two taxes, the pike and the harac, in the second half of the
fifteenth century.1 The former was the amount paid by the patriarch for his
appointment in the patriarchal office, and the latter was the annual tax paid for
implementing and fulfilling his rights and duties as a patriarch. The first tax was
payable after the promulgation of a sultanic order (ferman), while the second
was followed by the issue of a diploma (berat). When a new sultan was enthroned, the pike was to be paid again by the patriarch, and similarly when a new
patriarch was appointed to the office, he had to pay the tax to the sultan, even
if the sultan had not been changed. This dual taxation system reminds us the
well-known Ottoman fiscal practice of the tax-farm system (iltizam). The contractor of a fiscal unit in the system of iltizam had to pay a sum in advance to
the state and every year a set sum of money, in order to undertake the administ-

* Dept. of Modern History, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.

phokion@hist.auth.gr
1 Elissavet A. Zachariadou, (14831567), [Ten Turkish Documents Concerning the Great Church (1483-1567)], Athens
1996, 79-89; Paraskevas Konortas, : (17- 20 ) [Ottoman Attitudes for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 17th-beginning of 20th century],
Athens 1998, 167-71.
207

Phokion P. KOTZAGEORGIS

ration of this unit.2 Similarly, the patriarch paid a tax (pike) in advance and
every year paid a set lump sum tax (harac).
Because of this fact, in Ottoman sources (i.e. the berats) the patriarch is
referred to as a mltezim. Recent studies argue that in the seventeenth century
this dual taxation system, which was the backbone of the institutional position
of the Orthodox Church within the Ottoman state hierarchy, had changed. The
annual tax (harac) was transformed into the tax zarar- kassabiye, namely a tax
for the provisioning of the army with meat; this change took place in all likelihood at the turn of the sixteenth century.3 The other fiscal pillar of the Patriarchate was the pike, paid in cash until 1097/1686, when, as I shall show below,
it was turned into a substitute for the provisioning of the imperial gardeners
corps (hassa- bostancyan) with meat.
The patriarchs dependants (metropolitans and bishops) similarly had to pay
pike and harac for fulfilling their ecclesiastical functions (duties and rights).
Thus in three preserved original bishops investiture documents (berats) from
the sixteenth century it is underlined that the payment of the tax was payable
by the relevant bishop for verifying his appointment and his duties (on sikke
filori hzzane-i amireme teslim olunman zikr olan piskoposluk mezkure tayin
olund).4 If in the first one hundred and fifty years after the conquest of Constantinople the patriarch and his dependants were subject to the same tax status,
we assume that the same changes observed for the patriarch in the seventeenth
For the iltizam system see Linda T. Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy. Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560-1660, Leiden New York
Kln 1996, 119-160; Murat zaka, A Comparative Evolution of Business Partnerships.
The Islamic World and Europe, with Specific Reference to the Ottoman Archives, Leiden
New York Kln 1996, 135-159. For the relation of the Orthodox Church with the iltizam
system see especially Anastassios G. Papademetriou, Ottoman Tax Farming and the Greek
Orthodox Patriarchate. An Examination of State and Church in Ottoman Society (15th-16th
Century), unpublished PhD diss., University of Princeton 2001, 125-171. That bishops like
the Patriarch were for the Ottoman state tax farmers can be discerned from the terminology of the present register. In the first page, where the changes in the fiscal status of the
Patriarchate were recorded, it is mentioned that the specified Patriarch was appointed Patriarch for three years (see Appendix). This is reminiscent of the three-year period that a
tax-farmer would typically undertake in the administration of a tax farming.
3 Halil nalck, The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans, Turcica
21-22 (1991), 424.
4 Zachariadou, , 179-187 (nos. 8-10). The passage is from document no. 9.

208

Socio-economic aspects of a tax

century, took place in the bishoprics as well. My paper focuses on a single and
unique, as far as I know, register of metropolitans and bishops appointments
and attempts to present new aspects of the fiscal and institutional structure of
the Church in the second half of the seventeenth century.
The register is a copy of the apparently official protocol kept by the relevant service of the economic department of the state (kk- sani), regarding
the registration of the investiture diplomas of the Church officials. The reason
for the compilation of this copy is not explicitly known; however, I argue that
it might be a change in the fiscal status of the Church that caused its compilation. A notice in the first page of the register mentions that from the period of
the fourth patriarchate of Dionysios the Fourth (i.e. in March 1686) the patriarch had to pay an equivalent for the tax of pike, which amounted to a much
lower sum than what he used to pay before. While the patriarch had to pay for
this tax ten loads (yk) of aspers as a pike, from this arrangement on he had
to pay the substitute of one hundred okkas of meat for the supplying of the
imperial gardeners corps; this amount was equivalent to four hundred thousands aspers. Thus, instead of paying one million aspers, the patriarch had to
pay four hundred thousands aspers in three installments. The reason for this
change might be connected to the long war that the Ottoman Empire was embroiled in since 1684. The sultan took this measure to meet the urgent needs for
supplying the army fighting in the northern frontier of the state. It should be
noted that a period of negotiation between the patriarch and the state preceded,
in which the former persistently asked for the alleviation of the fiscal burden on
the Church, in order that the Patriarchate cope with the enormous debts it had
accumulated at least from the period of financial crisis of the end of the sixteenth century onwards. Thus, it was the war which alleviated the burden and turned it from a purely monetary tax to a substitution for food supply.5 However,
the question is why the tax was imposed on a lower base. Was it the result of the
laborious negotiation of the Patriarchate? Or, might the state have counterbalanced the loss from the reduction of the tax with the imposition of a new tax or
the regularization of irregular taxes? The available data do not give any answer.
5

The practice of the transformation of taxes to an equivalent of supplying army corps

was not an innovation; rather it was a widespread state policy. See for example Sophia
N. Laiou, Alliances and Disputes in the Ottoman Periphery: The Monastery of Leimon
(Mytilene) and its Social Environment in the 17th Century, XIV. Trk Tarih Kongresi,
vol. II/II, Ankara 2005, 1394-95.
209

Phokion P. KOTZAGEORGIS

The time-span covered by the register might not be coincidental. The entries are not arranged chronologically, probably because this was a copy. The
oldest entry dated from the 25 aban 1052 (18.11.1642) and the most recent
one from the 1st of Zilhicce 1117 (16.3.1706). The first date corresponded with
a presumable change in the fiscal departments of the state, which directly influenced the fiscal organization of Church affairs. According to Prof. Paraskevas Konortas, in 1051/1640 the fiscal departments of the state might have
been reorganized.6 As concerns particularly the Church, a new department was
established under the name of piskopos mukataas kalemi. This department passed under the directorate of the kk- sani bureau of state finance.7 Therefore,
a scribal corps in the fiscal headquarters was exclusively engaged with Church
affairs from then on. From that date, the oldest Church register kept in the
Prime-ministry Archives (Babakanlk Arivi) in Istanbul has been preserved
till today.8 Thus, one can assume that the compilation of the under study copyregister reflects the change that had taken place in the relevant fiscal department in the middle of the seventeenth century. Namely, we can argue that the
copy is based on the first protocol registers of the piskopos mukataasi kalemi,
which have not been preserved in its original form.

6 Konortas,

, 171-74. If it had ever taken place, this reorganization

would have been one of a great number of such reorganizations occurring during the
17th century (Darling, Revenue-Raising, 57-80).
7 For the different contents of that financial bureau in the 16th and 17th centuries, see Darling, Revenue-Raising, 56-7, 60-1, 65-6. It might not be a coincidence that the jurisdiction
of that bureau was over the southern Balkans regions. The relevant bureau belonged to
the jurisdiction of the 3rd defterdar. However, it is not possible to understand the changes
occurring in the Ottoman finance bureaus during the 17th century.
8 See the catalogue of the Prime-Ministry Archive (. Akta (ed), Babakanlk Osmanl
Arivi Rehberi, stanbul 2000, 178) and the article of Halil nalck, Ottoman Archival
Materials on Millets, in B. Braude with B. Lewis (eds), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. The Functioning of a Plural Society, N. York London 1982, vol. I, 438-447.
However, the register published by Inalcik has a completely different form from the present. So, this must have to do with different types of Church registers. According to the
same author (Konortas) this new arrangement could be connected to another monetary
reform, which immediately followed the sultan Ibrahims ascension to the throne. In fact
it concerns one of the four coinage correction operations (tashih-i sikke) which occurred
in the first half of the 17th century, in order for the state to deal with problems arising due
to the constant devaluation of the ake (evket Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire, Cambridge 2000, 139-141).
210

Socio-economic aspects of a tax

The end of the entries coincides with the ascension of a new patriarch, Gabriel the Third (date of the appointment order: 27.2.1703), on the occasion of
which a new register was compiled, subsequent to a petition of the patriarch
in 29.8.1705. The register was compiled in the 15th of April 1706, which corresponds to the first day of the Islamic lunar year of 1118. Thus, on the occasion
of the ascension of the new patriarch and due to the petition of the latter to the
Sublime Porte, this annotated copy was compiled. It is evident from the notes
on the first page that the new patriarch attempted to reaffirm the fiscal status
of the patriarchate, probably because of the application of the new fiscal practice of malikane to all the tax units of the empire, which previously was under
the iltizam system status. This assumption can be proved by the disturbances
observed in the Patriarchate and mentioned in Greek sources eight years later,
when the malikane system finally applied to it.9
The twenty-eight entries of the register have a common text format. They
include: the title of the region; the name of the new hierarch; the previous officeholders name; the reason for the change in office (death, resignation, removal
etc.); and the necessary procedure, which had been followed (i.e., the petition of
the patriarch [his name was referred to] to the Porte for the promulgation of an
order for the appointment of the officer and the date this order [ferman- erif]
was promulgated). Below this, the amount of the old (kadim) pike of the metropolitanate/bishopric was written. In the older entries, above the main entry, a
note was written for the renewal/replacement of the office holder with the promulgation of a berat, due to the ascension of a new sultan.10 This is an example:
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Maronya nam- dier Gmlcine derhde-i Kalinikos nam rahib becay- avril nam rahib ki mrd de ba arz- Kalinikos rahib
patrk- stanbul ve ba ferman- erife elvak fi 12 Ramazan 1115. Peke-i kadim
960. Tecdid-i berat kerde beray clus- hmayun fi 10 Zilhicce 1115.
[The metropolitanate of the unbelievers of the region of Maronia, other name Gioumoultzina, under the tax-farmer of the monk named Kallinikos, in the place of the
monk named Gabriel, who was dead, through the petition of the monk Kallinikos, the
Patriarch of Istanbul and through [the promulgation] of a noble order. This happened
See Konortas, , 176-77 and 348-50, where the relevant Greek
sources on this incident are analyzed.
10 All the renovations have the same dates and correspond to the ascension of the relevant
sultans during this period: 26 Ramazan 1102 (23.6.1691) for Ahmed II, 22 Cemaziylahr 1106 (7.2.1695) for Mustafa II, 10 Zilhicce 1115 (15.4.1704) for Ahmed III.
9

211

Phokion P. KOTZAGEORGIS

on the 12th of Ramazan, 1115. The [amount] of the old pike: 960. A renewal order
has been promulgated because of the Sultans ascension in the 10th of Zilhicce, 1115.]

The title of the hierarch registered in the source is carefully written. Until now,
scholars have pointed out that the Ottoman sources have not been so consistent regarding the recording of Church titles; this phenomenon caused a host
of problems for the researcher.11 In this register the scribe describes the office
as piskoposluk or metrepolidlik, while the Patriarchate is referred to as patrklk.
Once we compare the registered offices with those in the Greek sources of the
time, we realize that there is consistency. For example, for Serres/Siroz, Thessaloniki/Selanik, and Adrinople/Edirne the scribe uses the term metrepolidlik,
while for itroz/Kitros, Serfice/Servia, and Ahyol/Anghialos uses the term
piskoposluk. The last term is used for the archbishoprics as well (e.g. piskoposluk Kesendire for the archbishopric of Kassandra [p. 6], Lca [p. 3], and Poonya
[p. 8]).12 Having in mind that a bishopric could be elevated to the rank of a
metropolis and a metropolis could be degraded to the rank of a bishopric not
uncommonly during the Ottoman period, we suggest that the Ottoman scribes
updated the relevant catalogues meticulously and they were aware of the changes occurred in the Church catalogues (notitiae episcopatuum).
The name of the district used would be in keeping with those used by the
Ottoman administration: i.e. they mentioned the name of the town where the
seat of the relevant diocese was.13 In one case, in the diocese of Kampania in
Central Macedonia (p. 9), the scribe retained the original Christian name, probably because the administrative unit had a different name (Yenice Vardar)
and there was no town with the name of the Christian diocess.14 An interesting detail is the term used for the geographical area of the office jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction was called vilayet, a rather vague term to describe a region.
Konortas argues that the use of this term constitutes an initial differentiation
of the Ottoman view on the territorial jurisdiction of Church clerical officials
from the ecclesiastical view on eparchia;15 unfortunately, he does not analyze
Cf. Konortas, , 415 n. 24.
For these terms see ibid, 212-14, where the previous bibliography.
13 Zachariadou, , 118.
14 It is also the official name appeared in the berats (Konortas, op.cit., 237). See also the case
of erven (see below).
15 Ibid., 212. See also Zachariadou, op.cit., 113, who puts the term in the administrative milieu of the 14th and 15th centuries, when the term was most often used.
11
12

212

Socio-economic aspects of a tax

further his point. I do not think that there is any differentiation. Rather, one
can see an attempt of the Ottoman authorities to adapt the ecclesiastical geography to Ottoman administrative geography. Since the jurisdiction of a bishop/
metropolitan did not correspond with the jurisdiction of the Ottoman judge
which was the official administrative unit, the authorities used an Ottoman
term, which in their administrative practice did not have a specific meaning.
Furthermore, this term was used in the poll tax administrative terminology.16
One can suggest that it might be an influence of the latter usage (i.e. the poll
tax administration) on the former (on the piskopos mukataasi kalemi terminology). Thus, the vilayet of the Christians of Dimetoka /Didymoteichon is the
Ottoman way to denote the ecclesiastical area in terms of the Ottoman administrative geography. In one single case the office was followed by the term kaza
(p. 3: piskoposluk kaza- umni ve tevabiha), underlining the fact that it was the
only case in which the administrative unit was identical with the Church office
jurisdiction. The term kaza was used in two other cases as an explanatory note,
in order to specify the geographical position of names of bishoprics that were
either common or unknown to the Ottoman administration (p. 8: piskoposluk
kefere-i vilayet-i Tirnebol ve tevabiha der kaza- Argirikasr; p. 12: piskoposluk
kefere-i erven der kaza- Rusuk). Finally, in another case, the scribe used the
term zemin. Judging from the fact that the term referred to the city of Edirne,
I surmise that the scribe wanted to stress that the jurisdiction of the metropolitan was only the city and not the villages. A last remark concerns the entry of
the diocese of Maronia (p. 2). Next to this official name is written as nam- dier
the name of Gmlcine (Komotini), apparently because the diocese had officially the name of the former but its real seat was in the latter town.17
The procedure for the appointment of a new hierarch did not differ from
that of the Patriarch. According to the register, the Patriarch submitted a petition (arz) to the sultan, informing him on the change in the office and applying
for the promulgation of an order for the appointment of the new office-holder. In this petition the reason for the change in office had to be written, as we
16

Machiel Kiel, Remarks on the Administration of the Poll Tax (Cizye) in the Ottoman
Balkans and Value of Poll Tax Registers (Cizye Defterleri) for Demographic Research,
tudes Balkaniques 26.4 (1990), 72. I am not able to argue if there is a connection between the two usages.
17 In the berats the diocese was referred to as Gmlcine (Konortas, , 239).
213

Phokion P. KOTZAGEORGIS

can surmise from our source: in every entry, the reason for the change in office
was recorded. Lastly, as it is mentioned in the source, the sultan promulgated
an order for the appointment of the new bishop or metropolitan. However, the
whole entryand its daterefers to the promulgation of the investiture diploma
(berat), with which the new officer could fulfill his duties and rights.
If the entries refer to the promulgation of a berat, then what is the connection
with the amount written below of each entry? Konortas distinguishes between
the promulgation of the ferman and that of the berat, arguing that the first one
was the appointment document and the second one the document that permitted the office-holder to exercise his duties and rights. He furthers his argument
by suggesting that the ferman is connected with the payment of the pike, and
the berat with the annual payment, which in the first two centuries was called
harac.18 Therefore, the amount written below is the money already paid to the
Ottoman fisc, or the amount that the office-holder ought to pay according to the
early procedure. Because of this, the word kadim is attached to the word pike.
As it is mentioned above, in 1686 this tax was abolished and, in fact, was replaced with the equivalent of the money paid for the meat supply of the imperial
gardeners corps.19 We suppose that the same happened for the hierarchs pike
as well, and thus the word kadim was attached to that of pike.
As we can surmise from the payment of the other church taxes, the metropolitan/bishops pike reflected the demographic and economic situation
of the districts.20 While pike was payable by the hierarch alone and was not
applied to the Christians, the sum that was due depended on the population
dynamics of the area. Having these preconditions in mind, we may attempt to
estimate how heavy this tax was for the Christians. Some preliminary remarks
should be put forward: first, the currency paid for the tax, although it is explicitly not mentioned in the register, it was ake, because in the first page, where
the notices dealing with the fiscal status of the Church was registered, all the
payments were refered to in akes. Second, the relevance of the geographi18

Ibid, 168.
As it was recorded for the office of the Patriarch: Hin-i tevcihiye canb- miriye viregeldikleri 10 yk ake pike hatt- hmmayun ile ref olunub mukabilesinde bu mkdar ake [i.e.
399,996] hassa bostanclara lahm bahas vermek zere ocaklk kayd olunmu dur sene-i
1097.
20 Christos Patrinelis, [The Church and the Orthodoxy], in
Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous , vol. 10, Athens 1974, 103-05.
19

214

Socio-economic aspects of a tax

cal entities of the Ottoman administrative units (kazas) with that of the ecclesiastical (metropolis/dioceses) did not coincide and, moreover, it is difficult
to designate their boundaries. However, we can roughly identify some regions
(e.g. vilayet-i Maronya with the kaza of Gmlcine, vilayet-i Dimetoka with the
kaza of Dimetoka etc).
The hypothesis put forward is based on two prerequisites: a) that the Ottoman state adjusted the amount of pike according to the economic and demographic situation of the region; b) that the pike might have imposed on the
basis of a Christian household (hane), as was the case with the other Ottoman
taxes (cizye, avariz), as well as with the basic tax the Christians paid to the Patriarch and the local metropolitan/bishop (patrklk ve metrepolidlik rsumu).
The last tax, as it was recorded in the patriarchal and metropolitan berats, was
standardized at the amount of one gold coin for each priest and twelve akes for
each household. Based on these two prerequisites, we can attempt to ascertain
the tax burden of pike per household. The number of Christian households of
an area could be deduced only through the poll-tax registers, although this kind
of source often did not give real numbers.21 However, with this comparison we
can have an order of magnitude for the Christian population and therefore we
can compare them with the amount of the tax.
Only for half of the regions of our sample was it possible to find data from
the poll-tax registers in order to compare them with the amount of the pike.
The ratio resulted by the division of the tax amount with the number of the
Christian households ranged between 0.4 (Ahyol) and 5.8 (Selanik). However,
with the exceptions of Selanik and Kesendire, all the other regions had a ratio
less than two or even 1. This means that approximately one ake was calculated
for each household. This finding should mean that either the relevant regions
were economically poor or the tax was set at a very low level. The only other
source recording amounts of pike was published by H. nalck and is dated
from 1640/1.22 The comparison of the eight regions of our sample with those
referred to in nalcks register (i.e. Siroz, Varna, Zihne, Tirnebol, Selanik, Karaferye, Ereli, atalca) shows that the pike did not increase during the almost
fifty years span between the two sources. However, the tax was not set at a standard level but followed the changes occurring in the regions.
21

For the poll-tax registers see for example: Kiel, Remarks.

22 Inalck, Ottoman Archival Materials, 441-44.
215

Phokion P. KOTZAGEORGIS

There survive some dispersed data from earlier periods regarding the
relation of the pike with the Christian population of the region. In the late
sixteenth century, on the island of Kos the pike amounted to 0.4 ake per household.23 The tax amount per household on the island of Andros was even less
at the turn of the sixteenth century.24 Therefore, it seems that even in the sixteenth century the pike was not set at a high level, although its payment in gold
currency (filori) was noteworthy. Since it was not an annual tax, we can assume
that the pike was not so burdensome as the other Ottoman or ecclesiastical
taxes were. However, it might reflect the economic situation of a region and
could have been an indicator of the economic and demographic vitality of the
Christian population of a region. The history of this particular tax in the second
half of the seventeenth century shows that the tax lost its significance in favour
of other taxes.
In conclusion, in the second half of the seventeenth century the Ottoman
state had developed a rationalized mechanism for the administation of the
Church affairs. In the context of this institutional framework, the fiscal parameter functioned in pace with the general tax system of the state. The pike,
the last of the old taxes of the Church, underwent a considerable change in
nature, and ultimately it most probably lost its significance and disappeared.
Having in mind the general changes in the state and Christian society occurring at that time, one may suggest that from the turn of the seventeenth century
on, the Orthodox Church passed into a new phase of its history. This period,
which started with the change in fiscal status analyzed above had as main characteristics an aristocratic character in Church administration (as seen in the
Phanariots impact and gerontismos), an ongoing bureaucratization in terms of
the relations of the Church with the state (e.g. with the establishment of a specific finance department for Church affairs), and an expansion in the territorial
and institutional jurisdiction of the patriarchate (e.g. the multiplication of the
berats clauses).
23

Compare the numbers in: Nicolas Vatin Gilles Veinstein Elizabeth Zachariadou,
Catalogue du fonds ottoman des archives du monastre de Saint-Jean Patmos. Les
vingt-deux premiers dossiers, Athens 2011, 88-9 (no. 1b-41b); Dimitris Dimitropoulos,
, 15- 19 [Evidences
for the population of the Aegean Islands, 15th-beginning of 19th century], Athens 2004,
309.
24 Vatin-Veinstein-Zachariadou, op.cit., 53 (no.1-21); Dimitropoulos, op.cit., 178.
216

Socio-economic aspects of a tax

APPENDIX

Maliyeden Mdevver, 19146 (Resa defteri).

p. 1
btida- defter-i metrpolidan ve piskoposan ve muhasebe ve patrklk ve
saire der vilayet-i Rumili ve Anadolu tab kalem-i ............... defter-i kk- sani
nam- dier piskopos bermuceb-i defter-i atk nuvite elvak fi urre-i Muharrem sene-i 1118.
Mesfur avril rahibin hsn-i zindegnisi ve cmle ayyinleri zere evza ve
atvar muntazm olub her vechle patrkl kefere-i taifesine mubar ve czi ve
klli iradleri her ise itidal zere tahsil ve sadr olan hatt- hmayun mucebince
bae-i hassaya beher yevm tayin olan lahm ve tadili akeleri vakt zamanla
teslim ve evkafe zere deyyinlerin dah merasimlerin .............. irade sadakat ve
intikaz ve reaya- kavllarnn dah ayyinleri icra ve nizam hallarna kemal-i
nakd eyledikde zahr ve numayan olmala mukaddeman sadr olan ferman- ali
mucebince yine sene temamna dein stanbul patr ibka ve yerine mceddeden berat virmek babnda cmle metrepolidler mahzar edb ilam eylemleri
ile hazzine-i ammirem defterlerinde patrk- mesfurun canibinde virmek zere
hassa bostanclar ocana beher yevm 105 vukyya lahm kadimi ocaklklar
olub ve bundan maada hin-i tevcihiye canb- miri virilgelen 10 yk ake pikeleri refi ve mukabilesinde beher yevm 100er vukyya lahm bahas in dah
ocak- mezbureye beher mah 33,333 ake lahm bahas virb ayn lahm taleb
olunmak zere 1097 senesinde ba hatt- hmayun ve ba ferman- ali ocaklk
tayin olunmakla senede bir defa vak olan mukarrerlerinde bundan akdem
eda idegeldikleri sene bi ayinihi ve evelli vergilerine kaym ve mah- yemen
bae-i hassaya virilb canib-i miriye deyyinleri olmamakla nizam ve intizamlar yerinde olub cedidden ake talebiyle tevcih olunmamak zere beratlar
urutna mestur ve mukkayed olunmakda mucebince urutyla tevcih olunmak
babnda sadr olan ferman- ali mucebince avril rahibe ibka ve mukarrer ve
[1]117 Cemazylevvelinin 9uncu gn berat- erife vardr.

217

Phokion P. KOTZAGEORGIS

Patrklk kefer-i Rumiyan stanbul ve tevabi derhde-i avril nam rahib

becay- Kalinikos nam rahib ki mrd de ba arzhal- metrepolidan ve ba
ferman- ali elvak fi 10 Rebiylahr 1114.
Beray ocaklk ez kadm nim gt bostanyan- hassa gt vukyya fi yevm
105.
Beray mukabele-i pike-i kadm der hin-i tevcih-i patrklk ve bu resm-i
gt baha- bostanyan- hassa ba hatt- hmayun ocaklk tayin de fi 26
Cemaziylevvel 1907 [1097].
fi yevm gt vukyya 100, ehr 3,000 baha 33,333 li ehr 12 baha 399,996.
Hin-i tevcihiye canb- miriye viregeldikleri 10 yk ake pike hatt- hmmayun ile ref olunub mukabilesinde bu mkdar ake hassa bostanclara lahm
bahas vermek zere ocaklk kayd olunmu dur sene-i 1097.
Vech-i meruh zere zikr olunan stanbul ve tevab Rumiyan patr sene
ber tahvil olmak zere Kalinikos rahibin zerine iken mrd olmala cmle
metrepolidlerin talebleri ve muhzarlar mucebince ayyinlerin makul ve mnasib grdkleri Kadky metrepolidi avril nam rahibe tevcih olunmu dur ba
ferman- ali elvak fi 10 evval 1114.
p. 2
Piskopos kefere-i vilayet- Ahyol ve tevabha derhde-i ........... nam rahib
becay- Eftymios nam rahib ki mrd de ba arz- Kalinikos nam rahib patrk-
stanbul ve ba ferman- erife elvak fi 11 Zilhicce 1103. Pekes-i kadim 8,900.
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Dimetoka ve tevabha derhde-i Yovakim
nam rahib el-maruf piskopos ........... becay- Eremiya nam rahib ki hsn-i
rza bud feraat kerde ba arz- Kalinikos rahib patrk- stanbul ve ba ferman-
erife elvak fi 13 Rebiylevvel 1114. Peke-i kadim 9,600. Tecdid-i berat kerde
beray clus- hmayun fi 10 Zilhicce 1115.
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Maronya nam- dier Gmlcine derhde-i
Kalinikos nam rahib becay- avril nam rahib ki mrd de ba arz- Kalinikos rahib patrk- stanbul ve ba ferman- erife elvak fi 12 Ramazan 1115.
Peke-i kadim 960. Tecdid-i berat kerde beray clus- hmayun fi 10 Zilhicce
1115.
p. 3
Piskoposluk kefere-i vilayet-i Lca ve tevabha derhde-i Meletyos nam
rahib becay- Tyodo nam rahib ki mrd de ba arz- Diyonisyos rahib
218

Socio-economic aspects of a tax

patrk- stanbul ve ba ferman- erife elvak fi 15 Zilhicce 1094. Peke-i kadim

800. Tecdid-i berat kerde beray clus- hmayun fi 26 Ramazan 1102. Tecdid-i
berat kerde beray clus- hmayun fi 22 Cemaziylahr 1106. Tecdid-i berat
kerde beray clus- hmayun fi 10 Rebiylahr 1115.
Piskoposluk kaza-i umni ve tevabha an efraz- metrepolidlik Trnovi
derhde-i Sofronyos nam rahib ba arz- patrk- stanbul ve ba ferman elvak
fi sene-i 1098. Peke-i kadim 800. Berat-i cedid de beray clus- hmayun
fi 26 Ramazan 1102. Berat-i cedid de beray clus- hmayun fi 22 Cemaziylahr 1106.
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Siroz derhde-i stefanos nam rahib
el-maruf metrepolid-i Menlik becay- Antimos nam rahib ki mrd de ba
arz- avril nam rahib patrk- stanbul ve ba ferman- erife elvak fi urre-i
Zilhicce 1117. Peke-i kadim 12,840.
p. 4
vacat
p. 5
vacat
p. 6
Piskopos kefere-i vilayet-i itroz ve tevabha derhde-i Kalinikos nam rahib
becay- Yovakim nam rahib ki kasr- yed kerde ba arz- Yakovos nam patrk-
stanbul ve ba ferman- erife elvak fi 22 Safer 1090. Peke-i kadim 900.
Piskopos kefere-i vilayet-i Serfice ve tevabha derhde-i Yanikios nam rahib
becay- Simyon nam rahib ki mrd de ba arz- Metodyos nam patrk-
stanbul elvak fi 22 aban 1079. Peke-i kadim 1,440.
Piskopos kefere-i vilayet-i Kesendire ve tevabha derhde-i Melhisedek
nam rahib an feraat- Meletyos nam rahib ba arz- Yakovos patrk- stanbul
ve ba ferman elvak fi 20 Receb 1092. Peke-i kadim 3,000.
p. 7
Piskopos kefere-i vilayet-i Aydan? ve tevabha derhde-i Melkisedek nam
rahib becay- Tvafan (Theofani) nam rahib ki mrd de ba arz- Partenyos
patrk- stanbul elvak fi 4 Zilkade 1072. Peke-i kadim 1,500.

219

Phokion P. KOTZAGEORGIS

Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Ahyol ve tevabha derhde-i Makaryos

nam rahib becay- Danil nam rahib ki mrd de ba arz- Kalinikos patrk-
stanbul elvak fi 28 Zilkade 1111. Peke-i kadim 1,800. Berat- cedid misal
beray clus- hmayun ba arz- avril rahib patrk- stanbul fi 10 Rebiylahr 1115.
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Varna ve tevabha derhde-i Makaryos nam
rahib becay- Leondyos nam rahib ki mrd de ba arz- avrl patrk- stanbul ve ba ferman- erife elvak fi urre-i Receb 1117. Peke-i kadim 1,800.
p. 8
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Zihne ve tevabha derhde-i Yermanos nam
rahib metrepolid- Drama ...... d ki metrepolidlik der patra .... de ba arz-
Yanisyos (Dionysios) rahib patrk- stanbul elvak fi selh-i Cemaziylahr
1074. Peke-i kadim 1,562. Zihne metrepolidlii yok dur zamandan ber hal
kalub kimesne kabul eylemedkle Drama ve Nevrekob metrepolidliine ilhak
olunmu dur ba ferman- erife fi 28 Ramazan 1069.
Piskoposluk kefere-i vilayet-i Poonya ve tevabha derhde-i Nekdaryos
nam rahib becay- Danil nam rahib ki refi de ba arz- patrk- stanbul
elvak fi 27 Rebiylahr 1067. Peke-i kadim 2,000.
Piskoposluk kefere-i vilayet-i Tirnebol ve tevabha der kaza- Argirikasr
derhde-i avril nam rahib beray clus- hazret-i sultan brahim han fi 25
aban 1052. Peke-i kadim 3,000.
p. 9
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Selanik ve tevabha derhde-i nadyos nam
rahib becay- Metedyos nam rahib ki refi de aran de ki teadid ve iki defa
clus- hmayun tecdid-i berat kerde ba arz- Kalinikos patrk- stanbul ve
ba ferman- erife elvak fi 12 Ramazan 1107. Peke-i kadim 13,000. Tecdid-i
berat kerde beray clus fi 10 Rebiylahr 1115.
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Karaferya ve tevabha derhde-i Leondyos
nam rahib becay- Makaryos nam rahib ki mrd de ba arz- avril rahib
patrk- stanbul ve ba ferman- erife elvak fi urre-i aban 1116. Peke-i
kadim 6,600.
Piskoposluk kefere-i Qanbana ve tevabha derhde-i Tofan nam rahib
becay- Kipryanos nam rahib ki mrd de ba arz- patrk- stanbul fi 9 Rebiylahr 1070. Peke-i kadim 1,600.
220

Socio-economic aspects of a tax

p. 10-11
vacat
p. 12
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Silistre ve tevabha derhde-i Atanasyos
nam rahib becay- Paysiyos nam rahib ki refi de ba arz- patrk- stanbul fi
26 Ramazan 1102. Peke-i kadim 4,000. Tecdid-i berat kerde fi 22 Cemaziylahr 1106. Tecdid-i berat kerde fi 10 Rebiylahr 1115.
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Mesivri ve tevabha derhde-i Hrstoforos
nam rahib becay- Tyofan nam rahib ki refi de ba arz- Kalinikos patrk-
stanbul ve ba ferman- erife fi 1101. Peke-i kadim 600. Berat- cedid ......
beray clus- hmayun fi 26 Ramazan 1102. Tecdid-i berat kerde fi 10 Rebiylahr 1115. Tecdid-i berat kerde fi 22 Cemazylahr 1116.
Piskoposluk kefere-i erven der kaza- Rusuk derhde-i Diyonisyos nam
rahib becay- Hrysandos nam rahib ki refi de edane ..... ki cinayet zahr
de ba arz- Diyonisyos patrk- stanbul fi 7 Safer 1097. Peke-i kadim 800.
Trnovi metrepolidliine ifraz de. Berat- cedid ...... beray clus- hmayun
fi 26 Ramazan 1102. Tecdid-i berat kerde fi 10 Rebiylahr 1115. Tecdid-i berat
kerde fi 22 Cemazylahr 1116.
p. 13
vacat
p. 14
Piskoposluk kefere-i vilayet-i atalca derhde-i Tavofan nam rahib fi 21
Safer 1060. Peke-i kadim 800.
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Erdek ve Kapuda ve tevabha derhde-i
Kyprianos nam rahib an refi-i Diyonisyos nam rahib ba arz- Yakovos rahib
patrk- stanbul ve ba ferman- erife fi 2 Rebiylevvel 1097. Peke-i kadim
1,800. Berat- cedid ...... beray clus- hmayun fi 22 Cemaziylahr 1106.
Tecdid-i berat kerde fi 10 Rebiylahr 1115.
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Ereli ve tevabha derhde-i Nyofytos nam
rahib an refi-i Makaryos nam rahib ..... .... ki sahb- evvel bude ba arz- hali ....
ve ba ferman- erife fi 27 Ramazan 1102. Peke-i kadim 3,200. Berat- cedid
...... beray clus- hmayun fi 22 Cemaziylahr 1106. Tecdid-i berat kerde fi
10 Rebiylahr 1115.
221

Phokion P. KOTZAGEORGIS

p. 15
Piskoposluk kefere-i vilayet-i Vize derhde-i ....rnya nam rahib becay-
Yerasimyos nam rahib ki mrd de ba arz- hali Diyonisyos nam rahib patrk-
stanbul ve ba ferman- erife fi 19 Ramazan 1093. Peke-i kadim 1,200. Berat-
cedid ...... beray clus- hmayun fi 26 Ramazan 1102. Tecdid-i berat kerde fi
10 Rebiylahr 1115. Tecdid-i berat kerde fi 22 Cemazylahr 1116.
Metrepolid der zemin-i Edirne ve tevabha derhde-i Atanasyos nam rahib
an refi-i Eftymyos nam rahib ba arz- Kalinikos patrk- stanbul ve ba ferman-
erife fi 7 Rebiylevvel 1104. Peke-i kadim 18,000. Berat- cedid ...... beray
clus- hmayun fi 22 Cemaziylahr 1106. Tecdid-i berat kerde fi 10 Rebiylahr 1115.
Metrepolidlik kefere-i vilayet-i Szebol derhde-i Mitrofan nam rahib fi 13
aban 1059. Peke-i kadim 1,080.
p. 16
vacat

222