I

INSTITUT DTUDES BYZANTINES

DE LACADMIE SERBE DES SCIENCES ET DES ARTS
TUDES 44/1

FONDATION DE SAINT MONASTRE DE HILANDAR

Tome I

Mlanges offerts
Mirjana ivojinovi
Rdacteurs
Dejan Delebdi, Bojan Miljkovi

Secrtaires
Bojana Pavlovi, Milo ivkovi

BELGRADE
2015



44/1

2015


25. 2015. .

,

 TABLE DES MATIRES

I Tome I
-, ,
(Bibliographie de lacadmicienne Mirjana ivojinovi)

15

,
Predrag Komatina, On the first reference to monasticism on Mount Athos

27
33

Andreas Rhoby, Lexikographisch-sprachliche Bemerkungen zu den byzantinisch-griechischen Urkunden des Heiligen Berges Athos
, -

35
60

Jean-Claude Cheynet, Les Tzintziloukai

- ,

61
71

Frederick Lauritzen, An Athonite assembly described in the Typikon of Monomachos

,

73
81

Ploutarchos L. Theocharides, The old monastery of Saint Panteleemon on Mount Athos

(Paliomonastiro), once of the Thessalonian (tou Thessalonikeos)
. ,
(Paliomonastiro), (tou Thessalonikeos)

91

,
Ljubomir Maksimovi, The ruler and his monastery

93
98

,
Bojana Krsmanovi, The act of protos Gerasimos on ceding Hilandar monastery to the
Serbs

101

,
Irena padijer, The allegory of paradise in the writings of St. Sava and Stefan the FirstCrowned

113
126

,
Bojan Miljkovi, Hegoumenos baton of Hilandar monastery

127
137

,
Viktor Savi, Rules for the use of the Psalter and Typikon of Hilandar

139
147

,
,

149
164

83

112

 -, .
Smilja Marjanovi-Duani, Le corpus des chartes pour le monastre des Saints Aptres sur
le Lim et le souverain serbe comme isapostolos

175

, .
Danica Popovi Marko Popovi, Kellia of the monastery of St Nicholas in Dabar

177
186

Ljubomir Milanovi, Illuminating touch: Post-resurrection scenes on the diptych from the
Hilandar monastery
, :

,

Sran Pirivatri, Chronology of first charters of King Milutin, issued after the conquest of
Skopje
Mihailo St. Popovi, Das Kloster Hilandar und seine Weidewirtschaft in der historischen
Landschaft Mazedonien im 14. Jahrhundert
. , XIV
Olivier Delouis, Un acte de vente indit de 1321: le monastre de Karakala et la famille des
Kabasilas
, 1321. :
,
e ,

Dragan Vojvodi, On the time when the charters were issued, confirming king Duans
donation of the monastery of St. George and the village of Uloite to Hilandar, and
the church in Lipljan to the Hrusia Pyrgos

167

189
203
205
213
215
225
227
249

251
257

Antonio Rigo, Le Mont Athos entre le patriarche Jean XIV Calcas et Grgoire Palamas
(13441346)
, XIV
(13441346)

283

Neboja Pori, The Menologem in Serbian Medieval Document-Making

,

285
298

,
Sran arki, Acquisitions of property in Greek charters of Serbian rulers

299
308

Bojana Pavlovi, Mount Athos in the historical work of Nikephoros Gregoras

,

309
321

,
(1361)
Djordje Bubalo, The Logos-formula in emperor Stefan Uros chrysobull to the Great Lavra
monastery (1361)

259

323
337

 II Tome II
,
,

339
357

, (
58 59)
Stanoje Bojanin, Two lost charters of the Brankovis and their compilation (Chilandar
58 and 59)

382

-,

-,

385
395

, ,
Miodrag Markovi, About representations of St Sava of Serbia in Vatopedi monastery, with
special focus on fresco in the parekklesion of St Demetrios

359

397
406

Raul Estangi Gomez, Actes autographes de lempereur Manuel II Palaiologos conserves

dans les archives du Mont Athos
, II

426

,
Tamara Matovi, dans les actes des monastres de lAthos

427
441

409

, ,
a 1495, 3. ,
Gordana Jovanovi, The charter of despot ore, Jovan and despina Angelina issued to the
monastery of St Paul on Mount Athos on November 3, 1495, in Kupinik

455

, XVI
Gojko Suboti, Le narthex de lglise cathdrale Karys au dbut du XVIme sicle

457
465

, :
, ,
(16 .)
, :

(XVI)
, . 33 69

Zoran Raki, Headpieces of tetraevangelia Nos. 33 and 69 in the library of the Hilandar
monastery
, ( . 125)
ore Trifunovi, Instructions on determining chronology in old Serbian manuscripts
(Hilandar monastery manuscript No 125)

443

469
482
485
493
495
503

 . ,

. ,

510

,
,

513
526

505

,
XVII
Dejan Delebdi, Two unpublished homologiai concerning the Hilandar cell of the Holy
Archangels in Karyes from the second half of the 17th century

539

Kyrill Pavlikianov, Il culto di San Costantino imperatore nei monasteri del Monte Athos
,

541
548

,

Tatjana Starodubcev, The icon of the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple with Sts Sava
and Symeon of Serbia and St Charalambos in the Ecclesiastical Byzantine Museum
at Mytilini
, - XVIII
Danica Petrovi, Hilandar chanter-scribes in the 18th century
, :

Milo ivkovi, An iconographic note on the wall paintings of the katholikon of the Hilandar
monastery: the depiction of St. Sisoes above the grave of Alexander the Great in the
exonarthex

527

549
564
567
577
579
586

. ,
.

. ,
.

597

,
Vesna Peno, The Hilandar monastery chanters and scribes of modern time

599
605

Jelena Bogdanovi, Le Corbusiers testimonial to Byzantine architecture on Mt. Athos

,

607

589

622

UDC: 27-788(495.631):271.2-726.1(560)-732.310

FREDERICK LAURITZEN
(Venezia)

AN ATHONITE ASSEMBLY DESCRIBED

IN THE TYPIKON OF MONOMACHOS
The typikon of Monomachos describes a byzantine assembly. Comparing it
with the church synods and meetings of the corporations allows one to understand the
importance of majority voting in complex matters. In the case of the gathering at Karyai,
it appears that voting was not essential and yet it was important that the decision not be
imposed on the monks. This delicate balance reveals the importance of voting on issues
as well as nding harmonious solutions to complex problems.
Keywords: Typikon of Monomachos, Eustathios Rhomaios, Alexios Studites,
voting, assemblies.

A despotic decision implies a lack of discussion or debate. The typikon of Athos

of 1045 denies that it was the result of an imperial imposition1 and such a denial reveals the byzantine interest in assemblies to solve problems and the very nature of
these political gatherings. The typikon of Constantine IX Monomachos (10421055)2
describes an athonite assembly. The importance of this gathering is that it was not
convened by the patriarch and was not composed by metropolitans and bishops but
by monks. The text has been studied for the information it sheds on the religious,
social and economic phenomena, but has not been read as a form of civilian or religious meeting. By comparing this synod with those of the patriarch Alexios Studites
1
,
: D. Papachryssanthou,
Actes de Prtaton, Paris 1975, 224232, epi.23 (= Typikon 1045).
2
A. E. Mller, Das Typikon des Monomachos unter Verdacht?, JB 51 (2001) 169175; P.
Lemerle, Actes de Lavra, pts 14, Paris 19701982, pt 1. 4051; Ph. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden fr die
Geschichte der Athosklster, Leipzig 1894, 3638; Papachryssanthou, Actes du Protaton, 102107; R.
Volk, Gesundheitswesen und Wohlttigkeit im Spiegel der byzantinistischen Klostertypika, Munich 1983,
7273.

74

Frederick Lauritzen

(10251043)3 as well as the civilian assemblies it is possible to understand the nature

of political gatherings of this time in the Byzantine empire.
The assembly of Athos described in the typikon was a gathering held at Karyai4
the administrative centre of the monastic communities on September of 1045.5 None
of the participants were bishops or metropolitans: they were all monks. One of the
concerns brought forward by the monks is that the question could only be solved by
a lay tribunal.6 This is in accordance with byzantine law, since monks were part of
the laity. The petition to the emperor was also natural also because the peninsula was
under imperial jurisdiction until 1312.7
The procedure of convocation is revealing and can be gathered from the text of
the imperial order8 which gives the technical terms of the actual nature of the meeting.
A delegation of monks from Athos went to the emperor.9 They petitioned a solution
to their conict.10 The emperor appointed the monk Kosmas Tzintziloukis as his representative.11 Tzintziloukis went to Athos.12 He gathered all the monks and abbots at
a meeting.13 He presided the meeting.14 He heard the dierent factions.15 He veried
the documents.16 He asked fourteen questions. Solutions were found and were given
force of law.17
Thus the role of Tzintziloukis was that of representing the emperors function
as arbitrator or judge.18 It is known that Constantine Monomachos passed personal judgements.19 Such pronouncements could also be known as edicts or ektheseis.
Indeed the typikon uses the verb 20 where the verb is connected with the
notion of delegation.21 Thus Cosmas was judging on behalf of the emperor. The terms
3
G. Ficker, Erlasse des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel Alexios Studites, Kiel 1911. Important is
also A. Pentkovsky, Tipikon patriarha Aleksija Studita v Vizantii i na Rusi, Moscow 2001. Recent studies
include F. Lauritzen, Against the enemies of tradition, Alexios Studites and the Synodikon of Orthodoxy,
Nea Rhome 4 (2010) 4148 and V. M. Stankovi, The Alexios Studites' patriarchate (10251043): A
developmental stage in patriarchal power, ZRVI 39 (2001) 6987.
4
Typikon 1045, proem. 53 (see n. 1).
5
Ibidem, 1045, epi. 23.
6
(ibidem, 32).
7
Meyer, Die Haupturkunden, 190194.
8
Typikon 1045, proem. 3048 (see n. 1).
9
Ibidem, proem. 30.
10
(ibidem, proem. 31).
11
(ibidem, proem. 3637).
12
Ibidem, proem. 49.50.
13
(ibidem, proem. 51).
14
(ibidem, proem. 55).
15
, (ibidem, proem. 5758).
16

(ibidem, proem. 5960).
17
,
(ibidem, epi. 1011).
18
Such a function has a long history and is rst described by Cicero in his pro Marcello in 46 B. C.
19
Psellos, Chronographia, 6.169173.
20
(Typikon 1045, epi. 811, see
n. 1)
21
(ibidem, epi. 15)

An Athonite assembly described in the Typikon of Monomachos

75

used are 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,

.28 These are technical terms which reveal an investigation into a question.
In the trial of Italos of 108229 one sees some of the same terms being used for
an investigation. The terms 30, 31 are also employed for the question
of research and examination. This simply shows a natural sequence: investigation,
examination [of evidence], interpretation. Thus the assembly held at Karyai on Athos
in 1045 is similar to that expressed in the acts of the synod of 1082 which condemned
Italos, even if the acts of the trial against the philosopher are unusual and represent an
exceptional time. Moreover the surviving acts from middle byzantine synods are only
those of 1082 and 1166. Both have an important role of the emperor and therefore do
not represent the typical functioning of the permanent synod, but rather exceptional
meetings to which the emperor took interest.
For these reasons the assembly of Athos should rather be compared with the
surviving synods of Patriarch Alexios Studites (10251043).32 The most clear parallel is that of the synod of 1030.33 The document describes the trial against the patriarch John VIII bar Abdun of the Syro Jacobite Church.34 The synod decree retells the
account of how he was accused of heresy by John of Melitene.35 The local church
and secular authorities did not seem too concerned by the issue and it was brought
to Constantinople.36 This is a striking parallel with the case of the typikon of 1045.
Indeed the monks went to the emperor since they felt they needed to go beyond the local jurisdiction of governor and bishop. Thus the investigation in both texts represents
the emperor or the synod as a court of appeal which was higher than the local jurisdiction. Therefore both documents represent petitions written to indicate problems at the
level of local jurisdiction.
Once the petition had been received the procedure was dierent, since the emperor nominated a plenipotentiary37 for the question of Athos, while the emperor sent
Ibidem, proem. 31.
Ibidem, proem. 36.
24
Ibidem, proem. 36.
25
Ibidem proem. 39.
26
Ibidem, proem. 40.
27
Ibidem, proem. 41.
28
Ibidem, proem. 42.
29
J. Gouillard, Le procs ociel de Jean lItalien. Les actes et leurs sous-entendus, TM 9 (1985)
133174.
30
: ibidem, e.g. 61, 80, 99.
31
: ibidem, e.g. 113, 135, 139, 373, 384.
32
Ficker, Erlasse des Patriarchen (see n. 3).
33
Ibidem, 820 (= Alexios Studites, Synod 1030). Cf. V. Grumel, Les regestes des Actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I, fasc. II et III. Deuxime dition revue et corrige par J. Darrouzs, Paris
1989, No. 839.
34
The event is also told in Yahya al Antaki: cf. I. Kratchkovsky, F. Micheau, G. Troupeau, Histoire
de Yahya ibn Said dAntioche, Turnhout 1997, 488490.
35
John metropolitan of Melitene is remembered by Psellos in P. Gautier, Monodies indites de
Michel Psellos, REB 36 (1978) 97104.
36
Alexios Studites, Synod 1030, 11.2728 (see n. 33).
37
,
and (Typikon 1045, proem. 5051, epi. 56, see n. 1).
22
23

76

Frederick Lauritzen

the discussion about the Syro-Jacobite question to the synodical tribunal.38 The procedure was only apparently dierent since the emperor decided that the athonite question should be solved by a gathering of the hegoumenoi at Karyai. The formula of
convocation is revealing:

39
We sat together with the aforementioned abbots and the rst of the [Holy]
Mountain
Here one sees that the emperors representative was presiding the meeting to
which the hegoumenoi were also participating. The synod of 1030 also has a similar
formula:
40
Our humble person was presiding in the great sekreton and [the metropolitans]
were sitting with us and the holy synod.
It is true that the athonite version has sitting with and the second has presiding, but in both cases the act of sitting is important. This means that the liturgy indicated beforehand was a separate event from the actual synod. In the athonite version
it claims that both sides were heard.41 In the case of the synod of 1030 both the Syro
Jacobite side and its opponents were heard. The dierence is in the type conclusion
reached (1030: we dene 1045 correction/amendment).
This is of course due to the nature of the meeting in which the rst was to dene the
heretical nature of someone, while the second was to amend dispositions present in
previous documents.
Therefore beside the legal term employed to dene the results of the meeting, it
seems that the assembly of 1045 is strikingly similar to a synod such as those presided
by Patriarch Alexios Studites. This raises an important point regarding the laity. The
assembly of Athos of 1045 was composed entirely of monks and therefore in most
cases of members of the laity, while at the synod of 1030 the laity were present, but it
was presided by the patriarch and he was assisted by metropolitans. Therefore it was
not considered necessary at this time for a synod to be composed exclusively of patriarchs or metropolitans. One may argue that the athonite assembly was presided by
an envoy of the emperor and therefore the presence of the patriarch and metropolitans
would not have been necessary or even mistaken. But this would also mean forgetting
that the emperor had presided ecumenical synods.
The main conrmation of the connection between the assembly of 1045 and
other church synods was the worry of having a decision imposed against ones will:
(Alexios Studites, Synod 1030, 11.2627, see n. 33).
Typikon 1045, proem.56 (see n. 1).
Alexios Studites, Synod 1030, 11.2830 (see n. 33).
41
(Typikon 1045, proem. 5859, see n. 1).
38
39
40

An Athonite assembly described in the Typikon of Monomachos

77

,
42
These legal and moral dispositions were [decreed] not by force nor despotically
nor without consultation nor without consideration, but by the will and desire of all
the most pious monks and abbots of the Mountain.
The terms which dene such a despotic attitude are , ,
, . This implies that the fear was that the meeting could be
simply the enforcing of a previous decision. This very question was at the heart of a
tenth century debate during the synod of Constantinople43 where two metropolitans
took two dierent points of view on the question. The question of the supreme power
of the patriarch is addressed by this critic:
,
,
.44
Especially, since they had seen the patriarch of Constantinople raised to great
honour and arrogant from being with emperors and nobles, they feared that in time he
may dare something unacceptable in the election of metropolitans which could render
the canons void.
This criticism of the power of the patriarch is parallel to the question of despotic imposition described in the typikon for the gathering of 1045. Thus part of the
decision was agreed before the meeting and then ratied rather than discussed from
the beginning. The imposition of such a decision for simple ratication could be understood as being an act of imposition. The anonymous, the metropolitan of Amaseia
and the typikon of 1045 are aware of this matter. The typikon of 1045 also expresses
these same concerns about authority. Therefore the meeting of 1045 at Karyai appears
to be similar to a church synod. The main dierence seems to be in the composition
of the assembly: monks in one case and church ocials in the other. Both assemblies
stem from a problem of jurisdiction at a local basis which is then appealed to the emperor who denes a meeting to solve the problem. Indeed it would seem that both the
athonite and ecclesiastical meetings are dened by the need of an assembly to decide
complex questions.
At this point it is necessary to see the situation on the civilian side. This is especially important since the athonite monks are not worried about the ecclesiastical
court, but about the civilian courts to which they would be subjected. Thus the appeal
seems to be civilian. Indeed the question goes to the emperor who appoints his representative. The meeting at Karyai of 1045 has been shown to be similar to a church
synod. However the Peira of Eustathius Rhomaios yields evidence on this question
Ibidem, epi.13.
F. Lauritzen, Il primato del sinodo: due trattati bizantini sul canone 28 di Calcedonia,
Cristianesimo nella Storia 33 (2012) 112.
44
J. Darrouzs, Documents indits d'ecclsiologie byzantine, Paris 1966, 116158, hier 134.2225.
42
43

78

Frederick Lauritzen

since judges would vote on certain questions during meetings, revealing that assemblies of judges were an important practice at the time:45
, ,

.
, ,
, ,

.
,
.
,
, .
, ,
,
.
, ,

,
, , .
,
, ,
. ; ;
, ,
.

.46
That one law is: when there is a disagreement among the judges, each one of the
judges gives his vote: and another law: the vote of the majority holds. Ophrydas said
that these two laws are contradictory and interprets them nearly as opposite: that on
the one hand the vote of the majority holds, is an old law and coming from the Digest,
on the other the fact that each is obliged to give his vote is more recent and cancels
the older rule. I asked the legal expert and wise Magistros. He said that Ophrydas
had not interpreted correctly: none of the texts in the Basilika were cancelled, but the
two laws mentioned before hold according to their times and conditions. When for
example, ten judges disagree in court and six agree for one answer and the four others
Oikonomides points out that the system discussed in the Peira reminds one of the voting system
of the Supreme Court of the USA today: cf. N. Oikonomides, The Peira of Eustathios Romaios: an
Abortive Attempt to Innovate in Byzantine Law, idem, Byzantium from the ninth century to the fourth
crusade, Aldershot 1992, 169192 and specically 188.
46
P. Zepos, , Athens 1931, 51.16.
45

An Athonite assembly described in the Typikon of Monomachos

79

are of another opinion, then they are all forced to vote and provide a written ballot.
The vote of the six is stronger and holds. This is not because it was presented to the
assembly but especially because the assembly veried that had been well issued or
not, though the other four judges opposed it. Therefore one says that the majority vote
holds, because the interpretation of the four is presented and veried, but the opinion
of the six corrects the lack of experience, knowledge and understanding [of the other
four] through the assembly. Moreover it is valid by the terms by which they judged
correctly. The assembly corrects the terms by which they were mistaken. I said: so it
may happen that six judges opt for one side, and the other four judges oer another
opinion for the other side, and that the assembly opts for neither side, then it is opportune to go through the assembly. So what will it be? Which of these opinions will
hold? And the magistros said: the opinion of the six men is stronger. The opinion of
the four does not have strength because of the opportunity of the assembly is over. In
this way, therefore, both laws are valid and there is no disagreement between them.
This passage claims that there is a matter at hand ( ) and that
there are dierent points of view (). At this point the matter is decided by a
vote. The question in this matter is on the nature of majority vote and implies that a
question would be brought before them, discussed and then voted. The result of such a
vote would be an interpretation (). Indeed it is an opinion of jurisprudence.
One may turn to the corporations as described in the book of the eparch47 1.1 and 1.15
where it is clear that voting was important for certain decisions.48 One may induce that
the urban prefect with his assistant voted on certain matters pertaining to the administration of the city but this is not known.
The principle of voting and of a majority is not present only in the civilian assemblies it may be found also expressed in the council of Nicaea canon 6:
, ,
, , , .49
If two or three by their own opposition vote against the common vote of all
which is good and according to church rules, the vote of the majority holds.
This very canon was invoked by Nicetas of Amasea (X century) to justify his
defence of the primacy of the patriarch within the synod. His discussion is notable for
his insistence on the assembly as a gathering who individuals with a right to vote.50
47
In general for the Book of the eparch see: M. Ja. Sjuzjumov, Vizantijskaja kniga Eparha, Moscow
1974 and J. Koder, Das Eparchenbuch Leons des Weisens, Vienna 1991 (= Eparchenbuch). Most recently
J. Koder, The authority of the Eparchos in the markets of Constantinople (according to the Book of the
Eparch), Authority in Byzantium, London 2013, 109113.
48

(Eparchenbuch, 1.1.12, see n. 47);

, . (ibidem, 1.1.15).
49
G. Alberigo, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta I, Turnhout 2007, Canon
6.153157.
50
Moreover it is quoted by Nicetas of Amasea (X century) to justify his defence of the primacy
of the patriarch within the synod. Darrouzs, Documents indits, 160174, hier 164.1821 (see n. 44).

80

Frederick Lauritzen

Thus it appears that it is dicult to distinguish formally the meeting in 1045

from the synod of 1030 or the judges voting in the early 11th century or the corporations of the city. Thus we see that assemblies of monks, priests, judges yield a decision
which is preferably unanimous but where they may vote and decide by a simple majority. Indeed the two broad categories dened, civilian and religious do not seem to
alter the system of meeting, investigation and publication of results. The only aspect
which is recognizably dierent are the participants. This means that in the eleventh
century, when there was a dicult question, this could be solved by an assembly and
by its voting by a simple majority.
What makes the meeting at Karyai unusual is precisely that it is exceptional. It
appears to be an ad hoc solution devised by the emperor to solve a series of important
matters by bypassing the regular jurisdiction. Indeed the assembly system at this time
seems relatively stable: there was a permanent synod for the church, a court of appeal
for the judiciary and structures for the city eparch and the corporations.
Having placed the various forms of assembly side by side it is clear that one
of the important elements of the assembly of 1045 is that it carefully avoids the term
voting and replaces it with and 51 in contrast with ,
, , .52 Such a choice of vocabulary means that
the conict was serious and the emperor fundamentally imposed a solution even if the
terms had been discussed in the meetings held at the Protaton. In fact the meeting was
not dened by an imperial imposition but by the application of a series of rules which
were valid beforehand.53 This means that the meeting was concerned with executive
power rather than legislative. It decided to modify and mainly to apply rules of the
typikon of Tzimikes. The problem of executive power was indicated by the type of
penalty which would be applied:
,
.54
He who breaks these laws will be subject to the justice of the holy canons, and
will be tried by imperial punishment.
Such a formula is similar to those contained in the book of the eparch55 or the
basilica.56 It implies that there will be civilian repercussions if one does not abide
by the rules of the typikon of 1045. This situation is described also in the synod of
1030 where the metropolitan of Melitene indicated the need to punish the local Syro
Jacobite Patriarch because of the latters breach of civil and religious laws.
Typikon 1045 epi. 23 (see n. 1).
Ibidem, epi. 2.
53
,

(ibidem, proem. 4446).
54
Ibidem, epi.10.
55
One example among many: , (Eparchenbuch 10.11213, see n. 47).
56
For example :
Basilicorum libri LX. Series A, vols. 18, Groningen 19551988, hier 7.17.27.910.
51
52

An Athonite assembly described in the Typikon of Monomachos

81

Thus the assembly of Athos of 1045, the synods of the church and the secular
gatherings of corporations seem to describe similar structures of meeting. In some
ways this may appear obvious but it reveals the regular use of assemblies to discuss
problems. The choice of the emperor to have a meeting in which he was represented by a monk together with the igoumenoi of the athonite monasteries means that
an assembly and a discussion was the normal way to deal with exceptional problems. However the concern that the decision could be , ,
, seems to reect exactly the same concern about unanimity and majority ably discussed by Eustathios Rhomaios. Therefore the meeting on
Athos was an exceptional event carried out according to standard byzantine rules and
practices of holding assemblies. The aim was application of existing rules and not
the voting of new regulations. The key terms are those which dene imposition and
which avoid the notion of being forced. This may be the case in practical terms, but it
means that such gatherings were expected to discuss and vote on the question at hand.
The value of this event is marked by the fact that the typikon of Athos is to this day
considered a foundation document which still denes its legal status.

()

XI .
,

.

(10251043) .