A Mechanism of Securing Private Property in 14th and 15th Century Thessalonica

PRESIDENTE DELLA FONDAZIONE: IRENE SANESI Segretario generale: Giampiero Nigro

Comitato scientifico

Presidente: Wim Blockmans

Vicepresidenti:

Michele Cassandro, Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada

Direttore scientifico: Giampiero Nigro

Giunta esecutiva:

Erik Aerts, Wim Blockmans, Bruce M.S. Campbell, Michele Cassandro, Murat Çizakça, Antonio Di Vittorio, Laurence Fontaine, Alberto Grohmann, Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada, Paolo Malanima, Giampiero Nigro, Michael North,

Adam Manikowski, Paola Massa

Altri membri del Comitato scientifico: Mathieu Arnoux, Carlo Marco Belfanti, Giorgio Borelli, Marco Cattini, Markus

A. Denzel, Giulio Fenicia, Antonia Ida Fontana, Gerhard Fouquet, Luciana Frangioni, Alberto Guenzi, Paulino Iradiel Murugarren, Sergej Pavlovi� Karpov, Olga Katsiardi-Hering, Maryanne Kowaleski, W. Mark Ormrod, Paola Pierucci,

Diana Toccafondi, Simon Teuscher, Michael Toch, Bas van Bavel

Comitato d’Onore

Maurice Aymard, Michel Balard, Giovanni Cherubini, Philippe Contamine, Mario Del Treppo, Domenico Demarco, Arnold Esch, Jean Favier, Richard Goldtwhaite, Elio Lodolini, Rosalia Manno Tolu, Peter Mathias, Anthony Molho, John Munro, Giuseppe Pansini, Hans Pohl, Carlo Poni, Henryk

Samsonowicz, Christopher Smout, Jean-Pierre Sosson, Rolf Sprandel, Ugo Tucci, Hermann van der Wee, Valentín Vázquez de Prada, Immanuel

Wallerstein, Giovanni Zalin

FONDAZIONE ISTITUTO INTERNAZIONALE DI STORIA ECONOMICA “F. DATINI”

PRATO

ASSISTENZA E SOLIDARIETÀ IN EUROPA SECC. XIII-XVIII

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AND SOLIDARITY IN

EUROPE FROM THE 13TH TO THE 18TH CENTURIES

Atti della “Quarantaquattresima Settimana di Studi” 22-26 aprile 2012

a cura di Francesco Ammannati

Firenze University Press 2013

simonetta

Font monospazio

ESTRATTO

simonetta

Font monospazio

simonetta

Font monospazio

Assistenza e solidarietà in Europa Secc. XIII-XVIII = Social assistance and solidarity in Europe from the 13th to the 18th Centuries : atti della “Quarantaquattresima Settimana di Studi”, 22-26 aprile 2012 / a cura di Francesco Ammannati. – Firenze : Firenze University Press, 2013. (Atti delle Settimane di Studi e altri Convegni ; 44)

http://digital.casalini.it/9788866553670

ISBN 978-88-6655-367-0 (online) ISBN 978-88-6655-366-3 (print)

La Settimana di Studi è stata realizzata con il contributo di: Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali

La pubblicazione del presente volume è stata realizzata con il contributo di: Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali

Certificazione scientifica delle Opere Tutti i volumi pubblicati sono soggetti ad un processo di referaggio esterno di cui sono responsabili il Consiglio editoriale della FUP e i Consigli scientifici delle singole collane. Le opere pubblicate nel catalogo della FUP sono valutate e approvate dal Consiglio editoriale della casa editrice. Per una descrizione più analitica del processo di referaggio si rimanda ai documenti ufficiali pubblicati sul catalogo on-line della casa editrice (www.fupress.com).

Consiglio editoriale Firenze University Press G. Nigro (Coordinatore), M.T. Bartoli, M. Boddi, R. Casalbuoni, C. Ciappei, R. Del Punta, A. Dolfi, V. Fargion, S. Ferrone, M. Garzaniti, P. Guarnieri, A. Mariani, M. Marini, A. Novelli, M. Verga, A. Zorzi.

La Fondazione Datini si dichiara fin d’ora disponibile ad assolvere i suoi obblighi per l’utilizzo delle immagini contenute nel volume nei confronti di eventuali aventi diritto.

© 2013 Firenze University Press / Fondazione Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica “F. Datini” Università degli Studi di Firenze Firenze University Press Borgo Albizi, 28 50122 Firenze, Italy http://www.fupress.com/ Printed in Italy

CRITERI DI CERTIFICAZIONE SCIENTIFICA

I testi pubblicati nella collana “Atti delle Settimane di Studi” raccolgono ricerche originali attivate dalla Fondazione Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica “F. Datini”,sulla base di un progetto varato dai suoi organi scientifici. Gli autori vengono selezionati aseguito di una Call for papers che indica gli obiettivi scientifici del progetto; la selezione è effettuata sulla base di proposte circostanziate contenenti indicazioni sulle questioni storiografiche affrontate, l’area e il periodo storico preso in considerazione e la tipologia delle fonti utilizzate. La Giunta del Comitato scientifico, eventualmente integrata da specialisti volta a volta individuati, analizza le proposte e seleziona quelle ritenute più validee coerenti con il progetto generale di ricerca. La commissione può anche decidere, ove loritenga opportuno, di effettuare inviti diretti a studiosi che si siano distinti per la qualità dellaloro produzione scientifica sul tema.

I testi risultanti dalle ricerche vengono presentati e discussi in occasione della Settimanadi Studi. Nel mese precedente al suo svolgimento, essi vengono messi a disposizione deipartecipanti, per consentire il necessario approfondimento della discussione. Gli atti pubblicano i testi definitivamente redatti dagli autori a seguito della discussione svoltadurante il convegno.

A partire da questa Settimana di Studi, tutte le comunicazioni presentate sono statesottoposte, nel testo fornito in modo definitivo, a duplice peer review. Il volume raccogliesolo le comunicazioni che hanno registrato un giudizio positivo.

The works published in the “Proceedings of the Study Week” series represent thecollected original research works initiated by the "F. Datini" International Institute ofEconomic History (Fondazione Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica “F. Datini”),based on a project launched by its scientific bodies. The authors are chosen following a Callfor Papers indicating scientific objectives of the project; selection is performed on the basisof detailed proposals containing indications regarding the researched economic historytopics, the area and historical period considered, as well as the sources used. The Scientific Committee, shall if necessary, include specialists identified on a case by case basis, and shallanalyse the proposals, choosing those considered the most valid and coherent with thegeneral research project. The Committee may decide, if it deems adequate, to inviteindividual scholars who have distinguished themselves for the quality of their scientificwork on the topic.

The works resulting from research shall be presented and discussed during the StudyWeek. In the month prior to the Study Week, the works shall be made available to theparticipants, in order to allow for a more detailed discussion. The final works, edited by theauthors after discussion during the Study Week, shall be published in the Proceedings.

Starting from this Study Week, all the “comunicazioni” were submitted to a dual peerreview. The book only contains the essays recording a positive judgment.

Commissione di selezione XLIV Settimana di Studi / Selection Commission of the 44rd

Study Week:

Erik Aerts (Louvain), Wim Blockmans (Leiden), Michele Cassandro (Siena), MuratÇizakça (Kuala Lumpur), Antonio Di Vittorio (Bari), Laurence Fontaine (Parigi), AlbertoGrohmann (Perugia), Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada (Madrid), Paolo Malanima (Catanzaro,Institute of Studies on Mediterraneanean Societies - CNR Napoli), Adam Manikowski(Warszawa), Paola Massa (Genova), Giampiero Nigro (Firenze), Michael North(Greifswald)

Assistenza e solidarietà in Europa Secc. XIII-XVIII = Socialassistance and solidarity in Europe from the 13th to the 18th Centuries : atti della “Quarantaquattresima Settimana di Studi”,22-26 aprile 2012 / a cura di Francesco Ammannati. – Firenze :Firenze University Press, 2013.(Atti delle Settimane di Studi e altri Convegni ; 44)

http://digital.casalini.it/9788866553670

ISBN 978-88-6655-367-0 (online)ISBN 978-88-6655-366-3 (print)

La Settimana di Studi è stata realizzata con il contributo di:Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali

La pubblicazione del presente volume è stata realizzata con il contributo di:Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali

Certificazione scientifica delle OpereTutti i volumi pubblicati sono soggetti ad un processo di referaggio esterno di cui sono responsabili il Consiglio editoriale della FUP e i Consigli scientifici delle singole collane.Le opere pubblicate nel catalogo della FUP sono valutate e approvate dal Consiglioeditoriale della casa editrice. Per una descrizione più analitica del processo di referaggiosi rimanda ai documenti ufficiali pubblicati sul catalogo on-line della casa editrice(www.fupress.com).

Consiglio editoriale Firenze University PressG. Nigro (Coordinatore), M.T. Bartoli, M. Boddi, R. Casalbuoni, C. Ciappei, R. Del Punta, A. Dolfi, V. Fargion, S. Ferrone, M. Garzaniti, P. Guarnieri, A. Mariani, M.Marini, A. Novelli, M. Verga, A. Zorzi.

La Fondazione Datini si dichiara fin d’ora disponibile ad assolvere i suoi obblighi perl’utilizzo delle immagini contenute nel volume nei confronti di eventuali aventi diritto.

© 2013 Firenze University Press / Fondazione Istituto Internazionale di StoriaEconomica “F. Datini”Università degli Studi di FirenzeFirenze University PressBorgo Albizi, 2850122 Firenze, Italyhttp://www.fupress.com/Printed in Italy

CRITERI DI CERTIFICAZIONE SCIENTIFICA

I testi pubblicati nella collana “Atti delle Settimane di Studi” raccolgono ricerche originali attivate dalla Fondazione Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica “F. Datini”, sulla base di un progetto varato dai suoi organi scientifici. Gli autori vengono selezionati a seguito di una Call for papers che indica gli obiettivi scientifici del progetto; la selezione è effettuata sulla base di proposte circostanziate contenenti indicazioni sulle questioni storiografiche affrontate, l’area e il periodo storico preso in considerazione e la tipologia delle fonti utilizzate. La Giunta del Comitato scientifico, eventualmente integrata da specialisti volta a volta individuati, analizza le proposte e seleziona quelle ritenute più valide e coerenti con il progetto generale di ricerca. La commissione può anche decidere, ove lo ritenga opportuno, di effettuare inviti diretti a studiosi che si siano distinti per la qualità della loro produzione scientifica sul tema.

I testi risultanti dalle ricerche vengono presentati e discussi in occasione della Settimana di Studi. Nel mese precedente al suo svolgimento, essi vengono messi a disposizione dei partecipanti, per consentire il necessario approfondimento della discussione. Gli atti pubblicano i testi definitivamente redatti dagli autori a seguito della discussione svolta durante il convegno.

A partire da questa Settimana di Studi, tutte le comunicazioni presentate sono state sottoposte, nel testo fornito in modo definitivo, a duplice peer review. Il volume raccoglie solo le comunicazioni che hanno registrato un giudizio positivo.

The works published in the “Proceedings of the Study Week” series represent the collected original research works initiated by the "F. Datini" International Institute of Economic History (Fondazione Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica “F. Datini”), based on a project launched by its scientific bodies. The authors are chosen following a Call for Papers indicating scientific objectives of the project; selection is performed on the basis of detailed proposals containing indications regarding the researched economic history topics, the area and historical period considered, as well as the sources used. The Scientific Committee, shall if necessary, include specialists identified on a case by case basis, and shall analyse the proposals, choosing those considered the most valid and coherent with the general research project. The Committee may decide, if it deems adequate, to invite individual scholars who have distinguished themselves for the quality of their scientific work on the topic.

The works resulting from research shall be presented and discussed during the Study Week. In the month prior to the Study Week, the works shall be made available to the participants, in order to allow for a more detailed discussion. The final works, edited by the authors after discussion during the Study Week, shall be published in the Proceedings.

Starting from this Study Week, all the “comunicazioni” were submitted to a dual peer review. The book only contains the essays recording a positive judgment.

Commissione di selezione XLIV Settimana di Studi / Selection Commission of the 44rd Study Week:

Erik Aerts (Louvain), Wim Blockmans (Leiden), Michele Cassandro (Siena), Murat Çizakça (Kuala Lumpur), Antonio Di Vittorio (Bari), Laurence Fontaine (Parigi), Alberto Grohmann (Perugia), Miguel Ángel Ladero Quesada (Madrid), Paolo Malanima (Catanzaro, Institute of Studies on Mediterraneanean Societies - CNR Napoli), Adam Manikowski (Warszawa), Paola Massa (Genova), Giampiero Nigro (Firenze), Michael North (Greifswald)

Francesco Ammannati (a cura di), Assistenza e solidarietà in Europa Secc. XIII-XVIII / Social assistance and soli-darity in Europe from the 13th to the 18th Centuries : atti della “Quarantaquattresima Settimana di Studi”, 22-26 aprile 2012 ISBN 978-88-6655-367-0 (online) ISBN 978-88-6655-366-3 (print) © 2013 Firenze University Press

INDICE

Domenica 22 aprile – APERTURA DEI LAVORI LAURENCE FONTAINE, Assistance et solidarité en Europe, XIIIe – XVIIIe siècle ........................................................................................................ pag. 3 Lunedì 23 aprile – EVOLUZIONE E TIPOLOGIE / EVOLUTION AND TYPES Relazioni JÜRGEN SCHLUMBOHM, Usury Poor Relief and Health Care: British Lying-in Charities and German Public Hospitals Compared ........................ pag. 17 MARIA ANTÓNIA LOPES, ISABEL DRUMOND BRAGA, The Portuguese Social Care System in the Modern Age: An Originality Case in Catholic Europe? ..................... » 31 LEX HEERMA VAN VOSS, Poor Relief Institutions in North-Western Europe (1550-1800) ....................................................................... » 57 MATHIEU ARNOUX, GILLES POSTEL-VINAY, Territoires et institutions de l’assistance (XIIe-XIXe siècles): mise en place, crises et reconstructions d’un système social ... » 77 MIGUEL ÁNGEL DE BUNES IBARRA, Complicità e solidarietà nel Mediterraneo turco-barbaresco ......................................................................................................................... » 105 Comunicazioni SANDRINE VICTOR, De la confrérie à la confrérie de Métier: mutation des structures d’encadrement d’assistance et de charité dans le monde pré-industriel à Gérone, XIIIe-XVe siècles .............................................................................................................. pag. 123 ARIE VAN STEENSEL, Variations in Urban Social Assistance. Some Examples from Late-Medieval England and the Low Countries ................... » 135 ALIDA CLEMENTE, Per “particular volontaria oblatione”. Il Real Hospitio di S. Gennaro de’ poveri e la centralizzazione dell’assistenza nella Napoli di Antico Regime ........ » 151 Martedì 24 aprile – FONTI DI FINANZIAMENTO E AUTOFINANZIAMENTO / SOURCES OF FINANCING AND SELF-FINANCING Relazioni GIULIANO PINTO, Formazione e gestione dei patrimoni fondiari degli istituti assistenziali cittadini (Italia, secoli XIII-XV) ..................................................................................... pag. 169 ELISE VAN NEDERVEEN MEERKERK, DANIËLLE TEEUWEN, Keeping Up the Good Works: Voluntary Giving and the Financial Maintenance of Charitable Institutions in Dutch Towns, c. 1600-1800 .......................................... » 179

INDICE

VIII

Comunicazioni STEFAN SONDEREGGER, The Financing Strategy of a Major Urban Hospital in the Late Middle Ages (St. Gallen 15th Century) ...................................................... pag. 209 CHRISTINE JEHANNO, Un grand hôpital en quête de nouvelles ressources: l’hôtel-Dieu de Paris à la fin du Moyen Âge ................................................................. » 227 PAOLA NARDONE, L’Assistenza nel Mezzogiorno: la Casa Santa dell’Annunziata di Sulmona nel XVIII secolo .......................................................................................... » 247 Martedì 24 aprile – GESTIONE, ORGANIZZAZIONE E COSTI DEI SERVIZI OFFERTI AI SOGGETTI DESTINATARI / MANAGEMENT, ORGANISATION AND COSTS OF THE SERVICES OFFERED TO THE RECIPIENT SUBJECTS Relazioni MARINA GAZZINI, La fraternita come luogo di economia. Osservazioni sulla gestione delle attività e dei beni di ospedali e confraternite nell’Italia tardo-medievale ......... pag. 261 AMY SINGER, What is the Price of a Free Lunch? The Costs of Serving and Consuming Meals in Ottoman Public Kitchens (imaret) ..................................... » 277 Comunicazioni CRISTINA PÉREZ GALÁN, Los grandes hospitales urbanos en Aragón en el siglo XV: Nuestra Señora de la Esperanza en Huesca y Nuestra Señora de Gracia en Zaragoza ...................................................................................................................... pag. 291 FRANCESCO BIANCHI, EDOARDO DEMO, Tra mercanti e mendicanti: amministrare la carità nella terraferma veneta del Rinascimento .............................. » 307 MARIA DE FATIMA MACHADO, L’assistenza ai trovatelli in Portogallo nel Cinquecento................................................................................................................ » 317 MARIE-LAURE LEGAY, Le financement et la gestion des dépôts de mendicité (France, 1764-1790) ......................................................................................................... » 333 MARIE-LUCIE ROSSI , La gestion camérale des biens de l’Assistance publique et l’emprise de la valeur à Reggio Emilia (1754-1804) ................................................ » 347 Mercoledì 25 aprile – IMPATTO SULL’ECONOMIA E SULLA SOCIETÀ / IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AND SOCIETY Relazioni HENK LOOIJESTEIJN, MARCO H.D. VAN LEEUWEN, Ospizi e corporazioni: assistenza alla classe media nella Repubblica olandese ............................................... pag. 363 GIULIANA ALBINI, Ospedali e società urbana: Italia centro-settentrionale, secoli XIII-XVI ................................................................................................................ » 384 ALBERTO MARCOS MARTÍN, Carità e società nella Spagna moderna ........................ » 399 MICHAEL TOCH, Social Assistance, Welfare and Their Economic Background: the Jewish Case in Medieval Europe ............................................................................. » 419 Comunicazioni PAOLA PINELLI, “Demo a’ poveri per rimosina per l’amore di Dio”: effetti economici e sociali delle distribuzioni di pane e farina a Prato nel XIV secolo ......................... pag. 427 ALFREDO MARTÍN GARCÍA, MARÍA JOSÉ PÉREZ ÁLVAREZ, La risposta sociale al fenomeno della povertà nel nord-est della Penisola iberica nel XVIII secolo ..... » 439 KATERINA KONSTANTINIDOU, Carità, ambizioni politiche e assistenza ospedaliera: L’ospedale dei Poveri Infermi nella Corfù Settecentesca ............................................ » 453

INDICE

IX

Giovedì 26 aprile – L’ASSISTENZA INFORMALE / THE NON FORMAL WELFARE Relazioni ANNA BENVENUTI, La municipalizzazione della solidarietà confraternale: esempi dalle città toscane ................................................................................................ pag. 465 ANGELA GROPPI, L’assistenza agli anziani in età moderna: compiti sociali e doveri familiari ............................................................................................................... » 479 Comunicazioni ATHANASIA STAVROU, A Mechanism of Securing Private Property in 14th and 15th Century Thessalonike ........................................................................... pag. 493 MATTHIEU SCHERMAN, Les formes de l’assistance à Trévise au XVe siècle ............ » 509 BEATRICE ZUCCA MICHELETTO, Family Solidarity vs. Institutional Relief ? Interaction and Complementarity Between Different Survival Strategies in 18th-Century Turin ....................................................................................................... » 521 ANASTASIA PAPADIA-LALA, Poverty, Charitable Institutions and Politics in the Greek-Venetian East (13th-17th centuries) ......................................................... » 533

Abstracts ........................................................................................................................... pag. 543

Athanasia Stavrou

A Mechanism of Securing Private Property in 14th and 15th Century Thessalonike* INTRODUCTION

In the 14th and 15th centuries, the political and socio-economic conditions of Byzantine society underwent changes. In this period, the reality of the political fragmentation of the Empire became particularly evident; it was intensified by the advance of the Ottoman Turks. This had an impact on the relations between the imperial centre and the Byzantine provinces, with the latter starting to move towards autonomy. On the other hand, there was a perceptible alteration of the structure and stratification of the Byzantine society. Most characteristically, one of these changes concerns the nature and economic activities of the Byzantine elite. Traditionally, the wealth of Byzantine aristocracy was linked to land-based activities. With the loss of territories, the members of the upper class were detached from their landed wealth and started to become involved in other profitable activities, such as money-changing and trade. This had far-reaching consequences for changes in the structure and mentality of Late Byzantine society. Significantly, this change of economic activity re-flects the response of individuals and societies to novel conditions.

During this period of transition, Byzantine society experienced alterations of the politi-cal order, as well as transformations of its economic institutions and structures. Transitional eras can be studied in a variety of ways. However, the sociology and economic behaviour of elites attracts particular attention, because this group is more likely to compete for power in order to establish and protect its economic interests and, therefore, to instigate changes in the institutional framework of a society. Thus, in order to gain a better understanding of the socio-economic conditions of the later period, the study of the Byzantine elite is imperative. Furthermore, the economic behaviour of this social group is easier to trace and delineate in the sources.

However, the task to define the nature of the Late Byzantine elite is neither simple nor straightforward. Klaus-Peter Matschke adopts a tripartite classification of the population residing in urban centres,1 in his general overview of the structure of the late Byzantine so-ciety.2 He has distinguished two layers within the nobility class: the upper echelon and lower aristocrats, the mesoi,3 a term signifying most probably a kind of middle stratum, and finally

* This paper is part of my unpublished doctoral thesis: Socio-economic Conditions in 14th and 15th Century Thessalo-

nike: A New Approach, University of Birmingham 2011. 1 K.-P. MATSCHKE, Fortschritt und Reaktion in Byzanz im 14. Jahrhundert, Leipzig 1967, pp. 38-62. 2 IDEM, F. TINNEFELD, Die Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz: Gruppen, Strukturen und Lebensformen, Cologne-Weimar-

Vienna 2001. 3 The definition of the class of the mesoi has been considered as quite problematic. The term is found in the

Byzantine sources already in the sixth century, reappearing in the twelfth, and again in the first half of the fourteenth century as mesotes and mese moira. Nikos Oikonomides has interpreted the notion of the mesoi as corresponding to the western bourgeoisie, a class standing between the aristocrats and the poor, residing in the larger urban centres of Constantinople, Adrianople and Thessalonike, whose activities extended from shipping to crafting, trading and money lending. See N. OIKONOMIDÈS, Hommes d’affaires grecs et latins à Constantinople (XIIIe-XVe siècles), Montreal–Paris 1979, pp. 115-116, 118; also L. MAKSIMOVIĆ, Charakter der Sozial-Wirtschaftlichen Struktur der Spätbyzantinischen Stadt (13.-15.Jh.), in “Jahrbuch der österreichen Byzantinistik” 31, 1981, n. 1, pp. 149-188, 184-86.

ATHANASIA STAVROU 494

the lower class, the underprivileged. In a discussion of the city of Serres in the 14th century,4

Angeliki Laiou identifies three distinct social strata: the landed aristocracy with roots to the Constantinopolitan families, the local nobility possessing urban and rural properties whose power and wealth started to grow from the middle of the century onwards, and lastly the middle class, which included the merchants and the wealthiest part of the artisans. Yet, it is not possible to speak in definite terms for the social stratification in the Late Byzantine pe-riod is not possible, because the borderlines between classes are not always distinguishable.

Despite such impediments to a comprehensive study of Byzantine aristocracy in the pe-riod in question, there is a point of agreement among scholars as to the disintegrating state of this segment of society and the loss of a great part of its landed wealth, which was to a large extent instigated and aggravated by the warlike activities with the Turks. In this paper, I have opted not to pursue a study of the prevailing conditions in the Late Byzantine Em-pire and of the Byzantine aristocracy as a whole, since this would stumble upon various methodological issues. Instead, I concentrate on a local society and explore its response to the changing economic landscape. Despite the general dearth of sources for the later years, the city of Thessalonike provides sufficient documentation which renders it a fruitful case-study. The fate of the Thessalonian elite within the changing environment of the 14th and 15th centuries is of particular interest because of its disintegration and the mechanisms its members developed in order to survive.

Most of our information about the economic situation of provincial elite members can be gleaned from published documents from the monasteries of Mount Athos.5 These sources date mostly from the fourteenth century, with significantly fewer surviving from the fifteenth century; they describe economic transactions performed between laymen and mo-nastic institutions, giving a clear picture about the fate of landed property in the Late Byzan-tine period. One of the key features of these transactions was the augmentation of monastic property through sales, leases and donations to the detriment of the provincial aristocracy.

This paper uses the example of the institution of donation and, from a different angle, seeks to integrate it within the theme of this conference, ‘Solidarity and Assistance’. I will demonstrate that the relationship between the Athonite monasteries and the Thessalonian elite could be more complex, despite being based on the principle of financial assistance to laymen. As the title of this paper implies, donations were a means of securing one’s proper-ty, which poses a crucial question: who actually secured wealth and how?

THE INSTITUTION OF DONATION

The history of Thessalonike in the 14th and 15th centuries is intertwined with the unsta-ble political conditions that prevailed in the Byzantine Empire in this period. The city found itself within the turmoil of the civil war of the mid-14th century, and experienced certain po-litical and socio-economic developments, which were vividly expressed in the form of the Zealot revolt that focused its activities in this city (1341-1349). It also had followers in other

More recently this social formation has been regarded as having had political extensions apart from the economic ones, and that it was a reflection of the polarization and redistribution of power of the Byzantine society in the middle of the fourteenth century. After that time point the term is not to be found in the sources anymore as the boundaries between the mesoi and that portion of the nobility that was involved in similar financial activities appears to have become blurred. For a comprehensive discussion of the mesoi in this period, see K.-P.MATSCHKE, F. TINNEFELD, Die Gesellschaft, cit., pp. 99-157.

4 A. LAIOY, Κοινωνικές δυνάμεις στις Σέρρες στο 14ο αιώνα, in Οι Σέρρες και η περιοχή τους από την αρχαία στη μεταβυζαντινή κοινωνία: Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου (29 Σεπτεμβρίου-3 Oκτωβρίου 1993), Serres 1998, pp. 203-219.

5 The monasteries of Mount Athos possess a large collection of Byzantine and post-Byzantine charters. The earliest documents date to the late 9th century.

MECHANISM OF SECURING PRIVATE PROPERTY 495

urban centres, such as Serres and Adrianople.6 During the period of the Serbian occupation in the mid-14th century when it was expanding southwards, Thessalonike was one of the few urban centres of Macedonia to retain its Byzantine authority. On 11 April 1372, raids of Turks menaced the city walls;7 this was the first Turkish appearance before the city follow-ing their success in the battle of Mariča in 1371, which devastated the surrounding area. More seriously, the assault of 1383 developed into a four-year siege before the surrender of the city in April 1387. Historians do not universally agree that the second capture of the city took place in the 1390s. While some scholars reject this possibility, placing instead the se-cond conquest of Thessalonike in 1430,8 others favour the prospect of an intermediary one and have put forward two possible dates, 1391 and 1394.9 In 1402, the battle of Ankara, where the Timurids crushed Bayezid’s forces, further affected the destiny of the city. In 1403, it was handed over to the Byzantines and remained under their authority until 1423, when Venice assumed control and governorship of the city.10 In the interim, the raids and attacks by the Ottomans continued. Two occurred in 1412 and 1416, putting great pressure on the Venetian regime,11 which was brought to an end in 1430 with the subjection of the city to the Ottomans.

Under these circumstances of heightened uncertainty and fluidity, a large segment of Thessalonian landowners would cede their properties to monasteries, either due to an ina-bility to exploit them or in order to secure the financial means for their livelihood. The ar-chives of Mount Athos have preserved the economic dealings of some of these individuals with the monasteries. Alongside straightforward forms of property transactions, such as sales and lease agreements, another kind of transaction constituted an idiosyncratic type of economic arrangement in terms of character and scope: donation.

Donations of property to monasteries had a long tradition in Byzantine society; howev-er, during the Late Byzantine period, they became a prominent feature in transactions and

6 Scholars are still not in the position to provide definite answers about the specific reasons that lay behind

this historical occurrence. It has been contended that the revolt was provoked by the economic strain that was put onto the population by usurers and tax collectors and that it constituted a manifestation of democratic tendencies inspired by the Italian communes. It has been generally accepted that the Zealot movement, was the reflection of a profound social discontent, which was ignited by the civil wars in the middle of the fourteenth century and brought to the surface the economic antagonism between two social formations or classes: the feudal aristocracy, namely the great landowners, and that part of the population found mainly in large provincial cities, whose economic activities involved trade, banking and generally private enterprise. More recently, another view advocates that the revolt was the result of the reconstruction of social and economic relations of the city, but distances itself from his suggestion of a clash between the landowners and the urban elite. The bibliography on this issue is quite substantial, therefore I provide here the titles of the works that have expressed the aforementioned views in respective order: O. TAFRALI, Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle, Paris 1913, pp. 255-272; G. O. BRATIAŇU, Privilèges et franchises municipales dans l’empire byzantin, Paris 1936, p.119; K.P. MATSCHKE, Fortschritt und Reaktion, cit., pp. 247-248; D. KYRITSES, The Byzantine Aristocracy in the Thirteenth and early Fourteenth Centuries, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University 1997, pp. 378-383.

7 P. SCHREINER, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, I, Vienna 1975, p. 351; F. TINNEFELD, Demetrios Kydones Briefe, I-2, Stuttgart 1982, pp. 517-518; Démétrius Cydonès correspondance, ed. R.J. LOENERTZ, I, Vatican 1956, no. 77; G.T. DENNIS, The Reign of Manuel II in Thessalonica, 1382-1387, Rome 1960, pp. 55-56.

8 P. CHARANIS, An Important Short Chronicle of the Fourteenth Century, in ‘‘Byzantion”, 13, 1938, p. 355-362; G.T. DENNIS, The Second Turkish Capture of Thessalonica 1391, 1394 or 1430?, in “Byzantinische Zeitschrift”, 57, 1964, pp. 53-61.

9 A.E. VAKALOPOULOS, Zur Frage der zweiten Einnahme Thessalonikis durch die Türken, 1391-92, in “Byzantinische Zeitschrift”, 61, 1968, pp. 285-290; IDEM, Προβλήματα της ιστορίας της Θεσσαλονίκης κατά τα τέλη του 14ου και αρχές του 15ου αιώνα, in H Θεσσαλονίκη μεταξύ Ανατολής και Δύσεως, Πρακτικά Συμποσίου Εταιρείας Μακεδονικών Σπουδών, 30 Oκτ.-1 Nοεμβ. 1980, Thessalonica 1982, pp. 31-41.

10 G. TSARAS, Η Θεσσαλονίκη από τους Βυζαντινούς στους Βενετσιάνους (1423-1430), in “Μakedonika”, 17, 1977, pp. 85-122; A.E. VAKALOPOULOS, Συμβολή στην ιστορία της Θεσσαλονίκης επί Βενετοκρατίας (1423-1430), in “Παγκαρπία Μακεδονικής Γης”, 1980, pp. 31-51.

11 A.E. VAKALOPOULOS, History of Macedonia, 1354-1833, Thessalonica 1973, p. 77.


would contribute to the expansion of church and monastic wealth. In previous centuries, the state had attempted to set some limitations to donations by stipulating laws regulating this kind of transaction in order to prevent the economic strengthening of the church and possible encroachments of private property. For example, in 964, emperor Nikephoros Phokas issued a novel, according to which grants of landed property to the monasteries were forbidden.12 Such measures, however, were not destined to change the growing im-portance of monastic estates that reached its peak in the period before the Ottoman con-quest.

In Byzantine law, the concept of donation (dorea) was distinguished into two separate acts: pure donation (kathara dorea) and conditional (dorea ypo airesin). In the first case, no ob-ligations burdened the parties, whilst in the latter, certain conditions were attached to this deed.13 By implication, the act of donation had a contractual character and, by law, this agreement had to be validated through a written contract or a confirmation by three wit-nesses.14 In terms of definition, donation was considered to be the opposite of sale, alt-hough there were cases where the boundaries between the two types of transaction were not clear-cut.15 But even if money was not involved, the fact that certain conditions could be applied to the act of donation confers the quality of exchange to it and makes it particu-larly pertinent to our discussion.

The reasons behind a donation varied and could be both spiritual and financial. An in-dividual may offer his property (or part of it) to a monastery because of the need or expec-tation for the salvation of his soul (dia psychikon). In this instance, the donor expected the monastery to commemorate him or/and other members of his family in exchange for his offerings. It was not unusual for the manner in which this commemoration was performed to correspond to the status of the donor. The commemoration of aristocrats, for instance, could entail the distribution of money or bread to the poor, a special mass or meal in the monastery. However, the most common form of commemoration was to record the do-nor’s name in the vrevion (list of persons to be commemorated) of the monastery.16

Another aspect of this exchange with financial motivations, was the adelphaton or diakonia, the dispensation of an annuity to the donor by a monastery. More specifically, an adelphaton was the obligation that a monastery undertook towards the donor to dispense an allowance.17 It was actually an institution that could lead to mutual profit through the ex-change of assets between laymen and monasteries; it was pivoted on the following principle: a certain individual would donate property or liquid assets to a monastery that in turn had the obligation to provide in return a lifetime pension, either in the form of an agreed sum of money or of kind, for instance the provision of foodstuffs as a means to sustain the donor.

12 P. CHARANIS, The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire, in “Dumbarton Oaks Papers”, 4,

1948, pp. 51-118, 55-61. For the relationship between the Byzantine state and the monasteries, see also M. ANGOLD, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081-1261, Cambridge 1995.

13 H. GLYKATZI-AHRWEILER, La concession des droits incorporels. Donations conditionnelles, Actes du XII Congres International des Etudes byzantines, II, Belgrade 1964, pp. 103-114, 103. [repr. EADEM, Etudes sur les structures administratives et sociales de Byzance, London 1971, no. I]

14 According to the Justinianic Code the presence of a witness was necessary for sums above 500 nomismata. See K. PITSAKIS, Πρόχειρον νόμων ή Εξάβιβλος, Athens 1971, p. 158, note 1.

15 The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium [ODB], A. KAZHDAN et al. eds., I-III, Oxford 1991, [hereafter ODB], “Donation”.

16 K. SMYRLIS, La fortune des grands monastères byzantins (fin du Xe-milieu du XIVe siècle), Paris 2006, pp. 133-134; A.-M. TALBOT, The Byzantine Family and the Monastery, in “Dumbarton Oaks Papers”, 44, 1990, pp. 119-129, 124.

17 ODB, “Adelphaton”; See also, M. ŽIVOJINOVIC, Adelfati u Vizantiji i srednovekovnoj Srbiji, in “Zbronik radova Vizantološkog Instituta”, 11, 1968, pp. 241-270 ; R.E. GOMEZ, Un retiro para priviligediados : el Monte Athos a finales del siglo XIV. La compra de pensiones vitalicias, in “Anuario des Estudios Medievales”, 35, 2005, n. 1, pp. 359-384.


In terms of duration, the provision of an adelphaton normally lasted while the beneficiary was alive and the payment ceased after his death. There were cases, however, in which the con-tract stipulated otherwise and the pension could be assigned to another person, most com-monly another family member of the beneficiary. Although this settlement was based upon certain existing patterns, the specific terms were unique to each contract; therefore the amount and duration of the pension were not strictly fixed and could fluctuate from one case to another. A further type of donation of a financial nature existed: granting private monasteries to larger ones. The donors’ aim in such cases was to ensure the continuation of their foundation’s operation by handing it over to an economically stronger organisation.18

It is worthy of note that, in the West, there was an equivalent institution to that of the Byzantine adelphaton/diakonia, the Carolingian census, which was based on exactly the same modus operandi: laymen would confer possessions on monasteries in exchange for the right to receive the usufruct (redditus) annually and during their lifetime, whilst sometimes their heirs retained the same right. This contract would become the foundation for another type of economic arrangement, the rente. Initially, this was a kind of private investment, which, in turn, would evolve into a major system of public finance according to which autonomous cities could borrow on the principle of life or hereditary rent (Permanently Funded National Debt).19 It seems, therefore, that the western conditional donation to a foundation preceded the Byzantine adelphaton, as the latter has been first attested in the 11th century.20

Regarding our period of study, it seems that donations fall into two separate periods: the first part of the 14th century and the period from around the middle of the century on-wards. In the first case, individuals seem to have donated land because they lacked the means to exploit it. This practice continued in the second half of the century, after which another motive drove individuals to donate their possessions: for some, donations served as a means for securing one’s property from external threat. This is partly reinforced by the types of donated properties. In the first period, many documents refer to abandoned land (exaleimmata),21 which was not necessarily unproductive, but, in most cases, was not exploittable at the time of donation. As time progressed, however, we also meet particularly fertile areas or possessions linked to commercial activities. Also, from the middle of the 14th century, when economic prosperity and living conditions started to deteriorate, donations in exchange for lifetime pecuniary pensions (adelphata) steadily increased.

Most of our documents concern laymen of a higher social status, either bearing a title or related to well-known Thessalonian families. When dealing with documents about dona-tions of landed property, one notices that most of the individuals come from the great fami-lies of Thessalonike, such as those of Kavasilas, Tzamplakon and Devlitzenos, who were also pronoia holders,22 as their titles and property origins reveal. The same does not apply to

18 K. SMYRLIS, La fortune, cit., p. 135; See also J.PH. THOMAS, Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine

Empire, Washington D. C. 1987 (Dumbarton Oaks Studies XXIV), p. 250. 19 J. MUNRO, The Medieval Origins of the Financial Revolution: Usury, Rentes, and Negotiability, in “ The International History Review”, 25, 2003, n. 3, pp. 505-562, particularly 518-531; For the relation between Permanently Funded Public Debt and the equivalent institution of the Ottoman esham, see M.ÇIZAKÇA, Islamic Capitalism and Finance: Origins, Evolution and the Future, Cheltenham 2011, pp. 62-72.

20 ODB, “Adelphaton”. A comparative examination of the Byzantine and Western lifetime and hereditary annuities (e.g. Flemmish Lijrenten and Erferlijke renten) is essential and deserves to be the subject of a separate study.

21 The term designates properties whose owners –usually dependent peasants (paroikoi) - had abandoned them or had died heirless. A more expanded definition specifies the reasons for this abandonment as the decease, flight, disappearance and failure of the paroikos to meet his obligations towards his lord. The most important work on this institution is M. BARTUSIS, Exaleimma: Escheat in Byzantium, in “Dumbarton Oaks Papers”, 40, 1986, pp. 55-81.

22 A concise but at the same time broad definition of the institution of pronoia would suggest that it was the allocation of a holding to an individual by the state on conditional terms and occasionally in exchange for services. Pronoia typified the Byzantine proprietary system for almost five centuries during which it underwent various


donations of urban properties where the great majority of individuals are hardly known from other sources. This, of course, may be coincidental and does not preclude the fact that some of them could also belong to the upper classes. However, it may reflect the Byzantine aristocracy’s long tradition of ownership and exploitation of land, which for centuries con-stituted their main source of income. Understandably, this land would be the main object in the transactions carried out by this particular social group.

The limitations of our material, which concerns property transactions that took place within the broader area of Thessalonike and focuses primarily on the ‘upper’ social strata, does not permit any kind of reliable quantitative analysis. However, we are in the position to categorise the donated properties into four major groups: i)‘abandoned’ land/dependent peasants’ (paroikoi) holdings; ii) properties of commercial interest; iii) mills; iv) urban proper-ties. The following table demonstrates some examples that reveal aspects of this range of donated properties.

Tab. 1 Examples of donated properties

Document/ date

Donor Type of property

Docheiariou no. 11 (1311)

Doukopoulos (Georgios?)

Water mill

Docheiariou no.13 (1313) Unnamed soldier

Abandoned land(exaleimmatika choraphiaia topia) and 1 vineyard

Xenophon no.23 (1335)

Sarantenoi brothers

Church of Saint-George with its land divided into two plots of 700 modioi, 1 water-mill, 1 orchard, 1 garden and 3 parcels of vineyards of 15 modioi

Vatopedi II no. 105 (1355)

Arsenios Tzamplakon Estate with all its area and rights, paroikoi (dependent peasants), abandoned land (hypostaseis exaleimmatikas), vineyards in cultivation or not, arable land, mills, un-cultivated land and pasture, the part of land he pos-sessed in Vela, winter pasture in Thermopotamos, annual fair of Hagios Symeon in Vela, the fortifica-tion (kastellion) called Slanesion

Lavra III no. 153 (1392)

Demetrios Tzyrigges Church (monydrion) of Hagios Ioannes Theologos in Thessalonike. One piece of land called ‘tou Zaventze’ near river Galikos, two pieces of land in Episkopou

SECURING PROPRIETORSHIP

The monasteries seemed to be the party that actually benefited from donations, if one considers that, in most cases, they acquired full and irrevocable ownership rights. Regardless of any individual conditions attached to each donation, in the vast majority of our docu-ments, the donors specify that full property rights are vested in the monasteries. The terms employed are fixed and most clauses describe ownership with the terms despoteia, katoche, nome and their variations. Interesting for its uniqueness is a term employed by the donor Demetrios Kavasilas that refers to the monks as absolute proprietors: oikokyrioi.23 In addi-

alterations in its nature and application, having an impact on private property rights. For a synopsis of the studies and scholarly approaches on this issue, see A. KAZHDAN, Pronoia: The History of a Scholarly Discussion, in “Mediterranean Historical Review”, 10, 1995, pp. 133-163.

23 Actes de Vatopédi, II: De 1330 à 1376, J. LEFORT, V. KRAVARI, C. GIROS, K. SMYRLIS eds., Paris 2006, no. 727 [hereafter Vatopédi II].


tion, the right to revenues (prosodos), whenever the donated property did or could potentially generate income, was again clearly stated. As a small note, it is perhaps not coincidental that in a text produced by another member of the Kavasilas family opposing the state’s of confiscating church property, donations feature as a strong argument against such actions. It supports the view of donations as any other transaction of private nature, such as sale, and therefore the recipient becomes full master (kyrios) of the bequest.24 This indirectly rein-forces the argument that this type of transaction constituted a way of securing one’s posses-sions.

This raises the question of whether there were any time restrictions to donations. In general, we notice that properties were dispensed in perpetuity (eis dienekeis chronous), the on-ly exception being that of the pronoiai. In the donations of three unnamed pronoiars of the first half of the 14th century,25 there are clauses on the temporary nature of this transaction. Pronoiai were initially granted on a short-term basis, a reality that is reflected here, as the monastery of Docheiariou was ceded the exploitation of the property as long as these indi-viduals hold their pronoia.26 In contrast, the character of the pronoiai donated in the second half of the 14th century was altered: it essentially became a family privilege and therefore permanent. The donations of the family members of the Devlitzenoi, Kavasilas and Tzamplakones are indicative of this change. When one reads the clauses reserved for this issue, it becomes apparent that they speak for donations that were not burdened with any kind of time limitations or were free (eleuthera) from any tax obligations.27

In all our examples, monasteries become full proprietors, with the right to exploit the property as they wished and with no hindrance from the donor or his family members. This was generally expressed in fixed wording but, in some instances, there were more specific references to particular individuals who could contest the deed in a way designed to defend the agreement more effectively. When donating his piece of land near river Galikos, Demetrios Tzamplakon incorporated a guarantee that his wife, Eudokia Palaiologina Tzamplakonissa, would not lay any claims to that property by invoking her legal right to re-tain her dowry as alienated by her husband.28 In this way, all possibilities were covered and the rights of the monasteries fully protected.

One of the most detailed documents in the clauses safeguarding the status of the prop-erty following donation is that of a certain Kalavaris, who made a donation to Lavra that involved the river Ploumiska, near Rhentina, on the route from Mount Athos to Thessalonike.29 The information we have about Kalavaris, who has been identified with megas hetairiarches Michael Kavalaris, is that he was one of the Greek officials of the Serbian occupation who managed to retain his property after the lands were re-captured by the Byz-antines. In this particular act, the river Ploumiska and the surrounding area pass to the hands of Lavra. The conditions under which the monastery would keep the property are well specified: none of Kalavaris’s side, his children, a kephale of kastron,30 a sevastos or other

24 I. ŠEVČENKO, Nicolas’ ‘Anti-Zealot Discourse’: A Reinterpretation, in “Dumbarton Oaks Papers”, 11, 1957, pp.

49-59, paragraphs 10-16. 25 Actes de Docheiariou, ed. N. OIKONOMIDÈS, Paris 1984, nos. 13 and 14 [hereafter Docheiariou] 26 Docheiariou, no. 137; no 146. 27 Vatopédi II, no 10522-23. 28 Vatopédi II, no.11829-34. The same guarantee was given for his children who had agreed with their father’s

decision to donate the property. 29 Actes de Lavra, III: De 1329 a ̀ 1500, ed. P. LEMERLE, Paris 1979, no. 130. [hereafter Lavra III] 30 Kephalai were the highest state functionaries of provincial administration. As a rule they derived from the

great magnate class and their independence of actions came to be so extensive that in the 15th century they seem to perform their duties on a solely private basis. K.-P. MATSHCKE, Notes on the Economic Establishment and Social Order of the late Byzantine Kephalai, in “Byzantinische Forschungen”, 19, 1993, pp. 139-143.


local authority could impose any kind of taxes or impositions on the monastery. What fol-lows is an enumeration of impositions linked to the kastron of Rhentina, such as those of the Byzantine parthenophthoria, phonikon, kastroktisia and others,31 as well as a list of taxes of a Serbian origin. It is well known that during the Serbian occupation and the reign of Stephan Dušan, Athonite monasteries enjoyed a period of extensive grants, which strengthened their economic position. The few Byzantine officials who participated in Dušan’s regime fol-lowed this policy and gave away a considerable part of their possessions, whilst those Byz-antine aristocrats who opposed him were forced by circumstances to the same action.32 According to a different view, Kalavaris was one of those pronoiars who were damaged by this change of political authority.33 Yet, whether he belonged to the first or second category does not detract from the fact that this detailed enumeration of privileges sealed the agree-ment in the most advantageous way for the monastery.

As regards urban properties, the picture we form is quite similar. The conditions under which monasteries could hold the property highlight their advantageous position and the constant opportunities they had to augment their assets through endowments. Only one document from 1324 reveals that retention of usufruct after donation was possible. Monk Lavrentios Kladon proceeded to a donation of various types of property, such as a small monastery, buildings, one vineyard and a piece of uncultivated land, retaining for himself the right to the revenues during his life.34 Yet, Kladon was not a member of the elite of the city but of humble origin. It has been suggested that these small monasteries were particu-larly important for founders from such backgrounds, because they constituted their main source of revenue, essential for the survival of themselves and their families.35 The right to draw revenues from the donated property is not retained in any of the examples where the donors come from upper class families. Therefore, it appears that, in general, monasteries would draw profit as soon as they received the assets.

In order to protect the contract and its validity, certain formulations were employed towards the end of each document that were supposed to function to prevent dispute of the decision by the donor’s relatives. On the whole, these clauses had no legal foundation, tak-ing the form of cursing or religious rebuke. It seems that they sufficed to seal the agree-ment, if we take into account that they are found in the majority of our documents. More concrete legal formulas and means were not precluded; however, they are not found in do-nation acts as frequently as in those of sales and leases. One such example is that of Maria Angelina who found it necessary to include, apart from maledictions, a penal clause stating that in case of infringement she would pay 100 nomismata to the monastery and the conse-quent fine to the fisc according to the law.36 It is worth wondering why she decided to make this commitment and not rely only on the most common practice of malediction, which was generally considered to be a secure means of ratifying a document.37 One hypothesis is that she wished to give additional validity to the donation due to the complex nature of the property she offered. Her donation involved the estate of her late husband, Doukas Michael

31 For these taxes, see P. CHARANIS, The Phonikon and other Byzantine Taxes, in “Speculum”, 20/3, 1945, pp.

331-333; SP. TROIANOS, Einige Bemerkungen über die finanziellen Grundlagen des Festungsbaues im byzantinishen Reich, in “Vyzantina”, 1, 1969, pp. 39-57.

32 T. MANIATE-KOKKINE, Προνομιακές παραχωρήσεις του Σέρβου αυτοκράτορα Στέφανου Ντουσάν (1344-1355), in Byzantium and Serbia in the 14th Century, Athens 1996, pp. 300-329, 326-327.

33 Actes de Lavra, IV: Etudes historiques-actes serbes, ed. P. LEMERLE, Paris 1982, p. 120, note 404. 34 Actes de Xénophon, ed. D. PAPACHRYSANTHOU, Paris 1986, no. 2031-37.

35 K. SMYRLIS, Small Family Foundations in Byzantium from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Century, in Founders and Refounders, ed. M. MULLET, Belfast 2007, pp. 107-120, 114.

36 Actes de Lavra, II: De 1204 a ̀ 1328, ed. P. LEMERLE, no. 9837-38 (1304). 37 H. SARADI, Cursing in the Byzantine Notarial Acts: A Form of Warranty, in “Vyzantina”, 17, 1994, pp. 440-533.


Angelos, in Hagia Maria. One sixth of the property originated from the dowry of Doukas’s first wife, which he received after her death. A legal stipulation allowed the surviving hus-band to acquire one third of his late spouse’s dowry. Maria handed in the relevant docu-ment to Lavra but also considered it useful to provide further assurances to the monastery that the family of the first wife would not raise any claims to the property and nothing would jeopardize the transaction. The fact that Maria was a woman and, according to the legal framework of the time, not trustworthy does not seem to be a motive for the insertion of these penal clauses,38 since this element is not present in other women’s donations. Therefore, our initial justification based on the parameter of future complications makes a stronger case.

For the sake of comparison and in order to reinforce our previous thesis, we should re-fer to a parallel document, chronologically earlier and concerning a family donation, the Spartenoi in 1265. In this affair, three brothers confirm the donation made to Chilandar by their late father, pansevastos sevastos Demetrios Spartenos, and cede themselves further prop-erties. Their financial warranty to the monastery and the state involved 1 litra of hyperpyra in case of infringement of contract.39 We should note here that documents drawn up for af-fairs of the higher social strata were quite consistent in terms of language and formularies followed certain patterns. Notarial clauses were frequently included by way of custom, so, to a certain extent, this could be a mechanical repetition, without necessarily a strict relation to the affair itself.40 On the other hand, the cases of the Spartenoi brothers and Maria Ange-lina share common features that might indicate a necessity for the inclusion of such clauses. The properties of both were initially imperial grants and were transmitted to them as an in-heritance. We have already seen the existent complexities in Angelina’s case. The Spartenoi affair was more straightforward but involved three different individuals. It seems then that the penal clauses here were destined to prevent any future claims of any of the siblings. We are, after all, aware of cases from this period in which such kind of ‘complexities’ reversed a donation.41

Finally, the case of Demetrios Tzyrigges highlights the issue of the validation of a dona-tion and the likelihood of complications occurring. Tzyrigges states that the document was drawn up retroactively the act itself and presents the whole affair. In the past, he had made two separate donations to Nea Mone: of his monydrion and his land in river Galikos.42 He claimed that, at the time, he did not draw any written agreement for either of them, believ-ing that it was not necessary due to his close relations to the monks, who considered him to be one of them so there was no suspicion against him. For unstated reasons, he explains that a written confirmation was now necessary, adding that he had also confessed his good intentions in front of the patriarch. It is not conclusive whether a specific problem occurred or whether the monks, for reasons of their own, decided to demand a proper written deed as a security measure against possible future claims. It is certain, though, that this case was important enough to reach the patriarchal synod for a settlement. The whole affair reveals

38 For legal restrictions imposed on legal actions of women, see H. SARADI-MEDELOVICI, A Contribution to the

Study of the Byzantine Notarial Formulas: the infirmitas sexus of Women and the sc. Velleianum, in “Byzantinische Zeitschrift”, 83, 1990, pp. 72-90. For women donating to the Athonite monasteries, see A-M. TALBOT, Women and Mt Athos, in Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism, A. BRYER, M. CUNNINGHAM eds., pp.67-79, 72-79.

39 Actes de Chilandar, I: Des origins à 1319, M. ŽIVOJINOVIĆ, M.V. KRAVARI, C. GIROS eds., Paris 1998, no. 723-

26 [hereafter Chilandar I]. 40 V. KRAVARI, Les actes privés des Monastères de l’Athos et l’unité du patrimoine familiale, in Eherecht und Familiengut in

Antike und Mittelalter, ed. D. SIMON, Munich 1992, pp. 77-78. 41 One such case is that of Philippa Asanina and other family members achieved to claim part of a donated

property which will be discussed in the following section. Actes de Xéropotamou, ed. J.BOMPAIRE, Paris 1964, no. 26. [hereafter Xéropotamou]

42 Lavra III, no. 153 (1392).


that, at times, an oral agreement between the donor and the monastery was considered suf-ficient to validate a transaction but only temporarily. In the end, a formal agreement was required in order to add credence to the donation.

COMPLICATIONS IN DONATION ACTS

Despite the inclusion of warranty clauses in donation deeds, it is not uncommon to meet cases where the agreement between the donor and the monastery was disputed by other family members. In most cases, the heirs of the donor were the instigators of the dis-pute. In general, in the second half of the 14th century, an increase in the number of dis-putes and settlement acts, in all types of property transactions, between the monasteries and laymen can be detected. Disputations over complications arising from certain donations can also be included into this rising trend, although similar cases are also encountered in the first half of the 14th century. The key characteristic of claims over donated property can be distinguished into two major categories: i) claims arising from particular political or eco-nomic circumstances; ii) claims arising from the assertion of familial property rights. They both feature as the main instrument used to invalidate a donation and reclaim part or all of the ceded property. The key point here is to appreciate the nature of these efforts initiated by the donor’s relatives, the means employed and whether they were clear-cut and solid enough to lead to the reversal of the donation. We will also examine the role of the monas-teries in this process.

Our discussion commences with an examination of two documents in parallel that un-cover several interesting points. Firstly, it is evident that any efforts directed at the annul-ment of a donation contract could be undertaken more than once and be based on different grounds each time, as revealed in a document dated in 1328.43 In this particular act, Maria Dikrane comes to an agreement with Chilandar monastery over some possessions that her first husband, doulos of the emperor, Ioannes Dragoumanos, had donated fourteen years previously, in order to receive one adelphaton and secure the commemoration of the couple and their parents. The donation in question involved Maria’s patrimonial property: an eukterion (private oratory) with kellia (individual monastic cells), one vineyard and other land. For two and a half years, the agreement was honoured and the monastery proceeded to in-vest in improvements but, at that point, the couple decided to sell off the property to the monastery because of financial difficulties. A compromise was achieved and on receiving seventy hyperpyra, the couple relinquished the provision of the pension and contented them-selves with only their commemoration.

Maria’s first husband died and she married for a second time. For a period of ten years, she raised no claims to the property, but she later decided to assert her right to the whole property, on the basis that she had been forced to proceed to the donation in the first place. The monastery resisted strongly and, in the end, after painstaking negotiations through me-diators, a settlement was reached according to which Maria would receive 150 hyperpyra on the condition that ownership would be conferred on the monastery indefinitely and would never again be challenged. In order to seal the agreement more firmly, a warranty of 200 hyperpyra would be paid by Maria in case of violation of contract.

A dispute of similar nature was initiated by Philippa Asanina in 1349, who challenged the validity of her father’s donation, claiming that the property ceded to Xeropotamou raised inheritance claims since it was her mother’s dowry.44 The document in question is an

43 Actes de Chilandar, I : Actes grecs, ed. L.PETIT, in “Vizantijskij vremennik”, 17, 1910 [repr. Amsterdam 1975],

no.117 [herafter Chilandar I PETIT] 44 Xéropotamou, no. 26.


act of sale in which the whole affair is described. Philippa’s late father, Demetrios Asanes, had previously donated a plot of land with paroikoi and fruit trees to the same monastery in exchange for two adelphata, his funeral expenses and commemoration. However, his daugh-ters, Philippa and Thomais, along with their maternal grandmother decided to claim the property as their mother’s dowry. At the time of the claim, Philippa was a minor and there-fore the whole process had to be carried out through the help of her relatives and a guardi-an, Petros Doukas Adrianos, who was designated by the well-known Thessalonian judge, Konstantinos Harmenopoulos. A settlement was reached after Philippa’s relatives conclud-ed that the monastery should keep half of the property for the expenditures had already in-curred for the commemoration of her father, whilst the other half would remain to the claimants. In contrast to the previous act, this one is not sealed with a financial warranty. The act was followed by the guardian’s written statement verifying the validity of the pro-cess together with his personal assurances that the girl would not raise any claims to the land in the future.

What these two stories demonstrate is, first and foremost, the force and fundamental role of family property law in economic arrangements following property questions. Our claimants invoked rights emanating from the origin of the property, which was, in both cas-es, patrimonial. The legal grounds on which Philippa founded her case were related to in-heritance rights she laid on her mother’s dowry. To be more specific, she utilised the lawful right according to which the ownership of a woman’s dowry could only be passed on to her legitimate children.45 On the other hand, Maria Dikrane claimed patrimonial property that she herself had brought to the marriage. The terms employed here to describe her posses-sions is gonikothen and despotikos, meaning that her possessions were patrimonial and that she was vested with proprietary rights. From a terminological point of view, the wording cannot be safely taken as signifying a dowry because the genuine term for this is proika. However, since both proika and gonikothen were used in the previous document interchangeably and the borders in their usage were not clear-cut in the Palaeologan period,46 then the idea that we are dealing with dowry goods seems valid.

But how strong these women’s arguments were and whether they were vindicated in the end remains an open question. At a first glance, although we are not aware of the specif-ic legal details, Philippa seems to have made a quite strong case by basing her demands on the argument of maladministration of her mother’s dowry (proika). Women’s dowries were traditionally protected by Byzantine law, as indicated both by its codification as well as sur-viving court decisions. Law decreed that a dowry was offered as a precondition for the eco-nomic security of the marriage and would be administered by the male spouse to that end:47 he held the usufruct and could exploit the assets in a way that would be profitable for the family. For that reason, in case of maladministration and damage to the value of the dowry, the wife was normally vindicated in legal battles. This is the picture formed by civil and pa-triarchal courts’ decisions from the Palaeologan period where the defence of women’s own-ership is a prominent feature, especially in cases where dowries were the object of sale, transactions and borrowing activities initiated on the husband’s part.48

45 K. PITSAKIS, Εξάβιβλος, cit., 4.10.51. 46 A. LAIOU, The Role of Women in Byzantine Society, in “Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik”, 31, 1981,

n.1, pp. 234-260, 239. 47 K. PITSAKIS, Εξάβιβλος, cit., 4. 10. 26, 27, 50. For a general discussion of dowries in the Byzantine and

post-Byzantine world, see E. PAPAYANNI, Η νομολογία των εκκλησιαστικών δικαστηρίων της βυζαντινής και μεταβυζαντινής περιόδου σε θέματα περουσιακού δικαίου, Athens-Komotini 1997, pp. 47-79.

48 R. MACRIDES, Dowry and Inheritance in the Late Period: Some Cases from Patriarchal Court in Eherecht und Familiengut in Antike und Mittelalter, ed. D. SIMON, Munich 1992, p. 94; According to A. LAIOU, The Role of Women, cit., p. 237, the same applies for children who claimed property on the basis of their inheritance rights.


By donating the property, Philippa’s father had not used his wife’s dowry for any eco-nomic ventures but, according to her, he had actually spent it unprofitably. Turning to Ma-ria Dikrane, we notice that she presented herself in the document with assurance that her reasons were strong enough to lead to the repossession of the property and cause the dis-comfort of the other party. Still, whatever the legal strength of their cases, neither of the two women had their demands fully satisfied. Philippa had to compromise and receive half of her mother’s dowry and Maria had to content herself with a financial consideration.

Another point to be considered is the timing of these litigations and the question as to why the legitimacy of these donations was not challenged in the first place but only after the decease of the donor. Two explanations suggest themselves. The first obvious reason lies in the fact that the administration of family property by male spouses was bound to the legal framework and had a long tradition in Byzantine society. Although these two cases cannot be considered to be a conclusive indication of a new trend, the fact that both our examples involve women cannot be coincidental and might reveal a shift in attitudes towards property rights. Indeed, Laiou has shown that women’s cases presented in front of ecclesiastical courts in the fourteenth century mostly concerned disputes and issues linked to their prop-erty rights. At the same time, there was a tendency towards a relaxation of formal rules and a simplification of the manner in which the dowries were alienated, which could be a corol-lary of the turbulent circumstances of the later period.49 In other words, the changing politi-cal and social conditions induced frequent changes in ownership and accounted for the transformation of a long-standing institution and practice.

Our two examples tend to partly reinforce this finding, demonstrating that claims were made when necessitated by a stringent financial situation, as explicitly stated in Maria Dikrane’s first attempt, to withdraw her donation. In her subsequent and more confronta-tional attempt, the fact that she waited for a considerable amount of time after her second marriage before initiating a process against the monastery suggests that she did so at a time when she and her second husband confronted some kind of financial hardship. We cannot know whether Philippa claimed her mother’s dowry driven by the same motives. We do know, however, that when her sister and grandmother died, Philippa decided to sell this half to Xeropotamou for a sum of 60 hyperpyra, in order to pay off her father’s debts and because the invasion of the Serbs had rendered the land non-exploitable. Thus, even if a property was successfully restored to its previous owner, there was always the possibility it could re-turn to monasteries through a different type of transaction, as a result of a person’s deterio-rating economic situation.

It can be seen from such cases that changing political and socio-economic conditions played a pivotal role in the re-assertion of one’s rights over previously donated property. An agreement made between Theodora, daughter of Devlitzenos, her husnad, Vartholomaios Komes, and the monastery of Docheiariou in 1419 illuminates this point.50 The case also provides evidence for the transmuted character that certain institutions, such as that of pronoia, had assumed by the Late Byzantine period. Theodora’s father had given away land in the area of Hermeleia, where the family held land in the form of a pronoia, and received 3 adelphata that later passed on to his widow according to the law, as their daughter herself admits. What Theodora objected to was the retaining of the land by the monastery after her mother’s death. She held that she was the legitimate heir of the property since this was an

49 A. LAIOU, The Role of Women, cit., pp. 235, 238-240. Laiou suggests that these developments led to the

growing role of women in economic transactions which, when not performed as a result of financial pressure, could be taken as a sign of economic initiative.

50 Docheiariou, no. 57. For the history of the family property and this particular affair, see also N. OIKONOMIDÈS, The Properties of the Deblitzenoi in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, in, Charanis Studies: Essays in Honor of Peter Charanis, ed. A. E. LAIOU-THOMADAKIS, New Brunswick, NJ 1980, pp. 176-198, 189-190.


imperial grant and therefore inheritable. The case was referred to the metropolitan of Thessalonike, Symeon, who, after examining the long and complex history of those proper-ties, came to the conclusion that the monastery had acted lawfully, according to the agree-ment, and questioned the fact that Theodora, as an adult, did not claim the land during the period in which her mother was receiving the adelphata. However, he promoted an arrange-ment and decreed that the monastery should pay the adelphata to Theodora for the current year as well as a sum of 12 hyperpyra in order to confront her financial difficulties and, for her part, she ceded ownership rights permanently.51

So far, we have seen cases in which certain individuals raised legally concrete and fully justified claims on properties that had been donated by a member of their family. A com-pletely different picture emerges from a document drawn up in 1322, wherein we follow a complex story of subsequent invalidations of a donation contract on the part of the donor himself which ended to the detriment of the monastery.52 The act in question refers to the monk Iovanes (Ioannes) Karavas, the son of a well-off Thessalonian, Theodoros Karavas. In 1314, Theodoros drew up his testament bequeathing his substantial fortune to his family, certain priests and the monastery of Perivleptos.53 Iovanes possessed an unknown number of houses in the district of Hagios Menas and five vineyards in Thessalonike (three in the area of Rhavdas, one in Piasmata and one in Agkones) as patrimonial property. At a certain point, he donated these to Chilandar monastery along with moveable possessions for the soul of his father and as a precondition for his entering monastic life.54 Later on, however, we are told that he revised his decision to stay in the monastery, so he took back the posses-sion of the residences and sold them to settle some financial differences with his stepmoth-er and pay off debts. All vineyards, except the one in Agkones, would stay in his possession until his death, whereupon they would pass to the monastery’s ownership. Apart from this information, there is no other hint either regarding the means he employed in order to achieve this repossession or whether this had been a straightforward process. It appears, though, that a compromise had been reached, since the vineyards, potentially more profita-ble than the residences, would eventually return to Chilandar.

Tension in Iovanes’s relationship with the monastery arose when he unilaterally chose to sell the vineyards and spent the cash he received for them. Chilandar opposed this sale, claiming back three of the vineyards, which they eventually regained for an undisclosed price. Iovanes came back to the monastery not to claim all of the vineyards, but for the one vineyard in Agkones as well as all the movable assets he had donated. However, but after the mediation of a third party, he decided to forego all these demands. Nonetheless, this came with a price for the monastery: they had to pay 90 hyperpyra to Iovanes, apparently in order to prevent future suits from him.

Iovanes thus behaved in a rather fraudulent manner and his initial donation turned out to be a financial burden to the Chilandar monastery. This particular individual seems to have had a long history of untidy transactions. In his father’s testament, it is mentioned that Ioannes had received maternal property that he then sold to another individual. His father repurchased the property, making use of the right of eknikesis, the removal of the property from the buyer on the basis that this was sold by a person with no ownership rights.55 While

51 Ibid., no 58. 52 Chilandar I, PETIT, no.85. 53 Chilandar I, no. 30. 54 From two chrysobulls (imperial decrees) - the first signed by Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos and the

second by the basileus Andronikos III - both issued in 1317 which confirm the monastery’s possessions we extract the information that Iovanes had donated along with his “fraternity” paternal property that was free of dues. Chilandar I, no.34167-168, no.3556-58.

55 Chilandar I, no. 3035. For the eknikesis, see K. PITSAKIS, Εξάβιβλος, cit., 3.3.74 and 93.


the details of the affair are not known, it is indicative of Iovanes’s practices. This might be an isolated case but it shows that, at times, monasteries could find themselves in a disadvan-tageous position. That is not to reverse the general thesis that a chief way for monastic insti-tutions to augment their property was donations and that they were the actual beneficiaries of such transactions. Yet, that there was always the possibility that monasteries could be-come entangled in cases in which they had to defend their lawful rights and interests against laymen’s demands.

A final aspect to be addressed here concerning donations is when settlements of differ-ences took the opposite course, when a dispute over a piece of land could be resolved through a donation-like arrangement, as in the case of Georgios Anatavlas.56 This particular example offers information about the transition to the first period of the Ottoman regime in Macedonia and Thessalonike in 1383-1403, and the way landed property was treated in those years. Anatavlas used to own an estate in Portaraia, enclosed within land that be-longed to the monastery of Esphigmenou. With the arrival of the Ottomans, the land was seized and conferred on a Muslim. After negotiations with the sultan and a certain Ali Pa-sha, the monastery achieved the assignment of the land to its own possessions and Anatavlas’s portion was appropriated by the monastery.

This is one of the pieces of documentary evidence used by Oikonomides in order to substantiate his argument, now a generally held opinion, that in this particular period the Athonite monasteries enjoyed a privileged status through agreements with the new ruler. He does so by presenting this act as an exception to the general rule that suggests the monaster-ies managed to retain and extend their properties. 57 Recently, this contention has been part-ly revised by other scholars, not by negating the very fact of the collaboration between the monasteries and the Ottomans, but by questioning the extent to which this occurred. In other words, it is suggested that, for the monasteries, the transition to the new regime was not free of impediments; according to fiscal and imperial acts after 1403 when the area was restored to the Byzantines, it is deduced that, during the first Ottoman occupation, monas-teries actually suffered the loss of land and certain metochia or dependencies.58 Regardless of these contrasting views, the relationship between monasteries and the Ottoman regime is less important here than the illumination of the fate of individuals in this situation and their position in between these two poles, which induced their gradual detachment from landed property and into relinquishing their livelihoods and their incomes deriving from the land.

To continue with the affair, in 1388 and after a long contention with Esphigmenou, Anatavlas relinquished his part by agreeing to be awarded two diakoniai/adelphata for Anatavlas and his son, Theodoros, on the condition that the former would enter monastic life. The annuities, which were in the form of foodstuffs, would cease at the beneficiaries’ passing. Considering that even if the cost of the provision reached the standard rate of 100 hyperpyra, i.e. 200 hyperpyra for both individuals, the agreement would still benefit the monas-tery, because the estate was probably worth more.59 Consequently, Anatavlas agreed to a solution that would at least guarantee his own livelihood and that of his son.

56 Actes de Esphigménou, ed. J. LEFORT, Paris 1973, no. 29 [hereafter Esphigménou]. 57 N. OIKONOMIDÈS, Monastères et moines lors de la conquête ottomane, in “Sud-ost Forschungen”, 35, 1976, pp. 1-6. 58 K. SMYRLIS, The State, the Land, and Private Property. Confiscating Monastic and Church Properties in the Palaeologan

Period, in Church and Society in late Byzantium, ed. D. ANGELOV, Kalamazoo 2009, pp. 58-87, 72-76. 59 A. LAIOU, Economic Activities of Vatopedi in the Fourteenth Century, in Ιερά Μονή Βατοπαιδίου. Ιστορία και Τέχνη,

ed. P. GOUNARIDES, Athens 1999, pp. 55-72, 67. By drawing a parallel with other cases, such as that of Devlitzenos, Laiou suggests that the value of an adelphaton corresponded to that of the donated property and therefore varied from one contract to another. Non-economic factors are considered as playing also a role in this variation, like those of political pressure and personal links to the monastery.


Finally, the closing sentences of the agreement states that Anatavlas would not contest the ownership rights of Esphigmenou on the estate even if the area reverted to Byzantine authority.60 This striking clause has been used as evidence to demonstrate that even though, in general, there was a continuity of Byzantine legal practices during the first period of Ot-toman occupation, there were also instances which indicate occasional disruptions. It is as-sumed that Anatavlas was essentially forced into a situation that could not be resolved by referring to the authorities or through a judicial decision and that this was why the monas-tery proceeded to this kind of settlement.61 It is undeniable that, at the time, the monastery was in an advantageous position, whilst Anatavlas’s hands were tied. Seen from a slightly different angle though, this clause is revealing of the uncertainty that the monasteries them-selves were also experiencing. The fourteenth century saw repeated reversals of the political situation, which accounts for the phenomenon of land constantly changing hands. In the area of Chalkidike in particular, where great landowners and monasteries held properties, the precedent of the Serbian occupation had inflicted a blow against the standing property rights system.62 This clause therefore presents the monastery’s efforts to safeguard its inter-ests in the event of a return to the Byzantine rule whose laws were expected to dictate the restitution of ownership rights. That was what actually had occurred in Constantinople after the Ottoman siege of the city between 1394 and 1402, the end of which saw a considerable number of cases brought to the patriarchal court by individuals who had fled the city, seek-ing vindication of the property rights that they had been deprived due to the ‘anomaly of the time’.63

CONCLUSIONS

In order to draw some conclusions regarding the discussed documents, attention should be drawn to some of their aspects concerning the way that disagreements about do-nation acts were settled. Firstly, we should note that the success of efforts to claim donated properties in achieving their goal can only be evaluated if one attempts to discern the factual scope and motivations of the litigants by establishing patterns emerging from our docu-ments. The common features that these disputes share are, firstly, that eventually a com-promise was reached, with the claimants either settling for a pecuniary compensation or a division of the property; secondly, the settlement usually took place without the involve-ment of an official authority, with the exception of Theodora Devlitzene’s claim which was resolved by the metropolitan Symeon.

Starting with the latter, it is worth wondering why laymen who disputed donations did not carry the matters further, to a court, but rather opted for bilateral negotiations and rec-onciliations with the monasteries. Was this due to their awareness of possible inherent weaknesses in their claims? Was it a conscious course of action aimed at temporary gain, or simply a sign of a partiality in the application of Byzantine law in favour of the monasteries?

Without diminishing the role of the different facets and parameters associated with each case, the most likely explanation lies in the fact that claimants realised that land could be of no substantial profit to them, considering the difficulties in its exploitation imposed

60 Esphigménou, no. 2914-16.

61 K. SMYRLIS, The First Ottoman Occupation of Macedonia (ca. 1383-ca. 1403). Some Remarks on Land Ownership, Property Transactions and Justice, in Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean 1000-1500. Aspects of Cross-cultural Communication, A.D. BEIHAMMER, M.G. PARANI, CH.D. SCHABEL eds., Leiden 2008, pp. 327-348, 340.

62 Chalkidike was occupied by the Stephan Dušan in 1345/6, recovered by the Byzantines in 1350 and in 1355 or 1356 came back to Serbian hands until 1371. See N. OIKONOMIDES, Οι δύο σερβικές κατακτήσεις της Χαλκιδικής τον 14ο αιώνα, in “ Diptycha”, 2, 1992, pp. 294-299.

63 R. MACRIDES, Dowry and Inheritance, cit., pp. 90-91.


by the constant external threats and also their own lack of means due to the disadvantaged financial position to which they had been reduced. Therefore, it seems that ‘compensations’ in cash were sought as a preferable and realistic solution to confront urgent financial needs or to ensure a steady income, even on a short-term basis. It is possible to assume that indi-viduals were opportunistic in trying out their chances in litigation. This is certainly apparent in the cases of Iovanes and Maria Dikrane, who seem to have acted with some degree of calculation in order to force situations to their own advantage. In our two other examples, the fact that Philippa and Theodora followed a different avenue, with their argumentation possessing greater reliability and legality, does not preclude the possibility that, to a certain extent, they acted in a similar fashion to the previous individuals. Regarding monasteries, on the other hand, we gain the impression that it was their fixed policy to promote an accom-modating solution by accepting to release a certain amount of cash in order to secure their main source of income, i.e. landed properties, in the long run.

Securing one’s livelihood was one side of the coin. It is probable that the donors also aspired to a future reclaiming of their properties, when conditions would allow, although this would not prove simple. This is ascertained by the course such demands took. In most cases, donations were disputed by family members of the donor, but they would hardly ever be vindicated, at least according to our records. Instead, very often certain kinds of settle-ment were promoted, involving pecuniary compensations to the claimants, leading us to assume that this was the real motive and ultimate goal behind these disputes.

Overall, an unbalanced situation in transactions between individuals and monasteries, with the latter being in the stronger position, emerges from our documentation.64 It cannot be denied that there were definitely individual motives and aims behind each dispute, but when studied collectively it is evident that they had a cumulative effect in the shaping of economic attitudes and practices whose main feature was the gradual disengagement of Thessalonian landowners from their properties. All these transactions are a peculiar amal-gam of collaboration which served temporary needs but, at the same time, cultivated an un-derlying antagonism between the monasteries and the Thessalonian upper class. Donation was an institution that was moulded under certain external circumstances but simultaneous-ly it defined the path that certain economic developments would take. That is to say, it was both a symptom and a cause of the weakening of certain social groups. The tendency of in-dividuals to cede indefinite rights of ownership irrespective of any personal motivations and to formally secure these had a cumulative effect on the balance of economic power. So, while local aristocrats contributed unconsciously to their own undermining, monasteries, showing a high degree of pragmatism, became the real protagonists in the economic life of the period.

64 The advantageous position of monasteries in such disputes was maintained and reinforced during the

Ottoman period. A case from 1491 regarding similar claims of Maria–Helena, daughter of the last Serbian despot Lazar, and granddaughter of the Despot of Morea, Theodoros Palaiologos, was examined by the Ottoman kadi of Thessalonike who in the end vindicated the monastery. E. ZACHARIADOU, A Safe and Holy Mountain, in Mount Athos. Byzantine Monasticism. Papers from the Twenty-eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1994, A. BRYER, M. CUNNINGHAM eds., London 1996, pp. 127-132, 131-132.

A Mechanism of Securing Private Property in 14th and 15th Century Thessalonica

Documents

Transcript of A Mechanism of Securing Private Property in 14th and 15th Century Thessalonica