Graham Speake, Kallistos Ware
KYRILL PAVLIKIANOV. The Bulgarians on Mount Athos
The purpose of the present article is to offer the reader new knowledge about the presence of Bulgarian-speaking monks in the monasteries of the Holy Mountain during the middle and late Byzantine periods as well as during the early post-Byzantine period, that is, from 980 to about 1550. Although the late Ottoman period is also very interesting and quite rich with historical data and new spiritual phenomena, it would be very difficult to encompass all the documentary evidence connected with it in just a few pages. The only previous article concerning the Bulgarian presence on Mount Athos pertained exactly to the late Ottoman period and was published in 1973.72
Early Bulgarian Monks on Athos
The first information about an Athonite monk of Bulgarian origin can be dated to the last decades of the tenth century. In 982 a person named ‘Paul Stogoretsi’ signed a document issued by the inhabitants of the tiny town of Ierissos, which is situated 16 kilometres to the north of what is today the official border of the Athonite monastic peninsula. This document is now kept in the archive of the monastery of Iviron.73 Identifying Paul as a person of Bulgarian origin is a sort of a puzzle. Essentially, everything we know about him derives from his surname, or, more probably, his nickname Stogoretsi (Στογóρετζι). At first glance this name even does not seem to be Slavic at all. Actually, it includes one very basic medieval Cyrillic abbreviation which, quite unexpectedly, is rendered with Greek letters. It is the abbreviation of the Slavonic term for saint, which in the late tenth century was pronounced as sventyj.74 However, this basic Slavic religious term is almost always written in its abbreviated variant stiy. In such a philological context Paul’s surname or nickname should be read as S(ven)togoretsi. It is a normal and also very common Slavic translation of the Greek term hagioreites – ‘the Athonite’.75 Paul’s signature of 982 offers us two very important pieces of information: (1) he must have been a monk on Mount Athos, otherwise his nickname S(ven)togoretsi would make no sense at all; (2) he was not an illiterate person, since he knew how to write his name in both Slavic and Greek. His knowledge of the written tradition connected with the Slavic translation of Holy Scripture had even compelled him to transliterate with Greek letters the most basic medieval Slavonic abbreviation – that of the term ‘saint’. The abundant data concerning the demographic situation in the vicinity of the Athonite peninsula during the second half of the tenth century indicate that Paul must have been Bulgarian-speaking. As F. Dölger,76 G. Soulis,77 V. Tŭpkova-Zaimova,78 I. Dujčev,79 P. Schreiner,80 and I. Božilov81 have already argued, by the late tenth century the Slavs inhabiting the outskirts of Mount Athos were exclusively connected with the Bulgarian literary tradition. A perfect proof of this statement can be found, once again, in the archive of the monastery of Iviron: the earliest firmly dated example of usage of the Bulgarian Glagolitic alphabet is the signature of a priest named George who is attested as an inhabitant of the town of Ierissos during the year 982.82
According to the prevailing view, the first Slavic monastery on the Holy Mountain was the Russian monastery of Xylourgou, an inventory list of which, drawn up in 1142, mentions the existence of forty-nine ‘Russian books’ in its depository.83 The second monastery which accepted monks of Slavic origin was surely the Bulgarian monastery of Zographou, whose abbot in 1163 signed a document of the Russian monastery of St Panteleimon using a Slavic vernacular of Bulgarian type.84 The monastery of Hilandar was taken over by the Serbs thirty-five years later, in 1198, when St Sava and his father Stefan Nemanja received it officially from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios III Angelos and the Protos of the Holy Mountain Gerasimos.85 However, we must point out that the first Athonite monastery directly connected with a person of Slavic origin was founded almost a century earlier.
The Monastery of Zelianos
During the eleventh century several Athonite documents mention the existence of a minor monastic house named ‘the monastery of Zelianos’.86 The name of its founder, Zelianos, seems to be purely Slavic and must have been pronounced as Željan. An act of sale dated 1033–4 makes it clear that by that time the minor Athonite monastery of Katzari possessed a terrain which was denoted as belonging to a certain Zelianos.87 The act offers no evidence that in 1033–4 Zelianos’s terrain enjoyed the status of a monastery. Zelianos was definitely the name of a person who was involved in the sale described in the document, but it remains uncertain if he was a solitary hermit or an abbot of a monastery. Half a century later, in 1089, the name Zelianos is mentioned once again, in a document which is now kept in the monastery of Xenophontos. In this case it denoted a small monastic house, its monastic group, and its residence.88 However, it is also clear that by 1089 the monastic institution founded by Zelianos in the beginning of the eleventh century was no longer independent, so the term ‘monastery’ which was used for describing it contained only a reminiscence of its former status. According to D. Papachryssanthou, it was the Russian monastery of St Panteleimon that finally annexed the territory once controlled by Zelianos.89 Nevertheless, the document of 1089 makes it clear that the monastery of St Panteleimon was not a direct heir to Zelianos’s domain, since in the late eleventh century the monastery of Zelianos was already absorbed by the neighbouring monastery of Katzari. The latter remained autonomous till 1363, when the Serbian Protos Dorotheos finally granted it to the Russian monastery of St Panteleimon. In 1363 the name of Zelianos is mentioned once again – in Dorotheos’s act arranging the donation of Katzari to the Russians.90 However, in this case it was just a toponym in the vicinity of Katzari. It was referred to for a last time in 1612, in a Slavic act of the Xenophontos monastery, where it was transliterated exactly as it had been written in the Greek prototype of the document. This detail clearly indicates that the Serbian-speaking scribe of Xenophontos’s act was unaware of the Slavic origin of the place-name Zelianos.91 The document of 1612 contains no data about any further development of Zelianos’s foundation, so we must acknowledge that all the evidence about its existence disappears before the year 1100. The Athonite archives contain no direct indications as to where the monasteries of Katzari and Zelianos were built, but an early modern Russian description of the monastery of St Panteleimon tells us that the so-called skete of Xenophontos, which was founded in 1766, was erected on the land of Katzari.92 G. Smyrnakis identifies the monastery of Katzari with some ruins near the stream of Chrysorrares, not far away from the monastery of Pantokrator on the east coast of the Athonite peninsula.93 On the contrary, D. Papachryssanthou states that the place-name Katzari still exists at a distance of about 1.5 kilometres to the north-east of the medieval site of the Russian monastery – the so-called Palaion Rossikon, which can be found high above the west coast of Mount Athos.94 A. Papazotos, who is the author of the only detailed study on Athonite topography, shares the same view.95 Thus the monastery of Zelianos must have been built on the western slope of the Athonite peninsula, in the vicinity of the monasteries of Palaion Rossikon and Xenophontos.
The monastery of Zelianos was a Slavic monastic institution from its very inception, while all the other monasteries which gradually took on a Slavic character were originally established as Greek monastic houses. Zelianos was probably not an eminent person, but he may have been connected with the Bulgarian population of the Halkidiki peninsula, which we have already discussed above. What is clear is that the other Athonite monks never paid any attention to his mother tongue, and always regarded him not as a foreigner but as an integral member of their society. In view of this detail, the existence of his monastery indicates that the Bulgarian population of the regions adjacent to the Athonite peninsula probably participated, though on a limited scale, in the life of the Athonite monastic community during the early eleventh century.
The Bulgarian Monastery of Zographou
The monastery of Zographou is surely one of the most ancient Athonite monastic houses as in 972 its founder, a painter (in Greek zographos) named George, signed the typikon of John I Tzimiskes.96 The monastery was obviously named after the profession of its founder, who presumably earned his living by painting icons and frescos. Yet we know virtually nothing about how his foundation came into being. The first document preserved in Zographou’s archive dates from 980 and is an act of sale.97 Its text makes it clear that an Athonite abbot named Thomas had then sold to one Onesiphoros a terrain labelled ‘of the Holy Apostles’, which was also known as Xerokastron.98 The text of 980 is only indirectly connected with the monastery of Zographou, because it states that the terrain of Xerokastron shared a common border with some land belonging to Zographou.99 This means that by 980 the foundation of George the Painter already possessed some property on Mount Athos, i.e. it must have had the status of an autonomous monastery.
The second copy of the act of 980 contains an additional confirmative note,100 which N. Oikonomides has convincingly dated to 1311.101 It was written in the monastery of Zographou whose Slavic-speaking abbot, Makarios, had signed it as a witness. According to I. Božilov, the eminent Bulgarian scholar J. Ivanov has made an error in imposing on the Bulgarian scholarly community the opinion that Makarios’s signature was added to the main text as early as 980.102 What is very important for our study of the Bulgarian monastic presence on Mount Athos is that Makarios’s signature appears not in 980, but as late as 1311.103
The period from 980 to 1311 offers us only four signatures of Zographite monks. The first one, which we have already commented on, is that of its founder, the painter George.104 It dates from 972. The second one belongs to an abbot of Zographou named John, who is attested as active in about 1037–51. According to J. Lefort, this person must have been the prototype of the semi-mythical Zographite abbot John Selina, who is mentioned in the famous sixteenth-century composite legend about the monastery’s early years. This text is known among Bulgarian scholars as Svodna gramota, that is a compiled charter.105 His name seems to be also mentioned in a false chrysobull attributed to Andronikos II Palaiologos with a date 1286–7.106
The next two signatures of abbots of Zographou are already Slavic ones and belong to the superiors Symeon (1169)107 and Makarios (1311).108 During the second half of the thirteenth century three more Zographou abbots are attested – Ephraim in 1270,109 Poimen in 1274,110 and Arkadios in 1299.111 Unfortunately, nothing is known about their mother tongue or ethnic origin. The infiltration of Bulgarian-speaking monks in the monastery of Zographou must have become rather intense during the first half of the fourteenth century, since it was then that numerous Slavic signatures of monks connected with Zographou began to appear in the Athonite acts.112 Within this context, our most important conclusion is that we lack the necessary evidence that could tell us exactly when the foundation was taken over by the Bulgarians. However, this must have occurred prior to the year 1169, when Zographou’s earliest Bulgarian-speaking abbot, Symeon, is attested to have signed in Bulgarian an act of the monastery of St Panteleimon. On the other hand, the only Zographou act dated to the period 1052–1266 is a false one, dated 1142.113 It mentions as abbot a certain Joachim and relates to an estate the monastery possessed near Ierissos. The donor who had bequeathed it to Zographou was one Maria Tzousmene, a person claiming to be an ‘offspring of the pious emperors’.114 In 1910 P. Bezobrazov explicitly proved that her document in favour of Zographou was a poor-quality fake.115 However, he was unaware of the fact that in about 1200 the same noblewoman was mentioned as a donor of the monastery of Xeropotamou in a charter issued by her grandson, the sebastokrator Nikephoros Komnenos Petraleiphas. In 1964 J. Bompaire assumed that her donation to the Bulgarian monastery was probably not just an invention of the person who had forged the document ‘of 1142’.116 Two acts of 1266–7 kept in Zographou’s archives make it clear that the charter of ‘1142’ must actually have been compiled in the second half of the thirteenth century, when the monks of Zographou were desperately trying to replace some recently destroyed documents concerning their property.117
Prior to the year 1266–7 there was a serious conflict between the monasteries of Zographou and Megiste Lavra. It concerned the estate at Ierissos which Maria Tzousmene had donated to the Bulgarian monastic house in the mid-twelfth century. The conflict was triggered by some new territorial acquisitions which the Lavriote monks made in the same region in 1259, when the brother of Michael VIII Palaiologos, John Komnenos Palaiologos, granted to Megiste Lavra the villages of Sellada, Metallin, and Gradista.
All these settlements were situated within a short range to the north of Ierissos. In 1263 the emperor confirmed his brother’s donations by issuing a chrysobull in favour of the Lavra of St Athanasios.118 At a certain moment the conflict was transferred to the imperial court in Constantinople. It appears from a document of 1267, issued by the Byzantine tax officials Basil Eparchos or Aparchon and Nikephoros Malleas, that the governor of Thessaloniki, Constantine Tornikios, had initially settled the dispute in favour of Zographou,119 but the Lavriote monks immediately appealed to the Byzantine emperor.120 The whole affair concerned two agricultural terrains situated in the localities of Armenon and Loustra near Ierissos. The witnesses who were summoned to testify stated that Armenon belonged to Zographou, but the monks of Megiste Lavra were claiming it because it was situated very close to their own property in the same region.121 Tornikios was ready to hand over the terrain in question to the monastery of Zographou, but the statement of the Lavriote monks that Zographou’s testimonies were fraudulent compelled him to send both parties to the imperial court at Constantinople.122 The emperor settled the case in favour of Zographou. Nevertheless, when the representatives of the two monasteries left the Byzantine capital, a monk of Megiste Lavra named Theodoulos broke the law by forging a false imperial horismos, which he presented to Tornikios. This document ordered the governor of Thessaloniki to give the terrains in question to Megiste Lavra and to destroy all Zographou’s documents connected with the affair.123 The same situation is also described in a document which the sebastokrator Constantine Tornikios issued for the monastery of Zographou when he finally restored to it the terrains at Loustra and Armenon. In this last act the governor of Thessaloniki clearly stated that he had destroyed two Zographite documents – one of Nikephoros Petraleiphas and another one of his grandmother, Maria Tzousmene.124
What is important in this case is the fact that Constantine Tornikios refers to a dependency of Zographou near Ierissos. This was the administrative centre of all the property the Bulgarian monastery possessed in that region.125 What emerges from the documents of 1266–7 is that it must have been founded several decades before the conflict with the monastery of Megiste Lavra. If we take it for granted that it was established on the land bequeathed to Zographou by Maria Tzousmene in about 1142, it is self-evident that this date is quite close to the appearance of the first Bulgarian-speaking abbot of Zographou in 1169.126 Maria Tzousmene, as we have argued elsewhere, was probably of Cuman origin.127 Was there any connection between her donation and the gradual infiltration of Bulgarian monks into the monastery of George the Painter? Due to the lack of direct documentary evidence we shall probably never know for sure.
At this point we must also comment on the legend of the twenty-six martyrs of Zographou, whose martyrdom, presumably incited by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch John Bekkos, is traditionally dated to the reign of Michael VIII. As A. Rigo has already shown, the whole story derives from a literary work written not earlier than the sixteenth century or maybe even later.128 It forms part of a whole network of texts which are known as the Patria of Mount Athos.129 As a literary topos, the legend of the twenty-six Zographite martyrs is very similar to the well-known legend about the early years of the monastery of Konstamonitou.130 Though it was composed several centuries after the events of 1267, we cannot exclude the possibility that its basic plot – the semi-mythical story of the destruction of a Zographite defensive tower where the twenty-six martyrs had taken refuge – could contain a vague reminiscence of the act of injustice committed against the monastery of Zographou by the Lavriote monk Theodoulos, who pretended that he was executing orders of the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, and thereby inflicting serious damage on the archive of the Bulgarian monastery and its property. However, we must stress that this is only a conjecture. It cannot be proved for sure.
An imperial order (prostagma) of Andronikos II Palaiologos, which in 1907 the Russian scholars W. Regel, E. Kurtz, and B. Korablev dated to 1291, makes it clear that by that date a dependency dedicated to Our Lady Kraniotissa and situated near the river Strymon already belonged to the monastery of Zographou.131 However, the dating proposed by the Russian scholars in 1907 could be contested. F. Dölger has reasonably argued that this document could have been issued either in May 1291 or in May 1276.132 Looking at the history of the Bulgarian Athonite foundation, in 2005 we supported the earlier date as more plausible.133 However, what is of paramount importance in this imperial charter is that this is the first Athonite document which mentions Zographou as ‘monastery of the Bulgarians’: ἐπεὶ οἱ μοναχοὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ Ἁγίῳ Ὄρει τοῦ Ἄθω διακειμένης σεβασμίας μονῆς τῶν Βουλγάρων, τῆς εἰς ὄνομα τιμωμένης τοῦ ἁγίου μου μεγαλομάρτυρος Γεωργίου καὶ ἐπικεκλημένης τοῦ Ζωγράφου (‘because the monks from the monastery of the Bulgarians, which is situated on Mount Athos and being dedicated to the holy martyr St George is called Zographou’).134 One may, therefore, reasonably conclude that by 1276 the Athonite monks must have already been accustomed to using this term in their everyday contacts.
Zographou’s archive also contains a composite delimitation of several terrains (in Greek praktikon), which is dated to January of the 7th indiction (the Latin term indictio is used in medieval Greek to denote a recurring fifteen-year period of time).135 In 1907 the editors of the already obsolete edition Actes de Zographou, W. Regel, E. Kurtz, and B. Korablev, assumed that it dated from the late fourteenth century. However, as J. Lefort established in 1973, the persons who had issued it, Alexios Amnon and Constantine Tzympanos or Tzympeas, were tax officials in the region of Thessaloniki in about 1279–83.136 Based on the indiction and on the fact that Tzympeas must have died before June 1283,137 Lefort dated the praktikon in question to 1279. What is very important for us is that this is the second Athonite document offering direct evidence that Zographou was then currently labelled ‘the monastery of the Bulgarians’: τὴν ἐν τῷ Ἁγίῳ Ὄρει τοῦ Ἄθω διακειμένην σεβασμίαν βασιλικὴν μονὴν τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἐνδόξου μεγαλομάρτυρος καὶ τροπαιοφόρου Γεωργίου, τὴν καὶ τοῦ Ζωγράφου ἤτοι τῶν Βουλγάρων ἐπονομαζομένην (‘the revered Athonite royal monastery of the holy and glorious martyr George, which is also called Zographou or the monastery of the Bulgarians’).138 The appearance in 1276 and 1279 of two official Byzantine acts describing Zographou as a Bulgarian monastic foundation indicates that this must have been common practice on Athos in the late thirteenth century.
Slavic-Speaking Benefactors of the Zographou Monastery
At this point we shall summarize the information we have about Zographou’s sponsors during the fourteenth century. In 1342 the Bulgarian Tsar John Alexander (1331–71) issued the only medieval Bulgarian royal charter in favour of Zographou which has survived. It is written according to the Bulgarian orthographic style of the late medieval Slavic language.139 Being one of the very few Bulgarian royal charters to have survived, John Alexander’s chrysobull contains three basic points: (1) it states that the monastery of Zographou had been placed under the auspices of the Bulgarian tsars ever since the time of John Alexander’s grandfather;140 (2) it makes it clear that John Alexander had asked his relative, the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaiologos, to bequeath to Zographou the village of Chandax which was situated near the river Strymon;141 (3) the charter also sanctions a tax exemption of 50 golden coins (hyperpyra) which John Alexander had asked his Byzantine cousin, John V, to grant to Zographou.142 In truth, quite a modest donation for a person of royal rank.
Another Bulgarian benefactor of the Bulgarian monastery was one Stracimir, a pinkernes or high civil official of the Bulgarian Tsar John Alexander. In 1344 he bequeathed to the monastery the village of Marmarion on the coast of the Strymonic gulf.143
In July 1372 the Patriarch of Constantinople, Philotheos Kokkinos,144 issued a special charter in favour of Zographou. According to this document, there was a church dedicated to St Demetrios in the Bulgarian Athonite monastery. It was erected by a certain Branislav who was Philotheos’s spiritual son. The church of St Demetrios is said to have been directly under the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan patriarch.145 Branislav was surely the second eminent aristocrat of Slavic (presumably Bulgarian) origin, who had acted as Zographou’s major benefactor. Branislav is not mentioned in any other source,146 but Philotheos’s act makes it clear that he must have been an eminent person. His social background and ethnic origin remain uncertain, but it is clear that it was he who had asked the patriarch to issue a confirmative charter in favour of the Bulgarian monastery of Zographou.147 On the other hand, the tax exemption granted by Philotheos Kokkinos in July 1372 concerned only Branislav’s church of St Demetrios and did not apply to the whole monastery, which was promoted to the rank of a stavropegic (dependent on the Patriarchate) foundation by the Patriarch Theoleptos I in 1521.148
Prior to 1393 a certain Theodore Vladimiriou donated to Zographou an agricultural terrain named Skorivitza. Actually, it was not exactly a donation but a payment for an adelphaton which Vladimiriou was entitled to use in the monastery of Zographou. In late Byzantium adelphaton meant a sort of a prepaid lifelong annuity or social insurance provided by a religious foundation in exchange for a financial contribution.149 Based on Vladimiriou’s adelphaton contract, which is kept in Zographou’s archive, Vladimiriou even acknowledged that Skorivitza was an ancient property of Zographou, which he had acquired without knowing that detail. The same statement is repeated in an adelphaton contract signed by the eminent Byzantine state official Bryennios Laskaris. According to this document, Laskaris had bequeathed to Zographou an agricultural terrain near the castle of Serres in exchange for an adelphaton. The text of his donation precedes Vladimiriou’s contract on the same piece of paper. Neither act bears a date but, fortunately for us, Bryennios’s name appears in other sources. In 1355 he is named in a praktikon or property description issued for the monastery of Megiste Lavra.150 In 1361, in another praktikon signed by George Synadenos Astras,151 Bryennios Laskaris is mentioned as a receiver of an imperial order (prostagma) dated 1354.152 In his history John VI Kantakouzenos states that in 1327 a person with the same name was ordered by the Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos to transfer 2,000 Cumans from Thrace to the islands of Lemnos, Thasos, and Lesbos.153 If Bryennios was active as early as 1327, by 1354–5 he must have already been at least in his fifties. For a person of that age the purchase of an Athonite adelphaton should have been exactly what he needed for his approaching old age.
The adelphaton contracts of Bryennios Laskaris and Theodore Vladimiriou refer to Zographou’s Abbot Paul and several other monks, of whom only one, Kallistos, appears in both acts. It is, therefore, quite probable that the two documents were issued at about the same time. Based on the data discussed above, Laskaris’s document could be dated to about 1350–60. Vladimiriou’s act must have been composed a decade or two later, but in all events prior to the year 1393, since by that date the land of Skorivitza was already the property of Zographou.
Theodore Vladimiriou seems to have been Slavic-speaking. But his Slavic surname is not quite typical for a person of Slavic origin born in Halkidiki, since in that region the prevailing variant of the name Vladimir is usually Vlado.154 Our conclusion, therefore, is that Vladimiriou could have been a military officer of the Serbian Tsar Stefan Dušan, whose property in the vicinity of Mount Athos was probably acquired during the Serbian military expansion in eastern Macedonia in 1345–55.
Eminent Bulgarian Churchmen on Athos during the Fourteenth Century
In 1348 the Patriarch of Bulgaria, Theodosios of Tŭrnovo, donated to the monastery of Zographou two books, which are currently kept in Russian collections. A note he had added to one of them reveals that he was a former monk of Zographou.155 The identity of the Bulgarian Patriarch Theodosios, however, is problematic. During the last decades of the nineteenth century the prevailing opinion was that of the Russian scholar P. Syrku, who considered that in the mid-fourteenth century there was only one eminent Bulgarian churchman and patriarch named Theodosios who had ruled the Bulgarian Church from 1337 to about 1360–2. This Theodosios was a supporter of the hesychast movement and founder of the famous Kilifarevo monastery near the Bulgarian capital of Tŭrnovo.156 In 1948 A. Burmov, on the basis of the medieval Synodikon of the Bulgarian Church157 and the Introduction to the Law Code of Stefan Dušan,158 argued that from 1346 to 1348 the patriarch of Bulgaria was a certain Symeon, who took part in Dušan’s coronation as a tsar in Skopje at Easter, 16 April 1346. Burmov’s final conclusion was that the Theodosios of the aforesaid note was not the Bulgarian hesychast leader, but another, little-known, and rather obscure person with the same name, whom he labelled Theodosios II.159 Burmov’s interpretation was accepted by V. Gjuzelev,160 but was rejected by E. Trapp and I. Božilov who spoke of only one Theodosios.161 Burmov’s arguments against the conjecture that Theodosios might have been appointed to the Bulgarian patriarchal throne twice are not very convincing: he simply stated that there was no evidence of such a practice in the Bulgarian Church. At this point special attention must be given to a text written by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Kallistos I. This text reveals that in his youth Theodosios of Tŭrnovo had spent some time on Athos, but was finally compelled to return to Bulgaria because of the Turkish incursions on Athos.162
The appearance between 1337 and 1360 of two ex-Athonite Bulgarian patriarchs with the same name and the same prohesychast theological orientation cannot but be highly suspicious. Our opinion is that there was only one patriarch named Theodosios and he was a former monk of Zographou.
The second eminent Bulgarian churchman attested on Athos in about 1365–70 was the famous Euthymios, the last patriarch of medieval Bulgaria (1375–93). From Euthymios’s enkomion by Gregory Camblak, it appears that in about 1365 the future Bulgarian patriarch arrived on the Holy Mountain as a companion of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Kallistos I who was then travelling to Serbia. On Athos Euthymios joined for a while the monks of Megiste Lavra.163 Euthymios’s monastic experience in the Lavra of St Athanasios is also confirmed by one of his literary works, the Life of St Paraskeve of Epivata or St Petka Epivatska, in which he tells us that the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen had conquered all the territory around Thessaloniki and Athos and had appointed new bishops there. Euthymios states that he knew this from the Bulgarian imperial chrysobulls he had seen in the monastery of Megiste Lavra and in the Protaton.164 After several months in the Lavra of St Athanasios he finally established himself in the vicinity of the Bulgarian monastery of Zographou where his residence was the tower of Selina.165 Even today the place-name Selina is connected with a locality between the monasteries of Zographou and Esphigmenou. The medieval monastic settlement of Selina must have been situated somewhere in the long valley of Vagenokamara which runs from the monastery of Esphigmenou in the north to Zographou in the south.166 According to Camblak’s enkomion, in 1370–1 Euthymios had a very unpleasant confrontation with a Byzantine emperor, presumably John V Palaiologos, who exiled him to Lemnos. The historical accuracy of Euthymios’s imprisonment on Lemnos is highly dubious because no other sources refer to this event. Thus the only certain fact is that Euthymios must have left Athos prior to 1371.
Bulgarian Saints on Mount Athos
St Romylos of Vidin
St Romylos of Vidin is a well-known saint of Bulgarian origin. He was born in the Danubian town of Vidin and died in the Serbian monastery of Ravanica in about 1385.167 The Greek and Slavic versions of his Life refer to the period he spent on Mount Athos, combining popular hagiographical clichés and offering no essential data about his participation in the philological activities of the monastic community. P. Syrku, the Russian scholar who first discovered and published St Romylos’s Slavic Life in 1900, assumed that it was not a translation but an original text, composed directly in Slavic.168 But in 1937 I. Dujčev identified a fragment of the saint’s Greek Life and later a full copy of its text in the Athonite monastery of Dionysiou.169 In 1961 F. Halkin finally published St Romylos’s Greek Life, using a manuscript kept in another Athonite foundation – the monastery of Docheiariou.170 What must be immediately underscored is that the Greek tradition connected with St Romylos’s life seems to be exclusively dependent upon Mount Athos and its libraries.171
St Romylos was neither a very popular nor a widely venerated saint. According to K. Ivanova, his cult is well attested only on Mount Athos and in the region adjacent to the monastery of Ravanica in Serbia, where he had passed away.172 Being one of the founders of a major monastic centre at Paroria in eastern Thrace, he was compelled to escape to Athos shortly after the first Turkish assaults struck this monastic desert in the early 1350s.173 Both versions of his Life state that when arriving on Mount Athos he encountered monks of his own nationality.174 What we have to determine in this case is the meaning of the phrase ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου γένους / отъ своего рода (= from his own nation). The two versions of St Romylos’s Life make it clear that his lay name – Raiko in the Greek and Rusko in the Slavic text – was typically Bulgarian. Moreover, the Slavic text explicitly emphasizes that he was half-Greek and half-Bulgarian.175 Within this framework Halkin considered that the passage καὶ μάλιστα ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου γένους might well refer to the Bulgarian monks of Zographou.176 However, neither the Greek nor the Slavic Life offers any evidence of such a connection. On the contrary, both texts state that, after a long wandering across the most desolate parts of the Holy Mountain, Romylos finally took up residence in the vicinity of Megiste Lavra, at a locality called Melana.177 The two versions of the saint’s Life offer a lot of information about his activity there.178 It would, therefore, be quite unlikely that Romylos’s disciple and biographer, Gregory the Calligrapher, had deliberately paid no attention to the contacts that his spiritual instructor had with the monastery of Zographou, if there were any.
In the early twentieth century the Serbian scholar L. Stojanović discovered in a Slavic manuscript kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris an additional note revealing that the codex had been copied in the district Kakiplak beneath the peak of Mount Athos by a certain Dionysios, who was residing there with his spiritual father, Theoktistos, and the monks Simon and Thomas. The most intriguing element in this note is that Dionysios states that he was working at the instigation of a person he describes as ‘our father and master kyr [sir] Romylos, the spiritual instructor’.179 The note bears no date. Nevertheless, it is clear that Theoktistos, Dionysios, Simon, and Thomas were living somewhere at the desolate southern end of the Athonite peninsula, and were under the spiritual jurisdiction of one Romylos, who had commissioned them to copy a Slavic manuscript. To commission the reproduction of a Slavic manuscript the spiritual superintendent of this small monastic group must have been Slavic-speaking. But was he to be identified with St Romylos of Vidin, the hesychast anchorite residing at the locality Melana near the monastery of Megiste Lavra?
L. Stojanović was the first scholar to suggest, as early as 1903, that the text of the note referred to St Romylos of Vidin.180 A strong argument supporting his suggestion derives from the text of St Romylos’s Life. Being frequently disturbed by many monks who wished to benefit from his spiritual instruction, shortly before leaving Athos for good in 1371, the saint requested his spiritual son and biographer, Gregory, to find a place at the northern foot of Mount Athos, sufficiently lonely and solitary to become his next, more secluded abode.181 Analysing the expression describing the location of St Romylos’s new hermitage – εἰς τὰ πρóποδα τοῦ Ἄθωνος / въ подгоріа аѳонскаа – one must acknowledge that it is essentially identical with the phrase под аѳономъ used by the aforesaid scribe Dionysios. However, the evidence provided by this coincidence is not conclusive, so we must look for more arguments.
The location where the four Slavic-speaking disciples of kyr Romylos resided is known by a purely Greek name – Κακὴ πλάξ / на Какиплацѣ. This place-name appears in no other Athonite Greek sources. However, in 1560 a Slavic text composed by the abbot of the monastery of St Panteleimon, Joachim, offers us an unexpected solution to the problem: it states that Kakiplak was the name of a torrential stream in the vicinity of the monastery of St Paul.182
It is evident that, despite his intention to live in seclusion, St Romylos acted as spiritual instructor to a small, probably Bulgarian-speaking group of anchorites, led by a certain Theoktistos and including at least three other monks – Dionysios, Simon, and Thomas. Their residence was a small hermitage at the northern foot of the highest peak of Mount Athos, not far from the monastery of St Paul.
At this point we must also discuss the recent (1993) discovery of an Athonite text written by St Romylos. Its title can be rendered in English as Rules Recommended for Proper Monastic Behaviour (= Κανόνες τοῦ τυπικοῦ τῆς σκήτης or Правила скитскаго устава).183 The most important detail concerning this compilation of spiritual instructions is that it is preserved in a single copy kept in the monastery of Hilandar. The dating of the Rules, as proposed by the editors K. Ivanova and P. Matejić, is not very certain – ‘prior to the year 1385 (possibly 1376)’.184 On the basis of the data discussed above, one could reasonably conclude that St Romylos’s only known literary work must have been composed during his stay at Melana near the Lavra of St Athanasios before 1371, since by that date the Turkish incursions compelled him to leave Mount Athos for ever.185 St Romylos’s activity on Mount Athos seems to have been mostly connected with spiritual instruction and literary work, and the same is true of the activity of several other Bulgarian monks attested in Megiste Lavra.
Two Slavic manuscripts kept in the monastery of St Catherine on Mount Sinai – a Triodion and Pentekostarion (nos. 23 and 24) – make it clear that in about 1335–60 two Bulgarians – an elder named Joseph and one Zakchaios Zagorenin known as ‘the Philosopher’ – had worked as copyists and translators in the monastery of Megiste Lavra. The additional note revealing their names stresses that they were translating from Greek into Bulgarian, which was their mother tongue. The chronological framework of their activity we proposed above is based on two facts. (1) The Triodion contains texts written by Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos who died in 1335.186 Logically, it must have been translated into Bulgarian after that date.
The two manuscripts were sent to Sinai by the Serbian metropolitan of Serres Jacob in 1360, so they must have been translated and copied before this date.187 However, in 1355 or 1359 the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Kallistos I recommended that the monks of Megiste Lavra expel from their monastery several persons, whose theological orientation was considered erroneous and rather harmful. One of them was Gennadios the Bulgarian. The motives for Gennadios’s expulsion were unrelated to his nationality, since one Albanian and a monk of ‘Isaurian’ origin (whatever this might mean!) had to be expelled together with him.188
St Kosmas the Zographite
St Kosmas is the only Bulgarian saint of the Byzantine period who is known to have been a monk in the monastery of Zographou. His activity in the Bulgarian Athonite foundation is traditionally dated to the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century. According to his Life, the date of his death was 22 September 1422. The Greek and Slavic texts of his Life were published by I. Dujčev in 1971.189 He used an earlier Venetian edition of St Kosmas’s Greek Life published in 1803 by St Nikodimos the Athonite,190 the text referring to St Kosmas included in the Megas Synaxaristes of Κ. Doukakis,191 and Codex Suppl. Gr. 1182 in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris (sixteenth century, ff. 5–15v).192 For the Slavic text of the saint’s Life Dujčev also resorted to a little-known Bulgarian variant of St Kosmas’s Life published by the monastery of Zographou for liturgical purposes in 1911.193 According to Dujčev, the Zographite monks had compiled their Bulgarian version of St Kosmas’s Life by translating and enriching his Greek Life as it was published by St Nikodimos the Athonite in 1803.194
From a literary point of view the content of St Kosmas’s Life is rather trivial.195 Its Greek version contains no references at all to miracles performed by the saint. Undoubtedly, the most important section of the Life is that which discusses how the saint had received from God the gift to foresee the future.196 There are also two other passages which are connected with the monastery of Hilandar – one involving an anonymous abbot of Hilandar, whose death Kosmas had foreseen, and another concerning two monks of Hilandar whom Kosmas had saved from a snake attack. However, all these episodes are nothing but hagiographic commonplaces. They offer us no names, and so no cross-references can be established. One might conclude that the so-called ‘Hilandar section’ of St Kosmas’s Life is only a compilation of banalities and clichés typical of the Athonite hagiographic tradition and mentality. Yet, there are two distinctive names that appear in St Kosmas’s Life – Christophoros and Damianos. Christophoros is said to have been a hermit and St Kosmas’s neighbour.197 Unfortunately there are no other clues to his real identity. The case of Damianos, however, is quite different. He is said to have been a resident of Samareia, a locality near the monastery of Esphigmenou.198 Even today this is the name of a steep hill to the north-west of that monastery. St Kosmas’s Greek Life makes it clear that Damianos had taken a vow never to spend even a single night outside his monastic abode. This information offers us the clue we need in order to identify him. According to J. Lefort, Damianos – ‘un moine à la limite de la légende et de l’histoire’ – was a saint of Esphigmenou died in 1281. His Life reveals that he had given to the Lord exactly the same promise – never to spend even a single night outside his cave.199 According to the Life of St Kosmas, Damianos was visiting a friend when a heavy storm almost compelled him to break his vow. Nevertheless, his prayers were fervent enough to save his soul. He was miraculously transferred to his secluded dwelling, and on the next morning he ran to the abode of his friend Kosmas, eager to tell him about the miracle. What is important for us in this case is that St Damianos’s Greek Life, which presumably refers to events before the year 1281, describes exactly the same episode. Moreover, according to the Esphigmenou text of St Damianos’s Life, Damianos was visiting a friend of his named Kosmas when he was surprised by a storm. There can be very little doubt that the Lives of St Kosmas the Zographite and St Damianos the Esphigmenite essentially refer to the same event. Having studied Dujčev’s publication of St Kosmas’s Life, J. Lefort concluded in 1973 that its chronological framework had not been altered by subsequent editorial interventions.200 According to him, the date of Kosmas’s death – 22 September 1422 – must be the correct one. In other words, Kosmas and Damianos must have been contemporaries. Given that the date of St Damianos’s death is based largely on Athonite oral tradititon, one might conclude that he must have been active during the late fourteenth century, and not during the seventh and eighth decades of the thirteenth century.201 Yet this conclusion is of absolutely no importance as far as the monastery of Zographou is concerned. Consequently, for the time being, St Kosmas’s role in the spiritual life of the Bulgarian Athonite foundation cannot be fully understood.202
The Bulgarian Presence in the Monastery of Koutloumousiou
Atthe beginning of the sixteenth century the monastery of Koutloumousiou was abandoned by its Greek tenants and was taken over by a group of foreign monks. The Constantinopolitan Patriarch, Joachim I, was officially asked to legalize the new situation.203 A document he issued in May 1501 makes it clear that the new monastic group had immediately embarked on restoring the damaged monastery buildings, but it tells us nothing about the origin of the foreigners. Fortunately, a document issued in February 1541 by Patriarch Jeremiah I clearly refers to a Bulgarian monastic group established in the monastery. Jeremiah’s main concern was the destruction of the monastery caused by the indifference of the Bulgarians who inhabited it. According to him, Koutloumousiou was then experiencing a rapid decline due to the activity of some Bulgarian monks, whose most distinctive feature was their addiction to alcohol. However, by 1541 they had already been replaced by Greeks. The patriarch underscores that, after the establishment of a new, Greek monastic group in Koutloumousiou, a serious attempt was made to restore the monastery:
καθὰ γὲ δὴ συνέβη γενέσθαι ἐν τῇ τοῦ Κωτλωμουσίου σεβασμίᾳ καὶ ἱερᾷ μονῇ. Ἕως μὲν ἦν ἐν ταῖς τῶν Βουλγάρων χερσὶν ἡ κατ’ αὐτοὺς μονή, μικροῦ δὴ καὶ ταύτην ἂν ταῖς οἰνοφλυγίαις καὶ ἀδιαφορίαις κατηδαφίσαντο καὶ εἰς παντελῆ ἐρήμωσιν ἤγαγον. Ἀφ’ οὗ δὲ ταύτην διεδέξαντο οἱ ἐκ τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους μοναχοὶ καὶ προσεποιήσαντο, ἀνέθαλλέ τε καί, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ἀνέθορε καὶ ἀνεζωοποιήθη τὰ κάλλιστα
[As it happened in the holy monastery of Koutloumousiou: as long as it was in the hands of the Bulgarians it was quite close to total destruction because of their addiction to alcohol and complete abstinence from active engagement in the monastery’s affairs. When these Bulgarians were replaced by monks from our nation, the monastery once again began to flourish.].204
Τhe presence of Bulgarian monks in Koutloumousiou, however, had initially led to positive results. A massive donjon was constructed in 1508205 and the main church was covered with lead in 1514.206 These works were sponsored by the Wallachian rulers John Radul and Neagoe Basarab, but their financial support must have followed a request from the monks who were then residing in the monastery. We may therefore conclude that, after a positive development during the first two decades of the sixteenth century, the number of the Bulgarian monks in Koutloumousiou must have decreased and some parts of the monastery consequently been abandoned. The central Athonite authorities must have been seriously disturbed by this, so they would have had no objections when a Greek-speaking monastic group with significant financial potential settled in Koutloumousiou in about 1540.207
A year later, in March 1542, Patriarch Jeremiah I signed another document connected with the presence of Bulgarian monks in the monastic capital of Karyes. The act is kept in the monastery of Vatopedi and makes it clear that by that date some Bulgarian monks had occupied a property owned by the monastery of St Nicholas of Chouliara, despite the protests of its legal tenants.208 The monastery of Chouliara was situated in Karyes, not far from Koutloumousiou and quite close to the site of the present-day skete of St Andrew. It would be difficult to prove that the Bulgarians who attacked the monastery of Chouliara were the monks expelled from Koutloumousiou. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that there were two separate groups of Bulgarian monks generating unrest in Karyes at the same time. Most probably there was only one group, and it was the group expelled from Koutloumousiou before February 1541.209
The Bulgarian monastic presence on Mount Athos has always maintained a relatively low profile. It featured no impressive spiritual figures, no spectacular royal donations, and, above all, no organized interest on the part of the medieval Bulgarian Church and state, as was common practice in the case of the Serbian monastery of Hilandar. The Bulgarian infiltration of the Athonite monasteries and hermitages was always the result of a humble personal initiative, most probably because the majority of the Bulgarians attested on Mount Athos seem to have been connected with the regions adjacent to the Holy Mountain.
Series Actes de l’Athos (1900–1915)
Actes de l’Athos IV: Actes de Zographou, ed. W. Regel, E. Kurtz, and B. Korablev, Vizantijskij Vremennik 13 (1907), priloženie 1 (repr. Amsterdam, 1969).
––V: Actes de Chilandar, I, Actes grecs, ed. L. Petit, Vizantijskij Vremennik 17 (1911), priloženie 1 (repr. Amsterdam, 1975).
–– VI: Actes de Philothée, ed. W. Regel, E. Kurtz, and B. Korablev, Vizantijskij Vremennik 20 (1913), priloženie 1 (repr. Amsterdam, 1975).
––VII: Actes de Chilandar, II, Actes slaves, ed. L. Petit and B. Korablev, Vizantijskij Vremennik 19 (1915), priloženie 1 (repr. Amsterdam, 1975).
Series Archives de l’Athos (1945–)
Archives de l’Athos III: Actes de Xéropotamou, ed. J. Bompaire (Paris, 1964).
––IV: Actes de Dionysiou, ed. N. Oikonomidès (Paris, 1968).
––VI: Actes d’Esphigménou, ed. J. Lefort (Paris, 1973).
––VII: Actes du Prôtaton, ed. D. Papachrysanthou (Paris, 1975).
––IX: Actes de Kastamonitou, ed. N. Oikonomidès (Paris, 1978).
––V, VIII, X, XI: Actes de Lavra I–IV, ed. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, and D. Papachrysanthou with the collaboration of S. Ćirković (Paris, 1970–82).
––XII: Actes de Saint-Pantéléèmôn, ed. P. Lemerle, G. Dagron, and S. Ćirković (Paris, 1982).
––XIII: Actes de Docheiariou, ed. N. Oikonomidès (Paris, 1984).
––XV: Actes de Xénophon, ed. D. Papachrysanthou (Paris, 1986).
––II2: Actes de Kutlumus, ed. P. Lemerle (Paris, 1988).
––XVII: Actes du Pantocrator, ed. V. Kravari (Paris, 1991).
––XIV, XVI, XVIII, XIX: Actes d’Iviron I–IV, ed. J. Lefort, N. Oikonomidès, D. Papachrysanthou, and V. Kravari with the collaboration of H. Métrévéli (Paris, 1985–95).
––XX: Actes de Chilandar I, ed. M. Živojinović, V. Kravari, and Ch. Giros (Paris, 1998).
––XXI, XXII: Actes de Vatopédi I–II, ed. J. Bompaire, J. Lefort, V. Kravari, Ch. Giros, and K. Smyrlis (Paris, 2001–6).
Other Editions of Athonite Documents
[Ternovskij, F.] Akty russkago na svjatom Afone monastyrja sv. velikomučenika i celitelja Panteleimona (Acta praesertim Graeca, Rossici in monte Athos monasterii) (Kiev, 1873).
Mošin, V., and A. Sovre, Dodatki h grškim listinam Hilandarja (Supplementa ad acta graeca Chilandarii) (Ljubljana, 1948).
Kravari, V., ‘Nouveaux documents du monastère de Philothéou’, Travaux et mémoires, 10 (1987).
Studies, Monographs and Articles
Bezobrazov, P., ‘Ob aktah Zografskago monastyrja’, Vizantijskij Vremennik, 17 (1910).
Bolutov, D., Bŭlgarski istoričeski pametnici na Aton (Sofia, 1961).
Bompaire, J., and L. Mavromatis, ‘La querelle des deux Andronic et le Mont Athos en 1322’, Revue des études byzantines, 32 (1974).
Božilov, I., Bŭlgarite vŭv vizantijskata imperija (Sofia, 1995).
––, ‘Osnovavane na svetata atonska bŭlgarska obitel Zograf. Legendi i fakti’, Svetogorska obitel Zograf, 1 (1995).
Božkov, A., and A. Vasiliev, Hudožestvenoto nasledstvo na manastira Zograf (Sofia, 1981).
Christou, P., Τὸ Ἅγιον Ὄρος. Ἀθωνικὴ πολιτεία – ἱστορία, τέχνη, ζωή (Athens, 1987). Dölger, F., Aus den Schatzkammern des Heiligen Berges (Munich, 1948).
––, ‘Die Mühle von Chandax. Untersuchung über vier unechte Kaiserurkunden’, Εἰς μνήμην Σπυρίδωνος Λάμπρου (Athens, 1935).
Dujčev, I., ‘Le Mont Athos et les slaves au Moyen âge’, Le millénaire du Mont Athos 963–1963. Études et mélanges II (Venezia-Chevetogne, 1964).
Gelzer, H., ‘Sechs Urkunden des Georgsklosters Zografu’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 12 (1903).
Il’inskij, G., Gramoty bolgarskih carej (Moscow, 1911; Variorum Reprints, 1970).
––, ‘Rukopisi Zografskago monastyrja na Afone’, Izvestija Russkago arheologičeskago instituta v Konstantinopole, 13 (Sofia, 1908).
Ivanov, J., Bŭlgarski starini iz Makedonija (Sofia, 19312; repr. Sofia, 1970).
Kodov, H., B. Rajkov, and S. Kožuharov, Opis na slavjanskite rŭkopisi v bibliotekata na Zografskija manastir v Sveta gora, I (Sofia, 1985).
Kovačev, M., Bŭlgarski ktitori v Sveta gora. Istoričeski očerk, izsledvanija i dokumenti (Sofia, 1943).
––, Bŭlgarsko monašestvo v Aton (Sofia, 1967).
––, Zograf. Izsledvanija i dokumenti, I (Sofia, 1942).
Mavrommatis, L., ‘Andronikos II Palaiologos and the Monastery of Zographou (1318)’, Byzance et ses voisins. Mélanges à la mémoire de Gyula Moravcsik à l’occasion du centième anniversaire de sa naissance (Szeged, 1994).
––, ‘Le chrysobulle de Dušan pour Zographou’, Byzantion, 52 (1982).
––, Ἡ πρόνοια τοῦ Μονομάχου καὶ ἡ διαμάχη γιὰ τὸν Χάντακα (1333–1378)’, Σύμμεικτα, 14 (2001).
––, ‘Μεσαιωνικὸ ἀρχεῖο μονῆς Ζωγράφου. Ἔγγραφο πρώτου Δωροθέου’, Ἀφιέρωμα στὸν Νίκο Σβορῶνο, Ι (Rethymnon, 1986).
––, ‘La pronoia d’Alexis Comnène Raoul à Prévista’, Σύμμεικτα, 13 (1999).
Mošin, V., ‘Akti iz svetogorskih arhiva’, Spomenik Srpske kraljevske akademie, 91 (1939).
––, ‘Zografskie praktiki’, Sbornik v pamet na P. Nikov. Izvestija na Bŭlgarskoto istoričesko družestvo, 16–18 (Sofia, 1940).
Nešev, G., ‘Les monastères bulgares du Mont Athos’, Études historiques, 6 (1973).
Oikonomides, N., ‘Theodora δέσποινα τῶν Βουλγάρων in a prostagma of Michael IX (September 1318)’, Byzantine Studies/Études byzantines, 5, parts 1–2 (1978).
Ostrogorskij, G., ‘Vizantijskie piscovye knigi’, Byzantinoslavica. 9 (1947–8). Papachryssanthou, D., Ὁ ἀθωνικὸς μοναχισμός. Ἀρχὲς καὶ ὀργάνωση (Athens, 1992). Pavlikianov, C., The Medieval Aristocracy on Mount Athos (Sofia, 2001).
Pavlikianov, Κ., ‘ Ἡ ἔνταξη τῶν Βουλγάρων στὴν μοναστηριακὴ κοινότητα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους – οἱ περιπτώσεις τῶν μονῶν Ζωγράφου καὶ Ζελιάνου’, Göttinger Beiträge zur byzantinischen und neugriechischen Philologie, 2 (2002).
––, ‘Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου’, Σύμμεικτα, 12 (1998).
––, Σλάβοι μοναχοὶ στὸ Ἅγιον Ὄρος ἀπὸ τὸν Ι´ ὥς τὸν ΙΖ´ αἰῶνα (Thessaloniki, 2002).
Popov, G., ‘Novootkrito svedenie za prevodačeska dejnost na bŭlgarski knižovnici ot Sveta gora prez pŭrvata polovina na XIV vek’, Bŭlgarski ezik, 28/5 (1978).
Smyrnakis, G., Τὸ Ἅγιον Ὄρος (Athens, 1903; repr. Karyai, 1988).
Solovjev, A., and V. Mošin, Grčke povelje srpskih vladara (Belgrade, 1936).
Stoilov, A., ‘Pregled na slavjanskite rŭkopisi v zografskata manastirska biblioteka’, Cŭrkoven vestnik, 3/7–9 (1903), priloženie 1.
––, ‘Svoden hrisovul za istorijata na Zografskija monastir’, Sbornik v čest na V. Zlatarski (Sofia, 1925).
Syrku, P., K istorіi ispravlenіja knig v Bolgarіi v XIV veke. I. Vremja i žizn’ patrіarha Evtimіja Ternovskago (Sankt Petersburg, 1898; repr. London, 1972).
Tchérémissinoff, K., ‘Les archives slaves médiévales du monastère de Zographou au Mont-Athos’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 76 (1983).
* * *
G. Nešev, ‘Les monastères bulgares du Mont Athos’, Études historiques, 6 (Sofia, 1973).
Archives de l’Athos XIV. Actes d’Iviron I, ed. J. Lefort, N. Oikonomidès, and D. Papachrysanthou (with the collaboration of Hélène Métrévéli) (Paris, 1985), pp. 117–29, no. 4, l. 6.
Following common practice in Byzantine studies, Slavic bibliography will be given transliterated with the Latin alphabet, while Greek titles will remain written with Greek letters. In our transliteration of the Cyrillic alphabet y stands for ы, j for й, ŭ for ъ, ć for ћ, č for ч, š for ш, and ž for ж.
Actes d’Iviron I, p. 122. Cf. also P. Schreiner, ‘Slavisches in den griechischen Athosurkunden’, Tgoli chole Mêstro, Gedenkschrift für Reinhold Olesch (Köln-Wien, 1990), p. 309; K. Pavlikianov, Σλάβοι μοναχοὶ στὸ ‘Άγιον ’ʹΌρος ἀπὸ τὸν Ι´ ὣς τὸν ΙΖ´ αἰῶνα (Thessaloniki, 2002), pp. 1–2.
F. Dölger, ‘Ein Fall slavischer Einsiedlung im Hinterland von Thessalonike im 10. Jahrhundert’, Sitzungsberichten der Bayerischen Academie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1952/1 (München, 1952), pp. 1–28.
G. Soulis, ‘On the Slavic Settlement in Ierissos in the Tenth Century’, Byzantion, 23 (1953), 67–72.
V. Tŭpkova-Zaimova, ‘Svedenija za bŭlgari v žitieto na sv. Atanasij’, Izsledvanija v čest na akad. Dimitŭr Dečev po slučaj 80-godishninata mu (Sofia, 1958), pp. 759–62.
I. Dujčev, ‘Le Mont Athos et les Slaves au Moyen Âge’, Le Millénaire du Mont Athos 963–1963, Études et Mélanges II (Venezia-Chevetogne, 1964), pp. 125–7.
Schreiner, ‘Slavisches in den griechischen Athosurkunden’, pp. 308–9.
I. Božilov, Bŭlgarite vŭv Vizantijskata imperija (Sofia, 1995), p. 81.
Cf. Actes d’Iviron I, pp. 117–29, no. 4, l. 1–18; I. Sreznevskij, ‘Iz obozrenija glagoličeskih pamjatnikov’, Izvestija imperatorskago arheologičeskago obščestva, 3 (1861), 1–8; P. Uspenskij, ‘Suždenie ob Afono-iverskom akte 982 goda i o glagoličeskoj podpisi na nem popa Giorgija’, Izvestija imperatorskago arheologičeskago obshchestva, 5 (1865), 13–18; J. Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini iz Makedonija (Sofia, 1931; repr. 1970), pp. 21–3.
Akty russkago na svjatom Afone monastyrja svjatago velikomučenika i celitelja Panteleimona, ed. F. Ternovskij (Kiev, 1873), pp. 50–4, no. 6; Archives de l’Athos XII, Actes de Saint-Pantéléèmôn, ed. P. Lemerle, G. Dagron, and S. Ćirković (Paris, 1982), pp. 3–12, 65–76, no. 7, l. 25–7. Cf. also V. Mošin, ‘Russkie na Afone i russko-vizantijskie otnošenija v XI–XII vv.’, Byzantinoslavica, 9 (1947–8), 55–85; I. Smolitsch, ‘Le Mont Athos et la Russie’, Le Millénaire du Mont Athos 963–1963. Études et Mélanges I (Chevetogne, 1963), pp. 279–318; D. Nastase, ‘Les débuts de la communauté œcuménique du Mont Athos’, Σύμμεικτα, 6 (Athens, 1985), 284–99.
D. Papachrysanthou, Ὁ ἀθωνικὸς μοναχισμός. Ἀρχὲς καὶ ὀργάνωση (Athens, 1992), pp. 239–41 (notes 267–80); I. Božilov, Bŭlgarite vŭv Vizantijskata imperija, pp. 80–4, 352 (no. 443); idem, ‘Osnovavane na svetata atonska bŭlgarska obitel Zograf. Legendi i fakti’, Svetogorska obitel Zograf, 1 (Sofia, 1995), p. 18 (notes 46–9).
Archives de l’Athos XX. Actes de Chilandar I, ed. Mirjana Živojinović, Vassiliki Kravari, and Christophe Giros (Paris, 1998), pp. 3–32; Archives de l’Athos V. Actes de Chilandar I. Actes grecs, ed. L. Petit and B. Korablev, Vizantijskij Vremennik, Priloženie (Appendix) 1 to vol. XVII (St Petersburg, 1911; repr. Amsterdam, 1975), pp. 6–15, nos. 3–5; T. Burković, Hilandar u doba Nemanjicha (Belgrade, 1925); D. Dimitrievich, ‘L’importance du monachisme serbe et ses origines au monastère athonite de Chilandar’, Le Millénaire du Mont Athos 963–1963. Études et Mélanges I (Chevetogne, 1963), pp. 265–78; F. Barisić, ‘Hronološki problemi oko godine Nemanjine smrti’, Hilandarski zbornik, 2 (1971), 31–57; M. Živojinović, ‘Hilandar in the Middle Ages (origins and an outline of its history)’, Hilandarski zbornik, 7 (1989), 7–25.
Cf. K. Pavlikianov, ‘Manastirŭt na Željan – pŭrvoto slavjansko monašesko učreždenie na Aton’, Svetogorska obitel Zograf, 2 (Sofia, 1996), 17–23; idem, ‘The Monastery of Zelianos – The First Slavic Monastic Institution on Athos’, Σύμμεικτα, 11 (Athens, 1997), 37–48; Pavlikianov, Σλάβοι μοναχοὶ στὸ Ἅγιον Ὄρος, pp. 23–31.
Akty russkago na svjatom Afonemonastyrja, pp. 10–17, no. 2; Actes de Saint-Pantéléèmôn, pp. 31–5, no. 2, l. 2–3 and 23–5.
Archives de l’Athos XV, Actes de Xénophon, ed. by D. Papachryssanthou (Paris, 1986), pp. 59–75, no. 1, l. 126–7.
Actes de Xénophon, pp. 7–9.
Actes de Saint-Pantéléèmôn, p. 111, no. 13, l. 12 (in the text of the interpolated copy B).
K. Pavlikianov, ‘The Athonite Monastery of Xenophontos and its Slavic Archive – An Unknown Slavic Description of the Monastery’s Land on Athos’, Palaeobulgarica, 36/2 (Sofia, 2002), pp. 102–11.
Russkij monastyr svjatago velikomučenika i celitelja Panteleimona na Svjatoj gore Afonskoj (Moskva, 18867), p. 31.
G. Smyrnakis, Τὸ Ἅγιον Ὄρος (Athens, 1903; repr. Karyai, 1988), p. 678.
Actes de Xénophon, p. 9.
A. Papazôtos, ‘Recherches topographiques au Mont Athos’, Géographie historique du monde méditerranéen (Paris, 1988), pp. 154–5, 162–3 (fig. 2).
Archives de l’Athos VII, Actes du Prôtaton, ed. D. Papachrysanthou (Paris, 1975), p. 167, no. 7; Papachrysanthou, Ὁ ἀθωνικὸς μοναχισμός, pp. 240–1 (notes 276–7); K. Pavlikianov, ‘Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου’, Σύμμεικτα, 12 (Athens, 1998), 109; idem, Σλάβοι μοναχοὶ στὸ Ἅγιον Ὄρος, pp. 32–7; idem, Istorija na bŭlgarskija svetogorski manastir Zograf ot 980 do 1804 g. (Sofia, 2005), pp. 17–23.
Actes de l’Athos IV, Actes de Zographou, ed. W. Regel, E. Kurtz, and B. Korablev, Vizantijskij Vremennik, 13 (1907), Priloženie (Appendix) 1 to vol. 13 (repr. Amsterdam, 1969), no. 1; Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini, pp. 526–35, no. 63.
Actes de Zographou, no. 1, l. 1–6; Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini, p. 528.
Actes de Zographou, no. 1, l. 23; Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini, pp. 528–9.
Actes de Zographou, no. 1, l. 49–54; Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini, p. 529.
Archives de l’Athos IX, Actes de Kastamonitou, ed. N. Oikonomidès (Paris, 1978), p. 3 (note 14). See also Actes du Prôtaton, 93 (note 336); Archives de l’Athos II2, Actes de Kutlumus, ed. P. Lemerle (Paris, 19882), p. 4.
Cf. Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini, pp. 527, 533–5; Božilov, Bŭlgarite vŭv Vizantijskata imperija, p. 82.
See also Pavlikianov, Σλάβοι μοναχοὶ στὸ Ἅγιον Ὄρος, pp. 32–3; idem, Istorija na bŭlgarskija svetogorski manastir Zograf, pp. 17–18.
Actes du Prôtaton, no. 7, l. 167; Papachrysanthou, Ὁ ἀθωνικὸς μοναχισμός, pp. 240–1 (notes 276–7); Pavlikianov, Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου, 109; idem, ‘ Ἡ ἔνταξη τῶν Βουλγάρων στὴν μοναστηριακὴ κοινότητα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους – οἱ περιπτώσεις τῶν μονῶν Ζωγράφου καὶ Ζελιάνου’, Göttinger Beiträge zur byzantinischen und neugriechischen Philologie, 2 (2002), 64.
Actes de Zographou, pp. 150–7, no. 66, 169–74, Slavic act no. 5; See also A. Stoilov, ‘Svoden hrisovul za istorijata na Zografskija manastir’, Sbornik v čest na V. Zlatarski (Sofia, 1925), pp. 452–4; Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini, pp. 537–40.
This act is preserved in a Greek and Slavic version. For the Greek text cf. Actes de Zographou, no. 67, l. 27–8; F. Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern des Heiligen Berges (Munich, 1948), no. 48, l. 21–2; idem, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453. 4. Teil: Regesten von 1282–1341 (Munich-Berlin, 1960), no. 2119. For the Slavic text see Actes de Zographou, pp. 163–5, Slavic act no. 2, l. 24–5; K. Tchérémissinoff, ‘Les archives slaves médiévales du monastère de Zographou au Mont-Athos’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 76 (1983), 18, no. 5.
Actes de Saint-Pantéléèmôn, no. 8, l. 59; Božilov, Bŭlgarite vŭv Vizantijskata imperija, no. 443; Pavlikianov, Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου, pp. 111–12, 117; idem, Ἡ ἔνταξη τῶν Βουλγάρων στὴν μοναστηριακὴ κοινότητα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους, p. 64.
Actes de Zographou, no. 1, l. 59; Dujčev, Le Mont Athos et les slaves au Moyen Âge, p. 128; Papachrysanthou, Ὁ ἀθωνικὸς μοναχισμός, p. 241 (notes 279–80); Božilov, Bŭlgarite vŭv Vizantijskata imperija, no. 398; Pavlikianov, Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου, p. 118; idem, Ἡ ἔνταξη τῶν Βουλγάρων στὴν μοναστηριακὴ κοινότητα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους, p. 64.
Actes de Zographou, no. 9, l. 25–7; Pavlikianov, Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου, p. 117; idem, Ἡ ἔνταξη τῶν Βουλγάρων στὴν μοναστηριακὴ κοινότητα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους, p. 64.
Archives de l’Athos XX. Actes de Chilandar I, no. 9, l. 53–4 (= Archives de l’Athos V. Actes de Chilandar I. Actes grecs, no. 19, l. 60–1. In this edition the document is erroneously dated to 1304). Cf. also Pavlikianov, Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου, pp. 117–18; idem, Ἡ ἔνταξη τῶν Βουλγάρων στὴν μοναστηριακὴ κοινότητα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους, p. 64.
Actes de Zographou, no. 14, l. 2–6; Pavlikianov, Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου, p. 118; idem, Ἡ ἔνταξη τῶν Βουλγάρων στὴν μοναστηριακὴ κοινότητα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους, p. 64.
Pavlikianov, Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου, pp. 117–38; idem, Σλάβοι μοναχοὶ στὸ Ἅγιον Ὄρος, pp. 32–7; idem, Ἡ ἔνταξη τῶν Βουλγάρων στὴν μοναστηριακὴ κοινότητα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους, pp. 64–5.
In the obsolete edition Actes de Zographou (1907) the earliest Zographite act after 1051 dates from the year 1267. However, in 1948 F. Dölger published one unknown Zographite act dated 1266. Cf. Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern des Heiligen Berges, no. 34.
Actes de Zographou, no. 5, l. 8–9.
P. Bezobrazov, ‘Ob aktah Zografskago monastyrja’, Vizantijskij Vremennik, 17 (1910), 403–5.
Archives de l’Athos III, Actes de Xéropotamou, ed. J. Bompaire (Paris, 1964), pp. 16, 67–71, no. 8, l. 1, 5, 11. See also S. Binon, Les origines légendaires et l’histoire de Xéropotamou et de Saint-Paul de l’Athos (Louvain, 1942), pp. 103–8, 205–6.
Actes de Zographou, nos. 6 and 7. See also Bezobrazov, Ob aktah Zografskago monastyrja, pp. 403–5.
Archives de l’Athos VIII, Actes de Lavra II. De 1204 à 1328, ed. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, and D. Papachrysanthou (Paris, 1977), pp. 12–16, no. 72.
Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern des Heiligen Berges, pp. 93–4, no. 34, l. 7; idem, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453. 3. Teil: Regesten von 1204–1282 (Munich-Berlin, 1932), 1939b.
Actes de Zographou, no. 7, l. 86–8; Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern des Heiligen Berges, pp. 93–5, no. 34.
Actes de Zographou, no. 7, l. 64–7.
Actes de Zographou, no. 7, l. 89–94.
Actes de Zographou, no. 7, l. 103–7; Pavlikianov, Ἡ ἔνταξη τῶν Βουλγάρων στὴν μοναστηριακὴ κοινότητα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους, pp. 65–8.
Actes de Zographou, no. 6, l. 25–33; Bezobrazov, Ob aktah Zografskago monastyrja, pp. 403–5; Pavlikianov, Ἡ ἔνταξη τῶν Βουλγάρων στὴν μοναστηριακὴ κοινότητα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους, pp. 65–8.
Actes de Zographou, no. 6, l., 69.
See Actes de Saint-Pantéléèmôn, no. 8, l. 59; Božilov, Bŭlgarite vŭv Vizantijskata imperija, no. 443; Pavlikianov, Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου, pp. 111–12, 117.
See Pavlikianov, Ἡ ἔνταξη τῶν Βουλγάρων στὴν μοναστηριακὴ κοινότητα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους, pp. 65–8.
A. Rigo, ‘La Διήγησις sui monaci athoniti martirizzati dai latinofroni (BHG 2333) e le tradizioni athonite successive: alcune osservazioni’, Studi Veneziani, 15 NS (1988), 71–106.
S. Lampros, ‘Τὰ Πάτρια τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους’, Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, 9 (1912), 116–61, 209–44.
Actes de Kastamonitou, pp. 10–11, 97–101.
Actes de Zographou, no. 13.
Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453. 3. Teil: Regesten von 1204–1282, no. 2024.
Pavlikianov, Istorija na bŭlgarskija svetogorski manastir Zograf, pp. 28–9.
Actes de Zographou, no. 13, l. 1–3. Cf. also Božilov, Bŭlgarite vŭv Vizantijskata imperija, 82–3; Pavlikianov, Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου, pp. 115–16.
Actes de Zographou, no. 52. Cf. also V. Mošin, ‘Zografskie praktiki’, Sbornik v pamet na P. Nikov. Izvestija na Bŭlgarskoto istoričesko družestvo, 16–18 (Sofia, 1940), 292–3.
Cf. Archives de l’Athos VI, Actes d’Esphigménou, ed. J. Lefort (Paris, 1973), p. 78.
See Archives de l’Athos XVIII, Actes d’Iviron III, ed. J. Lefort, N. Oikonomidès, D. Papachrysanthou, and Vassiliki Kravari with the collaboration of Hélène Métrévéli (Paris, 1994), pp. 113–15, no. 62, l. 10–11: διὰ πρακτικοῦ τοῦ Τζιμπέα ἐκείνου [i.e. the deceased] καὶ τοῦ Ἀμνὼν κυροῦ Ἀλεξίου (‘with a delivery protocol of the late Tzimpeas and Sir Alexios Amnon’).
Actes de Zographou, no. 53, l. 6–9. See also Božilov, Bŭlgarite vŭv Vizantijskata imperija, pp. 82–3; Pavlikianov, Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου, pp. 115–16.
I. Sreznevskij, ‘Svedenija i zametki o maloizvestnyh i neizvestnyh pamjatnikah’, Zapiski Imperatorskoj akademii nauk (Appendix to vol. 34) (St Petersburg, 1879), pp. 24–8; Actes de Zographou, pp. 165–8, Slavic act no. 3; G. Ilinskij, Gramoty bolgarskih carej (Moscow, 1911; repr. London, 1970), pp. 21–33, no. 3; Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini, pp. 587–90; A. Daskalova-M. Rajkova, Gramoti na bŭlgarskite care (Sofia, 2005), pp. 37–40.
Ilinskij, Gramoty bolgarskih carej, p. 22, no. 3, l. 18–21; Actes de Zographou, p. 166, Slavic act no. 3, l. 25–9; Daskalova-Rajkova, Gramoti na bŭlgarskite care, pp. 37–8.
Ilinskij, Gramoty bolgarskih carej, pp. 22–3, no. 3, l. 38–48; Actes de Zographou, pp. 166–7, Slavic act no. 3, l. 50–65; Daskalova-Rajkova, Gramoti na bŭlgarskite care, pp. 38–9.
Ilinskij, Gramoty bolgarskih carej, p. 23, no. 3, l. 48–60; Actes de Zographou, p. 167, Slavic act no. 3, l. 65–80; Daskalova-Rajkova, Gramoti na bŭlgarskite care, pp. 39–40.
Cf. Actes de Zographou, no. 36, l. 12–16. Cf. also Ph. Malingoudis, Die mittelalterlichen Inschriften der Hämus-Halbinsel. I. Die bulgarischen Inschriften (Thessaloniki, 1979), p. 87; V. Gjuzelev, Bulgarien zwischen Orient und Okzident. Die Grundlagen seiner geistigen Kultur vom 13. bis zum 15. Jahnhundert (Vienna-Köln-Weimar, 1993), p. 107; K. Pavlikianov, The Medieval Aristocracy on Mount Athos (Sofia, 2001), p. 164; Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, I–XII, ed. E. Trapp (Vienna, 1976–95) (hereafter PLP), no. 26861.
For Philotheos, see PLP, no. 11917; Pavlikianov, The Medieval Aristocracy on Mount Athos, pp. 95–6.
Actes de Zographou, no. 46; H. Gelzer, ‘Sechs Urkunden des Georgsklosters Zografu’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 12 (1903), 499–500 and 507–8, no. 1.
For Branislav cf. G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, 2 (Berlin, 1958), 206; PLP, no. 19811.
Actes de Zographou, no. 46, l. 19–22; Gelzer, Sechs Urkunden des Georgsklosters Zografu, pp. 499–500, 507, no. 1, l. 14–16 (verses 21–4). Cf. also J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du Patriarchat de Constantinople. I. Les actes des patriarches. Fascicle 5. Les regestes de 1310–1376 (Paris, 1977), pp. 546–7, no. 2653.
Actes de Zographou, no. 57; D. Papachryssanthou, ‘Histoire d’un évêché byzantin: Hiérissos en Chalcidique’, Travaux et Mémoires, 8 (1981), 378–9 (notes 50–3).
For the term adelphaton, see E. Herman, ‘Die Regelung der Armut in den byzantinischen Klöstern’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 7 (1941), 444–9; M. Živojinović, ‘Adelfati u Vizantiji i srednjevekonoj Srbiji’, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog institute, 11 (Belgrade, 1968), pp. 241–70.
Archives de l’Athos X, Actes de Lavra III. De 1329 à 1500, ed. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, and D. Papachrysanthou (Paris, 1980), no. 136, l. 160–1.
PLP, no. 1598.
Actes de Lavra III, no. 139, l. 67–8.
Ioannes Cantacuzeni imperatoris Historiarum libri IV, CSHB, ed. L. Schopen, I (Bonn, 1828), p. 259. Cf. also Actes de Lavra III, 60.
For an example cf. Archives de l’Athos XI, Actes de Lavra IV, ed. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, and D. Papachrysanthou with the collaboration of S. Ćirković (Paris, 1982), p. 236.
Cf. P. Syrku, K istorіi ispravlenіja knig v Bolgarіi v XIV veke. I. Vremja i žizn patrіarha Evtimіja Ternovskago (St Petersburg, 1898; repr. London, 1972), p. 355; Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini, pp. 234–5, no. 4.
Syrku, K istorіi ispravlenіja knig v Bolgarіi v XIV veke, pp. 141–411.
M. Popruzenko, Sinodik carja Borila (Sofia, 1928), p. 91.
S. Novaković, Zakonik Stefana Dušana cara srpskog (Belgrade, 1898), p. 4.
A. Burmov, ‘Hronologični beležki za tŭrnovskite patriarsi Teodosij I i Teodosij II’, Izvestija na Bŭlgarskoto istoričesko družestvo, 22–4 (Sofia, 1948), 6–11.
V. Gjuzelev, Tri etjuda vŭrhu bŭlgarskija XIV vek (Sofia, 2009), pp. 82, 96.
PLP, no. 7182; I. Bozilov, Bulgarite vuv vizantijskata imperija (Sofia, 1995), pp. 137, 354, no. 446.
V. Zlatarski, ‘Žitie i žizn prepodobnago otca našego Theodosija iže v Trŭnove postničŭstvovavšago, sŭpisano svetejšim patriarhom Konstantina grada kir Kalistom’, Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija, nauka i knižnina, 20/2 (Sofia, 1904), no. 5, 1–41, chapter 10; V. Kiselkov, Žitieto na sv. Teodosij Tŭrnovski kato istoričeski pametnik (Sofia, 1926), pp. XXI–XXII, 10–11. See also D. Gonis, Τὸ συγγραφικὸν ἔργο τοῦ οἰκουμενικοῦ πατριάρχου Καλλίστου Α´ (Athens, 1980), p. 84.
Syrku, K istorіi ispravlenіja knig v Bolgarіi v XIV veke, pp. 553–5.
E. Kalužniacki, Werke des Patriarchen von Bulgaren Euthymius (1375–1393) (Vienna, 1901), p. 70; Ivanov, Bulgarski starini, p. 432; Pavlikianov, Ἡ παρουσία Σλάβων μοναχῶν στὴ Μεγίστη Λαύρα κατὰ τὸ ΙΔ´ καὶ τὸ ΙΕ´ αιῶνα’, Ὁ Ἄθως στοὺς 14ο–16ο αἰῶνες (Ἀθωνικὰ Σύμμεικτα, 4) (Athens, 1997), pp. 78–81.
Syrku, K istorіi ispravlenіja knig v Bolgarіi v XIV veke, pp. 555–6; V. Kiselkov, Mitropolit Grigorij Camblak (Sofia, 1943), pp. 38–41.
Actes d’Esphigménou, pp. 13–14 (map) and 18. The same locality is also mentioned in Archives de l’Athos XX, Actes de Chilandar I, p. 93, no. 1 (1018), l. 7–8 and no. 14 (1294), l. 18–19, 44.
Cf. K. Ivanova, ‘Prostranno žitie na Romil Vidinski ot Grigorij Dobropisec’, Stara bulgarska literatura. IV. Žitiepisni tvorbi (Sofia, 1986), pp. 656–8.
P. Syrku, ‘Monaha Grigorija žitie prepodobnago Romila’, Pamjatniki drevnej pismennosti i iskusstva, 136 (St Petersburg, 1900), pp. I–IV, XIV–XXXIII. Cf. also P. Devos, ‘La version slave de la Vie de S. Romylos’, Byzantion, 31 (1961), 149–87.
I. Dujčev, ‘Un manuscrit grec de la Vie de St. Romile’, Byzantinoslavica, 7 (1937–8), 124–7; idem, ‘Un manuscrit grec de la Vie de St. Romile’, Studia historico-philologica Serdicensia, 2 (Sofia, 1940), 88–92; idem, ‘Romano (Romilo, Romolo) anacoreta in Bulgaria, santo’, Bibliotheca Sanctorum, 11 (1969), 312–16.
F. Halkin, ‘Un ermite des Balkans au XIVe siècle. La Vie grecque inédite de St. Romylos’, Byzantion, 31 (1961), 111–47.
Cf. Pavlikianov, ‘The Athonite Period in the Life of Saint Romylos of Vidin’, Σύμμεικτα, 15 (Athens, 2002), 247–55.
Ivanova, Prostranno žitie na Romil Vidinski, p. 657.
Cf. Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 (New York – Oxford, 1991), p. 1812.
Halkin, Un ermite des Balkans au XIVe siècle, p. 131, chapter 12, l. 29–33; Syrku, Monaha Grigorija žitie prepodobnago Romila, p. 20, chapter 19.
Syrku, Monaha Grigorija žitie prepodobnago Romila, p. 3, chapter 2.
Halkin, Un ermite des Balkans au XIVe siècle, p. 131, note 1.
Halkin, Un ermite des Balkans au XIVe siècle, p. 132, chapter 12, l. 41–4; Syrku, Monaha Grigorija žitie prepodobnago Romila, p. 21, chapter 20.
Halkin, Un ermite des Balkans au XIVe siècle, pp. 131–43, chapters 12–22; Syrku, Monaha Grigorija žitie prepodobnago Romil., pp. 20–32, chapters 19–32; Devos, La version slave de la Vie de S. Romylos, pp. 160–87.
L. Stojanović, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi, 2 (Belgrade, 1903), p. 408, no. 4205. For a photographic reproduction of the note cf. T. Jovanović, ‘Inventar srpskih ćirilskih rukopisa Narodne biblioteke u Parizu’, Arheografski prilozi, 3 (Belgrade, 1981), pp. 306–8, no. 8 (f. 231r), p. 325 (plate 6).
Stojanović, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi, p. 408.
Halkin, Un ermite des Balkans au XIVe siècle, p. 142, chapter 21, l. 6–8; Syrku, Monaha Grigorija žitie prepodobnago Romila, p. 31, chapter 31.
Arhimandrit Leonid (L. Kavelin), Skazanie o svjatoj Afonskoj gore igumena russkago Pantelejmonova monastyrja Joakima i inyh svjatogorskih starcev (St Petersburg, 1882), pp. 26–7.
K. Ivanova – P. Matejić, ‘An Unknown Work of St Romil of Vidin (Ravanica)’, Palaeobulgarica, 17/4 (1993), 3–15.
Cf. ibid., p. 8.
Cf. Pavlikianov, ‘Saint Romylos of Vidin and his Activity as the Spiritual Instructor of an Unknown Slavic Monastic Settlement on Mount Athos’, Annuaire de l’Université de Sofia ‘St Kliment Ohridski’, Centre de Recherches Slavo-Byzantines ‘Ivan Dujčev’, 91/10 (Sofia, 2002), 147–54.
Cf. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, ‘Νικηφόρος Κάλλιστος Ξανθόπουλος’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 11 (1902), 38–49; M. Jugie, ‘Poésies rhythmiques de Nicéphore Calliste Xanthopoulos’, Byzantion, 5 (1929–30), 357–90; F. Winkelmann, Die Kirchengeschichte des Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus und ihre Quellen (Berlin, 1966).
See V. Rozov, ‘Bolgarskie rukopisi Jerusalima i Sinaja’, Minalo, 5 (Sofia, 1914), 17–19; P. Uspenskij, Pervoe putešestvie v Sinajskij monastyr v 1845 godu arhimandrita Porfirija Uspenskago (St Petersburg, 1856), p. 219; G. Popov, ‘Novootkrito svedenie za prevodačeska dejnost na bŭlgarski knižovnitsi ot Sveta gora prez pŭrvata polovina na XIV vek’, Bŭlgarski ezik, 28/ 5 (Sofia, 1978), 402–4; Pavlikianov, Ἡ παρουσία Σλάβων μοναχῶν στὴ Μεγίστη Λαύρα, pp. 75–87.
Actes de Lavra III, no. 135, l. 19–21.
I. Dujčev, ‘La Vie de Kozma de Zographou’, Hilandarski Zbornik, 2 (Belgrade, 1971), 59–67; F. Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, I (Brussels, 19573), p. 136, no. 393, 393b.
Cf. Νέον Ἐκλόγιον, ed. Nikodemos Hagioreites (Venice, 1803), pp. 324–6 (2nd edn, Constantinople, 1863, pp. 289–91).
K. Doukakis, Μέγας Συναξαριστὴς πάντων τῶν ἁγίων, I (September) (Athens, 1889), pp. 282–6.
Dujčev, ‘La Vie de Kozma de Zographou’, p. 60 (notes 5–8).
Služba i žitie otca našego Kosmy zografskago čudotvorca (Thessaloniki, 1911), pp. 1–21 (the religious service in honour of the saint), 23–44 (the life of the saint).
Dujčev, ‘La Vie de Kozma de Zographou’, p. 59 (note 4).
Pavlikianov, ‘Cosma e il monastero athonita bulgaro di Zographou’, Atanasio e il monachesimo del Monte Athos, Atti del XII Convegno ecumenico internazionale di spiritualità ortodossa, sezione bizantina, Qiqajon Publishing House (Comunità di Bose) (Torino, 2005), pp. 141–51.
Dujčev, ‘La Vie de Kozma de Zographou’, pp. 62–5.
Dujčev, ‘La Vie de Kozma de Zographou’, pp. 64–7.
Dujčev, ‘La Vie de Kozma de Zographou’, pp. 64–5. For Samareia cf. Smyrnakis, Τὸ Ἅγιον Ὄρος, pp. 635–6; Actes d’Esphigménou, pp. 1–7.
Cf. Doukakis, Μέγας Συναξαριστὴς πάντων τῶν ἁγίων, I (February), pp. 368–71; Actes d’Esphigménou, p. 21.
Actes d’Esphigménou, p. 21 (note 71); Pavlikianov, Οἱ Σλάβοι στὴν ἀθωνικὴ μονὴ Ζωγράφου, p. 124; idem, Istorija na bŭlgarskija svetogorski manastir Zograf, p. 110.
Actes d’Esphigménou, p. 21 (note 69).
Pavlikianov, ‘Saint Kosmas the Zographite and his Place in the History of the Bulgarian Athonite Monastery of Zographou’, Göttinger Beiträge zur byzantinischen und neugriechischen Philologie, 4/5 (Gottingen, 2004/2005), 151–9.
Actes de Kutlumus, no. 48, l. 15–19.
Actes de Kutlumus, pp. 19–21, 173–4, 416, no. 54, l. 3–9.
Actes de Kutlumus, pp. 20–1, 260–1, Appendix VII, no. 1.
See P. Mylonas, ‘Le catholicon de Koutloumousiou (Athos). La dernière étape de la formation du catholicon athonite: l’apparition des typicaria’, Cahiers Archéologiques, 42 (1994), 78–85.
Cf. Pavlikianov, ‘The Slavs in the Monastery of Kutlumus and the Post-Byzantine Murals of its Catholicon’, Problemi na izkustvoto (Art Studies Quarterly) (Sofia, 2000/4), 29–32.
Pavlikianov, Σλάβοι μοναχοὶ στὸ Ἅγιον Ὄρος, pp. 58–72.
Cf. Pavlikianov, The Athonite Monastery of Vatopedi from 1462 to 1707. The Archive Evidence (Sofia, 2008), pp. 65–7, 163, no.22.