The Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire

Author(s): G. Georgiades Arnakis

Source: The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sep., 1952), pp. 235-250
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1875481
Accessed: 17-11-2016 23:57 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Modern History

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

THE GREEK CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE*
G. GEORGIADES ARNAKIS

A STUDY of the relations of the Greek

Orthodox church and the Ottoman Empire during the long pe-

riod of Turkish rule in the Near East reveals so many inconsistencies on the part

of the Turks that one may be led into

thinking that their much-spoken-of policy of religious toleration was of an erratic, haphazard nature and was con-

veniently ignored when new circumstances seemed to suggest a different

course of action. At times information
pertaining to practically the same era
leads to widely divergent conclusions,
and there is an almost irresistible temp-

tation for the historian to give up his

search as futile, with the perfunctory remark that in the Ottoman autocracy the
whim of the reigning sultan became the
law of the land and that therefore there
could be no question of a consistent religious policy. This attitude seems to underestimate the peculiar theocratic character of the Ottoman Empire and the influence of tradition upon the individual
sultans. Whatever views one may hold
concerning Ottoman autocracy, the fact
remains that there was method in it on
account of the tendency to follow time* This paper is based on a manuscript on the
Patriarchate of Constantinople prepared for publication by the Academy of Athens. Postwar conditions have prevented the academy from publishing
this and other manuscripts. I am deeply indebted
to my former teacher at the University of Athens,
Professor Constantine Amantos, for his wise guidance and friendly encouragement. Professor Amantos proposed this topic for study in 1944 during
his presidency of the Academy of Athens.

honored patterns in administration-a

trait which the Osmanlis had in common
with their Byzantine predecessors.'
If one looks upon the Ottoman Empire
as essentially conservative, one may regard the recurrent oppressive measures
taken against the Greek church as a deviation from generally established practice
-a deviation that was occasioned by the
corruption and intrigue of officials and
less frequently by outbursts of fanaticism
or by imperial disfavor. As elsewhere,
here, too, one might expect to find a gap
between established policy and its practical application.
In this paper we propose to study the
background and the assumptions upon
which the Ottoman attitude toward the
Greek church was based and to determine to what extent and under what circumstances the principle of religious toleration was violated. The scope of our
work will be limited to the Church of
Constantinople, first, because we possess
more sources of information concerning
it and, second, because in Constantinople, the capital of the empire, the
problem presents itself in its most typical
form.

When Mohammed II took Constantinople, the ecumenical throne-so called

since the close of the sixth century-had
been vacant for two years. Gregory III,
second patriarch after the Unionist Joseph of the ill-starred Florentine council,
appears to have left the city in 1451
1 A. H. LYBYER, The government of the Ottoman
Empire in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent (Cambridge: 1913), pp. 26-28.

235

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

236 G. GEORGIADES ARNAKIS

belief that
the empire
couldwill
still be saved
without ever winning
the
good
of the
if only it enlisted the support of Western
Christendom.
among the clergy and the laity.2 During

anti-Unionists, who were the majority

the crucial days of 1453 the highest ec-

clesiastic in Constantinople was the

papal legate, Cardinal Isidore, a Greek
from the Peloponnesus, who had espoused the cause of Union at the Council
of Ferrara and Florence (1438-39) and
had signed the proceedings as metropolitan of Kiev and on behalf of the Russian
church. Denounced by the Russians for
his submission to the pope, Isidore remained faithful to his new allegiance. He
settled in the capital of the dying empire
and, when the Ottoman forces appeared

at the gates, took an active part in the

defense of the city. We are told that at
the head of two hundred soldiers he
fought bravely on the bastions of the
of Blachernae near the Golden Horn.3
From his behavior before and during the

Mohammed the Conqueror was fully

aware of the danger that sooner or later
he would have to encounter if his Christian subjects were under the influence of
the pope. His interests dictated that he
should sever all ties between the eastern
and western branches of Christianity.4
The effort was not expected to be a hard
one, since he could always take advantage of the aversion which the Orthodox
Greeks had for the Catholics, a feeling
that found its most eloquent expression
in the well-known dictum of Lucas Notaras, the last emperor's chief councilor,
"It is preferable for us to see the Turkish
turban prevailing in the midst of the City
wall
rather than the tiara of the Latin cardinal."5

From the Ottoman point of view it

siege we might infer that it was his ambi- was, therefore, necessary to have a new
tion to become patriarch if the danger
patriarch, and no one seemed better
was averted. At any rate, after the fall of
qualified for the post than the jurist Genthe city and his liberation from captivnadius Scholarius, the fanatical opponent
ity, the pope granted him the empty, but
of the union of churches, who openly adnonetheless exalted, title of "Patriarch of
vocated co-operation with the Turks, if
Constantinople," which he retained until
necessary, in order to avoid submission
his death. Isidore stands out as one of the to Rome. He, too, had taken part in the
greatest figures in the last days of ByzanFlorentine council, as a supporter of the
tium, a loyal Greek whose chief quarrel
Union. But before long he was transwith his contemporaries resulted from his formed into a passionate opponent, bent
upon destroying the work of the council.
He donned a monastic garment; he took
possession of the monastery of PantocraXLKOL 7rL-vaKES [Patriarchal tables] (Constantinople,
tor, strategically situated in the middle
1890), p. 467, mentions Athanasius II as the last
of
the city; and he harangued the popupatriarch of the Byzantine Empire, but, according
to DIAMANTOPOULOS (loc. cit., p. 295), this prelate
lace, vehemently denouncing the Union
never assumed the patriarchal office. Cf. Gennadius
and those who had signed it. Pantocrator
of Heliopolis, "Was there a patriarch Athanasius
soon became the headquarters of the
shortly before the Fall?" (in Greek), Orthodoxia,
2See Ad. N. DIAMANTOPOULOS, "Gennadius
Scholarius as a historical source" (in Greek),
Hellenica, IX (1936), 295, 301. M. GEDEON, IIHaptap-

XVIII (1943), 117-23. The Rt. Rev. Gennadius

has proved conclusively in this article that there
was no patriarch between Gregory III and Gennadius Scholarius.

4 Cf. Chrysostomos PAPADOPOULOS, "The position of the church and of the Greek nation in the
Turkish empire" (in Greek), Theologia, XII (1934),
11.

I Edwin PEARS, Cambridge medieval history (New

I DUCAS, Historia Byzantina (Bonn ed.,), p. 264.

York, 1927), IV, 698.

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

THE GREEK CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE 237

anti-Unionist movement, and Gennadius

The patriarch-elect was then summoned

was popularly acclaimed as its leader.

Doubtless Mohammed II knew of this
monk. He might even have met him on
one of his visits to the city when he was
still a very young prince.6 Whatever their
relations may have been, it is known that
on the day of the conquest Gennadius
was made a prisoner, like thousands of
his less famous fellow-Christians, and

to the palace, where he received the flattering distinction of dining with the sultan. Following the dinner, there was an
official installation of the patriarch by

was carried off to a village near Adrianople.7 Critobulus tells us that the Conqueror set him free and admitted him
into his immediate company.8 Subsequently, upon Mohammed's return from
Adrianople in the autumn of 1453, when
he turned his attention to the problem of
repopulating his new capital, he elevated
Gennadius to the position of patriarch.
The official installation took place on
January 6, 1454.9
The details of the event are furnished
by the chronicler George Phrantzes,10 an
eyewitness of the conquest, and are repeated in the "Political history," written
about a century later.1' At the behest of
the sultan, the surviving bishops met together and elected Gennadius patriarch.
The election was, of course, a mere formality, for it was already known that
Gennadius had the Conqueror's favor.

the Ottoman court, more honors were bestowed upon him, and a general attempt
was made to preserve as much of the
Byzantine etiquette as was compatible
with Moslem dignity and traditions.
Throughout the period of transition Mohammed II proved respectful of precedent. The "Political history" says that
he paid repeated visits to the patriarch in
his new seat-the Church of the Holy
Apostles at that time-discussed theology with him and even made him write a
tract on Christianity.12 This was no
youthful romanticism but an act of
statesmanship. It was meant to imply
that the Ottoman Empire was in every
respect the successor empire.
It was Mohammed's idea to safeguard
the position of the patriarch by means of
an official declaration. To quote Phrantzes: "He [Mohammed II] gave written

ordinances, testim"nials bearing the im-

perial signature, that no one was to

molest him or oppose him; he was to
have exemption from all taxes and personal inviolability."'13
This document might be regarded as
a P. CAROLIDES, 'IaTopla ris 'EXXa6os, 1453-1863
the first berat (barat).l4 Henceforth simi[History of Greece, 1453-1863] (Athens, 1925), pp.
205-7.
lar documents were issued by the sultans,
7George PHRANTZES, Chronicon (Bonn ed.),
confirming the election of each succeedp. 308.
ing patriarch, and in the provinces the
8 CRITOBULUS, De rebus gestis Mechemetis II,
pashas adopted the practice of granting
chap. ii, sec. 2; in C. MtLLER (ed.), Fragmenta hissuch testimonials to the new bishops.
toricorum Graecorum (Paris, 1870), V, 107.
12 Ibid., pp. 16, 17. The tract, says the "Political
9 DIAMANTOPOULOS, loc. cit., p. 303. Analogous,
history," was translated into the "Turco-Arabic
though less spectacular, was the office of the Artongue" by Ahmed (Ahumat), the kadi of Berrhoia.
menian patriarch, inaugurated in 1461 (Isidor
SILBERNAGL, Verfassung und gegenwdrtiger Bestand
13 p. 308.
sdmmtlicher Kirchen des Orients [2d ed.: Regensburg,
14 In Arabic the word means "diploma," "honor,"
1904], p. 222).

10 PHRANTZES, pp. 306-8.

11 Martin CRusIus, Turcograecia (Basel, 1584),

p. 15.

"distinction," or "privilege." In the history of the

Greek church it is mentioned for the first time in
connection with Theoleptus I, who became patriarch

in the reign of Selim I (1513) (CRUSIUS, P. 152).

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

238 G. GEORGIADES ARNAKIS

as early as the seventh century, when the

Each berat, whether imperial or provincial, safeguarded most of the rights given Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and
Alexandria had had to bow down before
to Gennadius in 1453-54. In the course
of time the Greek patriarch of Constanti-the sword of Islam. Particularly interesting in this connection is the so-called
nople came to be regarded as the leader
"covenant" between Caliph Omar and
of the Rum milleti-i.e., of the Orthodox
Patriarch
Sophronius on the eve of the
Christians who were under the authority
surrender
of
Jerusalem in 638.19 Accordof the sultan. Since religion and nationaling
to
tradition,
Omar promised not to
ity were practically identical in the eyes
interfere
in
the
religious
practices of the
of the Turk,"5 the Sublime Porte allowed
Christians,
allowing
them
full managea large measure of self-government to the
ment
of
their
own
affairs.
In
later days it
Rum milleti under the guise of religious
was
pointed
out
that
Omar
acted
on the
toleration. When his security was not
authority
of
the
Prophet,
who
had
taught
threatened, the Turk seemed to be mainthat the "people of the Book" (ahl ally interested in the collection of taxes
from the subject races and- down to the
first decade of the twentieth centuryreferred to the non-Turkish populations
as raya, an Arabic word meaning "flock"
or "herd animal." As H. A. Gibbons re-

kitab) should be judged in accordance

with it.20 The monks of Mount Sinai, too,
claimed that they possessed no less a document than the "testament of the Prophet Mohammed," which guaranteed their

marked, they were regarded as nothing property rights and their freedom of wormore than taxable assets."6
ship.2" It was alleged that it had been isHistorically speaking, a tolerant treatsued in A.H. 2 (A.D. 623).
ment of the Christians was in no way a
19 THEOPHANES, Chronographia, ed. C. DE BOOR
Turkish innovation. The Arabs of earlier
(Leipzig, 1883), I, 339: "2wOpopvtos . . . XO&yov Xaf3e
days had set a precedent.17 Though they dar&s IIaXatarvrs &aoaXELas. " Later, a Moslem ruler,
according to the same source, persecuted the church,
definitely regarded the Christians and
" 7rpOOfXCv T. 506EoTL X6yy TOtS XpLTarLvOZs iv6
the Jews as "lesser breeds without the
TC.v 'Apfaowv" (ibid., p. 453). A. PAPADOPOULOSlaw," they nonetheless felt that Allah did KERAMEUS, AvdXtEKTa LEpOoOXVUAK)S TraXUoXoyL'as
[Analects of Jerusalemite gleanings] (St. Petersburg,
not command his faithful to convert
1897), III, 216. C. AMANTOS, "The charters of
them by force or exterminate them, as
Islam in favor of the Christians" (in Greek),
was the case with idolaters. With few ex- Hellenica, IX (1936), 108-9. ELEUTHERIADES, pp.
100-101. M. GEDEON, BpaXE?a aLEuetwats epl TrCZp
ceptions, this attitude of aloofness conkKKX?oLaoTtLKC0V 7.1 6LKPLLKaCJv [Brief note concerning
stituted the prevailing policy.18 It began
our ecclesiastical rights] (Constantinople, 1909), p.

15 Interesting observations on this subject were

made by W. J. CAHNMAN, in his article "Religion
and nationality," American journal of sociology,

41. Von GRUNEBAUM (p. 179) quotes a later Arabic

account which disparages the covenant out of bias
against Christianity. Cf. AMANTOS, IcC. cit., p. 113;

XLIX (1944), 524-29.

A. S. TRITTON, The Caliphs and their non-Moslem

subjects (London, 1930), pp. 5, 233.

16 Thefoundation of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford,
1916), p. 77.
20 Koran, V, 51 (Richard BELL'S translation).

17 N. P. ELEUTHERIADES, Td irpoPo'uta ToV

21 Published with a German translation by B.
OLKOUVIEJtKOD HarptapXElov [The privileges of the
MORITZ, "Beitrage zur Geschichte des Sinai-

Ecumenical Patriarchate] (Smyrna, 1910), pp. 5-24,

Klosters im Mittelalter nach arabischen Quellen,"

150-90. Callinicos DELICANES, Td 5tKKac TOa V OLKOVAbhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1918, pp. 6-9.
There have been several translations of the docu/IAEVLKOV HcaptapXElOV Ev TOVPKkLt [The rights of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey] (Constantiment into Greek. The one published by NECTARIUS

nople, 1922), pp. 0-19, 35-75.

18 See G. E. von GRUNEBAUM, Medieval Islam

(Chicago: 1947), pp. 177-79.

THE CRETAN in 'Evrtrown) IEpOKOCYILK7s LrToplas in

1758 (p. 275) was reprinted by C. N. SATHAS, in
Chrysallis, III (1865), 611-12. More recent transla-

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

THE GREEK CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE 239

Internal and external criticism has led

uments granted to Mount Sinai and to

to the conclusion that both these docu-

Jerusalem. Consequently, Selim I had no

ments belong to a later age, certainly not

difficulty in renewing the old privileges

earlier than the tenth century ;22 but it is

when he became master of the Holy

Places. He stated that he issued the de-

very probable that there was some kind

of arrangement based upon an agreement
that was difficult to violate, which kept
the hungry and predatory Bedouins from
looting Mount Sinai-known to be very
wealthy and always exposed to attack.

Certainly the occasional distribution of

food and money would not in itself be

enough to purchase their good will for a

long time. The Prophet's word, weighing
heavily in the minds of those simple folk,

cree "on the basis of the sacred ahdname

of our Lord the Prophet" (in the case of
Mount Sinai) and "in accordance with
the sacred ahdname of Omar Khattab
and consequent to the decrees of previous
rulers" (in the case of Jerusalem).25
On the principle of reciprocity, at various times Mohammedan rulers had asked
for and obtained religious privileges in
the Byzantine Empire. Byzantium, the

could, if properly used, serve as an effec-

seat of Greek Orthodoxy, granted such

tive deterrent, particularly if it was combined with acts of generosity on the part
of the monks. According to Constantine
Amantos, it is very probable that written
agreements of a period prior to the tenth
century protected the Monastery of Sinai
and the other ancient centers of Christianity.23 We have the testimony of
Nicholas Mysticus (patriarch from 895
to 907 and from 911 to 925), who complained to the Arabs that their tolerant
attitude toward the Christians was no

privileges very reluctantly, regarding

longer evident. "Written guarantees

given by your Prophet," he writes, "are

them as the price of peace or as the bitter

fruits of defeat. For example, it was at

the insistence of Maslamah that a

mosque was built in Constantinople

"within the imperial praetorium."26 Until 1188 there was another mosque within
the city.27 Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus,
in his letter referred to above, registers a
protest against the maltreatment of
Christian captives, and he adds that the
Byzantines do not abuse the Moslems.
"The temple of your coreligionists was

never closed, neither recently nor in the

now violated and there is great dishonor

past, and there have been no restrictions
and abuse of the justice which you are
against the Saracen residents here who
obligated to observe."24 What were these
may repair it; on the contrary, both
"written guarantees" of the Prophet?
temple and attendants are treated in preThere is no indication that Mount Sinai
cisely the same manner as they would be,
or Jerusalem were covered by them, but
had they been living under your authorthere is no plausible reason why they
25 P. GREGORIADES, 'I Ep& Movi a ri2va [The
should not have been. Moslem tradition
holy Monastery of Sinai] (Jerusalem, 1875), pp. 133did not doubt the authenticity of the doc-35; ELEUTHERIADES, pp. 86, 94-95. About the
recognition of the Church of Egypt see Chrysostomos

tions have been published by GEDEON, BpaXE?a

PAPADOPOULOS, 'Irropla Trs 'EKKXqCL'as 'AXEcavbpEias
atlAUcEcots, pp. 87-90; ELEUTHERIADES, pp. 97-99,
[History of the Church of Alexandria] (Alexandria,
137-47; AMANTOS, Ioc. cit., pp. 105-6.

1935), pp. 593-97.

22 MORITZ, loc. cit., p. 16; L. CAETANI, Annali

dell'Islam, IV (1911), 310-12.

23 Hellenica, IX, 107.

26 Constantine PORPHYROGENETUS, De administrando imperio (Bonn ed.), pp. 101-2.

27 Du CANGE, Constantinopolis Christiana (Venice

24 MIGNE, Patrologia Graeca, CXI, 312-13, ed.),

317.I, 128.

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

240 G. GEORGIADES ARNAKIS

ity."28 In the reign of Bayazid I, a kadi

took up his residence in Constantinople

will continue having them. ."32 There

is an obvious tone of generosity, and

to have jurisdiction over the Turkish

there is a vague promise at the end that

colony, "for a Moslem must be judged by

all petitions will be granted. Could it be

that the hardships of the prolonged siege

a Moslem."29 Likewise, a Christian

should be judged by a Christian. This

was the principle behind the capitulations, which were inaugurated by Sulei-

man the Magnificent and Francis I at the

time when the Ottoman Empire was at
the peak of its glory.30 The same prin-

had made the Turks too indulgent? Such

an attitude may be suspected in the
promise concerning feudal estates-a
promise that was not meant to be taken

seriously. But the guarantees to the

church did not constitute a departure

tion seem plausible and legitimate in

from earlier policy and were honored in

subsequent years. The edict of Sinan

Moslem eyes.
The older generation among his fol-

pasha was the most recent precedent to

the political action taken by Mohammed

ciple made the Conqueror's course of ac-

lowers perhaps could remember the de-

the Conqueror with regard to the Greek

cree of Sinan pasha, the conqueror of

church in 1453-54.

Jannina. It was issued twenty-three

The only difference between Constanyears before the fall of Constantinople,
tinople and Jannina or Jerusalem seemed
during the reign of Murad II, in the
to lie in the fact that the former was
midst of negotiations for the surrendertaken
of
by assault, while the latter two
the town. It has been preserved in the
capitulated on the basis of an agreement.
demotic Greek in which it was originally
Mohammed II, it was feared, might in

written, like several other documents of

the early Osmanlis. The Turkish commander, who styles himself as "the head

later years be accused of unwarranted

favor to his protege Gennadius. Was it
necessary that he should heap so many
of heads and lord of all the West" [KeaXc77honors upon the prelate of a conquered
city? Or was it, at most, an ad hoc arTwr' Ke0aXacu3wP KalU a VErz7s rarZ o7s oaws]3'
promises: "Have no fear, there will be no
rangement to serve the expediency of a
captivity, no abduction of children, no
destruction of churches; we shall not
change them into mosques, but your
church bells will ring as is your custom.
The metropolitan will have charge of jus-

critical moment? Sensitivity on this score

combined with the reaction to a rumor

that Selim I (1512-20) was planning to

abrogate the rights of the church led to
the myth that Constantinople was not

tice over the Greeks [va `X? rn KPtOVIY

taken by force but was given to the

TOV rT7 p&4LcK?P] and all the ecclesiastical
Turks on the basis of mutual restitutions.
rights. The lords who have feudal estates
Three venerable janissaries, who were
28 MIGNE, PG, CXI, 317.

29 DUCAS, p. 49.

present in 1453, appeared before the sultan to testify that the city surrendered

30 Cf. LYBYER, pp. 34-35. G. Pelissie DU RAUNAS,

Le regime des capitulations dans l'Empire Ottom.an (2

32Published by P. ARAVANTINOS Xpovo-ypaola
vols.; Paris, 1902-5) is still the best work on the
Trs 'IIwELpov [A chronicle of Epirus] (Athens, 1856),

subject.

II, 315; also by F. MIKLOsIcH and J. MtLLER, Acta

31 Concerning the term "West," which signified

the European provinces of the Byzantine Empire,
see AMANTOS, "East and West" (in Greek), Hel-

et diplomata Graeca medii aevi (Vienna, 1865), III,

282-83; reprinted by AMANTOS, "The charters of
Islam in favor of the Christians," Hellenica, IX, 119-

lenica, IX (1936), 32-36.

20.

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

THE GREEK CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE 241

voluntarily.33 The inference therefrom

was that the rights of the Greek church

part of anyone."34 On the death of Selim

II (1574), Jeremiah had to appear before

the new sultan, Murad III, to pay the
were inviolate. The entire story, of
honorarium again and to get "a new
course, is fictitious. In spite of his reputabarat [testifying] that he will govern and
tion for cruelty, it was Selim I who renewed the berats of Mount Sinai and
judge, according to his faith, metropoliJerusalem. It may well be, however, that
tans, archbishops, priests, and all the
he thought his grandfather had been a
Roman [Greek] people, and the churches
trifle too generous to Gennadius Scholaand monasteries; he who acts contrary to
rius at the time of the conquest.
this barat is punished severely by the emAfter Selim I no sultan is reported to
peror." In general, the contents of these
documents were similar in character to
have contemplated abolishing the instithe edict of Mohammed II.
tutional rights of the Patriarchate. DeUnfortunately, none of the early berats
spite the vicissitudes in the life of the
has come down to our day in its entirety.
Greek rayas and the personal difficulties
The oldest complete one that we have
of several patriarchs, the church as an in-

today was issued to Leontius, metropolitan of Larissa, in February 1604, by Sultan Ahmed I. We have it in Greek transConqueror.
It is true that, for a century or so after lation, the quaint Greek vernacular of
the time.35 Subsequent berats, both patrihis reign, our sources of patriarchal hisarchal and episcopal, contain more or less
tory are scanty, particularly with regard

stitution continued developing along the

lines promulgated by Mohammed the

the same provisions. Hence the oldest one

to the relations of the church with the
may also be regarded as typical of the lot.
state. For the most part we have to be
satisfied with an argumentum ex silentio.With the lapse of the years, they tend to
become more elaborate. But after the
No doubt berats or some kind of testimiddle of the nineteenth century they
monials continued to be issued, since we
hear of them both prior to and after this are again reduced in length, this time because the privileges are curtailed as a reobscure period. Jeremiah II, surnamed
sult of growing nationalistic feeling
Tranos (the Great), who ascended the
among the Turks. Finally, they are abolthrone in 1572, is the first patriarch
ished with the establishment of the reabout whom we have definite knowledge
public and the complete separation of
concerning his confirmation by the sultan
church and state.
(Selim II). "He paid to the imperial

treasury two thousand florins as a gift

34 CRUSIUS,

p. 178. The writer is Manuel Ma-

laxos,
a member
[wEcTKacn] and so the emperor decreed
and

of the immediate circle of the

patriarch. The mere use of the word barat, in its

he received a barat [yrapa4LoP] from

him,
hellenized form, without any explanation or definiand he gave him all authority and sovtion, may indicate that the term was well known
to his contemporaries.
ereignty over all the pious Christians,
clergy and laity; that he should do ac35 Published by GEDEON, BpaXeXa arytehoats
[Brief note], pp. 62-72, and his 'Erltat,ua -ypa&bqara
cording to his law and faith and that
rOVPKLKa a4vWakEpo6eva ets ra fKKX?a)taaLrTLKd 'a7uc.v
there should be no restrictions on the
6OLKKata [Official Turkish letters pertaining to our
33 CRUSIUS, PP. 156-63. A. COMNENOS-YPSI-ecclesiastical rights] (Constantinople, 1910), pp.
87-97. On the patriarchal berats, the oldest extant
LANTES, Td yemrd rv 'AXwutv, 1453-1789 [Events
that given to Dionysius III (1662), likewise pubafter the Fall, 1453-1789] (Constantinople, 1870),is p.
lished, in Greek translation, by GEDEON, 'E7rt'a-77a
50; cf. also J. VON HAMMER, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches (Pest, 1827), II, 401.

-ypa,u,ara, pp. 9-14.

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

242 G. GEORGIADES ARNAKIS

A comparative study of existing berats

reveals the following general arrange-

the Patriarchate or, in the provinces,

through the bishop's office; pending trial,

ments which the government recognized

the accused were detained in separate

without adhering to them in all cases.

quarters in the governor's seat. If found

I. Freedom of conscience was re-

guilty, they served their term in the Pa-

spected. No Roman-the term denoted

triarchate or in the bishop's quarters, but

every Orthodox subject of the sultan-

in cases of major crime they were un-

could be converted against his will. If

frocked and sent to common prisons. If

a Christian wanted to adopt Islam, it

obliged to take an oath, the clergy swore

would be necessary for him to establish

according to canon law.

that he was of age, and the religious head

III. The property of churches, monas-

of his community had the right to try to

teries, and institutions of social welfare

dissuade him in the presence of his par-

was held and administered by the pa-

ents or relatives. During the long Otto-

triarch and his bishops. Abuses of a finan-

man rule this stipulation was violated re-

cial nature were investigated and pun-

peatedly in actual practice, but nonethe-

ished by the patriarchal court. Further-

less its inclusion in the berats saved thou-

more, the church could impose taxes for

sands of Christians from forceful islami-

her purposes. The priests and their con-

zation.

gregations had to make yearly payments

The state promised not to interfere in

to defray the honorarium which the bish-

the execution of the Christians' religious

duties. They could keep sacred books and
icons on their premises, and they could

to office. If these payments were made in

kind, the state undertook not to charge

conduct church services and religious

rites unmolested.

portation. The state pledged its support

op gave to the state on his appointment

customs duties and tolls during the trans-

II. The administration and discipline

to the bishop in the collection of the

of the church were safe from interference

parishioners' dues. It is easy to see that

as long as the taxes and dues were paid

the bishop's power could be abused by

and there was no question of treason

against the state. The patriarch and the

unscrupulous ecclesiastics.
In case of death the possessions of

holy synod associated with him were free

unmarried clergymen went to the Patri-

to appoint the clergy; they had the super-

archate, not to the imperial treasury.

Any Christian who so desired could bequeath as much as one-third of his property to the church and its welfare institutions, and such property would be immune and inalienable unless an imperial
decree was issued to the contrary.
IV. The personal status of Orthodox

vision of churches and monasteries; and

they investigated complaints against

clergymen. The government had no right
to arrest, dismiss, or banish bishops or
priests without the approval of the Patri-

archate. The patriarch could administer

punishment to the clergy with the con-

sent of the synod. In case of grievances

against the patriarch and the uppermost
ranks of the clergy, the trial could be held
only in the capital, in front of an imperial

divan composed of kaziaskers and other

high officials. In penal cases involving

lower clergy the summons went through

Christians remained under the sole jurisdiction of the Patriarchate, which alone
had the right to issue marriage licenses
and divorce decrees. Thus the church retained a wide measure of authority in
matters pertaining to family and inheritance law, and, until the time when

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

THE GREEK CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE 243

church courts were abolished by the

Turkish republic, Christians were tried
according to the provisions of Roman
and Byzantine jurisprudence. Other

cases, too, were tried at the Patriarchate,

as the rayas tended to prefer Christian
justice to the verdict of the Turkish kadi.
A punishment of flogging or bastinado
was not infrequent, and it was administered to the culprit in the churchyard,
with a vigilant ecclesiastic counting the

blows from an upper window. In the Patriarchate there was a prison until the
latter part of the nineteenth century.

V. External evidences of the authority

of the church were also mentioned in
berats. We note, for example, the right of
the bishops to carry a staff, to ride on
horseback, to have a bodyguard, and to

travel in boats with two or three oarsmen. The patriarch's attendants carried

chains which they would throw around

the neck of anyone who threatened to

embrace Islam, thus indicating that he

was insane and irresponsible. In days
when servitude was as gloomy as it was
oppressive, the gates of Phanar would be
left open during three days and two
nights for the Easter celebrations of the

rayas. Dancing, singing, playing musical

instruments, and wearing festive clothing-forbidden the rest of the year-

were permitted by the Turks on those

days in the precincts of the Patriarchate."
Such, in brief, was the position of the
Church of Constantinople vis-a-vis the

Ambitious patriarchs traveled within the

empire and abroad. The most important

patriarchal journey was that of Jeremiah

Tranos, who went to Moscow to collect
money and established the Russian patriarchate (1589), the fifth patriarchate of
the Eastern church.37 In peacetime the
Church of Constantinople kept up regular relations with the Orthodox peoples
outside the empire. The delicate position
of the Patriarchate in times of RussoTurkish conflict demanded the presence
of especially astute men at Phanar. Not
all the patriarchs were so; at times awkward management of complicated affairs
made the position of the church extremely difficult and created problems
among the Turks themselves.
But in the midst of all sorts of critical
situations the position of the patriarchate remained intact. Individual Patriarchs could be dethroned and even executed, but the institution itself was respected. Behind it lay Ottoman traditionalism, which had assumed an almost
sacred character. Not even money, in an
age of corruption, was enough to effect a
change. In the year 1700 the Jews bribed
some officials and asked to have the chief
rabbi precede the patriarch on formal occasions when the minority leaders were in
attendance. The sultan, however, issued
a decree directing that the rights of the
Greeks were irrevocable.38 By means of
its prominent position the Church of
Constantinople continued protecting the
remnants of Christendom in southeast-

Ottoman Empire. From the reign of

37 YPSILANTES, pp. 113-14. An old, but still use-

Selim I, who conquered the Arabic countries, the patriarch of Constantinople

represented his colleagues of Antioch,

ful, biography of Jeremiah II was written by C. N.

Alexandria, and Jerusalem on account of

his advantageous location near the Porte.

SATHAS, BLoypacL4Kov TXEOLaac/a rEept II arpLcdpXov

'IfpE/Ulov ,B' [Biographical sketch of Patriarch

Jeremiah II] (Athens, 1870). The chronicle of
Dorotheos of Monemvasia, pertinent excerpts of
which are included in this book, is a valuable source
for the establishment of the Russian patriarchate.

36 For a vivid description of the festivities see

Caesarios DAPONTES, in SATHAS, Bibliotheca Graeca

38 The document was published in Greek by the

Rt. Rev. GENNADIUS OF HELIOPOLIS, Orthodoxia, VI

medii aevi (Venice, 1872), III, 131-35.

(1931), 432-34.

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

244 G. GEORGIADES ARNAKIS

ern Europe and in Asia Minor, and it

hand was taken away by the other, be-

saved the subject nationalities of the

Balkan peninsula from being absorbed

fanaticism, arbitrary rule, the idea that

by the Turks. For a period of four cen-

the Christians were inferior, and-unfor-

turies it waged a struggle against islami-

tunately-the rivalries and intrigues of

zation and turkification-an unequal, relentless struggle-with inadequate means

great influence."40 True, the state recog-

but with silent determination not to

nized the institutional rights of the church

cause there was no religious tolerance;

the Christians themselves, exerted a

yield. Its historical mission was accom-

in official documents, but government

plished with the national liberation of the

agents and people violated them in prac-

Greeks, Serbs, Romanians, and Bul-

tical application in numerous individual

garians. In view of the services rendered,

it would be unfair to speak of oppression

instances, profiteering at the expense of

of the Balkan peoples by the Greek

church.39 If there were a few unworthy

bishops in ages of darkness, despotism,

and corruption, certainly they are not
enough to obscure the magnificent work
of national conservation which was done
by the Church of Constantinople, the institution that, in the midst of adversity,

church property, blackmailing, humiliating and persecuting the clergy, and even
converting Christians by force.
Nor was the head of the church spared
harsh treatment in times of outbursts of
fanaticism or when suspected of treasonable dealings. Several patriarchs were
banished or imprisoned-in some cases,

represented the last heritage of the ven-

it is true, on account of intrigue or incompetence. Cyril I Lucaris (tt638), Cyril II

erable Byzantine Empire.

(tt639), Parthenius II (tt651), Parthe-

nius III (tt657), and Gregory V (tt821)

II
died the death of martyrs: the first three
In order to appreciate the Patriarchas victims of the antagonism between
ate's struggle in the interests of Chriscatholicism and protestantism, the fourth
tianity, it is necessary to glance at the
a victim of slander, the fifth a sacrifice for
darker side of the picture. Indeed, a
the cause of Greek independence. It is
study of the Church of Constantinople
noteworthy, however, that the Turks
would not be complete without some atexecuted them after they had had them
tempt to penetrate into the problems
deposed and replaced, not as patriarchs
which it had to face and the oppressive
but as disloyal subjects. Yet, though the
limitations under which-and in spite of
Porte took care not to attack the church
which-it survived. A Greek church hisas an institution, Greek ecclesiastical
torian of repute at the beginning of our
leaders knew that they were practically
century, Rev. Philaretos Vapheides,
helpless in times of trouble. The capitulamakes the suggestive remark that the
tions from the reign of Suleiman the
fate of the Balkan peoples would have
Magnificent to the first World War afbeen different had the Ottoman Turks
forded a degree of protection to Catholic
followed the policy of 1453 without deviand Protestant communities, but not
ation. "Whatever was offered by one
until the year 1774 did the Greek church
find a supporter in a coreligionist. Rus39 Cf. AMANTOS, "The charters of Islam," Hellenica, IX, 157, refuting the opinion of S. BOBCEV,sia's interest, however, was as much of an

"Coup d'ceil sur le regime juridique des Balkans

sous le r6gime ottoman," Revue internationale des
etudes balkaniques, II (1935), 529.

40 Philaretos VAPHEIDES, 'EKKX77o La7LKr1 toropLa

[Church history] (Constantinople, 1912), IIIA, 15.

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

THE GREEK CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE 245

encumbrance as it was a blessing, since it

blessed by Allah and Mohammed, his

compromised the loyalty of the church in

prophet.

Turkish eyes and led to difficulties with

The belief that theirs was the final religion, their self-righteous superiority
and scorn of others,41 often led to acts

the government. The patriarchs had to

be on their guard constantly because the

struggle for survival and ascendancy

which were in violation of solemn

pledges. Even Gennadius Scholarius did
not have a carefree pontificate. Failing

produced the typical Phanariote clergy-

health, an ungenerous disposition to his

man-a subtle, vigorous, calculating

subordinates, and, chiefly, difficulties

with the Turks obliged him to resign
three times; but he came back, perhaps
because there was no one better qualified
to face the crisis.42 No less than twelve
churches were taken over by the Turks in
his lifetime. Shortly after the Fall, the
Church of the Holy Apostles, where the
Patriarchate had been established, had to
be abandoned because the Turks proved
to be very unfriendly neighbors. The

shadow of the hangman loomed large

over the Golden Horn. A many-sided

man, who could bow down to necessity

and could rise again, none the weaker, to

pursue his ends with judicious perseverance. He did not hesitate to fight his environment with weapons which were in
current use in the oriental autocracy. He

bribed the strong and greedy, he flat-

tered the vain, he threatened with the

fire of hell, he even sought to intimidate
weak-minded magistrates-in short, he
used every means possible to avert dan-

gers and to attain as much security as

possible for himself and his coreligionists. By dint of circumstances, very few

of these men appear to be otherworldly,

saintly characters; but most of them possessed such qualities of statesmanship as
are rarely found in religious institutions,
with the exception, perhaps, of the Vatican. Their importance in history can be

appreciated if one bears in mind that

these men, unarmed and unprotected,
waged a struggle for Christianity which
in earlier days was waged by leaders like
Heraclius, Nicephorus Phocas, and the
three Comneni, at the head of formidable
armies. The patriarchs and their bishops
had to face a well-organized rival who
had crushed the Byzantine Empire and
its loyalties and, as undisputed master of
about fifty million people, threatened the
heartland of Europe, the center of the
Holy Roman Empire. Only the power of
tradition, the much-spoken-of ayni, still
exerted a restraining influence upon these
arrogant fanatics whose swords had been

Holy Apostles was the most sacred building after St. Sophia, but it was demolished by the government, and the
Mosque of Mohammed the Conqueror
(Mehmed Fatih djamisi) was built on its
site, designed by the sultan's biographer,
Critobulus of Imbros. For over a hundred years the Patriarchate was situated
at the Church of Pammacaristos, a far
less pretentious edifice.
Mohammed the Conqueror interfered
in the purely ecclesiastical duties of the

patriarch on account of the divorce of

George Amiroutsis, his attendant and
eulogist.43 Amiroutsis wanted to marry
the pretty widow of the Duke of Athens,
but he was already a married man, and

Patriarch Joasaph Coccas (1464-66)

would not grant a divorce, which he regarded as unlawful. The price he paid for
his honesty was exile and humiliation,

while a subordinate clergyman lost his

41 Koran, III, 27 A, V, 56 (BELL'S translation).

42 YPSILANTES, p. 6; cf. also AMANTOS, "The

charters of Islam," Hellenica, IX, 142.

43 CRUSIUS, pp. 121-23.

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

246 G. GEORGIADES ARNAKIS

nose for failure to convince his master.

The split-nosed ecclesiastic was later
elected patriarch under the name of
Maximus HII, and his election was confirmed by the Conqueror, whose bad
temper had in the meantime calmed
down.
The outward vestiges of religious or-

would raise no objection to the building

project. In due course the fetva would be
submitted to the sultan, who would grant
a firman authorizing the petitioners to

build the church and to complete it within forty days. Under such circumstances

it was hardly possible for the Christians

to have the right kind of church; cus-

tomarily the roofing was done on the

ganization-the church buildings-defortieth
day, with nails only half driven
creased in number as the years went by.
in.46
They were transformed into mosques, to
Frequently there would be squabbles
the dismay of the Christians. Selim I
with
the Turkish mob, more friction,
took possession of all the stone leadmore
obstruction, and more bribery.
roofed churches in the capital except the
There
was always ample roomn for blackPammacaristos, which was spared at
mail.
The
eighteenth-century Constantithat time because of the intervention of
nopolitan
chronicler,
Athanasius Comnea powerful Greek called Xenakis. It was
nos-Ypsilantes,
records
many interesting
taken from the Greeks during the pontifiincidents
that
occurred
on
similar occacate of Jeremiah II, about seventy years
sions,
and
he
sheds
light
on
the good as
later.44 The Patriarchate found shelter at
well
as
the
bad
aspects
of
Ottoman
first in the Panagia at Xyloporta and
autocracy.
It
appears
that
well-meaning
later in St. Demetrius. Each of these
viziers
would
take
action
against
the
churches was a poor structure, housing a
abuses
whenever
it
was
thought
expedipoverty-stricken organization.45 Finally,
ent. A lot depended on the influence that
in 1603, St. George of Phanar became the
the patriarch and other Greeks might
cathedral church, and it has remained
have
on the Sublime Porte. Jeremiah III
the patriarch's seat until now. It was one
was
able
to rebuild the patriarchal
of the small churches which the Turks
church
in
1720 and even to add a dome,
had not taken.
In place of their old churches the
Greeks were allowed to build little,
humble structures with wooden roofs.
But it was not easy to get such permission. In each case afetva had to be issued

by the ulema (doctors of Islamic theol-

which fell down a little later. Likewise,

the old Church of Our Lady of the Lifegiving Fountain was enlarged in the
1790's.

Whenever the sultan transplanted

whole communities to the capital, he
would usually allow them to build their

ogy), testifying that the new place of

church under favorable circumstances.
worship would not be obnoxious to Islam
We
know, for instance, that when Moor to the state. In addition to bribing
hammed
the Conqueror invaded the
several officials, it was found necessary to
Crimea
he
carried many Christians to
distribute money among the Turkish
Constantinople,
and he permitted them
families of the neighborhood so that they

to build the Panagia of Caffa, in Galata.

When Suleiman the Magnificent brought
BLo,ypaq5LKo'P o-XE6LaoLua, pp. 15-16. Dissensions
over Christians from Belgrade, who
among the Greeks were largely responsible for the
settled near the Rhegium gate and northloss.
44 DOROTHEOS OF MONEMVASIA, in SATHAS,

45 CRUSIUS, p. 15; YPSILANTES, p. 5.

46GEDEON, BpaxE6a mqThlElwats, pp. 108, 112-14.

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

THE GREEK CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE 247

west of the city in the suburb named

Belgrade, they built their churches.47

priuliu insisted that the patriarch should be

confirmed by the grand vizier.49 The gift
Happy events in the imperial household,
of one thousand florins which the Consuch as the birth of princes, were celequeror offered to Gennadius was disconbrated with a general illumination of the
tinued by the Conqueror himself when
capital, and permission was granted to
some Greeks offered to pay him an equal
the Christian communities to repair their
sum for the appointment of their favorite
churches for the occasion.
in 1467. Henceforth on the accession of a
new patriarch or a new sultan money
In the beginning of the nineteenth cengifts were offered to the sultan and later
tury the Turks relaxed their vigilance
to the grand vizier. Beginning with two
over the building activities of their subthousand florins the sum went up steadjects until in the 1830's it was possible
ily; an additional annual payment was
to build a church without an imperial
introduced which, too, showed an upfirzan. It was then that several churches
ward trend; and the general result was
were constructed in Constantinople to
that the financial obligations of the Pareplace those destroyed during the Greek
triarchate to the empire became a drain
revolution.
upon the limited resources of the
In the provinces there was comparachurch.50 Thus the patriarchal office was
tively more freedom. Monasteries away
open to the highest bidder; there was a
from the cities were usually left undisgrowing tendency for wealthier bishops
turbed, though not infrequently they
were deprived of their estates and the
monks were generally obliged to pay
head tax. Some monasteries in the vicinity of Constantinople, however, were destroyed under various pretexts. Our
chronicler mentions the Monastery of
Theotokos at Chile and St. George on the
Thynia Island, on the Asiatic side of the
Straits, and Prodromos at Sozopolis and
Mavro Molo, on the European side.48
The confirmation ceremony of the new

patriarch by the sultan lost some of its

original pomp in the course of time, but
until the middle of the seventeenth century it was conducted by the sultan in
person. In 1657, however, after the execution of Parthenius III, Mehmed Ko47 Scarlatos BYZANTIOS, 'H Kwvo-,raP'rvo6roXts
[Constantinople] (Constantinople, 1851), II, 51163. Fr. Giese expressed the view that the privileges
of the Church of Constantinople originated from the
fact that the Christian population was brought in
from outside ("Die geschichtliche Grundlage ftir die
Stellung der Christlichen Untertanen im Osmanischen Reich," Der Islam, XIX [1931], 264-67).
48 YPSILANTES, pp. 132-33, 292.

to be elected; and as might be expected,

these were not always the holiest men.
Ambitious but less wealthy bishops
would borrow what they needed from the
Greek guilds of the gardeners, furriers,
and butchers or from Levantine, Armenian, or Jewish moneylenders at ex-

tortionate interest.5' To avoid embarrassment, poor and honest men would decline
the candidacy.52 Early enough the Turks

saw their chance to make money; hence

the sight of patriarchs rising and falling
from their thrones made them glad.
Paparrhegopoulos noted that in seventy-

seven years (from 1623 to 1700) there

49 B. STEPHANIDES, "The official presentation of

the ecumenical patriarch before the sultan" (in

Greek), Neos Poemen, I (1919), 552-58.

50 GEDEON, BpaXeZa a,uetfaas, p. 142; and

a'aaaOs TOV 7rap )/IlV EKKXI7TLaOTLKO) i77T7LaTos

[Phases of our ecclesiastical question] (Constantinople, 1910), pp. 16, 22; see also STEPHANIDES,
'EKKX70LaoTTLK2' loropfa [Church history] (Athens,
1947-48), p. 635.

61 YPSILANTES, p. 142.
f2 Ibid., p. 396.

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

248 G. GEORGIADES ARNAKIS

were as many as fifty changes of patriarch.53 The resulting instability was perhaps the greatest source of weakness. It
was only as late as 1759, according to the
contemporary chronicler, that the holy

years for the Church of Constantinople

to recognize Romania's ecclesiastical autonomy, and the rejection of Bulgaria's
demands led to the ominous schism,

synod decided that the patriarch should

no longer pay the gift out of his own
pocket but out of church funds held under the trusteeship of five of the senior
members of the synod.54

which was terminated in 1945, thanks to

Russian intervention. In the case of Romania the confiscation of extensive
church lands afforded a cause for irritation, and Bulgaria's position as a district
of the Ottoman Empire was a good pre-

In the nineteenth century the financial

text for not granting autonomous ec-

clesiastical status.
position of the Patriarchate was generally
The Turkish government, too, came
better, in spite of the loss of the provinces
under
the influence of Western nationalthat made up the Kingdom of Greece
ism,
and
repeated efforts were made to
(1833), of the Danubian principalities

secularize the mechanism of the state.

(1865), of Bulgaria (1870), and of Serbia
The
proclamations of the Hatti Sherif
(1879). Limited in extent to the remain(1839)
and of the Hatti Humayun (1856)
ing provinces of European Turkey and
spoke
of
civil rights without discriminaAsia Minor, the Church of Constantition
as
to
race or creed; the same docunople was then a more homogeneous
ments
recognized
"the spiritual privistructure. Under wise leaders, among
leges
and
immunities"
which had been
whom Joachim III holds a distinguished
granted
to
non-M
oslem
groups.55 Turks
position, Constantinople maintained its
with
a
Western
political
outlook saw a
moral power and prestige among all
conflict
between
the
two
promises;
many
Orthodox peoples, with the exception of
of
them
were
inclined
to
cancel
the
privischismatic Bulgaria. At the same time,
leges for the sake of equality before the
the establishment of national churches,
law. Their ideal was a secular state. On
appearing as an inevitable consequence
the other hand, long acquaintance with
of nationalism, saved the venerable instiTurkish methods made the national mitution from political entanglements
nority leaders extremely skeptical, and
which it could hardly sustain. Yet the
transfer of ecclesiastical authority to thethey were loath to sacrifice any of their
rights. The Greeks in particular were in
new churches did not occur without psyno way enthusiastic when they were told
chological tension. The Patriarchate was
to send representatives, in accordance
loath to part with its jurisdiction over
with the Treaty of Paris and the new law,
the Christian kingdoms. In the case of
to Phanar to make up the Provisional
Greece, for example, it recognized the
National Council, which would suggest
autonomy of the archibishop of Athens
"les reformes exigees par le progres des
only as late as 1850, and in the early
lumieres et du temps."5" The council,
1880's, it opposed all efforts of the Trimeeting in 1858-59, drew up a detailed
coupis government to take over the

school system of the Greek communities

in European Turkey. It took twenty
53 ITopL-oOa roO AX714KOD fOvovs [History of the

Greek nation] (Athens, 1932), VB, 75-76.

64 YPSILANTES, p. 379.

constitution, whose main provisions dealt

55 W. MILLER, The Ottoman Empire and its

successors (Cambridge: 1936), pp. 151, 298-99.
56 I. de TESTA, Recueil des traites de la Porte Ottomanne avec les puissances etrangeres (Paris, 1864), V,
170.

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

THE GREEK CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE 249

of two
years; and the latter was comwith the election of patriarchs,
metropolposed of four members of the synod apitans, and bishops; the composition and
pointed by the patriarch, and eight laythe functions of the holy synod and the
men elected by the people by indirect
mixed council; the revenues of the Patrisuffrage for a period of two years. In both
archate; and the administration of monbodies decisions were taken by a simple
asteries and welfare institutions. For the
majority vote.57
Greeks such a charter would not constitute a departure from the berats of
In the "General regulations" there
earlier days. In 1861 and 1862 the Subwere no essential innovations of a judilime Porte accepted it with some few res- ciary nature. There was, nonetheless, a
ervations. In its final form it was pubgrowing sentiment among the Turks in
lished by the Patriarchal Press in 1862
favor of secular justice. The law of A.H.
under the title: "General regulations con1296 (A.D. 1879) sought to extend the
cerning the management of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the state courts at the exand national affairs of the Orthodox
pense of ecclesiastical prerogative, by esChristian subjects of H.I. Majesty the
tablishing a uniform procedure independSultan, who are under the Ecumenical
ently of religious custom.58 Evidences of
Throne."
secular law intruding into the domain
According to the "General regulaof the church appeared in the berat of
tions," the candidates for the patriarchal
1882, which spoke of trial of the patriarch
office were nominated by the metropoliand bishops by Turkish courts and the
tans of the provinces and of the capital,
right of police agents to arrest clergythe holy synod, and the representatives
men. In the following year the ministry
of the laity. The list of candidates was
of justice empowered civil courts to deal
then submitted to the Porte, which ruled
with cases of inheritance and alimony.
out the personae non gratae. From the reFearing greater encroachments in the
maining names the electoral assembly
near future, the patriarch protested and
chose three candidates, and from these
showed a determination to hold his own.
three the council of prelates elected the
Negotiations proved of no avail, as the

patriarch. The electoral assembly was

Porte planned to abolish not only judicomposed of about twenty bishops- the
ciary but also educational privileges.
number might vary-and seventy-three
The Patriarchate declared that the
laymen, the latter representing a wide
Greeks would never agree to reforms t
cross-section of the community. The
interfered with the independence of th
council of prelates, which was also a part
church. Joachim III resigned in 1884.
of the electoral assembly, was made up of
To avoid further complications, the
the twelve members of the holy synod
Porte declared that "there had never
and the metropolitans who happened to
been the slightest thought of changing
be present in Constantinople.
the religious privileges and the legitimate
For administrative purposes there
concessions which had been granted to
were two permanent bodies assisting and
57 For more details concerning these institutions
checking the patriarch: the holy synod
see F. van den STEEN DE JEHAY, La situation legale
and the mixed council. The former,
des sujets ottomans non-musulmans (Brussels, 1906),
whose membership was open to all metropp. 96-106.
politans on the principle of rotation, in58 George YOUNG, Corps de droit ottoman (Oxford,
1905), I, 166.
cluded twelve men, each serving a term

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

250 G. GEORGIADES ARNAKIS

the Patriarchate from the beginning."59

with regard to the minority groups,

The "question of privileges," as it

turned to the ultra-nationalist scheme of

came to be called, was raised again in

forceful assimilation. The Greek church

1890. This time, too, the patriarch,

drew the attention of the revolutionists

Dionysius V, resigned. As a last measure

from the very first. Among other meas-

the holy synod closed the churches and

ures, they subjected the Greek schools to

suspended all religious functions. The in-

the control of the Turkish ministry of

education, and they sought to enforce

terdict lasted three months, at the end of

which the grand vizier showed a conciliatory attitude. Negotiations were resumed
(1891), but the church had to make a few

civil marriage. The war of 1914 favored

their plans. Later, during the Allied oc-

cupation of Constantinople (1918-22),

concessions: penal cases involving clergymen were to be tridd in state courts, and

the Patriarchate recovered its pre-ious

the convicted ecclesiastics could serve

unprecedented level. It was a last glow.

Following the Greek evacuation of Asia

their sentence, as before, in the Patriarchate or in the bishop's quarters, but,

pending trial, they were to be detained in

a special section of state prisons; in cases

of divorce the amount of alimony should
be fixed by Ottoman courts; and Turkish
officials henceforth could inspect Greek
schools, with the consent of the bishop.60
The Young Turkish revolution, after
futile attempts to apply a liberal policy
STEPHANIDES, 'EKKX?ataaTKE Lt OPTaL P. 638.

80 Van den STEEN DE JEHAY, Pp. 111-12.

authority, and its prestige rose to an

Minor and Eastern Thrace, the sweeping

reforms of Mustafa Kemal, founder of

the Turkish republic, abolished all traces

of theocracy and restricted the Greek Patriarchate to its purely religious functions

within the city of Constantinople, henceforth called exclusively "Istanbul." With

the death of the Ottoman Empire, the
privileged position of the Greek church
came to an end.
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CITY

This content downloaded from 93.34.112.148 on Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms