their prestige in Christian circles. It was characteristic of their policy that, in those cases where they acquired former Byzantine territories, which hadpassed under Latin rule, one of their first actions was to re-establish the Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities. In similar fashion the sultans provided protection for monasteries and granted tax exemptions to monastic and ecclesiastical landed property. In some cases they guaranteed revenues to metropolitans and bishops through the grant of timars.3 The patriarch of Constantinople together with the holy synod nominated metropolitans and bishops in the various towns of Asia Minor and the Balkans; but the latter were then obliged to obtain permission from the sultan before settling among their flock.4 If not quite collaboration, this meant recognition of Ottoman authority by the Greek clergy. With the final fall of Constantinople the Orthodox Church acquired greater unity: not only was it officially recognised by the sultan; it was also administratively under the same political regime.
Constantinople was a city that carried symbolic meaning for both the Christian and the Muslim world. When Mehmed II entered it as a conqueror and declared that it was now the capital of his empire, he was realising an old Muslim dream. However, the city was devoid of inhabitants, because the victorious troops had enslaved its population. The sultan immediately took measures for its repopulation and the restoration of its buildings.5 It needed a number of years before this decision took concrete shape. In the meantime, Adrianople remained the effective capital. The conqueror did not move his palace and the administration of the empire from the old to the new capital until 1460 at the earliest. By way of contrast, he had appointed Gennadios Scholarios6 to the vacant patriarchal throne as early as January 1454. Since the other religious communities ofConstantinople, the Jewish and the Armenian, were not officially organised until several years later,7 it immediately becomes apparent that the restoration of the patriarchate was a priority for the sultan.
3 H. Inalcik, Fatih devri iizerinde tetkikler ve vesikalar (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu xi, 1954), I, 151, 159. Cf.H. Inalcik, 'Ottoman archival materials on millets', in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman empire, ed. B. Braude and B. Lewis (London and New York: Holmes and Meier, 1982), I, 448-9.
4 Zachariadou, AsKaToupKiKa'syypa<pa, 149.
5 H. Inalcik, 'The policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek population of Istanbul and the Byzantine buildings of the city', DOP 23/24 (1969), 231-49.
6 C. J. G. Turner, 'The carrier of George-Gennadius Scholarius', B 39 (1969), 420-55; M. Cacouros, 'Un patriarche aè Rome, un katholikos didaskalos au patriarcat et deux donations tardives de reliques du seigneur: Greégoire III Mamas et Georges Scholarios, le synode et la synaxis', in BuÇâvTio: KpaTos KaÎKoivœvia, ed. A. Avramea, A. Laiou and E. Chrysos (Athens: Institute for Byzantine Studies, 2003), 106-22.
7 B. Braude, 'Foundation myths in the millet system', in Christians and Jews, I, 69-88.
The three eastern patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, which had been under Islamic rule since the seventh century, provided the necessary precedents that allowed the conqueror to take decisions according to the principles of his religion.8 But sheer expediency also played its part in the restoration of the patriarchate. The sultan reckoned correctly that the presence in Constantinople of the ecumenical patriarch would encourage Greek settlement.9 Mehmed was well aware that his new capital needed inhabitants with experience of urban life and that he would find them among the Greek population. To this end he made repeated use of the well-tried Ottoman measure of compulsory resettlement (surgun). Most of the immigrants came from Greek localities, such as Phokaia, Athens, Argos or Lesbos.10 Mehmed II also saw the appointment of a patriarch with strong anti-Latin feelings, such as Gennadios, as a way of ingratiating himself with his Orthodox subjects.
The circumstances of Gennadios's appointment to the ecumenical throne remain unclear for two reasons. In the first place, fact was soon distorted by a mythology which aimed at showing that even the unbelievers had unlimited respect for the Orthodox faith; in the second, there is just so little contemporary evidence. Only three contemporaries, Kritoboulos, a Greek notable from Imbros, who wrote a biography of Mehmed II, the ecclesiastical official Theodoros Agallianos,11 and Gennadios himself, have left any information about this important event, but even they failed to go into details. They described the restoration ofthe patriarchate as a quite unexpected event, which they attributed to the sultan's magnanimity, philanthropy and good will, while stressing his respect for the office and the person of the patriarch. All three belonged to the anti-unionist milieu and, consciously or unconsciously, wished to contrast the sultan's generous attitude towards Orthodoxy with Roman Catholic condescension. Since they also wished to influence Greek opinion in favour of the sultan, they chose to ignore the fact that his decisions conformed in large measure to Islamic political tradition.12
8 C. E. Bosworth, 'Christians and Jewish religious dignitaries in Mamluk Egypt and Syria: Qalqashandi's information on their hierarchy titulature and appointment', International Journal of Middle East Studies 3 (1972), 66-74, 199-216.
9 Zachariadou, AsKaToupKiKa'syypa<pa, 59-60.
10 Inalcik, 'Policy of Mehmed II', 235; H. Inalcik, 'Istanbul', in Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition (Leiden: Brill, 1978), iv, 224-7.
11 C. G. Patrineles, 'OQsoSwpos AyaAAiavos TauTi^djsvos nposTovQso<pavqvMqSsias Kaiol avKSoToi Aoyoi Tou (Athens: Academy of Athens, 1966).
12 Zachariadou, AsKaToupKiKa'syypa<pa, 41-2.
Was this article helpful?