of the patriarch Dionysios I. The patriarch was beholden to Apokaukos, because the latter had arranged his redemption from slavery in the aftermath of the fall of the City. Contemporaries were confident that, while Dionysios was patriarch, the patriarchal finances would remain in Apokaukos's hands.32

Archontes, like Apokaukos, usually had connections with the Ottoman financial administration. They disposed of important capital assets and might be involved in tax farming and state monopolies, such as customs and salt production. They often had relatives, who having converted to Islam obtained high position in the Ottoman state. The archontes were therefore able to mediate on behalf of the Greek Orthodox clergy; sometimes with beneficial results. However, this role allowed them to intervene directly in the activities and business of the patriarchate, to the extent that they were able to participate unofficially in meetings of synod. When the patriarchs began to pay an annual tribute to the sultan, they became more and more dependent upon these notables, who could lend them money, but could also, as a quidpro quo, exercise pressure upon them in order to promote their own interests, which were often incompatible with the ideals of the church. The patriarchate owed 7000 florins to Mara Brankovic, whom we have already seen offering 2000 florins to the sultan in the hope of securing the elevation of her candidate to the patriarchal throne.33 As the years passed and the taxes claimed by the Ottoman state increased, so the influence of the archontes grew to the detriment of the standing and prestige of the patriarchate.34

On the positive side these archontes remained attached to the traditions of Orthodoxy and contributed to the survival of Greek culture. They offered support to scholars and teachers; they maintained Greek schools and founded churches. Some of them were well educated. Their taste is reflected in the Greek manuscripts preserved at Topkapi, which are dated to the reign of Mehmed II. Though rather later, the case of the notorious Greek banker and businessman Michael Kantakouzenos is instructive. Despite his nickname -Seitanoglu (the Devil's son) - he was deeply involved in the affairs of the patriarchate. After his execution in 1575 on the orders of Sultan Murad III he left behind a remarkable collection of classical and theological manuscripts.35

32 E. A. Zachariadou, 'Les notables laïques et le patriarcat oecuménique après la chute de Constantinople', Turcica 30 (1998), 132.

33 Laurent, 'Premiers patriarches', 234, 256-7.

34 Zachariadou, 'Notables laïques', 119-34.

35 J. Raby, 'Mehmed the Conqueror's Greek scriptorium', DOP37 (1983), 15-34; Zachariadou, 'Notables laïques', 124,127-8.

This continuing stress on Greek culture explains why most of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century patriarchs came from Greek-speaking territories, most often from Constantinople, the Peloponnese or Trebizond. One can also understand the odd case of the Serbian Patriarch Raphael I (1475-76), who managed to obtain the patriarchal throne without the support of the Greek community. Contemporaries were at pains to stress his ethnic origin, labelling him as Serbian, Bulgarian, Scythian or just plain 'barbarian'. They condemned him both for his drunkenness and for his lack of Greek, which meant that he had to use an interpreter. Without any support from the Greek archontes Raphael found it impossible to pay the sultan his annual tribute and was thrown into prison. It was a cautionary tale, which showed that far from being ecumenical the patriarchate was decidedly Greek: an outcome due in large measure to the influence of the archontes.36

According to the berat, which the patriarch received from the sultan, the former's authority extended over all the Orthodox inhabitants of the territories subject to the ecumenical patriarchate before 1453. It goes without saying that also included were all members of the ecclesiastical and monastic hierarchy, the structure of which survived unchanged, that is, metropolitans, archbishops and bishops, patriarchal and episcopal dignitaries and functionaries, and priests, together with abbots of monasteries, monks and nuns. The metropolitans, archbishops and bishops chosen by the patriarch and synod constituted the religious authorities recognised by the Ottomans and when appointed were in receipt of berats. The Ottoman administration ignored the lower clergy, the papades, who were dependent on the metropolitans and bishops, from whom they farmed their parish church; some priests, who possessed larger capital, were able to take on more than one parish church. The profession of priest was quite often hereditary under Ottoman domination.37 Metropolitans, bishops and parish priests constituted the traditional network of ecclesiastical administration. There were, in addition, the patriarchal exarchs, who were directly appointed by the patriarch to administer certain villages, islands or small towns, which lay scattered within the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarchate and came under the patriarch's

36 Zachariadou, 'Notables laïques', 130-i.Cf. S. Runciman, The Great Church in captivity: a study of the patriarchate of Constantinople from the eve of the Turkish conquest to the Greek War of Independence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 409.

37 P. Odorico (with S. Asdrachas, T. Karanastassis, K. Kostis and S. Petmézas), Conseils et memoires de Synadinos prêtre de Serres en Macédoine (XVIIe siècle) (Paris: Association Pierre Belon, 1996), 86-8, 90, 528-9.

direct administration. The office of exarch was already in existence during the Byzantine period, but became more prominent from the sixteenth century onwards.38

During the Byzantine period the state provided a regular income for the clergy, including the lower clergy,39 but under Ottoman domination their income derived directly from taxes paid by the faithful. The collection of these taxes was a privilege granted by the sultans, who apparently continued the Byzantine tax, known as the kanonikon, levied on the inhabitants, the priests and the monasteries of a region in order to cover the expenses of their metropolitan or their bishop. Under the Ottomans the mechanism of taxation was pyramid-shaped: at the base were the rank and file of churchgoers and at the summit there was the ecumenical patriarch. The revenue from these taxes went not only to support the clergy, but also to meet their financial obligations to the Ottoman state, that is, the pi$ke$ paid by metropolitans, bishops and the patriarch himself for their berat, together with the annual tribute due from the patriarch to the sultan. These obligations were repeatedly mentioned to the faithful to justify the collection of taxes and are also mentioned in the sultans' berats, where it was stressed that they were optional and that nobody should be forced to pay against their will. Nevertheless, all ecclesiastical taxes became regular and compulsory, while new ones were introduced, such as the embatikion, that is, a sum paid by a clergyman to his bishop when he was ordained, and the philotimon, which was a special present. In addition the church levied taxes on fairs.40

Sometimes the collection of patriarchal taxes provoked an adverse reaction on the part of metropolitans and bishops. In these cases the patriarch sought the intervention of the sultan, who provided the necessary support, as long as he considered the taxes legal. If the financial state of the patriarchate became too difficult, the patriarch organised special tours with the aim of collecting the taxes in person. On such occasions he had to obtain a special document from the sultan commanding the Ottoman authorities to help the patriarch collect in full any back payments as well as the taxes of the current year and to ignore any excuses made by the debtors. During such tours the patriarch

38 M. Pa'izi-Apostolopoulou, O dsap.o<; Tqs vaTpiapx'KTjs £^c(pX'aS, 14°S-19°S aiwvas (Athens: Centre of Neohellenic Studies, 1995), 51-66.

39 E. S. Papagianni, Ta oixovoixiKa too '¿yyaixou K^-qpou uto Bu^aVTio (Athens: A. N. Sakkoulas, 1986), 78-128.

40 E. Herman, 'Das bischofliche Abgabenwesen im Patriarchat von Konstantinopel von XI. bis zur Mitte des XIX. Jahrhunderts', OCP5 (1939), 437-67, 489-99. Cf. Zachariadou, AsKa ToupKiKa'eyypa<pa, 99-101.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment