Yusuf Karabicak
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Yusuf Karabicak Local Patriots and Ecumenical Ottomans: Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Morea, 1770-1821 Georgios Tertsetis, the editor of the memoirs of Theodoros Kolokotronis, relates how the latter once told him that “He [the Patriarch] did whatever the Sultan told him to do.” Kolokotronis had reason to resent the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Calinicus V (p. 1801-1806 and 1808-1809) had excommunicated the kleftoi and the armatoloi of Morea in 1805 contributing to his exile. Gregorius V (p. 1797–1798, 1806–1808 and 1818-1821) had excommunicated the rebels in 1821. Thus, the total absence of the Patriarchate in the memoirs of Kolokotronis is understandable. The same can be said of many other participants of the Greek Independence. A lot of them do not even mention the execution of Gregorius V, the “ethnomartyras.” This paper explores the background of this omission. The aim is to read the complex relationship between the kocabaşıs and the kleftoi of the Morea and the agents of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople between 1770 and 1821. The Orlov revolts of 1770 is taken as a starting point as it had underlined Russia as an alternative power with whom local (Christian) landholders could negotiate. Faced with a powerful rival over the loyalties of Moreot Christian magnates, the Ottomans turned to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople and its officials. New metropolitans who were appointed immediately after the suppression of the rebellion were involved in the production of Ottoman policies following the war. They became crucial partners of Ottoman governance in Morea. This is not to argue for the primacy of the metropolitans in local affairs. The scene was still dominated by the complex relationships between Muslim Moreot landholders, local Christian magnates and the kleftoi/armatoloi. Each side tried to influence the capital without needing the metropolitans to mediate for them. In fact, Christian magnates frequently succeeded in getting their own metropolitans in their spheres of influence by using their ties in Constantinople. I use Ottoman Turkish and Greek sources to explore these tensions between local patriotisms and ecumenical designs. Taking my cue from Dean J. Konstantaras’ work and the wider literature on territorial patriotism, I argue that by 1800, the local magnates got involved in projects that concerned Morea as a unit and negotiated their position with different empires. Around the same time, Christian magnates started referring to the territory as their fatherland (patris). The idea that their immediate interests were linked to the future of the territory in general gained wider acceptance. The Patriarchate’s importance for Ottoman designs in Morea was its ability to keep Moreot patriotism within an Ottoman framework. However, the Patriarchate was left with no influence when the clergymen in Morea allied with local magnates in the revolutionary project. The Patriarch in 1821 was not a factor in Morea. Interestingly, this total defeat is mentioned as one of the reasons for the execution of Gregorius V. The alliance that started in 1770 ended in a tragedy in 1821. Yusuf Karabicak completed his undergraduate and graduate studies at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul. In December 2020, he has successfully defended his PhD thesis titled “Local Patriots and Ecumenical Ottomans: The Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Ottoman Configuration of Power, 1768- 1828” at McGill University and EHESS (France). Currently, he is a postdoctoral researcher at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (Germany) carrying out a project titled “Crisis and Transformation of an Old Regime: Circulation of Ideologies and Institutions between Russian and Ottoman Empires, 1768– 1774” as part of the Transottomanica priority program of the German Research Foundation (DFG). Karabicak's dissertation focuses on the transforming place of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Ottoman power structure of late 18th and early 19th centuries. It treats questions of the rise of great ayans in the Balkans, center-periphery relationships, the dissemination of revolutionary ideologies in the Ottoman Empire as well as the submission and loyalty of Orthodox Christians to the Ottoman power. 3 .