CHRONOS Revue d’Histoire de l’Université de Balamand 41, 2020, pp. 37-62

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER: THE ARCHBISHOPS OF AND THE REGALIA PRIVILEGES

MICHALIS N. MICHAEL1

Abstract According to tradition, and not historical sources, the Byzantine emperor Zeno granted to the Archbishop of Cyprus, Anthemios, and his successors three important privileges; the right to carry a gold orbed sceptre, to wear a robe in imperial purple and to sign his official documents with imperial red ink. The main argument of this paper is that the use of the archbishop’s regalia privileges on a first level and the effort to promote a Greek-speaking civilization in Ottoman Cyprus, from the second half of the 18th century and onwards, are part of an effort to differentiate, but not cancel the Ottoman character of the political power of the clergy and, accordingly, the Ottoman character of the island. In such a framework it seems that these symbols used by the archbishop of Cyprus reproduce the Ottoman — and not the non-Ottoman — character of political power in Cyprus and maintain, if not reinforce, an Ottoman reality for the island.

With the agreement between the and Britain that was concluded behind the scenes at the in 1878, the Ottoman sultan leased the Cyprus administration to Britain against an annual rent (Hill 1952: 269). An Ottoman island since 1571, with two major religious communities, the Muslims and the Orthodox, Cyprus passed, on an administrative level, from the world of the Ottomans to the world of the British colonial system of administration, from the world of the Ottoman East to the world of the British West. According to the signed agreement, the island of Cyprus would continue to be a territory of the Ottoman Empire, and only the administration was leased

1 University of Cyprus.

38 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL to the British state. A few decades later, and more specifically in 1914 in the framework of World War I, Britain declared the annexation of Cyprus to the British Empire, and in 1925 the island was declared as a Crown colony. Although the British administration initially maintained some Ottoman laws and regulations, the status of the prelates of the within the Ottoman system of ruling was an Ottoman reality that the British could not accept (Georghallides 1979: 3-14). In many ways, the arrival of the British opened the way for the imposition of a Western type of modernity with significant complexities due to the realities of the Ottoman centuries in the (Anagnostopoulou 1999: 199). The establishment of a central authority on the island, envisioned to operate as a powerful executive power assisted by other bodies, helped to impose an alternative understanding of state and state administration which reformulated the existing Ottoman system (Michael 2015: 105-130). Soon after the arrival of British forces in Cyprus, a number of books started to be published in order to disseminate information to the British public regarding the new territory administrated by the British Empire. In 1878 the British author William Hepworth Dixon was in Cyprus to witness the transfer of the island from the Sublime Porte’s jurisdiction to Britain. Describing his impressions of the island in one of the first books ever to be published in Britain about Cyprus, Dixon noted among other things his views about the coexistence of the Ottoman pasha, meaning the Ottoman governor of the island, with the archbishop of Cyprus, Sophronios III (1865-1900). He noted:

“Each was a prince in his own world, and bore his signs of royalty in his title and his garb. The pasha was his Excellency and his Highness; the Primate his Excellency and his Beatitude. The temporal ruler bore his staff of state, tipped with a golden apple, and armed with two horse-tails. The spiritual ruler donned a purple robe, carried an imperial wand, and signed his name in vermilion ink. […] Thus, while the pasha stood in the place of a living sultan on the Bosphorus, the Primate stood for the majesty of Constantine, the empire of the world” (Dixon 1879: 42-43).

In the above extract, the regalia privileges of the archbishop of Cyprus are recorded as symbols that denote his spiritual power over his

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 39

Orthodox flock in Cyprus. While on one hand the British author of the book realized that there is a connection between the two forms of power on the island, the pasha and the archbishop, on the other hand it seems that he considered them as forms of power that derived from two different worlds. The Ottoman pasha, with his sceptre and golden apple on the top and horsetails, characterized him as the secular governor, and his symbols denoted his Ottoman political power. The regalia used by the Ottoman pasha are mentioned only as Ottoman insignia of his secular power over the island and its population. The archbishop is dressed in his purple mantle and holds the imperial sceptre, denoting with these symbols his spiritual power and his Byzantine heritage; the archbishop’s presence and his way of representing himself appeared to the British author as a connection to the Byzantine Emperor Constantine, while he did not mention any connection of this appearance with the Ottoman reality of the 19th century. In other words, the regalia used by the archbishop of Cyprus are described as non-Ottoman symbols, and more specifically as Byzantine symbols, of his spiritual power over his flock. Thus, while the power of the Ottoman governor denotes the existing world of the era, the Ottoman world, and the pasha is seen as representing the living sultan, the archbishop is seen as representing a non-existent world, the Byzantine Empire. In Dixon’s eyes, the archbishop of Cyprus holds symbols of mainly cultural and spiritual value, not connected to any political or secular power within the Ottoman reality of Cyprus. In both cases, the pasha and the archbishop represent two sources of power, two worlds which, while coexisting, appear to not be relevant to one another. Additionally, the distinction made by Dixon between the political power of the pasha and the spiritual power of the archbishop of Cyprus appears to remove any political responsibility from the latter, which of course could not be seen as reflecting the reality of the Ottoman state, and especially of Ottoman Cyprus (Michael 2005a). Lastly, even the reference to the use of the archbishop’s regalia privileges appears not to connect these symbols to the real world of the Ottoman state, creating the impression that the archbishop, the head of the Church of Cyprus, used such symbols in order to denote a non-Ottoman world and in many ways perhaps a world that was in contrast with the Ottomans.

40 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL

The question that presents itself through this excerpt — and more specifically the note about the use of the regalia privileges by the archbishops of Cyprus during the Ottoman period in the history of Cyprus — is whether these symbols emphasize and establish a non- Ottoman source of power, a source of power that is spiritual, ‘a different world’ as Dixon mentioned, or whether the symbols emphasize the political power of the archbishop, founded in the Ottoman framework and the status quo of the Church of Cyprus before and after the Tanzimat reforms in the Ottoman state. Could it be that the two powers mentioned in the excerpt represent the existing Ottoman world of that moment and more specifically the existing power of the Ottoman sultan, a living sultan, through the use of different symbols? Could it be that the Ottoman world and especially Ottoman political power — and not spiritual — was represented by the horsetails in the pasha’s sceptre, but at the same time by the imperial sceptre of the archbishop of Cyprus? If the answer to these questions is positive, it could be argued that the regalia privileges, as they were used during that particular era, were symbols only of Ottoman political power. Additionally, an affirmative answer to these questions would mean that the character, or better yet, the content of the Ottoman political power during this period is a complex element that is definitely not static, since it is possible for it to be transformed and acquire different elements other than those that prevailed during the classical period of the empire, before the 17th century. The main argument of this study is that the use of the archbishop’s regalia privileges on a first level and the effort to promote a Greek-speaking civilization within the Ottoman state on behalf of the clergy of the Church of Cyprus from the second half of the 18th century and onwards, were part of an effort to differentiate, but not to cancel the Ottoman character of the political power of the clergy and, accordingly, the Ottoman character of the island. At the same time, the usage of these symbols by the archbishops of Cyprus during the Ottoman period was directly connected with the political power that the sultan granted to the archbishops of Cyprus. This power was definitely not spiritual in any form. So, the regalia privileges imply the Byzantine past, but they worked as elements in the framework of power of the Ottoman present and they could therefore be seen as Byzantium-related symbols of the existing Ottoman political power of the archbishop. In

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 41 such a framework, it seems that these symbols used by the archbishop of Cyprus reproduced the Ottoman — and not the non-Ottoman — character of political power in Cyprus and maintained, if not reinforced, an Ottoman reality for the island. This practice was not isolated to Cyprus; it extended to a number of areas during the Ottoman era, as was the case with the Danubian Principalities, with the Phanariote rulers promoting the development of a Greek-speaking culture by presenting themselves as heirs of the Byzantine past, while remaining within the framework of Ottoman power. As opposed to the classical period of the Ottoman state (14th- 16th centuries), during the period of differentiations and especially after the second half of the 18th century and onwards, the Ottoman character of the political power, or better yet, the composition of this character was not something that could be defined by the imperial centre alone, but there is the possibility that local powers contributed to its recomposition. As Ali Yaycioglu mentioned in his work, the provincial notables integrated themselves into the institutional apparatus of the Ottoman Empire and prevailed in the ‘business of governance’ in the Ottoman provinces (Yaycioglu 2016: 67). In the case of Cyprus, these provincial notables, members of the ruling elite in the Ottoman periphery, were none other than the prelates of the Church of Cyprus and mainly the archbishop.

Byzantine Privileges in Ottoman Cyprus

With the goal of placing the use of the regalia privileges of the archbishops of Cyprus in their historical framework and establishing the argument that these were essentially symbols of Ottoman secular power, a brief overview of their history is needed. According to tradition, and not historical sources, the Byzantine Emperor Zeno granted in 478 to the Archbishop of Cyprus, Anthemios, and his successors three important privileges; these would distinguish the archbishop of Cyprus of each era, and as consequence the Church of Cyprus, from other leaders of the Orthodox Church. As Joseph Huffman indicated in his work, this story regarding the regalia privileges of the archbishops is related to the Church of Cyprus’ claim for autocephaly and it is one of the oldest narratives regarding this issue (Huffman 2015: 713). According to this tale, Archbishop Anthemios

42 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL saw in a vision the location where the Apostle Barnabas was buried. After having found Barnabas’ remains and a gospel, Zeno recognized the apostolicity of the Cypriot Church and its autocephaly, which had officially been granted by the third Ecumenical Synod in 431, but was intensely questioned then by the Patriarchate of Antioch. With the imperial recognition granted to the archbishops of the Church of Cyprus, the regalia privileges were also granted. These were the right to carry a gold orbed sceptre instead of a pastoral crozier, to wear a robe in imperial purple instead of monastic black and to sign his official documents with imperial red ink instead of black. These regalia privileges continue to be used by the archbishops of Cyprus in religious ceremonies today. This narrative regarding the Emperor Zeno and the regalia privileges has been questioned since there are no sources indicating that this grant actually happened, and it seems that the tradition did not exist from that period. Joseph Huffman noted that the regalia privileges story was written by Florio Bustron, a civil servant of the Venetian Secret Chancellery who wrote the history of the autocephalous Church of Cyprus in the mid-16th century (Huffman 2015: 714). Benedict Egglezakis, a Cypriot historian and member of the clergy, mentioned that ancient sources do not refer to the ‘legend’ of the regalia privileges granted by the Emperor Zeno to the archbishop of Cyprus (Egglezakis 1981: 150). The first written report in the Church archives that mentions the privileges granted by Zeno is from 1676, a century after the conquest of Cyprus by the Ottomans (1571), during the election and ordination of Nectarios, the Bishop of Trimythountos (Delikanis 1904: 633; Stavrides 2001: 274). It seems that the archbishop of Cyprus’ right to sign in red ink began to receive special meaning and became permanent or more visible after the beginning of the 17th century (Egglezakis 1981: 151), a few decades after the Ottoman conquest, which highlights the archbishops’ need to stress Byzantine symbols in their correspondence. During the 19th century this usage became established, and the archbishop of Cyprus was henceforth always connected to his Byzantine imperial privileges. In the Archive of the Archbishops of Cyprus there are documents which the archbishop signed in red ink, while his stamp and title in Ottoman script are also red (Archive of the Holy Archbishopric of Cyprus, Book XI: 208). The imperial robe, that

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 43 is, a purple robe, is used by the archbishop of Cyprus during ecclesiastical functions, which makes it difficult to trace through time. It is characteristic, however, that archbishop Kyprianos (1810-1821) appeared with his imperial mantle at other occasions as well. As is noted by a traveller who was on the island during his prelacy, ‘[…] the archbishop is dressed in a magnificent purple mantle’ (Egglezakis 1981: 152). Its use also remained intense after Kyprianos’ time, as Dixon mentioned in the excerpt quoted above about Archbishop Sophronios. In relation to the imperial sceptre, Egglezakis noted that the oldest known depiction of the archbishop’s sceptre is from the prelacy of Nikiforos (1641-1674) (Egglezakis 1981: 152). Similar to the robe, it is difficult to identify the usage of the sceptre through the passage of time. The available information for the use of these symbols starts from the 17th century onwards; it appears to confirm that, before the conquest of Cyprus by Ottoman troops and certainly before the abolition of the archbishop’s throne of the Church of Cyprus by the in 1260, the archbishops of Cyprus did not use these regalia privileges at all or when they did it was to a small degree, and as a result we do not have written reports regarding this point. The use of symbols seems to have begun during the 17th century and should be linked to the effort of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to impose its control on the Church of Cyprus and take the local clergy under its wing. The archbishops of Cyprus appear to have been intent on emphasizing the autocephaly of the Church of Cyprus and the independence of its clergy from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This development should be connected to the effort of the Patriarchate to impose its control over all Orthodox Churches of the Ottoman space and to establish itself as the real administrative centre of Orthodoxy. During the second half of the 18th century, this wish became possible when the Ecumenical Patriarchate abolished the Balkan archbishoprics of Peć and Ohrid (1766-1767) and was successful in imposing control over the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (Konortas 1998: 170). The strong control — or at least the initial stages of the effort to impose this sort of control — on behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the Church of Cyprus is evident through the procedures to select the prelates of the Cypriot Church, with the main characteristic of these procedures being the powerful role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Michael 2005b: 117). The involvement of the Ecumenical

44 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL

Patriarchate in the election of the high clergy of the Church of Cyprus remained intense throughout the 17th century, while from the middle of the 18th century, and after the two upgrades in the role of the Cypriot high clergy in 1660 and 1754 on behalf of the Ottoman imperial centre, it appears that the archbishop and the bishops of the Church of Cyprus succeeded in establishing direct communication channels with the Sublime Porte, which favoured an increase of their power (Michael 2005b: 113-138). What was achieved therefore on behalf of the high clergy of the Church of Cyprus was their independence from the complete control of the Ecumenical Patriarchate through a direct connection with the Sublime Porte. In the period between the Ottoman conquest of the island and the mid-18th century, it appears that the usage of Byzantine privileges by the archbishops of the Church of Cyprus highlighted their wish for a more independent role and the achievement of limitations to the power of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In such a framework, it can be argued that the invention or reinvention of the Byzantine imperial symbols for the archbishops of Cyprus targeted the will of this Church not to accept control from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In parallel, the existence of imperial symbols for the archbishops of Cyprus seems to connect them with the imperial power of their time, that is, the Ottoman imperial power of the sultan. In spite of the strengthening of the Cypriot high clergy in relation to the first period after the Ottoman conquest, the usage of the regalia privileges intensified during the following centuries. This tendency, as well as the efforts of the high clergy of the Church of Cyprus to operate Greek-speaking schools, especially during Archbishop Kyprianos’ prelacy in the 19th century (Michael 2013: 52-53), cannot be seen as unrelated to the spread of a similar ideology with a Greek-speaking culture and the enlightened absolutism within the Ottoman state from the Phanariotes in the Danubian Principalities during the 18th century (Roudometof 2001: 51, 55). Similar to the Phanariote rulers, the archbishops of Cyprus during the Ottoman period, and mainly after the second half of the 18th century, operated as political officials who were weighted with responsibilities and duties in Cyprus. It is characteristic that at the beginning of the 19th century, in June 1806, the French consul to the island noted in a letter to the French ambassador in Istanbul that the bishops in Cyprus ‘[…] may have hoped to become

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 45 princes similar to the ones in and ’ (Kyriazis 1930: 211). From the middle of the 18th century, therefore, the high clergy of Cyprus appears to have carried much power within the Ottoman framework, which had already begun to differentiate from the time of the conquest of Cyprus in 1571. These differentiations inevitably led to the modification of the nature of the traditional Ottoman Empire, while according to İlber Ortaylı the empire had already begun to lose its traditional character (Ortaylı 2004: 106). This signifies the loss of the traditional Ottoman character or its recomposition, especially where the local political power with new symbols was concerned; the tendency of the high clergy of the Church of Cyprus to use symbols which denoted their imperial legacy seems to be part of this process of the character recomposition of Ottoman political power. Since this effort fell under the framework of Ottoman political power, it cannot but denote the Ottoman system of power formulated during that period. In other words, the invention or reinvention of the regalia privileges and their use after the mid-18th century was related to the Ottoman framework of political power during the 18th and 19th centuries and not to any spiritual power as described by Dixon in his book about Cyprus.

The Local Powers Define the Ottomanness of their Areas

In the Ottoman state of differentiations from the end of the 16th century onwards, there was the potential to recompose the Ottoman character of political power by the non-Muslims who were carriers of political and economic power. As modern historical approaches demonstrate, the local powers in the Ottoman periphery dominated governance in the Ottoman provinces by the end of the 18th century (Yaycioglu 2016: 79), and additionally these local powers were in line with the Ottomanness of the space, coexisted with it and were not outside the Ottoman framework (Hanssen 2002: 52). In such a framework, we may refer to an Ottoman-Cypriot elite (Hadjianastasis 2009: 63-88) — as Toledano referred to Ottoman-Egyptian, Ottoman- Syrian, Ottoman-Iraqi, Ottoman-Tunisian and Ottoman-Algerian elites (Toledano 1997: 155) — that became the predominant group in Cypriot society. The emergence and the political influence of this Ottoman- Cypriot elite may have relied on the two distinctive factors that Albert

46 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL

Hourani mentioned: its access to authority, that is, the imperial centre, and its social form, and to an extent recognition by the society as its natural leadership (Hourani 1968: 46). In the case of Cyprus, it is possible to note the different factors which gave the possibility to non- Muslims to become figures of authority, to define and project in their own way and through their own symbols the Ottoman character of their political power. Such factors are outlined below. Firstly, there was the course of the Ottoman state from the end of the 16th century onwards, a course of decline according to previous historical works, or a course of differentiating the Ottoman framework on a political, economic and social level according to more modern historical approaches. During the past decades, the term ‘decline’ has been questioned by historians of the Ottoman Empire, and the period beginning from the early 17th century is defined as a period of differentiations in the Ottoman state (Kafadar 1997-98: 30-75; Grant 1999: 179-201). It seems that the Ottoman state from this period onwards entered a long period of differentiations in all the classical institutions which supported it during the previous centuries. The timar system was gradually replaced by the tax farming system (iltizam), and the administration of the Empire on the basis of military organization of the state began to be replaced due to the promotion and emergence of new forms of regional administration (İnalcik 1980: 283-337). From the end of the 16th century onwards, the spread of the tax farming system favoured the emergence of local institutions or people of power. This emergence, which would be supported in many ways by the Ottoman state, as is shown by the example of Cyprus, allowed the Sublime Porte to continue its ruling in the periphery in spite of the increase of power abuse which is often documented. The administration of the Ottoman periphery from the 17th century onwards appears to have been part of a continuous effort to achieve a balance among the local powers, a balance which at times was achieved and at times seems to have been particularly challenging. The most important element regarding the political power in the periphery during this period and until the Tanzimat reforms is the emergence of local powers through which the Sublime Porte was able to maintain the Ottoman character of the territory. The emergence of different local powers in diverse areas of the Ottoman state, especially the periphery, had one essential common element: all these local

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 47 powers were Ottoman and they operated within the Ottoman framework, without which their emergence as local powers would have been impossible. The ruling power of the Phanariotes would not have been conceivable if not for the sultan’s will and for particular realities in the Ottoman state. In the same manner, the power of the high clergy of the Church of Cyprus would not have been imaginable if not for the sultan’s will and the realities which made the upgrading of the role of the high clergy necessary. Gradually, however, these local powers enriched the Ottoman character of their ruling activities with their own set of features, without this having to mean that they were pursuing the overthrow of the Ottoman framework and achieving their independence. The transformations in the Ottoman classical system allowed the local powers to recompose the Ottoman character of their own ruling power. Therefore, the pattern seems to be the gradual emergence of local powers as a development that coincided with the recomposition of the Ottoman character of each local ruling power, with the main goal being the operation of the Ottoman state within the new realities. Secondly, there was the gradual establishment of the Church of Cyprus as a political institution of power during the Ottoman period, which was not unrelated to the first factor. After the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus, and following the pattern of its relationship to the high priests of the Orthodox Church and taking into consideration important military and political issues, the Sublime Porte basically reconstituted the Church of Cyprus and established the high clergy as important figures of political power (Michael 2005a: 63-70). For more than three centuries before the Ottoman conquest and according to the orders of Pope Alexander IV, released in July 1260 and named the (Constitutio Cypria, or Bulla, or Summa Alexandrina), the position of the archbishop of the Church of Cyprus was abolished, and the jurisdictions of the remaining bishops became restricted (Papadopoullos 1996: 594). The degrading of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus during Frankish and Venetian rule was terminated with the restoration of the archbishop of Cyprus to his ecclesiastical throne and the granting to all the members of the high clergy of the Church of Cyprus the necessary documents (berat) (Chidiroglou 1973-75). Gradually, and within a framework of changes and developments that the Ottoman state had defined, the high clergy of the Church of

48 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL

Cyprus became the most significant figures of political power on the island. An important element of this political power was its Ottoman origin: the archbishop and the bishops were holders of power only because this was allowed and imposed by the Ottoman status quo. Each source of power, each responsibility derived from the sultan’s will. The archbishop was the archbishop of the Church of Cyprus because the sultan’s berat granted him this archbishopric, and only on this basis was he able to rule spiritually and politically. At the same time, while the framework of Ottoman power was defined by the imperial centre, because of the changes in the Ottoman state during the period of transformation from the beginning of the 17th century, the high clergy of the Church of Cyprus had the opportunity to contribute and differentiate this framework, at least in the Cypriot space. The emergence of the Church of Cyprus as a political institution and of the high clergy as figures of local political power functioned in a two-way relationship. As long as the Ottoman state needed to promote local powers in the periphery, and which would be able to contribute to the maintenance of the Ottoman character of their space, and especially the maintenance of political control on behalf of the Sublime Porte, the Church of Cyprus became organized and the clergy began to operate not only as a spiritual power but mostly as a secular one; at the same time, as long as the ecclesiastical institution began to be in charge of maintaining control in this particular area and to operate as secular local power, the Ottoman state became more dependent on this institution. The gradual upgrading of the high clergy of the Church of Cyprus appears to have been connected with the more regular use of the regalia privileges by the archbishop of Cyprus and the high clergy’s ability to recompose the Ottoman character of the political power. The middle of the 17th century should thus be seen as the period during which the Church — represented by its clergy — was identified by the Ottoman state as the institution that would support the authority of the sultan, not only in relation to the Orthodox population, but also in connection to the increased abuse of power observed in many Ottoman officials in the periphery. As such, the high clergy of the Church of Cyprus were treated as a reinforcing factor of the sultan’s authority. Indicative of this development is the fact that, according to Archimandrite Kyprianos, in 1660 the Sublime Porte retrieved some of the authorities it had given to Ottoman officials in Cyprus and handed

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 49 them to the high priests in order to put an end to the suffering of the island’s inhabitants (Kyprianos 1788: 462). Beginning in this period, the Ottoman governor of the island had to consult the archbishop of Cyprus for the total amount of taxes which needed to be collected, while he requested the reinforcement of ecclesiastical mechanisms to collect the tax revenues. By the end of the 17th century the Church of Cyprus, represented by its clergy, had increased its political responsibilities and had been introduced to the administrative mechanisms of the Ottoman state (Anagnostopoulou 2002: 269). As mentioned previously, it was during this period that the use of the regalia privileges became a remarkably distinguishing factor. A century later, a visit of the archbishop and the bishops of Cyprus to Istanbul, where they went to request a reduction of tax burdens, resulted in the second upgrading of the status of the high priests. In 1754, with the sultan’s firman, the bishops of the Church of Cyprus were recognized as lifetime kocabaşı of the island and they were tasked with preparing reports for the Sublime Porte. Additionally, they were given direct access to the palace in order to ‘[…] present […] the issues and requests of the reaya without reservations’ (Kyprianos, 1788: 465). The fact that in Cyprus the high priests become kocabaşı is considered to be of great significance since this development essentially marginalised or weakened the possibility of laymen rising to power. Identifying the kocabaşı with the high clergy of the Church of Cyprus, a historical occurrence that happened only in Cyprus and in none of the other regions, means that there was no significant social mobility on the island at that point, since the wealth of a small number of individuals was accruing within the framework imposed by the Ottoman power and was controlled by the Church itself (Anagnostopoulou 1998: 166). This means that in an era when in other areas of the Ottoman Empire the lay people began to emerge and claim political responsibilities, this position in Cyprus was occupied by the high priests representing the ecclesiastical institution. In this manner, the political power of the high clergy over their flock was increased, and slowly the framework under which the Church of Cyprus would become for the Orthodox the political authority within the Ottoman system of power began to be formulated, while the high clergy did not question the legal authority of their political power, that is, the sultan. Let us remind that the gradual increase in the responsibilities of the

50 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL

Orthodox high clergy, not only on the level of Cyprus but throughout the Ottoman territory, became possible precisely because the high priests remained within the boundaries of Ottoman legality (Konortas 2002: 128). Thirdly, there were the developments in the Orthodox world of the Ottoman area, a world which was also affected by developments outside of the Ottoman state. By the end of the 18th century a relatively weak Ottoman-Orthodox wealthy class existed in Cyprus, which emerged through its economic activities, mostly connected to commerce and its relationship to the tax collecting procedures of the Ottoman state. The dominant figure of this class in Cyprus was the divan tercümanı (translator) Hadjigeorgakis Kornesios, who, thanks to his economic resources and connections with the imperial centre, managed to become the most powerful non-clerical Orthodox official on the island. The revolt of 1804 forced Kornesios to flee Cyprus, leaving the then oikonomos and later Archbishop Kyprianos as the most powerful political power on the island; this left the Cypriot high clergy as the sole Orthodox source of power in Cyprus (Michael, 2011: 76). At the same time, the Phanariotes in the Danubian Principalities were essentially the local rulers who governed in the name of the Ottoman sultan, while at the same time focussing on spreading a Greek-speaking Orthodox culture, within which they were the administrative elite. However, the activity of the Phanariotes in these areas during the 18th century should not be connected to the nationalistic ideologies, which they apparently opposed. The Phanariotes believed in the need to collaborate with the Ottoman power, without which they would not have their own influence. A potential overturn of the empire would mean the loss of their political role in its periphery (Patrinelis 2002: 25; Roudometof 2001: 55). It is also important to note that the Phanariotes projected themselves as the heirs of Byzantine tradition and especially of the Byzantine emperors in their roles as protectors of the Orthodox faith and the Orthodox people (Runciman 1968: 363; Florescu 1968: 3014). They strove to appear as the rulers who both maintained the Ottoman status quo — from where their own source of power derived — and spread Greek-Orthodox culture. Their goal was to extend a Greek- speaking culture within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire in relation to Orthodoxy (Iorga 1989: 226). In a similar framework, the

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 51

Byzantine symbols of the archbishops of Cyprus, or at least the symbols which denoted their Byzantine inheritance, became elements of a recomposition of the character of political power in an Ottoman space which was being transformed and was losing its classic shape. In the case of the archbishops of the Church of Cyprus, the reference to the Orthodox Byzantine past through the symbols which were defined as Byzantine was easier in comparison with the efforts of the Phanariotes to project themselves as heirs of the Byzantine tradition. The Orthodox ecclesiastical institution on the level of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was closely connected to imperial Byzantium and was also the only institution of the Byzantine world which survived the Fall of Constantinople (Konortas 1998: 39).

Archbishop Kyprianos: An Ottoman ‘Enlightened Despotism’ with a Byzantine Past

The primacy of Kyprianos (1810-1821) was characterized as a period of new ideologies on the island, in relation to the traditional ecclesiastical politics of the earliest Ottoman period: an ideology closely related to the bourgeoisie, commerce and the rise of culture, an ideology in the framework of ‘enlightened despotism’. Kyprianos is certain to have been influenced by the activities of the Phanariotes rulers in the Balkans, while his 20-year-long stay in these areas gave him the impression that the Ottoman periphery could be governed as the Phanariotes governed, by an Orthodox official who would be appointed by the Sublime Porte. The ecclesiastical position of Kyprianos — an educated priest — created a framework under which it would have been easy to make use of Byzantine symbols, as was done by the Phanariotes. Kyprianos was born in 1756 in Strovolos, , and at a young age he joined the brotherhood of the Machairas Monastery. In 1783 he became a deacon and he joined his uncle Charalambos, the Archimandrite of the Machairas Monastery, on a trip to Wallachia as ‘travellers’, where they sought charitable offerings to reinforce the financial state of the Monastery. The term ‘travellers’ referred to monks or laymen who conducted charity (ziteia) on behalf of an ecclesiastical institution, usually outside the island. Ziteia was a system under which the envoys of an ecclesiastical institution passed through various areas

52 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL and requested reinforcement, either financial or in kind, from Orthodox people. It is important to note that while charity was a non-obligatory ecclesiastical act it gradually became obligatory during the Ottoman period (Michael 2005a: 194-196). Kyprianos remained there for approximately 20 years, learning about the system of administration of another area of the Ottoman periphery. During his long stay in Wallachia, Kyprianos came to know the framework of the activities of the Phanariote rulers in these areas. The establishment of Greek schools by the Phanariote rulers allowed Kyprianos to come into contact with the intellects of the era, while it also allowed him to come up to date with all the significant developments both in the Ottoman state as well as outside of it. The Orthodox rulers in Wallachia had developed important activities for the semi-autonomous administration of the area by an Orthodox ruler, while aside from their legislative work, which dominated their activities, from the middle of the 18th century onwards they also began demonstrating a special interest in education with the creation of academies and the financial reinforcement of the schools (Sfiroeras 2003: 300). In such a political and cultural environment, Kyprianos lived under the protection of the Phanariote ruler Michael Soutsos and socialized with the ‘progressive’ people of the era, such as traders and intellectuals. He came into contact with powerful actors of different financial classes, especially the traders, while his education allowed him to be familiar with international events, such as the French Revolution in 1789 (Tsiknopoulos 1971: 246). After his long stay in this Ottoman periphery under the administration of a Greek-Orthodox ruler, Kyprianos returned to Ottoman Cyprus, where corruption and power abuse were dominant. According to his biographers, what characterized Kyprianos’ return to Cyprus in 1802 was his ‘superior education and his diplomatic and political skills’. At the same time, it seems that ‘he aspired to higher posts and actions, seeing that the boundaries of his village were limited (Peristianis 1988: 15). With him, he brought three portraits: one of himself, one of the Archimandrite Charalambos and one of the Phanariote ruler Michael Soutsos (Tsiknopoulos 1971: 246). Shortly after his return to Cyprus, Kyprianos was appointed as the administrator of the metohi of the Machairas

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 53

Monastery in Nicosia and he was soon appointed as oikonomos of the archbishopric of Cyprus. With his appointment to this position, Kyprianos was only a step away from the centre of political power on the island, the throne of the archbishop of the Church of Cyprus. His course demonstrates his powerful will to interest himself with politics in the framework of the highest clergy of the Church of Cyprus, while his rather easy appointment in the position of oikonomos must be related to his education and his diplomatic skills. At the same time, one should note the element of timing, since Kyprianos returned to Cyprus during the period when the old Archbishop Chrysanthos could no longer successfully perform his duties, while many people pushed for his replacement. During his long tenure as oikonomos of the archbishop’s Palace of Cyprus, Kyprianos was faced with the internal debate of the Church of Cyprus which concerned the replacement of the elderly Archbishop Chrysanthos. While the archbishop wished and requested his resignation twice (in 1791 and 1801), due to his health problems, this was not granted, since the bishops of and Kitium, who were his relatives, were opposed to it (Philippou 1975: 131; Kokkinoftas 1997: 245-271). As the oikonomos of the Archbishop’s Palace, Kyprianos essentially ruled the Church, since Archbishop Chrysanthos could not perform his duties. In June 1810, a firman of the central administration arrived in Cyprus, which announced the exile of Archbishop Chrysanthos and the Bishop of Kitium, also named Chrysanthos, as well as the appointment of Kyprianos to the Archbishop’s throne. In spite of the fact that the opinions for Kyprianos’ activities in relation to the removal of Archbishop Chrysanthos are divided, what should be noted is that Kyprianos was appointed as archbishop of Cyprus after efficient action taken by the Sublime Porte. During his supremacy, Archbishop Kyprianos operated as the Phanariotes did in the Danubian Principalities. Realizing his role as an Orthodox carrier of political power in the Ottoman periphery, he tried to promote Greek-speaking culture through the operation of Greek schools on the island, while at the same time he put forth the Byzantine symbols that are the legacy for the archbishops of Cyprus. Operating within the framework of a cultural enlightenment, of which he was aware thanks to his long stay in the Danubian hegemonies, Kyprianos,

54 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL as the archbishop and as a man of political influence, promoted the idea of a cultural renaissance of the Orthodox within the Ottoman state. In 1812, two short years after his rise to the Archbishop’s throne, the Greek School of Nicosia was inaugurated, which would also function as the place where the clergy and the laymen of Cyprus could study. The inauguration was on 1 January 1812, and the School was dedicated to the Holy Trinity. In the founding document, Kyprianos notes that the Archbishopric had taken over the load of ecclesiastical and political responsibilities for the flock of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus: ‘[…] our island suffers lack of education and Greek lessons, which are the only means to decorate the human mind, and restore the man to worthiness’ (Tsiknopoulos 1971: 252). In addition, as a reason for the necessity to establish the School, Archbishop Kyprianos mentioned the general lack of education amongst the Cypriots, something which provoked many negative comments within and outside the island, while he continued to question how it was possible that such schools could exist outside Cyprus but not in Cyprus:

[…] push us […] and those who badmouth us, the Cypriots, are countless, as we have travelled to many places and foreign cities, we do not but hear a constant flow of accusations for us the Cypriots that even the smallest of islands and the smallest cities have recommended schools, and our great Cyprus, a common museum, has no noteworthy people of letters to introduce, for the children to study and regulate their barbarous tongue (Tsiknopoulos 1971: 254).

A few years later, in 1819, Archbishop Kyprianos contributed financially to the founding of a Greek School in , while at the same time a similar school began to operate in Strovolos in Nicosia. In his letter to the people of Limassol, dated 18 August 1819, he mentioned how happy he was about the operation of the School and remarked on the financial reinforcement of the Archbishopric. He mentioned examples of Ancient Greek civilization, establishing that study creates prospects for a better society in the framework of the state:

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 55

“[…] so that the good and the best fare well in all cities and countries, the wise men, who as the ancient years were the likes of Plato, Solon and others, who not only studied the notions of humanity, but of politics and morals and wrote books” (Tsiknopoulos 1971: 256).

Operating in this framework and putting forth the Byzantine symbols of his power, Kyprianos stressed his Ottoman political power. The analysis of his actions in ‘The ink pot of Kyprianos’ by Benedict Egglezakis (Egglezakis 1981) demonstrates his will to become recognized as the legal and sole political power on the island. It is characteristic that in 1815 he mentioned to a foreign traveller in Cyprus that he was independent to the rest of the Patriarchs due to his imperial Byzantine privileges (Cobham, 1908: 437). These symbols — the signature in red ink, the imperial sceptre and the imperial mantle — would be institutionalized by Archbishop Kyprianos’ heirs and became symbols of their Ottoman political power and should be understood as such. Through these Byzantine symbols, the Archbishops of Cyprus during the 19th century claimed and stressed their spiritual connection to Byzantium. They also claimed their own contribution to the composition of the Ottoman character of their political power, which remained Ottoman and could not be outside the Ottoman framework. They saw themselves as the autonomous political leadership on the island, always within the Ottoman framework, which was also evident from the symbols they used to denote their Ottoman power. For this reason, the archbishop, whom Dixon saw in 1878 dressed in ‘purple robe’, holding an ‘imperial wand’ and signing his name ‘in vermilion ink’, was not a mere spiritual leader, but was another source of political power, who represented, in his own way, the living sultan residing in Istanbul and not Constantine of the Byzantine Empire. This inability to understand the position and status quo of the high clergy of the Church of Cyprus during the Ottoman period was intense in the relations of the British administration with the Cypriot high clergy during the first decades of the British administration.

November 2019

56 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL

Figs. 1 and 2: Emperor Zeno and Archbishop Anthemios, 20th-century fresco in Apostle Varnavas Church, Salamina, (and as a postage stamp) (Byzantine Cyprus, 2011, Nicosia, Ministry of Education and Culture, p. 24 and p. 26)

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 57

Figs. 3 and 4: Portraits of Archbishops Sophronios (1865-1900) and Chrysanthos (1767-1810) in the Archbishopric in Nicosia.

58 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL

Fig. 5: The signature of Archbishop Sophronios (1865-1900) and his Ottoman seal in red ink (Archive of the Holy Archbishopric of Cyprus, Archive of the Late Archbishops of Cyprus, Book 12, p. 208)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANAGNOSTOPOULOU Sia, 1998, “Chypre de l’ère ottomane à l’ère britannique (1839-1914). Le rôle de l’Église orthodoxe chypriote”, Études Balkaniques, n° 5, pp. 145-183. ANAGNOSTOPOULOU Sia, 1999, “I Ekklisia tis Kyprou kai o Ethnarhikos tis Rolos, 1878-1960” (The Church of Cyprus and its Ethnarchical Role), Syghrona Themata, n° 68-67, pp. 198-227. ANAGNOSTOPOULOU Sia, 2002, “Le rapports de l’Église orthodoxe avec le Kapudan Pacha (fin du XVIIe début XIXe siècle)”, in The Kapoudan Pasha, his Office and his Domain, ed. Zachariadou Elizabeth, Rethymnon, Crete University Press, pp. 265-289. CHIDIROGLOU Pavlos, 1973-75, “Sultan Berats”, Epetirida Kentrou Epistimonikon Erevnon, n° 7, pp. 119-250. COBHAM Delaval Claude, 1908, Excerpta Cypria: Materials for a History of Cyprus, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DELIKANES Konstantinos, 1904, Ta en tis kodiksi tou Patriarhikou Arhiofilakiou sozomena episima ekkliastika eggrafa ta aforonta eis tas sheseis tou Ecumenikou Patriarheiou pros tas Ekklisias Alexandreias, Antioheias, Ierosolimon kai Kyprou (About the Code of the Patriarchate Archive surviving Official Ecclesiastical Documents concerning the Relations of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Alexandria. Antioch, Jerusalem and Cyprus), Istanbul.

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 59

DIXON William Hepworth, 1879, , London, Elibron Classics [reprint: London 2004]. EGGLEZAKIS Benedict, 1981, “To melanodohion tou Arhiepiskopou Kyprianou” (The ink pot of Archbishop Kyprianos), Cyprus Studies, n° 45, pp. 143-160. FLORESCU Radu, 1968, “The Fanariot Regime in the Danubian Principalities”, Balkan Studies, n° 9, pp. 301-318. GEORGHALLIDES George. S., 1979, A Political and Administrative History of Cyprus, 1918-1926, Nicosia, Cyprus Research Centre. GRANT Jonathan, 1999, “Rethinking the Ottoman ‘Decline’: Military Technology Diffusion in the Ottoman Empire, Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries”, Journal of World History, n° 10/1, pp. 179-201. HADJIANASTASIS Marios, 2009, “Cyprus in the Ottoman Period: Consolidation of the Cypro-Ottoman Elite, 1650–1750”, in Ottoman Cyprus: A Collection of Studies on History and Culture, eds. Michael N. Michalis, Kappler Matthias, Gavriel Eftihios, Wiesbaden, Harrassovitz Verlag, pp. 63-88. HANSSEN Jens, 2002, “Practices of Integration – Center – Periphery Relations in the Ottoman Empire”, in The Empire in the City: Arab Provincial Capitals in the Late Ottoman Empire, eds. Hanssen J., Philipp T., Weber S., Beirut, Ergon, pp. 49-74. HILL George, 1952, A History of Cyprus, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4. HOURANI Albert, 1968, “Ottoman Reforms and the Politics of Notables”, in Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East, eds. Chambers R. L., Polk W. R., Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 41-68. HUFFMAN P. Joseph, 2015, “The Donation of Zeno: St. Barnabas and the Modern History of the Cypriot Archbishop’s Regalia Privileges”, Church History, n° 84/4, pp. 713-745. İNALCIK Halil, 1980, “Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman State”, Archivum Ottomanicum, n° 6, pp. 283-337. IORGA N., 1989, Byzantine after Byzantine, Athens, Gutenberg [Greek edition]. KAFADAR Cemal, 1997-98, “The Question of Ottoman Decline”, Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review, n° 4, pp. 30-75.

60 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL

KOKKINOFTAS Kostis, 1997, “O Chrysanthos Pafou kai I ekklisiastiki krisi tou 1810 (Chrysanthos of Paphos (1805-1821) and the ecclesiastical crisis of 1810), Epetirida Kentrou Epistimonikon Ereynon, n° 23, pp. 245-271. KONORTAS Paraskevas, 1998, Othomanikes theoriseis gia to Ecumeniko Patriarheio, 17os-20os aionas (Ottoman notions for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 17th-20th century), Athens, Alexandreia Publications. KONORTAS Paraskevas, 1999, “From Tâ’ife to : Ottoman Terms for the Ottoman Greek Orthodox Community”, in Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism, eds. Gondicas D., Issawi C., Princeton, New Jersey, Darwin Press, pp. 169-179. KONORTAS Paraskevas, 2002, “Orthodoxoi ierarhes stin ypiresia tis Ipsilis Pilis” (Orthodox high clergy in the service of the Sublime Porte), Proceedings of the Scientific Workshop, Greeks in the Service of the Sublime Porte, Athens 2002, pp. 103-134. KYPRIANOS Archimandrite, 1788, Ιstoria hronologiki tis nisou Kyprou (History of the island of Cyprus), Venice [republished: Nicosia 1933]. KYRIAZIS Neoklis, 1930, “I stasis tis Lefkosias” (The Revolt of Nicosia), Kypriaka Hronika, n° 6, pp. 210-216. MICHAEL N. Michalis, 2005a, I diadikasia sygkrotisis enos thesmou eksousias. I Ekklisia tis Kyprou kata tin Othomaniki period (1571-1878) (The Formation Process of an Institution of Political Power: The Church of Cyprus during the Ottoman Period [1571- 1878]), Nicosia, Cyprus Research Centre. MICHAEL N. Michalis, 2005b, “O Ecοumeniκos Patriarhis, i Ekklisia tis Kyprou kai o Soultanos. Oi arhiereis os meso eleghou tis othomanikis perifereias” (The Ecumenical Patriarch, the Church of Cyprus and the Sultan: High clergy as means of control within the Ottoman periphery”, Historica, n° 22, pp. 113-138. MICHAEL N. Michalis, 2011, “Local Authorities and Conflict in an Ottoman Island at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century”, Turkish Historical Review, n° 2, pp. 57-77. MICHAEL N. Michalis, 2013, “An Orthodox ruler ‘administrating the politics’ in an Ottoman island: Archbishop Kyprianos (1810- 1821) and his way to the throne of the Church of Cyprus”, in The

OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 61

Archbishops of Cyprus in the Modern Age: The Changing Role of the Archbishop-Ethnarch, Their Identities and Politics, eds. Varnava Andrekos, Michael Michalis N., London, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 44-72. MICHAEL N. Michalis, 2015, “From the Ottoman Meclis-i İdare to the British Legislative Council: Representative administration between the Ottoman and the British perception of Modernity”, in Ottoman Religious Communities, State and Colonialism in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century, eds. Michael Michalis N., Anastassiades Tassos, Verdeil Chantal, Berlin, Klaus Schwarz Verlag, pp. 105-130. ORTAYLI İlber, 2004, The Longest Century of the Empire: The Ottoman 19th Century. The Route to Modernization. Athens, Papazisi Publications (in Greek). PAPADOPOULLOS Theodoros, 1996, “I Ekklisia tis Kyprou kata tin period tis Francokratias” (The Church of Cyprus during the Francocracy period), in Istoria tis Kyprou (History of Cyprus), v. IV, Part A, Nicosia, Archbishop Makarios III Foundation, pp. 543-665. PATRINELIS Ch. G., 2002, “I Fanariotes prin to 1821” (The Phanariotes before 1821), Proceedings of Workshop, Ellines stin Ipiresia tis Ipsilis Pylis (Greeks in the Service of the Sublime Porte), Athens, Etaireia Meletis tis Kath’imas Anatolis, pp. 15-52. PERISTIANIS I.K., 1988, “O Ethnomartys Kyprianos” (The Ethnomartyr Kyprianos), in Christofidou Konstantinos (ed), Panigirikon Lefkoma epi ti teleti ton Apokalyptirion tis Protomis tou Ethnomartiros Kyprianou (Festive Book on the Ceremony of Unveiling the Bust of the Ethnomartyr Kyprianos), Nicosia, Strovolos Welfare Board, pp. 27-30 (first published: 1929). PHILIPPOU Loizos, 1975, I Ekklisia Kyprou epi Tourkokratias (The Church of Cyprus during the Turkocracy), Nicosia. ROUDOMETOF Victor, 2001, Nationalism, Globalization and Orthodoxy, London, Greenwood Press. RUNCIMAN Steven, 1968, The Great Church in Captivity, New York, Cambridge University Press. SFIROERAS Vasilis, 2003, “Oi Fanariotes” (The Phanariotes), Istoria tou Neou Ellinismou, 1770-2000, vol. 2, Athens, Ellinika Grammata, pp. 297-308.

62 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL

STAVRIDES Theocharis, 2001, Ecoumeniko Patriarheio kai Kypros. Ta Patriarhika eggrafa ton eton 1600-1878 (Ecumenical Patriarchate and Cyprus: The Patriarchate documents of the years 1600-1878), Nicosia, Research Centre of the Holy Monastery of Kykkos. TOLEDANO R. Ehud, 1997, “The Emergence of Ottoman-Local Elites (1700-1900): A Framework for Research”, in Middle Eastern Politics and Ideas: A History from Within, eds. Pappé Ilan, Ma’oz Moshe, London, Tauris Academic Studies, pp. 145-162. TSIKNOPOULOS P. Ioannis, 1971, “O ehtnomartys Archiepiskopos Kyprou Kyprianos” (The ethnomartyr Archbishop of Cyprus Kyprianos), Apostolos Varnavas, n° 32, pp. 245-311. YAYCIOGLU Ali, 2016, Partners of the Empire: The Crisis of the Ottoman Order in the Age of Revolutions, Stanford, Stanford University Press.