Excerpts from

237 See bellow p 189.

238 A full discussion of the powers of the Patriarchal court is given in Papadopoullos, op. cit. pp. 27-39.

239 Karolidis, op. cit. pp. 215-17; N. Moschovakis, Το εν Ελλαδι δημοστιον δικαιον επιΤουρκοκρατιας pp. 52-4; D. Petrakakos, Κοινοβουλευτικη Ιστορια της Ελλαδος, pp. 212-15. For local customary law see Jus Gracco-Romanum, ed. J. and P. Zepos, vm, passim.

240 Papadopoullos, op. at. pp. 39-41. 173.

241 Papadopoullis, op. tit., pp. 41-85. The system was slightly reorganized in the eighteenth century when several of the posts formerly held by clerics had fallen into the hands of the laity. See below, p. 376.

242 See N. Vlachos,’ La Relation des Grecs asservis avec l’Etat Musulman souverain,’ in Le Cinq-centieme anniversaire de la prise de Constantinople, L’Hellénisme Contemporain, fascicule hors serie (1953), pp. 138-42.

243 Papadopoullos, op. cit. pp. 48-50.

244 Ibid. pp. 86-9: N. Jorga, Byzance apres Byzance, pp. 72-7.

245 See below, pp. 231-4.

246 No early berats appointing high ecclesiastical officials have survived. N. Beldiceanu, Les Actes des premiers sultans, 11, p. 137, reproduces a berat (no. 47), apparently dating from the sixteenth century, appointing a certain Mark to an unnamed metropolitan see. The Sultan confirms the dignity because Mark has paid a gift (peshtesh) to the Imperial Treasury. He is to be exempted from local taxes, such as the tax for the repair of fortresses (cherakhor), ind from the kharadj. The earliest surviving berat concerning a Patriarch is thxt confirming Dionysius Ill’s election in 1662, given inj. Aymon, Monuments autheatiques de la religion en Grece et de la fausseté de plusieurs confessions de foi des Chrétiens (published in 1708), p. 486. Dionysius has paid 900,000 aspres (equal to 32,000 ecus, according to Aymon), and is accorded the traditional privileges. See-also Laurent, art. cit.

247 The books of Smith and Ricaut (see below, pp. 204-5,272~3). aiii other seventeenth century travellers illustrate the difficulties undergone by the Christians; but it must be remembered that they were writing at a time when the Turkish administrative machine was beginning to run down. The position was always worse in the provinces where the central government could not supervise things closely. Crusius, Turco-Graecia, writing in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent, notes that the Christians of Constantinople ‘do not want any other domination in preference to the Turks’ (p. 250). In the sixteenth century it was probably only the wealthier Christians who suffered from the arbitrary actions of the Porte. In some Balkan districts the Christian peasants were probably better off than under their previous landlords (see Vaughan, op. cit. pp. 24-6). This applies particularly to Bosnia and may help to explain why so many Bosnians became willing converts to Islam.

248 Jorga, Byzance apres Byzance, pp. 45-56, for a general conspectus. The Spanish traveller de Villalon (Viaje de Turquia, 1557, in M. Serrano y Sanz, Autobiograpfias y Memorias, p. 146) says that official lists give 40,000 Christian houses in the city, of which the vast majority were Greek, with 10,000 Jewish houses and (5o,ooo Turkish houses. There were 10,000 Greek houses in the suburbs. The numerous Greek villages in the suburbs are listed in Evliya Celebi, Seyahalname, ed. N. Asim, I, p. 452.

249 For the legal excuse for allowing the Christians to keep some of their churches see S. Runciman, The Fall of

Constantinople, pp. 199-204.

250 Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 83ff. Gennadius’s treatise is given in his OEuvres Completes (ed. L. Petit, X. A. Siderides and M. Jugis), m, pp. xxx ff.

251 E. Legrand, Cent-dix Lettres Grecques de Fr. Philelphe, pp. 62-8.

252 Pius II, Lettera a Maomitto II, ed. G. Toflanin.

253 Historia Politica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 38-9: Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 96-101. A kindlier judgment on Amiroutzes is given in N. B. Tomadakis, Ετουρκευσεν ο Γεωργιος Αμιρουτζης, Επερητις Εταιρειας Βυζαντινων Σπουδων, xviii (1948), pp. 99-143.

254 Historia Politica (C.S.H.B. edition), p. 28. When Murad III converted the Pam-macaristos into a mosque (see below, p. 190), it was on the excuse that the Conqueror had worshipped there.

255 For the obscure history of the Patriarchate up till 1466 see below, pp. 192-3. Gennadius’s use of Economy is reported by his disciple, Theodore Agallianos. See C. G. Patrineli, ‘ Ο Θεοδωρος και οι Ανεκδοτοι Λογοι του’ pp. 146-8, and preface, pp. 69-70.

256 W. J. Perry, ‘Bayazld II’ in Encyclopaedia of Islam (new edition), i, pp. 1119-21;

J. von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches (1st edition), n, pp. 25off.;

N.Jorga, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, n, pp. 23OfF.

257 J. H. Kramers, ‘Selim I,’ in Encyclopaedia of Islam (1st edition), iv, pp. 214-17; von Hammer-Purgstall, op. cit. n, pp. 350 ff.; T. W. Arnold, The Caliphate, pp. 137, l64ff.

258 For Suleiman see A. M. Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent, esp. pp. 34, 151, 160, 163.

259 Von Hammer-Purgstall, op. tit. n, pp. 354ff.; N. Jorga, Geschichte des Ostnanischen Reiches, iii, pp. I37ff.

260 In 1550 Nicolas de Nicolay remarked on the mosaic figures in Saint Sophia but noted that the Turks had plucked out the eyes (Les Navigations, Peregrinations et Voyages, p. 104.). A manuscript account of an Italian’s visit to Constantinople in 1611 (British Museum, MS. Harl. 3408) reports that the Turks had covered everything inside the church with whitewash. But sixty years later Grelot was able to sketch many of the mosaics and found that only the faces of the figures had been covered or removed. The mosaics that the Turks could not reach were barely spoiled; but he saw men with long poles trying to daub plaster over the figures (G. J. Grelot, A Late Voyage to Constantinople (trans. J. Philips), pp. inf., esp. pp. 125-6). Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (Complete Letters (ed. R. Hals-band), 1, pp. 398-9), eager to defend the Turks from any charge of vandalism, declares that if the faces have vanished it is because of the ravages of time. She does not explain why the rest of the figures were in a better condition. Gerlach saw unspoiled frescoes in St John of Studium, though it was already converted into a mosque, as well as in St Theodosia (at that time used as a warehouse) and other former churches (S. Gerlach, Tagebuch, pp. 217, 358-9).

261 For the fate of these churches see S. Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople, pp. 199-200. Arnold von Harff, visiting Constantinople in 1499, declares more than once that many churches were being used as menageries (The Pilgrimage of Arnold von Harff (Hakluyt edition), pp. 241-2, 244).

262 See above, p. 181.

263 A. C. Hypsilantis, Τα μετα την Αλωσιν (ed. A. Germanos), pp. 62, 91, based on Patriarchal records.

264 A. van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, pp. 128, 304.; R. Janin, Constantinople Byzantine, i, iii, ‘Les Eglises et les monasteres,’ pp. 224, 447, 533, 550.

For the Chora, P. Gyllius, De Constantinopoleos Topographia.p. 201.

265 Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 158 ff.; Demetrius Cantemir, The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire (trans. N. Tindal), pp. 102-3. See following note.

266 Historia Patriarchica, be. cit.; Cantemir, he. cit. The Historia Patriarchica combines the two episodes into one; but the janissaries clearly took part in the earlier episode, as they could not have been alive in 1537, eighty-four years after the fall of the city. Dr R. Walsh, two and a half centuries later, heard a garbled version of the story

(Residence in Constantinople during the Greek and Turkish Revolutions, n, pp. 360-1).

267 M. Gedeon, Πατριαχικοι Νινακες, p. 530.

268 M. Baudrier, Histoire generate du serrail et de la cour du Grand Seigneur, published in 1623, says (p. 9) that the Greeks possessed forty churches in the city. For St George of the Cypresses and St Demetrius Kanavou see Janin, op. tit. 1, iii, PP- 75> 95- For St Mary of the Mongols, Cantemir, op. tit. p. 105. Evliya Celebi, Seyahalname (ed. N. Asim), I, p. 452, lists a large number of Greek churches in the suburbs.

269 Janin, op. cit. p. 328: A. D. Alderson, The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty, xxxvii,

n. 4: Van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople: The Walls of the City, p. 20.

270 O. Tafrali, Topographie de Thessalonique, pp. 1508.,” shows that some of the churches were converted immediately after the Turkish occupation. St Demetrius was converted in Bayezit ITs reign. The conversion of St Sophia is dated by an inscription as 993 a.h. (a.d. 1545). The Venetian ambassador Lorenzo Bernardo, who passed through the city in 1590, says that it was already a mosque, but the mosaic of the Pantocrator in the dome had not been covered over. Viaggio a Constantinopoli di ser Lorenzo Bernardo, in Miscellanea pubblicata dalla Deputazione Veneta di Storia Patria, p. 33. N. Jorga, Byzance apres Byzance, p. 46, wrongly supposes that Bernardo refers to Sophia in Constantinople.

271 It is uncertain when the Parthenon was converted into a mosque. Mehmet II seems himself to have converted the church of Our Lady of Salvation, which had been the Orthodox cathedral in Frankish times. See D. Sicilianos,

Old and New Athens (trans. R. Liddell), p. 96. See also F. W. Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the Sultans, 1, pp. 13-16, n, p. 755.

272 Historia Politica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 38-9; Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 96-101; Ekthesis Chronica (ed. S. Lambros), p. 36. More precise information is provided in the memoirs of Theodore Agallianos, in Ch. G. Patrineli, Ο Θεοδωρος Αγαλλιανος και οι Αωεκδοτοι Λογοι του, which gives the date of Isidore’s death (p. 118). See Patrineli’s preface, pp. 61-8.

273 Historia Politica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 39-42; Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 102-12.

274 Historia Politica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 43-4; Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 113-15; Gedeon, op. cit. pp. 490-1. See also V. Steplanidou, Εκκλησιαστικην Ιστοριαν και το Εκκλησιαστικον Δικαιον, pp. 104, 113.

275 See below, p. 228.

276 Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 128-40. See Jorga, Byzance apres Byzance, pp. 84 — 6. It was through Wallachian influence that Niphon returned to the Patriarchal throne in 1497-8. He was re-elected in 1502 but refused. Pachomius I, who took his place, also had Wallachian support. See N. Popescu, Patriarhii farigradului prin terile romdnesti in veacul al XVI-lea, pp. 5 ff.

277 Joachim I in 1504 had Georgian support. Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 140-1.

278 Maximus IV (1491-7), had Athonite support, as, later, had Metrophanes III (1565-72, and 1579-80). See Jorga, Byzance apres Byzance, pp. 70, 84-5.

279 See below, p. 367.

280 For the Cantacuzeni see N. Jorga, Despre Cantacuzini — Genealogia Cantacuzinilor — Documentele Cantacuzinilor, passim, and, for Michael in particular, ibid. pp. xxii — xxxv; Jorga, Byzance apres Byzance, pp. 114-21. There are numerous references to him in the Patriarchal History and in Gerlach, op. cit., esp. pp. 55, 60, 223 ff. Gerlach believed that he was not really a member of the old Imperial family of the Cantacuzeni but the son of an English ambassador. Crusius, Turco-Graecia, p. 509, tells of the sale of his books, his informant being Gerlach.

281 Crusius, op. dt. p. 274; Gerlach, op. cit. p. 30.

282 Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 141-52. For Arsenius of Monemvasia see below, p. 229.

283 Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 153-72; Gerlach.op. cit. pp. 502, 509.

284 Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 173-91; Dorotheus of Monemvasia, Chronicle (1818 edition), pp. 440-3. Metrophanes had visited Venice and Rome before his elevation and therefore was suspect.

285 Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), pp. 191-204; Dorotheus ofMonemvasia, op. cit. pp. 439-40. Dorotheus disliked Jeremias II and accused him, unreasonably, of being dull-witted. For a full account of Jeremias’s career see C. Sathas, Βιογραφικον Σχεδιασμα περι του Πατριαρχου Ιερεμιου; also L. Petit, ‘Jaxmie II Tranos,’ in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vm, 1, coll. 886-94. For his relations with the Lutherans and with Russia see below, pp. 247-56.

286 Historia Patriarchica (C.S.H.B. edition), p. 179. See Jorga, Byzance apres Byzance, pp. 82 ff.

287 S. Vailhé, ‘Constantinople (Eglise de),’ Dictionnaire de théologie catholique iii, 2, coll. 1418-26.

288 Vailhé, art. cit. coll. 1430-2. According to J. Aymon, Monuments authentiques de la religion des Grecs et de lafausseté de plusieurs confessions de foi des Chretiens, p. 486, Dionysius III paid 12,000 ecus in 1662. Sir Paul Ricaut, The Present State of the Creek and Armenian Churches, Anno Christi, 1678 (published in 1680), says that the Patriarch used to pay 10,000 dollars on his election, but the price had risen now to 25,000 (p. 107). Grelot says that, when he was in Constantinople in the 1670s, two successive Patriarchs paid 50,000 and 60,000 crowns (op. cit. p. 138). This is confirmed by Pitton de Tournefort, Relation d’un voyage du Levant, 1700, p. 118, who says that the Patriarchal dignity is now sold for 60,000 ecus.

289 Vailhé, art. cit. col. 1432.

290 Ibid. coll. 1432-3.

291 Ibid. loc. cit. See also T. H. Papadopoullos, Studies and Documents relating to the History of the Greek Church and People under Turkish Domination, pp. 132, 160. After 1763 Patriarchal candidates had to pay the peshtesh out of their own pockets (Hypsilantis, op. cit. p. 397), which helped to improve the financial position of the Church, but made candidates all the more dependent on rich friends. However, on the eve of the Greek War of Independence the debts of the Patriarchate amounted to 1,500,000 Turkish piastres. See M. Raybaud, Memoires sur la Grece (historical introduction by A. Rabbe), p. 80.

292 See below, chapter 6.

293 Gerlach, op. cit. pp. 335, 361. According to Dorotheus of Monemvasia {op. tit. pp. 453-5), Murad III later became violently anti-Christian.

294 Gerlach, op. cit. p. 88. For the Patriarchate of Pec, see Vailhe, art tit. col. 1444; also L. Hadrovice, Le Peuple Serbe et son église sous la domination turque,pp. 49,149.

295 According to Demetrius Cantemir, The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire, p. 368, Mehmet Koprulu deserved to rank with Justinian for the number of churches that he allowed to be built. It was his son Ahmet who appointed Panayoti Nicoussios and after him Alexander Mavrocordato to the post of Grand Dragoman. See below, pp. 364, 368. He was on intimate terms with both of them.

296 Ricaut, op. tit. pp. 12-13.

297 For Burton see below, p. 290. Lady Mary Wortley Montague, op.cit. pp. 318-19.

298 For Apostolis see E. Legrand, Bibliographic Hellenique: description raшonnéde des ouvrages publiés en Grec par des Grecs aux 15e et 16e siecles, pp. lvi-lxx; D.J. Geanakoplos, Greek Scholars in Venice, pp. 73-110.

299 For Plethon’s Academy at Mistra see above, p. 121. Little is known about the academies at Thessalonica and Trebizond.

300 M. Crusius, Germanograecia, p. 18.

301 M. Crusius, Turco-Graecia, pp. 90 ff., giving a genealogy of scholarship provided by Zygomalas, says that Manuel was the pupil of Matthew Camariotes, one of the last scholars of vasia, the heretic, for whom see below, p. 229. For Manuel see Legrand, Bibliographic Hellenique au 15e et 16e siecles, 1, p. cvi, and M.Jugie, Theologia Dogmatica Christianorum Orientalium ab Ecdesia Catholica Dissidentium, 1, pp. 493-4

302 Jugie, op. tit. 1, p. 496. Damascenus also wrote a history of Constantinople which has never been published (MS. 569 formerly in the Metoechia of the Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople, now in the Patriarchal library).

303 The chronicle known as the Historia Patriarchica (published in the C.S.H.B., 1849, ed. J. Becker) is traditionally attributed to Malaxus and was reproduced as such by Martin Crusius in his Turco-Graecia, though his friend Gerlach, the Lutheran chaplain at Constantinople (see below, p. 256), says that Malaxus was only the copyist (S. Gerlach, Tagebuch, p. 448). For Malaxus’s school, Crusius, op. tit. p. 85. Jugie, op. tit. 1, p. 496, wrongly attributes to him the edition of the Nomocanon in modern Greek, which was actually compiled by Nicholas Malaxus, a cousin of his, and by die priest Zacharias Skordylius. M. Gedeon, rTccrpiapxiKol nivccKE;, p. 515.

304 For Jeremias II see above, pp. 200-1, and below, pp. 247-56. + See above, pp. 197-8.

305 See above, p. 208.

306 For Anna see D. J. Geanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West, pp. 117-18

307 See above p. 208

308 D. J. Geanakoplos, Greek Scholars in Venice, passim, especially chs. 4-6.

309 Ibid. p. 145.

310 Ibid. pp. n6ff., 201 ff.

311 Ibid. pp. 256-78.

312 There were only six occasions on which the Inquisition was allowed to prosecute in Venice. See P. G. Molmenti, Venice, pt. n, The Golden Age (trans. H. Brown), 1, pp. 23-4.

313 For the history of the Greek church in Venice see Geanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West, pp. 116-21. A Greek school seems already to have been founded on a modest scale. In 1626 a rich Venetian Greek, Thomas Flanginis, presented the colony with a large sum of money to be spent on education; and the school was developed into a much admired academy, known as the Flanginion. For Maximus’s concordat with Venice see F. Miklosich and J. Miiller, Acta et Diplomata Graeci Medii Aevi Sacra et Profana, v, p. 284.

314 See G. Camelli, Demetrio Calcocondilo, pp. 50-5.

315 Bembo’s speech on what Venice owed to the Greeks is given in J. Morelli, ‘Intorno ad un orazione greca inedita del Cardinale Pietro Bembo alia Signoria di Venezia,’ Memorie del Regale Instituto del Regno Lombardo-Veneto, n, pp. 251-62.

316 E. Denissoff, Maxime le Grec et L‘Occident, passim.

317 Legtand, Bibliographie Hellinique au 15e et 16e siecles, l, p. 231; Jugie, op. cit. I, pp. 495-6.

318 See below, pp. 261-6.

319 Legrand, Bibliographie Hellénique au 15e et 16e siecles, n, pp. xxiii-lxxvii;

Geanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West, pp. 165-93. See below, pp. 260-1.

320 Geanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West, pp. 183-93, gives a personally verified list of Margunius’s books that are still in the library at Iviron.

321 Legrand, Bibliographic Hellénique au 15e et 16e siecles, 11, pp. 144-51;

A. C. Demetracopoulos, Ορθοδοξος Ελλας. 143-6. See below, p. 257.

322 D. Sicilianos, Old and New Athens (trans. R. Liddell), pp. 191-2.

323 Jugie, op. cit. 1, pp. 522 ff.

324 For Jeremias see C. Sathas, Βιογραφικον Σχεδισμα περι του Πατριαρχου Ιερεμιου B’ (1572-94), passim. Jeremias tried to persuade Margunius to come and teach at the Patriarchal Academy: See Legrand, Bibliographie Hellénique au 15e et 16e siecles, ii, pp. xxviii — xxx; Geanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West, pp. 167-8. For Margunius’s letters to Jeremias, Sathas, op. cit. pp. 98-135.

325 See P. Karolides, Ιστορια της Ελλαδος, p. 531; J.Z. Stephanopoli, ‘L’Ecole, facteur du reveil national,’ in Le Cinq-centieme anniversaire dc la prise de Constantinople, L’Hellenisme contemporain, fascicule hors serie (1953), pp. 242-3, 253-4.

326 Ibid. pp. 254-5: Sicilianos, op. cit. pp. 258-9.

327 Sicilianos, op. cit. pp. 193-4: Demetracopoulos, op. cit. p. 142.

328 See below, pp. 293-4.

329 P. Ricaut, The Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches, Anno Christi, 1678 (1680), p. 23.

330 Gedeon, Χρονικα του Πατριαχικου Οικου και Ναου, p. 131, and TTcrTpiapxiKol nivaKES, pp. 491, 511, 594, J99, 622, 625. See Stephanopoli, op. cit. pp. 254-8. R. Pococke gives an unflattering picture of the ‘University’ at Patmos in about 1730 (A Description of the East, ii, 2, p. 31).