Imperium
in imperio
.It doth go hugely against the grain to see the crescent exalted
everywhere, where the Cross
stood so long triumphant.: so wrote Edward
Browne in 1677, soon after arriving as Chaplain to
the English Embassy at Constantinople. To the Greeks, in 1453 it must also have
gone hugely
against the grain. For more than a
thousand years men had taken the Christian Empire of Byzan-
tium for granted as a permanent element in
God.s providential dispensation to the world. Now
the .God-protected city. had fallen, and
the Greeks were under the rule of the infidel.
It
was not an easy transition: but it was made less hard by the Turks themselves,
who treated
their Christian subjects with remarkable
generosity. The Mohammedans in the fifteenth century
were
far more tolerant
towards Christianity than
western Christians were
towards one another
during the Reformation and the seventeenth
century. Islam regards the Bible as a holy book and
Jesus Christ as a prophet; in Moslem eyes,
therefore, the Christian religion is incomplete but not
entirely false, and Christians, being
.People of the Book,. should not be treated as if on a level
with mere pagans. According to Mohammedan
teaching, Christians are to undergo no persecu-
tion, but may continue without interference
in the observance of their faith, so long as they sub-
mit quietly to the power of Islam.
Such were the principles which guided the conqueror of Constantinople,
Sultan Mohammed
II. Before the fall of the city, Greeks
called him .the precursor of Antichrist and the second Sen-
nacherib,. but they found that in practice
his rule was very different in character. Learning that
the office of Patriarch was vacant,
Mohammed summoned the monk Gennadius and installed
him on the Patriarchal throne. Gennadius
(1450-1472), known as George Scholarios before he
became a monk, was a voluminous writer and
the leading Greek theologian of his time. He was a
determined opponent of the Church of Rome,
and his appointment as Patriarch meant the final
abandonment of the Union of Florence.
Doubtless for political reasons, the Sultan deliberately
chose a man of anti-Latin convictions:
with Gennadius as Patriarch, there would be less likeli-
hood of the Greeks seeking secret aid from
Roman Catholic powers.
The Sultan himself
instituted the Patriarch,
ceremonially investing him
with his pastoral
staff, exactly as the autocrats of
Byzantium had formerly done. The action was symbolic: Mo-
hammed the Conqueror, champion of Islam,
became also the protector of Orthodoxy, taking over
the role once exercised by the Christian
Emperor. Thus Christians were assured a definite place
in the Turkish order of society; but, as
they were soon to discover, it was a place of guaranteed
inferiority. Christianity under Islam was
a second-class religion, and its adherents second-class
citizens. They paid heavy taxes, wore a
distinctive dress, were not allowed to serve in the army,
and were forbidden to marry Moslem women.
The Church was allowed to undertake no mission-
ary work, and it was a crime to convert a
Moslem to the Christian faith. From the material point
of view there was every inducement for a
Christian to apostatize to Islam. Direct persecution of-
ten serves to strengthen a Church; but the
Greeks in the Ottoman Empire were denied the more
heroic ways of witnessing to their faith,
and were subjected instead to the demoralizing effects of
an unrelenting social pressure.
Nor was this all. After the fall of Constantinople the Church was not
allowed to revert to the
situation before the conversion of
Constantine; paradoxically enough, the things of Caesar now
became more closely associated with the
things of God than they had ever been before. For the
Mohammedans drew
no distinction between
religion and politics:
from their point
of view, if
Christianity was to be recognized as an
independent religious faith, it was necessary for Chris-
tians to be organized as an independent
political unit, an Empire within the Empire. The Ortho-
dox Church therefore became a civil as
well as a religious institution: it was turned into the Rum
46
Millet, the .Roman nation.. The ecclesiastical
structure was taken over in toto as an
instrument
of secular administration. The bishops
became government officials, the Patriarch was not only
the spiritual head of the Greek Orthodox
Church, but the civil head of the Greek nation . the
ethnarch or
millet-bashi. This
situation continued in Turkey until 1923, and in Cyprus until the
death of Archbishop Makarios III (1977).
The
millet system
performed one invaluable
service: it made
possible the survival
of the
Greek
nation as a
distinctive unit through
four centuries of
alien rule. But
on the life
of the
Church it had two melancholy effects. It
led first to a sad confusion between Orthodoxy and na-
tionalism. With their civil and political
life organized completely around the Church, it became
all but impossible for the Greeks to
distinguish between Church and nation. The Orthodox faith,
being
universal, is limited
to no single
people, culture, or
language; but to
the Greeks of the
Turkish Empire .Hellenism. and Orthodoxy
became inextricably intertwined, far more so than
they had ever been in the Byzantine
Empire. The effects of this confusion continue to the present
day.
In
the second place, the Church.s higher
administration became caught up in a
degrading
system of corruption and simony. Involved
as they were in worldly affairs and matters political,
the bishops fell a prey to ambition and
financial greed. Each new Patriarch required a berat from
the Sultan before he could assume office,
and for this document he was obliged to pay heavily.
The Patriarch recovered his expenses from the episcopate, by exacting
a fee from each bishop
before instituting him in his diocese; the
bishops in turn taxed the parish clergy, and the clergy
taxed their flocks. What was once said of
the Papacy was certainly true of the Ecumenical Patri-
archate under the Turks: everything was
for sale.
When there were several candidates for the Patriarchal throne, the Turks
virtually sold it to
the highest bidder; and they were quick to
see that it was in their financial interests to change the
Patriarch as frequently
as possible, so as to multiply occasions for selling the berat. Patriarchs
were removed and reinstated with
kaleidoscopic rapidity. .Out of 159 Patriarchs who have held
office between the fifteenth and the
twentieth century, the Turks have on 105 occasions driven
Patriarchs from their throne; there have
been 27 abdications, often involuntary; 6 Patriarchs have
suffered violent deaths by hanging,
poisoning, or drowning; and only 21 have died natural deaths
while in office. (B. J. Kidd, The Churches of
Eastern Christendom, London, 1927, p. 304). The same man
sometimes held office on four or five
different occasions, and there were usually several ex-
Patriarchs watching restively in exile for
a chance to return to the throne. The extreme insecurity
of the Patriarch naturally gave rise to
continual intrigues among the Metropolitans of the Holy
Synod who hoped to succeed him, and the
leaders of the Church were usually separated into bit-
terly hostile parties. .Every good Christian,. wrote an
English resident in the seventeenth-
century Levant, .ought with sadness to
consider, and with compassion to behold this once glori-
ous Church tear and rend out her own
bowels, and give them for food vultures and ravens, and to
the wild and fierce Creatures of the World.
(Sir
Paul Rycaut, The Present State of the Greek and
Armenian
Churches, London, 1679, p. 107).
But if the Patriarchate of Constantinople suffered an inward decay,
outwardly its power ex-
panded as never before. The Turks looked
on the Patriarch of Constantinople as the head of all
Orthodox Christians in their dominions.
The other Patriarchates also within the Ottoman Empire
. Alexandria, Antioch,
Jerusalem . remained
theoretically independent but
were in practice
subordinate. The Churches of Bulgaria and
Serbia . likewise within Turkish
dominions .
gradually lost all independence, and by
the mid-eighteenth century had passed directly under the
Ecumenical Patriarch.s control. But in the nineteenth century,
as Turkish power declined, the
frontiers of the Patriarchate contracted.
The nations which gained freedom from the Turks found
47
it impracticable to remain subject
ecclesiastically to a Patriarch resident in the Turkish capital
and closely involved in the Turkish
political system. The Patriarch resisted as long as he could,
but in each case he bowed eventually to
the inevitable. A series of national Churches were
carved out of the Patriarchate: the Church
of Greece (organized in 1833, recognized by the Patri-
arch of Constantinople in 1850); the
Church of Romania (organized in 1864, recognized in
1885); the Church of Bulgaria (reestablished m 1871, not
recognized by Constantinople until
1945); the Church of Serbia (restored
and recognized in 1879). The diminution
of the Patriar-
chate has continued in the present
century, chiefly as a result of war, and its membership is now
but a tiny fraction of what it once was in
the palmy days of Ottoman suzerainty.
The Turkish occupation had two opposite effects upon the intellectual
life of the Church: it
was the cause on the one hand of an
immense conservatism and on the other of a certain west-
ernization. Orthodoxy under the Turks felt
itself on the defensive. The great aim was survival .
to keep things going in hope of better days
to come. The Greeks clung with miraculous tenacity
to the Christian civilization which they
had taken over from Byzantium, but they had little oppor-
tunity
to develop this
civilization creatively. Intelligibly
enough, they were
usually content to
repeat accepted formulae, to entrench
themselves in the positions which they had inherited from
the past. Greek thought underwent an
ossification and a hardening which one cannot but regret;
yet conservatism had its advantages. In a
dark and difficult period the Greeks did in faces main-
tain the Orthodox tradition substantially
unimpaired. The Orthodox under Islam
took as their
guide Paul.s words to Timothy: .Guard the
deposit: keep safe what has been entrusted to you. (I
Timothy 6:20). Could they in the end have
chosen a better motto?
Yet alongside this traditionalism there is another and contrary current
in Orthodox theology
of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries: the current of western infiltration. It was difficult for
the Orthodox under Ottoman rule to
maintain a good standard of scholarship.
Greeks who
wished for a higher education were obliged
to travel to the non-Orthodox world, to
Italy and
Germany, to Paris, and even as far as
Oxford. Among the distinguished Greek theologians of the
Turkish period, a few were self-taught,
but the overwhelming majority had been trained in the
west under Roman Catholic or Protestant
masters.
Inevitably this had an effect upon the way in which they interpreted Orthodox
theology.
Certainly Greek students in the west read
the Fathers, but they only became acquainted with such
of the Fathers as were held in esteem by
their non-Orthodox professors. Thus Gregory Palamas
was still read, for his spiritual
teaching, by the monks of Athos; but to most learned Greek theo-
logians of the Turkish period he was
utterly unknown. In the works of Eustratius Argenti (died
1758?), the ablest Greek theologian of his
time, there is not a single citation from Palamas; and
his case is typical. It is symbolic of the
state of Greek Orthodox learning in the last four centuries
that one of the chief works of Palamas, The Triads in
Defence of the Holy Hesychasts, should
have remained in great part unpublished
until 1959.
There was a real danger that Greeks who studied in the West, even though
they remained
fully loyal in intention to their own
Church, would lose their Orthodox mentality and become cut
off from Orthodoxy as a living tradition.
It was difficult for them not to look at theology through
western spectacles; whether consciously or
not, they used terminology and forms of
argument
foreign to their own Church. Orthodox
theology underwent what the Russian theologian Father
Georges Florovsky (1893-1979) has
appropriately termed a pseudo-morphosis.
Religious think-
ers of the Turkish period can be divided
for the most part into two broad groups, the .Latinizers.
and the .Protestantizers.. Yet the extent
of this westernization must not be exaggerated. Greeks
used the outward forms which they had
learnt in the west, but in the substance of their thought
48
the great majority remained fundamentally
Orthodox. The tradition was at times distorted by be-
ing forced into alien moulds . distorted,
but not wholly destroyed.
Keeping in mind this twofold background of conservatism and
westernization, let us con-
sider the challenge presented to the
Orthodox world by Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
|