The Great Church in Captivity
Diverse scholarly monographs dedicated to the Orthodox Church history during the reign of King Ottoman have recently been published. One such scholarly work is that of The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence by Steven Runciman. Sir Steven has successfully penned down the patriarchate history by chronicling the events during the Ottoman rule. It is indeed a detailed and a lucid piece of work which displays the research conducted on language relevant to this theme.
However, the book gives a detailed account of the Byzantine Era and this is extremely invaluable information for the reader. The narration is extremely intriguing which displays the work of a gifted author. Professor Runciman is well known for his elaborative work on the Crusades and has been recognized for its presentable, resourcefulness and augmented vigour. This book also displays the above qualities and hence the reader is provided with loads of information about the church and its perils during the Ottoman rule. Important events that took place during this time have been well documented by the author. Notable among these are the narrative details by which the author mentioned the execution of Gregory V. The year 1821 was highly traumatic for the Patriarchate especially because Gregory V was hanged in his ecclesiastical garments in the churchyard. Another piece of work which was well dealt with in this book is the events which led the Turkish to mistrust the Orthodox Greeks during this period. The ‘Hellenic’ resurgence has been well nurtured and narrated for the reader to understand the events which led to such drastic consequences. Aspects detailing the mechanisms used by the Orthodox Church to preserve and protect their individuality and the perils undergone with relation to the physical survival of this community in remote locations of the kingdom, determining the mechanisms used by the Orthodox community to preserve the Greeks and using the exact words of Sir Steven the manner in which the church nurtured ‘Hellenism’ has been well described in this book.
The book has been highly appreciated for providing classical details of the Constantinople Patriarchate. The survival of the Orthodox Church during the Turkish rule in Greece for around four hundred years has been extremely well treated in this book. The author has adapted a style which displays sympathy, scholarship and presents lucid chronological account of several key incidents during this era.
Criticisms
Despite this, the book is subject to criticism. One of the simplest criticisms which may be levelled against this book is that of dedication to consider the Constantinople patriarchate in the Byzantine era. The orthodox populations’ destiny has surely been taken into account by Sir Steven in this book, but he has made a broad conception of ‘eve’. The book describes the church as an organization in apostolic times.
The main criticism levelled against this book is that the book was originally based on two separate lectures Bickbeck Lectures rendered at Cambridge and Gifford Lectures rendered at St. Andrews. The two disparate strands have not been integrated and hence the book loses the insightful quality. Another critical imbalance in this book by Steven Runciman is that the part detailed on the patriarchate in the times of Tourkokratia has been detailed with the association of the churches located in the west, the Greek Church, the Anglicans, Latins and Calvanists and the Orthodox Church located in Russia. This imbalance is identified by Sir Steven himself and he moves forward to justify the interest in the Ecumenical Movement. This shows the expertise of the author on this subject. Indeed this book is considered to provide invaluable information, despite having several errors.
One of the chapters in the Orthodox Church history has given a detailed account of the contact with the above mentioned churches. Despite the fact that Sir Stevens excellently gives this account, this part of familiar to most Western readers by means of George William’s The Orthodox Church of the East in the Eighteenth Century, which has detailed the correspondence between the Nonjuring Bishops and the Eastern Patriarchs. Although Sir Steven minutely details the ecumenical contacts in the seventeenth century, he has failed to give any account of the contact renewal between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the English Church by means of missionaries like Church Missionary Society and British and Foreign Bible Society.
The main ambiguity in this book is that the reader is not certain of any existence of Ottoman loyalty towards the Greek community. The main question in this entire puzzle is that whether the Greek Patriarchate did accept the Turkish reign forever. Professor Runciman is not able to deal with this historical paradox. Also the reader has not been provided any information about the behaviour and religious experience of the Greek people during the autocratic Turkish reign. This may be due to the fact that the author has not explored devotional literature which was of immense significance in this period.
The book has again failed to focus on the Byzantine background and has not dealt with significant historical events during the reign of the Ottomans. Sir Stevens has selectively treated some events and have completely neglected others. An important context which has been sidelined in this book is the Crypto-Christian phenomenon which existed in several regions of the Ottoman Empire like Epirus, Crete and Pontes. In fact, he has literally dismissed the mass Islamization of the Orthodox Christian population especially in the above mentioned regions during the Ottoman rule.
The book also does not throw significant light on the anti-clericalism growth during the time Greece was under the Ottoman rule. Sir Stevens does mention this trend but does not dedicate much time on this. Thus, the attitudes and actions of the Orthodox Church which led to anti-clerical traits have not been mentioned in this book. In fact the anti-clericalism traits were not limited to the nascent intelligentsia. They had been broadly used especially in works of literature. A popular satire by the name of Rossanglogallos hurls attacks to the higher order clergy and has been widely written in several manuscripts in the initial nineteenth century decades. Some striking examples can be noticed in the works of notable scholars like W.K. Leake, John Cam Hobhouse and Byron.
Another phenomenon under which the Greek population was reeling during this period is that of anti-education. The Greeks regarded education to be the emancipation of the entire community. A campaign led by Athanasios Parios urged the Greeks not to send their offspring to Europe to seek education as this continent was looked down as the ‘brink of Hades’ and a place for chaotic corruption. The campaign warned Greek parents that children going to Europe would become atheists or fall prey to popery. The Church did not support the classical heritage of the Greeks pre-1821. An inclination towards the classical heritage was dismissed as an act of atheism and free thinking. The hierarchical attitudes leading to highly bitter conflicts with reference to the question of language and a general discussion of education of Greeks in the pre-independence era has not been detailed as compared with his discussion of the education of the Greeks from fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries.
The patriarchate submissively complied with such displays of obscurantism during the Ottoman reign. This may have been the most careful step to be taken, given the situations of upheaval during this time, but it did not consider the appeal of those in favour of independence. The subsequent increase in the anti-clerical emotions were a result of continued urge to remain committed to the Ottoman Turks by the Greek raya. The obedience preaching that was printed in the year 1798 at Jerusalem’s Dhidhaskalia Patriki in Constantinople was later symbolized in Patriarch Anthimos. However, as Sir Steven rightly mentions, the line did not open by ‘thanking God for establishing the Ottoman rule’ (Runciman, 394). This important event has been well described in the book. The church alienation was one of the most significant events during the pre-independence era and is in dispute with the Hellenism portrait that the church nurtured. However, I feel that Sir Steven should have given more details on this topic rather than just implying this event.
Significant misses in this book
The book heavily details certain historical happenings in Greece and the tasks performed by Orthodox high ranking hierarchies. The book has unravelled complicated intrigues with high skill and clarity. However significant matters like the finances available with the patriarchate have not been dealt with. Other than these significant misses, Sir Stevens work is constrained to severe errors. For example, his description of the manner in which the Synod and Patriarch Gregory V reacted to the events finally leading to the Greek War has been misinterpreted. Upon hearing the news of the commencement of war Gregory V rushed to ‘summon the Synod’. However, the Synod could not take any action other than praying and remaining silent as they were surrounded by Turkish police. I quote from the book ‘Had Gregory been able to bring himself to denounce the revolt he might have saved his life’ (Runciman, 405 – 406). However, the Greek Church should understand that the synod protested in this tumultuous reign and Gregory successfully denounced the outcome. History has unearthed several encyclicals which have been signed by the Holy Synod members and Gregory V and these encyclicals openly denounce Michael Soutzos, who was the hospodar of Alexandhros and Moldavia, and who strived to incite the Principalities inhabitants to rebel against Porte during the period of February – March 1821.
An old myth which had been long set straight has been repeated in this book. The false information was provided about the Treaty of Kucuk Kainarci in Russia in the year 1774 (Runciman, 401). According to Sir Steven, post signing this treaty, Russia invoked the right to intervene in the affairs of Turkey to vote in favour of the Orthodox Church. This piece of wrong information has been provided in most English text books recently despite the fact that basic accounts like Eastern Question by J.A.R. Marriott has already corrected this error. This myth may have been introduced in the works of George Finlay or Hammer von Purgstall and is extremely misleading. In reality, the treaty did not invoke any such right to Russia except for the right to construct a public church in ‘Beyoglu Street’ with Greek – Russo rituals. The church would be forever protected by the Russian imperial court ministers. The nation was also promised the consistently protect the Christians including their churches and the Russian diplomats were permitted to intervene in order to force people to obey the Porte. This event further triggered Russia to impose a protectorate over the Orthodox Christian community in the nineteenth century, which subsequently led to the Crimean War. Thus, the Orthodox Christians were more interested in augmented possibilities of increased trade in the Black Sea rather than the provisions provided by the Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarci.
According to Steven Runciman, no Masonic lodge existed in the Ottoman reign prior to the year 1821 (Runciman, 392). However in the works of Manuel Gedheon, after a Masonic lodge was founded at Galata in Constantinople, a letter was issued in the year 1744 or 1745. Also Sir Stevens maintain that the first Masonic lodge was founded in the year 1811 despite the fact that historical evidences point to the existence of a Masonic lodge in the year 1807 or even earlier.
According to Sir Stevens, during the reign of Tourkokratia, there were only a handful of Greek ecclesiastics who dedicated themselves to the spiritual life and religious discourse (Runciman, 206). On the contrary, these individuals had a lot of time for theological discourse and not to follow a spiritual life. Subsequently this event led to the formation of an arid Orthodox theology, ‘Thirty-Six Refutations of the Latin Religion’. Also there has been documented evidence of physical violence arising out of conflicts between rival parties in theology. One such event led the theological rivals to drive the dissenting saints to the sea during the kollyvadist controversy. Another slip made by Professor Runciman is of the settling of Greek industrialists and traders in Alexandria in the period of Tourkokratia. The discussion of Greek industrialists is possibly a little anachronistic as there were very few Greeks who would be engaged in industrial activities during this period.
Finally, the book provides an exhaustive bibliography and a useful index. Despite this, the bibliography is comparatively small if compared with post war Romanian and Greek themes that the book covers. Some noteworthy omissions are those of Spiritual Revolutionar Francez si Voltaire in Limba Greaca si Romana by Ariadna Camarianos and Studii Istorice Greco-Romane by Dr. Russo.
Conclusion
Works cited:
Runciman, Steven. The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Print.
