https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6842-5871
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Syria and Lebanon occupied a special place in the competition of the nineteenth-century Great Powers in the Eastern Question. Having entered this struggle, the Russian state used its accustomed routes of influence through the Orthodox Church. This article argues that the traditional practice of sending donations without asking for reports on their usage did not work in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Diplomatic pressure combined with control over the money sent worked better. Confessional instruments of policy thus found new patterns in the age of nationalism. After the Crimean War, Russian imperialism was opposed to the Greek Great Idea in the Balkans and the Middle East; in Syria and Palestine Russian church policy was based on support for the Arabs. All methods of ‘soft power’ (the foundation of schools for the Arab population, attempts to (re)convert the Melkites to Orthodoxy, and gradual Arabisation of the high clergy of the Patriarchate of Antioch) were aimed at putting Syria and Lebanon under Russian control. Unlike in Palestine or Alexandria, this policy was successful: in the first decades of the nineteenth century the Arab Patriarchate of Antioch was completely financed by the Russian government. This article investigates whether the policy of Arabisation could have brought about stability in the region, and whether it really contributed to the realisation of the idea of Orthodox unification under Russian control.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 The Eastern question is usually understood as the competition of the Great Powers (Britain, France, Russia, Austria and Prussia (later Germany)) for political influence in the Balkans and the Middle East. By means of diplomatic and economic interference the powers were preparing the basis for future division of the Ottoman territory into colonies and spheres of influence. The religious policy among the non-Muslim population was an important lever in this struggle, and along with other humanitarian actions, formed a field of ‘soft power. The Eastern Question was concentrated around two major centres, Constantinople and Jerusalem, but in general concerned the whole Ottoman territory.
2 The ‘Palestinian states’ is an edict by Empress Anna Ioannovna assigning a certain annual amount of donations to a list of Eastern Orthodox churches and monasteries. The representatives of these institutions had to arrive in Moscow once every five years to receive the money. From the last years of the eighteenth century the donations were sent by bank transfer to the recipients via the Russian embassy in Constantinople and the local consulates.
3 Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii archiv (Russian State Historical Archives, further after RGIA), f. 797. op. 8. d. 24207, ff. 10–11 (Russian translation).
4 The general name ‘Uniats’ is applied to the Orthodox Christians from Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Belarus) as well as the Middle East and the Balkans who adopted union with Rome between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. They were allowed to preserve their liturgical rites and to elect their clergy, i.e., enjoyed a certain level of autonomy in the Catholic church.
5 RGIA, f. 797. op. 8. d. 24207, ff. 12–13.
6 A report of Metropolitan Serafim of St. Petersburg to the Holy Synod, January 27, 1839. Ibid., ff. 36–37. The success of the first request encouraged the Patriarch to address the Russian Synod a second time (January 31, 1839), but this time it was left without attention. Decision of the Holy Synod, April 3-July 13, 1839. Ibid., ff. 45–48v.
7 See the official correspondence on this matter from 1840 to 1841: RGIA, f. 797, op. 10, d. 26564.
8 The official right of protection of the Orthodox subjects of the Sultan was not pronounced in the text of the treaty (see: Davison Citation2013), but nevertheless was silently recognised by the representatives of other countries. It served as a basis for all claims of this kind during the nineteenth century, though often disputed by the Greek clergy and the Ottoman authorities. This right of protection was similar to the capitulations which provided opportunities to the French religious institutions on Ottoman territory (see: Ahmad Citation2000, van den Boogert Citation2005, etc.).
9 A report by Chancellor K. Nesselrode about Archimandrite Porfirii. May 15, 1843, in: Lisovoi Citation2017, vol. II, p. 15–16; K. V. Nesselrode-to Ambassador V. P. Titov. November 2, 1843, ibidem, p. 16–19; Instruction from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Archimandrite Porfirii. November 2, 1843, Ibidem, p. 19.
10 Most papers written by Porfirii were edited already by the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries by a special commission at the Imperial Academy of Sciences: P. V. Bezobrazov Citation1910. Others, still unpublished, are conserved in St Petersburg department of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences (fund 118). Porfirii's journals were also edited by the commission: Porphirii Uspenskii (Citation1894–Citation1901). See: Gerd and Potin (Citation2018, p. 100–117).
11 Later, in the 1860s, Bishop Makarios was allowed to gather donations in Russia, and later brought to Russia some old Arabic books. One of them was given by him to Grand Duke Constantin Nikolaevich during his stay in Petersburg in 1866–1867 (Frantsuzov, Citation2019, p. 104–122). See the correspondence on the journey of Makarios to Russia: Lisovoi and Smirnova (Citation2008, p. 227–247).
12 See the publication of the main documents on the foundation of the Russian mission and its work: Lisovoi Citation2017, vol. II. On the history of the mission: Dmitrievskii, Citation1906; ‘Uchrezhdeniie I pervyi period deiatel’nosti Russkoi Duhovnoi missii pod nachal'stvom archimandrita Porfiriia (1842–1855)’, in: Lisovoi (Citation2000, vol. II, p. 12–51); Nikodim (Citation2019).
13 RGIA, f. 797, op. 12., d. 30535.
14 RGIA, f. 797, op. 18, d. 41823.
15 The process which started in Constantinople, the centre of Eastern Orthodoxy, quickly spread among other churches in the Ottoman Empire.
16 In 1893, defending his rights over the Moscow compound of the Patriarchate of Antioch, Patriarch Spyridon stressed that the Arabic element and language in Syria was a recent one, dating to the Arab conquest of the land, which had originally been pure Greek. Patriarch Spyridon to Constantine Pobedonostsev, January 31, 1893. RGIA, f. 796, op. 61, d. 307, ff. 86–95v.
17 The Great Idea (Megali Idea) is a political theory rooted in medieval messianic dreams of the Eastern Christian Oecumene. After the fall of the Byzantine Empire these dreams were transformed into expectations for the restoration of the Christian Greek Empire. In the age of romanticism and nineteenth century nationalism the Great Idea absorbed the Greek national idea and became a lever of practical policy, aiming at unifying all historically Greek lands into one state. The aggressive Greek idea, usually carried by politicians from the Greek Kingdom, had a moderate wing, represented by the rich merchants and bankers of Constantinople, who sought a revival of the Orthodox Empire by gradual displacement of the Turks from key positions in the Ottoman state and their replacement by Greeks (Skopetea Citation1988, Dakin Citation1989, Petrunina Citation2010, p. 371–518; Klapsis Citation2019).
18 On the evolution of the Russian political thought and foreign policy strategies in the course of Pan-Slavism and its further development to imperial universalism see: Petrovich (Citation1956); Gerd (Citation2014); Vovchenko (Citation2016).
19 Information about the abuses was reported in diplomatic dispatches, private letters and other sources throughout nineteenth century (Lisovoi Citation2006, p. 82–85, 232–261, 309–345). Similar was the situation in the Patriarchate of Alexandria (Petrunina et al. Citation2020, p. 57–71). The administration of most of the chiefs of the eastern compounds in Moscow ended in financial scandals and enormous debts, caused by the misuse of the large donations. See, for example, the documents on the compound of Antioch: RGIA, f. 796, op. 134, d. 2123 (File on the property left by the late Metropolitan of Heliopolis Neophytos, who stayed in Moscow to gather donations for the Patriarchal See of Antioch, 1853–1861); a letter of Patriarch of Antioch Gerasimos to the Russian consul in Beirut with a project to pledge the Moscow compound in order to pay off its debts (September 26, 1889), ibid;, f. 796, op. 172, d. 2587, ff. 4v-5.
20 On details of the election of Hierotheus see: Lisovoi and Smirnova (Citation2008, p. 193–251).
21 A. Beger to E. Kovalevskii, April 21, 1860. RGIA, f. 797, op. 27, 2 otd., 2 st., d. 427, ff. 166–169. A. Beger to A. Lobanov, December 2, 1860. RGIA, f. 797, op. 27, 2 otd., 2 st., d. 427, ff. 261–165v.
22 See the numerous reports and dispatches on this topic during 1859 and 1860: RGIA, f. 797, op. 27, 2 otd. 2 st. d. 427.
23 An extract from the papers of the Holy Synod, September 28, 1864. RGIA, f. 796. Op. 145, d. 850, ff. 25–26.
24 A proposal of Ober-Procurator Akhmatov to the Holy Synod, April 15, 1864. RGIA, f. 796, op. 145, d. 850, ff. 1–2v.
25 E. Novikov to N. Ignatiev, May 13, 1864. Ibid., ff. 29–33.
26 Letter of Bishop Ioannikios to his flock, December 13, 1864. RGIA, f. 832, op. 1, d. 106, ff, 166–167v. He explained his return to the Union as a result of breaches of promise by the Russians: first, they had promised that the Melkites would have their own churches and high clergy, separate from the Greeks; second, they did not fulfil their promises to build new churches and pay salaries to the Melkite clergy. Ambassador Ignatiev explained his behaviour on purely material grounds (N. Ignatiev to A. Gorchakov, December 29, 1864/January 10, 1865. Ibid., ff. 160–161v). Apart from frustration with the Russians, his decision was strongly influenced by negotiations with the French consul Eugène Hecquard, who was working the same year to organise a Melkite school in Damascus. See: Report of Eugène Hecquard to Éduard Drouin de Lhuys. Damascus, June 24, 1864. Ministère des affaires étrangères, Correspondence des consuls (furtherafter MAE, CPC) 67, Turquie, Damas, 8, ff. 195–199; The same idea was supported in a letter of Consul M. Outray, dated April 29, 1865 (MAE, CPC 67, Damas, 9, f. 311).
27 Extract from the report of A. Beger, February 10, 1865. RGIA, f. 832, op. 1., d. 105, ff. 35–38.; A Proposal to the Holy Synod, May 8, 1870. RGIA, f. 796, op. 151, d. 1449, ff. 1–8.
28 See, for example the reports of the Metropolitans of Seleukia and Epiphaneia on spending the sums received from the Russian Synod in 1906 and 1907: RGIA, f. 796, op. 188, d. 7758.
29 See the numerous reports of the French consuls with details on the Russian schools, e.g.,: P. Savoye, Tripoli, January 27, 1898 г. MAE, Saint-Siège, n. s. Vol. 91. ff. 266–267v.; ibid., December 19, 1898. Ibid., ff. 273–274v.
30 A dispatch of Ernest Constans, August 15, 1898 г. Ibid., ff. 270–272.
31 The budget records of the Palestine Society give the following figures: from March 1890 to March 1891 the income of the Society was 365,000 rubles; about 23,200 rubles was used for maintaining schools in Syria and Palestine; the next year from an income of 287,500 rubles, 26,300 rubles were spent on the schools. The schools required increasing financing, and by 1910 the deficit of the budget came up to 99,418 rubles.
32 N. V. Kohmanskii, ‘Report on the trip to Syria for examining the question about reforming the school activities of the Palestine Society’, in: Grushevoi (Citation2016, p. 97–207).
33 The Bulgarian ecclesiastical issue was the central national and political conflict in the Balkans in the second half of the nineteenth century. With the rise of their national self-consciousness, the Bulgarians demanded a Slavonic liturgy and national Bishops. As the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not meet their requirements, from 1860 the name of the Patriarch was not commemorated in the Bulgarian churches, and income from the provinces ceased. In 1870, with the support of the Russian ambassador to Constantinople Count Nikolai Ignatiev, the Bulgarian Exarchate was established. In 1872 the Synod of the Greek Patriarchs of the East proclaimed the Bulgarian church as schismatic, and the split in the Orthodox church lasted till 1945. This situation was rather unfavourable for Russian policy in the Ottoman Empire, as it was based on the unity of Orthodoxy.
34 K. D. Petkovich to E. E; Staal, July 14, 1869. RGIA, f.797, op. 38. 2 otd., d. 71. ff. 14–15v.
35 K. Petkovich to E. Staal, August 29, 1869, ibid., ff. 31–32.
36 K. Petkovich to N. Ignatiev, September 20: October 11, 1869, ibid., ff. 36–38.
37 ‘The Patriarchate of Antioch,’ a note written at the Asian department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1885. RGIA, f. 797, op. 55, 2 otd. 3 st., d. 275 (‘Following the reports of our consul in Beirut about the population, churches and schools of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch’), ff. 12–18.
38 RGIA, f. 797, op. 61, d. 307 (On the election of Patriarch Spyridon and the recall from Moscow of the administrator of the Antiochian compound Archimandrite Rafael, 1891–1892); ibid;, f. 796, op. 174, d. 3001 (On the letter of Patriarch Spyridon about a donation for restauration of Orthodox churches and foundation of schools, 1893).
39 RGIA, f. 796, op. 179, d. 4015, ff. 2–4; Jakushev (Citation2006, p. 99–106); Idem, 2013, pp; 202–208.
40 P. Savoye-Th. Delcassé 12 Mars 1899. MAE, CPC OM Saint- Siège. 91. ff. 1–8. P. Savoye-Th. Delcassé, 31 Mars, 1899. Ibid., ff. 285–286v; 5 Avril 1899, ibid. ff. 287–288v; 21 Avril 1899, ibid., ff. 292–296v. P. Savoye-Th. Delcassé, 13 Mai 1899. Ibid., ff. 302–304v.
41 See the dispatch of Shcherbachev, Pera, May 1/14, 1900. RGIA, f. 797, op. 70, II otd. 3 st., ff. 67–68.
42 A private letter to Fadlala Sarruf, translator of Porfirii Uspenskii and later professor of Arabic at St. Petersburg university. RGIA, f. 797, op. 27. II otd. 2 st. d. 427. ff. 2-2v.
43 A copy from the report of the Russian consul to Damascus Beliaev to Ambassador Zinoviev, November 3, 1901, No. 327. RGIA, f. 796, op. 72, 2 otd.. 3 st., d. 26, ff. 2-2v.; A translation of the letter of the Syrian Jacobite Metropolitan in Dyarbekir to A. Beliaev, October 19, 1901. Ibid., f. 3.
44 A copy of the report of Consul B. N. Shakhovskoi to the Ambassador in Constantinople, October 3, 1910, No. 754. RGIA, f. 797, op. 81. 2 otd. 3 st., d. 194, ff. 18–19v. See also the translation of the letter of Patriarch Gregory IV to the Consul in Damascus, August 21, 1910, No. 53. Ibid., ff. 20–21v. Extract from the decision of the Holy Synod, March 23 / April 26, 1911 № 2455, ibid., ff. 3–4.
45 A proposal to the Holy Synod, February 26, 1913 № 6964. RGIA, f. 796, op. 197, VI otd ., 1 st., d. 62, ff. 1–2.
46 Born into a poor Arab family from the village of Abaja in Lebanon, he studied in a Protestant primary school, later (from 1872) continuing his studies in the Orthodox school in Beirut. Secretary of Bishop Gabriel of Lebanon, he helped to edit a journal and in the educational work of the church. On being elected Bishop of Tripoli (1890), he started a close cooperation with the Imperial Palestine Society in opening schools in the Arab villages. In 1900 was appointed head of the Balamand ecclesiastical school.
47 RGIA, f. 196, op. 199, VI otd;, 4 st.
48 The enthusiastic articles in the Russian press on the occasion of Patriarch Gregory's election, and especially his journey to Russia in 1913, were followed by a brochure by Professor Ivan Sokolov, the well-known specialist in Byzantine and Middle Eastern church history (Citation1914).
49 RGIA, f. 796, op. 189, d. 8445, About the state of affairs in the Patriarchate of Antioch.
50 Russian National Library, manuscript department, f. 253, d. 37.
51 Ibid., d. 64.