No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Constantinople over Antioch, 1516—1724: Patriarchal Politics in the Ottoman Era
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
Extract
In January 1454 Sultan Mehmet II (1451–81), ruler of much of the Orthodox Christian Balkans and lately conqueror of Byzantium, vested the patriarch of Constantinople, George Scholarius, with full ecclesiastical authority over all the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman empire.
This ‘donation’ of Mehmet, long accepted by the scholarly consensus, now stands revealed as a ‘foundation myth’, concocted long after 1454 by the Great Church to justify the over-arching authority it wielded or aspired to wield under the Ottoman imperium.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990
References
1 Benjamin Braude, ‘Foundation myths of the Millet system’, in Christians and Jews in Ottoman Empire, I: The central lands, ed. idem and Bernard Lewis, New York 1982, esp. pp. 75, 77–9.
2 Generally called millet (Turkish from Arabic millah). On the wisdom of using taif (Turk. from Ar. tâ'ifah) instead, see ibid. 69–74. Both connote a community defined by religion.
3 Alexandria, with but a small number of faithful – most of them ethnic Greeks submerged in a sea of Muslims and Copts – did not find Constantinople's attention entirely unwelcome, even in pre-Ottoman times. Jerusalem's holy places – and international concern over them – focused Greek attention upon the patriarchate of Jerusalem and helps explain why its episcopate – despite a largely Syriac-, then Arabic-speaking, flock – was dominated by ethnic Greeks. The Greek impress was much weaker at Antioch. The Byzantine re-occupation of portions of northern Syria in the late tenth century resulted in extension, for a time, of the influence of the Great Church, while the crusader twelfth century wrought further confusion. But during neither recrudescence were Greeks or Latins able to control the whole of the territory under Antioch's jurisdiction.
4 The major source for the history of the Melkite patriarchate of Antioch in the 150 years after the Ottoman conquest of Syria remains the still-unedited chronology compiled by Makâriyûs (Macarius) al-Za'îm, patriarch of Antioch (1647–72). Macarius' original manuscript of 1665 rests in Leningrad's Asiatic Museum. At least two other versions are known to exist, and I have relied on the one most readily available: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus Arabicus, Makâriyûs al-Za'îm, Asâmî Batârikah Antâkiyah min Butrus al-Rasûl wa'lladhîna ma'ahu, MS 68g (hereinafter cited as Macarius). On the several versions of the chronology of Macarius, see Nasrallah, Joseph, ‘Chronologie des patriarches d'Antioche de 1500 à 1634’, Proche-Orient Chrétien vi (1956), vii (1957), vi. 302–4.Google Scholar Building upon, though occasionally departing from, Macarius is the chronology by his son, Archdeacon Paul of Aleppo. Paul deals only with the period from 1366, when the patriarchal residence was transferred from Antioch to Damascus, into his father's reign. For the years Preceding the journey of Paul and Macarius to Russia (1652–9) I have relied upon the text established and edited by Radu [Paul of Aleppo], ‘Voyage du patriarche Macaire d'Antioche’, ed. Radu, Basile, Patrologia Orientalis xxii (1930), 1–199Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as Paul). Because Radu's work is incomplete, I have employed Qustantîn al-Bâshâ's edition of Paul's text dealing with the years after the travellers' return from Russia, Bûlus al-Xa'îm, Nukhbah Safrah al-Batrîrk Makâriyûs al-Halabî bi Qalam Waladihi al-Shammâs Bûlus, ed. Qustantin al-Bâshâ, Harîsa, Lebanon 1912. On other versions of Paul's chronology, see Radu's remarks in Paul, 13–18, and Nasrallah's discussion in ‘Chronologie’ vi. 301–2. Also resting upon the work of Macarius – particularly the version bearing the title ‘Majmû' Latî’ – but using other sources to carry the chronology of patriarchs up to the year 1767, is the work by the Melkite Orthodox priest of Damascus, Mikhâ'îl Burayk. I have used the manuscript contained in Bibliothèque Orientale de Beyrouth, Mikhâ'îl Burayk Antâmî Batârikah Antâkiyah al-'Uzmâ min ‘Ahd Butrus al-Rasûl ilâ'l-ân, MS 14 (hereinafter cited as Burayk). On other versions of Burayk, see Nasrallah, , art. cit. vi. 305–6.Google Scholar Like Paul' Chronology, Burayk's, until the year 1648, must be read as essentially a variant of the original work by Macarius. Not until the latter half of the seventeenth century are Macarius, Paul and Burayk overtaken by other sources, notably those by Latin missionaries and French representatives in Syria.
5 Macarius, fo. 128r; Paul, 34; Burayk, f0. 105. Throughout this essay I rely upon the chronology of patriarchal regins established in Nasrallah, Joseph, ‘Le Patriarcat d'Antioche est-il resté, après 1054, en communion avec Rome?’, Istina iv (1976), 386 et passim.Google Scholar
6 Macarius writes: ‘they [the three patriarchs] deposed him and consecrated in his stead Lord Joachim [Kîr Yawâkîm] patriarch over Antioch’: fo. 128r. Paul, 34, and Burayk, fo. 105, closely paraphrase this account.
7 Macarius, fos 127v–8r, provides the most detailed, yet still succinct, description of this attempt at union. Curiously, Paul, 34, and Burayk, fo. 105, say nothing about it, cryptically attributing Dorotheus' deposition to his ‘illicit acts’. This Maronite–Melkite union is discussed, with something of a Uniate bias, by Nasrallah, , ‘Le Patriarcat’, 387Google Scholar; idem, ‘Chronologie’ vii. 34–5.
8 See below pp. 234–5.
9 I am unable to document any instance of direct access gained by any other prelate or his representative. Before 1580 it was still possible to circumvent Constantinople by simply not asking it to intervene, even, one suspects, to obtain a berat of investiture. A seven-year struggle around mid-century between Patriarch Joachim ibn Jum'ah (1543–76) and the anti-Patriarch Macarius ibn Hilâl featured appeals only to Ottoman authorities in Syria – and perhaps to the Lebanese amirs as well. On this contest, see Macarius, fo. 128V. Paul, 35–6, and Burayk, fo. 107, add little to Macarius' account. After 1580, however, obtaining the berat of investiture through Constantinople appears to have become essential.
10 The most detailed narrative of Michael's election and resignation belongs to Burayk, fos 109–10, who claims to be following a Greek source, fo. 110. Macarius, fo. 128V, speaks vaguely of difficulties arising between Michael and the Damascenes, while Paul, 36, adds that these difficulties were authored by Michael himself. Burayk, fos 113–14, relates that the monk who had denounced Michael for unnatural vice confessed, on his deathbed, that he had lied.
11 Macarius, fos 128v-9r; Burayk, fos 110–11. Paul, 36, is less specific about the role of the Damascenes.
12 Burayk, fos 111–12, furnishes the fullest account of these events, but see also Macarius, fo. 129r, and Paul, 36. Sec Bûlus al-Za'îm, 28, editor's note; and Nasrallah, ‘Chronologie’ vii. 211, on the support lent Joachim by the wâlî of Damascus, probably Hasan Pasha, Henri Laoust, Les Gouverneurs de Damas sous les Mamlouks et les premiers Ottomans, Damascus 1952, 190.
13 Bûlus al-Za'îm, 28–9, editor's note.
14 Rustum, Asad, Kamsah Madînah Allah Antâkijah al-'Uzmâ, 3 vols, Beirut n.d., iii. 26–7.Google Scholar
15 The Arabie text of Michael's letter to Cardinal Santa Severino, ‘Protector of the Greek Nation’, may be found in Bûlus al-Za'îm, 33–5 (editor's note).
16 The Arabic text of this letter, dated 26 Sept. 1584, is to be found, with a French translation, in Rabbath, Antoine (ed.), Documents inédits pour servir à l'histoire du Christianisme en Orient, 2 vols, Paris 1905–1907, i. 183–90.Google Scholar This remains a suspect document, for its alleged signatories, all of them supporters of Joachim, greatly enlarge their patriarch's devotion to Rome. The papal emissary credited with eliciting this letter got no such response from Joachim in person.
17 Burayk, fo. 112; Nasrallah, , ‘Chronologie’ vii. 215.Google Scholar
18 Ibid. 215–16.
19 Macarius, fo. 129r; Paul, 36; Burayk, fo. 112; Nasrallah, art. cit. vii. 216.
20 I surmise this second investiture because Michael had participated in the elevation of Theoleptus, ibid. 211.
21 Burayk, fo. 112; Nasrallah, , art. cit. vii. 211.Google Scholar
22 Macarius, fo. 129r; Paul, 36–7; Burayk, fo. 112. As for Joachim ibn Daww, he died ‘a martyr’ while on pastoral tour in the Hawrân, Macarius, fo. 129r; Paul, 37.
23 Macarius, fo. 129; Paul, 37; Burayk, fo. 114; Nasrallah, , art. cit. vii. 291.Google Scholar
24 Ibid. 292.
25 Burayk, fos 114–16.
26 Nasrallah, , ‘Chronologie’ vii. 292–3.Google Scholar
27 See below, pp. 223–4.
28 Burayk, fo. 116, narrates the deposition of Joachim and the elevation of Dorotheus iv in greatest detail, but see also Macarius, fo. 129v, and Paul, 37.
29 Macarius, fo. 129v; Paul, 37; Burayk, fo. 117.
30 The word translated above as ‘taxes’ stands as jawâlîin Burayk, fo. 117. This may perhaps denote the jiyiah (poll tax), kharâj (land tax) and/or the mîrî (in this context probably an ‘annual tribute’).
31 Burayk, loc. cit., does not specify the reason for Athanasius' grievance. The patriarch's straitened finances, and the rising number and prosperity of the Aleppine Melkites, would suggest that Athanasius and the man he had consecrated to the see of Aleppo in 1612, Nasrallah, ‘Chronologie’ vii. 296, disagreed over the amount of the patriarchal dues (al-nûriyyah).
32 Macarius, fos 129v-30r; Paul, 37–8; Burayk, fos 117–18.
33 The death of Athanasius and the elevation of his brother Cyril are related by Macarius, fos 129v-30r, and Paul, 38, but in fullest detail by Burayk, fos 118–19.
34 Nasrallah, without citing his source, asserts that Ignatius, before his ordination, had been employed as private secretary to the amir, Nasrallah, art. cit. vii. 298 n. 31. Burayk, fo. 118, suggests that ibn Sayfâ's support for Cyril also derived from the fact that a Melkite partisan of the house of al-Dabbâs, ‘Sulaymân al-Nasrânî…was the lieutenant [kâkhiyah] of Yûsuf Bâshâ’.
35 Burayk, fo. 119, does have Ignatius prevailing over Damascus and environs and over ‘the land of the House of Ma'n’. Aleppo was probably out of his and Cyril's reach (see below, pp. 225–7).
36 al-Bâshâ, Qustantin, Tâ'rfkh Tâ'ifah al-Rûm al-Malakiyyah wa'l-Ruhbâniyyah al-Mukhallisiyyah, 2 vols, Sidon, Lebanon 1938, i. 53–5, 118–20, 120 n. 1.Google Scholar
37 Burayk, fo. 119.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid. fos 119–20.
40 Macarius, fo. 130r; Paul, 38; Burayk, fo. 119.
41 See above, p. 223.
42 On Cyril's flight from Tripoli, his adventures in Aleppo and Constantinople and the repercussions in Damascus, see Burayk, fos 120–1.
43 Ibid. fo. 121.
44 On Cyril's second visit to Aleppo, see ibid, fos 121–2.
45 On the changing demography of Aleppo in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries see the valuable study by Bruce Masters, ‘Population and patterns of migration in Ottoman Aleppo’, unpubl., cited with the permission of the author, esp. pp. 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 17. Clearly, the Melkites rose with the city itself, and Aleppo's rise owed much to its inclusion within the Ottoman Empire and to the greater opportunities for East–West trade which ensued. The elevation of the diocese of Aleppo from a bishopric to a metropolitan see in 1560, Burayk, fo. 111, testifies to Melkite growth therein. Aleppo, in the first decade of the seventeenth century, hosted the consuls and merchants of Venice, England and France, Teixeira, Pedro, The Travels of Pedro Teixeira, trans. Sinclair, William F., London 1902, 113, 117–21.Google Scholar Their activities surely attracted Melkite and other Christian newcomers. The gradual decline in desert-borne traffic– the result of nomadic expansion – probably brought Melkites to Aleppo from Hims and Hamâh. Was it entirely fortuitous that Meletius Karmah and his successor as metropolitan of Aleppo were both of Hamawî origin? Hierarchal strife, the Ma'nî-Sayfâ struggle and the demise of Fakhr al-Din no doubt drove the Aleppo Melkites from Tripoli, Sidon, Beirut and even Damascus. Melkite emigration to Aleppo, a city described by a late sixteenth- or early seventeenth-century European traveller as ‘the most beautiful and largest city in Syria’, appears to have been particularly heavy during Metropolitan Meletius Karmah's reign (1612–34): L'Archivio della S. Congregazione di Propaganda Fide, Scritture riferite nei Congressi i. fo. 14, ‘Dichiarazione’, n.p., n.d. (in Italian). ‘Where once the Christians of Aleppo had been few, in his day the faithful from every place in the land and from every region turned towards her…and they prospered and increased’: Macarius, fo. 130v; also Paul, 40–1, and Burayk, fo. 131.
46 See above p. 223.
47 Burayk, fo. 122. ‘Mâl’ undoubtedly refers to the patriarchal dues (al-nûrijyah).
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid, fos 122–3. Burayk, fo. 123, refers only to ‘many disputes’.
50 The date given by Burayk, loc. cit., for Cyril's return to Aleppo – 7 Oct. 7136 after Creation (AD 1628) – must be an error since the Synod of Ra's Ba'albak (June 1628) took place after Cyril's return. Macarius, in ‘Majmû’ Latir, places Meletius' confrontation with the wâlî on 7 Aug. 1627, a date that rings true, Nasrallah, , ‘Chronologie’ vii. 300.Google Scholar
51 See Hadjiantoniou, George A., Protestant Patriarch, Richmond, Virginia 1961, esp. chs viii, ix, xii.Google Scholar
52 Burayk, fo. 123.
53 Ibid. Paul, 39, and Macarius, in ‘Majmû' latîf’ (Nasrallah, , art. cit. vii. 300)Google Scholar, attribute to Cyril the initiative that led to the convening of the Synod of Antioch. Macarius, fo. 130r, is less explicit.
54 Macarius, fo. 130r; Burayk, fo. 124; Paul 38–9. Only Macarius, fo. 130r, indicates that Cyril was also excommunicated. On the date of the synod, see Nasrallah, , ‘Le Patriarcat’, 390.Google Scholar
55 Burayk's account, fos 123–4, corresponds to Macarius', in ‘Majmû' Latîf’, (Nasrallah, , ‘Chronologie’ vii. 302).Google Scholar But while Macarius, fo. 130r, fails to clarify the question, Paul, 39, asserts that, although Cyril decided against attending, he was compelled to do so by Fakhr al-Dîn.
56 Burayk, fo. 124. His account follows Macarius, in ‘Majmû Latîf’ (Nasrallah, , art. cit. 302).Google Scholar Macarius, fo. 130r, and Paul, 39, say only that the amir exiled Cyril to Maghârah al-Râhib near al-Hirmil and that he died there.
57 For the substance of the articles of the Synod of Ra's Ba'albak, see Rustum, , Kanîsah, 40–3.Google Scholar
58 Karalevskij, C., ‘Antioche’, in Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques (hereinafter cited as DHGE), iii. col. 641.Google Scholar
59 Macarius, fo. 130. Paul, 40, offers 7143 after Creation (AD 1635) as the year of Ignatius' demise. Burayk, fo. 124, has the patriarch leaving Beirut for Sidon to attend Mark, the city's metropolitan, in his dying moments. The patriarch, travelling in disguise, was murdered while returning to Beirut. Nor does Burayk identify Ignatius' slayers as Druzes.
60 Hitti, Philip K., Lebanon in History, London 1957, 384.Google Scholar
61 On the succession and reign of Euthymius Karmah sec Macarius, fos 130v-1r; Paul, 40–2; Burayk, fos 124–5, 133–4. Macarius, fo. 131r, and Paul, 42, accord Karmah a reign of seven months, and Burayk, fo. 133, assigns him ten, but I rely, again, upon the chronology in Nasrallah, , ‘Le Patriarcat’, 386.Google Scholar
62 On the succession and reign of the Chiot, see Macarius, fo. 131r; Paul, 42–3; Burayk, fos 125, 133–4.
63 Paul, 52.
64 Ibid.; Macarius, fo. 131; Burayk, fos 134–5.
65 Paul's allusion to the ‘buyûrdî’ obtained, ‘according to custom’, in the name of Macarius al-Za'îm, Paul, 55–6, probably refers not to the berat but to its registration in Damascus.
66 See above pp. 219–20
67 Relying only upon local and Ottoman authorities in Syria, Macarius managed to discipline Metrophanes, the refractory metropolitan of Aleppo, Paul, 63–4; Bûlus al-Za'îm, 73, 75–6, 78–80, as well as Athanasius, metropolitan of Hims and would-be usurper of the patriarchate, ibid. 65, 82–4, 104–7.
68 Burayk, fo. 138.
69 ‘A petition submitted by the metropolitans of the Patriarchate of Antioch against Cyril of Antioch’, Beirut, 2B Aug. 1672, in Delikanes, Kallinikos (ed.), Ta en tois kôdixi tou Patriarchikou Archeiophylakiou sôzomena episêma ekklêsiastika engrapha ta aphorônta eis tas scheseis tou Oikoumenikou Patriarcheiou pros tas ekklesias Alexandrias, Antiocheias, Hierosoljimôn kai Kyprou, 1574–1863, 3 vols, Constantinople 1904, ii. 157.Google Scholar I am indebted to the Very Revd Dr Michael Vaporis of the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Mass.) for his crisp English summaries of certain Greek texts in this volume.
70 This is the claim of Athanasius al-Dabbâs, al-Bâshâ, Ta' rîkh i. 73 and n. 1.
71 Burayk, fos 138–9, 141, 144.
72 ‘Petition’, 156. Burayk, fo. 138, speaks of the disbursement of seven purses but offers no breakdown thereof. The identity of the wâlâ is surmised on the basis of ibn Jum'ah, Laoust, , Les Gouverneurs, 216.Google Scholar
73 ‘Petition’, 157.
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid.; Burayk, fo. 138.
76 ‘Petition’, 157.
77 Burayk, fo. 139; ‘Petition’, 156.
78 On Neophytus' youthful association with the Jesuit Queyrot see Besson, Joseph, La Syrie et la Terre Sainte au XVIIe siêle, Paris 1862, 68Google Scholar; Nacchi, P. to Tamburini, P., c. 1730, in Lettres édifiantes et curieuses écrites des missions étrangères, 5 vols, Toulouse 1810, i. 132.Google Scholar
79 Burayk, fo. 139.
80 Rustum, , Kanîsah, 104.Google Scholar
81 ‘Petition’, 157–8.
82 Ibid. 159–66, for documents bearing upon Cyril's deposition and Neophytus' elevation. See also Burayk, fo. 139.
83 Ibid, fos 139–40. For the chronology of the reigns of Dionysius iv, see Janin, R., ‘Constantinople. Patriarcat grec’, DHGE xiii. col. 632.Google Scholar
84 Haddad, Robert M., ‘On Melkite passage to the Unia: the case of Patriarch Cyril al-Za'îm (1672–1720)’, in Christians and Jews, II: The Arabic-speaking lands, 68–9Google Scholar; see below pp. 233–5.
85 Ibid. 67–71; Haddad, Robert M., Syrian Christians in Muslim Society: an interpretation, Princeton 1970, 25–49.Google Scholar
86 See Athanasius' letter to the French ambassador, Aleppo, 10 Apr. 1687, in Rabbath, , Documents ii. 106.Google Scholar
87 This according to the Maronite bishop and man of letters, Farhât, Germanus, al-Bâshâ, , Ta'rîkh i. 126–7.Google Scholar
88 Burayk, fo. 140.
89 al-Bâshâ, , op. cit. i. 127Google Scholar, 136, again on the authority of Germanus Farhát.
90 Janin, , ‘Constantinople’, col. 632.Google Scholar
91 Burayk, fo. 141.
92 Ibid. fo. 142. The Arabic original, dated 14 July 1686, may be found in Scritture riferite i. fo. 4 (Italian trans., fos 5–8; French trans, in Rabbath, , Documents ii. 107Google Scholar). Athanasius himself cites the friars as his couriers to Rome in his letter to the French ambassador, Aleppo, 10 Apr. 1687, ibid. 106.
93 Janin, , art. cit. col. 632.Google Scholar
94 Burayk, fo. 141.
95 Ibid. fos 141–2.
96 Ibid. fo. 143, and al-Bâshâ, , Ta'rîkh i. 157–8Google Scholar, for Arabic summaries of the patriarchs' agreement; Levenq, G., ‘Athanase III’, DHGE iv. col. 1,370Google Scholar, for a French summary. The most detailed summary appears in Latin in Mansi, Joannes Dominicus, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Graz 1961 (repr. of Paris 1911 edn), xlvi. col. 122 n.Google Scholar Athanasius discusses the agreement in his letter of 3 Nov. 1711 to Pope Clement xi, found in Latin trans, in ibid, cols 121–4.
97 Recognition by Propaganda, Levenq, art. cit. col. 1,370, was followed by Pope Innocent xi's letter of 10 Aug. 1687 congratulating Athanasius, the full text of which may be found in Berthier, Ioachimum I., Innocenti Papae XI Epislolae ad principes, 3 vols, Rome 1895, ii. 358–9.Google Scholar For an Arabic translation, see al-Bâshâ, , op. cit. i. 149–50.Google Scholar The substantive portions of Innocent's letter may be found in Mansi, , op. cit. col. 116, n. 1.Google Scholar
98 Boisot to the ambassador, Aleppo, 17 Feb. 1686, in Rabbatti, , Documents ii. 94.Google Scholar
99 Levenq, , art. cit. col. 1,370.Google Scholar Athanasius replied that he had been forced into the agreement by the will of ‘the flock’: Athanasius to S. Congregation, n.p., n.d., in Arabic (edited version in al-Bâshâ, op. cit. i. 154–6), L'Archivio di Propaganda Fide, Le Scritture originali riferite nelle Congregazioni Generali mxxix. fo. 215.
100 Haddad, , Syrian Christians, 40–8.Google Scholar
101 Idem, ‘Melkite passage’, 86.
102 Ibid. 68 and n. 4.
103 ‘Petition’, 166–71, for text of encyclical of 1700.
104 Ibid. 177–8, for text of encyclical of Nov. 1711.
105 al-Bâshâ, , Ta'rîkh i. 418–25Google Scholar, for Arabic translation of encyclical of Oct. 1718.
106 Scritture riferite i. fos 30–33, ‘Alla… Clemente P.P. xi… per li cattolici del Patriarcato Antiocheno’, n.p., n.d.; Haddad, , ‘Melkite passage’, 75–6, 80–2.Google Scholar
107 Relevant documents are in ‘Petition’, 172–7.
108 Haddad, , art. cit. 69–73.Google Scholar
109 France, Archives Nationales Ministère des Affaires Étrangères (hereinafter cited as AE), B11021, fo. 344, ‘Memoires’ by Dorothée de la Trinité, Sidon, 9 Dec. 1724. His motives remained those which had inspired the synod of 1718 (see above pp. 234–5).
110 Mansi, , Sacr. conni, xxxvii, cols 127–208Google Scholar, for the encyclical in Greek and in Latin translation. For an Arabic translation, see Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanas Arabictis, MS 161, and an Arabic summary in Rustum, , Kanîsah, 132.Google Scholar A summary in German is in Graf, G., Geschichte der christlichen Arabischen Literatur, 4 vols and index, Vatican City 1944–1953. iii, 133.Google Scholar
111 On the election of Tânâs, see Burayk, fo. 149; d'Andrczel to M. de Maurepas, Istanbul, 6 May 1725, in Rabbath, , Documents i. 575Google Scholar; Benoist le Maire to Monseigneur, Sidon, 05 Jan. 1725, AE, B1 1021, fo. 348.
112 Constantinople had elicited the sultan's order for al-Sayfî's confinement in the citadel of Adana. Abû Tawq held him briefly in Sidon's citadel, where he freely held court before his release, ‘Memoires’, 9 Dec. 1724; Euthymius to Sacripanti, n.p., 10 July 1723, in Arabic (edited version in al-Bâshâ, , Ta'rîkh, 469–70)Google Scholar, L'Archivio di Propaganda Fide, Congregazioni particolari lxxv. fo. 286Google Scholar; Euthymius to S. Congregation, n.p., 10 July, in Arabie (edited version in al-Bâshâ, op. cit. 471–4), Congr. part. lxxv. fo. 287; Fînân to S. Congregation, n.p., 25 June 1723 (Julian date), in Arabie (edited venion in al-Bâshâ, op. cit. 486–7), Congr. part. lxxv. fo. 443; de Bonnac to Gualterio, Istanbul, 5 July 1723, in French (al-Bâshâ, , op. cit. 464–5Google Scholar, 476–80; 479–80 for text of gâdî's decision), Congr. part. lxxv, fos 368–9.
113 Under the wâlî's benevolent eye, Euthymius had tried to exploit the Damascenes' aversion to Aleppo's Athanasius, but, as success appeared imminent, illness and age carried the militant Latiniser to his death, AE, B1 1021, fo. 344, ‘Memoires’, 9 Dec. 1724 (al-Bâshâ, , Ta'rîkh, 495–6).Google Scholar
114 See above nn. 112–13. On Euthymius' payments to Abû Tawq, sec Tânâs to S. Congregation, Sidon, 15 Nov. 1723, Congr. part. lxxv. fo. 294 (in Arabic; Italian trans., fo. 293); edited version in al-Bâshâ, op. cit. 384. On a French vice-consul's payments to the wâlî, see Euthymius to S. Congregation, [Sidon], 15 Nov. 1722, Congr. part. lxxv. fo. 270 (in Arabic; Italian trans., fos 269, 272); edited version in al-Bâshâ, , op. cit. 381–2, 466.Google Scholar
115 Haddad, , ‘Melkitc passage’, 77–8.Google Scholar
116 Ibid. 78, 82.
117 Burayk, fo. 147; Peleran to M. de Maurepas, Aleppo, 25 Apr. 1725, AE, B180; d'Andrezel to M. de Maurepas, Istanbul, 22 Oct. 1724, Rabbatti, Documents, 566.
118 Burayk, fo. 150.
119 For a sketch of the circumstances surrounding the succession to Tânâs, see Karalevskij, , ‘Antioche’, col. 650.Google Scholar
120 Burayk, Mikhâ'îl, Ta'ríkh al-Shâm (1720–1782), ed. al-Bâshâ, Qustantîn, Harîsa, Lebanon 1930, 75.Google Scholar