Fanariots

Image of the extravagances attributed to fans: Nicholas Mavrogenes walks through Bucharest in a carriage pulled by deer (1780.)

The fanariotes (Greek Φαναριώτες; Turkish Fenerliler; Romanian Fanarioţi) were a group of prominent Greek families residing in Phanar (modern Fener), the main Greek quarter of Constantinople, where the Ecumenical Patriarchate is located. Fanariotes dominated the administration of the Patriarchate and frequently intervened in the election of prelates, including the Ecumenical Patriarch, who has the status of "primus inter pares" among Eastern Orthodox bishops..

During the 18th century, some members of these families, who had amassed great fortunes, gained positions of great importance within the Ottoman Empire, as the main interpreter of the Sublime Porte, sharing with the Ottoman foreign minister the direction of the empire's foreign policy; as interpreters of the kaptan pasha (admiral of the Ottoman fleet), exercising government functions in the islands of the Ottoman fleet and also between the years 1711-1716 and 1821, they were named "gospodaros" or hospodares (voivodes or princes) of the Danubian Principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia), that period is usually called the "fanariot age" in Romanian history.

Along with Church dignitaries and influential people from the provinces, the Phanariots represented the Greek ruling class during the Ottoman reign, until the Greek War of Independence. During the war of independence, the fanariotes played an important role and influenced the decisions of the National Assembly, the representative body of the Greek revolutionaries, which met six times between 1821 and 1829.

Rise of Greek influence in the Ottoman Empire

After the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, when the sultan virtually replaced the "de facto" and "de iure" among Christian residents, the ecumenical patriarch was recognized by the sultan as the national and religious leader of the Greeks and the other ethnicities of the Greek Orthodox faith. The Patriarchate became more important and held a key role among the Christians of the Empire, because the Ottomans did not legally distinguish between nationality and religion, so they considered all Orthodox Christians in the Empire as one entity.

The position of the Patriarchate in the Ottoman state stimulated Greek revival projects, focused on the resurrection and revitalization of the Byzantine Empire. The Patriarch and the dignitaries of the Church constituted the first center of power for the Greeks within the Ottoman state, a center that managed to infiltrate the structures of the Ottoman Empire, also attracting the old Byzantine nobility.

As a result of Phanariot and ecclesiastical administration, the Greeks reached the zenith of their power, in the 18th century, becoming the most influential ethnic group among those subjected by the Empire. This had not always been the case in the Ottoman Empire, as in the 16th century the Serbs and Bulgarians were the most important in the affairs of the Ottoman state. Unlike the Greeks, the Slavs, particularly the Serbs, were more receptive to converting to Islam, in order to enjoy all the rights of Ottoman citizenship, and always tended to obtain important positions within the army.

Over time, the Slavic presence within the administration became a nuisance to the Ottoman leadership, as they tended to offer their support to the Habsburg army in the context of the wars of the century XVII. Until the 17th century, the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople became the absolute religious and administrative head of the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire regardless of their ethnic origin. All previously independent Orthodox patriarchates, including the Serbian Patriarchate renewed in 1557, came under the authority of the Greek Church.

In addition, since the 17th century the Ottomans faced problems in their foreign policy, and it was no longer so easy impose conditions on its neighbors; the Porte was for the first time forced to participate in diplomatic negotiations. Due to the Ottoman tradition of ignoring Western European languages and cultures, Ottoman officials found themselves unable to handle such matters. The Porte appointed the Greeks as ambassadors, as they were considered the most educated in the Empire. As a result, the so-called 'fanariotes', Greek families from Constantinople, came to hold important posts as secretaries and interpreters for Ottoman officials.

Two Greek social groups emerged and contested the leadership of the Greek Church. These powerful social classes were the Phanariots in Constantinople and the influential men of the Hellenic provinces. According to Constantine Paparregopoulus, a leading Greek historian, the fanariotes initially sought the most important secular offices within the Patriarchal Court, and thus could frequently intervene in the election of bishops, as well as important decisions of the Patriarch. Greek merchants and clergymen of Byzantine origin, who had amassed great economic prosperity and political influence, and who came to be known as 'fanariotes', settled in the district located in the far north-west of Constantinople., which had become crucial to Greek interests, after the establishment of the Patriarch's seat in 1461 (shortly after the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque).

Fanariots as important officials

During the 18th century, the Phanariots emerged as a hereditary cleric-aristocratic group, directing the affairs of the Patriarchate, and reaching to be the dominant political power in the Greek community of lands of the Ottoman Empire. In time, they became a very important political factor within the Empire, and, as diplomatic agents, they played a considerable role in the affairs of the United Kingdom, France, or the Russian Empire.

Fanariots came to compete for very important Ottoman administrative positions, which included collecting imperial taxes, managing trade monopolies, working under contract in various companies, being suppliers to the Court, and even owning the two Danubian Principalities - Moldavia and wallachian At the same time, they entered into separate businesses, acquiring control over the Black Sea wheat trade. The fanariotas managed to expand their economic activities at first to the Kingdom of Hungary, and later to all the states of Central Europe. These activities intensified his contact with Western nations, becoming familiar with European languages and cultures.

Just before the Greek War of Independence, the Phanariots established themselves as the political elite of the Greek people. According to Paparregopoulos, it was a natural evolution, given the fanariotes' upbringing and experience in overseeing vast regions of the Empire. Furthermore, Svoronos argued that they subordinated their national identity to their class identity, since their sole purpose was to achieve co-operation. -peaceful existence between the conqueror and the conquered; Svoronos believes that, in this way, the Phanariots failed to enrich the Greek national identity, and lost ground to groups that evolved from their confrontation with the Ottoman Empire, first the Kleftes and then the Armatoloi.

Phanariot rule in the Danubian Principalities

Setting and contrasts

This period should not be understood as the beginning of the Greek presence in the two Principalities, since Greek princes were appointed there even before the 17th century XVIII. After the end of the Phanariot era, several families of Phanariot descent, both in Wallachia and Moldavia, identified themselves as Romanians, and remained in Romanian society - among them the Rosetti family, whose member C.A. Rosetti came to represent the radical and nationalist cause during the 1848 Wallachian Revolution, and the Ghica family - who, despite Fanariote ancestry, came to be represented on the Wallachian throne after 1821 by Grigore IV and Alexandru II, then called the first rulers "non-fanariotes".

The attention of the Phanariots turned to occupying the most favorable offices the Empire could offer, and not excluded were the two Danubian Principalities, which were still relatively wealthy and autonomous - although paying tribute as vassal states. Many Greeks found there favorable conditions for their economic activities, better than in the troubled context of the Ottoman Empire, and also found an opportunity to gain political power. Many became part of the Wallachian and Moldavian boyars through intermarriage.

Though rare, reigns of local princes were not excluded. This situation determined two Hellenized Romanian families of the nobility, the Callimachi (initially "Călmaşul") and the Racoviţă, to penetrate the nucleus of Phanar, to facilitate and increase their opportunities to occupy the thrones of the Principalities, and later successfully maintain their position.

While most sources would agree that 1711 was the time at which the gradual erosion of traditional institutions reached its final stage, features normally associated with the Phanariote era made themselves felt before this time. The sultan had influenced and sometimes forced the choice of his candidate since the 15th century, and foreign boyars - particularly from Greece or from the Levant Mediterranean - competed with local boyars from the 16th century. Owners such as Dumitraşcu Cantacuzino in Moldova and George Ducas, a prince of Greek origin, in Wallachia (born 1673) were forced to give up all members of their families, who became hostages in Constantinople. At the same time, the traditional elective system of the Principalities was the cause of long periods of political disorder, and was dominated by a small number of ambitious families (domestic or foreign), who entered into a violent competition for the thrones and monopolized the property of the land - relevant is the example of the opposition between the Craioveşti and Cantacuzino families, before 1711.

1711-1715

A clear change in policy was determined by the fact that Wallachia and Moldavia, although autonomous, had entered a period of continuous quarrels with the Ottomans, due to the insubordination of the native princes, especially associated with the rise of the Russian Empire with Pedro I of Russia, and with the presence of the Habsburg Empire on the border that the Carpathians made with the Principalities. Dissidence on the part of the two principalities became more dangerous for the Turks, who were faced with the attraction that the protection offered by an orthodox Empire held for the population there. This became evident during the second reign of Mihai Racoviţă in Moldavia, when the prince plotted with Pedro I to overthrow Ottoman rule. Incidentally, his replacement, Nicholas Mavrocordatos, became the first official fanariot, in his second reign in Moldavia (he will also replace Ştefan Cantacuzino in Wallachia, to be the first fanariot owner of that principality)..

A pivotal moment for policy change was the Russo-Turkish War of 1710-1713, when Dimitrie Cantemir fought for Russia, and accepted Russia's guardianship of his country. After the defeat of the Russians, Cantemir went into exile, and the Ottomans took over the succession to the throne of Moldavia, and soon Wallachia as well - in this case, due to the alliance of Ştefan Cantacuzino with the Habsburg commander Eugene. of Savoy, towards the end of the Great Turkish War.

Features

Owners and followers

The church of Stavropoleos, built in Bucharest by Nicholas Mavrocordatos, in a lithography of 1868 by Amadeo Preziosi.

The person elevated to the dignity of prince was normally the head dragoman of the Sublime Porte, and therefore was well acquainted with contemporary politics and the functioning of the Ottoman government.

The new prince, who obtained his office in exchange for a large bribe (an old practice), proceeded to the country he was to rule, whose language he often knew absolutely nothing. Once the new princes were appointed, they were escorted to Iaşi or Bucharest by retinues made up of their families, favorites, and creditors (from whom they had lent the funds for the bribe). The prince and his trusted men expected to recover their debts in a short time, and to accumulate enough money to live well for the rest of their lives, since mandates did not usually last long.

As a total for the two principalities together, 31 princes, from 11 different families, ruled during Phanariot times. Many times they ended up exiled or executed: of the 31 princes, 7 suffered violent deaths, and some were executed in their own courts in Bucharest or Iaşi. The fight for the throne could become so hard, that it was possible to get assassinated within the same family.

When, due to numerous cases of treason among the princes, the choice was reduced to a few families, it became common for the owners to move from one principality to another: the prince of Wallachia, the richest principality, had to pay certain sums to avoid a transfer to Iaşi, while the prince of Moldavia used to bribe his supporters in Constantinople for the purpose of being appointed to Wallachia. For example, Constantine Mavrocordatos accumulated a total of 10 mandates in Moldavia and Wallachia. However, he accumulated debts to various creditors, but not to the sultan himself: indeed, the central institutions of the Ottoman Empire generally seemed determined to maintain their hold on the principalities, but not to exploit them unreasonably. In an early example, Ahmed III even helped Nicholas Mavrocordatos with a sum of money.

Administration and boyars

Alexander Mourousis receiving the British ambassador to Curtea Nouă.

The fanariot era was initially characterized by excessive fiscal policies, due to Ottoman needs and the ambitions of some of the Gospodaros (who, aware of their fragile status, sought to repay their creditors, and to accumulate fortunes while they still had the power). To make the reigns lucrative, while saving the money needed to cover the needs of the Sublime Porte (increasingly as the Empire declined), the princes channeled their energies into plunder, and the inhabitants, victims. of taxes that increased and diversified, they were often doomed to misery. However, the most hated taxes attributed to fanariotes were not all new: for example, the "văcărit" It was introduced by Iancu Sasul in 1580.

The evil effects of many fanariot mandates contrast with the achievements and projects of others, such as Constantine Mavrocordatos, who abolished serfdom in Wallachia in 1746, and in 1749 in Moldavia, and Alexander Ypsilantis. Ypsilantis tried to reform the legislation and impose salaries for the administrative officers - in an effort to stop the reduction of funds due to the sums used by the administrators, both local and Greek, for their own welfare - it had come to the point that occupying a cargo was more profitable than owning land. His & # 34; Pravilniceasca condică & # 34;, a rather modern code of laws, caused the opposition of the boyars.

Indeed, the purpose of mandates like Ypsilantis's was often to improve state structures, against conservative wishes. Documents from the time show that, despite changes in leadership and complaints from the boyars, about 80% of those in the "Divan" (an institution that more or less represented the estates of the principality) were members of families with local tradition. This signified the tendency to make endemic the social and economic issues of earlier periods, since the "inner circle& #3. 4; of boyars not only managed to block the initiatives of landlords such as Alejandro Ypsilantis, but they also put pressure to avoid having to pay taxes, and their efforts were usually successful.

After the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (1774) allowed Russia to intervene on behalf of Ottoman subjects of Orthodox Christian faith, most Turkish political pressure became ineffective. The Sublime Porte had to make concessions, with the imperative of maintaining the countries as its economic and strategic assets: the treaty made any increase in tribute impossible, and between 1774 and 1820, the tribute dropped from 50,000 to 20,000 gold coins (according to Austrian gold coins) in Wallachia, and only 3,100 in Moldavia.

During the period that immediately followed, Russia used its new prerogatives with remarkable force: the deposition of Constantine Ypsilantis (in Wallachia) and Alexander Mourousis (in Moldavia) by Selim III, requested by the ambassador of the French Empire in Turkey, Horace Sébastiani (whose concern about pro-Russian conspiracies in Bucharest was partially confirmed), constituted the "casus belli" for the conflict of 1806-1812 (Russian General Mikhail Miloradovich restored Ypsilantis to the throne during his military expedition to Wallachia).

Gestures like these ushered in a period of Russian supervision, culminating in the administration of the "Organic Statute" from the years '1830; The Danubian Principalities grew in strategic importance after the Napoleonic Wars and the Decline of the Ottoman Empire, as European states became concerned with stopping Russia's southward expansion (which included the annexation of Bessarabia in 1812). Instead, the new consulates opened in the two capitals, to ensure monitoring of developments in Russian-Ottoman relations, had an indirect impact on the local economy, as rival diplomats began to grant their protection and sudit status to the merchants who competed in the local guilds.

In parallel, the boyars began a campaign of petitions against the power of the princes: although sometimes they were addressed to the Sublime Porte or the Habsburg Monarchy, most of the time they asked for Russian supervision. While referring to cases of corruption and abuse of power, the petitions clearly demonstrated the conservative intentions of their authors. Boyars tended to refer to "Capitulations" fictitious principalities that the Principalities had supposedly signed with the Ottomans - and called for the rights stipulated therein to be reinstated. Constitution) the boyars expressed their desire to establish an aristocratic republic.

End and legacy

The active role that Greek princes played in the uprisings after 1820 (see Greek War of Independence), together with the chaos caused by Philikí Etaireía's occupation of Moldavia and Tudor Vladimirescu's uprising in Wallachia, caused the disappearance of chosen owners within the Phanar community. Relevant to the strained relations between boyars and princes, Vladimirescu's rebellion was, for most of its duration, the result of compromise between the Panduros of Oltenia and the boyar regency attempting to block the ascension of Scarlat Callimachi, the last Phanariot owner. in Bucharest.

The reign of Ioan Sturdza in Moldavia and that of Grigore IV Ghica in Wallachia are considered the first of the new period: therefore, the new regime came to an abrupt end with the Russian occupation during the Russo-Turkish war of 1828- 1829, and the resulting period of Russian influence (see Organic Statute).

Condemnation of fanariotes is common in Romanian nationalism, often associated with a lack of trust in foreigners in general. The trend unites pro- and anti-modernization attitudes: fanariotes can represent reactionary elements (as they were portrayed in communist Romania), as well as brutal and opportunistic agents of change, as in "The Third Epistle" by Mihai Eminescu.

Main fanariote families