The agreement concluded between the conquering sultan and Patriarch Gennadius regarding the Orthodox miletus, as soon turned out, was more valid on paper than in reality. The Turks could not forget that they were a ruling people, conquerors of Christians; They were irritated that the Greeks had received privileges that none of the conquered peoples possessed. Mehmet himself and his advisers grew up at a time when Constantinople was a great cultural center, and the fame of the learning of the Greeks spread throughout the world. They could not help but feel a certain respect for the Greeks. Mehmet was proud that he was the heir of the Caesars, not only sultan, but also Roman emperor; And he wanted his Christian subjects to perceive him in this way. The next generations of Turks no longer shared these feelings. Mehmet's son, Bayazit II, was five years old when his father conquered Constantinople. By the time he became a young man, all the Greek scholars who made up the glory of Constantinople were scattered: some had gone to Italy and the West, others lived in the safety of a monastic cell. All the Greeks he encountered were either merchants, clerks and craftsmen, or priests chosen for their tactful but often servile behavior. Unlike his father, he had no special intellectual interests; Greek culture meant nothing to him. [278] His son, Selim I, actively disliked Christians. The triumph of his reign was the completion of the conquest of Syria, Egypt and Arabia; His highest dream came true when he assumed the title of caliph, i.e., commander of the faithful. [279] Suleiman the Magnificent was another sultan who was interested in the intellectual trends in the world; But the Greeks, his subjects, were no longer in a position to make a significant contribution to them. He himself tried to be fair to them, but for him and for the average Turk they had become a servile people, who could sometimes be used as financiers, secretaries or even diplomats, but, of course, without any trust, with intrigues, and they did not deserve respect. [280] With the accession to the throne of Suleiman's son, Selim II, a drunkard, the top of the Ottoman administration was gripped by a crisis. The Sublime Porte was at the mercy of ministers who, with a few exceptions, were greedy and unscrupulous; at the same time, usually Sultana Valide, the sultan's mother, secretly managed affairs from behind the curtain of the harem. [281]

The fate of the Ottoman Sultanate can serve as an example of the corruption of absolute power. But the system of bribery began to affect the Greeks as well. As it turned out that they could no longer count on good treatment from the authorities, and their specific rights were less and less respected, they inevitably had to resort to intrigues. In their hopelessness, they began to forget about each other's mutual support. Each of them began to look after his own benefit. It was in the interests of the Turks to encourage envy, intrigue and demoralization of the Miletus.

An outward symptom of the deterioration of the situation of the Greeks was the constant confiscation of their churches and their conversion into mosques. The conquering sultan was surprisingly lenient in this regard. The only church that was officially taken away from Christians was Hagia Sophia. This was natural: after all, the Great Church was more than a church; it was a symbol of the old Christian Empire. Its transformation into a mosque became the seal of the new order. Over the years, however, there have been few attempts to alter the old Christian decoration, except to cover up or destroy the mosaic images of Christ and the saints. [282] Other churches, such as the New Basilica and Our Lady of Light in the area of the old imperial palace, were so damaged during the assault on the city that they were abandoned, demolished altogether, or collapsed on their own. Other temples, such as the monasteries of Pantocrator or the Savior Horus, were plundered and desecrated; The Greeks made no attempt to restore them. Since they were basically solid, it is not surprising that they were soon converted into mosques. Some churches were occupied by the Turks immediately and were used for secular purposes. Hagia Irene, next to Hagia Sophia, became an arsenal. In the church of St. John in the Dippion, not far from the hippodrome, a menagerie was placed. [283] In these cases, churches were located in areas inhabited by Turks, and Christians were prudent enough not to protest. The church of the Holy Apostles, although preserved by Christians at the time of the fall of the city, as we have seen, was abandoned by them after a few months; In view of its dilapidated condition, the Sultan had no objection to its destruction and the construction of a large mosque bearing his name in its place. But many other churches were left in the hands of Christians. [284]

These churches were not encroached upon during the lifetime of Mehmet II, and his son Bayazit II held different views. In 1490, he demanded the transfer of the patriarchal church of the Virgin Mary to Pammakaristos. But Patriarch Dionysius I was able to prove that Mehmet II definitely granted this church to the patriarchate. The Sultan agreed, demanding only the removal of the cross from the dome. At the same time, he forbade his dignitaries to occupy other churches, as they proposed. [285] His prohibition, however, was soon violated, no doubt with his connivance. Before 1494, the church of Panachrantos was captured and around 1500 the church of St. John in Studion. It was at this time that Turkish officials converted the abandoned churches of Chorus and Pantocrator into mosques; Undoubtedly, they wanted to extend their actions to the churches that are still in operation. [286]

Around 1520, Sultan Selim I, who did not like Christianity, to the horror of his grand vizier, proposed to forcibly convert all Christians to Islam. When he was told that this was impossible, he demanded that at least all of their churches be taken away. The vizier warned Patriarch Theoleptus I, who brought in a learned lawyer named Xenakis. Theoleptus understood that he did not have a firman in defense of the churches. It burned down in a fire in the patriarchate, the patriarch said. But Xenakis was able to imagine three elderly janissaries who were present at the capture of Constantinople by the conquering sultan. They swore on the Koran that they had seen several noble citizens who had come to the sultan preparing to enter the city and presented him with the keys to their districts. In return, he promised them the preservation of the temples. Sultan Selim accepted this testimony and even allowed Christians to reopen some of their churches that had been closed by his officials. At the same time, even more churches were captured during his reign. [287] In 1537, under Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, the question was raised again. Patriarch Jeremiah I referred to the decision of Sultan Selim. Then Suleiman consulted with Shaykh ul-Islam, the highest Muslim authority in the field of jurisprudence. After examining the subject, the sheikh announced that "as is known, Constantinople was taken by force; But the fact that many churches have survived must mean that the city has surrendered." Suleiman made this decision. [288] Until the end of his reign, churches were no longer closed. Subsequent sultans were less tolerant. Under Selim II, even more churches were converted into mosques. In 1586, after returning from a successful campaign against Azerbaijan, Murad III proclaimed that he intended to transform the patriarchal church of Pammakaristos into a mosque of victory - Fethiye Jami. If Patriarch Jeremiah II, whom Murad loved, had still been on the throne, the closure of the church could have been prevented. But Jeremiah had recently been removed from power as a result of the intrigue of the Holy Synod; and Theoleptus II, who had been erected at the moment, was a nonentity. Murad was no doubt happy to present the confiscation as a punishment for the schemers. The Patriarch of Alexandria temporarily placed the small church of St. Demetrius Kanav, which belonged to him, at the disposal of Jeremias II when he returned to the patriarchate a few months later. Finally, the Patriarchate was allowed to restore the Church of St. George, located in the center of the Phanar quarter. A new church was built in the following century, as were the buildings around it for the patriarchal residence and offices. Like all churches that the Greeks were allowed to build in place of those that had been lost, the new temple was completely intact from the outside, and the construction of a dome visible from the outside was prohibited. [289]

By the eighteenth century, there were about forty Greek churches in Constantinople; but only three of them were built before the conquest of the city: St. George of Cyprus in Psamathia, destroyed by an earthquake at the beginning of the century; St. Demetrius Kanav, destroyed by fire a few years later; and St. Mary of Mongolia. This church survived because Mehmet II called a Greek architect to build a mosque on the site of the Church of the Holy Apostles; this architect, Christodoulos, received as a gift a street on which stood a church deeply revered by the mother of the Sultan. He distributed acts that guaranteed both the integrity of the church and the church building itself. At the end of the XVII century, Muslims tried to confiscate the building. Dimitri Cantemir, who was the Patriarch's legal adviser, was able to show them the Sultan's original firman to vizier Ali Küprül, who reverently kissed it and ordered that the church remain intact. It is still a functioning church, although it was badly damaged during the anti-Greek uprising of 1955.[290]

The fourth church, Peribleptos, was in the hands of Christians, though not Greeks. It was given to the Armenians by Sultan Ibrahim at the request of his favorite, a lady of immense charms known as Shekerparche, i.e., "a piece of sugar," who was said to weigh more than 300 pounds. [291]

The same process took place in provincial cities. In Thessalonica in the middle of the XVI century, the large church of St. Demetrius and the churches of St. Sophia and St. George. [292] In Athens, the church known in antiquity as the Parthenon became a mosque at about the same time, and a minaret nonchalantly stood beside it. When the Parthenon was destroyed in 1687 by a Venetian cannonball that fell into an ammunition depot located on its territory, a small mosque was built on the ruins. [293] In every city conquered by the Turks, the same story was repeated. Only in areas with a purely Christian population did the churches remain intact. The closure of churches was not only humiliating, but also created serious legal and economic problems. Many of the confiscated churches owned significant property, the transfer of which led to endless lawsuits and intrigues. The Greeks had no less difficulty in obtaining permission to build churches to replace those they had lost. If they did not face open hostility, they had to face the blank wall of the Turkish bureaucracy. Usually, bribes were the only method to get a quick response to every request. Very quickly, the Greeks realized that the approach to their new owners was through gifts and money.

Such a practice would not be so harmful if the church organization itself remained incorruptible. There the Greeks brought trouble upon themselves. They could not overcome their predilection for politics, and since open access to power was now closed to them, they reveled in secret intrigues. Gennady was a figure who commanded universal respect. In their despair after the conquest, the Greeks were glad to follow a leader who was willing and able to act in their favor. But quarrels soon broke out, and after his removal there was no man of equal importance to succeed him. About his successor Isidor II, we know almost nothing except his name. He died on March 31, 1462, and under the next patriarch, Joasaph I, in 1463, an event occurred that demonstrated the dangers of the new regime. The scholar George Amirotsis, who lived in Constantinople and was favored by the Sultan for his learning, wanted to marry the widow of the Duke of Athens, although his own wife was still alive. According to another version, the future bigamist was a noble man from Trebizond named Kavazitis, in whose favor Amirotsis campaigned. Whoever the petitioner was, Joasaph refused to bless bigamy. Amiratsis then tried to put pressure on the Holy Synod and threatened its members on behalf of his powerful cousin, Mahmud Pasha, who had converted to Islam, and sought the deposition of Joasaph. Joasaph tried in vain to commit suicide. Probably, Gennadius Scholarius was again summoned to establish order. [294] Nothing is known about the next Patriarch, Sophronius I; his reign was probably between Isidore II and Joasaph I. It is certain that Gennadius returned to the throne for a short time in 1464. Mark was elected at the beginning of 1465; but he had enemies, at the head of whom stood Simeon, Metropolitan of Trebizond, who sought the patriarchal throne. At the beginning of 1466, Simeon collected the sum of 2000 gold pieces, 1000 from his own funds and 1000 from his friends, and presented it to the ministers of the sultan, who ordered the Holy Synod to depose Mark and install Simeon. News of this act of simony reached Murad's widow, the Christian Mary. She hastened from Serres to the Sultan's court, discreetly bringing with her another 2000 gold pieces. The sultan greeted her with the words: "What is this, my mother?" She asked him to resolve the question by deposing both Mark and Simeon in favor of her candidate, the righteous Dionysius, a native of the Peloponnese, who was the metropolitan of Philippopolis. Her request was granted. But Simeon was not broken. In 1471, he accused Dionysius before the Holy Synod of having converted to Islam as a child, while in captivity. Although Dionysius was able to present obvious evidence of the falsity of the accusation, the Holy Synod deposed him, and the payment of another 2000 gold pieces to the Sublime Porte ensured the second enthronement of Simeon. Sultan Mehmet must have looked on with cynical surprise, while Maria was too disappointed to intervene, even though she had given Dionysius refuge near her residence in the Serras. [295] Simeon, however, was dismissed three years later in favour of the Serb candidate, Raphael, who proposed that the sum of 2,000 gold pieces be paid to the Sublime Porte each year. The Metropolitan of Heraclia refused to consecrate him; and although the Metropolitan of Ancyra was more disposed, there were doubts about the legality of the enthronement, and many members of the Synod refused to have communion with him. Moreover, he was faced with the need to increase the amount he promised to pay. It is probable that at the beginning of 1477 the Sultan, again under the influence of his stepmother, intervened, restored order, and secured the election of Maximus III Manassis. Maximus, whose real name was Manuel Christonimos, was a great ecclesiarch and quarreled with Gennadius over the use of oikonomia, and later opposed the Sultan by supporting Joasaph I against Amirotsis. He now won the respect of the Sultan and died on the throne a few months after the death of Mehmet himself. Simeon then again ransomed his return to the throne and was now generally accepted. [296] The Council, convened in 1484 to officially abolish the Florentine Union and consolidate the rite of receiving Uniates into the Church, was held with the participation of representatives of all Orthodox communities. [297]

В дальнейшем редкий патриарх не являлся представителем какой‑нибудь партии или фракции. Влияние на выборы осуществлялось с разных сторон. Мария умерла около 1480 г., но такую же роль теперь исполняла ее племянница, княгиня Валахии, которая обеспечила назначение преемника Симеона, Нифонта II. С этого момента началось появление правителей дунайских провинций на патриаршей сцене. Валашские и молдавские господари добровольно подчинились султану и тем самым обеспечили свою автономию; а они были богаты. Их подданные, предки нынешних румын, не были славянами, хотя их Церковь составляла часть Сербской церкви и служила славянскую литургию. Высшие классы чувствовали себя намного ближе к грекам, чем к славянам. Как самые высокопоставленные миряне в Оттоманской империи, дунайские господари постоянно стремились поставить своих кандидатов на патриарший престол.[298] Грузинский царь, который за исключением далекого русского князя был единственным независимым правителем в пределах патриархата, также пытался время от времени вмешиваться в дела. Но Грузинская церковь была полуавтономной, со своей литургией и своим родным языком; кроме того, у Грузии были свои политические трудности. Однако если грузинский монарх хотел оказывать воздействие, оно могло быть серьезным. [299] Более постоянным и эффективным было влияние, оказываемое монахами Афонской Горы. Св. Гора была по–прежнему полна богатыми монастырями, а также являлась центром интеллектуальной и духовной деятельности. Ее автономия соблюдалась турками, хотя позднее турецкий чиновник, осужденный на временное безбрачие, выполнял там роль представителя султана. До упадка, который переживали монастыри в конце XVII в., кандидат на патриарший престол, имевший афонскую поддержку, пользовался большим уважением. [300] Но господари Дунайских княжеств, царь Грузии и даже монахи Св. Горы жили далеко от Константинополя. Намного большее значение имело давление, оказываемое греческими купцами султанской столицы.

Одно из самых непредвиденных последствий османского завоевания было возрождение греческой торговой жизни. В течение последних нескольких столетий итальянцы доминировали в средиземноморской торговле, пользуясь привилегиями, которыми не обладали даже местные купцы. Теперь они лишились своих привилегий, и их колонии постепенно выродились. Немногие из турок имели склонность или вкус к торговле; и торговля в огромных и растущих владениях султана перешла в руки подневольных народов, евреев, армян и, прежде всего, греков. Греческий коммерческий гений всегда процветал в местностях, где греки были лишены политической власти, и, таким образом, их честолюбие и энергия направлялись на коммерцию. Вскоре после падения Константинополя там появились греческие торговые династии. Некоторые из них вели свое происхождение от известных византийских семей; и хотя их претензии удовлетворялись редко, некоторым представителям старых семей, которые сохранились по мужской линии, это помогало приобрести известность в торговле при условии, что они носили звучные имперские фамилии, такие как Ласкарис, Аргир или Дука. Знатные семьи, насильно водворенные в Константинополе султаном–завоевателем из Трапезунда, имели больше претензий на древнее происхождение, например, Ипсиланти, родственники императорской фамилии Комнинов. Немного позднее, когда турки завоевали Хиос, в Константинополь прибыли хиосские семьи, проявившие особые способности к торговле. В их среде считалось престижным иметь высокое итальянское, желательно римское, происхождение.[301] В XVI в. ведущей греческой семьей были Кантакузины, возможно, единственные, чьи претензии на прямое происхождение от византийских императоров были подлинными. К середине столетия глава семьи, Михаил Кантакузин, которого турки называли Шайтаноглу, или «сын дьявола», был одним из богатейших людей всего Востока. Он имел 60 ООО дукатов годового дохода от контроля над торговлей русским мехом; монополия в этой торговле была дарована ему султаном. Он мог оплатить снаряжение 60 галер для султанского флота. Жена Михаила была дочерью валашского господаря и внучкой молдавского господаря. Сам он редко приезжал в Константинополь, предпочитая жить в Анхиале на Черноморском побережье, в городе, населенном почти исключительно греками, где вид его богатства не мог задевать турок. Но даже там он стал предметом зависти. В конце 1578 г. турки арестовали его по формальному обвинению и казнили. Его имущество было конфисковано и определено к продаже. Великолепие его удивило всех. Большая часть его драгоценных рукописей была куплена Афонскими монастырями.[302]

Такие магнаты, которых современники–греки называли архонтами, т. е. правителями, неизбежно приобретали господствующее влияние в патриархате. Они были важным источником; у них всегда были наготове деньги для пополнения церковной казны или для подкупа турецких чиновников. Когда патриархат нуждался в юристах для заполнения своих административных должностей, то эти чиновники всегда происходили из их класса. Ярким проявлением власти архонта было низложение Михаилом Кантакузиным Иоасафа II, одного из самых выдающихся и ученых патриархов, пользующегося большой личной популярностью среди православных и поддержкой афонских монахов, успешно занимавшего престол в течение 10 лет, по той причине, что он отказался благословить один из семейных брачных планов Михаила как противоречащий каноническому праву.[303]

Эти интриги осложнялись присутствием на горизонте турецких чиновников, всегда готовых нажиться как можно больше на затруднениях патриархата. Теперь уже стало постоянной традицией, что патриарх должен был заплатить Высокой Порте сумму для утверждения своего избрания, а также ежегодный взнос. Когда патриарх Симеон умер без завещания и без единого близкого родственника, турецкое правительство конфисковало его имущество, несмотря на то, что оно было ему необходимо только для жизни и должно было перейти к его преемнику. Нифонт, который унаследовал престол после него, неуклюже попытался восстановить отобранное, представив какого‑то заведомо никому не известного «племянника» Симеона; но обман был обнаружен и наказан дальнейшими конфискациями. Вместе с тем Нифонт оказался глупым и неудовлетворительным патриархом и, несмотря на поддержку со стороны валашского господаря и афонских монастырей, общественное мнение настояло на его низложении и замещении Дионисием I, человеком святой жизни, который возвратился из своего уединения в Серрах. Афонские монахи были раздражены, и через два года добились его низложения и выбора своего кандидата, Максима IV, который правил с 1491 по 1497 гг. Максим был достойным человеком; его главные усилия сосредоточивались на обеспечении, и небезуспешном, лучших условий жизни для православных на венецианской территории. После его смерти Нифонт II на год вернулся к власти, но вскоре был смещен и заменен на молодого Иоакима I, пользовавшегося поддержкой грузинского царя. Его правление прерывалось попыткой восстановить Нифонта и временным возведением на престол Пахомия I, к которому благоволили в Валахии. Иоаким умер в Валахии в 1504 г., при попытке примирения с господарем; после этого Пахомий занимал престол в течение девяти лет.[304]

После его смерти султан Селим сам вмешался в дело и приказал избрать критянина, к которому он благоволил, Феолепта I. К счастью, именно в правление Феолепта Селим предпринял свою попытку конфискации христианских церквей, к счастью, ибо султан испытывал к нему уважение. Однако попытка патриарха справиться со сложным вопросом Арсения Монемвасийского восстановила против него его врагов, которые после смерти Селима, в 1522 г., обвинили его в ужасной безнравственности. Он умер прежде, чем дело было рассмотрено в синоде.[305] Его преемник, Иеремия I, в момент избрания находился на Кипре, где ему удалось достичь конкордата в пользу православных с венецианскими властями. Его 21–летнее управление было самым длительным в истории патриархов, хотя он едва не лишился престола в 1526 г., когда отправился в паломничество в Иерусалим; некий Иоанникий убедил св. синод низложить его в свою пользу, но решение не было утверждено, вследствие того, что друзья Иеремии I были вынуждены заплатить Высокой Порте 500 золотых. В целом Иеремия пользовался поддержкой султана Сулеймана Великолепного, уравновешенного человека, который был рад видеть, что его христианские подданные обрели некоторую стабильность.[306]После смерти Иеремии под влиянием Иерусалимского патриарха Германа было постановлено, что только полный состав св. синода мог выбирать патриарха. Однако Дионисий II, назначенный Иеремией своим преемником, был избран вопреки желанию св. синода, который дал свое согласие только после народных демонстраций в его пользу. Он правил девять лет, а его преемник, Иоасаф II, десять, после чего он был низложен интригами Михаила Кантакузина. Следующие два патриарха, Митрофан III и Иеремия II, правили по семь лет. Митрофан был низложен в 1572 г. по подозрению в симпатиях Риму и обещал никогда не пытаться вернуться на патриарший престол.[307] Иеремия II, подобно Дионисию II, обязан своим избранием бурным демонстрациям греков, и был, может быть, самым способным из всех патриархов турецкого времени. Он заявил себя серьезным богословом, горячим реформатором и яростным врагом симонии. Его добродетели раздражали св. синод, который низложил его в 1579 г. и возвратил престол Митрофану III, невзирая на обещания последнего. Иеремия, однако, по–прежнему пользовался популярностью в народе. Через девять месяцев синод был вынужден снова избрать его. Через три с половиной года он опять был низложен; а еще через два года его популярность, подкрепляемая благоволением султана, принесла ему возвращение на престол на девять лет вплоть до его смерти в 1595 г.[308]