Phanariots,Phanariotes, orFanariots (Greek:Φαναριώτες,Romanian:Fanarioți,Turkish:Fenerliler) were members of prominentGreek families inPhanar[1] (Φανάρι, modernFener),[2] the chief Greek quarter ofConstantinople where theEcumenical Patriarchate is located, who traditionally occupied four important positions in theOttoman Empire:Hospodar of Moldavia,Hospodar of Wallachia, GrandDragoman of the Porte and GrandDragoman of the Fleet. Despite their cosmopolitanism and often-Western education, the Phanariots were aware of their Greek ancestry and culture; according toNicholas Mavrocordatos'Philotheou Parerga, "We are a race completely Hellenic".[3]
They emerged as a class of wealthy Greek merchants (of mostly nobleByzantine descent) during the second half of the 16th century, and were influential in the administration of the Ottoman Empire's Balkan domains in the 18th century.[1] The Phanariots usually built their houses in the Phanar quarter to be near the court of thePatriarch, who (under the Ottomanmillet system) was recognized as the spiritual and secular head (millet-bashi) of theOrthodox subjects—theRum Millet, or "Roman nation" of the empire, except those under the spiritual care of the Patriarchs ofAntioch,Jerusalem,Alexandria,Ohrid andPeć—often acting asarchontes of the Ecumenical See. They dominated the administration of the patriarchate, often intervening in the selection ofhierarchs (including the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople).
Many members of Phanariot families (who had acquired great wealth and influence during the 17th century) occupied highpolitical and administrative posts in the Ottoman Empire. From 1669 until the Greek War of Independence in 1821, Phanariots made up the majority of thedragomans to the Ottoman government (thePorte) and foreignembassies due to the Greeks' higher level of education than the general Ottoman population.[4] With the church dignitaries, local notables from the provinces and the large Greek merchant class, Phanariots represented the better-educated members of Greek society during Ottoman rule until the 1821 start of theGreek War of Independence. During the war, Phanariots influenced decisions by theGreek National Assembly (the representative body of Greek revolutionaries, which met six times between 1821 and 1829).[4][5] Between 1711–1716 and 1821, a number of Phanariots were appointedHospodars (voivodes or princes) in theDanubian Principalities (Moldavia andWallachia) (usually as a promotion from the offices ofDragoman of the Fleet andDragoman of the Porte); the period is known as the Phanariot epoch in Romanian history.[1]
 | This section'sfactual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. The reason given is: This section makes assumptions that are no longer considered historical consensus, and alludes multiple times to theOttoman Decline Thesis, which is now considered a minority opinion. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(May 2022) |
After thefall of Constantinople,Mehmet II deported the city's Christian population, leaving only the Jewish inhabitants ofBalat,[6] repopulating the city with Christians and Muslims from throughout the whole empire and the newly conquered territories.[6] Phanar was repopulated with Greeks fromMouchlion in thePeloponnese and,after 1461, with citizens of theEmpire of Trebizond.[7]
The roots of Greek ascendancy can be traced to the Ottoman need for skilled, educated negotiators as their empire declined and they relied on treaties rather than force.[1] During the 17th century, the Ottomans began having problems in foreign relations and difficulty dictating terms to their neighbours; for the first time, thePorte needed to participate in diplomatic negotiations.
With the Ottomans traditionally ignoring Western European languages and cultures, officials were at a loss.[8] The Porte assigned those tasks to the Greeks, who had a long mercantile and educational tradition and the necessary skills. The Phanariots and other Greek as well as Hellenized families primarily fromConstantinople, occupied high posts as secretaries and interpreters for Ottoman officials.[9]
As a result of Phanariot and ecclesiastical administration, the Greeks expanded their influence in the 18th-century empire while retaining theirGreek Orthodox faith and Hellenism. This had not always been the case in the Ottoman realm. During the 16th century, theSouth Slavs—the most prominent in imperial affairs—converted toIslam to enjoy the full rights of Ottoman citizenship (especially in theEyalet of Bosnia; Serbs tended to occupy high military positions.[8]
A Slavic presence in Ottoman administration gradually became hazardous for its rulers, since the Slavs tended to supportHabsburg armies during theGreat Turkish War. By the 17th century the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople was the religious and administrative ruler of the empire's Orthodox subjects, regardless of ethnic background. All formerly-independent Orthodox patriarchates, including theSerbian Patriarchate renewed in 1557, came under the authority of the Greek Orthodox Church.[9] Most of the Greek patriarchs were drawn from the Phanariots.
Two Greek social groups emerged, challenging the leadership of the Greek Church:[10] the Phanariots inConstantinople and the local notables in theHelladic provinces (kodjabashis,dimogerontes andprokritoi). According to 19th-century Greek historianConstantine Paparrigopoulos, the Phanariots initially sought the most important secular offices of the patriarchal court and could frequently intervene in the election of bishops and influence crucial decisions by the patriarch.[5] Greek merchants and clergy ofByzantine aristocratic origin, who acquired economic and political influence and were later known as Phanariots, settled in extreme northwestern Constantinople (which had become central to Greek interests after the establishment of the patriarch's headquarters in 1461, shortly afterHagia Sophia was converted into a mosque).[11]
.svg)
After the 1453 fall of Constantinople, when theSultan replacedde jure theByzantine Emperor for subjugated Christians, he recognized the Ecumenical Patriarch as the religious and national leader (ethnarch) of the Greeks and other ethnic groups in the Greek OrthodoxMillet.[12] The Patriarchate had primary importance, occupying this key role for Christians of the Empire because the Ottomans did not legally distinguish between nationality and religion and considered the empire'sOrthodox Christians a single entity.[13]
The position of the Patriarchate in the Ottoman state encouraged Greek renaissance projects centering on the resurrection and revitalization of theByzantine Empire. The Patriarch and his church dignitaries constituted the first centre of power for the Greeks in the Ottoman state, which infiltrated Ottoman structures and attracted the former Byzantine nobility.[13]
.JPG)
The wealth of the extensive Greek merchant class provided the material basis for the intellectual revival featured in Greek life for more than half a century before 1821. Greek merchants endowed libraries and schools. On the eve of the Greek War of Independence, the three most important centres of Greek learning (schools-cum-universities) were in the commercial centres ofChios,Smyrna andAivali.[14] The first Greek millionaire of the Ottoman era wasMichael "Şeytanoğlu" Kantakouzenos, who earned 60,000ducats a year from his control of the fur trade fromMuscovy.[15]
During the 18th century, the Phanariots were a hereditary clerical−aristocratic group who managed the affairs of the patriarchate and the dominant political power of the Ottoman Greek community. They became a significant political factor in the empire and, as diplomatic agents, played a role in the affairs of Great Britain, France and the Russian Empire.[16]
The Phanariots competed for the most important administrative offices in the Ottoman administration; these included collecting imperial taxes, monopolies on commerce, working under contract in a number of enterprises, supplying the court and ruling theDanubian Principalities. They engaged in private trade, controlling the crucial wheat trade on theBlack Sea. The Phanariots expanded their commercial activities into theKingdom of Hungary and then to the other Central European states. Their activities intensified their contacts with Western nations, and they became familiar with Western languages and cultures.[11]
Before the beginning of theGreek War of Independence, the Phanariots were firmly established as the political elite of Hellenism. According to Greek historian Constantine Paparrigopoulos, this was a natural evolution given the Phanariots' education and experience in supervising large parts of the empire.[5] According to Nikos Svoronos argued, the Phanariots subordinated theirnational identity to theirclass identity and tried to peacefully co−exist with the Ottomans; they did not enrich the Greek national identity and lost ground to groups which flourished through their confrontation with the Ottoman Empire (theklephts andarmatoloi).[17]
A Greek presence had established itself in both Danubian Principalities ofMoldavia andWallachia, resulting in the appointment of Greek princes before the 18th century. After the Phanariot era, some Phanariot families in Wallachia and Moldavia identified themselves asRomanian inRomanian society (including the Rosetti family;C. A. Rosetti represented theradical, nationalist cause during and after the1848 Wallachian revolution.).
Phanariot attention focused on occupying the most favorable offices the empire could offer non-Muslims and the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, which were still relatively rich and—more importantly—autonomous (despite having to pay tribute asvassal states). Many Greeks had found favorable conditions there for commercial activities, in comparison with the Ottoman Empire, and an opportunity for political power; they entered Wallachian and Moldavianboyar nobility by marriage.
Reigns of local princes were not excluded on principle. Severalhellenized Romanian noble families, such as theCallimachis (originallyCălmașul), theRacovițăs and the AlbanianGhicas penetrated the Phanar nucleus to increase their chances of occupying the thrones and maintain their positions.
Most sources agree that 1711 was when the gradual erosion of traditional institutions reached its zenith, but characteristics ascribed to the Phanariot era had made themselves felt long before it.[18] The Ottomans enforced their choice ofhospodars as far back as the 15th century, and foreign (usually Greek orLevantine)boyars competed with local ones since the late 16th century. Rulers since DumitraşcuCantacuzino in Moldavia andGeorge Ducas (a prince of Greek origin) in Wallachia, both in 1673, were forced to surrender their family members as hostages in Constantinople. The traditionalelective system in the principalities, resulting in long periods of political disorder, was dominated by a small number of ambitious families who competed violently for the two thrones and monopolized land ownership.[19]
A change in policy was indicated by the fact that autonomous Wallachia and Moldavia had entered a period of skirmishes with the Ottomans, due to the insubordination of local princes associated with the rise ofImperial Russia's power underPeter the Great and the firm presence of the Habsburg Empire on theCarpathian border with the principalities. Dissidence in the two countries became dangerous for the Turks, who were confronted with the attraction on the population of protection by a fellowEastern Orthodox state. This became obvious withMihai Racoviță's second rule in Moldavia, when the prince plotted with Peter to have Ottoman rule overthrown. His replacement,Nicholas Mavrocordatos, was the first official Phanariot in his second reign in Moldavia and replacedȘtefan Cantacuzino in Wallachia as the first Phanariot ruler of that country.
A crucial moment was theRusso−Turkish War of 1710−1713, whenDimitrie Cantemir sided with Russia and agreed to Russian tutelage of his country. After Russia experienced a major defeat and Cantemir went into exile, the Ottomans took charge of the succession to the throne of Moldavia. This was followed by similar measures in Wallachia, prompted byȘtefan Cantacuzino's alliance with Habsburg commanderPrince Eugene of Savoy in the closing stages of theGreat Turkish War.
The person raised to the office of prince was usually the chiefdragoman of the Porte, well-versed in contemporary politics and Ottoman statecraft. The new prince, who obtained his office in exchange for a generous bribe, proceeded to the country he was selected to govern (whose language he usually did not know). When the new princes were appointed, they were escorted toIași orBucharest by retinues composed of their families, favourites and creditors (from whom they had borrowed the bribes). The prince and his appointees counted on recouping these in as short a time as possible, amassing an amount sufficient to live on after their brief time in office.
Thirty-one princes, from eleven families, ruled the two principalities during the Phanariot epoch. When the choice became limited to a few families due to princely disloyalty to the Porte, rulers would be moved from one principality to the other; the prince of Wallachia (the richer of the two principalities) would pay to avert his transfer to Iaşi, and the prince of Moldavia would bribe supporters in Constantinople to appoint him to Wallachia.Constantine Mavrocordatos ruled a total of ten times inMoldavia andWallachia. The debt was owed to several creditors, rather than to the Sultan; the central institutions of the Ottoman Empire generally seemed determined to maintain their rule over the principalities and not exploit them irrationally. In an early example,Ahmed III paid part ofNicholas Mavrocordatos' sum.
The Phanariot epoch was initially characterized by fiscal policies driven by Ottoman needs and the ambitions of some hospodars, who (mindful of their fragile status) sought to pay back their creditors and increase their wealth while in a position of power. To make the reigns lucrative while raising funds to satisfy the needs of the Porte, princes channeled their energies into taxing the inhabitants into destitution. The most odious taxes (such as thevăcărit first imposed byIancu Sasul in the 1580s), mistakenly identified with the Phanariots in modern Romanian historiography, were much older.
The mismanagement of many Phanariot rulers contrasts with the achievements and projects of others, such as Constantine Mavrocordatos (who abolishedserfdom in Wallachia in 1746 and Moldavia in 1749) andAlexander Ypsilantis, who were inspired by Habsburg serf policy. Ypsilantis tried to reform legislation and impose salaries for administrative offices in an effort to halt the depletion of funds the administrators, local and Greek alike, were using for their own maintenance; it was, by then, more profitable to hold office than to own land. HisPravilniceasca condică, a relatively modernlegal code, met stiffboyar resistance.
The focus of such rules was often the improvement of state structure against conservative wishes. Contemporary documents indicate that, despite the change in leadership and boyar complaints, about 80 percent of those seated in theDivan (an institution roughly equivalent to theestates of the realm) were members of local families.[20] This made endemic the social and economic issues of previous periods, since the inner circle of boyars blocked initiatives (such as Alexander Ypsilantis') and obtained, extended and preservedtax exemptions.[21]
The Phanariots copied Russian and Habsburg institutions; during the mid-18th century they made noble rank dependent on state service, asPeter I of Russia did. After theTreaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji (1774) allowed Russia to intervene on the side of Ottoman Eastern Orthodox subjects, most of the Porte's tools of political pressure became ineffective. They had to offer concessions to maintain a hold on the countries as economic and strategic assets. The treaty made any increase in tribute impossible, and between 1774 and the 1820s it plummeted from about 50,000 to 20,000gold coins (equivalent toAustrian gold currency) in Wallachia and to 3,100 in Moldavia.[22]
Immediately afterward, Russia forcefully used its new prerogative. The deposition ofConstantine Ypsilantis (in Wallachia) andAlexander Mourousis (in Moldavia) bySelim III, called on byFrench Empire'sambassador to the Ottoman EmpireHorace Sébastiani (whose fears of pro−Russianconspiracies in Bucharest were partially confirmed), was thecasus belli for the 1806–1812 conflict, and Russian generalMikhail Andreyevich Miloradovich swiftly reinstated Ypsilantis during his military expedition to Wallachia.
Such gestures began a period of effective Russian supervision, culminating with theOrganic Statute administration of the 1830s. The Danubian principalities grew in strategic importance with theNapoleonic Wars and thedecline of the Ottoman Empire, as European states became interested in haltingRussian southward expansion (which included the 1812 annexation ofBessarabia). Newconsulates in the two countries' capitals, ensuring the observation of developments in Russian−Ottoman relations, had an indirect impact on the local economy as rival diplomats began awarding protection andsudit status to merchants competing with localguilds.Nicholas I of Russia pressured Wallachia and Moldavia into granting constitutions (in 1831 and 1832, respectively) to weaken native rulers.[23]
Theboyars began a petition campaign against the princes in power; addressed to the Porte and theHabsburg monarchy, they primarily demanded Russian supervision. Although they referred to incidents ofcorruption and misrule, the petitions indicate their signers' conservatism. The boyars tend to refer to (fictitious) "capitulations" which either principality would have signed with the Ottomans, demanding that rights guaranteed through them be restored.[24] They viewed reform attempts by princes as illegitimate; in alternative proposals (usually in the form of constitutional projects), the boyars expressed desire for anaristocratic republic.[25]
The active part taken by Greek princes in revolts after 1820 and the disorder provoked by theFiliki Eteria (of which theGhica,Văcărescu and Golescu families were active members[26] after its uprising against the Ottoman Empire in Moldavia andTudor Vladimirescu'sWallachian uprising) led to the disappearance of promotions from thePhanar community; the Greeks were no longer trusted by the Porte. Amid tense relations between boyars and princes, Vladimirescu's revolt was primarily the result of compromise betweenOltenianpandurs and theregency of boyars attempting to block the ascension ofScarlat Callimachi (the last Phanariot ruler in Bucharest).[27]Ioan Sturdza's rule in Moldavia andGrigore IV Ghica's in Wallachia are considered the first of the new period, although the new regime abruptly ended in Russian occupation during anotherRusso−Turkish War and the subsequent period of Russian influence.
Most Phanariots were patrons ofGreek culture, education and printing. They founded academies which attracted teachers and pupils from throughout theOrthodox commonwealth, and there was awareness of intellectual trends inHabsburg Europe.[1] Many of the Phanariot princes were capable, farsighted rulers. As prince of Wallachia in 1746 and Moldavia in 1749,Constantine Mavrocordatos abolished serfdom andAlexander Ypsilantis of Wallachia (reigned 1774–1782) initiated extensive administrative and legal reforms. Ipsilanti's reign coincided with subtle shifts in economic and social life and the emergence of spiritual and intellectual aspirations which pointed to the West and reform.[28]
Condemnation of the Phanariots is a focus ofRomanian nationalism, usually integrated into a general resentment of foreigners. The tendency unifies pro− and anti−modernisation attitudes; Phanariot Greeks are painted as reactionary elements (byCommunist Romania) and agents of brutal, opportunistic change (as inMihai Eminescu'sScrisoarea a III-a).
_Royal_Full_Achievement_of_Arms_Coat_of_Arms_Heraldry.jpg)
Here is a non-exhaustive list of Phanariot families:
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Phanariotes".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 21 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 346.the name of a family of Phanariot Greeks, distinguished in the history of Turkey, Rumania and modern Greece
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Phanariotes".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 21 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 346.