A Review of “The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence”

Sir Steven Runciman’s The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence is an amazing compendium of information about a place and time that few other books cover. Due to the scarcity of extent historical records kept by the Patriarchate itself, the author combed through “reports and accounts of foreign diplomats, churchmen, and travellers” in order to piece together the history of the Great Church, as the Greeks called the Patriarchate of Constantinople, after the fall of the city to the Ottoman Turks (viii). With thirty pages of bibliography (the majority of which are books not in English) and innumerable footnotes, the author’s meticulous scholarship shines throughout the book. The text is divided into two “books”.

Book I

Book I covers the conditions of the Great Church on the eve of the Turkish conquest. Chapter 1 provides a general background of the Orthodox Church, highlighting differences between it and the Western Church, and explaining their historical development. It also lists the events that naturally divide the history of the Byzantine Empire into four epochs.

Chapter 2 covers two aspects of the visible structure of the Orthodox Church: the hierarchy and monasteries. In the section on hierarchy, it covers the development of the doctrine of the apostolic succession of bishops, the function of ecumenical councils, the development of the Pentarchy as well as the distinction between autonomous and autocephalous churches. Then it covers the rules for electing and deposing bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs as well as the types of organizations these leaders maintained. In the section on monasteries, it covers the legal code governing them, the role they played during doctrinal controversies, and the special place in the Byzantine heart for monastics--sometimes even above the hierarchy.

Chapter 3 covers the evolution of the complex power relationship between the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople, who generally speaking was the second highest ranking official after the emperor. The pattern established at Nicaea continued until the Latin conquest, which precipitated a constitutional crisis of succession for both roles. The author defends the position that Byzantium was essentially a democracy and thus not liable to the charge of Caesaropapism.

Chapter 4 has two parts. The first part covers the relationship between the Byzantine emperor and Christians not in his dominion--both those living under infidel Turkish rule as well as those living in independent Orthodox states. The second part covers the Emperor’s attempt toward rapprochement with the Pope in order to secure military help from the West against the Turks. This includes the histories of the councils of Lyon and Florence

Chapter 5 covers the educational system of the empire, which in contrast to the West was under State instead of Church patronage. Then it covers different schools of philosophy in Byzantium, their leaders, and their interactions with the apophatic theology of Orthodoxy. Then it discusses the rehabilitation of the word Hellene and the natural development of Hellenism as the emperor ceased to be a “supra-national potentate” (120).

Chapter 6 traces the development of Orthodoxy’s theology of mysticism and the paradox of deification when the Deity is apophatically unknowable. The resolution comes by distinguishing between the unknowable essence of God and the energies of God that are knowable through prayer. The chapter continues with the history of Hesychasm and the Palamite controversy and closes with the institution of starets in Russia. Chapter 7 briefly summarizes the condition of the Empire right before Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453.

Book II

Book II describes the situation of the church under the Ottoman Sultans and is divided into twelve chapters. Chapter 1 covers the new pattern of governance that emerged, where the Patriarch of Constantinople became the Ethnarch of the Orthodox milet under the Muslim Sultan. As such he became a civil as well as religious leader, and the organization beneath him required an increasing number of lay officials. Despite the misery that accompanied the fall of the city, the Orthodox milet were given a constitution that allowed them to increase in material prosperity.

Chapter 2 documents how the condition of the Orthodox milet degraded over time. The later Sultans converted Orthodox churches into mosques, required bribes to allow the construction of new churches, required a tribute for the ratification of every Patriarchal election, and required yearly tributes, which led to the Patriarchate’s mounting indebtedness and its increasing subservience to rich members of the laity who could help to cover expenses. The corruption of absolute impotence led Greeks to replace mutual loyalty with intrigue for survival.

Chapter 3 covers the sad state of education under the Turks. Constantinople had a Patriarchal Academy for basic priestly training, but Greeks generally had to leave the Ottoman Empire to study anything scientific, with the University of Papua near Venice being the destination of choice. Provincial priests relied on nearby monasteries to become just literate enough to perform the Mysteries.

Chapter 4 covers the relationship between the Papacy and the Orthodox under the Turks. About 45 years after the council of Florence, the Orthodox Patriarchs convened to legally repudiate it. Jesuits responded by reaching out to the Greeks by starting schools for them in both Latin and Ottoman lands. Over time some Orthodox bishops submitted to the Pope, either publicly or privately, but the common folk continued to resist steadfastly Papal overtures.

Chapter 5 covers the early Lutheran attempts at dialogue with the Orthodox. Luther himself being ambivalent about the Greeks, his successor Melanchthon dispatched the first letter to Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople in 1559, presenting the Confession of Augsburg as the symbol of their faith. After a couple rounds of back and forth, Jeremias ended the dialogue in 1581.

Chapter 6 covers the lively history of Cyril Lucaris, first a Patriarch of Alexandria and later of Constantinople. Through Jesuit intrigue, his strongly anti-Roman and pro-Calvinist Confession of Faith scandalized the Orthodox, and incurred for him anathematization and multiple depositions while alive and strong condemnation after his repose.

Chapter 7 covers the early history of interactions between Anglicans and Orthodox. They began with chaplains of British embassies in Constantinople. Later, Greek students came to universities in England. Later, a series of Greek bishops visited England. Under the assumption that intercommunions was possible, Anglican divines tried to pin down the Orthodox on their beliefs. Due partly to the Orthodox not wanting to offend their hosts and partly to the apophatic nature of Orthodox theology, Anglicans lost interest after multiple failed attempts.

Chapter 8 covers the evolving relationship between the powers in Moscow and Constantinople. Moscow began to view itself as the Third Rome since the fall of Constantinople. The secular and religious leaders in Moscow began upgrading their titles over time: Moscow’s Prince become Tsar, the “Christian Emperor for all Christians in the whole world” (331), and Moscow’s Metropolitan went from being suffragan to the Patriarch of Constantinople to being a Patriarch in his own right.

Confronted with the friendly overtures of Protestants and the attacks of Rome, the Orthodox needed a way to express their beliefs in categories that Westerners could understand. Chapter 9 documents these attempts. Peter Moghila’s Orthodoxa Confessio Fidei, the Confession of Dositheus, and the Oros by Cyril of Nicaea are three examples, but only local councils ever approved them, so they lack ecumenical weight.

Chapter 10 introduces the Phanariots, a Greek moneyed-nobility “closely knit by common aims and interests and by intermarriage, but open to newcomers” (362). They dominated the lay organization of the Patriarchate, paid its debts, and intrigued on its behalf at the Sublime Porte. They controlled the autonomous principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. Through their influence, Greeks came to control Orthodoxy in non-Greek lands.

Chapter 11 covers the events leading up to the start of the Greek War for Independence in 1821. By the 18th century the Ottoman Empire’s “administrative machinery was beginning to run down” (391), and even the historically virtuous village priests and monks were becoming corrupt. Many from peasant to Phanariot were joining secret societies called Klephts that fomented revolt again the Turks. The Patriarch, as servant of the Sultan, enjoined the populace to submit to the Sultan, but to no avail. At the start of the war, the Sultan considered the Patriarch in breach of contract and executed him, two metropolitans, twelves bishops, and most Phanariots (406).

Chapter 12 conclude the books by documenting the condition of the Patriarchate after the Greek War for Independence. His powers were curtailed. He was a Greek but with sworn loyalty to the Sultan, even if at war with the independent Kingdom of Greece. He continued to push Hellenism instead of Orthodoxy by trying to keep the Bulgarian Church in subjection to Greek hierarchs and encouraging nationalistic feuds between monasteries on Mt. Athos. After the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, he was reduced to “merely the chief bishop of a dwindling religious community in a secular state” (407).

From this reader’s perspective, really the only negative feature of the book was the repeated implication that the Orthodox under the Turkish yoke practiced obscurantism and rejected the “opportunity to revivify their whole attitude to religion” that Protestants offered them (319). This reader felt that the systemic lack of educational opportunities under the Turkish yoke produced a historical context where real communication between the parties just could not occur, and that the Orthodox need not be blamed for intentionally sabotaging the communication.