I have tried to stick with a basic modern Turkish rendering of Ottoman Turkish words and a simplified modern Greek transliteration style whenever possible for terms and phrases. Finally, when I provide multiple variants for a term, T. Amidst mostly skilful handling of a vast mass of genealogical, chronological, sociological and diplomatic information, some errors of dating were perhaps inevitable. What emerges is a wide-angled analysis of governance as a lived experience at a moment in which there was no clear blueprint for power. Further, and perhaps most important, he made himself indispensable to Stratford Canning, the British ambassador in İstanbul. What follows is a close look at these crises and transformations in and for themselves, not merely as a starting or stopping point on the way to successful or unsuccessful modernization, nation-state formation, or the final demise of the empire and the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923.
Ahmed Resmi Efendi, 1700—1783 Leiden, 1995 ; Katherine Fleming, The Muslim Bonaparte. We may be talking about processes that resemble those in European experiences of modernity and are certainly talking about a crucial period of transformation in the nature of power in the Ottoman context, and yet in trying to capture the levels of unarticulated change in the Ottoman Empire to project the term modernization or modernity is to accept its many implications about twentieth-century paths of development. On one or two occasions Philliou slightly overstates her case for originality. Alii bella gerunt: it was as if the Porte, having lost on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, was trying through its epigone Vogorides to marry its way back together again. Meanwhile, Stefanos married his eldest daughter to the Prince of Moldavia in 1834, his middle daughter in the 1840s to the Ottoman Ambassador to Greece, and his youngest in the 1850s to a future governor of Crete. They certainly threatened the military and administrative capacity of the formal structures of state, but as Muslims even when they disagreed about the meaning and obligations associated with this they did not threaten the fundamental consensus of Ottoman governance as articulated since at least the sixteenth century—the formal predominance of institutions and adherents of Sunni Islam over non-Muslims and non-Sunni Muslims in and for the Ottoman state. And this is what makes the early 1830s a pivotal moment in the book: while on the one hand a formal apparatus of Ottoman diplomacy was emerging which superseded the informal matrix of diplomacy conducted through the members of the phanariot system , on the other hand, various actors used, manipulated, and circumvented those men in formal positions of power through informal negotiations and information gathering.
You can change your cookie settings at any time. Moldavia and Wallachia, 1812—1829 4. Here, however, it is seen as a logical necessity in the wake of the collapse of the Phanariot system, which had been one of the key mechanisms through which the Ottoman state conducted relations with Western powers. It achieves this aim by turning to what has been a black hole between tolerance and violence. A series of five interludes is interspersed throughout the book. Neither the janissary corps, which was formally and violently abolished in 1826, nor ayans, whose power was squelched in many regions by the second decade of the nineteenth century, could be said to have had the same resurgence. Christine Philliou bri This vividly detailed revisionist history opens a new vista on the great Ottoman Empire in the early nineteenth century, a key period often seen as the eve of Tanzimat westernizing reforms and the beginning of three distinct histories—ethnic nationalism in the Balkans, imperial modernization from Istanbul, and European colonialism in the Middle East.
It is revealing that Vogorides has largely been overlooked by modern scholarship of the Ottoman nineteenth century, receiving only rare and passing mention, and that only for his appointment as the first Orthodox Christian representative to the Meclis-i Vala-yı Ahkam-ı Adliye Supreme Council of Judicial Ordinances three years before his death, at the age of eighty-six, in 1856. And she seeks to analyse Ottoman political order through identifying locations where formal and informal modes of governance intersect p. ³ The state could hardly even be considered an it, in fact, breaking down into constituent institutions and competing factions at several points in these decades. Suraiya Faroqhi Cambridge, 2006 or in the otherwise excellent volume The Early Modern Ottomans, ed. His life and career are nothing less than a tutorial on the nature and vicissitudes of Ottoman governance in the decades before the 1856 declaration of the Tanzimat reforms, themselves so often the starting point of scholarship on the Ottoman nineteenth century. Ottoman Turkish sources from the Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Prime Ministry State Archive and Topkapı Sarayı Arşivi Topkapı Palace Archive , as well as the Archivele Statului National Archives in Romania, provide a window into the official operations and language of governance in the empire.
Students of Ottoman history are often taught that official, state-generated documents in Ottoman Turkish constitute the most authoritative and definitive source for the history of that empire. It ended in the cession of territory under Great Power guarantee and the establishment of the kingdom of Greece. And yet there were many like him who quietly remained in the arena of imperial politics, above the masses of non-Muslim Ottoman subjects and below the top-ranking Ottoman statesmen of their day. Aksan, An Ottoman Statesman in War and Peace. In the course of that decade, scholars such as Paschalis Kitromilides, Virginia Aksan and Katherine Fleming made skilful use of individual life-stories to ask wider questions, not just about their subjects but also about the world in which they lived and which they could be claimed to illustrate. Crampton, Bulgaria Oxford, 2007 , p.
What follows is an attempt to grasp experiences of Ottoman governance during the fraught decades between the 1770s and the 1850s. The task of writing a postnational history of Ottoman governance has demanded the dissolution of longstanding divisions regarding archives and empire that have dominated Ottoman, Balkan, and Middle East studies over the past several decades. These details are crucial for understanding the depth of integration that was possible in this world, which scholarship has falsely tried to imagine and understand as either distinctly Greek or as Ottoman and therefore Turkish. Philliou continues and consolidates this tradition with an extended reflection on changing modes of governance in the Ottoman Empire, built around the figure of Stephanos Vogorides c. Stephanos Vogorides 1780—1859 was part of a network of Christian elites known phanariots, institutionally excluded from power yet intimately bound up with Ottoman governance.
Biography of an Empire: Governing Ottomans in an Age of Revolution. What could he have to gain with such a stance? She sees family and patronage relationships as stretching across formal institutions and confessional divides p. To begin with, I wondered, why did this dilemma have so little to do with the sentiments or even the military forces fighting in support of Greek statehood, despite taking place in the midst of what we now recognize as the first phase of the Greek War of Independence? Phanariots, and Vogorides himself, were operating not only between rulers and ruled but also between Ottoman and national. Christine Philliou brilliantly shines a new light on imperial crisis and change in the 1820s and 1830s by unearthing the life of one man. The trumping of diplomacy over domestic military power would transform the calculus of Ottoman governance from within and lead, in stages, to the formation of the modern Middle East and Balkans throughout the subsequent century. In doing so they reconstructed patronage networks in a shifting institutional landscape, even while continuing to employ an operational logic similar to that before the conflict. What emerges is a wide-angled analysis of governance as a lived experience at a moment in which there was no clear blueprint for power.
¹² But, whatever the dramatic class and political shifts were that they signified, those of janissaries and ayans were underway in an intra-Muslim and ultimately intra- askeri context. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. For the better-known families, I have opted for the most commonly used variant of their name, and for the lesser-known clans, I have tended toward the modern Turkish phonetic rendition whenever possible. For an Ottoman context, I am exploring the possibility that the arenas through which we can track changes in the calculus of power were those of diplomacy and the military, and I track those through the lens of phanariots and related groups, such as janissaries and ayans. When we consider phanariots in the broad political landscape of governance rather than the state, we begin to see that they were not the only Ottoman elite that was proliferating at the interstices of formal state and religious institutions and local communal structures. Christine Philliou brilliantly shines a new light on imperial crisis and change in the 1820s and 1830s by unearthing the life of one man.
Bibliography Includes bibliographical references p. The Phanariot practice of marrying into Moldavian families was an old one: see Radu G. Phanari —where the Orthodox Patriarchate was and is located and the area where phanariots had their residences and therefore their base of power, because they dominated the lay and sometimes the clerical offices of that institution. Chapter 1, The Houses of Phanar, focuses on the pre-1821 phanariot ascendancy, arguing that the phanariot project within Ottoman governance at the turn of the nineteenth century, like the houses of the Phanar quarter in İstanbul, had a deceptively simple exterior that hid intricate and lucrative relationships to the larger world of governance. Half a century later, the idea behind it has been brought to fruition, and in an impressive and imaginative fashion. For much of the twentieth century, the prevailing assumption was that the Ottoman legacy was one of authoritarianism, ethnic strife, and economic and cultural backwardness in the Middle East and Balkans. As a young man he shifted away from his Bulgarian-speaking origins and assimilated into a Greek-speaking milieu, marrying into phanariot circles before 1821.
Chapters four to six continue the story in the period from 1821 to 1859. Their work dates from much earlier than the 1969 and 1971 editions used by Philliou. To purchase short term access, please sign in to your Oxford Academic account above. A Portrait of Vasil Levsky Against a Background of Nineteenth-Century Bulgaria London, 1967 ; Duncan Wilson, The Life and Times of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić Oxford, 1970 ; C. His career tells us a lot about Ottoman governance, but can it really be said to symbolize it? Things changed somewhat in the 1990s, with reputed Ottomanists drawing attention to the potential utility of a biographical approach in shedding light on broader issues of social and cultural change. By tracing the contours of the wide-ranging networks—crossing ethnic, religious, and institutional boundaries—in which the phanariots moved, Philliou provides a unique view of Ottoman power and, ultimately, of the Ottoman legacies in the Middle East and Balkans today. The life, career, and writings of one man have not only served as a map for my research, but have come to frame this book—none other than the Christian Ottoman apologist mentioned above.