Benutzer:Albtalkourtaki/Phanariotes

Phanarioten war die Bezeichnung für einen kleinen Kreis wohlhabender und politisch einflussreicher byzantinischer Adelsfamilien, die im Osmanischen Reich des 17./18. Jahrhunderts die Oberschicht in Phanar oder Fener, dem griechischen Stadtteil Konstantinopels (Istanbul) und Sitz des Ökumenischen Patriarchats, bildeten.

Inneres der bulgarrisch-orthodoxen Kirche des Hl. Stephanus, Fener, Istanbul

Büste von Dimitrios Ypsilantis, Athen

Fener – der Name bedeutet „Leuchtturm“ und leitet sich vom griechischen Wort Φανάρι (Fanari) ab - war der wichtigste griechische Stadtteil Konstantinopels (Istanbuls). Dort hat das Ökumenische Patriarchat seinen Sitz; in seiner Nähe hatten sich im Lauf der Zeit immer mehr Griechen niedergelassen.

In der Zeit von 1711 bis 1821, die als phanariotische Periode in die Geschichte Rumäniens eingegangen ist, regierten sie als vom Sultan eingesetzte Hospodare (altslawisch gospodĭ: Herr) die Donaufürstentümer und osmanischen Vasallenstaaten Moldau (Moldawien) und Walachei, denen sie nicht nur in kultureller Hinsicht nachhaltig einen griechischen Stempel aufdrückten.

Neben kirchlichen Würdenträgern und örtlichen Notabeln stellten die Phanarioten die griechische Oberklasse während der osmanischen Herrschaft bis zum Beginn der griechischen Befreiungskämpfedar, bei denen sie eine wichtige Rolle spielten. Sie beeinflussten die Entscheidungen der griechischen Nationalversammlung, der Vertretung der griechischen Aufständigen, die zwischen 1821 und 1829 zu sechs Sitzungen zusammentrat. In der Zeit von 1711 bis 1821 regierte eine Reihe von Phanarioten als vom Sultan eingesetzte Hospodare (altslawisch gospodĭ: Herr) die Donaufürstentümer und osmanischen Vasallenstaaten Moldau (Moldawien) und Walachei, denen sie nicht nur in kultureller Hinsicht nachhaltig einen griechischen Stempel aufdrückten.

Aufstieg der griechischen Elite im Osmanischen Reich

Nach dem Fall von Konstantinopel 1453 [[]], als die Osmanen faktisch die Byzantinischen Kaiser durch unterjochte Christen ersetzte, wurde der Ökumenische Patriarch vom Sultan als religiöser und nationaler Führer (Ethnarch) der Griechen und anderer Ethnien anerkannt, die zum Griechisch-orthodoxen Millet gehörten. Das Patriarchat erhielt dadurch eine besondere Bedeutung und nahm eine Schlüsselrolle unter den Christen des Osmanischen Reiches ein; die Osmanen unterschieden rechtlich nicht zwischen Nationalität und Religion und daher alle orthodoxen Christen des Reiches als Einheit ansahen.

Die Position des Patriarchen im Staat ermutigte Bestrebungen nach einer griechischen Wiedergeburt, einer Wiedererichtung und Wiederbelebung des Byzantinischen Reiches. Der Patriarch und die ihn umgebenden kirchlichen Würdenträger bildeten für die Griechen das erste Machtzentrum innerhalb des osmanischen Staates dar, das erfolgreich in die Strukturen des Osmanischen Reiches eindrang und gleichzeitig den früheren byzantinischen Adel anzog. Die früher unabhängigen Patriarchate auch der Serbisch-Orthodoxen Kirche wurden im 18. Jahrhundert der Griechischen Kirche unterstellt. Die Phanarioten bekleideten hohe Ämter in der christlich-orthodoxen Ostkirche, in der sie starken Einfluss auf die Wahl der Prälaten und Ökumenischen Patriarchen nahmen. Durch die phanariotische und klerikale Verwaltung erreichten die Griechen im 18. Jahrhundert den Höhepunkt ihres Einflusses, nachdem im 16. Jahrhundert die Südslawen in staatlichen Angelegenheiten eine besonders bedeutende Rolle gespielt hatten. Im Gegensatz zu den Griechen bestand bei den Slawen eine Bereitschaft, zum Islam zu konvertieren - besonders in Bosnien, während die Serben versuchten, hohe militärische Positionen einzunehmen. Bald wurden Slawen in der Verwaltung zu einem Risikifaktor für die osmanischen Herrscher, da die Gefahr bestand, dass sie im Zusammenhang mit dem Großen Türkenkrieg die Seite der Habsburger unterstützten. Es kam hinzu, dass die Osmanen vom 17. Jahrhundert an Schwierigkeiten damit bekamen, ihren Nachbarn ihre Bedingungen zu diktieren; die Hohe Pforte erkannte erstmals die Notwendigkeit diplomatischer Verhandlungen. Vor dem Hintergrund der osmanischen Tradition, westeuropäische Sprachen und Kulturen zu ignorieren, waren die Regierenden selbst hierzu nicht in der Lage. Die Hohe Pforte übertrug daher derartige Aufgaben den Griechen, die als die Gebildetsten im Reich galten. Dadurch besetzten die meist aus griechischen Familien in Konstantinopel stammenden Phanarioten hohe Positionen als Sekretäre und Dolmetscher für osmanische Beamte und Offiziere. Nach 1669 wurde es üblich, der osmanischen Regierung und ihren Botschaftern die Dragomane (Dolmetscher), Sekretäre, Diplomaten und außenpolitische Berater der Hohen Pforte aus dem Kreis der Phanarioten zu wählen.

Ihren Ruhm und ihr Ansehen sowie die Möglichkeit zum Aufstieg in höchste Positionen im osmanischen Verwaltungsdienst verdankten sie in erster Linie dem ungeheuren Reichtum, den ihre Vorfahren als Händler im 17. Jahrhundert angehäuft hatten. Griechische Kaufleute und Priester von adliger byzantinischer Herkunft, die wirtschaftlichen Wohlstand und politischen Einfluss erworben hatten, ließen sich im äußersten Nordwesten Konstantinopels nieder, wo sich die griechischen Interessen konzentrierten. Der Patriarch hatte hier ein Haus in der Nähe der ihm überwiesenen Kirche St. Georg erbaut und sein Hauptquartiers eingerichtet (nachdem die Hagia Sophia in eine Moschee umgewandelt worden war).

Phanarioten als hohe Beamte

Im 18. Jahrhundert stellten die Phanarioten eine klerikal-aristokratische Gruppe dar, die die Geschäfte des Patriarchats führte und die führende politische Kraft der griechischen Gemeinschaft in den osmanischen landen wurde.

Phanarioten bewarben sich alsbald um einige der wichtigsten Ämter in der Osmanischen Verwaltung. Einige dieser Positionen waren mit der Eintreibung von Steuern für das Reich, mit Handelsmonopolen, mit der Stellung von Hoflieferanten und sogar mit der Herrschaft über eines der Donaufürstentümer und osmanischen Vasallenstaaten Moldau (Moldawien) und Walachei verbunden. Gleichzeitig betrieben sie privaten Handel und erhielten weitgehende Kontrolle über den wichtigen Weizenhandel am Schwarzen Meer. Die Phanarioten dehnten ihre Handelsaktivitäten zunächst in das Königreich Ungarn aus, dann in alle Staaten Mitteleuropas. Sie intensivierten dadurch ihre Kontakte zum Westen. Das Recht zur Steuereintreibung bei den Christen, für die Phanarioten zuständig waren, wurde häufig zur eigenen Bereicherung missbraucht, indem bei den christlichen Völkern der Provinz, Griechen wie Nichtgriechen, immer höhere Abgaben erhoben wurden. Nicht zuletzt auch diese Praxis führte zum Volksaufstand von 1821. Natürlich verfolgten nicht alle Phanarioten diese unmoralische Praxis. Es gab unter den späteren Freiheitskämpfern sogar etliche Phanarioten, die im Kampf für die Ideale eines unabhängigen demokratischen Nationalstaats eine tragende Rolle gespielt haben. Unter anderem gehört auch Alexandros Ipsilantis zu ihnen. Dennoch waren es ironischerweise gerade weite Teile der gebildeten Schichten der Griechen, die der aufgeklärten Idee des eigenen Nationalstaates nach französischem Vorbild nicht viel abgewinnen konnten. Der Aufstand der Griechen (1821) wurde von den Fanarioten nicht eben mit Begeisterung begrüßt; dennoch mußten sie als Geiseln blutig bestraft auf das schrecklichste büßen, und manche Geschlechter der Fanarioten wurden fast ganz ausgerottet.

• 
  Büste von Dimitrios Ypsilantis, Athen
• 
  Dimitrios Ypsilantis
• 
  Alexandru Ipsilanti
• 
  Constantin Ipsilanti
• 
  Nea Trapezounta, Pieria. Bust of Alexandros Ipsilantis.
• 
  Ioan Callimachi
• 
  Scarlat Callimachi
• 
  Alexandru Callimachi
• 
  Gheorghe Grigore Cantacuzino (1837 - 1913), Premierminister von Rumänien 1899 - 1900, 1906/1907
• 
  Serban Cantacuzino
• 
  Stefan Karadja (1840-1868), Bulgarischer Nationalist und Revolutionär
• 
  Ion Gheorghe Caragea
• 
  Theodor Aman - Grigore Ghica I
• 
  Grigore Ghica I
• 
  Grigore Ghica III
• 
  Gheorghe Ghica
• 
  Alexandru D. Ghica
• 
  Grigore Alexandru Ghica
• 
  Grigore Dimitrie Ghica IV
• 
  Ioan Gheorghe Caragea
• 
  Nicolae Mavrogheni
• 
  Nicolae Mavrogheni
• 
  Alexandru Moruzi
• 
  Constantin Moruzi
• 
  Mihail Racovita
• 
  Constantin A. Rosetti (1816 - 1885), Premierminister von Rumänien 1866
• 
  Antonie Ruset
• 
  Mihail Sutu
• 
  Alexandru Sutu

Stavropoleos-Kirche, erbaut in Bukarest von Nicholas Mavrokordatos, Lithographie von Amadeo Preziosi, 1868

Phanariotische Herrschaft über die Donaufürstentümer

Begründung und Kontrasteand contrasts

The period is not to be understood as marking the introduction of a Greek presence into the Principalities, which had already established itself in both provinces and had even resulted in the appointment of Greek Princes before the 18th century. After the end of the Phanariote epoch, various families of Phanariote ancestry in both Wallachia and Moldavia identified themselves as Romanian, and remained present in Romanian society — among them, the Rosetti family, whose member C. A. Rosetti represented the radical and nationalist cause during and after the 1848 Wallachian revolution, and the Ghicas (who, despite direct Phanariote lineage, held the throne in Wallachia with Grigore IV and Alexandru II as the first "non−Phanariote" rulers after 1821).

Die Phanarioten waren bestrebt, die begehrtesten Ämter zu besetzen, die an Nicht-Muslime vergeben werden konnten - im Osmanischen Reich und insbesondere in den Fürstentümern Moldawien und [[Füstentum Walachei|Walachei}}, die noch relativ wohlhabend und insbesondere autonom waren, obwohl sie als Vasallenstaaten Tribut zu zahlen hatten. Viele Griechen hatten dort günstige Bedingungen für geschäftliche Betätigung gefunden und damit auch die Gelegenheit, politischen Einfluss zu gewinnen. Viele hatten in den walachischen und moldawischen Bojaren-Adel eingeheiratet.

Although rarely occurring, reigns of local Princes were not excluded on principle. This situation had even determined two arguably hellenized Romanian noble families, the Callimachis (originally Călmaşul) and Racoviţăs, to penetrate into the Phanar nucleus, in order to facilitate and increase their chances to occupy the thrones, and later to successfully maintain their positions.

While most sources would agree to 1711 being the moment where the gradual erosion of the traditional institutions had reached its ultimate stage, characteristics usually ascribed to the Phanariote era had made themselves felt long before it. The Ottoman overlord had been enforcing his choice for Hospodars throughout previous centuries (as far back as the 15th), and foreign — usually Greek or Levantine — boyars had been competing with the local ones since the late 1500s. Rulers since Dumitraşcu Cantacuzino in Moldavia and George Ducas, a Prince of Greek origin, in Wallachia (both in 1673) had been forced to surrender all of their family members, and not just selected ones, as hostages in Constantinople. At the same time, the traditional elective system in the Principalities had accounted for long periods of political disorder, and was in fact dominated by a small number of ambitious families (whether local or foreign), who had entered violent competition for the two thrones and monopolized land ownership — a notable example is the conflict opposing the Craioveşti and the Cantacuzinos in the period before 1711.

1711–1715

The clear change in policy was determined by the fact that Wallachia and Moldavia, although autonomous, had entered a period of continuous skirmishes with the Ottomans, due to insubordination of the native princes, one especially associated with the rise of Imperial Russia's power under Peter the Great and the firm presence of the Habsburg Empire on the Carpathian border with the Principalities. Dissidence within the two countries became more dangerous for the Turks, who were now confronted with the attraction exercised on the population by the protection offered to them by a fellow Eastern Orthodox Empire. This became obvious with Mihai Racoviţă's second rule in Moldavia, when the Prince plotted with Peter to have Ottoman rule overthrown. Incidentally, his replacement, Nicholas Mavrocordatos, was also the first official Phanariote in his second reign in Moldavia (he was also to replace Ştefan Cantacuzino in Wallachia, as the first Phanariote ruler in that country).

A crucial moment in the policy change was the Russo−Turkish War of 1710−1713, when Dimitrie Cantemir sided with Russia and agreed to a Russian tutelage over his country. After Russia suffered a major defeat and Cantemir went into exile, the Ottomans took charge of the succession to the throne of Moldavia, soon followed by similar measures in Wallachia (in this case, prompted by Ştefan Cantacuzino's alliance with the Habsburg commander Prince Eugene of Savoy in the closing stages of the Great Turkish War).

Characteristics

Rulers and retinues

Stavropoleos Church, built in Bucharest by Nicholas Mavrocordatos, in an 1868 lithograph by Amadeo Preziosi

The person raised to the princely dignity was usually the chief Dragoman of the Sublime Porte, and was consequently well versed in contemporary politics and the statecraft of the Ottoman government.

The new Prince, who obtained his office in exchange for a heavy bribe (not a new requirement in itself), proceeded to the country which he was selected to govern, and of the language of which he was in most cases totally ignorant. Once the new Princes were appointed, they were escorted to Iaşi or Bucharest by retinues composed of their families, favourites, and their creditors (from whom they had borrowed the bribe funds). The prince and his appointees counted on recouping themselves in as short a time as possible for their initial outlay and in laying by a sufficiency to live on after the termination of the Princes' brief authority.

As a total for the two principalities together, 31 princes from 11 different families have ruled during the Phanariote epoch. Many times they were exiled or even executed: of these 31 princes, seven suffered a violent death, and a few were executed at their own courts of Bucharest or Iaşi. The fight for the throne could become as harsh as to provoke murders carried out among members of the same family.

When, owing to relatively numerous cases of treachery among the Princes, the choice became limited to a few families, it became frequent that rulers would be shifted from one principality to the other: the Prince of Wallachia, the richer of the two Principalities, would pay certain sums in order to avert his transfer to Iaşi, while the Prince of Moldavia would bribe supporters in Constantinople in exchange for his appointment to Wallachia. For example, Constantine Mavrocordatos accumulated a total of ten different rules in Moldavia and Wallachia. The debt was, however, owed to various creditors, and not to the Sultan himself: in fact, the central institutions of the Ottoman Empire generally seemed determined to maintain their rule over the Principalities, and not exploit them irrationally. In one early example, Ahmed III even paid part of Nicholas Mavrocordatos' sum.

Administration and boyars

Alexander Mourousis welcoming the British ambassador in Curtea Nouă

The Phanariote epoch was initially characterized by excessive fiscal policies, driven by both Ottoman needs and by the ambitions of some of the Hospodars (who, mindful of their fragile status, sought to pay back their creditors and increase their wealth while they still were in a position of power). In order to make the reigns lucrative while raising funds that would satisfy the needs of the Porte (increased during the Stagnation of the Ottoman Empire), Princes channeled their energies into spoliation, and the inhabitants, liable to increasing and diversified taxation, were in many instances reduced to destitution. However, the most hated taxes identified with the Phanariotes were of relevant tradition (such as the văcărit, first imposed by Iancu Sasul in the 1580s).

The malignant effects of many Phanariote rules are in contrast with the achievements and projects of others, such as Constantine Mavrocordatos' (who abolished serfdom in 1746 in Wallachia, and in 1749 in Moldavia) and Alexander Ypsilantis'. Ypsilantis tried to reform the legislation and impose salaries for administrative offices — in an effort to halt the depletion of funds through the sums the administrators, local and Greek alike, were using for their own maintenance (it had by then become more profitable to hold office than to own land). His Pravilniceasca condică, a rather modern legal code, met stiff boyar resistance.

In fact, the focus of such rules was many times the improvement of state structures against conservative wishes. Documents for the time show that, despite the change in leadership and boyar complaints, around 80% of those seated in the Divan (an institution roughly equivalent to the Estates of the realm) were members of traditionally local families. This tended to render endemic the social and economical issues of previous periods, as the inner circle of boyars not only managed to block initiatives such as Alexander Ypsilantis', but also pressured for tax exemptions — which they obtained, extended, and successfully preserved.

After the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji (1774) allowed Russia to intervene on the side of Ottoman Eastern Orthodox subjects, most of the Turkish political pressures became ineffective. The Porte had to further offer concessions, with the imperative of maintaining hold over the countries as economical and strategic assets: the treaty made any increase in the tribute impossible, and, between 1774 and the 1820s, it plummeted from around 50,000 to 20,000 gold coins (equivalent to Austrian gold currency) in Wallachia, and just 3,100 in Moldavia.

In the immediately following period, Russia made use of its new prerogative with notable force: the deposition of Constantine Ypsilantis (in Wallachia) and Alexander Mourousis (in Moldavia) by Selim III, called on by the French Empire's ambassador to Turkey, Horace Sébastiani (whose fears of pro−Russian conspiracies in Bucharest were partly confirmed), constituted the casus belli for the conflict of 1806–1812 (the Russian general Mikhail Andreyevich Miloradovich swiftly reinstated Ypsilantis during his military expedition to Wallachia).

Such gestures inaugurated a period of effective Russian supervision, which culminated with the Organic Statute administration of the 1830s; the Danubian Principalities grew in strategic importance with the Napoleonic Wars and the Decline of the Ottoman Empire, as European states became interested in halting Russian southwards expansion (of which a noted development was the annexation of Bessarabia in 1812). In turn, the new consulates opened in the two countries' capitals, as a means to ensure observation of developments in Russian−Ottoman relations, had an indirect impact over the local economy, as rival diplomats began awarding their protection and sudit status to merchands competing with the local guilds.

In parallel, the boyars started a petitioning campaign against the Princes in power: although sometimes addressed to the Porte and even the Habsburg Monarchy, they mostly demanded Russian supervision. While making reference to cases of corruption and misrule, the petitions show their signers' conservative intentions. The boyars tend to refer to specific, but nonetheless fictitious, Capitulations that either of the Principalities would have signed with the Ottomans — demanding that the rights guaranteed through them be restored. They also viewed with suspicion reform attempts on the side of Princes, claiming these were not legitimate — in alternative proposals (usually taking the form of constitutional projects), the boyars express a wish for the establishment of an aristocratic republic.

Ending and legacy

Main article: National awakening of Romania

The active part taken by the Greek Princes in revolts after 1820 (see Greek War of Independence), together with the chaos provoked by Philikí Etaireía occupation in Moldavia and Tudor Vladimirescu's Wallachian uprising, led to the disappearance of promotions from within the Phanar community. Relevant for the tense relations between boyars and princes, Vladimirescu's revolt was, for most of its duration, the result of compromise between Oltenian pandurs and the regency of boyars attempting to block the ascension of Scarlat Callimachi, the last Phanariote ruler in Bucharest.

Ioan Sturdza's rule in Moldavia and Grigore IV Ghica's in Wallachia are considered the first of the new period: as such, the new regime was to have its own abrupt ending with the Russian occupation during another Russo−Turkish War, and the subsequent period of Russian influence (see Regulamentul Organic).

Condemnation of the Phanariotes is a particular focus of Romanian nationalism, usually integrated with the resentment of foreigners as a whole. The tendency unifies pro− and anti−modernising attitudes: Phanariotes may represent reactionary elements (as their image was presented by Communist Romania), as well as agents of brutal and opportunistic change (as illustrated by Mihai Eminescu's Scrisoarea a III-a).

Leading Phanariote families

• Argyropoulos
• Callimachi (Călmaşu), originally a Moldavian boyar family
• Cantacuzino
• Caradjas (Caragea)
• Ghikas (Ghica, Ghyka or Ghika), originally an Epirotan family of possible Aromanian ancestry
• Mavrocordatos (Mavrocordat)
• Mavrogenes (Mavrogheni)
• Mourousis (Moruzi)
• Musurus
• Racovitza (Racoviţă), originally a Walachian boyar family
• Rosettis (Ruset or Russeti)
• Soutzos (Suţu or Sutzu)
• Ypsilantis (Ipsilanti)

See also

• Early Modern Romania
• Greeks in Romania
• History of the Russo-Turkish wars
• List of rulers of Moldavia
• List of rulers of Wallachia
• State organisation of the Ottoman Empire

References

• Mihai Berza, "Haraciul Moldovei şi al Ţării Româneşti în sec. XV–XIX", in Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie, II, 1957, p.7–47
• Neagu Djuvara, Între Orient şi Occident. Ţările române la începutul epocii moderne, Humanitas, Bucharest, 1995
• Vlad Georgescu, Istoria ideilor politice româneşti (1369-1878), Munich, 1987
• Misha Glenny: The Balkans: Nationalism, War & the Great Powers, 1804-1999. Penguin (Non−Classics), 2001, ISBN 014-023-377-6. 
• Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Revolutions, section "Greek War of Independence"
• Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos (- Pavlos Karolidis), History of the Hellenic Nation (Volume Eb), Eleftheroudakis, Athens, 1925
• L. S. Stavrianos, The Balkans Since 1453
• Nikos Svoronos: The Greek Nation. Polis, 2004, ISBN 960-435-028-5, The Ideology of the Organization and of the Survival of the Nation. 

[[en:Phanariotes]]
[[el:Φαναριώτες]]
[[fr:Phanariotes]]
[[he:פנרים]]
[[nl:Fanarioten]]
[[ja:ファナリオティス]]
[[pl:fanarioci]]
[[ro:Fanariot]]
[[ru:Фанариоты]]