No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Miloš Obrenović and the deposition of a Constantinopolitan Patriarch
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2016
Extract
In my limited study of the Greek and Serbian Churches in the nineteenth century, I had found numerous cases of Greek meddling in Serbian affairs, but never a reverse case. Then I came across a passing reference in Gavrilović’s fine biography of Prince MiloS Obrenovic of Serbia (who ruled from 1815 to 1839) to Miloš’ playing a major part in ousting a Patriarch of Constantinople. Following up Gavrilović’s citation led me to the following letter written by Prince Miloš during his triumphal visit to Constantinople in 1835. It was written (and it should be noted this means dictated since MiloS was illiterate) to his wife Ljubica on 28 September 1835. Since I have never come across any reference to the events Miloš describes in any work I have made use of on the patriarchate in the 19th century, I have taken the liberty of translating the letter from Miloš’ Serbian both to call attention to it and to make the text available to a wider range of scholars. The original text is to be found in Mita Petrović, Financije i Ustanove obnovljene Srbije do 1842, Beograd, 1901, pp. 336–37.
- Type
- Short Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1988
References
1 Gavrilović, M. Miloš Obrenović, III (Beograd 1912) 536 Google Scholar.
2 On Constantine II, see Sokolov, I.I., Konstantinopoljskaja Cerkov v XIX veke, I (St. Petersburg 1904) 231–33, 537–39 Google Scholar. Sokolov makes no mention of Miloš’ involvement in his deposition.
3 On Pertev Efendi see Babinger, F., ‘Pertev Mehmed Sa’id Pasha’, Encyclopedia of Islam III (London 1936) 1066 Google Scholar.
4 Markova, Z. (B”Igarskoto c”rkovno-nacionalno dviženie do Krimskata Vojna [Sofija 1976] 148, 150)Google Scholar confirms MiloS’ statement that Aristarhi was Church Logothete.
5 Z. Markova, op.cit., 110.
6 The pre-deposition situation is described in a very similar way by Jakov Zivanovic, Prince Miloş’ secretary, in a letter written on 15 September 1835 to Metropolitan Peter of Beograd: “The Patriarch is old and incompetent; a certain Komigl [presumably a distorted form of the “kommisse” found in Miloš’ letter] a lay [or possibly “cultivated;” the Serbian is “civilan”] but learned man, having become dominant, simply does what he wants. The Patriarch approves everything and signs; and everyone weeps and groans and waits for a man who would be willing to be the leader [literally “be the first”] to replace the patriarch. That is the situation in which the Great Church finds itself at present.” (¿ivanovic’s letter is reprinted in Ilić, A., Petar Jovanovic, Mitropolit Beogradski: Njegov iivot i rad 1833-1859 god. (Beograd 1911) 88 Google Scholar.)
The great similarity in phrasing between his letter and MiloS’ suggests, as one would suspect, that ¿ivanovic drafted Miloş’ letter. After all MiloS, as noted, was illiterate. Thus it is impossible to determine how much of Miloş’ letter consists of his dictated words and how much was ¿ivanovic’s creation. Since the two were in Constantinople together, the authorship of MiloS’ letter probably does not really matter.
7 The Serbian term used, “svetine,” usually means “sacred things”; in the context, however, it seems that “clergy” or possibly “sacred institutions” would convey Pertev’s thought better than a literal translation.