When a Catholic is invested as the Orthodox patriarch of Antioch: Serafeim/Kyrillos Tanas and the Ottoman central administration in 1745**

the

part of their rivalry in the 1740s is mostly, if at all, noted in passing. 2 That Kyrillos officiated for a brief period before he was deposed by Silvestros, and that he used a procurator to control the patriarchal church in Damascus are among the reasons that attached considerably little significance to this episode.This article incorporates into the discussion the unpublished and often-ignored Ottoman documents relating to Kyrillos' brief tenure, most notably his berat of investiture, preserved in the Piskopos Mukâta'ası registers in the Prime Ministerial Ottoman Archives. 3The article has a three-fold purpose and structure.First, on the basis of a combined use of the information contained in this berat and the other references in the primary and secondary sources, it establishes a more solid chronological context.The new chronology adds a more global nature to the local character of the episode connecting the Ottoman context to the French and Papal contexts.Second, by contextualizing the episode with special focus on the Ottoman dynamics, it searches for the major reasons for Kyrillos' appointment by the Ottoman administration.The way Kyrillos presented his case provides us with a new glance to see his interaction with the Ottoman court, one characterized not only with his financial offers as often noted in the secondary sources, but also by his discourse as a reliable partner with the central administration.Thirdly, the article presents a detailed analysis of Kyrillos' unpublished berat in comparison with earlier and later berats in search of the continuities and ruptures that his berat exhibits and a contemporary French translation preserved in the Archives nationales in Paris.The essay is also appended by the facsimile, transliteration, and English translation of the berat issued for Kyrillos, and a copy of the Greek-Arabic imprint of Kyrillos' seal as preserved in the original copy of his petition.An overall aim of the article is to complement local Syrian and European contexts with the introduction of the Ottoman sources and dynamics of the Ottoman state and society of which the Orthodox and Catholic parties competing for the control of the Patriarchate of Antioch constituted and/or claimed to be a part.

Temporal and Spatial Context
The unexplored documents preserved in the Ottoman archives in Istanbul about the conflict between Silvestros and Kyrillos are helpful, first and foremost, for a better understanding of the temporal and, in a connected way, spatial context in which Kyrillos managed to ascend the patriarchal throne of Antioch.While one of the most reliable sources from the Phanariot circles in Istanbul noted that Kyrillos deposed Silvestros in the year 1749, 4 a more common chronology offered by the primary and secondary sources are 1743 and 1745.Even if the years 1743 and 1745 are quite close to each other, ascertaining the exact date when the berat was issued allows us to offer a more solid and spatial context.
Relying on later French diplomatic records, at the turn of the twentieth century, d'Avril, 5 Charon 6 and Vailhé 7 dated Kyrillos' brief patriarchate to the year 1743 and maintained that the latter received a berat from the Ottoman court without mentioning a specific date.Such a chronological context, appear to have placed the Ottoman dynamics outside the picture.
Later scholarship drew heavily on local sources such as the account of Mikhâ'il Burayk, an Orthodox priest who worked for Silvestros and wrote a history of the Patriarchate of Antioch. 8Possibly the most important narrative source for the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch for the eighteenth century, Burayk clearly mentions that in the year 1745 Kyrillos made several offers to the state which were duly accepted, and he was presented with an imperial order [fermân].Overall, Burayk maintained, the duration of the Catholics in the city of Damascus was thirty-two days after which Silvestros restored his control. 9The year 1745 suggested by Burayk as Kyrillos' receipt of a berat is also supported by the Ottoman documentation, a point which will be further detailed below.Despite using certain parts of Burayk's account directly or indirectly, some other scholars interpreted this episode within the narrow confines of Ottoman Syria.Philipp, for instance, gave the year 1745 as the date but noted that it was ‚an order from the local authorities‛ rather than the sultanic order that made it possible for Kyrillos to depose Silvestros.In Philipp's account, the portrayal of the Orthodox stands in stark contrast to that of the Catholics who are ‚fairly free to run their own affairs unless the protests of the Greek Orthodox clergy reached Istanbul and the central government lent them an ear‛. 10eyberger also presented the conflict between the Catholic and Orthodox parties primarily in the context of Damascus, where each party sought ‚l'appui des forces locales‛. 11ollowing Burayk, he also noted that the Catholic clergy retained the control of churches in Damascus for thirty-two days.In the hands of scholars who used the Islamic sharia court records in Syria, the role of the Ottoman central administration in issuing a berat for Kyrillos is missing.For instance, without mentioning the fact that Kyrillos was able to obtain a berat of investiture from the Ottoman central administration, Masters associated the success of the Catholics in evicting the Orthodox clergymen in Damascus with Catholic ones in 1745 with their achievement ‚in convincing the local authorities‛. 12Likewise, he repeated Burayk in noting that the Catholic control of the city continued for thirty-two days ‚until the Orthodox faction obtained an imperial order‛. 13everal modern scholars such as Rustom, Haddad, Nassour and Panchenko repeated the same interpretation using the same components of Burayk's account.They paid due attention to minute detail in the local context and to the fact that the main reason for the Catholics' gaining of the upper hand in Damascus was the berat issued by the Ottoman central administration for Kyrillos in 1745.The official historian of the Patriarchate of Antioch, Rustom, for instance, provided a sequence of events following Burayk's account, and even supporting this source with later accounts by Burayk's progeny in narrating the atmosphere during and after Kyrillos' short tenure.However, he did not offer a detailed chronology. 14Haddad's work is important in terms of providing the dates when Kyrillos' orders for enthronement and deposition were registered in the court records of Damascus, namely 1 July 1745 and 22 August 1745. 15Nassour, on the other hand, referred to the congruity in Kyrillos' policies in receiving a papal pallium and seeking his recognition by the Sublime Porte. 16He also associated his ability to dethrone Silvestros in 1745 to the firman issued by the Ottoman sultan. 17Nonetheless, he avoided referring to the recognition of the patriarchal elections and appointments by the Ottoman authorities because it meant intervention of worldly authority in the internal affairs of the Church. 18Alongside the other significant pieces of information about the agents who helped Kyrillos in receiving a berat, Panchenko offered the date 21 July 1745 as the day in which Kyrillos' ‚representative arrived in Damascus and occupied the patriarchal residence‛. 19aving evaluated the secondary literature, one may observe that the scholarships' interest and ability to incorporate the role of the Ottoman central administration into the picture appear to have been absent at worst and limited at best.Kyrillos  23 on 21 July 1745 his representative arrives in Damascus (as per Panchenko), 24 on 5 August 1745 Kyrillos is deposed and Silvestros receives his berat, 25 and on 22 August Kyrillos' deposition is recorded in the sharia court of Damascus (as per Haddad). 26he long span of time between Kyrillos' berat and the day in which it was recorded in the sharia court of Damascus (127 days, i.e. 4 months and 7 days) and the short span of time when between Silvestros' berat and the day in which it was recorded in Damascus (17 days) are points that deserve more research in the future.For the time being, it may possibly indicate the relative difficulty that Kyrillos faced in the local context, especially if we also take into account the fact that he preferred to dispatch his representative to Damascus in the first place.If the two chronologies offered by Haddad and Panchenko are correct, it may also be assumed that the berat might not have been registered by Kyrillos' representative.Instead, it might have been registered as a result of the Ottoman bureaucratic procedure in which copies of berats are also dispatched into the relevant administrative and legal bodies.Burayk's oft-quoted thirty-two days also requires at least some revision in the light of this chronology.If we take the days in which the berats were issued in Istanbul as criterion, Kyrillos was recognized as the patriarch of Antioch by the Ottoman central administration between 24 February and 5 August, i.e. 162 days (5 months and 12 days).If we take the days in which these berats were registered in the sharia court of Damascus as criterion, Kyrillos' right to officiate as the patriarch of Antioch was recognized by the kadi of Damascus between 1 July and 22 August, i.e. 52 days (1 month and 21 days).
The fact that Kyrillos received the recognition of the Ottoman imperial administration in 1745 and not in 1743 is an extremely important piece of information not only in terms of supporting Burayk's account but also connecting the Ottoman central administration into the European and local Syrian contexts.We know that on 24 December 1743, the pope Benedict XIV had issued his demandatam.Following Kyrillos' oath to abide by the connotations of the demandatam on 7 October 1744, the same pope issued a pallium27 recognizing Kyrillos as the legitimate patriarch on 29 February 1744. 28Therefore, the fact that there was approximately a year between Kyrillos' receipt of the pallium and berat indicate that his interest in gaining recognition of the Ottoman central administration was not bereft of his recognition by the pope.Therefore, Kyrillos' patriarchate cannot be understood solely with reference to European and Syrian contexts.The context of the Ottoman central administration appears to be relevant for the spatial context of Kyrillos' brief tenure.

Kyrillos as a partner of the Ottoman central administration
Even if Kyrillos' berat does not allow us to trace the name of the agent(s) who assisted with the process of receiving this document,29 the contents of the berat shows, at least, that this agency was quite successful in translating Kyrillos' case into a discourse that would convince the Ottoman central administration on many grounds.When it comes to encounters between the Ottoman administration and clergymen, a still prevalent conviction maintains that the former was rarely interested in the intra-Christian matters and could be easily manipulated through financial offers.Obviously, the interests of the imperial treasury were among the top priorities in the Ottoman Empire, just as it was the case elsewhere.However, just as was the case with other pre-modern states, the Ottoman state based its raison d'être on certain principles.If the sultan does not observe these principles, he would cease to be just ('âdil) and become tyrant (zâlim).The petition submitted by Kyrillos, which is quoted in the narratio (iblâğ) section of the berat, appears to have taken care to observe a certain balance between the financial offers of Kyrillos' prospective patriarchate, his reliability as a decent follower of his duties both to the state and the Church, and a reliable partner.
Kyrillos' petition follows the typical standard of petitions to the Ottoman imperial chancery and so starts with an introduction of the petitioner.Kyrillos put a particular accent on his credibility as a clergyman and his popularity among the laymen.Thus, he introduced himself as a member of ‚the community of clergymen for fifty years who had been residing in Rûm monasteries in Saida and the patriarchal representative for twenty-one years by demand of the poor subjects without a berat‛.The French translation of this berat rendered the said expression as 'les fonctions de Patriarche sans barat'. 30On another occasion, he emphasized his popularity by claiming that all the subjects of the sultan are ‚happy and content with [him]‛ a typical expression in patriarchal berats.Drawing on another much-cited expression in patriarchal berats, he presented himself ‚worthy for the patriarchate of the Rûm community in Antioch and its dependencies in accordance with the requirements of their rite.‛Prudently abstaining from implying any intra-Christian conflicts and clinging to the term Rûm-to which term both the Orthodox and Catholics laid claim-Kyrillos, appears to have presented himself as a legitimate contestant to Silvestros.The French translation of Kyrillos' berat simply renders the term Rûm as ‚Grec/Greque,‛ hence ‚Rûm manastırı‛ is ‚un couvent Grec‛ ‚Antakya ve tevâbi'inde sâkin Rûm tâ'ifesinin patrikliği‛ is ‚la charge de Patriarche de la nation Greque à Antioche et Dépendances‛. 31ontinuing with the financial offers of his patriarchate, Kyrillos appears to have made several appealing offers.First of all, he promised to double the amount of the pîşkeş, the lump-sum tax that the patriarchal candidates pay in order to obtain their berat when there is a change on the patriarchal or sultanic throne.While we know that this practice was much more common in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the case of Antioch seems to have a shorter and less consistent tradition of paying a pîşkeş.The extant berats issued for the patriarchs of Antioch show that Makarios paid a pîşkeş of 5,120 akçes in 1649. 32 Athanasios' berat of 1720 had no reference to the payment of a pîşkeş, 33 Silvestros paid a pîşkeş of 10,000 akçes in 1724, 34 hence almost doubling the amount that Makarios had paid.This can be explained partly by the eventful context caused by the first election of Kyrillos in the same year.This amount appears to have remained the same when he renewed his berat as a result of the accession of a new sultan to the throne in 1730. 35Possibly aware of the difficulty of his task, Kyrillos promised to pay a pîşkeş of 15,000 akçes and eventually, an amount of 20,000 akçes was fixed.What is more, he offered to pay a yearly fixed amount, which was eventually raised to 30,000 akçes which he referred to as the mâl-i maktû'.In the context of non-Muslims, this term is used in cases of cumulative collection of the jizya in a given land and was often the result of ‚an agreement‛ between the state and its non-Muslim subjects. 36Those who had contacted the central administration for the payment of the jizya on a community, rather than individual basis were often prominent lay members of the community, known as the kocabaşs.As far as the patriarchal berats are concerned, the term mâl-i maktû' features frequently in the berats of patriarchs of Constantinople. 37The financial aspects of Kyrillos' tenure also take place in Burayk's account.He referred to this 'state tax' (mâl mîrî) as something that Kyrillos and his supporters 'invented' in the Patriarchate of Antioch. 38The fact that the amounts proposed by Kyrillos as pîşkeş and mâli maktû' were raised by the Ottoman central administration appear to be a rare case in which the process of negotiation was noted down in a published berat.This aspect of Kyrillos' berat may also suggest his difficult position in the eyes of the Ottoman central administration.
The prospect of a total of 50,000 akçes for the patriarchal throne of Antioch must be an attractive one for the imperial treasury given that the Ottomans were in war with Nadir Shah of Iran who had laid siege to such strategic Ottoman castles as Mosul and Kars since 1743, and had just won a victory against the Ottomans in the battle of Muradtepe in August 1745. 39Presented as one of the three key terms in the Ottoman economic mind by the pioneering historian of Ottoman economy, fiscalism was resorted to in times of crises, sometimes with such tendencies to see many areas primarily as a source of income for the state. 40The fate of the conflict with Nadir Shah during the 1740s was dependent not only on the military might of the two sides but also on their financial resilience. 41If we are to believe Hammer, one of the ways in which the then grand vizier Hekimoğlu Ali Pasha tried to increase the financial capabilities of the Ottoman state on the verge of a new war with Nadir Shah was to seek execution of Kabakulak İbrahim Pasha and the confiscation of his possessions. 42This former grand vizier had barely escaped having his possessions confiscated upon his dismissal in 1732. 43He had already attracted the animosity of not only Hekimoğlu Ali Pasha but also one of the strongest figures in the Ottoman court, the chief eunuch Hacı Beşir Ağa, 44 whose central role in Ottoman power mechanisms was noted in 1746 by British ambassador Stanhope Aspinwall as follows: ‚This person had for near three Reigns had the controlling sway in the management of affairs, even over the Vizirs‛. 45he same ambassador noted after the death of the said chief eunuch that ‚The Vizir is certainly more truly Vizir than fifty or sixty of his Predecessors have been; … He could not help expressing it himself with great satisfaction, soon after his controller's death, saying three days afterwards, It is now three days that I am Vizir‛.46 Another foreign observer, Russian diplomatic resident in Istanbul, Alexei Veshniakov noted that the French ambassador managed to convince the Sublime Porte for 50,000 piasters to depose Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch Silvestros and replace him by his Catholic competitor.47 Kyrillos' financial offers to the imperial treasury might also be perceived in a similar fisco-centric context.Even in this case, however, Kyrillos did not present his offer in purely financial terms, and as his further correspondence with the Ottoman central administration shows, his discourse comprised several other motives for cooperation.In an attempt to claim that there are no other powers on the Patriarchate of Antioch than the Ottoman state, he noted that neither the Patriarchate of Constantinople nor any other patriarchate had authority on this patriarchate.This was a clear reference to the Ottoman administration's prudent policy to demarcate the authority of different Orthodox patriarchates even in cases when it supported one of them in intra-patriarchal conflicts.48 In a potential attempt to emphasize the religious nature of his role other than being a taxfarmer, he requested that he be given the Patriarchate of Antioch ‚in a manner similar to Ohrid and Peć‛ (Ohri ve İpek patrikliği misillü).In the French translation of this berat, this expression appears as ‚en forme de termes comme les Patriarcats d'Ypek et d'Oukhry‛.49 Kyrillos' offer to make a yearly payment to the Ottoman state must not be seen solely as a financial offer but also as a sign of his confidence to collaborate with the Ottoman central administration on a long-term basis.
The connotations of this collaboration feature in the conditions of the berat issued for Kyrillos and the correspondence between him and the Ottoman central administration.

Continuity and change: Correspondence between Kyrillos and the Ottoman central administration
As the most binding documents between the holder of an office and the Ottoman imperial chancery, berats lay out the terms of the rights and responsibilities of the berat-holders on which their correspondence with the Ottoman central administration is based.My study of the Piskopos Mukâta'ası registers shows that Kyrillos received not only his berat but also two imperial orders issued in response to and quote from his petitions.I have also come across the original copy of a petition by Kyrillos, which contains Kyrillos' seal (see Appendix IV).
Let us start with the content of the rights and responsibilities in Kyrillos' berat which may be found in facsimile, transliteration and English translation in the Appendix.As was the case with the berats of Silvestros in 1724 and 1730, the berat in question gave Kyrillos several advantages, at least in theory, over several groups of people who were connected to the lay and ecclesiastical spheres of the Orthodox Church and community and the administrative and financial affairs of the Empire.The term Rûm was used by both the Orthodox and Catholic parties and as such, it does not seem to have created a paradox in the Ottoman parlance because the berat simply retained this term.In practice, the Ottoman administration appears, at least on paper, to have seen this episode in the context of a patriarchal struggle, and not necessarily accession of a Catholic on the throne of an Orthodox patriarchate.Therefore, in the discursive sphere, the berat represents similarities with the earlier berats issued for Silvestros. 48 Regarding the content of the rights and responsibilities, a comparison of Kyrillos' berat with the two berats that had been issued for Silvestros in 1724 and 1730 and the later patriarchal berats is a task worth pursuing.A cursory glance at the berats issued for Silvestros in 1730 and for Kyrillos in 1745, in particular, shows that Kyrillos' berat follows the contents of Silvestros' berat of 1730 almost to the letter.The berats of 1730 and 1745 both have seventeen conditions (şürût) all of which follow the same order with more or less the same wording.To enable the comparison, the relevant sections in Silvestros' berat of 1730 were rendered in the notes after the reciprocal conditions in the transliteration and English translation of Kyrillos' berat in the Appendix.Collectively, these conditions supported the office of the patriarch over the ecclesiastical and lay members of the community in disciplinary matters, and centrifugal and centripetal actors in the provinces.Inevitably, these conditions placed the patriarch in direct connection with the central administration in administrative, legal and economic domains. 50owever, there were also minor, but, in my opinion, significant details that refer to the potential difficulties that Kyrillos would encounter in controlling the Patriarchate. 51These details that were added to the relevant conditions as separate phrases were probably a result of the negotiations between the Ottoman central administration and Kyrillos' agents.These differences feature in conditions number 6 and 15.To showcase the significance of these differences, it would be pertinent to copy these conditions below.
The condition number 6 in Silvestros' berat of 1730 reads as follows: [6] patrikliğine müte'allik piskoposların ve gumenosların / ve papasların ve keşîşlerin âyînleri üzere kabâhatleri zuhûr eyledikde âyînleri üzere patrik-i mesfûr te'dîb ve saçların traş ve / yerlerin âhere virdükde kimesne müdâhale eylemeyüb ve âyînleri üzere 'azl ve nasba müstehakk olan papasları ve gumenosları / ve keşîşleri ve mitrepolidleri patrik-i mesfûr âyînleri üzere 'azl ve yerlerin gayri râhiblere virdükde âherden ferd / muhâlefet eylemeyüb ve English translation: [6] When, in accordance with their rite, the said patriarch disciplines and shaves the hair of those bishops, priors, priests and monks under his jurisdiction who commit offence against their rite and dismisses them and gives their posts to others he shall not be interfered with.When the aforementioned patriarch appoints and dismisses the priests, priors, monks and metropolitans in accordance with their rite and gives their posts to other priests, no one from outside shall prevent them.

English translation:
[6] When, in accordance with their rite, the said patriarch disciplines and shaves the hair of those bishops, priors, and priests in places dependent on his patriarchate who commit offence against their rite and dismisses them and gives their posts to others he shall not be interfered with.When the aforementioned patriarch appoints and dismisses the priests, metropolitans, priests, monks and priors who deserve to be dismissed or appointed in accordance with their rite and sends petitions to appoint metropolitans and bishops, they shall be given my imperial berats and orders with their conditions to obtain [these posts] after the required customary pîşkeş is paid to my Imperial Treasury.Without the sealed petition of the patriarchs no one shall be allowed to have a metropolitanate and bishopric.The said patriarch's petition shall be observed and if there is a petition regarding their rite it shall be allowed.
Here, the part in italics appear to be an addition.Therefore, even if Silvestros' berat of 1730 was probably used as a model in preparing Kyrillos' berat, the latter differed from the former at least in part.A comparison of Kyrillos' berat with the most recent berat issued for an Orthodox patriarch, namely Neofytos of Constantinople's berat of 1743 shows that some parts of the above-quoted section in italics are scattered across different sections of this berat.So, one may assume that the condition number 6 was partly a result of copying from other berats and partly a result of negotiation between Kyrillos' agents and the Ottoman central administration.The fact that the process of the appointment of metropolitans and bishops was associated with their recognition by the Ottoman central administration through the berats may also refer to the concerns for the cooperation between Kyrillos and the Ottoman central administration.While the contents of the berats do not allow us to go beyond informed guesses, the condition number 15 can be easily interpreted in the context of security concerns that Kyrillos probably felt.

English translation:
[15] The monasteries where the aforementioned patriarch resides shall not be sent anyone from the 'askerî and others.The aforementioned patriarch shall not be harassed by my kapıkulları with the pretext of urging their service as yasakçıs against his consent.Therefore, Kyrillos' berat also contains the additional section in italics.A comparison with other berats shows that this is the earliest case in which the berat in question offers protection to the patriarch from the members of the 'askerî, a term that refers to military and administrative officials of the Ottoman administration.This phrase was included in Kyrillos' berat most probably at the request of Kyrillos' agents.Later on, in the berat issued for Matthaios of Alexandria in 1758, we see reference to a similar expression 52 which might suggest that Kyrillos' berat might have been used in drafting this berat.However, here we see a major difference in that Kyrillos' berat offers protection from the members of the 'askerî to the monasteries where Kyrillos resided while Matthaios' berat does the same for the mansion where Matthaios resided.If we remember the fact that Kyrillos presented himself as living in the monasteries in Sayda, and that he was hesitant to leave Sayda for Damascus even after receiving this berat, one may assume that this phrase was most probably reflecting Kyrillos' security concerns.Similar concerns also feature in the berat as we see in the way the first condition was phrased.In this case, the patriarch's authority was presented not only with regard to the lay members of the Orthodox community as in Silvestros' berat of 1730, but also with regard to the bishops in the Patriarchate of Antioch.Likewise, in the seventeenth condition, the name of Silvestros was also noted among the people who should be prevented from interfering in Kyrillos' patriarchate.
These security concerns proved to be well-founded even in the short run.On 19 May 1745 Kyrillos wrote a petition to the Ottoman imperial chancery and complained about Silvestros' supporters who tried to prevent him from conducting the affairs of his community. 53In this well-argued petition Kyrillos made several temporary and historic references to Silvestros whom he depicted as a weak actor who tormented ‚all the poor subjects‛ of the sultan and as a result the members of the Rûm community asked for 52 Çolak & Bayraktar-Tellan, The Orthodox Church as an Ottoman Institution, p. 168. 53BOA.D.PSK.14/135.Kyrillos' assistance to protect them against Silvestros.One of Kyrillos' arguments was that Silvestros had left his patriarchate for Moldavia, Wallachia and hinted that he might even be in 'the lands of hostile infidels' (harbî kefere vilâyetleri).Despite the tone of his argumentation, the fact that Kyrillos asked for an inspection on the spot to prove the people's contentment with him refers to his somewhat weak position as the patriarch of Antioch.The petition is also important in terms of containing an imprint of Kyrillos' seal which was forged in the year he became patriarch, i.e. 1158 A.H. In opposition to Silvestros' seal in Greek and Turkish, Kyrillos' is in Greek and Arabic (note the way the word patriarch is spelled). 54While two imperial orders were issued in response to this petition and one dispatched to ‚the mollas and kadis of the places where the Orthodox subjects under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch are‛. 55and the other to the kadi of Antioch, 56 the Orthodox party was quick to retaliate and reinstall Silvestros with a berat on 5 August 1745. 57s noted above, Kyrillos' berat had a series of similarities with the contemporary berats.The berat issued for Matthaios of Alexandria's berat of investiture in 1746 and that of renewal in 1758 included the same points following a similar wording.Likewise, Parthenios of Jerusalem's berat of renewal issued in 1755 closely followed the same pattern with some additional terms relating to the control of Holy Sites.

Conclusion
Recent years have witnessed the flourishing of publications that have introduced the riches of Ottoman studies and archives into the history of Catholicism in the Ottoman Empire. 58ncorporating the sources and dynamics of the Ottoman central administration also has the potential to revisit the history of Catholic Church in the Ottoman Empire.However limited they might be in number, the Ottoman documents about the brief tenure of Serafeim/Kyrillos Tanas as the patriarch of Antioch offer a more nuanced view of the Antiochian Schism of 1724.First of all, they allow us to discuss this problem on a more solid chronological context, which consequently brings in the Ottoman central administration as a significant actor in the spatial context of the Antiochian Schism.While the scholarship has tended to see this schism in the confines of Syria or in the axis of Syrian/European entanglements, Kyrillos' berat shows that alongside his ties with the European and local Syrian dynamics, Kyrillos took care to receive the support of the Ottoman central administration in ascending the patriarchal throne in 1745.The fact that he sought recognition by the Ottoman administration immediately after his recognition by the Pope is one of the key conclusions to be drawn from the study of the Ottoman documents.Kyrillos' ability to negotiate successfully with the Ottoman imperial chancery in an attempt to prove himself as a reliable partner also suggests that he had access to agents who were familiar with the requisite principles of the Ottoman state and the functioning of the Ottoman bureaucracy.When studied in the context of the other patriarchal berats at the time, Kyrillos' berat also offers important insights into the changes and continuities in the way the Ottoman central administration and Kyrillos perceived the Schism in question.The changes in Kyrillos' berat point to his rather weak stance in opposition to the influence of the Orthodox party, as can also be seen from the brevity of his tenure.How Kyrillos' berat of 1745 was written also appear to have influenced the way in which Silvestros' unpublished berat of 1745 was written only partially.Therefore, a comparative analysis of Kyrillos' berat with that of Silvestros in 1745 also has the potential to shed light on this aspect of the Catholic-Orthodox encounters in the Ottoman Empire, which is the topic of a prospective study.Finally, the fact that at the time when Kyrillos was seeking the support of the Ottoman central administration, Silvestros was also occupied with his printing activities in Arabic in Moldavia59 also calls for the importance of the Ottoman context for a more complete history of Arab Christian printing in the Ottoman Empire.

Appendix II
Transliteration of the berat of Kyrillos Tanas of Antioch, 1745.
[1] The said priest named Kyrillos shall go and become the patriarch over the Orthodox community in Antioch and its dependencies.The said priest called Kyrillos shall have the abovementioned patriarchate of Antioch and its dependencies in the way the aforementioned priest named Silvestros had done.The priest named Silvestros who has been dismissed and anyone from outside shall not prevent, trouble, interfere and attack him.The said priest Kyrillos-may his end be auspicious-shall be regarded as the patriarch by the bishops of Adana, Tarsus, Payas, Alexandretta, Diyarbekir, Çemişkezek, Çıldır, Ahısha, Erzurum and their dependencies which are under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Antioch since olden times and by the old and young of the Orthodox community living in places dependent on his patriarchate.They shall not go against his legitimate word in matters related to their rite.
[2] The patriarch or his metropolitans shall hold whatever the dead priests, monks and nuns under his jurisdiction have in accordance with ancient customs.The beytü'l-mâl and kassâm officials, voyvodas, subaşıs and mütevellîs shall not oppose in contravention of ancient customs.
[3] Nobody shall take their olden churches and monasteries under his jurisdiction from their hands in contravention of the imperial order, and no one shall interfere when they repair them according to their ancient layout with the approval of sharia and my imperial order.
[4] Their legal disputes whose resolution require application of sharia rules shall be handled in my Imperial Chancery, and if someone from the Orthodox community wants to marry or divorce a woman according to their rite, no one apart from the patriarch or his deputies shall intervene.
[5] Everything the dead clergymen and the Orthodox community will for the poor of their churches and the said patriarch according to their rite shall be accepted and dealt with according to sharia rules through the testimony of Orthodox witnesses.
[6] When, in accordance with their rite, the said patriarch disciplines and shaves the hair of those bishops, priors, and priests in places dependent on his patriarchate who commit offence against their rite and dismisses them and gives their posts to others he shall not be interfered with.When the aforementioned patriarch appoints and dismisses the priests, metropolitans, priests, monks and priors who deserve to be dismissed or appointed in accordance with their rite and sends petitions to appoint metropolitans and bishops, they shall be given my imperial berats and orders with their conditions to obtain [these posts] after the required customary pîşkeş is paid to my Imperial Treasury.Without the sealed petition of the patriarchs no one shall be allowed to have a metropolitanate and bishopric.The said patriarch's petition shall be observed and if there is a petition regarding their rite it shall be allowed.
[7] The ascetic monks under his jurisdiction shall not wander wherever they like in contravention of their rite but shall be sent back to the monastery to which they customarily belong.
[8] The patriarch and his men shall be given guides in places where they journey.When they change clothes to pass safely from dangerous places, and carry weapons to avert danger and to protect their souls from bandits, they shall not be interfered with and harassed by the bâcdars, tamgacıs and the other [members of the] ehl-i 'örf on the bridges, passages and similar places in contravention of sharia and ancient customs.The said patriarch shall not be harassed by the subaşıs and the [members of the] ehl-i 'örf with the pretext of asking for favours and presents in contravention of sharia.
[9] In places where they journey, no zimmi shall be harassed to be converted into Islam by force against his/her consent by [the members of] the ehl-i 'örf and others.
[10] Some powerful people, zâ'ims, tımar holders, and others shall not object them from performing their ceremonies on the allegation that the zimmis living in their farms, winter quarters, and houses are their labourers and servants [and thus are exempt from taxation].
[11] In matters of solemnization or annulment of marriage, or a dispute [to be resolved] between two zimmis on their consent, when they take an oath in church and excommunication in accordance with their rite, no one shall interfere.Some powerful people shall not force them to marry a woman to a zimmi against their rite, or harass them to dismiss a priest and give his office to another one.Their disciplinary papers of excommunication which they dispatch in accordance with their rite to discipline zimmis shall not be intervened without any reason.When the priests and monks need to be detained with the permission of sharia, they shall be detained with the mediation of the said patriarch.
[12] The said patriarch shall hold the churches that customarily belong to the Orthodox community and whatever [property] they have inside [the churches], and the other communities shall in no way interfere with this.
[13] Nobody shall interfere with the sceptre that the said patriarch holds in his hand as of old, and with the packhorses and mules that he rides.
[14] If under the jurisdiction of the abovementioned patriarch, some clergymen who do not have a church or a monastery wander neighbourhood by neighbourhood, and foment mischief, they shall be disciplined and prevented through the patriarch.
[15] The monasteries where the aforementioned patriarch resides shall not be sent anyone from the 'askerî and others.The aforementioned patriarch shall not be harassed by my kapıkulları with the pretext of urging their service as yasakçıs against his consent.
[16] The patriarch shall not be harassed from outside when he customarily settles the accounts of those deputies of churches and monasteries who embezzle the related taxes according to their baseless rite.When they customarily perform their ceremonies on certain days, they shall not be harassed by [the members of] the ehl-i 'örf in contravention of sharia and law purely for their own interests without any reason.The patriarch shall not be harassed without the proof of his debt or guarantee, alleging [falsely] that 'we have given you forty akçes' or that 'you became a guarantor' purely for their own interest, without any reason and in contravention of sharia.
[17] The said priest named Kyrillos shall hold the vineyards, gardens, farms, mills, pastures, fields, houses, shops, trees with or without fruits, holy springs, monasteries, and any other items relating to their churches and their sheep as vakf in the way the preceding Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch and its dependencies have done customarily and according to their rite.In this regard, the mîr-i mîrâns, mîrlivâs, voyvodas, subaşıs, the other [members of the] ehl-i 'örf and the dismissed patriarch Silvestros and anyone from outside shall not interfere with, and trouble him in any way or for any reason.
An imperial berat has been written so that they know as such.
[1] mesfûr Kirilos râhib varub ref' olınan mesfûr Silvestros râhib yerine Antakya ve tevâbi'i Rûm / tâ'ifesinin patriği olub mesfûr Silvestros râhib zikr olınan Antakya ve tevâbi'i 61 This word was written probably by mistake on the part of the scribe.The contemporary French translation did not include this word and Silvestros' berat of 1745 did not repeat this word in quoting from