* This article was written when I was a PhD student in the History Department of Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey. It is a revised and developed version of a part of my unpublished MA thesis, The Implementation of Ottoman Religious Policies in Crete 1645-1735: Men of Faith as Actors in the Kadi Court, Bilkent University, 2005.1 am grateful to my advisor Eugenia Kermeli who guided and supported me in many ways in writing my thesis and this article. I would also like to thank Evangelia Balta, Özer Ergenç and Hülya Taş for their valuable comments.

1 For the conquest of Crete by the Ottomans, see Gülsoy, E., Girit’ in Fethi ve Osmanli İdaresinin Kurulmasi (1645-1670) (Istanbul 2004) 23–184 Google Scholar; Uzunçarşili, İH., Osmanli Tarihi, III/1 (Ankara 1973) 217-22,296-8, 326-42, 414-21Google Scholar; Tukin, C., ‘Osmanli İmparatorluğu’nda Girit isyanlari: 1821 yilina kadar Girit’, Belleten IX/34 (April 1945) 189-94Google Scholar; Tukin, C., ‘Girit’, İslam Ansiklopedisi (hereafter IA) IV (Istanbul 1940-1987) 791–804 Google Scholar; Mantran, R., ‘Ikritish’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edn (hereafter EI), III (Leiden 1960-2004) 1086-7Google Scholar.

2 Gülsoy, Girit’in Fethi, 225-6. For the records of Rethymnon from the census of 1670, see Balta, E. and Oğuz, M., To οθωμανικό κτηματολόγιο του Ρεθύμνου (Rethymnon 2007)Google Scholar.

3 For the religious situation in Crete during the Venetian period, see Detorakis, T., Ιστορία της Κρήτης (Herakleion 1990)Google Scholar; Maltezou, C.A., H Κρήτη στη διάρκεια της περιόδου της βενετοκραήας (1211-1669) (Crete 1990)Google Scholar; Chaireti, M., ‘Νέα στοιχεία περί της χειροτονίας ορθοδόξων ιερέων Κρήτης επί βενετοκρατίας, Πεπραγμένα του Г Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου 2 (1974) 333-41Google Scholar; Tomadakis, N., ‘Ορθόδοξοι αρχιερείς εν Κρήτη επί ενετοκρατίας’, Ορθοδοξία 27 (1952) 63–75 Google Scholar.

4 See Tomadakis, N., Ιστορία της Εκκλησίας της Κρήτης επί Τονρκοκραήας (Athens 1974) 66-8Google Scholar for the contemporary narratives of Bounialis and Skliros.

5 In accordance with Islamic law, non-Muslims who accepted Ottoman authority and agreed to pay the poll-tax [cizye] were called zimmis. The people of the pact [ehl-i zimtnet] were supposed to be protected by the state, and would be free to practice their religion. For the issue of the zimmis, see Cahen, C., ‘Dhimma’ EI II 227-31Google Scholar; Bosworth, C. E., ‘The concept of dhimma in early Islam’, in Braude, B. and Lewis, B. (eds.) Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire (New York 1982) 37–51 Google Scholar.

6 For the Ottoman policy towards the Christians of the empire, see İnalcik, H., Ottoman methods of conquest’, Studia Islamica 2 (1954) 103-29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem., ‘Adaletnameler’, Türk Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi 2/3-4 (1965) 49-145; idem., ‘İmtiyazat’ Türkiye Diyanet Vakft İslam Ansiklopedisi (hereafter DIA) XXII (Istanbul 1988-2009) 245-52, İlgürel, M., ‘İstimalet’, DIA XXIII, 362-3Google Scholar.

7 Detorakis, Ιστορία της Κρήτης, 413. Athanasios Patelaros was on the patriarchal throne in 1634 and 1652. Gedeon, M., Πατριαρχικοί Πίνακες: Ειδήσεις ιστορικαί βιογραφικαί περί των Πατριαρχών Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (Athens 1996, 2003) 438, 456-7Google Scholar.

8 Veneris informs us of this relationship. Veneris, T., ‘Νεόφυτος о Πατελλάρος: О πρώτος μητροπολίτης της Κρήτης μετά την κατάκτησιν αυτής υπό των Τούρκων’, Επετηρίς Εταψείας Κρητικών Σπουδών 1 (1938) 2–3 Google Scholar.

9 The earliest two court records, no. 56 and 57, have been transcribed by Oğuz, Mustafa in his PhD dissertation: Girit (Resmo) Şer’iye Sicil Defterleri (1061-1067), Marmara University, 2002 Google Scholar. See also Adiyeke, A.N. and Adiyeke, N., ‘Newly discovered in Turkish archives: Kadi registers and other documents on Crete’, Turcica 32 (2000) 447-63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Lorenco Patelaro was exempted from paying cizye because he assisted in moving cannons to the fortress of Candia, Resmo sicil no.56/1024, Evail-i Muharrem 1061/25 December 1651-3 January 1652, Oğuz, Resmo, 500-1. He appears as a witness in Resmo sicil no.57/252, Oğuz, Resmo, 245. The house of Andonaki Patelaro was given back to him for having accepted to pay cizye. See Resmo sicil no.57/222, Oğuz, Resmo, 234-5, and 56/1033, Oğuz, Resmo, 505.

10 The berat is recorded in sicil no.56 p.73, doc. 971. See Oğuz, Resmo, 471; Bayraktar, Implementation, 35. Copies of imperial orders and documents were also transcribed in the local Ottoman court records.

11 Valiero, A., Historia della Guerra di Candia di Andrea Valiero (Venice 1679) 311-2Google Scholar, quoted by Toma-dakis, Ιστορία, 71-2. The date of 1653 given by Valiero for Neophytos’ visit to Hüseyin Paşa is wrong. The Italian text of Valiero published by Tomadakis was translated for this study by Arzu Bezgin in the Italian Unit at Bilkent University.

12 Veneris notes that Neophytos went to Chania with Silahtar Yusuf Paşa in 1645. Veneris, ‘Νεόφυτος о Πατελλάρος’, 3–4. He could have been sent by the patriarch but it is not certain.

13 Documents have been published by Veneris, ‘Νεόφυτος о Πατελλάρος’. See also Vlachopoulou’s study of these documents in ‘Τα μοναστήρια στην Κρήτη μετά την οθωμανική κατάκτηση 1647-1672’, Εταφεία Κρητικών Ιστορικών Μελετών’, Πεπραγμένα του Θ’Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, (Herakleion 2005) 9-22.

14 Veneris, ‘Νεόφυτος о Πατελλάρος’, 2-14; see also Veneris, , ‘Κρήτη’, Μεγάλη Ελληνική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, XV (Athens 1926-1934) 196 Google Scholar.

15 See Vlachopoulou, ‘Τα μοναστήρια’, 10-12.

16 See Panagiotounakou-Patsouma, A., ‘To Μετόχι της Αγίας Αικατερίνης στο Χάνδακα και τα προνόμια των Σιναϊτών στην Κρήτη’, Κρητική Εστία 7/4 (1999) 31–49 Google Scholar.

17 For Nikousios see the MPhil thesis by Stathi, A., Contemporary representations of the Cretan War (1645-1669) and the role of the first Creek ‘Great Interpreter’ of the Ottoman Court, University of Birmingham, 2004 Google Scholar.

18 Tomadakis, Ιστορία, 77-96.

19 See the sigillion of 1777 as well, Tomadakis, ΐστορία, 311.

20 Kladopoulos, in Tomadakis, Ιστορία, 79.

21 A stavropegion monastery is not subject to the local ecclesiastical authorities but directly to the patriarchate. Papadopoullos, T. H., Studies and documents relating to the history of the Greek Church and people under Turkish domination (Aldershot 1990) 373 Google Scholar.

22 See Tomadakis, ¡στορία, 312.

23 Kladopoulos in Tomadakis, Ιστορία, 79.

24 Stavrinidis, N. S., Μεταφράσεις Τουρκικών Ιστορικών Εγγράφων Αφορώντων εις την Ιστορίαν της Κρήτης 1: 1657-1672 (1067-1082) (Herakleion 1975) 317-8 (doc.401)Google Scholar.

25 For the rights and privileges of the Orthodox clergy recorded in Ottoman documents, see Zachariadou, E., Δέκα τουρκικά έγγραφα για την Μεγάλη Εκκλησία (1483-1567) (Athens 1996)Google Scholar.

26 His berat, dated 1099/1688, is in Stavrinidis, N. S., Μεταφράσεις Τουρκικών Ιστορικών Εγγράφων Αφορώντων εις την Ιστορίαν της Κρήτης 2: 1672-1694 (1083-1105) (Herakleion 1976) 312 (doc.953)Google Scholar.

27 Kladopoulos, in Tomadakis, Ιστορία, 82. See Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις II, 424-5 (doc. 1109,1103/1692) for the reflection of the situation in the Ottoman documents.

28 Narrated in the patriarchal sigillion of 1777, Tomadakis, Ιστορία, 312-3.

29 Stavrinidis, N., Μεταφράσεις Τουρκικών Ιστορικών Εγγράφων Αφορώντων εις την Ιστορίαν της Κρήτης 3: 1694-1715 (1105-1127) (Herakleion 1978) 92-4 (doc.1299, 1106/1695)Google Scholar.

30 For the document securing the rights and privileges granted to Christians by the Prophet Muhammed see Zacour, N. P. and Hazard, H. W., ‘Social classes in the crusader states: the minorities’, in Setton, K. M. (ed.), A History of the Crusades V, 43 Google Scholar; İnalcik, H., ‘The status of the Greek Orthodox patriarch under the Ottomans’, in Essays in Ottoman History (Istanbul 1998) 201 Google Scholar.

31 Başbakanlik Osmanli Arşivleri, [Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives] (hereafter BOA) D.PSK. 9/113, 27 Rebiülevvel 1144/29 September 1731.

32 Kladopoulos in Tomadakis, Ιστορία, 88-96.

33 Tomadakis, Ιστορία, 313-7.

34 In the first half of the eighteenth century, the Greek Orthodox patriarchate in Istanbul was going through a state of transformation in terms of authority vis-à-vis not only the Ottoman state, but also individuals and local powers as in the case of Crete. See Tellan, E. Bayraktar, The Patriarch and the Sultan: the struggle for authority and the quest for order in the eighteenth-century Ottoman Empire, (PhD diss., Bilkent University, 2011)Google Scholar.

35 See below, note 51, for the case of Kallinikos.

36 BOA, D.PSK. 5/19, (date on the file) 24 Şaban 1126/4 September 1714. The petition was processed on the 10^th of Şaban 1126/21 August 1714, and the ferman was issued on the 14^th of Şaban 1126/25 August 1714. The same order is in Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις 111, 389-90 (doc.1826, 14 Şaban 1126).

37 For the issue of petitions see İnalcik, H., ‘Şikayet hakki: Arz-i hal ve arz-i mahzarlar’, Osmanli Araştir-malari VII–VIII (1988) 33–53 Google Scholar; Taş, H., ‘Osmanli’da şikayet hakkinin kullanimi üzerine düşünceler’, Memleket II/3 (2007) 187–204 Google Scholar. For the petitions of Christians to the Imperial Divan, local court and the patriarchal court, see the PhD Dissertation by Leal, K.A., The Ottoman State and the Greek Orthodox of Istanbul: sovereignty and identity at the turn of the eighteenth century (Harvard University, 2003) 148-57Google Scholar.

38 For the berat of Neophytos Patelaros see note 10 above.

39 Resmo sicil no.56/939, 6 Rebiülahir 1061/29 March 1651, Oğuz, Resmo, 456.

40 Resmo sicil no.56/1039, undated, Oğuz, Resmo, 506-7. The repetition of the order might be a yearly and regular practice and not an indication of Neophytos’ difficulties.

41 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις I, 351-2 (doc.439).

42 Karantzikou, E. and Foteinou, P., Ιεροδικείο Ηρακλείου, Τρίτος Κώδικας (1669/73-1750/67), ed. Zachariadou, E. (Herakleion 2003) 236-7 (doc.475)Google Scholar; Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις II, 41-2 (doc.587).

43 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις II, 163 (doc.729). In Karantzikou and Foteinou, Ιεροδικείο, 25,500 akçes converts to 25 aslan guruş, which makes a good profit.

44 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις II, 163, comment to doc.729; Greene, M., A shared world: Christians and Muslims in the early modern Mediterranean (Princeton 2000) 182 Google Scholar.

45 Karantzikou and Foteinou, Ιεροδικείο, 221 (doc.445, 28 Zilhicce 1082/26 April 1672).

46 See Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις II, 383-4 (doc.1048), 407 (doc.1079), 410 (doc.1084), 439 (doc.1134), Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 47-8 (doc.1244).

47 See Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις II, 317-8 (doc.959, 1100/1689), and 420 (doc.1101, 1103/1692).

48 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 403.

49 The berat of Kallinikos is given by Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 139-41 (doc.1356, 1108/1697).

50 The financial, administrative and military changes the empire was experiencing were not independent from each other. The wars with the Habsburgs and the Safavids at the end of the sixteenth century, the unrest in Anatolia as well as the flow of European coinage into the market, among other factors, resulted in economic unrest. Military failures on the battlefield were taken as signs of the necessity to adapt to European technology. Military measures were taken in order to adapt to the situation, and new solutions were created to increase the flow of cash to Istanbul. This brought about changes in the fiscal system, that is, the growth of the iltizam system and the maktu system as methods of tax-collection. Maktu collection was made the duty of imams and kethudas in the villages. See İnalcik, H., ‘Military and fiscal transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700’, Archivům Ottomanicum 6 (1980) 283–337 Google Scholar; Pamuk, Ş., Osmanli İmparatorluğu’nda Paramn Tarihi (Istanbul 1999) 143–161 Google Scholar; Genç, M., Devlet ve Ekonomi (Istanbul 2000) 100–102 Google Scholar; Tabakoğlu, A., Gerileme Dönemine Girerken Osmanli Maliyesi (Istanbul 1985) 122-8Google Scholar; Cezar, Y., Osmanli Maliyesinde Bunalum ve Değişim Dönemi (Istanbul 1986) 27–73 Google Scholar. For discussions on whether this transformation represented a decline or adaptation, see Öz, M., ‘Onyedinci yüzyilda Osmanli devleti: buhran, yeni şartlar ve islahat Çabalari hakkinda genel bir değerlendirme’, Türkiye Günlüğü 58 (December 1999) 48–53 Google Scholar; Kafadar, C., ‘The question of Ottoman decline’, Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review IV/1-2 (1997, 1998) 30–75 Google Scholar; Murphey, R., ‘Continuity and discontinuity in Ottoman administrative theory and practice during late-seventeenth century’, Poetics Today 14/2 (summer 1993) 419–443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Darling, L., Ottoman fiscal administration: decline or adaptation?’ The journal of European Economic History 26/1 (spring 1997) 157-79Google Scholar.

51 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 261 (doc.1578, 1113/1701).

52 The berat of Ioasaf is in Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 313-5 (doc.1682, 1116/1704).

53 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 374-5 (doc.1808, 1124/1712).

54 The berat of Konstantios is corrupt. See Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 371 (doc.1804/8, 1123/1711).

55 See Schacht, J., An introduction to Islamic law (Oxford 1964,1998) 158-9Google Scholar for kafala bi’l-mal and kafala bin-nefs.

56 Osman Çelebi, trader in Candia, could not take his money back from Konstantios according to an undated record, in Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 391 (doc.1830). Konstantios’ guarantors, the bishops of Kisamos and Maleviziou, refused to pay Ibrahim bölükbaai, Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 393 (doc.1834, 1127/1715). See also doc.1827.

57 For private churches, see Thomas, J. P., Private religious foundations in the Byzantine Empire (Washington D.C. 1987)Google Scholar; Herman, E., ‘The secular church’, in Hussey, J. M. et al. (eds), The Cambridge Medieval History 4, part II (Cambridge 1967) 117 Google Scholar.

58 For cases in Crete concerning private churches, see Bayraktar, Implementation, 41-3.

59 Kermeli, E., ‘Caught in between faith and cash: the Ottoman land system of Crete, 1645-1670’, in Anastasopoulos, A. (ed.), The Eastern Mediterranean under Ottoman Rule: Crete 1645-1840 (Crete 2008) 17–48 Google Scholar.

60 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 403.

61 There is general agreement in literature that the imperial decree which made the church ‘autocephalous’ was the result of the interference of strong Cretans in Istanbul, the secretaries of the Porte. See Kladopoulos in Tomadakis, Ιστορία, 83; Greene, A shared world, 194-201.

62 Greene, A shared world, 197.

63 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 381-3 (doc.1821, 1126/1714). Finally, he was put in jail again and executed in 1718. See Stavrinidis, N. S., Μεταφράσεις Τουρκικών Ίστορικών Εγγράφων Αφορώντων εις την Ιστορίαν της Κρήτης 4: 1715-1752 (1127-1165) (Herakleion 1984) 21 (doc.1936, 1130/1718)Google Scholar.

64 BOA, D.PSK. 5/19, 24 şaban 1126/4 September 1714. Also in Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 389-90 (doc.l826, 14 şaban 1126).

65 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 390 (doc. 1827).

66 For mukataa, see İnalcik, H., An economic and social history of the Ottoman empire, 1300-1914, part I (Cambridge 1994) 64-6Google Scholar; Genç, M., ‘Mukataa’, DIA XXXI, 129–132 Google Scholar; Ergenç, Ö., ‘The sphere of muqata’a: a particular dimension of Ottoman spatial organization and inspection’, International Congress in honour of Prof. Halil İnalcik: methods and sources in Ottoman Studies (Cambridge, Mass. 2004)Google Scholar.

67 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 401-2 (doc.1852, 15 Rebiülahir 1127/20 April 1715).

68 ‘Girid ceziresinde sakin reaya ve kocabaşlarinin ihtiyar eyledikleri yerlüden birisi metropolid olub ve fimabad İstanbul patrikleri kansmayub...’ BOA, D.PSK. 5/55. The petition was processed on 15 Rebiülahir 1127/20 April 1715. The ferman was written on 19 Rebiülahir 1127/24 April 1715.

69 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις 111, 404-6 (doc.1853, 18 Rebiülahir 1127/23 April 1715).

70 See Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 381-3 (doc.1821, 10 Cemaziyelahir 1126/23 June 1714).

71 There are two petitions in file D.PSK 5/55 which request the same thing. One is by Franke and one by some other person. In the latter the expression is as follows: ‘Kaleminde de derkenar olduğu üzere cezire-i Girid metropolidliği onbin akçe berat peşkeşi ile hala Kostantios rahib üzerinde olub İstanbul patriği arzryle virilegeldiği derkenar olunub lakin baş muhasebede olan metropolidlik maktuu kaydinda senede alt-mişaltibin akçe Girid ceziresine virüb ve patriklerin tarafindan müdahale olunmamak üzere mukayyeddir’, BOA, D.PSK, 5/55.

72 Taş, H., ‘Osmanli arşiv belgeleri ve özellikleri üzerine bir değerlendirme’ in Erken Modern Osmanli ve Japonya’da Devlet, Toplum ve Belgeler, part II, (Tokyo 2009) 11–30 Google Scholar.

73 See Taş, ‘Osmanli arşiv belgeleri’ for relevant examples. For reisülküttab see İnalcik, H., ‘Reis-ül-küttâb’ IA IX, 671-83Google Scholar.

74 See Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις IV, 13 (doc.1914, 29 Rebiülahir 1129/12 April 1717). Gerasimos petitioned the divan and asked, on the basis of his berat, for 2 akçes from every household and 1 gold coin from every priest. See also Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις IV, 19 (doc.1932, 29 Rebiülahir 1130/1 April 1718).

75 BOA, D.PSK. 5/143, 1128 (27 December 1715-15 December 1716); BOA, D.PSK. 6/36, 16 Cemaziye-levvel 1129/28 April 1717. The first petition of Ieremias in 1716 remained unanswered at the Porte. The answer to the 1717 petition approves Ieremias based on his berat. For ehl-i örf see İpşirli, M., ‘Ehl-i örf’, DIA X, 519-20Google Scholar.

76 The berat of Konstantios is damaged and exists only partially, as given by Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις IV, 32-6 (doc.1949, 13 Muharrem 1131/6 December 1718).

77 BOA, D.PSK. 6/107, 1130 (5 December 1717-23 November 1718).

78 Greene states that Moshakis was executed because he was behind the autocephalous church business. Greene, A shared world, 196.

79 The reaya submitted a petition against Moshakis in the court. Interestingly, Muslim and Christian witnesses included Gerasimos, but not in the first rank. Moshakis was found responsible for exiling prominent people and spying for the Venetians. After many trials, he was found guilty and was executed. Stavrinidis, , Μεταφράσεις IV , 21 (doc.1936, 21 Receb 1130/19 June 1718)Google Scholar.

80 See Kladopoulos in Tomadakis, Ιστορία, 84; Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 404; Konortas, P., Οθωμανικές θεωρήσεις για το Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο (17ος-αρχές 20ού αιώνα) (Athens 1998) 222 Google Scholar; Greene, A shared world, 196.

81 See Bayraktar Tellan, The patriarch and the sultan, 59-79.

82 Runciman, S., ‘The Great Church in captivity (Cambridge 1968) 259-88Google Scholar. For Loukaris see Hering, G., Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο και Ευρωπαϊκή Πολιτική 1620-1638 (Athens 1992)Google Scholar. For an overview of different considerations of Loukaris’ position see Michaelides, G. P. ‘The Greek Orthodox position on the confession of Cyril Lucaris’, Church History 12/2 (June 1943) 118-29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 Gedeon, M., Κυρίλλου Λαυριώτου Πατριαρχικόν Χρονικόν (Athens 1877) 38-9Google Scholar.

84 Hypsilantis, A.K., Ταμετά την Άλωσιν (1453-1789), ed. Afthonidos, G., 1870 (repr. Athens 1972) 158 Google Scholar.

85 Hypsilantis, Ταμετά την Άλωσιν, 160; Gedeon, Πατριαρχικοί Πίνακες, 462. Gedeon’s narrative of Gabriel’s patriarchal adventure is similar to that of Hypsilantis but he gives no reason for his execution in Bursa.

86 Work presented here concerning the transformation of the situation of the Greek Orthodox patriarchate of Istanbul vis-à-vis the Ottoman empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is elaborated in E. Bayraktar Tellan, The patriarch and the sultan.

87 See, for example, Naima, , Tarih-i Naima, 4 vols, ed. İpşirli, M. (Ankara 2007)Google Scholar.

8 The islands of Souda, Spinalonga and Grambousi around Crete had remained in Venetian hands according to the peace treaty of Palaiokastro signed after the war of Crete in 1669. The three islands were taken by the Ottomans during the expedition of the Morea in 1715. Tukin, ‘Girit’, 794, Uzunçarşili, Osmanli Tarihi 3/I, 418-9.

89 See Ware, T., Eustratios Argenti: a study of the Greek Church under Turkish rule (Oxford 1964) 23–33 Google Scholar; Frazee, C. A., Catholics and sultans (Cambridge 1983) 153-60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 See Konortas, Οθωμανικές θεωρήσεις, 217-25.

91 Stavrinidis, Μεταφράσεις III, 403.

92 For an evaluation and a criticism of the ‘millet’ and ‘mültezim’ paradigms concerning the patriarchs of Istanbul during the Ottoman period, see Bayraktar Tellan, The patriarch and the sultan.1-14.