Russia and the Melkites of Syria: Attempts at Reconverting into Orthodoxy in the 1850-s and 1860-s

Having entered into union with Rome in the 18th century, the Melkite Arab community of Syria preserved their Eastern rites and traditions. The attempts at Latinization in the mid-19th century brought a split in the community and provoked a diplomatic effort by Russia to bring the Melkites back to Eastern Orthodoxy. The raise of Arab national-ism in the 1850- s and traditions of church independence created a fertile soil for sepa-ratism. The relative weakness and inconsistency of Russian support, and especially a lack of material resources and strong diplomatic pressure from France, resulted in most of the newly converted Melkites returning to Rome by the early 1860- s . The article argues that Russian church policy in 19th century Middle East, strongly bounded by the limits of Orthodox canon law was largely ineffective. The Melkite affair was the last attempt to integrate the Arab Christians in the traditional system of the “Greek” Patriarchates. Thereafter Russian diplomacy took the course of Arabizing the Patriarchate of Antioch. The episode did, however, contribute to the elaboration of a new Vatican policy towards the Eastern Catholics: respect for their rites and traditions.


Introduction
The Melkite Arab community in Syria and Lebanon has since the Middle Ages occupied a special place in the history of Eastern Christianity. The first attempts at bringing the Eastern Christians of the Levant into union with the See of Rome date back to the 13th century. At that time, the Melkite church of Antioch, though strongly suppressed by the Crusaders, tried to find its own way between Byzantine rule, the Latin authorities and Muslim conquerors.1 The struggle between the pro-Roman and pro-Byzantine camps continued throughout the 14th and 15th centuries, up to the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1439). Keeping close to the patriarchs of Constantinople, the Melkite patriarchs before the mid-15th century usually preferred to avoid open union with Rome.2 The first commemoration of the Pope in the Melkite liturgy dates from 1440. After the fall of Constantinople, the Melkites preserved the Byzantine rite and evidently enjoyed a certain level of independence, continuing to elect their own bishops and priests.
A new wave of proselytism in the Orient began in the 16th century, during the Counter-Reformation, when the See of Rome started its systematic work of incorporating Eastern Christians into its religious and political sphere. The activities of Gregory XIII marked the inception of an active policy in the Middle East. By that time, Rome already had strong support in Lebanon from the Maronites, being already Latinized by the 16th century. At the same time, the first steps towards conciliation with the Ottoman Empire were made by François I of France; the Catholics of the Orient now received diplomatic support from the French crown. 3 The second half of the 17th century represents the golden age for the various Catholic missions to the East (those of the Jesuits, Capuchins, and Carmelites). The number of Franciscans in the Holy Land increased from 125 in 1680 to 214 in 1727.4 Little by little, the missionaries began to study Arabic. In 1680, of the 71 friars at the Custody -the first missionary institution in the Middle East at Gerd Scrinium 17 (2021) 134-157 that time -only 16 knew the language; by 1760 their number had increased to 27. The Jesuits by 1773 were not so numerous. The maximum number of Carmelites in this period was 30 (in 1783). 5 Nevertheless, the success of the Uniate movement was more than rapid, especially in the beginning of the 18th century, when the majority of Greek Catholics joined it. In 1724, Patriarch Cyril Tanas was elected with the strong endorsement of the French ambassador, and became the first Greek Catholic (Melkite) Patriarch of Antioch. Rome's confirmation was received a few years later, in 1729.6 From then on, Syria was regarded by the Western church and its diplomats as a future Catholic country, and the 'Greeks Schismatics' were treated as a minority to be assimilated. According to a report from 1760, in Damascus there were 10 Latin Catholic, 18 Greek Catholic (Melkite), three Maronite, two Syrian Catholic and 12 Greek Orthodox priests.7 The town of Aleppo by the middle of the 18th century was mainly inhabited by Uniates. The Orthodox in the villages, however, remained quite numerous.
In the 17th century, the Orthodox patriarchs of Antioch established close relations with the Russian Tsar and received regular donations from Russia.8 In the first half of the 18th century, however, the Orthodox church of Syria was in poor condition. The Uniate movement was progressing, and the Russian government at that time was not interested in actively supporting Eastern suppression of the Society in 1773.12 Both France and Rome backed all Catholic activities in Syria and Lebanon; generous financing was provided from both official and private sources. Also after 1830 the 'Eastern Question' -the competition of the great powers for domination in the Middle East -came to the fore. Russia was also involved in this rivalry, exerting pressure over the competitors by economic means, or through military and political demarches. Ideological groundwork for the future division of the Ottoman territories was an important part of Russian policy (as it was for other antagonists), that is, creating spheres of influence and clienteles among the local population. Russia continued its traditional support of the Orthodox inhabitants of Turkey, both financially and politically.13 Already by the treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji (1774), Russia de facto received the right to protect the Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire, and widely used it up to WWI.
In practice, what did this look like in the new situation of the 1830s and 1840s? In the '30s, with Maxim Mazloum's (1833-1856) election as Melkite patriarch for the three Sees (of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria), the movement towards union with Rome became again rather intensive, enjoying protection from the Egyptian government of Muhammad Ali.14 The local Orthodox population, especially in places where they did not have their own church and a priest, found little inconvenience in attending Uniate services, in particular those that followed the Eastern rite. By the mid-1840s, the Russian government had not formulated any new strategy towards the Christian East: the usual method remained sending donations to the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs. In addition to money, they also received support in-kind donations including icons, vestments, silver vessels and cloth.15 With a clear understanding of the advantages of receiving material aid without any strings attached, they sent regular requests to the Holy Synod of Russia, repeatedly complaining of their poverty and the danger posed by Catholic and Protestant proselytism. On September 21st 1838, for example, the patriarchs Methodios of Antioch and Hierotheos of Alexandria addressed a joint letter to the Russian Synod asking for help against the Catholics.16 The situation was reported to Tsar Nicolas I, and support was provided in two ways. First, a large quantity of liturgical items was gathered for shipment (estimated to value about 11,450 silver rubles in total). The patriarchs also received sizeable sums of money: 3,000 rubles for Alexandria, and 2,500 for Antioch. Countess Anna Orlova-Chesmenskaia donated 3,000 rubles to each.17 Further, the Russian ambassador to Constantinople was instructed to negotiate with the Sublime Porte about changing the form and the colour of vestments of the Uniate clergy, to make them different from those of the Orthodox: thus, the parishioners in the villages could distinguish between them. The "affair of the kamilaukas" (the caps of the clergy) lasted for many years. On May 31st 1839, thanks to the intermediation of the Russia ambassador, Butenev, a firman on the costume was issued.18 However, on the demand of the French consul it was not implemented.

Uniatism and Anti-Uniatism After the Crimean War
The movement to (re-)convert non-Orthodox Eastern Christians into the Orthodox church grew strongly after the Crimean War. The Tanzimat in the Ottoman Empire created a fertile soil for national ideas, including ecclesial autonomy. The church struggle finally became a national and a political one, having lost already its theological or dogmatic content. The Tanzimat in the Empire, promoted by the Hatt-i-sherif of 1856, was followed by changes at all levels of society. A church council took place in Constantinople in 1858-59, whose duty it was to elaborate a new basis of life for the non-Muslim millets. This was followed by reforms in the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1860, and introduction of the laity into church administration.32 The Arab Christians were also hoping for a national revival, and seeking to create a local (national) administration. Unlike the Balkan Slavs, the Orthodox Arabs were still at a lower level of education and national consciousness, unable to organize an efficient counter-movement to the Greek higher clergy. It took many years before Arab proto-nationalism would develop. The foundation of an Arab millet seemed an attractive alternative for the Melkites: here, they counted on Russian backing. Until the mid-19th century he Greek-Catholics still enjoyed a great degree of independence from Rome: they elected their clergy and preserved the Eastern rite. For most of them, conversion to Orthodoxy would not change the everyday and liturgical rhythm. Moreover, unification with their Orthodox co-religionists in a future Arab millet held out favourable prospects for political protections. They would lose the financial and diplomatic support of France, but hoped that Russia would replace it. As an Orthodox community they would, at the same time, be able to count on more support from the Turkish governors. In the turbulent situation of the Tanzimat, an incautious pressure upon the Melkites or violation of their rights could serve as a spark in the powder keg.

6
The Melkites of Syria The 'Eastern' party had two leaders, both strongly reliant on Russian support. In Damascus it was the local notable Khuri Khanna Ferdj Mesamiri. As the Melkite church in Damascus remained in the hands of the 'Western' party, he offered a room in his house for serving the liturgy; later he was ordained priest and made bishop with the name Ioannikios. The 'Eastern' party in Egypt was led by Archimandrite Gabriel Djibara, a former Basilian monk. (After the closure of the Melkite chapel in Egypt in 1857, Gabriel left for Syria and became the de facto the head of the Beirut community.) During the whole course of the affair these figures played a double game. On one hand, they tried to make use of diplomatic support and financing from Russia, promising complete obedience to Russian policy. On the other hand, the Russian help was just a means to an end -that of creating a separate church.

The Melkite Movement as a Challenge for Russian Policy
As early as 1857, the 'Eastern' Beirut Melkite community asked the Russian consul about joining the Russian church directly, subordinating themselves to bishop Cyril Naumov, the newly appointed chief of the Russian mission in Jerusalem. From the perspective of Russian policy in the Middle East, to create a clientele of several thousand Syrian Arabs under its protectorate was an opportunity. It was also a great challenge, and the cautious first reaction of Russian diplomats was more negative than positive. It was clear that any sudden creation of a Russian bishopric inside the territory of another Orthodox church was a flagrant violation of canon law, and would provoke an open conflict with the Greek patriarchs. Serious complications in the relations with France could be also expected. In June 1857, the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, Butenev, received instructions from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to maintain the position of a neutral observer. Moreover, preliminary discussions for further Russo-French cooperation in the church-question took place in Egypt.38 The Russian church was also invited to express its opinion, and could not hide behind its usual official position of non-interference in the affairs of the other churches. Slow and passive in taking decisions, the Russian Synod finally outlined its position. Almost two years after the start of the conflict Tolstoy, ober-procurator of the Holy Synod, addressed a note to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Gorchakov (October 31st, 1858). The main idea was that Russia could in no case endorse the creation of a separate Melkite Orthodox church, independent from the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch. Equally, the creation of a Melkite church dependent on the Russian bishop in Jerusalem was not possible, because it would provoke a conflict with the Greeks and threaten the unity of Orthodoxy.39 The only course of action available, Tolstoy concluded, was to convince the Melkites to come to an agreement with the Greek patriarchs and to join the Greek church: here, the Russians were ready to mediate.40 Subordination to the Greeks, however, foretold great difficulties. The Arabs had a strong dislike for the Greek higher clergy, with 'ksenokratie' (foreign rule) in their church a source of deep resentment.   Patriarch Hierotheos of Antioch, also residing in Constantinople, seemed rather undisposed to the affair. He was jealous and suspicious of the Arab bishops, and busy mostly with his own material interests. According to some unofficial sources, Hierotheos' negative attitude owed to his assistant Spartalis, who was in turn closely connected with the French consul.48 The Arab Bishops of the Zahle council were more anxious to acquire their own millet than to subordinate themsleves to the Greeks.49 The hostility of the Greek patriarchs and lack of unity among the Arabs themselves led to procrastination and a decline in the movement by early 1860. On February 16th, Ambassador Lobanov reported the readiness of four Melkite communities to return to the church of Rome (those of Beirut, Zahle, Saida and Baalbek). In Syria, only the Damascus community was still willing to join the Greek patriarchate.50 The main problem was the properties: most of those Melkites who left Rome lost their churches and monasteries. The bishops of Beirut, Zahle and Saida, in managing to prevent their flock from splitting in two, at the same time preserved their churches, monasteries and other properties. But in Cairo, Alexandria, Sur, Damascus and other towns where the bishops remained faithful to Rome, the communities were divided in two. As for Damascus, Lobanov stressed that a church should be built for the 'Eastern' Melkites there.51 In his further discussions, Ambassador Lobanov aimed at reaching an agreement concerning the right of the Melkites to elect their own bishops and to own their church properties. Frustrated by the scepticism of Patriarch Hierotheos, the Russian ambassador tried to negotiate with the Patriarch of Alexandria, who seemed much more flexible. At this stage, the most delicate questionthat of re-baptism -was preliminarily put aside, and only a renouncement of the Meanwhile, the tactics of the Melkites did not change: their bishops were still waiting and insisting on the creation of a separate millet. In March 1860, Gabriel Djibara visited Cyril Naumov in Jerusalem and explained their plan to him: after receiving a firman from the Sultan about forming a separate church, the Melkites were ready to continue their negotiations about canonical integration into the Greek church. But it was clear that after receiving autonomy the Melkites would not continue with the second part: subordination. The Russian representatives tried to convince Archimandrite Djibara that they would support the movement only if the Melkites first reach a canonical agreement with the Greeks and then apply for the Sultan's firman.53 By the Summer of 1860, the bishop of Beirut Agapios seemed to have passed to the side of the Eastern party and sought support from the Russian consul. At this point most Orthodox-minded Melkites were asking their bishops to demonstrate their position definitively. The number of Melkites ready to join Orthodoxy was estimated at between 15,000 and 20,000 souls.
On April 14th, the Beirut Melkite community presented its written address officially renouncing their union with Rome. On May 12th, an identical declaration was received from the Damascus community. Both were triggered by the encouragement of bishop Cyril Naumov, who had arrived in Damascus for negotiations. The declaration stipulated complete autonomy for the Melkites, preservation of the right to elect their higher clergy, and only nominal subordination to the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch. It was time for the Russians to act, and Ambassador Lobanov supposed that this could be done mainly by offering the Melkites financial aid in building churches.54 On the eve of the massacre in Syria in July 1860, however, the Russians still did not have a clear understanding of the Melkites' aspirations: the statistical data was unreliable, and the leaders of the Damascus and Egyptian 'Eastern' Melkites were obviously exaggerating the picture in their favour. In June 1860, Khuri Khanna, the representative of the Damascus Melkites, arrived in Constantinople for negotiations with the Greek patriarchs.

11
The At the end of 1859, another Catholic diplomat entered the scene, the Austrian Consul to Beirut Weckbecker. He sought to mediate between the Melkites and Roman Curia with a view to securing speedier reconciliation, and was negotiating with the most flexible among the Arab bishops, Agapios. Whereas other bishops demanded appointment of two lay representatives to supervise patriarch Clementos, Agapios was ready to elaborate a compromise suitable for Rome.59 France's diplomatic position was that the intervention of the Austrian consul was quite inappropriate.

12
The Melkite Affair After July 1860 The massacre of the Christians by the Druzes in Syria and Lebanon of July 9th-18th 1860, and the French expedition to Syria that remained in the country After the election of the new Patriarch of Constantinople Joachim II on October 4th, 1860, negotiations on accepting the Melkites into Orthodoxy could be continued. In November the same year the two representatives of the Eastern party (Khanna Khuri and Gabriel Djibara), on behalf of the Egyptian and Syrian communities, after signing a written renunciation of the Roman church and accepting the Orthodox Credo, were received into the Orthodox church.64 The four Greek patriarchs agreed that the Melkites were to be accepted without re-baptism, but by anointing only, and their clergy, respectively, without re-consecration. The two representatives tried to express their doubts, but finally could do nothing else but to agree to these conditions. Their flocks (especially the Beirut community), were not happy, however, and found the terms a humiliation. The representatives of the Damascus community (70 families, about 600 souls in total) were ready to sign the agreement. The Ottoman authorities seemed favorable to the case, but the attempts of the Russian consul in Beirut, Beger, to get the support of the Turkish governor Fuad-Pasha failed. This was due to all Greek Melkites still formally belonging, in the eyes of the Ottoman authorities, to the Roman church. Bishop Agapios of Beirut -without allowing anointing for himself, however -at first gave some hopes for supporting the Eastern party, especially in case of persecution from the Roman side.65 On returning to Beirut before Christmas, Khuri Khanna Mesamiri and Gabriel Djibara, with the help of the Greek bishop and the Russian consul, started the conversion of their flocks to Orthodoxy. It was decided to do it voluntarily and little by little. Beger rented a special house which served as a temporary church, and equipped it with everything necessary for the liturgy. The example of the Beirut community was followed by some of the inhabitants of Hasbia, Ramsia and other towns of Lebanon. An exceptional permission was received from the new Ottoman governor Akhmed-Pasha for service in the temporary church without an official firman. After the withdrawal of French troops from the country, the case of the Orthodox Melkites was supported by the Ottoman authorities. In the meantime, Agapios returned to 64 A Beirut and headed that part of the Melkites who did not leave the Union, but for the moment were allowed to follow the Julian calendar.66 One of the most difficult questions is how many converted Melkites there were at this time. According to a French report from Beirut (December 16th, 1860), the Christians in Lebanon were about 150,000 souls: the men at arms were 35,000; among them, the Maronites were 20,500, Greek Catholics 8,500, Greek Orthodox 6,000.67 In the same report, however, Bentivoglio does not put a precise number on the converts, mentioning only that among the Orthodox there were some Melkites.
In the following years, the converted Melkite communities shared the life of the rest of the Orthodox population of Syria. Russian support did not materialize on the scale hoped for, namely to sponsor the creation of a separate Arab church under a Russian protectorate. First, the Russian government was still very cautious about any steps against the Greek patriarchates which could threaten the fragile integrity of the Orthodox church. Second, after joining Orthodoxy the converted Melkites became directly subordinated to the Ottoman authorities without any exceptions, i.e. the Russian protectorate did not offer them any exterritorial advantages. Third, the material support which Russia could offer was much less than the financing of the Uniates coming from France. The latter was for many the strongest motive for leaving Orthodoxy and returning to Rome.
On September 21st, 1861, Consul Beger reported the start of the construction of a new church in Beirut. The council on the construction was composed from ex-Uniates, some of them employees of the Russian consulate. By that time, Khuri Khanna had been ordained as Bishop of Palmyra Ioannikios and appointed administrator of all Orthodox Melkites in Damascus. During his trip around Lebanon he organized temporary churches for the converts in the villages of Shuara, Zhuara and also in Zahle; another church was founded by Archimandrite Djibara in Deir-el-Qamar. 68 As in other European countries, the Russian church raised money for the suffering Christians in Syria and Lebanon. 200,000 Turkish piastres from Russia were used in 1862 for constructing a hospital and an orphanage in Beirut for the Orthodox Christians.69 were still divided on the pretext of the calendar question: one part had its church in the centre of the town, and the other in the Deir Mahalle (St. Savior) monastery. After a detailed explanation of the difficulties of the Melkites in Damas, and the conflicts among the monks there, the consul proposed the creation of a seminary at the convent, with an initial donation of 300,000 francs from the French government. In his opinion this would return the party under Bishop Mesamiri, to the Union. Hecquard's further steps were aimed at preventing an agreement between the notables of Damascus with the Russian consul for protection by the Russian government. By the end of June 1864, instructions were given by the prefect of the Propaganda Fidei to the apostolic vicar in Syria, concerning organization of a seminary for the Melkites, and a priest was sent as teacher (Mgr Soubiranne). The importance of preserving the 'Greek rite' was especially stressed, and precise knowledge of this practice was mandatory for the appointee76 Meanwhile, the secularization of the opposition party in the Deir-Mahalle convent was planned. The problem of the return of some of the Melkite bishops to the Union completely depended on receipt of money from France, as the consul confirmed after consultations with Patriarch Valerga.77 This was followed by the loss of many converted families from orthodoxy, and considerable loss of confidence on the part of the Russian government in the reliability of the Arabs. In this situation the question was whether the converts should still be given special support, or whether the Russian donations should instead be used for financing all the Greek Orthodox of the patriarchate. The figures gathered about the number of the Orthodox Melkites at the beginning of 1865 were rather modest. In Lebanon they were only 1,420 souls, and the Russian government was financing building of churches for them in Beirut, Bruman and Zhuar. Perhaps another 500 could be counted, who were still waiting for construction of their churches; for the moment they were attending Uniate churches. 1,500 people more in the villages near Saida and Zakhle could not be counted, because no money could be found for supplying them with churches.78 The second leader of the Melkites, Gabriel Djibara, remained allied to Orthodoxy and to Russia. The plot of land in Shuafat bought -by Bishop Cyril Naumov, with 41,500 Turkish lyras -for the construction of a theological school stayed empty, due to lack of money. Meanwhile a school at St. George monastery near Zuk-el-Garb in Lebanon was founded by Djibara. It opened in 1864 with donations gathered inside the country, with 109 pupils (100 were paid for by their families, and nine studied for free of the school was Gabriel's nephew Christophor Djibara, future representative of the Patriarchate of Antioch in Moscow. One of the available means for supporting this school could have been the sale of the empty plot.79 The case of the Melkite schism was more or less closed by the end of 1864, the same year Patriarch Youssef Sayyour was elected. In the long and difficult struggle against the Latinization of his church he managed to preserve its identity and autonomous organization.80 The British occupation of Egypt and the activities of the Russian Palestinian Society (since 1882) forced the Vatican to start a new policy towards the Oriental Uniate churches under Pope Leo XIII.81 The administrative status of the Melkites was defined only in 1909.
Inside the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch the struggle continued between the Greek higher clergy aiming at preservation their position, and the Arab flock pushing to appoint their compatriots to the episcopal Sees. After the death of the Greek bishop of Beirut in 1865, Patriarch Hierotheos appointed the Greek, Joseph of Arcadia as his successor; Djibara thus lost any hope of receiving the Bishop's title.82 Djibara remained the leader of the Orthodox Melkites until the end of his life. In 1870 he found himself in a rather hopeless state and unable to be useful to his flock. He addressed the Russian Synod with a request for material aid for completing the construction of the churches in Baalbek, Shuara and Zahle, where in the absence of their own places of worship the parishioners had returned to the Union. The churches in Beirut and other places built by the Russians needed upkeep. A prinring press in Beirut for publication of anti-Catholic books was also needed. The Russian consul in Damascus, Ionin, granting Djibara's request, estimated this expense at 12,000 rubles, and stressed that Patriarch Hierotheos was absolutely deaf to all requests.83 For the Russian government, the Melkites' affair seemed obviously closed: the Russian Synod answered that no more aid could be found. Prompted by the defeat of France by Prussia in 1870, the Russian consul in 79 Extract from the report of A. Beger Beirut, Petkovich, proposed supporting the rapprochement of the Uniates and Maronites with the Orthodox church, but this also failed to get any positive answer from St Petersburg.84 Another appeal from the same year, for financing the few newly-converted families and the church in Damascus with 1,500 rubles, was more successful.85

Conclusion
The separatist movement of the Syrian Melkites and their conversion to Orthodoxy was in general unsuccessful. Russia could not compete with French influence in Syria and Lebanon due to financial and political reasons. The Russian patronage of the Orthodox church in the Orient was different from that of France to the Catholics, and provided support to the traditional structures, i.e. to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. The national movement of the Melkites was doomed to failure from the very beginning. Unlike the Bulgarians, the Arab laity in the early 1860s did not demonstrate solidarity as against the Greek higher clergy. Further, the Union and its French backing had a deep-rooted tradition in the country; its tendency to re-absorb the Orthodox by the Catholics was stronger than its opposite. The subsequent activities of the Russian government concentrated on replacing the Greek bishops in Syria and Lebanon by Arab ones and the Arabization of the Orthodox church. This process was completed by the beginning of the 20th century, and from then until 1914 the Orthodox church of Antioch was financed and controlled by Russia.