Beirut in the 18th 19th centuries according to a

Christian Orthodox Historian Ibn Trad al-Bayruti

1. Introduction

Beirutin the late 18th early 19th centuries was subject to political, economic and social uncertainties that prevailed in urban centers in Syria.

A Christian Orthodox historian ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mikha’il Ibn Trad al-Bayruti, explores several of these issues in a work entitled: ãÎÊÕÑ ÊÇÑíÎ ÇáÃÓÇÞÝÉ ÇáÐíä ÑÞøæÇ ãÑÊÈÉ ÑÆÇÓÉ ÇáßåäæÊ ÇáÌáíáÉ Ýí ãÏíäÉ ÈíÑæÊ (A History of the Bishops appointed to the Honorable Episcopate of Beirut).

The overall objective of this paper is not to construct a chronological history of Beirut and its hinterland, but instead to explore the multiple aspects of the interrelationship of various groups within the city and their interaction with the center of power represented by the Ottoman governors. I will attempt to examine briefly, religious dissension, factional crisis, the injustice of administrators, economic fluctuations, and epidemics in Beirut from a Christian Orthodox perspective.

2. The Author

We know very little about the life of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Trad except that he was born in Beirut, as the ßäíÉ (agnomen) ÇáÈíÑæÊí (native of Beirut) clearly indicates. His father ÇáÍÌ äÚãÉ Çááå ãíÎÇÆíá ØÑÇÏ was a copyist and his name appears on many religious manuscripts in the archives of the Patriarchate of Antioch for the Greek Orthodox.

His profession no doubt gave `Abd Allah access to historical and theological writings and enriched his education. Two references in the text place ‘Abd Allah in Beirut in 1788 and 1798; and another in Tripoli in 1824. The last entry in the text dates from 1850. We can therefore, assume that he was eyewitness to events that took place in Beirut during the last decade of the 18th century and through the middle of the 19th.

In the introduction to this work, Trad states that his intention was to write a short treatise on the history of the bishops who succeeded to the Episcopate of Beirut starting from 1532 until 1824.

3. Schism in the Church of Antioch

It is evident from the outset that among the main concerns in ÊÇÑíÎ ÇáÃÓÇÞÝÉ is the schism in the Church of Antioch, and its ramifications on the Orthodox community in Beirut. Trad recorded the details of contention, intrigues and at times hostilities that accompanied the selection of bishops. Power struggle was apparent in most of these appointments. The author rationalized that the first ‘seeds of dissension’ were sown in Aleppo.
ßÇä Ðáß Ãæá ÇáãÎÇÖ Ãí ÇÈÊÏÇÁ äÈÇÊ ÒÑÚ ÅÝÓÇÏ ÇáÈÇÏÑíÉ æÏÓæÓåã [Ýí ÍáÈ]

Events in Aleppo were not isolated and they triggered conflict in other parts of the region. He dwells on the disruptive effect the emergence of this new group had on the Christian community. Their wealth and influence in Istanbul were exploited to undermine the Orthodox Church. The alarming decrease in the number of the Orthodox was also a direct result of this Catholic strategy.

Catholic missionaries, as revealed in the chronicle, especially the Jesuits, were active in Beirut. They opened schools and offered medical assistance trying to win to their faith ‘the simple hearted among the Orthodox ÚÞæá ÇáÓÐÌ ãä ÇáãÓíÍííä who were unaware of their ‘malicious’ design.

Clearly, there was a shortage of schools in the Orthodox community, for we find the author admonishing his co-religionists for their negligent attitude. Rather, they should take the initiative and establish institution that can compete with the Jesuits “Lest they regret when it is too late”.

It appears from his account that rivalry between the two groups – Orthodox and Catholic – had two facets. On the one hand, it allowed for the interference of ruling emirs and Ottoman officials in the affairs of the church with dire consequences to all; while on the other, it created a competitive educational environment that in the final analysis would benefit not only the Christian communities, but also all the Lebanese.

Through out ÊÇÑíÎ ÇáÃÓÇÞÝÉ Trad attempted to set standards that, in his view, describe a true Christian. He used the word äÕÇÑì to refer to Christians in general. Whereas, ÇáãÓíÍíæä, he argues, should be the word of choice and the Orthodox, its undisputed personification. Occasionally the issue went beyond candid verbal assertions.

Objecting vociferously to the appointment of ‘dissident’ Bishops he says:
Behold true Christian our righteous clergy, who draw the profundity of their belief from the Lord Jesus al-masih … which of the two sects is one to follow? The truth radiates as clear as the sun.

ÝÇäÙÑ íÇ ãÓíÍí ÍÞíÞí... … ÃäÙÑ … ßåäÊäÇ ÇáÞæíã ÑÃíåã ÇáãåÐÈ ÅíãÇäåã... ÝäÍä ãÊÎÐíä ÇáÅíãÇä æÇáäÚãÉ¡ ãæåÈÉ ÇáßåäæÊ¡ ãä ÇáÓíÏ ÇáãÓíÍ... ãä íßæä ãä ÇáÝÆÊíä ÃÓÇÓå ãÊíä¡ æÑÃíåõ ÍÞíÞí æßåäæÊåõ ãÓÊÞíã¿ … ÝÇä ÇáÍÞ ÔÇÑÞ ßÇáÔãÓ.

While Tarikh al-asaqifa teams with derogatory remarks against the Catholics and the Papal emissaries, it provides ample information about the state of the Orthodox Church and the corruption of some of it clergy.

Evidence in the text supports Trad’s allegations against Greek clergy and their role in the deteriorating condition of the Orthodox. By monopolizing the ranks of the upper prelates, and denying local priests higher education, they were in fact preventing the indigenous population ÃæáÇÏ ÇáÚÑÈ from advancing in the church hierarchy. Trad argues that only a native bishop can understand and address the problems of his flock and thus insure against Catholic encroachment on the Orthodox Church.
áÆáÇ íõÎäÞ ÇáÞãÍ ÈäÈÇÊ ÇáÒÄÇä

4. Power Struggle within the Christian Community

Power struggle within the Christian community, was another major issue in Tarikh al-asaqif. We can deduce from the chronicle that unjust Ottoman governors were often less damaging to the Christians than contesting and ambitious members of the local elite. This is manifested in the rivalry between the two contenders for the post of chief custom officer ßãÑßÌí in Beirut, the Orthodox ÇáÔíÎ íæäÓ äÞæáÇ ÇáÌÈíáí and the Catholic Faris al-Dahhan.

The outcome was predictable because of the privileges that the Orthodox enjoyed during the tenure of Ahmad Pasha al-Jazzar. He awarded the post to Yunis Niqula who carried out his mandate with integrity, and evenhandedness.

What eluded the author was that all government posts had been reduced to a mere commodity offered to the highest bidder. With his copious contributions, Dahhan eventually won favors with Jazzar. Yunis Niqula was promptly dismissed and the scoundrel ÇáÏåÇä ÇáÔÞí replaced him. Taking advantage of his acquired status, Dahhan tirelessly pressed the locals to increase revenue. He abused Orthodox notables and wrested huge sums from them.

Trad’s fervent chronicling of these events illustrates how a man can overstep all bounds while performing this lucrative government service. Unable to meet his jarring demands, Orthodox notables tried to flee the city. ÇáÏåÇä closed the gates to check their exodus.

ãäÚ ßá ãä íÎÑÌ ãä ÇáäÕÇÑì Åáì ÇáÎÇÑÌ. ÝáãÇ ÕÇÑ ãä åÐÇ ÇáÃãÑ ÇÑÊÌÊ ÇáÈáÏ ÓíãÇ ÌãÇÚÉ ÇáÃÑËæÐßÓííä. æÃãÇ ÌãÇÚÉ ÇáãßæÊáíä ÝÑÍæÇ æÇäÓÑæÇ ÌÏÇ. æÅÐ áã íßä ááÃÑËæÐßÓííä ãåÑÈÇ ÓáãæÇ ÂãÑåã ááå

Favoritism of ÇáÏåÇä towards Catholics is apparent on this and other occasions. After paying a nominal recompense, Catholics would return to their business, while Orthodox merchants remained, incarcerated until all requirements were met. Muslims in Beirut were more sympathetic to the Orthodox predicament in this case.

When Dahhan refused to allow these prisoners to spend time with their families during Easter festivities, a Muslim notable, the Hajj Yahya al Majdhoub ÇáÍÇÌ íÍíì ÇáãÌÐæÈ interceded with the Ottoman authorities on their behalf. Permission was granted, albeit intimidation by the soldiery continued.

áÇ íÝÇÑÞæåã ÈÇáÖÑÈ æÅáÇåÇäÇÊ æÊäÛíÕ ÇáÍíÇÉ

In portraying this dismal situation, Trad cursed the time when destitute Christian women were obliged to travel to ‘Akka, bare foot without provisions, to seek the intercession of the waly for the release of their men from prison. He describes this crisis in a poignant passage:

It is ironic that Dahhan was later dismissed from office and died destitute in the prison of Jazzar.

There are other instances cited by Trad where persecution of Christians by other Christians was equally damaging. Ghandur Ibn Sa`d al-Khuri, the Maronite attendant (ãÏÈÑ) of Emir Yusuf Shihab, was no less injurious to the Orthodox. He acted out of bounds by confiscating their churches and humiliating their clergy. This contributed further to Maronite- Orthodox antagonism.

When Jazzar put down a Maronite insurrection in 1789, the Orthodox community in Beirut could not hide its jubilation. To present a common front with their Muslim neighbors, they joined in the celebrations that ensued. In this salient message to the Maronites, Trad actually underscores the loyalty of his community to the Ottoman State.

The influence of the French among the Catholics and Maronites in particular had become apparent since the 17th century with the appointment of French consuls from this community. When Ghandur Khoury was appointed to this post in 1788 Trad was quick to denounce the display of the French banner on his premises.

Clearly, the position of the Orthodox was against foreign intervention in Beirut, especially the Catholic French. Both Orthodox and Muslims were equally indignant to this intrusion. What is evident from these, and similar events, is that inhabitants of Beirut were apt to be at odds with outsiders, whether they shared their religious affiliations or not. Hostility against the intrusion of the mountaineers, Druze or Maronites, would bring the people of Beirut together Greek Orthodox or Muslims.

5. Ottoman-Orthodox Relations in Beirut

Trad lived at a time when revolts and disturbances in the Ottoman Empire were endemic.

ßÇäÊ ÇáÍÑÈ ãÓÊÚÑÉ…æÇáÏæáÉ ãáåíÉ…æÇáÌÈá ãÓÊÚÕí

The relationship between Beirut and the mountain, as portrayed in the chronicle, took many forms: political, economic and at times as refuge from oppression.

Trad focused on those instances where the conflict between Ottoman governors and the Shihab ruling emirs involved the people of Beirut. Such events often resulted in punitive action against the town. On numerous occasions when Christian notables fled the city, the military directed their wrath against the clergy. Intimidation, extortion, and death awaited anyone who dared disobey instructions. Those who took refuge in Mount Lebanon were equally mal-treated by the Maronites. Without work, the Orthodox had to rely on the charity of their co-religionists. Furthermore, the ruling Shihab emirs imposed heavy duties on the rich among them. Trad frequently ends such accounts by lamenting: “Those were difficult times for the Orthodox”.

Evidently, the people of Beirut were often involved in conflicts beyond their control. Such issues worked largely to their disadvantage. Government authority was their only basis for security and order and Ottoman governors the embodiment of legitimate power. For that reason, the author would not justify any defiance to the central government, nor condemn the atrocious behavior of its deputies.

Through out the text, Trad portrays the relationship between the Ottoman state and the Orthodox as one of absolute loyalty. The Orthodox never question nor doubted the justice of state towards her subjects. At one point and despite pressure from their Muslim compatriots, we find that the Orthodox of Beirut refused to join the rebellion against Jazzar in 1789. As subjects of the sultan and regardless of consequences, they remain loyal to his appointed deputies.

äÍä ÑÚÇíÇ ÇáÓáØÇä ÝÍíäãÇ ÊØíÚ ÚßÇ æÇáÌÒÇÑ ÝäÍä ÊÈÚðÇ æáÓäÇ ÑÃÓðÇ

It is worth noting that Trad was probably the only historians who presented Jazzar as a compassionate and just governor at least during the early years of his rule. While most historians consider Jazzar as the most “sanguinary” Ottoman official ever to rule the Syrian provinces, the chronicle disputes these allegations. Tarikh al-asaqifa affirms that Jazzar administered the region with exceptional justice ÚÏÇáÉ ÈáíÛÉ. Christians were safe and secure.
In the words of Trad:

In any case, we must agree the mere fact Christians needed reassurance suggests that they were actually under a lot of pressure if not outright persecution.

In one of his many eulogies, Trad praises the Pasha for his religious tolerance. However, it is doubtful whether religious tolerance was the real concern of Trad. In the final analysis, favoritism towards the Orthodox stands out as Jazzar’s most deserving quality. When oppression under Jazzar reached appalling levels, the author justifies his previous favoritism towards him. He had this to say:

The use of the word now by the author is not innocent. He is in fact connecting Jazzar’s change of demeanor to the dismissal of Orthodox attendants from his entourage. It was at this time that Mikha`il and Butrus al-Sakrouj were replaced by the “callous" Kurd al-Shaykh Taha.

æßÇä Þæãå äÇÓ ÞÓÇÉ ÃÑÏíÇ áÇ Åáå áåã¡ ÙÇáãíä
æÇÓÊÕäÚæÇ ÚÐÇÈÇÊ ÌåäãíÉ ÑÏíÉ

It appears from our readings in the text that tension in Beirut was often a reaction to the policy of a particular Ottoman Pasha. When Christians were obliged to leave Beirut, it was mainly because of an intolerant one. They would return when he was dismissed from office.

Jazzar died in 1804, the chronicle suggests that peace and security prevailed under his successor Sulaiman Pasha who earned the title al-‘adil, “the Just” for his leniency. Many were encouraged to return to the city and resume their normal activities. However, during the tenure of Abdullah Pasha (1819), the Christians of Beirut were again under a lot of pressure to satisfy the financial demands of this avaricious waly. Those who failed to fulfill his requests were imprisoned, others fled and Trad laments: “they were in serious jeopardy”. ÞÇÓæÇ ãÔÞÉð ÚÙíãÉ.

6. Factional Relationships in Beirut

From the mid 18th century onwards, there was scarcely an event in Syria, which remained the purely internal concern of local chieftains and Ottoman officials. Nowhere did conditions invite international intervention more than in Lebanon, where feudal dispute and “sectarian tensions provided ample material for crisis”. Tarikh al-Asaqifa portrays Muslim Christian relations during this period, as inconsistent. They would oscillate from effectual cooperation to mistrust and intimidation.

One such episode reported by Trad was the Russian presence in Beirut in 1772. This was a measure of support from Catherine the Great to the cause of Dahir al-‘Umar against her bitter enemies, the Ottomans. When the troops landed, whatever side the citizens may have supported, their real interest in such conflict was of secondary importance. Left at the mercy of their fate, the Orthodox decided to leave the city. During their absence, their deserted homes and shops were looted by locals and by Russian troops.

At the same time, we hear of many Muslims defending Christian homes in their neighborhood. This was by no means unique. Similar instances of Muslim goodwill towards their fellow citizens are present in other parts of the text. This good will, however, was often put to test. When Napoleon Bonaparte threatened the Syrian coast in 1799, all the citizens of Beirut were called upon to defend their city.

The Orthodox prepared to participate in this effort and appeared in the streets in full gear ready for the task ahead. Their position is apparent in the testimony of Trad:

Furthermore, the Orthodox regarded them as Catholicism personified and hence they were more than eager to engage them.

This unexpected outburst of zeal from the Orthodox, presumably originated from a new self-image. Under the Ottomans, the Orthodox no longer considered themselves as dhimis or protected second-class citizens, but as equal to their Muslim compatriots. Ottoman favoritism is depicted in the wordings of this statement:

While not explicitly stating it, it is apparent from recounting these episodes that Muslim – Christian relations were affected by the French expedition in Syria. It did not escape even the most naive observer, that Maronites awaited the arrival of Bonaparte in the country with “pleasant expectations”. In fact, Patriarch Youssef Tayyan went so far as to pledge Maronite support to Napoleon, a gesture that was bound to provoke Muslim apprehension”. The French banner fluttering over the residence of the French consul Ghandur al-Khoury was an irritant reminder of their influence.

To the Muslim populace, there was apparently no clear distinction between Maronites and Orthodox. In times of war, they considered them all as potential collaborators with the enemy. Suspicious of Orthodox true intentions, they ordered the surrender of their weapons and asked them to take refuge outside Beirut until hostilities subsided.

Once more Trad promoted Orthodox loyalty to the Ottoman state. As Arabs their allegiance was beyond reproach; they were equally against any intrusion by the Franks. Notwithstanding, Muslims set out to harass them everywhere. In this dire situation, Orthodox could rely only on Ottoman goodwill. Jazzar issued stern directives calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities towards “Christian subjects of the Sultan”. Anyone failing to adhere to his orders, he made clear, would pay the ultimate price.

Victory against the French, presumably, was God’s reward for good deeds towards the Orthodox. Jazzar was victorious, and the French troops were afflicted with the plague. Trad sealed his report by writing:

7. Economic Situation in Beirut

In the 18th, 19th centuries, Beirut underwent changes that transformed it from a peripheral town to a major port involved in international trade and finance. Many foreign or local minority merchants, particularly Greek Catholics, moved to Beirut. It had become an attractive port for these migrant merchants, precisely because it also hosted a substantial Muslim merchant community. Commercial relations as observed in Tarikh al-asaqifa cut across sectarian lines. New arrivals hoped to cooperate with, and benefit from the presence of well-established Muslim businessmen. Economic interests made collaboration among them easier especially when the prosperity of Beirut was the source of their own prosperity.

In general, the Christians in Beirut were in an ideal position to garner their share from the increase in European trade.
Despite repeated intimidation from Ottoman officials, it appears that many Orthodox families were able to amass considerable fortunes.

We gather from tarikh al-asaqifa that the most serious economic problems came from the Ottoman waly’s themselves. Pashas often entered into business ventures for their own profit; like the lucrative trade in soap we read about during the tenure of Suleiman Pasha. Others would dump products in the market to lower prices, or hoard for future gain. In times of trouble, the waly would confiscate provisions presumably to avoid shortage in essentials. Trad tells us that Muslim merchants were later reimbursed for the full value of their products, while the Christians were given a lower price, if at all.

The preferential treatment towards Muslims was not motivated by decency on the part of the walys. They were apprehensive of the reaction of the Muslim religious elite who could easily bring their complaints before the authorities in Istanbul. For the Christians to do likewise it would take much longer time and effort; many channels were not open to them. More often than not, they surrender to their fate and the will of God. They found it more profitable, perhaps less damaging, to appease their current waly than to wait for justice.

It remains to mention that Trad sporadically reports about natural calamities and fluctuations in prices during this period. He dwelled on the drought of 1817, which was particularly damaging. Prices rose to unprecedented levels to the misfortune of all communities. When the Pasha refused to extend their credit, the Orthodox of Beirut were distraught, they sold their furniture and personal jewelry, to meet these financial burdens. Many succumbed to physical ailments while others committed suicide.

8. Conclusion

In conclusion, we must keep in mind that Tarikh al-asaqifa remains Trad’s version for the reconstruction of the life of Beirut in the 18th – 19th centuries.

The author reflects with keen perception into the effect political stability had on economic prosperity. Material uncertainty dominated their lives; and corrupt dignitaries were the sources of factional hostilities and endless competition. The onerous sums extracted from the Christians drained their resources; and hostilities within the community had adverse effects on business transactions. While these reports attest to the predicament of the Christian population, they are also proof of their affluence, and the fact that they controlled most commercial activities in Beirut.

In this work, Trad also uncovered the shift in the socio-religious fabric of the merchant class in Beirut. Greek Catholics had taken over most of foreign trade. They had established their economic and administrative position in the coastal towns of southern Syria – Beirut included. Trad was however, unwilling to accept such rivalry especially from a dissident group and one he blamed for all the tribulation that befell the church of Antioch.

It is difficult to assess the amount of hostility based on sectarianism in Beirut at that time. The Muslim stand against persecution of Orthodox citizens indicates that communal relationship in Beirut often transcended sectarianism. We recognize from this chronicle that social interaction among the communities was normal. They might have prayed at different locations but otherwise they shared a common way of life.

The unique representation Trad gave of Jazzar is yet another original contribution. The author considered inter-sectarian conflict and its repercussions the main threat to his community.

In this light, a ruler can never be too strict in addressing discord. For Trad, it is a question of priorities; he was predisposed to tolerate the Pasha’s cruelty and repression as long as stability was maintained in Beirut.

Unfortunately, Trad does not demonstrate an understanding of the overall political picture. He hardly ever mentioned other groups living within close proximity. Beirut and its inhabitants seem to constitute a separate entity in the mind of the author. Political events that took place outside its confines remained of marginal importance. Focusing on Beirut, however, should not be considered a drawback. On the contrary, the material provided by the author continues to be of great value because Beirut did not constitute the principal concern for other contemporary historians.

The vehemence of his attack on the Catholics, might lead to skepticism concerning the reliability of the reports he offers about them. Impartial history, so far from being an ideal, is a downright impossibility, and the work of a historian remains an expression of his personality.

In light of his analysis of events and his search for plausible explanations of their consequences, ‘Abdullah Ibn Trad al-Bayruti can be appreciated not only as a chronicler, but another historian in 19th century Lebanon.

Courtsey: Naila Kaidbey PhD, Lecturer, American University of Beirut and Haigazian University.