a decade of crisis 59versed all of Anatolia committing highway robbery, by merely seeking favor,
became a state offi cial.”^114
Many rebellious governors alternated between working for the administra-
tion and fi ghting against it with unsettling shows of force during this period.
Repeatedly, men in state service, competing over positions and tax and property
revenue, desiring to gain more power and income, saw that the best path to
accomplish their desires was rebellion to draw attention to themselves. They
calculated that at worst they would be imprisoned and their wealth confi scated,
but then they would be reappointed elsewhere. Outlaws who aimed to legalize
their grabs for power and wealth desired to be part of the system. In the end,
many highway robbers were in fact given positions and representation in the
capital, and those who possessed positions were given better ones.^115
Karaçelebizade argued that the remedies used to cure the illnesses of cor-
ruption and rebellion caused the situation to worsen: by giving a state position
“to one with bribes several times more than he can provide, are you not giving
permission to him to loot the wealth of the commoners?” Oppression exists
when people given positions are told to hurry up and recoup their losses, when
offi cials are compelled to make up the money they used as bribes to acquire
the position in the fi rst place. Why would a vizier who was corrupt be exiled to
Anatolia? “Wasn’t that saying to him, be a rebel?” Once there he would cer-
tainly gather bandits so as not to be deprived of wealth. Furthermore, “If the
law of God and sultan demanded his execution, why did you slacken the reins
while you have him? And if not, is it permissible to compel an innocent person
[by sending him to the lawless countryside] to profi t from wicked corruption?”
The sheikhulislam’s objections were met with derision at the court by people
who claimed, “Let a rebellious vizier go wherever he goes, let him gather as
many bandits as he wishes, for he will not amount to anything, but will instead
dissolve like dust, and disappear in the massive empire.” But the religious au-
thority objected, claiming, “These measures never worked, how often were the
people in Anatolia ruined by the succession of authorities?”^116Converting the Patriarch and Putting Women in Their Place
As if all of these problems were not enough, the normally quiescent Chris-
tian population of Istanbul, and the Orthodox Christian patriarch in particu-
lar, apparently showed signs of treason and rebellion as well. Later historians
narrate how Orthodox Patriarch Parthenios III was executed in 1 657 for hisalleged crime of inciting Christians in southeastern Europe and Istanbul to
rebel against the authority of the sultan.^117 According to Nihadi, “The fi lthy one