The Greek Orthodox Community of Mytilene: Between the Ottoman Empire and the Greek State, 1876-1912 (Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies) [New ed.] 9783034309103, 9783035303674, 3034309104

Citation preview

www.peterlang.com

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies

ISBN 978-3-0343-0910-3

The Greek Orthodox Community of Mytilene

Maria Mandamadiotou holds a BA in modern Greek philology from the University of Ioannina and an MA in modern Greek history from the department of Social Anthropology and History at the Aegean University. She completed her doctorate on The Greek Orthodox community of Mytilene on the path to modernization, 1876–1912 at King’s College London. Her research interests concern the political and social history of Greece in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

5 Maria Mandamadiotou

This book focuses on the modernization of the Greek Orthodox community of Mytilene – the capital of Lesbos, an island located in the north-east Aegean – the changes it underwent, and its responses to the ever-changing political situation between 1876 and 1912. The author argues that the position of leading community members, particularly journalists, and their receptivity towards the social and political changes of the period, went hand-in-hand with their ‘ethnic’ and political aspirations for the role of the Greek Orthodox ethnos in the Empire. In relation to the competition among various ‘imperialisms’ and ‘nationalisms’ then developing around Mytilene’s Christians, the author shows that Ottoman reforms were successful in encouraging them to co-opt local interest such that concern for the growth of the specific community was directly linked to the survival of the Ottoman Empire.

Maria Mandamadiotou

The Greek Orthodox Community of Mytilene Between the Ottoman Empire and the Greek State, 1876–1912

5

Peter Lang

www.peterlang.com

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies

ISBN 978-3-0343-0910-3

The Greek Orthodox Community of Mytilene

Maria Mandamadiotou holds a BA in modern Greek philology from the University of Ioannina and an MA in modern Greek history from the department of Social Anthropology and History at the Aegean University. She completed her doctorate on The Greek Orthodox community of Mytilene on the path to modernization, 1876–1912 at King’s College London. Her research interests concern the political and social history of Greece in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

5 Maria Mandamadiotou

This book focuses on the modernization of the Greek Orthodox community of Mytilene – the capital of Lesbos, an island located in the north-east Aegean – the changes it underwent, and its responses to the ever-changing political situation between 1876 and 1912. The author argues that the position of leading community members, particularly journalists, and their receptivity towards the social and political changes of the period, went hand-in-hand with their ‘ethnic’ and political aspirations for the role of the Greek Orthodox ethnos in the Empire. In relation to the competition among various ‘imperialisms’ and ‘nationalisms’ then developing around Mytilene’s Christians, the author shows that Ottoman reforms were successful in encouraging them to co-opt local interest such that concern for the growth of the specific community was directly linked to the survival of the Ottoman Empire.

Maria Mandamadiotou

The Greek Orthodox Community of Mytilene Between the Ottoman Empire and the Greek State, 1876–1912

5

Peter Lang

The Greek Orthodox Community of Mytilene

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies Vol. 5 Edited by Andrew Louth and David Ricks

PETER LANG

Oxford • Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Wien

Maria Mandamadiotou

The Greek Orthodox Community of Mytilene Between the Ottoman Empire and the Greek State, 1876–1912

PETER LANG

Oxford • Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Wien

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche National­biblio­ grafie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Control Number: 2012953082

ISSN 1661-1187 ISBN 978-3-0343-0910-3 (print) ISBN 978-3-0353-0367-4 (eBook)

© Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, Bern 2013 Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland [email protected], www.peterlang.com, www.peterlang.net All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. Printed in Germany

For my parents

Contents

Acknowledgements ix List of  Illustrations

xi

List of  Transliterations

xiii

List of  Abbreviations

xv

List of  Tables

xvii

Prologue 1 Chapter 1

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

13

Chapter 2

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908: enthusiasm and hopes for the new regime

65

Chapter 3

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

93

Chapter 4

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

125

viii

Chapter 5

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912 177 Epilogue 219 Primary Sources

227

Bibliography 229 Index 241

Acknowledgements

My interest in Mytilene’s Ottoman past began several years ago in a postgraduate seminar on Greek history given by Spyros Karavas, Associate Professor at the Department of  Social Anthropology and History of  the Aegean University. My debts to Spyros Karavas are too many to acknowledge in this short note, since he has always been generous in providing me advice, material and support. This study is a revised version of my PhD thesis written for the Centre for Hellenic Studies of  King’s College in London. I would like to warmly thank my primary supervisor, Dr Philip Carabott and my secondary supervisor, Professor David Ricks, for their interest, support and invaluable intellectual feedback. My thanks also go to Professor Robert Holland and Dr Feroze Yasamee, the examiners of my PhD thesis; their valuable remarks followed me during the conversion of my thesis into a book. I would also like to thank everyone else who helped, in various ways, to bring this study to fruition: Metropolitan Iakovos of  Mytilene, who granted permission to study the Metropolitan Codes; Stratis Anagnostou and Niki Eleftheriadi, who, graciously, made important archival material available to me; and the late Omiros Kontoulis, who, despite his advanced age, was tireless in his ef forts to familiarize me with the Ottoman past of  Mytilene. I also received valuable assistance from the Public Library of  Mytilene, and Popi Aktzoglou in particular, who did everything in her power to assist me in my research. I am obliged to the heads and staf f of  the Historical Archive of  the Greek Ministry of  Foreign Af fairs, the Charitable Establishments (Filanthropika Katastimata) of  Mytilene, the Maughan Library at King’s College and the Aegean University Library. In addition, I am immensely grateful to Popi Polemi, historian at Benaki Museum, for her advice and assistance. Special thanks go to Erifyli Arapoglou for helping with the images and maps. Of course, Lucy Melville and her able team at Peter Lang deserve much praise. Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents for all their love, support and encouragement; I dedicate this work to them.

List of  Illustrations

Figure 1 Map of  the island of  Lesbos and the wider geographic area. (Detail from map by Emile de Laveleye, ‘The Balkan Peninsula’, London 1887. Personal collection).

xix

Figure 2 Map of  Lesbos and its mainland Asia Minor. (Detail from map by H. Kiepert, ‘Karte von Klein-Asien’, Berlin 1854. Personal collection).

xx

Figure 3 The port of  Mytilene. (Postcard of  the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. Personal collection).

14

Figure 4 Street in the commercial heart of  Mytilene named ‘Columns’. (Postcard of  the late nineteenth /early twentieth century. Personal collection).

34

Figure 5 Christians and Muslims celebrating together the proclamation of  the Constitution in the city’s waterfront in July 1908. (Photo: Fritz Mraz, available at: ).

66

Figure 6 The Greek f leet in the port of  Mytilene, 8 November 1912. The postcard’s caption mentions: ‘The Greek f leet in Mytilene the day of  the occupation’. (Personal collection).

176

Figure 7 Snapshot from the ceremony for the delivery of  Mytilene to the Greek authorities. (Postcard. Personal collection).

217

List of  Transliterations of  Greek Characters into Latin Characters1

GREEK

LATIN

GREEK

LATIN

α

a

ν

n

β

v

ξ

x

γ

g

ο

o

δ

d

π

p

ε

e

ρ

r

ζ

z

σ

s

η

i

τ

t

θ

th

υ

y

ι

i

φ

f

κ

k

χ

ch

λ

l

ψ

ps

μ

m

ω

o

αυ, ευ, ηυ

av, ev, or af, ef,

μπ

depending on pronunciation

1

b if initial mb otherwise

γκ

g if initial ng otherwise

ντ

d if initial nd or nt otherwise

γγ

ng

ου

ou

γχ

nch

spiritus asper (‘)

h

This list is borrowed from G. Mavrogordatos, Stillborn Republic. Social Coalitions and Party Strategies in Greece, 1922–1936 (Berkeley: University of  California Press, 1983), p. xxi.

List of  Abbreviations

AGYM

Archeio Gallikou Ypoproxeneiou Mytilinis [Archive of  the French viceconsulate of  Mytilene]

BECE

Board of Educational and Charitable Establishments [Eforia Filanthropikon kai Ekpaideftikon Katastimaton]

CO

Constantinople Organization [Organosis Konstantinoupoleos]

CPL

Constitutional Political League [Syntagmatikos Politikos Syndesmos]

CUP

Committee of  Union and Progress

EIE

Ethniko Idryma Erevnon [National Research Institute] (Athens)

IAYE

Istoriko Archeio Ypourgeiou Exoterikon [Historical Archive of  the Greek Ministry of  Foreign Af fairs]

MCM

Metropolitan Codes of  Mytilene [Mitropolitikoi Kodikes Mytilinis]

MFA

(Greek) Ministry of  Foreign Af fairs

PGD

Party of  Greek Deputies [Komma Ellinon Voulefton]

TLL

Teaching League of  Lesbos [Didaskalikos Syndesmos Lesvou]

List of  Tables

Table 1

Rates of increase of  the population

45

Table 2

Rates of annual increase of  the population

45

Table 3

The new generation of entrepreneurs

Table 4 The journalists/intellectuals Table 5

The election results

52–3 104–5 165

Figure 1  Map of  the island of  Lesbos and the wider geographic area.

Figure 2  Map of  Lesbos and its mainland Asia Minor.

Prologue

The changes that Europe experienced during the nineteenth century af fected the Ottoman Empire at an economic, social and political level. The European inf luence was manifested in three dif ferent but interrelated spheres: firstly, in the incorporation of a growing part of  the Ottoman economy into the international capitalist system; secondly, in European ef forts to carve up and control the Empire, while maintaining it as a distinct political entity; and finally, in the impact of ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, secularism and positivism.1 However, the Empire’s political leadership also judged it necessary to implement reforms in the course of  the nineteenth century in order to save the Ottoman state from the Serb, Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian and Albanian secessionist movements, which were active within its borders and had already led to the loss of  territory. The tribulations and insistent demands of  these national movements imposed a quest for policies liable to consolidate and legitimize the authority of  the state. Thus, it would be wrong to attribute the European-style reforms to foreign pressure alone, as they also stemmed from a genuine belief  that the only way to save the Empire was through a course of westernization and modernization. The reforms – especially those which came to be known as the Tanzimat (1839–1876) – sought to bring about the rebirth of  the Empire through the reorganization of its central authority. Reforms like the Gulhane Hatt-i Humayun (Noble Edict of  the Rose Garden) of 1839 and the Islahat Fermani (Reform Edict) of 1856 introduced legal protection for the life, honour and property of all the Sultan’s subjects, and recognized equality

1

Erik Zurcher, Turkey, a Modern History (London: I.B. Tauris, 2007 [1993]), pp. 2 and 59.

2 Prologue

before the law for all regardless of creed.2 The subsequent declaration of  the 1876 constitution and the formation of  the first Ottoman Parliament (1876–1878) were the result of a coup d’état staged by a group of politicians, the Young Ottomans (or New Ottomans), who opposed the autarchic rule of  Sultan Abdulaziz, who had sought to block the reforms.3 The Young Ottomans declared that the implementation of  liberal political principles in combination with respect for the core values of  Islamism would guarantee progress for the Ottoman state and society.4 Following the Young Ottoman coup, Abdulaziz was succeeded by his eldest son, who became Sultan Murat V. Although the new monarch was a supporter of political liberalism, his poor mental health rendered him incapable of ruling and he was soon replaced by his brother Abdulhamid II. The declaration of  the constitution of 1876 followed soon afterwards, which bestowed equal political rights on all the Empire’s subjects. However, the Russian assault on the Ottoman Empire soon led to the suspension of  the Constitution and the closure of parliament. In the years that followed (1879–1909), Abdulhamid’s reign was marked by the oppression of  his political rivals and by an attempt to press ahead with reforms designed to modernize the state. As it has been argued, Abdulhamid’s ascension to

2

3 4

On the Tanzimat, see Roderic Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–76 (New York: Gordian Press, 1973), Halil Inalcik, ‘The application of  the Tanzimat and its social ef fects’, Archivum Ottomanicum 5 (1973), pp. 97–128, Paul Dumont, ‘La periode des Tanzimat, 1839–1878’, in R. Mantran, ed., Histoire de l’ Empire Ottomane (Paris: Fayard, 1989), pp. 459–522 and Kemal Karpat, ‘The roots of  the incongruity of nation and state in the post-Ottoman era’, in B. Braude & B. Lewis, eds, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, vol. I (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1992), pp. 141– 70. For the impact of  the Tanzimat on the Greek Orthodox communities, see Sia Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919. Οι ελληνορθόδοξες κοινότητες. Από το μιλλέτ των Ρωμιών στο ελληνικό έθνος (Athens: Ellinika Grammata, 1998). On the Young Ottomans, see Serif  Mardin, The Genesis of  Young Ottoman Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962). A prominent Young Ottoman, Namik Kemal, served as governor of  Lesbos between 1879 and 1884; see below pp. 32f f. See S. Mardin, The Genesis of  Young Ottoman Thought, pp. 13f f and 81f f, Bernard Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 126f f and E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 70.

Prologue

3

the throne only typically marks the end of  the period of reforms; in reality, much of  the reform activity continued into and throughout his reign.5 The new generation of  Turkish politicians, who, from 1890 onwards, would become known as the Young Turks, consisted of army of ficers and bureaucrats. The Young Turks admired the patriotism of  the Young Ottomans, but, having lived abroad and been exposed to Western ideas, considered the installation of western European institutions the best way ahead for the modernization of  the Ottoman state.6 In reaction against Abdulhamid’s absolutist rule, the Young Turks seized power after the revolution of  July 1908, reintroducing the 1876 Constitution and calling parliamentary elections. These political upheavals, along with the reforms to the extent that they were implemented, also impacted on the Empire’s non-Muslim populations, including the Greeks. Given the absence of a Muslim urban bourgeoisie, its functions were performed, at least until 1908, by members of non-Turkish ethnic groups and primarily by Greek brokers acting on behalf of European capital.7 However, dif ferences in the extent to which the Greek populations proved receptive to the changes in the Empire led to uneven economic and

5

6 7

See Stanford Shaw & Ezel Shaw, History of  the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 172f f and E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 76f f and Halil Inalcik & Donald Quataert, eds, An economic and social history of  the Ottoman Empire, 1600–1914, vol. II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 766. For the Young Turk vision of westernization and modernization of  the Empire, see Sukru Hanioglu, The Young Turks in opposition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 7f f. On the Greeks’ economic position within the Empire, see indicatively G. Augustinos, The Greeks of  Asia Minor. Confession, Community and Ethnicity in the nineteenth century (Kent: Kent State University Press, 1992), pp. 57–74 and 122–44, K. Tsoukalas, Εξάρτηση και αναπαραγωγή. Ο κοινωνικός ρόλος των εκπαιδευτικών μηχανισμών στην Ελλάδα, 1830–1922 (Athens: Themelio, 1992), pp. 348f f and Christos Chadziiosif, ‘Issues of management, control and sovereignty in transnational banking in the Eastern Mediterranean before the First World War’, in K. Kostis, ed., Modern banking in the Balkans and West-European capital in the 19th and 20th centuries (Ashgate: Brookfield, 1999), pp. 160–77.

4 Prologue

social development and to variances in their political and ethnic visions. These issues emerged in the 1990s and remain central to the historiographical output. Many pertinent publications have convincingly demonstrated the need to examine further the Empire’s Greek Orthodox communities in their Ottoman economic and socio-political context(s), especially in the period between the Tanzimat and 1922.8 Freed from the ideological baggage of  the past, and specifically from the automatic identification of  the Ottoman Greeks’ political orientation with the Kingdom of  Greece, these works have opened the way for more fruitful lines of enquiry and have enabled interaction with the historiographies of  the other nation-states that succeeded the Ottoman Empire. In addition, quite recently, a new 8

Indicatively, see S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, Ph. Carabott, ‘The Dodecanese Question, 1912–1924’, PhD thesis (London: King’s College, 1991), Ch. Exertzoglou, Εθνική ταυτότητα στην Κωνσταντινούπολη τον 19ο αιώνα. Ο Ελληνικός Φιλολογικός Σύλλογος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως 1861–1912 (Athens: Nefeli, 1996), R. Holland & D. Markides, The British and the Hellenes. Struggles for mastery in the Eastern Mediterranean 1850–1960 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), S. Karavas, ‘Μακάριοι οι κατέχοντες την γην’. Γαιοκτητικοί σχεδιασμοί προς απαλλοτρίωση συνειδήσεων στη Μακεδονία, 1880–1909 (Athens: Vivliorama, 2010), V. Kechriotis, ‘The Greeks of  Izmir at the end of  the Empire. A non-Muslim Ottoman community between autonomy and patriotism’, PhD thesis (Leiden: University of  Leiden, 2005) and ‘Greek-Orthodox, Ottoman Greeks or just Greeks? Theories of coexistence in the aftermath of the Young Turk Revolution’, Etudes Balkaniques I (2005), P. Kitromilides, ‘“Imagined communities” and the origins of  the national question in the Balkans’, in P. Kitromilides, Enlightenment, Nationalism, Orthodoxy (Aldershot: Variorum, 1994), pp. 149–92, A. Lymberatos, Οικονομία, πολιτική και εθνική ιδεολογία. Η διαμόρφωση των εθνικών κομμάτων στην Φιλιππούπολη του 19ου αιώνα (Irakleio: Panepistimiakes Ekdoseis Kritis, 2009), P. Matalas, Έθνος και Ορθοδοξία. Οι περιπέτειες μιας σχέσης. Από το ‘ελλαδικό’ στο βουλγαρικό σχίσμα (Irakleio: Panepistimiakes Ekdoseis Kritis, 2002), M. Mazower, The Balkans (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000), E. Skopetea, Η Δύση της Ανατολής. Εικόνες από το τέλος της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας (Athens: Gnosi, 1992) and ‘Οι Έλληνες και οι εχθροί τους. Η κατάσταση του έθνους στις αρχές του εικοστού αιώνα’, in Ch. Chadziiosif, ed., Ιστορία της Ελλάδας του 20ού αιώνα. Οι απαρχές 1900–1922, vol. Ib (Athens: Vivliorama, 1999), pp. 9–35, D. Stamatopoulos, Μεταρρύθμιση και εκκοσμίκευση. Προς μια ανασύνθεση της ιστορίας του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου τον 19ο αιώνα (Athens: Alexandria, 2003) and ‘Ecumenical ideology in the Orthodox millet, 19th–20th centuries’, in L.T. Baruh & V. Kechriotis, eds, Economy and society on both shores of  the Aegean (Athens: Alpha Bank, 2010).

Prologue

5

generation of  historians has begun the process of revisiting the Ottoman legacy of other Balkan states, such as Bulgaria and Albania, with a more dispassionate eye.9 These historians have challenged the heavy emphasis on narrative tropes that attempt to depict ‘natural’ frustrated nationalist ambitions of putative Serbs, Albanians, Bulgarians or Greeks and brutal ‘Turkish’ suppression of  these ambitions. As it has been wisely underlined, ‘there is no possible justification for writing an exclusively “national” story prior to the traumas of  the 1912–1913 Balkan wars and the demise of  the Ottoman state’.10 Focusing on the local communities these works proved significant, as they revealed the complexity of  the mechanisms which moulded their members’ political and national quests. This study, which focuses on the Greek Orthodox community of  Mytilene, falls into this category. Mytilene has been the subject of  historical enquiry since local scholars first wrote about their island in the mid-nineteenth century. Their work reveals how the authors themselves perceived the history of  their time and place.11 The works on Mytilene’s Ottoman past written after 1912 are also important, and, as archive material has become available most have yielded useful information to researchers interested in local history.12 However, when these works refer to the political orientation and national aspirations of  Mytilene’s Greek Orthodox population in the period leading up to 1912, they resort to generalizations and distortions which have done little to help

9

10 11 12

Indicatively, see Isa Blumi, Rethinking the late Ottoman Empire. A Comparative Social and Political History of  Albania and Yemen, 1878–1918 (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2003) and Reinstating the Ottomans. Alternative Balkan Modernities, 1800–1912 (New York: Macmillan, 2011) and Milen Petrov, ‘Tanzimat for the countryside: Midhat Pasa and the vilayet of  Danube, 1864–1868’, PhD thesis (Princeton University, 2006). I. Blumi, Reinstating the Ottomans, pp. 5–8. On the works of  the local scholars, see M. Mandamadiotou, ‘Ιδεολογικοί προσανατολισμοί και πολιτικά προτάγματα στη Λέσβο του 19ου αιώνα’, MA thesis (Mytilene: University of  the Aegean, 2004). Indicatively, see S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου, 1462–1912. Η μετάβαση από την αγροτική συγκρότηση του χώρου στην αστική διάρθρωσή του’, PhD thesis (Mytilene: University of the Aegean, 2004), pp. 460 and 477–9 and Syndesmos Filologon Lesvou, ed., Ιστορία της Λέσβου (Mytilene, 1996), pp. 212 and 216.

6 Prologue

ef forts to understand the issues involved. That is to say that, after 1913, when Lesbos became part of  Greece, local historians retrospectively assigned to the Greek Orthodox element of  Mytilene a clear orientation towards the Greek state and a desire for union with it. They also uniformly condemn every Ottoman government as hostile to non-Muslims and to the Greek Orthodox in particular. In addition, they interpret the prosperity enjoyed by Mytilene’s Greek community during the last seventy years of  Ottoman rule on the island – a prosperity without precedent or continuation – not in the context of  the specific socio-economic and political conditions of  the Empire at that time, but in terms of  the ‘rebirth’ of a race – the Greeks – who were ready ‘to shine again after centuries of repression’. These factors make it essential to study the sources used carefully, since they have frequently been misinterpreted to chime with a Hellenocentric interpretation. The main aim of this study is to examine the process whereby the Greek Orthodox community of  Mytilene adapted to the new economic, social and – above all – political conditions then emerging in the Empire and the Balkans as a whole in the final decades of  the nineteenth century and up until 1912. In essence, mechanisms brought into play within the Greek Orthodox community from the mid-nineteenth century would gradually contribute to its economic and social transformation and shape the political demands of its members. My study will focus on Mytilene’s developing Greek community between 1876 and 1912, but especially between 1908, the year when the Young Turk movement came to the fore, and the outbreak of  the First Balkan War (autumn 1912), that would force the community to (re)consider its political stance and options. Since the main source that has survived for the period 1909–1912 is the local press, this study will attempt to reproduce the vision(s) of  the community’s journalists for the world they dreamed of at this time. Their views are of particular interests, as, from 1909 onwards, they came to comprise the main representatives and, to a considerable extent, shapers of public opinion. As the starting point of the study, the period of the reign of Abdulhamid II (1876–1909) is chosen, because it was marked by the visible social prosperity and economic growth of  the community. Essentially, the economic, social and cultural development that began on Lesbos in the mid-nineteenth century extended beyond the island, peaking during the absolutist phase of 

Prologue

7

Abdulhamid’s reign. Throughout the period between 1876 and the island’s occupation by the Greek f leet (November 1912), the islanders turned the opportunities provided by the Ottoman regime to their best advantage and made significant social and economic progress. The first chapter will argue that the people and economy of  Lesbos embarked on a process of urbanization which was largely a result of  the Tanzimat reforms. The leading upper and middle social groups13 that would manage Mytilene’s Greek community were formed during Abdulhamid’s reign. Their members would introduce a powerful system of  local selfgovernment into the Ottoman political framework as they grew aware both of  their economic power and of  their cultural distinctness. On Mytilene, the lower socio-economic groups and the majority of  Muslims, who were agrarian and poor, would remain on the fringes of  these developments. The leading Ottoman Greeks,14 particularly in the Empire’s major cities, welcomed the regime change of  July 1908 and the Young Turks’ reforms as a unique opportunity to add political power to complement their economic and social position. It was therefore the desire to join the ranks of  the politically powerful that led the leading groups of  the Mytilenean community to support the Young Turks in their ef forts to achieve their stated goal of secularizing the Empire’s institutions. It is in this light that the second chapter will interpret the enthusiasm with which the community welcomed the Young Turk regime, the persecution of  the supporters of absolutism and the contesting of church authority. The third chapter will focus on the profile(s) of  the journalists and aspects of  their activities that made them agents of social modernization at the local level. In essence, it will be argued that their views on the language issue and the attempted educational reforms were interrelated with their criticism to established practices of  the upper social groups of  the community and the Church. 13

The terms ‘upper’, ‘middle’ and ‘lower’ social groups are descriptive and used because the term ‘class’ is not quite representative of  Lesbian society-in-the-making. 14 The terms ‘Ottoman Greeks’ and ‘Greeks of  the Empire’ are used interchangeably to denote the Ottoman Greeks of  the Empire’s Asiatic provinces, including Constantinople and the north Aegean islands.

8 Prologue

Chapter 4 will examine the reception of  Young Turk policies between 1909 and 1912 by the community, chief ly through articles published in the local press. Given the Young Turk policies that favoured especially the Turks of  the Empire, it will trace the reactions of  the Ottoman Greeks, among them the Greeks of  Mytilene, who rallied further around their ‘national privileges’ and ‘rights’. The community’s relationship with the Greek ‘power bases’ – primarily the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Political League of  Constantinople and the Greek consular authorities – is examined in parallel to their stance towards government policies. Finally, Chapter 5 will focus on the geopolitical context in which the journalists of  the community envisioned themselves between 1909 and 1912, during a period in which they had already experienced hostility from the government. In particular, it will explore the line taken by the journalists when various dangers threatened the territorial integrity of the Empire and, at the same time, hindered their ‘grand dream’ for peaceful domination of  the Greeks in the East. It will be argued that their choice of  friends and enemies and the content of  the ‘national’ discourse they developed both shed light on their vision for the political present and future of Lesbos and their Ottoman homeland as a whole. The chapter will also explore the extent to which their political quests changed or remained the same over time. Having examined these issues, answers will be sought to two interlinked questions which run through the entire study: firstly, whether and to what extent the journalists of  the Mytilenean community were inf luenced by the irredentist messages sent out at intervals by the Greek state; and to what extent the journalists’ political vision for their island’s future was realistic and feasible. The whole treatment of this subject should also shed light on the relationship between the political vision of  Mytilene’s Christians and the dif ferent nationalisms then developing around them. The majority of  the primary sources relate to the capital of  Lesbos, Mytilene. It is for this reason, coupled with the fact that the city was also the island’s administrative, economic and educational centre, that Mytilene is the epicentre of  this study. Core sources include the records of  the island’s Metropolitan church (Metropolitan Codes of  Mytilene, MCM) (Mitropolitikoi Kodikes Mytilinis), the archive of  Mytilene’s Board of  Educational and Charitable Establishments (BECE) (Eforia Filanthropikon kai Ekpaideftikon Katastimaton), the archives of  Mytilene’s Greek and

Prologue

9

French consulates, and private documents from and relating to members of  the island’s leading groups.15 From the above sources, particularly useful proved the Metropolitan Codes and the BECE archive to highlight issues of organization and administration of  the community. Although they do not of fer a thorough view of  the Christian community, they provide valuable information about the relationship between the local Christian authorities and the Ottoman administration. In addition, the records of  the Greek and French vice-consulates proved illuminating for the political claims of  the two states in regard to the local community and, conversely, the perception of  these claims by the community’s members. For the period 1909–1912, answers to the issues in question have been sought mainly in the local press.16 The study draws primarily on the political newspapers – the content as well as the verse format of  the satirical publications make them best suited to serving as supplementary sources – and Salpinx in particular, a newspaper read across the entire island for which, moreover, copies of most issues have survived.17 It also draws on the island’s other political newspaper, the Laϊkos Agon, which, even though it appeared much later (towards the end of 1911), still covers the whole of 1912 and its crucial events: the parliamentary elections and the political upheavals across the Balkans which would lead to the outbreak of the First Balkan War, which in turn would radically impact on the lives and future of  the people of  Lesbos, both Christian and Muslim. 15

Unless otherwise stated, all dates from primary sources are according to the Julian calendar. 16 The Mytilinios, a weekly political/satirical newspaper written in verse, was the first to appear on 11/3/1909. This was followed shortly afterwards on 15/3/1909 by the Salpinx, a three-weekly political newspaper; the Skorpios, a weekly satirical paper (20/9/1909); the Lesvos, a three-weekly paper dedicated to ‘politics, literature and current af fairs’ (04/5/1911); the Laϊkos Agon, a weekly political paper on 4/12/1911 and the fortnightly literary magazine, Charavgi (15/10/1910). Other titles must have been published during this period. We know of: Embros (1909–?), Morfosis (1910–?, three issues), Skrip (15/08/1911–?/?/1911, thirteen issues) and Strik-Strak (1912–1913). All are referenced by A. Platon, but no issues have yet come to light; A. Platon, ‘Η ιστορία της λεσβιακής δημοσιογραφίας’, Mytilene IV (1991), p. 197. 17 No issues of  the Salpinx have come to light between 16 March 1911 and 2 February 1912. However, very few other issues are missing.

10 Prologue

The few scattered, surviving issues of  the Lesvos found in Mytilene’s public library have been also used, as was the Charavgi which, though literary in focus, did contain a number of articles relevant to the subject at hand, including a column titled ‘fortnightly’ featuring news of relevance to local intellectuals and detailing the interests and activities of  the island’s intelligentsia. Unfortunately, no data on print-runs and circulation numbers of  the local papers are available. However, the papers’ longevity and increasing frequency of circulation reveal the impact of  these newspapers on a reading public that was willing to support the journalists’ ef forts. For instance, the Laïkos Agon started out as a weekly political newspaper on 4 December 1911, but started to appear three times weekly on 18 April 1912 and every day on 19 October 1912. In addition, the Salpinx started out as a three-weekly paper and started to appear four times weekly on 14 July 1912, ‘thanks to the warm support of its subscribers’.18 In 1908, the local press had not yet appeared; in addition, no other local sources provide suf ficient information for the year of  the Young Turk revolt and the first parliamentary elections. Thus, for data on 1908, I turned to the Amalthia, a Greek newspaper published in Smyrna, which often contained articles pertaining to Lesbos, and the Ekklisiastiki Alithia, the of ficial organ of  the Ecumenical Patriarchate published in Constantinople. Two Turkish newspapers were also published on the island during 1911–1912: the Vatan and the Yeni Havadis. That both continued to be published, in all likelihood, after 1912, when they were joined by the periodical Esek (1913) and the newspaper Midilli (1921–1922) indicate the existence of a literate Muslim community on the island after its absorption into Greece. Unfortunately, no copies of  these publications has as yet come to light; indeed, we do not even know who published them, making it impossible to draw additional data from them that might shed light on the subjects under examination from the perspective of  the island’s Muslim population. Moreover, no Ottoman sources on Mytilene have come to light; however, a future research in the Ottoman archives of  the Turkish state would possibly be helpful and enlightening. 18 See Salpinx 14–7–1912 and Laїkos Agon, no 90, 19–10–1912.

Prologue

11

Thus, this study draws its material from the discourse developed largely by journalist circles within Mytilene’s Greek Orthodox community and on accounts of its leading members, because it is their voice that is preserved in the surviving sources from the period. The absence of sources representative of  the local Muslims and the lower socio-economic groups, Christian and Muslim, makes it hard to draw conclusions about these groups’ desires and the issues that moved them. Whatever we know about them must, by necessity, be drawn from indirect sources and largely from the press.

Chapter 1

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

In the present chapter, an outline of  the administrative, economic and social structure of  the Christian community of  Mytilene is deemed necessary for an understanding of its socio-economic attributes and, more to the point, of  the way its elite groups emerged and responded to the socio-political and economic environment between the start of  the reign of  Abdulhamid II (1876) and the eve of  the Young Turk revolt of  July 1908. Section 1 examines the communal system of administration by focusing on the kaza [district] of  Mytilene, which was administered from the town of  Mytilene. It will focus on the main bodies responsible for administering the community: the dimogerontia, the board that managed the educational and charitable institutions (BECE), and the Church. Section 2 traces the expansion of the Orthodox Greeks’ financial activities, which led to substantial economic prosperity. In turn, this prosperity triggered considerable social mobility, which is ref lected in the emergence of  the upper and middle social groups, which undertook leading roles in the economic, administrative and social life of  the island. Section 3 examines the ef forts made by these leading groups to establish an extensive and well-organized educational network. Finally, section 4 will focus on the aspirations of  the middle layers, in particular, and their ef forts to acquire a role in the administration of  the community – ef forts which would set mechanisms of change in motion on a local level.

14

Chapter 1

Figure 3  The port of  Mytilene

Administration and the ‘old’ communal poles of authority: the Dimogerontia, the Board of  Educational and Charitable Establishments (BECE) and the Church Located in the north-east Aegean, the island of  Lesbos1 was incorporated into the expanding Ottoman Empire in September 1462 when, following a deal between its Greek Orthodox notables and the Ottomans, the last Genoese ruler Nicola Gattelusi handed over the keys of  the capital’s fortress

1

The island was given as a dowry to Francisco Gattelusi by the emperor Ioannis Paleologos V in 1355; see Giannis Delis, Οι Γατελούζοι εν Λέσβω, 1355–1462 (Mytilene: Entelecheia, 1997 [1901]), p. 28.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

15

to Mehmet Pasha.2 It is hard to verify the demographic data of  the island from contemporary sources, since the Ottoman censuses and works by local scholars provide a rather sketchy picture.3 However, it is obvious that the Greek Orthodox element would remain predominant on the island. Only in the capital would the Muslim element constitute a majority and only until the mid-nineteenth century. By the final years of  Ottoman rule, Mytilene’s population had reached 25,000; most were Orthodox Greeks, though there was still a significant proportion of  Muslims.4 At the time, Muslims accounted for some 10–15 per cent of  the population, and lived mainly in Mytilene town and the western part of  the island.5 The large 2

3

4 5

Lesbian historians attribute the island’s unforced surrender to the Ottomans to the indif ference of its last Genoese ruler, who ‘did not present himself in the midst of  the besieged to rekindle their love for the motherland and encourage them to fight’; G. Delis, Οι Γατελούζοι εν Λέσβω, p. 65. See also Stavrakis Anagnostis, Λεσβιάς ωδή ή ιστορικόν εγκώμιον της νήσου Λέσβου, p. 46. Kemal Karpat refers to three of ficial censuses that were conducted in the province of  the Aegean in 1830–1831, 1881–1893 and 1907 respectively; K. Karpat, Ottoman population, 1830–1914. Demographic and social characteristics (London: The University of  Wisconsin Press, 1985), pp. 18–35. Mehmed Tevfik Bey, the assistant governor of  the province of  the Aegean Archipelago, records 94,528 inhabitants, of whom 13,559 were Muslims, in his memorandum of 1891; see Martin Strohmeier, ‘Mehmed Tevfik Bey, companion and collaborator of  Namik Kemal during his years in the Aegean province’, Archivum Ottomanicum 23 (2005/06), p. 281. An article in the Salpinx notes that the population of  Lesbos consisted of  ‘125,753 Christians, 14,476 Turks and 320 foreigners […] based on an of ficial government census’; Salpinx, 24–5–1912. In addition, Major N. Spyropoulos records ‘17,476 Turks, 115,753 Greeks and 491 Jews’ in the early post-Balkan War years; N. Spyropoulos, ‘Στατιστικοί πίνακες του πληθυσμού κατ’ εθνικότητας της Ελλάδος, της Βουλγαρίας, της Σερβίας, της Αλβανίας και των Δωδεκανήσων’, unpublished report to the Greek War Of fice, 1917, appendix, table III. See P. Paraskevaïdis, Οι περιηγητές για τη Λέσβο (Mytilene: Doukas, 1996), pp. 154 and 159. Lesbos had a larger proportion of  Muslims up to and including 1912 than other islands in the Archipelago province (Rhodes, Chios and Lemnos); see Spyros Karavas, ‘Η Λέσβος τον 19ο αιώνα: Δημογραφικές παρατηρήσεις’, in Stavros T[axis], Συνοπτική ιστορία της Λέσβου και τοπογραφία αυτής (Mytilene: Aegean University, 1996. Major N. Spyropoulos in his confidential report to the Greek War Of fice, maintains that

16

Chapter 1

number of  Muslims on the island was mainly the result of  Islamization, which sometimes occurred on the scale of entire Christian villages seeking to lighten their taxation burden. A small number of  Armenians, French and Jews also lived in Mytilene town, but without constituting distinct communities.6 A source refers to there being 3,250 Greek nationals on the island in 1897, most also residing in Mytilene town.7 The establishment of a Greek vice-consulate on the island in 1834 is indicative of  the Greek state’s concern to protect its citizens, and of its interest in an island with a predominant Greek Orthodox element.8 Vice-consulates were maintained in Mytilene by other states, too, including Russia, Britain, France, Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Italy, primarily to protect their respective subjects, but also to promote their economic and political interests in the North-East Aegean.9

6

7 8

9

Muslims comprised 15 per cent of  the island’s total population in the early years of  Greek rule; N. Spyropoulos, ‘Στατιστικοί πίνακες του πληθυσμού κατ’ εθνικότητας’, appendix, table III. Aristidis Stergellis mentions a neighbourhood in the Kioski area of  Mytilene in the 1830s which was called the ‘Frankish Quarter’, while Evridiki Sifneou speaks of 690 Catholics in Mytilene town, 40 in Molyvos and 31 in Plomari in 1890; see A. Stergellis, ‘Καθολικισμός και γαλλική δράση στη Μυτιλήνη στις αρχές του αιώνα’, Lesviaka XII, 1989, p. 324 and E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, 1840–1912 (Athens: Trochalia, 1996), p. 60. An Armenian community with 1,100–1,300 members appears to have established itself on Lesbos after 1922; see Lazaros Kerevanian, ‘Η κοινότητα των Αρμενίων στη Λέσβο’, Lesviako Imerologio 2004, pp. 381–2. E. Sifneou, ‘Από τη μουσουλμανική στη χριστιανική πόλη. Η δυναμική των μεταβολών της πόλης της Μυτιλήνης στην ύστερη φάση της Τουρκοκρατίας, 1840–1912’ (Athens: Etaireia Meletis Neou Ellinismou-Mnimon, 2000), p. 392. According to Ch. Kardaras, the reason that led Athens to be interested in establishing a vice-consulate in the island so early was ‘the considerable size of  the Greek population there and the increasing rate of economic and commercial growth’; Ch. Kardaras, ‘Η ίδρυση του υποπροξενείου της Μυτιλήνης, 1834–1846’, Lesviaka XIV (1992), p. 90. Georgios Archontopoulos, Λέσβος ή Μυτιλήνη, ήτοι συνοπτική ιστορία πασών των πόλεων, κωμοπόλεων και χωρίων (Mytilene: Nikolaïdis, 1894), p. 31.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

17

In fact, Ottoman domination brought the relatively peaceful and prosperous period the island had enjoyed under Gattelusi’s rule to an end.10 It would not be until the late eighteenth century that the economic situation would be redressed somewhat, and certain educational ef forts would be made which resulted in the growth of  the island’s Orthodox and Muslim communities. These developments were mainly due to the Capitulations and the Treaty of  Kucuk-Kaynarca (1774), both of which were of particular benefit to the Empire’s Orthodox populations.11 Crucially, these developments were not af fected by the Greek War of  Independence. The non participation of  Lesbos in the revolutionary events prevented major social ruptures and allowed the island to embark earlier on the urban transformations of  the nineteenth century.12 In fact, lying very close to the Asia Minor coast and the Dardanelles and being rich in natural resources, Lesbos came to acquire strategic and economic significance. It is no coincidence that, due to its significant amounts of olive oil and soap it produced and the thousands of  Turkish liras it contributed annually in taxes, the island was called the ‘golden isle’ by the Ottomans.13 In the first two centuries of  Ottoman rule, all authority over the Aegean islands was vested in the Captain-Pasha of  the Ottoman f leet. At the beginning of  the eighteenth century, the Pasha was replaced by the Vali 10 11

12 13

P. Samaras, ‘Η Μυτιλήνη στον ΙΘ΄ αιώνα, ιστορικά-τοπογραφικά’, Lesviaka III (1959), pp. 3–4 and P. Paraskevaïdis, Η Λέσβος κατά την Τουρκοκρατία. Οι αιώνες της ανάκαμψης, 17ος–18ος (Mytilene: Doukas, 2001), p. 43. The treaty of  Kucuk-Kaynarca was especially favourable for Russia and the Empire’s Greek Orthodox populations. After the opening of  the Black Sea to Russian ships, it was Greek ship-owners f lying the Russian f lag who took over the Black Sea trade; see E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 21. According to P. Paraskevaïdis, the first signs of a gradual economic, social and educational evolution of  the population of  Lesbos – and its Orthodox members, in particular – were evident during this period; P. Paraskevaïdis, Η Λέσβος κατά την Τουρκοκρατία, p. 51f f. P. Argyris, ‘Λέσβος: από την κατάκτηση (1462) στη σύγχρονη εποχή’, in Λέσβος η Αιολική (Athens: Asterismos, 1995), p. 47. S. Anagnostis, Λεσβιάς ωδή, p. 52; M. Michaïlidis, Λεσβιακαί Σελίδες, vol. II (Mytilene: Trivolos, 1939), pp. 19–20; P. Samaras, ‘Η Μυτιλήνη στον ΙΘ΄ αιώνα’, p. 10; G. Sariyildiz, ‘The soap production of Lesbos’ in P. Kitromilides & P. Michaïlaris, eds, Μυτιλήνη και Αϊβαλί. Μία αμφίδρομη σχέση στο βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο (Athens, EIE, 2007), p. 237.

18

Chapter 1

(governor of a province), who was answerable to the governor-general in Chios. Lesbos was a sancak of  the Aegean vilayet/province, which consisted of  the islands of  Rhodes, Chios, Lemnos, Lesbos and Moschonisia (Cunda). Under the iltizam (tax farming) budgetary system implemented to obtain tax revenues, until the mid-nineteenth century the governor (nazir or mutasarrif) of  the island was the beneficiary of any lifetime tax farms (malikanes), and a life tenure contractor charged with collecting the Porte’s revenues.14 In the iltizam system, the right to collect taxes was auctioned of f  by the state and bought and paid for in advance by the local governor (nazir). This system had many advantages for the central government: its income was assured, it was no longer dependent on the success of  the harvest, and it was prepaid. For the Christian peasants, the main disadvantage was that the tax-farmer, the nazir, would want to see a return on his investment, which increased the burden on the peasants. At the community level, the Elders were responsible for collecting taxes and returning them to the nazir to whom all local authorities, Christian and Muslim, answered. The nazir appointed the vice-governors of  the island’s districts (kaza) and was also vested with judicial powers; vice-governors (kaymakams) of  the kazas had analogous, though comparatively limited, powers.15 These administrative and financial arrangements began to change in the 1840s when the nazir, as well as the kaymakam, were directly appointed and paid by the Porte. The abolition of  the iltizam system and the decoupling of  tax collection competencies from the nazir’s of fice brought decades of  local arbitrariness in the exercise of  the of fice to an end.16

E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 19. Fotios Dimos-Paroditis, Ιστορία της τουρκοκρατούμενης Λέσβου, 1462–1770, vol. I (Mytilene: Tsivilis, 1931), pp. 29–32 and P. Argyris, ‘Λέσβος: από την κατάκτηση στη σύγχρονη εποχή’, pp. 38f f. 16 P. Argyris, ‘Λέσβος: από την κατάκτηση στη σύγχρονη εποχή’, pp.  38f f and S. Anagnostou, Ο ελληνοτουρκικός πόλεμος του 1897 και ο αντίκτυπός του στη Λέσβο (Mytilene: poreia, 1997), pp. 14–15. For a list of  the island’s governors 1833–1912, see S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου, 1462–1912. Η μετάβαση από την αγροτική συγκρότηση του χώρου στην αστική διάρθρωσή του’, pp. 291–2. 14 15

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

19

Until the end of  the 1860s, the province of  Lesbos was comprised of  three kazas (Mytilene/Midilli, Kalloni/Kalonya, and Molyvos/Molova),17 each with its own vice-governor (kaymakam).18 Another two would later be added – Moschonisia19 in 1868 and Sigri in 1893 – while the kaza of  Kalloni was replaced by that of  Plomari in 1879. The island’s economic and administrative centres were its many head villages which, served as nodes for surrounding smaller villages and hamlets, naturally became the headquarters of  the nahiye (subdivision of  the kaza in the vilayet organization). The head of  the nahiye, the mudur, had administrative and lawenforcing powers.20 In addition, every village had a headman, the muhtar, who answered to the mudur.21 Until the mid-nineteenth century, the Greek Orthodox communities of  Lesbos were organized into local parishes administered by the dimogerontes (council of elders) under the authority of  two metropolitans, the metropolitan of  Mytilene and the metropolitan of  Mithymna, who were appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.22 Like other areas in the Empire, on Lesbos the millet system ‘did not consist of  “nationwide” autonomous bodies headed by the [Ecumenical] Patriarch in Constantinople, but of  local communities with a certain measure of autonomy vis-à-vis the local

G. Αristidis, Τετραλογία πανηγυρική (Mytilene: Petras, 1999 [1863]), p. 153. S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, pp. 287–8. The Moschonisia (Cunda) are the small islands of f  Lesbos’ north-eastern coast, very close to the coast of Kydonies (Ayvalik) in Asia Minor. In the early 1890s, Moschonisia had a population of 7,000; G. Archontopoulos, Λέσβος ή Μυτιλήνη, p. 20. 20 G. Aristidis, Τετραλογία πανηγυρική, p. 153 and S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, p. 288. 21 Cf. Ch. Papastathis, Οι κανονισμοί των Ορθόδοξων ελληνικών κοινοτήτων του οθωμανικού κράτους και της διασποράς, vol. I (Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis, 1984), pp. 55–6. On the muhtars, see also Aristarchi Bey, Legislation ottomane (Constantinople: Nikolaïdis, 1874), p.  176 and A. Karadimou-Gerolymbou, Μεταξύ Ανατολής και Δύσης. Βορειοελλαδικές πόλεις στην περίοδο των οθωμανικών μεταρρυθμίσεων (Athens: Trochalia, 1997), p. 30. 22 Iakovos (Metropolitan), ‘Τα φιλανθρωπικά καταστήματα Μυτιλήνης και το Βοστάνειον Ιερόν Γενικόν Νοσοκομείον’, Lesviaka VIII (1982–1983), pp. 5f f. 17 18 19

20

Chapter 1

representatives of  the government’.23 However, from the period of  the Tanzimat (1839–1876) onwards, and during the reign of  Abdulhamid II (1876–1909), the creation of a reliable, secular system of administration for non-Muslim communities became a priority for the Ottoman state. New measures were introduced following pressure applied on the Sultan by the Great Powers in the aftermath of  the Crimean War to concede more administrative and economic responsibilities to the lay members of  the millet.24 Τhe Sultan granted the concession of responsibilities to the laity, since such a move was bound to bring together local elites whose loyalty to him would be guaranteed by the fact that he was the source of  their authority and existence. In essence, this policy led to the curbing of  the authority of  the Orthodox Church and local Ottoman governors.25 It was in this context that some of  the civil, financial and judicial functions of  the mutasarrif and the local Church authorities were transferred after 1845 to a local mixed council (meclis), in which the non-Muslims were represented.26 As it has been pointed out, this system constituted ‘an intelligent attempt at combining centralization with decentralization, balancing of ficials appointed from Istanbul with representatives of  the local population’.27 The British vice-consul in Mytilene, Charles Roboly, mentions in a report of 1858 that the meclis of  Lesbos consisted of  the kadi (a Muslim judge), the mufti (a Muslim jurist or juriconsult), the Orthodox metropolitan, the Muslim governor and six lay members: three from the Christian 23 E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 10. 24 Cf. Ch. Papastathis, Οι κανονισμοί των Ορθόδοξων ελληνικών κοινοτήτων του οθωμανικού κράτους και της διασποράς, pp. 21f f. 25 D. Stamatopoulos, Μεταρρύθμιση και εκκοσμίκευση, pp. 20 and 35f f ; E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 63; S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, pp. 282–3; A. Panayotopoulos, ‘On the economic activities of  the Anatolian Greeks, mid 19th century to early 20th’, Deltio Kentrou Mikrasiatikon Spoudon IV (1983), pp. 87–8. 26 On the implementation of  the meclis system in the provinces of  the Empire, see R. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–76, pp. 48–9. Also, see D. Stamatopoulos, Μεταρρύθμιση και εκκοσμίκευση, p. 36 and Ch. Papastathis, Οι κανονισμοί των Ορθόδοξων ελληνικών κοινοτήτων του οθωμανικού κράτους και της διασποράς, pp. 66–7. 27 R. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–76, p. 48.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

21

and three from the Muslim community.28 According to the account of  the teacher and scholar Georgios Aristidis, the council discussed civil, economic and legal issues of relevance to the entire island, despite the fact that similar councils also existed in the island’s other kazas, as well as in the nahiye of each kaza.29 Christian and Muslim lay members also participated in the local courts. Specifically, there were three active courts in Mytilene town in 1887: the Court of  First Instance (Politikon), the Penal court (Poinikon) and the Commercial Tribunal (Emporodikeion), each with two lay members from the Christian and two from the Muslim community. Courts of  First Instance also existed in Agiasos, Gera, Mandamados, Plomari, Polichnitos, Kalloni, Molyvos and Eresos.30 In addition to the participation of  lay members in mixed councils and courts, in the aftermath of  the administrative reforms of 1840, the Empire’s Greek Orthodox communities were administered by the councils of elders (dimogeronties). It should be noted that the system of governance for these communities was not applied in exactly the same way in all the provinces of  the Ottoman Empire, due to the varying financial conditions and power relations between the rulers and the ruled in dif ferent regions.31 On Lesbos, every Christian and Muslim community could elect its own council of elders from the Tanzimat era onwards. As regards the Christian communities, the institutionalization of a voting procedure for electing the dimogerontes was seen by contemporary local scholars as one of  the positive consequences 28 29 30 31

S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου, 1462–1912’, pp. 446–7. G. Aristidis, Τετραλογία πανηγυρική, p. 154; G. Archontopoulos, Λέσβος ή Μυτιλήνη, pp. 30–1; F. Dimos-Paroditis, Ιστορία της τουρκοκρατούμενης Λέσβου, 1826–1912, vol. III, p. 131. G. Archontopoulos, Λέσβος ή Μυτιλήνη, pp. 30–1; S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, pp. 449–50. The Dodecanese, which constituted part of  the Aegean province, is a case in point. Although some degree of autonomy was granted by the Ottomans to the majority of  the islands, Cos and Rhodes were exempt and administered under a dif ferent regime. The reasons for this exemption lie in the fact that the two islands did not surrender to the Ottomans without resistance, and that they were of greater economic and strategic importance than the other islands; see Ph. Carabott, ‘The Dodecanese Question 1912–1924’, pp. 11f f.

22

Chapter 1

of  the Tanzimat, especially when compared to the practices that had been in place previously; as Georgios Aristidis put it in 1863, [the Tanzimat] granted the Christians the right to participate in communal elections, to have a say over the acts of  the dimogerontes, who were men of  Christian faith just like them, and should they discover abuses in the management of  their communal af fairs, to relieve them of  their authority and replace them with others – a practice hard or impossible to even imagine before, when communal administration was in the hands of a restricted number of  families tied by blood or marriage.32

However, these positive features of  the measure in question would reach their limits, as will be shown below in this chapter, towards the end of  the nineteenth century, when it became obvious that certain social groups were, in practice, excluded from the voting procedure. As the majority of  the extant sources refer to the communal af fairs of  the Ottoman Greeks in Mytilene, the island’s capital, which was also the seat of  the majority of  local authorities, Christian and Muslim alike, the homonymous kaza will constitute the subject of my analysis. Like other cities in the Empire, Mytilene town grew considerably between 1840 and 1890.33 The town’s religious and dual Muslim and Christian nature are ref lected in its layout around six mosques and six churches.34 The two factors that made Mytilene town the largest town in the Aegean in population terms, and the most prosperous in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, were its links with mainland Asia Minor and the peaceful relations between its Christian and Muslim inhabitants. In addition, the administrative reforms of  the 1860s played an important role in the rebuilding and reshaping of  the town by granting concessions to community self-rule and

G. Aristidis, Τετραλογία πανηγυρική, pp. 157–8. On the administrative reforms that impacted on the organization and functioning of  Ottoman cities, see R. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–76, S. Shaw & E. Shaw, History of  the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey and A. KaradimouGerolymbou, Μεταξύ Ανατολής και Δύσης. 34 For more on the dual – Muslim and Christian – nature of  Mytilene town and the layout of its urban fabric, see E. Sifneou, ‘Από τη μουσουλμανική στη χριστιανική πόλη’, pp. 393f f. 32 33

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

23

introducing the of fice of  the mayor, who was charged with regulating the town’s af fairs in the Western manner.35 Thus, the ‘dirty village’ of 10,000 inhabitants that the British traveller Charles Newton visited in 1852 had, by 1874, been transformed into ‘one of  the most elegant small cities in Turkey’. By 1880, Mytilene was one of  the most important ports in the Ottoman Εmpire after Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Smyrna, Beirut and Trepizond.36 As its energetic mayor, the merchant/industrialist Konstantinos Kavetsos played an important role in the reinvention of  the city. In fact, during his eight years in of fice (1899–1907), Kavetsos created a municipal park, a paved seafront promenade and a market, and solved the town centre’s water supply and lighting problems.37 However, the mayoral of fice would lose some of its impetus during the term of  his successor, V. Vasileiou (1908–1912).38 Of course, Mytilene’s communal af fairs were principally the remit of  two decision-making bodies which operated in close collaboration: the Board of  Educational and Charitable Establishments (BECE) and the Dimogerontia (Council of  Elders).39 A seat on both bodies was honorary, and thus unpaid. Following a proposal made by Metropolitan Kallinikos, the BECE was established in 1844 and its members undertook to administer the schools in the kaza of  Mytilene.40 The twelve members of  the BECE

The institution of  the Dimarchia was established in the provinces of  the Ottoman Empire in 1868. The mayors (dimarchoi) were originally appointed by the Porte, but were elected locally from 1877 onwards. In Mytilene, the institution was probably introduced in 1869. See S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, pp. 315–16, where the names of  the mayors of  the town for 1869–1914 are listed. 36 E. Sifneou, ‘Από τη μουσουλμανική στη χριστιανική πόλη’, p. 389. 37 Ibid., p. 409. 38 Ibid. Complaints about V. Vasileiou were also published in the local Press; see Laϊkos Agon, no 6, 15–1–1912 and no 72, 19–8–1912. 39 Metropolitan Codes of  Mytilene (MCM), code V: Proceedings of 13 June 1878, article viii, and regulation of 27 April 1908. Also, see MCM, code V: ‘Kanonismos tis Orthodoxou Christianikis Koinotitos Mytilinis 1908’. 40 A nascent precursor of  the BECE, was the so-called ‘Charitable Establishments of  Mytilene’, a charitable body under the purview of  the Church, whose existence dates to the late seventeenth century; Iakovos, ‘Τα φιλανθρωπικά καταστήματα Μυτιλήνης και το Βοστάνειον Ιερόν Γενικόν Νοσοκομείον’, pp. 5–6 and 20. 35

24

Chapter 1

were elected biannually by male Orthodox Greek members of  the kaza who contributed more than 100 grosia to its treasury per annum; candidates had to contribute 200 grosia or more.41 The BECE’s activities as a charitable and educational body focused on the administration of  the town’s hospital and the management of  the kaza’s educational establishments. It assumed the financial burden for constructing school buildings and appointing and remunerating teachers and employees, covering its expenses through the levying of a municipal tax on the Ottoman Greeks, which was set by the dimogerontia, and through donations and endowments made by rich members of  the community.42 It provided free hospitalization and care to the underprivileged, Christian and Muslim alike, and financial aid to needy members of  the community, as well as undertaking the upbringing of abandoned children born out of wedlock. However, its involvement in education was not limited to securing funds for the operation of  the schools and to appointing lay teachers; according to the first two internal regulations (Kanonismos) of  the Gymnasium (High School) of  Mytilene (1848 and 1864), the members of  the Board, the ephors, were responsible for supervising education, which was provided free of charge from 1878 onwards.43 They also maintained the right to observe teaching procedures at any time they deemed appropriate, and to express opinions concerning the teachers’ scientific and pedagogical training.44 After 1879, the BECE was also responsible for monitoring students’ extramural behaviour beyond the gymnasium itself, appointing a special employee (the eftaxias) for this task.45 The important educational, charitable and other social work carried out by the BECE was supported by the dimogerontia, the unchallenged higher

41 MCM, code V: Proceedings of 4 June 1878 and 15 May 1892. 42 Archive of  the BECE (ABECE), 34.212: ‘Ektheseis Filanthropikon Katastimaton Mytilinis 1877–1893’ (henceforth cited as Reports), 20 and passim. 43 D. Mantos, Λεσβιακή παιδεία και πνευματική ζωή την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας, 1462– 1840 (Mytilene: Doukas, 2004), p. 232. 44 P. Samaras, Η εκπαίδευση στη Λέσβο από τα χρόνια της σκλαβιάς (Mytilene: Marzelos, 1948), pp. 25–6 and 37; also, see MCM, code V: Proceedings of 13 June 1878 and 27 April 1908. 45 Reports, p. 67.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

25

authority of  the community. The twelve dimogerontes46 apportioned the amount of  taxes to be paid to the mutasarrif 47 and the local metropolitan,48 and were members of a council of church wardens (epitropoi), which took care of  the maintenance of religious buildings and the administration of  the church’s secular af fairs. In addition, the dimogerontes were responsible for the operation of  the ecclesiastical court, which could handle questions of a non-religious nature arising among the members of  the community. According to the rules governing the dimogerontia introduced in 1908, this court handled ‘all the af fairs which fall under its jurisdiction, according to the privileges granted to our nation (genos) […] in compliance with the procedural instructions of  the Patriarchate and the provisions laid by Roman law’.49 In other words, the dimogerontes exercised administrative, financial and legal functions in addition to supervising the BECE’s educational and charitable work. In fact, the members of  the BECE presented a yearly report to the dimogerontia, which in turn appointed a three-member committee to audit the BECE’s accounts.50 In an article that appeared in a local periodical, the Pittakos, it is maintained that on the occasion of  the election of  the BECE members in 1878, the liberal group, including the nobility, resented the absolute dependence of  the Board [BECE] on the dimogerontia, whereas the other group, which professed the defence of  the people’s (laos) interests, resisted the innovation in question, and demanded that the dimogerontes be consulted by the BECE before every decision.51 46 From 1883 onwards the members of  the dimogerontia were reduced to eight; MCM, code V: Proceedings of 1 December 1883. 47 For the taxes that the Christian community paid to the Ottoman authorities during the period under consideration, see S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, pp. 338–40. 48 The dimogerontes collected annual subsidies, the so-called despotika, from the community on behalf of  the Metropolitan of  Mytilene; F. Dimos-Paroditis, Ιστορία της τουρκοκρατούμενης Λέσβου, 1826–1912, p. 129 and P. Argyris, Λέσβος: από την κατάκτηση στη σύγχρονη εποχή, p. 49. 49 ΜCM, code V: ‘Kanonismos tis Orthodoxou Christianikis Koinotitos Mytilinis 1908’. 50 Indicatively, see ΜCM, code V: Proceedings of 21 June 1906. 51 Cited in S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, pp. 311–12.

26

Chapter 1

It is certain that the BECE collaborated closely with – and was under the direct supervision of – the dimogerontia until 1912. Still, the above passage is indicative both of  the rivalry that existed between the members of  the BECE and the dimogerontia, and of  the social make-up of  both bodies. However, it should be noted that the ephoria was the privileged sphere of  the island’s upper social layers, while it was easier for members of  the middle layers to gain access to the dimogerontia. As has already been stated, only community members who contributed more than 100 grosia annually to the treasury of  the BECE were granted the right to vote in the election for the ephors, whereas only those who contributed 200 grosia or more were deemed eligible for election. As regards the election of  the members of  the dimogerontia, it is known that in 1863, only male Ottoman Greeks who paid an annual land tax of 200 grosia or more could vote,52 whereas the amount was raised to 250 grosia or more between 1864 and 1867.53 It can thus be deduced that in the elections of 1864, only 3.76 per cent of  the population of  the kaza qualified as electors, while the ratio was 4.97 per cent ten years later.54 However, this would slowly change, at least in relation to the portion of  the population that took part in the elections for the dimogerontia. Specifically, the situation seems to have changed in spring 1908, when the community reduced the minimum tax contribution to take part in the election procedure for the dimogerontia to 50 grosia per annum; naturally, the number of voters rose. The minimum candidacy requirement was simultaneously reduced to 100 grosia.55 With regard, too, to the BECE, in 1908 voting rights were restricted to those paying a minimum of 50 grosia in tax per year, which means that lower-income groups had now the right to vote.56 However, the right to be elected to the BECE remained the preserve of  the upper social layers – specifically, those who paid 200 grosia or more in tax. Obviously, 52 53 54 55 56

G. Aristidis, Τετραλογία πανηγυρική, p. 155. S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, p. 308. Ibid., pp. 309–10. MCM, code V: Regulation of 27 April 1908 and ‘Kanonismos tis Orthodoxou Christianikis Koinotitos Mytilinis 1908’, articles 4 and 5. See MCM, code V: Proceedings of 4 June 1878 and 15 May 1892.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

27

in the period under consideration, participation in the election procedure for the two decision-making bodies, the dimogerontia and the BECE, was not a right enjoyed by all. To elect or to be elected, to participate in the local decision-making representative bodies, was a right restricted to the upper and middle socio-economic groups of  the community; the lower groups were explicitly excluded.57 The dimogerontia and the BECE governed the community of  Mytilene in close cooperation with the Metropolitan of  the kaza, who was their permanent president.58 The Metropolitan would often serve as a middleman between the two bodies, or between the community and the Ottoman governor. However, the endowment of  these two secular councils with educational, charitable and social duties and activities, which were traditionally the domain of  the Church, led to tension and, on occasions, to conf lict. For example, in a letter he sent to Nikiforos Glykas, his counterpart in Mithymna, on 26 July 1885, the Metropolitan of  Mytilene, Konstantinos Valiadis, expressed his discontent with the members of the BECE, who had refused to act on his recommendation that a certain teacher by the name of  Ioakeim Pavlidis should not be appointed to the gymnasium. Pavlidis was one of  those who had claimed the concession of  the revenues of  the Limonos monastery for the communities of  Kalloni and Molyvos, to cover their educational needs. Pavlidis, Ioannis Kontos, a relative, and Zafirakis Ipandrevmenos, all of whom were teachers, were the protagonists in this af fair, which is known as the Limoniako zitima (Limonos Question) or the Limoniaka.59 The inf luence of  the Enlightenment and Protestantism

57 58 59

Not only were the lower economic groups excluded, but also women. The presence of  the latter in the public sphere was limited mainly to specific activities, such as charity. The Metropolitan of  Mytilene had fifty-two villages and the island of  Tenedos under his jurisdiction, whereas the Metropolitan of  Mithymna had thirty-one; see G. Archontopoulos, Λέσβος ή Μυτιλήνη, p. 21. On the Limoniako zitima, see P. Argyris, ‘Το Λειμωνιακό ζήτημα’, Lesviaka XII (1989), pp. 24–55 and I. Moutzouris, ‘Τα Λειμωνιακά 1866–1886’, Klironomia XXII (1990), pp. 125–85.

28

Chapter 1

are evident in Pavlidis’ writings, which argue for the necessity of social change60 – all of which explain the metropolitan’s displeasure. Nevertheless, avoiding any reference to the Limonos Question, the prelate focused on the fact that one of  Pavlidis’ treatises ‘was condemned by [Namik] Kemal,61 because it contained anti-Turkish phrases and notions and expressions against the Christian faith’.62 The prelate argued that he and his subordinates not only had their pleas ‘totally ignored; they also suf fered greatly in the performance of  their duties purely and simply because the laity had other desires.63 He was probably referring to a treatise by Pavlidis, in which he had expressed ideas that aroused the Orthodox prelate’s displeasure.64 The Limonos Question of 1879–1883, the most important challenge to the authority of  the local church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, undoubtedly lies at the heart of  this incident. In essence, the issue in question was an ef fort by the lay members of  the Christian communities of  Kalloni and Molyvos (which belonged to the ecclesiastic district of  the metropolitan 60 See I. Pavlidis, Ο μοναχικός βίος και τα μοναστήρια εν τε τη Ανατολή και εν τη Δύσει (Smyrna, 1879). Articles written by Kontos, which also express the necessity for social changes at the local level, can be found in the newspaper of  Smyrna Nea Smyrni; see P. Argyris, ‘Το Λειμωνιακό ζήτημα’, p. 27. 61 The Kemal in question was Namik Kemal (1840–1888) the island’s mutasarrif  from December 1879 to October 1884 and one of  the key representatives of  the Young Ottoman movement; on Namik Kemal see S. Mardin, The Genesis of  Young Ottoman Thought, pp. 283–336; B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, pp. 133f f ; E. Zurcher, The Unionist Factor. Role of  the Committee of  Union and Progress in the Turkish national movement (Leiden: Brill, 1984), pp. 5f f. On Namik Kemal as a governor of  Mytilene, see S. Mardin, The Genesis of  Young Ottoman Thought, pp. 76–7; P. Argyris, ‘Το Λειμωνιακό ζήτημα’, p. 50 and ‘Η εξανάστασις των Φαυλοβίων’, Ta Istorika XVI/1 (1992), pp. 60–1; S. Kolaxizelis, Θρύλος και ιστορία της Αγιάσου της νήσου Λέσβου (Athens: Philoproodos Syllogos Agiasoton, 1997), pp. 325f f ; Z. Arikan, ‘Namik Kemal, gouverneur de l’ile de Mytilene’, in P. Kitromilides & P. Michaïlaris, eds, Μυτιλήνη και Αϊβαλί (2007). 62 Konstantinos, ‘Επιστολή προς το Νικηφόρο Γλυκά’, Deltion Ieras Mitropoleos Mithimnis VI (1940), p. 138. 63 Ibid. 64 I. Pavlidis, Ο μοναχικός βίος και τα μοναστήρια εν τε τη Ανατολή και εν τη Δύσει; also, see P. Argyris, ‘Το Λειμωνιακό ζήτημα’, pp. 26f f.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

29

of  Mithymna) to claim the revenues of  the Limonos monastery, which had been managed until then by the local Church and the Patriarchate. When the Church emerged as the ultimate winner, the teachers who had supported the claims of  the communities – Zafirakis Ipandrevmenos and Ioannis Kontos – were anathematized by Patriarch Ioakeim III in December 1882. In the BECE Reports, it is mentioned that Pavlidis continued to teach at the Mytilene gymnasium at least until 1889,65 despite the aforementioned discontent which was expressed to the BECE by Metropolitan Konstantinos in 1885. Some years later, however, Pavlidis would leave the island to teach in Kydonies (Ayvalik).66 It was certainly not by chance that the end of  the Limoniako zitima and the social unrest in the villages of  Vrisa and Agia Paraskevi, which is known as the Exanastasis ton favlovion (Uprising of  the Prof ligates), coincided with the dismissal of  the mutasarrif  Namik Kemal – one of  the key representatives of  the Young Ottoman movement – from the island in October 1884, after coordinated ef forts by the local Christian and Muslim authorities.67 Kemal’s refusal to intervene energetically in the Limoniaka and condemn the communities’ claims displeased the Patriarchate and the two local Metropolitans.68 Moreover, in the Uprising of  the Prof ligates he supported the ef forts made by the middle and lower social groups to control the financial arbitrariness of  the Christian dimogerontes.69 Generally speaking, as governor of  Mytilene, Kemal had striven to boost economic development on the island along with the standard of  living of its inhabitants, along European lines.70 At the same time, he took care to upgrade the

65 See Reports: 142, 153, 173. 66 P. Argyris, ‘Το Λειμωνιακό ζήτημα’, p. 29. 67 In the Proceedings of the dimogerontia Kemal was accused of misgovernment, authoritarian behaviour and for the illegal demand to impose more taxes to the population. Indicatively, see MCM, code V: Proceedings of 24 July 1884. 68 P. Argyris, ‘Το Λειμωνιακό ζήτημα’, p. 50. 69 P. Argyris, ‘Η εξανάστασις των Φαυλοβίων’, pp. 60–1. 70 On the public health initiatives he took in collaboration with Dr K. Katartzis, see Pavlos Vlachos, ‘Ο ιατρός Κ. Κανταρτζής και τα χειρόγραφά του’, Lesviaka XI (1989), p. 92–127.

30

Chapter 1

education of  the Muslim element and to improve their position generally.71 However, his ef forts often clashed with the established interests of  the powerful Christian and Muslim dimogerontes and the Church: his dismissal in 1884 was thus not unrelated to the stance he took vis-à-vis the powerful local leading groups. The coordinated denunciations of  Kemal made to the Porte by the Christian and Muslim dimogerontes indicate the identification of  the interests of  the local leading groups, whether Christian or Muslim.72 Kemal quit Mytilene, but it would seem that the emergent middle economic layers continued where he left of f, challenging the power both of  the Church and the upper economic layers. The fact that the Limoniako zitima took place at a time when the Empire was preoccupied with the Pronomiako zitima (Privileges Issue)73 is not a coincidence; both cases can be perceived in the framework of a generalized tendency to call ecclesiastic authority into doubt, a tendency manifested simultaneously in dif ferent parts of  the Empire.74 It was also anything but a coincidence that the Limonos Question

71

Fevziye Tansel edited the letters that Kemal sent from the island to his relatives and friends in Constantinople. His letters contain useful observations on Mytilene and its inhabitants, as well as on his ef forts to enact changes which would assist local development; see F. Tansel, ed., Namik Kemal’in Hususi Mektuplari, vol. II (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1969). Also, S. Kolaxizelis, Θρύλος και ιστορία της Αγιάσου, pp. 325f f and Z. Arikan, ‘Namik Kemal, gouverneur de l’ile de Mytilene’. 72 According to Z. Arikan, Kemal was accused of  being a drunkard and of  building a theatre on Mytilene which he paid for by docking his staf f ’s wages. Although these were not serious accusations, Abdulhamid II removed Kemal from Mytilene and appointed him governor of  Rhodes; Z. Arikan, ‘Namik Kemal, gouverneur de l’ile de Mytilene’, p. 340. See also S. Kolaxizelis, Θρύλος και ιστορία της Αγιάσου, pp. 333–4. 73 The Pronomiako zitima was a serious attempt made by the Porte to cut the ecclesiastic privileges of  the Patriarchate and challenge its authority. See Ch. Exertzoglou, ‘Το προνομιακό ζήτημα’, Ta Istorika IX (1992), pp. 65–84; also, S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, pp. 281f f. 74 For example, on the island of  Crete, the so-called monastic question led to an intense dispute between the lay element and the higher clergy, which revolved mainly around the administration of  funds, in the years up to 1865; K. Kalliataki-Mertikopoulou, ‘Literacy and unredeemed peasants: Late nineteenth-century rural Crete faces education’, in Ph. Carabott, ed., Greek society in the making 1863–1913: Realities, Symbols and Visions (Ashgate: Aldershot, 1997), pp. 117–18.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

31

coincided with the social unrest of  the Prof ligates in the villages of  Agia Paraskevi and Vrisa. It should be mentioned that Pavlidis and Kontos also participated in the Uprising of  the Prof ligates, supporting the cause of  the middle and lower economic groups against the dimogerontes. In essence, all these incidents highlight the shift in power away from ecclesiastic authority towards Christian lay members, and the Porte entrusting new socio-economic and administrative roles to the dimogerontes, which in turn mobilized social unrest among the island’s Christian communities. However, despite the clergy’s displeasure at having their authority challenged, the Metropolitan continued to exercise considerable inf luence over his f lock. And although the position of  the secular element within the community was upgraded and laymen took charge of domains that had previously been under the Church, none of  these developments implied the downgrading of  the religious element as a key attribute of  the community. For example, the dimogerontes turned to Metropolitan Kyrilos of  Mytilene to support the Christians morally during the Turko-Italian war and on the eve of  the First Balkan War. And the Metropolitan performed his mission, despite having been annoyed on numerous occasions in the past by the behaviour of  the lay leading groups. Specifically, in the immediate wake of  the Young Turk revolution of  July 1908, he was accused of  being a supporter of  the ‘despotic’ and ‘unconstitutional’ governor of  the island, Nosrend Pasha, and ran the risk of  losing his post along with him. Again, in 1910, he was sorely tested by the stance of  the dimogerontia in relation to the issue of  his election to the Holy Synod.75 Generally, it could be said that the authority of representatives of  the local church, and of  the Metropolitan in particular, was called into question in no uncertain terms 75

When Kyrilos was elected to the Holy Synod in 1910, the Patriarch Ioakeim III refused to accept his election; see Fujinami Nobuyoshi, ‘The patriarchal crisis of 1910 and constitutional logic: Ottoman Greeks’ dual role in the second constitutional politics’, in Journal of  Modern Greek Studies 27 (2009). The dimogerontia of  Mytilene, initially, took the Patriarch’s side. Later, after the Patriarch had accepted Kyrilos’ election, the dimogerontia tried to normalize its relations with the Metropolitan; indicatively, see Salpinx, 2–2–1910 and 4–2–1910. However, Kyrilos’ two-year absence in Constantinople (1910–1912) does not seem to be unrelated to his displeasure with the position the dimogerontia took in relation to the election issue.

32

Chapter 1

on numerous occasions by the community’s leading lay groups. At the same time, however, these groups acknowledged the sway the Metropolitan held over his f lock. And these groups did indeed recognize the Church as a guardian of  the privileges enjoyed by the Rum-millet. For instance, during the Limoniaka, the dimogerontia of  Mytilene wholeheartedly supported the privileges enjoyed by the Patriarchate, which were considered a right chief ly of  the Rum-millet. In the Proceedings of  the MCM, it is pointed out that the dimogerontes and the ephors supported the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Pronomiako zitima, since they wanted to preserve the ‘redeeming ecclesiastic privileges, which the Romaϊkon ethnos had enjoyed for centuries’.76 What was occurring was essentially a re-evaluation of relations between the laity and the clergy. Throughout this period, as well as after 1908 and the appearance of  Young Turk nationalism, Christian laymen undertook new roles which had traditionally been the preserve of  the Church, while continuing to view the Metropolitan and – above all – the Orthodox Patriarch as the principal defenders of  the community’s rights.77 As has been argued with regard to the Greek communities of  Asia Minor, in the 1908 elections even the Young Turks could not but be ambivalent towards the Church: on the one hand, they were promoting measures aimed at curtailing its authority, while on the other hand, by assigning important functions to clergymen in an attempt to facilitate the implementation of  their programme, they were acknowledging its role as the Greek Orthodox millet’s highest authority.78 In light of  the above, it should be noted that, despite the rivalries between the community’s secular authorities – the dimogerontes and the ephors – and the Church, a dynamic system of administering the af fairs of  the Christian community was in place that functioned ef ficiently within the context of  Ottoman rule. The members of  the dimogerontia and the BECE expressed their loyalty to the Muslim authorities and the Patriarchate. For example, the Proceedings of  the dimogerontia contain the assurance that

76 MCM, code V: Proceedings of 6 April 1884. 77 For more on the relations between Mytilene’s lay leading groups and the Church (1908–1912), see below chapters II, III and IV. 78 S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, pp. 453f f.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

33

‘the schools in the district of Mytilene have always conformed on every issue with the instructions of  the Patriarchate in Constantinople’; in its turn, the latter has deliberated and reached an explicit and precise agreement concerning the operation of schools with ‘the venerable Imperial Government’.79 Moreover, it is pointed out that ‘according to a high circular issued by the Vizier on 23 dzemazi-ul-achire 1308 and ratified by high imperial decree, the school certificates issued by the teachers, as well as the textbooks used, were to be ratified in Constantinople by the Patriarchate and in the districts [of  the Empire] by the metropolitans’.80 In addition, there is evidence of  Muslim of ficials who had assisted in the community’s educational activities encouraging the members of  the BECE to publicly express (in their annual report in 1878) ‘our city’s profound gratitude towards the Respected Government and the authorities that represent it for the assistance they have provided with regard to every petition addressed to them by the School Board in the best interest of our society’.81 Furthermore, it is no coincidence that Christian appointments to administrative positions had been rising since the last quarter of  the nineteenth century. Percentage-wise, it is estimated that in 1877, of  the 110 or so administrative positions in Mytilene’s public sector, 23 per cent were occupied by Christians. Even more, at least until the end of  the nineteenth century and for a period of  thirty years, the key position of police chief was held by the Christian Spyros Gialousis (Spyros efendi).82 The prefectural engineer and designer of  the island’s road network was another Christian, Iakovos ( James) Aristarchis, while the post of public architect was held by Dimitris Meïmaris.83 The mayoralty, too, was dominated by wealthy Christians. It could thus be argued that the Christians of  Mytilene lived under an Ottoman regime that was far from repressive and limiting. For this reason, until 1908 at least, their complaints in the Metropolitan Codes of  Mytilene dealt largely with tax problems.84 79 80 81 82

MCM, Code VII: Proceedings no 41 of 15 February 1903. MCM, Code VII: Proceedings no 139 of 26 April 1908. Reports, p. 68. S. Anagnostou, Ο ελληνοτουρκικός πόλεμος του 1897 και ο αντίκτυπός του στη Λέσβο, pp. 74–5. 83 E. Sifneou, ‘Από τη μουσουλμανική στη χριστιανική πόλη’, p. 408. 84 Indicatively, see MCM, code VII: Proceedings nos 80, 84, 115.

34

Chapter 1

Figure 4  Street in the commercial heart of  Mytilene named ‘Columns’.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

35

Economy and social transformation: the newly-emerged social groups In the late eighteenth century, the Ottoman economy was pre-capitalist and agricultural, with small-holdings the most typical form of  landownership in the more af f luent parts of  the Empire. The vast majority of arable land was owned by the state, while a smaller but still considerable part had the legal status of vakif (religious foundations), controlled by the ulema (doctors of  Islamic law) and used for the upkeep of religious and public buildings (mosques, hospitals, libraries, schools). Agricultural production was the state’s main tax-base, and these taxes were collected throughout the Empire by the system of  the iltizam (tax-farming).85 The advantage of  this system for the central government was that its income was assured; it was no longer dependent on the success of  the harvest as it was prepaid. The main disadvantage for the peasants was that the tax-farmer would want to see a return on his investment, thus increasing the burden on them. Where the taxation was paid in kind, tax-farmers had added opportunities for speculation with regard to commodity price.86 The economy of mid-nineteenth century Lesbos was agricultural, and its main produce was olive oil. However, the details of  the iltizam system meant that only the nazir had the right to sell the produce; since he did so after buying it from the producers at a price set by the central Ottoman administration, the nazir would usually make enormous profits on this type of  transaction.87 That oil could only be legally exported by the nazir stif led the local economy; however, the smuggling of goods out through the ports of surrounding villages – which was rife towards the end of  the eighteenth century – helped to counterbalance the situation. Another incident which impacted positively on the local economy was the settlement from the eighteenth century on of  French merchants in the island who were responding to increased demand for olive oil in Northern Europe. 85 On the iltizam, see above p. 24. 86 E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 17–21. 87 P. Argyris, ‘Λέσβος: από την κατάκτηση στη σύγχρονη εποχή’, p. 43.

36

Chapter 1

These merchants acquired the right to export local products in exchange for a special tax (the bid’at) payable directly to the Porte in 1718, when the nazir still enjoyed an export monopoly. However, by the end of  the eighteenth century, trends in international trade and political circumstances would impact negatively on the trade between Mytilene and Marseilles, lead to a reduced French presence on the island, and establish a merchant route in its place linking Alexandria to Southern Russia by way of  Smyrna, Mytilene and Constantinople.88 In the wake of  the treaty of  Kucuk-Kaynarca (1774), in particular, which was especially favourable for the Empire’s Greek Orthodox shipowners and merchants, Lesbos’ geographical position made it a key transshipment hub where all merchant routes met, and opened up a previously constrained local market. During the same period, the vertical social demarcation between masters (owners of  the means of production) and servants (producers) was gradually blurred. Between 1770 and 1780, a clearly shaped Christian social group appeared which was given plots of  land to cultivate by the Muslim authorities – though they were not granted ownership of  the land. In exchange, they undertook to pay their taxes to the nazir in advance. This right was mainly granted to the ‘old’ communal authorities, the dimogerontes, who would be increasingly involved from this period onwards in new economic responsibilities and acquire a new social profile as a result. Middle social groups also appeared during this period, principally in the city of  Mytilene, where they were involved in the trade of surplus stocks and catered for the village markets. The smuggling practiced by Christians, the resources reaching the island via Christian merchants of Lesbian origin active in the Black Sea area, and the wealth the dimogerontes accrued as tax collection subcontractors, gradually led to an accumulation of cash in the Christian community which allowed the building of magnificent churches and houses and the importation of  luxury and decorative items.89 88 The trade between Mytilene and Marseilles was interrupted mainly because of the Russian-Turkish war (1768–1774) and the opening up of the oil markets of the Pelo­ ponnese and Crete; P. Argyris, ‘Λέσβος: από την κατάκτηση στη σύγχρονη εποχή’, p. 43. 89 Indicatively, see E. Sifneou, ‘Από τη μουσουλμανική στη χριστιανική πόλη’, pp. 404–7. Although the building of churches was not allowed, it seems that the Christian community managed to secure the permission of  the government.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

37

All these changes sprung from the new socio-economic situation in the Ottoman Empire, which favoured the penetration of  the Western capitalist system and gradually modified the agrarian character of  local economies. More specifically, the Noble Edict of  the Rose Garden introduced a new economic regime ushered in with the establishment of  free trade and the abolition of monopolies in 1840, which further encouraged the changes under way by boosting business transactions and commercialising agricultural production.90 In parallel, European interest in investing in the East precipitated the connection of  the Ottoman Empire with the European system of  business transactions and the currency trade, especially from the mid-nineteenth century onwards.91 The Empire’s entrepreneurial groups – Muslim, but also and especially Greek, Armenian, Jewish and Levantine merchants and bankers – would play a crucial role in these developments by acting as intermediaries between the Empire and the capitals of  Europe.92 The increasing incorporation of parts of  the economy into the capitalist system and its attendant growth in trade especially strengthened the Ottoman Christian traders, industrialists and bankers who profited from these developments. It was during this period that, gradually, ‘military and political power on one hand and economic strength on the other were polarized between two distinct sectors of  Ottoman society: the predominantly Muslim military/bureaucratic elite and the emerging Christian bourgeoisie’.93 On Lesbos, the new situation was ref lected in measures such as the abolition of  the oil monopoly and the deregulation of  the olive oil market on which the economy of  the island relied. The ending of such practices and

90 R. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, p. 44. 91 E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 39. 92 Concerning the investment and banking activities of  the Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, and in Constantinople, in particular, and their transactions with European capitals, see Ch. Exertzoglou, Προσαρμοστικότητα και πολιτική ομογενειακών κεφαλαίων (Athens: Emboriki Trapeza Ellados, 1989) and ‘The development of a Greek Ottoman bourgeoisie: Investment patterns in the Ottoman Empire, 1850–1914’, in D. Gondicas & C. Issawi, eds, Ottoman Greeks in the age of nationalism: politics, economy and society in the nineteenth century (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1999). 93 E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 40–1.

38

Chapter 1

the concession of  the right to own land to non-Muslims in 1858 – which can be explained as an attempt by the Muslim authorities to transfer responsibilities to the lay members of every community and to curtail the authority of  the Church and the local Muslim governors – in essence worked in the Ottoman Greeks’ favour.94 Moreover, agricultural production gained an important impetus during the last two decades of  the nineteenth century with the introduction of new technologies like steam which had a significant impact on productivity and export levels.95 Increased productivity and an environment propitious to commercial activities resulted in the accumulation of capital which was invested in land and property, in the setting up of  trading of fices, shops and companies, the establishment of  factories (olive presses, soap manufacturers and tanneries), and other types of  business activities.96 Industrial units, most of  them with sea access, began to spring up on the outskirts of  Mytilene in the 1880s. They included steam olive presses, soap factories, a thread factory, a f lour mill and a tannery (which belonged to the Mouzalas and Georgiadis families), and they were worthy representatives of  the ‘industrial vision of  the age’.97 Still, the majority of  the industrial units set up in Mytilene and elsewhere on the island – mainly in Molyvos, Gera and Plomari – were olive presses and soap factories. It has been noted that, in modern measurements, 45,161,290 kilograms of olives were harvested in 1884 and the production of olive oil was 1,161,258 kilograms.98 However, despite the relatively large amounts produced, the olive oil of  Lesbos was of poor quality, making it unsuitable for household use; this was why it was mostly used in soap production. The soap manufactured on Mytilene 94 P. Argyris, ‘Η εξανάστασις των Φαυλοβίων’, p. 53; E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 64; S. Anagnostou, Ο ελληνοτουρκικός πόλεμος του 1897 και ο αντίκτυπός του στη Λέσβο, p. 35. 95 E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, pp. 197, 239 and 240; S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, p. 353. 96 For a detailed account of  the quantitative data of  the growth in question, see E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, pp. 195f f and ‘Από τη μουσουλμανική στη χριστιανική πόλη’. 97 See Sifneou, ‘Από τη μουσουλμανική στη χριστιανική πόλη’, p. 401. 98 G. Sariyildiz, ‘The soap production of  Lesbos’, pp. 240–1.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

39

was popular in imperial markets due to its low price, rivalling the soap of  Crete, which was of a better quality, but also more expensive.99 The islanders’ entrepreneurial and commercial activities were combined with equally important initiatives in the banking sector, which yielded profits during the second half of  the nineteenth century.100 A number of  banks opened branches in Mytilene in light of  the high olive production and the trade in olive oil and soap. The first branch to appear was that of  the Agricultural Bank (Georgiki Trapeza), which opened in 1888. In May 1891, the Bank of  Mytilene (Trapeza Mytilinis/Midilli Bankasi) was set up by a key businessman and financial figure on the island, Panos Kourtzis (1850–1931).101 Two other banks also established branches: the Imperial Ottoman Bank (Osmanli Imperatorlugu Bankasi) in 1897, and the Bank of  the Orient in 1907.102 Generally speaking, the creation of a reliable banking system largely relieved the contracting parties, Muslim and Christian, of  the 99 10 per cent was suitable for cooking, while 90 per cent was used in soap production; Sariyildiz, ‘The soap production of  Lesbos’, p. 239; also, see K. KalliatakiMertikopoulou, Ελληνικός αλυτρωτισμός και οθωμανικές μεταρρυθμίσεις. Η περίπτωση της Κρήτης 1868–1877 (Athens: Estia, 1988), p. 69 and S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, pp. 357–8. 100 The Constantinopolitan banking groups – the capital owners of which were predominantly Greeks – provided the Ottoman state with short-term, high-interest loans during the period 1860–1875, while they made profits by drawing their funds from European money markets at significantly lower prices. The regime persisted until 1881, when the Ottoman Public Debt Administration Service was created. At this point, in order to make up for their losses, the banking groups turned to the provision of public loans to other countries such as Greece. This new orientation helped them stay profitable until the end of  the nineteenth century; see Ch. Exertzoglou, ‘Η Τράπεζα Μυτιλήνης’, in K. Konnaris, ed., Αρχείο Κουρτζή: Ιστορική τεκμηρίωση (Mytilene: Istoriko Archeio Aigaiou Ergani, 2007), pp. 1–2. 101 The Bank of  Mytilene was backed by an association of powerful capital owners. The Kourtzis family was one of  them, while equally noteworthy was the participation of  Constantinopolitan bankers. On the Bank of  Mytilene and a series of innovations which dif ferentiated it from previous bank practices in the Ottoman Empire, see Exertzoglou, ‘Η Τράπεζα Μυτιλήνης’. 102 On the Ottoman Bank in Mytilene (1897–1914), see Edhem Eldem, ‘The Imperial Ottoman Bank in Mytilene’, in P. Kitromilides & P. Michaïlaris, eds, Μυτιλήνη και Αϊβαλί. Also, S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, p. 405.

40

Chapter 1

burden of past usurious practices. The Muslim community, in particular, seems to have fallen victim to the usurious activities of  Greek Orthodox merchants.103 At the same time, the improvement in the marine transportation system and the construction of a road network, as well as the connection of  Mytilene with the Lesbian hinterland, Constantinople and Asia Minor by telegraph and postal services led to an increase in the commercial activities of  the islanders. During the last decades of  the nineteenth century and until 1914, Mytilene had Ottoman, Austrian, French, Russian and Egyptian post of fices; in 1871 it was connected by telegraph to Kydonies, Bursa and Constantinople, while the installation of a telegraphic connection between the city and the island’s villages was inaugurated in 1888.104 The Aegean Steam Navigation Company (Atmoploϊa Aigaiou),105 owned by Panos Kourtzis, claimed a large share of  the development of seaborne transportation, since it was the first company to include the Lesbian provincial ports on its routes. The island was also regularly served by steamships of  the Lloyd (Austria), Frassinet & CIE (France), Hediviye (Egypt), Bell Asia Minor (UK), Mahsuse (Ottoman Empire), the G.O. Jolie Victoria & CIE lines and the Panellinios (Greek).106 As has been pointed out, ‘the steamships speeded up the integration of some areas and some sectors of  the Ottoman economy into the capitalist system’;107 Lesbos seems to 103 E. Sifneou and S. Anagnostou explain how the Koran’s ban on Muslims lending money at interest (usury) resulted in the predominance of  Christians in the money market. For this reason, the Muslims were encouraging the establishment of a bank in Mytilene as early as 1850. E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, p. 250 and S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, p. 401. 104 S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, pp. 368–9. 105 On the Aegean Steam Navigation Company, see E. Sifneou, ‘Η ακτοπλοϊα στο Αιγαίο και το στοίχημα της οικογένειας Κουρτζή’, in K. Konnaris, ed., Αρχείο Κουρτζή: Ιστορική τεκμηρίωση, E. Sifneou, ‘From Greek-Ottomanism to Mediterranean cosmopolitanism: P.M. Kourtzis and the birth of  the Aegean Steam Navigation Company’, unpublished paper and M. Kaïtatzidis, Aegean Steam Navigation P.M. Courtgis & Co 1883–1911 (Patra: To donti, 2009). 106 S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, p. 364. 107 E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 82.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

41

have been one such area, since the dif fusion of goods was boosted as well as business activities in general. Lesbian products exported to Ottoman and European markets included olive oil, olives, soap, leather, wool, silk, cotton, fruit, wine and ouzo.108 Imported goods included cereals, sugar, cof fee, tobacco, rum, Russian butter, cloth, French leather, furniture, lead, English and Russian iron. The fact that the majority of the imported goods can be considered luxury products is an indication of the island’s prosperity and financial growth. By the end of  the nineteenth century, a substantial increase had also occurred in the importation of industrial raw materials.109 From the 1880s onwards, Mytilene – along with other small towns like Plomari, Gera and Molyvos – gradually metamorphosed into a commercial centre enjoying trade links with Alexandria, Smyrna, Kydonies, Chios, Constantinople, Trieste, Odessa and Rostov.110 However, the bulk of  Lesbian business transactions were conducted via Ottoman markets, and more specifically those of  Constantinople and Smyrna. In the former, Lesbian merchants permanently resident in the Ottoman capital enjoyed almost exclusive control of the Ladoskala,111 while another group of Lesbian merchants were active in Smyrna.112 Additionally, an important number of companies was set up by Lesbians in both cities, as well as in Egypt and Kydonies.113 The businessmen of  the island developed financial activities

108 S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, p. 356. 109 E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, pp. 111f f ; S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, pp. 360–1. 110 Certain European merchants resided in Lesbos and conducted business there under the protection of  the vice-consulates established in the island since the eighteenth century. In fact, the foreign states sought to strengthen their economic activities in the Aegean by means of  their consular agents and employees. 111 A place in Constantinople where merchants from Lesbos traded in oil. 112 S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, p. 355. 113 Elli Vlachou provides a list of  the commercial companies founded by Lesbians and based on the island, in Constantinople and Egypt. The list is based on the notary acts of  the Greek vice-consulate on Lesbos; E. Vlachou, ‘Εμπορικές εταιρείες με έδρα τη Μυτιλήνη, Κωνσταντινούπολη και Αίγυπτο μέσα από τις συμβολαιογραφικές πράξεις του ελληνικού υποπροξενείου της Μυτιλήνης’, Lesviaka XIII, 1991, pp. 85–108. See also E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, pp. 131f f.

42

Chapter 1

with regions where opportunities and future profits looked promising, such as the cities of the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, Romania and southern Russia.114 The network formed between Lesbos, Constantinople and the adjacent Asia Minor coastal towns was not confined to financial activities, but expanded to strengthen the already substantial cultural links between the aforementioned cities. This is illustrated by the fact that merchants travelled to the cities of  Asia Minor, and especially Smyrna and Kydonies, to invest their money in real estate or new businesses,115 that teachers and scholars migrated to these regions in search of posts,116 and that the majority of works by Lesbian scholars were published in Constantinople and Smyrna,117 which also provided most of  the newspapers read on the island.118 Furthermore, whenever demographic pressure made itself felt, Lesbians turned to the neighbouring cities of  Asia Minor for employment. In 1909, in the second edition of  his Synoptiki istoria kai topografia tis Lesvou [Concise history and topography of  Lesbos], Stavros Taxis maintained that approximately twenty to twenty-five thousand Lesbians had sought permanent

114 For the economic activities of  Lesbians in Russia, see E. Sifneou, ‘Έλληνες έμποροι στην Αζοφική. Η δύναμη και τα όρια της οικογενειακής επιχείρησης (Athens: EIE, 2009). 115 The Niania family from the village of  Pamfila is a case in point. The unpublished private collection of  Dimitrios Nianias contains documents testifying to the existence of a family business, the acquisition of real estate and the commercial transactions carried out by members of  the family in the Kydonies area. E. Sifneou mentions the names of other businessmen investing in Asia Minor ventures, including the Mandras brothers, D. Zerbinis, V. Mouzalas, P. Vasileiou, P. Pasiouras and M. Psakis. E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, p. 99. 116 As in the case of  Stavrakis Anagnostis and Ioakeim Pavlidis, both of whom were teachers, and many others. 117 See G. Valetas, Αιολική βιβλιογραφία 1566–1939 (Athens: G. Xenos, 1939) and K.M. Michaïlidis, Συμβολή στην αιολική βιβλιογραφία (Athens: Sergiadis, 1940). 118 Before 1909, the newspapers in circulation on Lesbos were mainly Neologos (Constantinople), Amalthia and Armonia (Smyrna) and Nea Imera (Trieste); Mimis Eleftheriadis, ‘Ο τύπος και το πνεύμα στα χρόνια της σκλαβιάς’, Lesviaka VI (1973), pp. 54–8. The first newspaper to be published in Mytilene appeared in February 1909; see below, chapter III.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

43

employment away from the island, mainly to Asia Minor.119 Referring to the villages in the barren western part of  the island, the scholar and teacher Stavrakis Anagnostis wrote in 1850 that the inhabitants of  these villages are mostly craftsmen, builders, painters, tailors etc., who travel to almost every city in Turkey, and Asia Minor in particular, in search of work, because olive trees do not thrive in their villages; those who stay on the island are involved only in cattle-raising, agriculture and viniculture.120

Writing in 1863, another scholar, Georgios Aristidis, added that the miserable conditions besetting the western side of the island force the inhabitants to emigrate, principally to Smyrna and its surrounding area, where they are involved in construction and many other occupations; when they have earned their families’ annual upkeep, they return to their homes.121

In essence, many workers left the island in summer when the agricultural tasks were over and came back at the beginning of the winter for the olive harvest. It has been estimated that 4,000 workers a year122 migrated to Asia Minor for a minimum period of six months in order to find work.123 The continuous contacts between Asia Minor and Lesbos legitimize the hypothesis of  the existence of an articulated, constructed, unified locus in which people perform transactions, become af filiated by marriage, acquire assets, study, teach or dispense religious instruction and participate in cultural and 119 Stavros Taxis, Συνοπτική ιστορία και τοπογραφία της Λέσβου (Mytilene: Panepistimio Aigaiou, 1995 [1909]), p. 63. 120 S. Anagnostis, Λεσβιάς ωδή, p. 250. 121 G. Aristidis, Τετραλογία πανηγυρική, p. 160. 122 Sofia Saliari of  Kydonies mentioned the case of a cleaning woman from Lesbos who worked in her grandmother’s house in Kydonies: ‘Her kids also worked in Ayvalik. She came every day by boat, she cleaned the house and then she left’; oral testimony, Mytilene 17 July 2003. 123 Normally, they left the island on Saint George’s day, when seasonal work in olive trees was completed, and returned on 26 October, Saint Dimitrios’ day, in time for the olive harvest; S. Anagnostou, ‘Λέσβος και απέναντι μικρασιατική ακτή. Ενιαίος γεωγραφικός χώρος ως το 1922;’, in P. Kitromilides & P. Michaïlaris, eds, Μυτιλήνη και Αϊβαλί, p. 144.

44

Chapter 1

religious manifestations.124 These contacts strengthened the local economies and were at the origin of  the mosaic composition of common loci, which the locals seemed to consider as their common destiny; an inheritance; a shared cultural, as well as a geographical space. The financial destitution and marginalization of  the island in the aftermath of 1912 – when Lesbos ceased to be part of  the Ottoman Empire – marked the importance of the ties connecting it with Constantinople, Smyrna and Kydonies. It is in this context that a Lesbian doctor and politician could claim as late as 1934: ‘“To the East”: that must be our motto once again, as well as our new but peaceful slogan, because there our salvation lies’.125 And it was with much the same in mind that Mitsas Kourtzis, the son of Panos, conducted a detailed study in the 1930s examining the institution of a new steamship line connecting the Aegean with major cities in Greece and abroad in an ef fort to break out of  the isolation that had befallen the islands of  the Northern Aegean.126 The significant financial growth of  the island until 1912 was accompanied by a demographic boom.127 As already mentioned, the actual data are hard to verify from contemporary sources, especially since the Ottoman censuses and works by local scholars provide a rather sketchy picture of  the island’s demographics, possibly because the locals charged with collecting the data often manipulated them in order to guarantee exemptions from military service (in the case of  Muslims), to evade tax or for electoral purposes.128 Nevertheless, a constant population growth took place which can be attributed to reduced mortality rates brought about by improved 124 P. Michaïlaris, ‘Νεώτεροι χρόνοι’, in D. Talianis, ed., Λέσβος, από τη Σαπφώ στον Ελύτη (Mytilene: Dimos Mytilinis, 1995), p. 24 and S. Anagnostou, ‘Λέσβος και απέναντι μικρασιατική ακτή’. 125 Ο. Kyprianos, ‘Το δημογραφικόν πρόβλημα της Λέσβου’, in M. Kalloneos, ed., Λέσβος, το νησί της αγάπης και της αρμονίας (Athens, 1934), p. 33. 126 E. Sifneou, ‘From Greek-Ottomanism to Mediterranean cosmopolitanism’, p. 8 and ‘Η ακτοπλοϊα στο Αιγαίο και το στοίχημα της οικογένειας Κουρτζή’, pp. 71–2. 127 Throughout the Empire, the reign of  Abdulhamid II was marked by a significant population increase from about 20 million in the late 1870s to over 27 million by the end of  the century – an increase of 37 per cent attributed to the decline in war, famine and epidemics during that period; E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 90. 128 See section 1, p. 22.

45

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

living standards and conditions of  hygiene and care. As Taxis pointed out in 1909, ‘the reason for the increase in the population of our island is the noticeable decline in mortality rates’. In Plomari, the town where he represented the Metropolitan as an ekklisiastikos epitropos, ‘the ratio of  births to deaths was 5:3’. And, as he added, ‘there is evidence of similar ratios in many other parts of  the island’.129 It is estimated that the population increased by 47.46 per cent between 1840 and 1911 (an increase of almost 50 per cent for the Christian element and 33 per cent for the Muslim). The following two tables show the rate of increase as presented in the extant sources: Table 1  Rates of increase of  the population Total population

Christians

Muslims

1840–1884

34.20%

28.03%

9.77%

1885–1911

41.81%

30.11%

25.33%

Table 2  Rates of annual increase of  the population Christians

Muslims

1840–1884

0.74%

0.23%

1885–1911

1.31%

1.05%

Note. S. Karavas, ‘Η Λέσβος τον 19ο αι.: Δημογραφικές παρατηρήσεις’, Appendix, table VI and S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, pp. 427–44.

The fact that the Muslim growth ratio is lower than the Christian seems to be connected to the nature of  their economic activities, which were mostly agrarian and not commercial.130 Moreover, the majority of  the Muslim 129 S. Taxis, Συνοπτική ιστορία και τοπογραφία της Λέσβου, p. 62. 130 Cf. K. Tsoukalas, Εξάρτηση και αναπαραγωγή, pp. 350f f. A. Panayotopoulos also points out that the Muslim population could not match the economic growth of nonMuslims, and the Greek Orthodox population in particular, because their long-term military obligations deterred them from commercial activities; A. Panayotopoulos, ‘On the economic activities of  the Anatolian Greeks’, pp. 88–9.

46

Chapter 1

population resided in the western part of  the island, a barren and desolate region where commercial and industrial activities were absent.131 Thus, it could be claimed, without fear of exaggerating, that the majority of  the Muslim population – save Ottoman of ficials – remained agrarian in the late nineteenth century and unable to keep up with the pace of urban development. Economic wealth and demographic growth were observed in the central and eastern part of  the island, where olive trees thrived and trade was encouraged by the existence of ports. By contrast, the economy of  the western and northern parts, with their inaccessible coastline, remained rural with relentlessly harsh living conditions. The gradual economic transformations ushered in by the commercialization and industrialization of agricultural production led, in turn, to important social changes. Developments in the economic sector created favourable conditions for the emergence of upper and middle social groups endowed with financial power. During this period, the members of  the Christian community amassed considerable property, and land owners slowly began to engage in manufacture, trade and banking enterprises.132 Bigger and steam-driven since 1880, the privately-owned olive presses cut the cost of olive pressing, shortened the interval between the delivery of the olives at the olive press and the production of olive oil, improved the quality of the produce, and put an end to storage-related problems. The immediate financial yield of the output of small-scale producers/farmers, who were the presses’ customers, covered their immediate needs, namely the pressing fees, taxes and loan payments. For the owner of the olive press, the trade in oil and its derivatives generally meant the accumulation of capital, reinvestment 131 The population of  this part of  the island was more prone to emigration, seasonal or permanent. Additionally, the rough living conditions help explain the Islamization of  the inhabitants of  this area in the past; see F. Dimos-Paroditis, Ιστορία της τουρκοκρατούμενης Λέσβου, vol. I, p. 191, P. Samaras, ‘Πώς τούρκεψε ο Κλαπάδος’, in P. Samaras, Lesviakon Imerologion 1954 (Mytilene), pp. 191–7 and P. Paraskevaïdis, Η Λέσβος κατά την Τουρκοκρατία, pp. 23–6. 132 P. Argyris of fers a detailed explanation of  the economic situation which led to the land-owner, olive producer, olive press owner, merchant and banker often being one and the same person.; P. Argyris, ‘Λέσβος: από την κατάκτηση στη σύγχρονη εποχή’, pp. 54–5.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

47

in olive groves and the ability to lend more money. In fact, it was the olive press owners who established the particularly harsh informal credit market which lent money to farmers on terms including the obligation to deliver next year’s harvest to the former and to pay back the loan plus interest in kind when the pressing of  the produce was concluded. The inability to do so, which was common in periods of adversity (bad weather, f luctuations in the price of olive oil), drove the farmers deeper into debt, and finally forced them to hand their land over to the olive press owners, who thus became major land owners.133 This unfair system began to fade when a proper banking system was installed towards the end of the nineteenth century.134 The new generation of entrepreneurs included members of  the Kourtzis, Mouzalas, Vasileiou, Marinos, Sifneos, Vournazos, Vostanis, Goutos, Rallis, Sourlangas, Mitrelias, Katsanis, Kambouris, Nianias, Papoutsanis, Vamvouris, Simantiris, Venlis and Poulias families,135 whose business activities spread to Varna, Odessa, Braila, Marseilles, Constantinople, Smyrna, Alexandria and elsewhere.136 They invested a large proportion of  their profits in businesses on Lesbos and especially in the capital, Mytilene, whose elegant mansions, public buildings and park, banks, insurance companies and ever larger and richer market ref lected the city’s cosmopolitan nature. At the end of  the first decade of  the twentieth century, the island’s capitalists were planning inter alia to build a railway line linking Mytilene with the island’s olive producing and industrial centres. However, the expansion of  the Turko-Italian war to the Aegean prevented their plans from being brought to fruition.137 133 P. Vasileiou (see below Table 3) obtained significant property from Christians as well as Muslims in this manner; E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, p. 250. 134 P. Argyris, ‘Λέσβος: από την κατάκτηση στη σύγχρονη εποχή’, pp. 54–5. 135 Of  the above, P. Vasileiou and K. Vournazos were the richest inhabitants of  Mytilene. The former paid the largest municipal tax (2,500 grosia in 1878) and owned the most property, including 29 properties in Mytilene town; E. Sifneou, ‘Από τη μουσουλμανική στη χριστιανική πόλη’, p. 405 n. 64. 136 See P. Argyris, ‘Λέσβος: από την κατάκτηση στη σύγχρονη εποχή’, p. 56; also, Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία and Έλληνες έμποροι στην Αζοφική. 137 AGYM 109Z9, Simantiris to Consul of  France in Smyrna, 30–1–1912; also, Sifneou, ‘Από τη μουσουλμανική στη χριστιανική πόλη’, p. 405.

48

Chapter 1

The Kourtzis family are a good example of  the wealthy Mytilene families (see below Table 3), since its activities covered the primary and secondary sectors of  the economy, as well as transportation (Aegean Steam Navigation Company, 1883) and banking (Bank of  Mytilene, 1891). Panos Kourtzis was without doubt the most powerful player in the island’s financial sector during the period under examination.138 In 1867, when he left his native island for Constantinople, he was facing serious financial problems. However, he managed to penetrate the Constantinopolitan world of  Greek entrepreneurs and bankers, taking advantage of  his acquaintances with eminent Ottoman Greeks and especially Georgios Zarifis – the personal banker of  Abdulhamid II. In 1874, he set up the trade company P.M. Kourtzis & CIE in Constantinople; two years later, in co-operation with his childhood friend Michaїl Koumbas, he also founded the Kourtzis Koumbas & CIE in Mytilene. The latter did so well that by 1891 the original capital investment of 7,000 Turkish liras had risen to 65,000. The next ten years saw the creation of  the ‘Aegean Steam Navigation Company’ (1883) and the acquisition of  the ‘Kentro’ and ‘Kioutsouk Loutza’ (1889) estates, which the ‘Courdzibad’ company was developing with a view to exploiting the thermal springs in the area. Also in 1891, the ‘Bank of  Mytilene’ was founded and ownership of all the other Kourtzis family ventures was transferred to it.139 For a long period (1879–1903), Kourtzis undertook banking as well as other financial activities in Constantinople and Lesbos in close collaboration with Georgios Zarifis.140 The financial dealings and personal ties he

138 For biographical details on Kourtzis and his family, see K. Konnaris, ‘Αρχείο Κουρτζή. Ιστορικά σημειώματα επιχειρήσεων και προσώπων’, in K. Konnaris, ed., Αρχείο Κουρτζή: Ιστορική τεκμηρίωση (Mytilene: Istoriko Archeio Aigaiou Ergani, 2007) and Panos Kourtzis, ‘Memoirs’, unpublished and undated. 139 P. Kourtzis, ‘Memoirs’, p. 20 and Ch. Konnaris, ‘Αρχείο Κουρτζή. Ιστορικά σημειώματα επιχειρήσεων και προσώπων’, p. 10. 140 According to Ch. Exertzoglou, the ‘Zarifis Zafiropoulos’ of fice of Constantinople had a network of correspondents in many cities around the Ottoman Empire, Mytilene included; Ch. Exertzoglou, Προσαρμοστικότητα και πολιτική ομογενειακών κεφαλαίων, pp. 13 and 32f f. P. Kourtzis mentions that from the 1870s onwards, he was associated

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

49

maintained with the latter141 and other high-f lying bankers in the capital paved the way for his association with a number of senior Ottoman of ficials who facilitated his business activities. As he mentions, being a partner and friend of  Mr Koumbas and others, and supervising the work, I realized that besides our then main activities, which were soap and oil, it would be possible to make greater profits if we sought contracts with various ministries and the Ottoman government. Consequently, by cultivating warmer relations with the incumbent directors in each ministry, I became the oil and soap supplier to the Ministry of  Defence, the Naval and Artillery Ministries and the Vakif, making large and relatively safe profits.142

In Constantinople, Kourtzis also became one of  the five members of  the executive board responsible for managing the Ottoman public debt.143 Despite commercial activities keeping him away from the island for long periods and deterring him from running for of fice there, he often acted as an intermediary to promote the interests of  Mytilene’s Christian community using his prestige and acquaintances in Constantinople. In 1884, when the dimogerontes were displeased with the mutasarrif of  the island, Namik Kemal, they sought through him to convince the Porte of  the necessity of  Kemal’s removal.144 Kourtzis’ prestige was acknowledged by the local Ottoman authorities as well as the Christian community. For example, in 1881 the kadi of  Mytilene appealed to Kourtzis for help in obtaining financial help for the island’s Muslim schools.145 In Mytilene,

141 142

143 144 145

in various business activities on Lesbos with Zarifis and other Ottoman Greeks in Constantinople; P. Kourtzis, ‘Memoirs’, pp. 20f f. See P. Kourtzis on his acquaintance with Georgios Zarifis, their subsequent friendship and their common financial activities; P. Kourtzis, ‘Memoirs’, pp. 12f f. P. Kourtzis, ‘Memoirs’, p. 20. He also mentions lucrative investments in Cyprus made after obtaining confidential information from the Sultan. Moreover, the Bank of  Mytilene was endowed with special privileges, no doubt thanks to his relations with the Sultan’s court. P. Kourtzis, ‘Memoirs’. On this board, which was established in 1881, see E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 88–9. MCM, code V: Proceedings of 24 July 1884. S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, p. 454.

50

Chapter 1

he also served as the German vice-consul until 1928, a post which, as he points out, he was hard pressed to undertake, notwithstanding the prestige it entailed, and ended up losing money over; upon assuming his post, he lost his Ottoman nationality and was thus disqualified from acting as guarantor in public tenders.146 It could be claimed that Kourtzis’ career could be used as a compass for mapping out the profile of  the majority of  businessmen, bankers and other Greek Orthodox financial actors in the Ottoman Empire between the second half of  the nineteenth and the early twentieth century.147 Although there is no evidence, it is very possible that Kourtzis shared the political dream of  his close friend, the Constantinopolitan banker and entrepreneur, Georgios Zarifis: the creation of a Greco-Ottoman Empire. Kourtzis was a member of  the ‘Ottoman Greek urban class’ (ellinothomaniki astiki taxi),148 which resided mainly in Constantinople. This class emerged as a result of  the propitious financial conditions brought about in the Empire by the Tanzimat. Constantinople, as the capital of  the Empire, a transportation centre of goods for the Near East and a trade currency centre, contributed to the wealth and power of  the members of  this class. In essence, they were tied to the fate of  the Ottoman state and its reforms, since they chief ly drew their power and position from them.149 By investing a large part of  his profits in commercial concerns in Lesbos, Kourtzis contributed significantly to the island’s economic development. A sizeable number of  Lesbians became involved in businesses too, either 146 P. Kourtzis, ‘Memoirs’. 147 Concerning the activities of  the Constantinopolitan bankers in the years after 1875 and their turn to new sectors (such as the railways, mines, industry, government loans to countries such as Bulgaria, Greece and Argentina), which proves their f lexibility in adapting to the new conditions created in the Empire during this period, see Ch. Exertzoglou, Προσαρμοστικότητα και πολιτική ομογενειακών κεφαλαίων and ‘The development of a Greek Ottoman bourgeoisie: Investment patterns in the Ottoman Empire, 1850–1914’. 148 The term is borrowed from S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, p. 302. 149 See Alexis Alexandris, ‘Οι Έλληνες στην υπηρεσία της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας 1850–1922’, Deltion tis Istorikis kai Ethnologikis Etaireias tis Ellados XXIII (1980) and E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 41.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

51

in association with the Kourtzis family or independently, especially in the production and international distribution of olive oil and its derivatives. Many became manufacture-owners, took up banking or shipping activities and invested their profits in real estate and land acquisition, shares or bonds. These pre-eminent merchants, industrialists and landlords came to administer large fortunes, and the majority joined local decision-making bodies such as the mixed councils, the local courts, the dimogerontia or the BECE.150 Membership lists of  the dimogerontia, the BECE and the BECE Brotherhood151 can be found in the Metropolitan Codes of  Mytilene and the archive of  the BECE. Members of  the powerful Mytilene families mentioned above, were repeatedly elected to the dimogerontia as well as to the BECE, and they played a key role in communal af fairs and also in the economy of  the island during the period under examination. They all prospered by making wise use of  the opportunities of fered to them by the Ottoman regime. Table 3 is indicative of  this.

150 See E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, pp. 100–1. 151 Obviously, the wealthiest members, who supported financially the BECE, constituted its Brotherhood (Adelfato Eforias Filanthropikon kai Ekpaideftikon Katastimaton). In the archive of  the BECE there is an undated book, which records the names of  the members of  the richest families in the town of  Mytilene. The focus is on men, but some women are included. The entry plirosantes (those who have paid) next to the names allows us to posit that it was members of  the Brotherhood who, being among the richest members of  the Christian community, had committed themselves to supporting the BECE financially.

Table 3  The new generation of entrepreneurs

Kourtzis

Koumbas

Kambouris

Goutos

Family Profession name landowners, owners of olive presses, soap manufactures, trade company (1859 M. Goutos & CIE, trade of oil and soap), commercial activities in Egypt

Of fices dimogerontia: M. Goutos (1863, 1872, 1874, 1876, 1879, 1881, 1883, 1888, 1890), V. Goutos (1905, 1909), A. Goutos (1878) members of  BECE Brotherhood: A. Goutos, Vasilios Goutos, Emmanouil Goutos, Konstantinos Goutos, Loukis Goutos, Michaїl V. Goutos, Myrsini Goutou Michaїl Goutos (counsellor of  the municipality, 1885)

landowners, owners of an olive press (in the dimogerontia: M. Kambouris (1863, 1865, 1866, 1872, 1873, 1877, 1879, 1883, village Kato Tritos), trade company, commercial 1889, 1903), F.N. Kambouris (1892, 1905) activities in Egypt and Romania members of  BECE: F.N. Kambouris (1882–1884, 1889, 1890, 1893) members of  BECE Brotherhood: Evoulia T. Kambouri, P.F. Kambouris landowners, owners of an olive press, trade companies (1866 ‘K. Lazos, V.P. Koumbas & CIE’, 1876 ‘Kourtzis Koumbas & CIE’, trade of oil and soap) commercial activities in Egypt, Russia and Romania.

dimogerontia: V. Koumbas (1841, 1843, 1845, 1867, 1889, 1896, 1898, 1909), M.A. Koumbas (1867, 1885, 1888, 1891, 1893, 1896), P. Koumbas (1841, 1843, 1845), A.P. Koumbas (1878, 1890), A.B. Koumbas (1909) members of  BECE: V. Koumbas (1878), M.A. Koumbas (1879–1882, 1886, 1888– 1892), G.M. Koumbas (1880, 1882–1884, 1887–1888, 1890), G.A. Koumbas (1882, 1886) members of  BECE Brotherhood: Aristidis Koumbas, Victoria Koumba, Georgios Koumbas, Grigorios Koumbas, Nikolaos G. Koumbas, Olga Koumba, Pelagia G. Koumba members of court: Georgios A. Koumbas (judge of  the Commercial Tribunal, 1885), Michaїl A. Koumbas (member of court, 1885)

landowners, owners of commercial companies (1874 ‘P.M. Kourtzis & Cie’, 1876 ‘Kourtzis Koumpas & Cie’, ‘Courdzibad’), Bank of  Mytilene (1891), Aegean Steam Navigation Company (1883), coal-mine in Iraklia of  Asia Minor (1887), commercial activities in Constantinople, Cyprus, Odessa.

dimogerontia: Michaїl Kourtzis (1884, 1888) members of  BECE Brotherhood: Georgios P. Kourtzis, Evanthia D. Kourtzi, Lopa G. Kourtzi, Panos Kourtzis, Mitsas P. Kourtzis judge of a court of  the first instance: Michaїl Kourtzis 1885–1886 D. Kourtzis: vice-consul of  Russia in Mytilene Panos Kourtzis: member of  the Committee for the management of  the Ottoman public debt in Constantinople, vice-consul of  Germany in Mytilene (1896–1928)

Mandras Mitrelias Mouzalas Nianias Vasileiou

landowners, owners of olive presses, trade of oil, commercial activities in Asia Minor

dimogerontia: G. Mandras (1843, 1845), M. Mandras (1844), Gr. Mandras (1860, 1862, 1865, 1871), V.P. Mandras (1880, 1884–1893, 1896, 1899, 1901, 1905, 1908), V.N. Mandras (1893), P. Mandras 1884 Members of  BECE Brotherhood: Petros V. Mandras, Panos V. Mandras

landowners, trade company, owners of olive press and soap manufacture, commercial activities in Marseilles

dimogerontia: P. Mitrelias (1862, 1866, 1868, 1871–1876, 1878–1880, 1891, 1896), Athanasios Mitrelias (1865, 1869, 1871, 1874–1878, 1883, 1897, 1900), Alexandros P. Mitrelias (1897–1903, 1905, 1908–1911), M. Mitrelias (1880), D.P. Mitrelias (1890, 1892) members of  BECE Brotherhood: Apostolos Mitrelias, Athanasios Mitrelias, Vasilios A. Mitrelias, Nikolaos P. Mitrelias, Charilaos A. Mitrelias members of  BECE: Panagiotis Mitrelias (1879–1881), Dimitrios P. Mitrelias (1886, 1888–1889, 1893), A. Mitrelias (1891–1893)

landowners, owners of olive press, tannery, soap and f lour manufactures, owners of  trade companies (1843 V. Mouzalas & CIE, 1866 P. Grimanis, E. Tsirigotis & A. Mouzalas), commercial activities in Egypt, Ηartum

dimogerontia: A.V. Mouzalas (1884–1888, 1890, 1893, 1896, 1898, 1900, 1902, 1905) Member of  BECE: A. Mouzalas 1879, 1880–1886, 1891–1893 members of  BECE Brotherhood: Antonios Mouzalas, Apostolos Mouzalas, Asimakis Mouzalas, Vasilios Mouzalas dimarchos Mytilinis: A. Mouzalas (1889)

landowners, owners of olive presses (in Pamfila and Kydonies), soap manufacture (Kydonies), trade company, commercial activities in Asia Minor landowners in Lesbos and Asia Minor, owners of olive presses in the villages Mistegna and Loutra (Lesbos) and in Kydonies (Asia Minor), soap, f lour and seed-oil manufactures, trade companies (1852–1854, 1862–1865, 1867– 1871, 1894–1913), shipowners, commercial activities in Constantinople, Smyrna, Marseilles, Varna

dimogerontia: Konst. Nianias (1891, 1893, 1896, 1900–1903), Maliakas Nianias (1880, 1897) members of  BECE Brotherhood: Ar. Nianias, N.K. Nianias Konstantinos Nianias: permanent commercial tribune dimogerontia: Panagiotis Vasileiou (1862, 1874–1877, 1880–1886, 1893, 1896), Per. P. Vasileiou (1893, 1897, 1908) members of  BECE Brotherhood: A. Vasileiou, Vasilios Vasileiou, Panagiotis A. Vasileiou, Charalambos Vasileiou, P. Vasileiou: member of court and vice-consul of  Spain

Note. Sources: ABECE: Reports, S. Anagnostou personal collection; E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία.

54

Chapter 1

Their wealth allowed them to sustain a lifestyle that dif ferentiated them from the lower economic groups. They were inf luenced by western models and adjusted their dress and diet accordingly. Women supervised the servants and the children’s upbringing at home, and were seen in public at charity events. In their spare time, they took long walks, went to the theatre and attended dancing parties, while their husbands spent time in various clubs and cof fee houses. The architectural style of  their houses, as well as some of  the decorative motifs and design details employed, testifies to their European inf luence and their undeniable economic power.152 The middle social groups emerged during the last decades of  the nineteenth century due to the development of  trade, the gradual industrialization of agricultural production and free education.153 These groups included people involved in trade, albeit on a smaller scale than the merchants mentioned above, as well as craftsmen and professionals such as doctors, lawyers and teachers. Having acquired financial wealth and an education, they could now lay claim to local political of fice.

Organization of  the educational system The principal actors in the socio-economic development – the upper and middle social groups designated henceforth by the term ‘leading groups’ – tried to further reinforce the institutions of  local Christian society by 152 See E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, pp. 308f f. Although the members of  the upper social groups had almost the same economic interests and similar social aspirations, it is wrong to treat them as monolithic entities; the division of  the dimogerontes into two parts and the dif ferent stance each took on the Limonos Question (one part of  the dimogerontes of  Mithymna, not negligible in number, supported the Patriarchate, while another opposed the Church) indicates that these groups were internally dif ferentiated; see P. Argyris, ‘Το Λειμωνιακό ζήτημα’, pp. 53–4. 153 As has already been mentioned, education was provided free of charge to all the members of  the Christian community from 1878 onwards; however, primary education was not compulsory until 1912; D. Mantos, Λεσβιακή παιδεία και πνευματική ζωή την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας, p. 232.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

55

organizing the educational system. At this point, it should be noted that before the Tanzimat period, both the dimogerontes and the Church had paid only slight attention to education. In some cases, they were even known to discourage the educational aspirations of members of  the Christian communities; Lesbos’ well-articulated religious institutions – two dioceses and powerful monastic foundations – would not permit the dissemination of  the progressive ideas of  the Enlightenment on the island until at least the mid-nineteenth century.154 An example lies in the vain ef forts made by Veniamin the Lesbian to set up a school in Mytilene in 1812. The Church was the principal source of resistance to the innovative ideas of the Enlightenment of which Veniamin was an exponent. An article published in the periodical Melissa (20 October 1820) describes the island’s hostility to Veniamin in 1812, and traces its origins back mainly to the former Metropolitan of  Mytilene, Ieremias, who was the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople at the time of  the incident (1812), and who would not so much as suf fer to have such matters mentioned in his presence, so far was he from showing any interest in schools and education, and such his abhorrence of all literate, studious men, being uneducated himself; he barely knew how to write. […] Credible individuals assert that he had burned many books, among them a number of ancient parchments, because he considered them useless […]. And he cursed the people of  Mytilene, those utterly pious and unfortunate persons who, having been incited to do so by the philosopher Veniamin, were struggling to establish a school, exhorting them to stop such a corrupting enterprise. ‘What need’, he writes to them, ‘have you of philosophy? Did your fathers have any kind of  knowledge on the matter? Yet they lived without it, did they not?’ He writes to the ef fect that this philosophy will be the root of a thousand evils. And thus, having his wicked nephew as his instrument or accessory in locum, he convinced those silly inhabitants of  Mytilene to abandon the school, to become indif ferent to it and to let teachers and pupils depart in a miserable state.155

154 R. Argyropoulou & P. Kitromilides, ‘Ο Διαφωτισμός στον χώρο της Αιολίδας’, in Μυτιλήνη και Αϊβαλί. Μια αμφίδρομη σχέση στο βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο, p. 60. 155 Cited in D. Mantos, Λεσβιακή παιδεία και πνευματική ζωή την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας, pp. 225–6.

56

Chapter 1

Of course, the negative reception of  Veniamin’s ideas had more than one source, though the Church constituted the main one, since it was responsible for educating the Christians in the Empire until the mid-nineteenth century. Another principal source was Mytilene’s powerful notables, men of authority who did not oppose Veniamin’s cause in particular, but every attempt at educational modernization. It is not a coincidence that the Lesbos High School was established in 1840, a year after the beginning of the Tanzimat, and decades after the foundation of equivalent Greek Orthodox educational institutions elsewhere in the Empire.156 In fact, the resistance to the ideas of  the Enlightenment on the part of  the Orthodox Greeks of  Lesbos and their non-participation in the Greek War of  Independence of 1821 are good indicators of  the socio-political and ideological climate on the island during the first half of  the nineteenth century. However, from the second half of  the nineteenth century onwards, positive developments were attained in education thanks to the Tanzimat and as part of a wider trend in the Empire towards secularization and modernization in public sphere domains. In addition, during the Hamidian period (1878–1908) together with a renewed stress on Islam, educational modernization continued to be promoted. Especially, the promulgation of  the Regulation of  Public Education in 1869 can be seen ‘as a part of  the Ottomanist project by trying to integrate Muslim, non-Muslim and foreign schools within a legal framework and to found government schools for non-Muslim communities’.157 However, the Regulation of  Public Education was ef fectively applied only after 1880 and then with varying intensity, according to time and place. 156 For example, the High Scool of  Chios was founded in 1792, while in Kydonies a Greek School (Elliniki Scholi) existed during the same period. The famous Academy, in which Veniamin the Lesbian taught until 1812, was founded in 1802. 157 Selcuk Somel, The modernization of public education in the Ottoman Empire, 1839– 1908. Islamization, autocracy and discipline (Leiden: Brill, 2001), p. 83 and Sevasti Christidou-Lionaraki, ‘Το οθωμανικό εκπαιδευτικό σύστημα και τα ελληνικά μειονοτικά σχολεία την εποχή του Τανζιμάτ 1839–1876’, Synchrona Themata 74–5, p. 151–3. On the modernization of public education in the Empire, see also Benjamin Fortna, Imperial classroom: Islam, the state and education in the late Ottoman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

57

In Lesbos, the dimogerontes and ephors, in their capacity as members of  the local leading groups, were responsible for organizing education in close collaboration with the island’s two metropolitans. The economic growth of  the period made the operation of  the educational institutions viable and the gradual extension of  the educational network feasible. Thus, by the beginning of  the twentieth century, the Greek Orthodox communities of  Lesbos had created a well-developed educational network entirely at their own expense and without any financial contribution by the Ottoman government or the Greek state.158 For example, out of a total of 230 Greek Orthodox schools in the islands of  the Aegean, 112 were in Lesbos.159 In addition, there was a significant increase in the number of  Muslim schools in the island.160 There is evidence that the secondary idadi school of  Mytilene, which was founded in 1891, was attended by 130 Muslim and four Christian students in 1897.161 Moreover, according to statistics provided by the Greek vice-consul, it is estimated that out of some 6,900 Muslim inhabitants in the kaza of  Mytilene in 1911–1912, 927 were school children, suggesting a ratio of one child to every 7.4 inhabitants.162 Given that the financing of schools remained one of  the main weaknesses of  the public 158 For more on the education in Lesbos, see Neilos Sakellariou, ‘Έκθεσις περί της εκπαιδευτικής καταστάσεως της Λέσβου’, in Geniki Dioikisis Nison Aigaiou [General Directorate of  the Aegean Islands], ed., Διάφοροι μελέται περί των νήσων. Α΄ Λέσβος (Mytilene: Lesbos, 1913), P. Samaras, Η εκπαίδευση στη Λέσβο, D. Mantos, Λεσβιακή παιδεία και πνευματική ζωή την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας and S. LykiardopoulouKontara, Κοινωνία και παιδεία στη Λέσβο την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας (Mytilene: Doukas, 2010). 159 E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, p. 325. 160 For the percentage of  Muslim government primary (ibtidai) and secondary (rusdiye and idadi) schools in the kaza of  Mytilene in relation with the other kazas of  the Empire during the period 1902–1908, see S. Somel, The modernization of public education in the Ottoman Empire, Appendix 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. 161 According to an 1897 cabinet protocol, non-Muslims who applied to secondary schools were to be admitted; see S. Somel, The modernization of public education in the Ottoman Empire, p. 240. 162 S. Lykiardopoulou-Kontara, Κοινωνία και παιδεία στη Λέσβο την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας, pp. 492 and 496.

58

Chapter 1

primary education at least until the end of  the Hamidian period, it is possible that the local Muslim schools were operated mainly at the expense of  the Muslim community.163 It is not a coincidence that the Muslims of  Mytilene sent numerous petitions to the Sublime Porte asking for the assignment of  the locally collected taxes as a whole only for the local needs of  the island, to be spent for public works as well as for local education.164 Moreover, two French Catholic schools were established in the city of  Mytilene in 1901 and 1902 respectively, and remained in operation until at least 1912, despite the vehement opposition of  the local Orthodox Church.165 A report filed by the Greek state’s General Directorate of  the Aegean Islands (Geniki Dioikisis Nison Aigaiou) in March 1913 mentions the existence of 64 schools for boys and 41 for girls (outside the town of  Mytilene), with 6,885 and 3,065 pupils respectively, aged six to twelve. The town itself was endowed with a High School (Gymnasium; 13 staf f and 288 pupils), an Urban School (Astiki Scholi; 16 staf f and 974 pupils) and a School for Girls (Parthenagogeio; 17 staf f and 770 pupils) for pupils above the age of  twelve.166 In addition, students were sent to Athens and Europe on a scholarship provided by the Christian community of  Mytilene; upon completion of  their studies, they were under an obligation to return and teach in the Mytilene High School.167 The provision of  free education to all after 1878, coupled with the provision of scholarships to underprivileged pupils, the care of poor members of  the community and illegitimate children, the charitable activities of  ladies in the upper social groups, and the speeches made by the literate members of  the community for the benefit of  the ‘moral improvement’ of  the masses, should all be perceived in the context of  the attempted cultural improvement of  the Greek Orthodox community. Local leading groups, 163 S. Somel, The modernization of public education in the Ottoman Empire, p. 139. 164 Ibid., p. 148. 165 See A. Stergellis, ‘Καθολικισμός και γαλλική δράση στη Μυτιλήνη στις αρχές του αιώνα’ and S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, p. 484. 166 Geniki Dioikisis Nison Aigaiou, Διάφοροι μελέται περί των νήσων. Α΄ Λέσβος, p. 116; also see ABECE: Registration Log 1910–1915. 167 See G. Aristidis, Τετραλογία πανηγυρική, p. 13.

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

59

together with the literate members of  the community, were also involved in the founding and operating of various cultural and charitable associations during the second half of  the nineteenth century, most of which sought, at least until the beginning of  the twentieth century, to raise the funds required to support local schools, to establish libraries, to grant scholarships to poor students and, in general, to support the ‘lower’ groups among their compatriots. From this point of view, they were similar in nature to those founded during the same period in other communities in the Empire, as well as in the Greek state, and were designed to promote the claims of  the emerging leading social groups and disseminate their values and ideals, particularly as regards social cohesion.168 At the heart of  this matter lies the fact that all these activities undertaken by the leading groups strengthened the Greek cultural characteristics of  the community, laid the foundations for the creation of a ‘proto-nationalism’,169 and accentuated in its members the feeling of  ‘belonging’ to a wider Greek ‘imagined community’.170

Social opposition and antagonism It could be claimed that during the last decades of  the nineteenth century, the island entered a process of urbanization, of industrialization and commercialization of its agricultural produce, combined with an asymmetrical

168 See Ch. Koulouri, ‘Voluntary associations and new forms of sociability: Greek sports clubs at the turn of  the nineteenth century’, in Ph. Carabott, ed., Greek society in the making 1863–1913 and Αθλητισμός και όψεις της αστικής κοινωνικότητας. Γυμναστικά και αθλητικά σωματεία 1870–1922 (Athens: EIE, 1997). 169 The term is borrowed from E. Hobsbawm, Nations and nationalism since 1780. Programme, myth, reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 46f f. 170 See B. Anderson, Imagined communities. Ref lections on the origin and spread of nationalism (London: Verso, 1983).

60

Chapter 1

distribution of wealth and intense social inequalities.171 By the turn of  the century, some members of  the middle social groups had stated their opposition to the administrative status quo and to the dominance of  the upper social groups in this area, and demanded social change.172 They challenged the hitherto unquestioned prestige of  the local Christian authorities, both secular and ecclesiastical, and sought to participate in the administration of  the community. During the nineteenth century, conf licts similar to those on Lesbos were also observed in the cities of  the Asia Minor coast: Kydonies, Smyrna and Moschonisi.173 In essence, when the middle social groups emerged towards the end of  the nineteenth century, primarily due to their commercial, craft and professional activities, they sought to partake in the administration of  the community alongside the upper social groups. It is legitimate to claim that the concession of  the right to vote to larger segments of  the population in April 1908 was, in all probability, in response to these demands. And, sure enough, as the nineteenth century neared its end, new names began to appear, names of members of  the middle groups, alongside those of  the well-known wealthy families, which had almost monopolized the dimogerontia until then. Of course, the powerful families did everything

171 P. Argyris describes Lesbos as one of  the ‘genuine but incomplete models of urban transformation’, and E. Sifneou considers the socio-economic transformations that took place in Lesbos during the last decades of  the Ottoman Empire as an ‘explicit sample of urbanization’; see P. Argyris, ‘Λέσβος: από την κατάκτηση στη σύγχρονη εποχή’, pp. 59–60 and E. Sifneou, ‘Η εκβιομηχάνιση της Λέσβου κατά την ύστερη Τουρκοκρατία’, Lesviaka XVI, p. 454. 172 See P. Argyris, ‘Η εξανάστασις των Φαυλοβίων’, pp. 42–64. 173 See Th. Sperantsas, ed., Κωνσταντίνου Οικονόμου του εξ οικονόμων λόγοι (Athens, 1971; Anonymous, Κυδωνιακά ή οι νέοι των Κυδωνιών τριάκοντα τύραννοι (Malta: Irsfeld, 1842); E. Drakos, Μικρασιανά ή γενική πραγματεία περί Εκατονήσων (Athens, 1895) and Μικρασιανά ή ιστορία των Μοσχονησίων υπό έποψιν εκκλησιαστικήν (Athens, 1895); N. Apostolakis, Κυδωνιακαί μελέται και παραλληλισμοί (Kydonies, 1914); Ph. Iliou, Κοινωνικοί αγώνες και Διαφωτισμός. Η περίπτωση της Σμύρνης, 1819 (Athens: Mnimon, 1986).

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

61

they could to underscore the social distance between them and the middle groups.174 It has been observed that, the bourgeoisie dif ferentiated themselves from the commercial people by choosing to frequent exclusive places where the presence of  the middle class was unthinkable. They were also dif ferent in mentality and behaviour. They never attended the same gatherings as the middle [groups]. For example, the Proodos association was the bastion of  the nobility [upper social groups]. In the theatre, representatives of  the upper bourgeois layers occupied the first f loor boxes, whereas the middle class occupied the stalls. The bourgeois were cosmopolitan; globe-trotters, they were welleducated and spoke f luent French, Russian, Italian and English. They holidayed and honeymooned in Europe. In contrast, the members of  the middle [groups] spoke Greek and Turkish and took trips to Constantinople and Smyrna.175

Social dif ferentiation, though, is not exclusively mirrored in the imaginary line separating the upper and middle social groups. The economic growth of  the last two decades of  the nineteenth century, in particular, did little to improve the lot of most farmers and factory workers. These groups, at the bottom of  the financial and social scale, apparently led a harsh life. Unfortunately, since their voices are absent from the written sources of  the period, we only have indirect images of  their plight: for instance, the speeches made by Prokopios Lefkias at the Workers’ Fraternity of  Mytilene (Ergatiki Adelfotis)176 in the winter of 1887–1888 constitute evidence for the way the workers were treated by the leading groups in local society. Lefkias opined that ‘the basic needs of  the worker do not exceed his food, his abode and clothing, his taxes and his obligations towards his family’, arguing that a worker should not ‘spend money in vain on frivolities’ and must possess virtues such as frugality and austerity. His food must be ‘cheap but nutritious at the same time’. As a doctor, Lefkias emphasized the nutri174 The powerful families of  the island tried to prevent capital leakages and to consolidate their fortunes by intermarriage; see E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, pp. 169 and 321. 175 Ibid., p. 323. 176 The main aim of  the Workers’ Fraternity of  Mytilene was ‘progress and improving the community through work’; see P. Lefkias, Διατριβή περί εργασίας και εργάτου (Athens: Perris, 1888), p. 9.

62

Chapter 1

tious value ‘of  legumes, beans, chickpeas, leeks, onions, garlic, cabbages and other vegetables’, pointing out that ‘a kilo of dried beans costs one grosi and is far more nutritious than a kilo of veal’. Maintaining that ‘the fast that our Church instituted is nothing else than the result of rational thought concerning the best interests of our working society’, he noted that a worker ‘is generally expected to wear tasteful but plain clothes, adequate but not luxurious. Under no circumstances must a worker make or wear clothes unsuitable to be worn in work, for, not only will he look ridiculous in such an attire, but outfits unsuitable to the workplace are automatically a frivolity for the worker’, and this, in his humble opinion, was a mortal sin. He also considered prof ligacy and debauchery the most terrible of  tribulations. In his opinion, the only solution to the above was ‘temperance, or an early marriage which would protect the worker from debauchery’, concluding that ‘the worker’s duty, necessity and social obligation was marriage and childbearing’.177 The suggestions he prof fered on how workers should dress, eat and be educated, and how they should behave in general, are valuable from two points of view: on the one hand, they illustrate the tendency of  the leading social groups to manipulate and patronize the workers; on the other, they illustrate the living conditions of  the people on whom the wealth and urbanization of  Mytilenian society relied throughout the second half of  the nineteenth century.178 The asymmetrical distribution of wealth is further attested by the existence of  ‘young slaves’, poor girls and boys who were ‘leased’ for a short period – or actually ‘sold’ for their entire lives – to representatives of  the upper social groups as house servants. In the early twentieth century, countless young girls left the island’s villages to work as domestic servants in the service of wealthy families in Mytilene; some travelled further afield to Constantinople and Smyrna.179

177 Ibid., pp. 33–5, 48 and 71. 178 Cf. M. Vallis, Κουβέντες (Mytilene, 1929), p. 99 and A. Panselinos, Τότε που ζούσαμε (Athens: Kedros, 1974), p. 11. 179 E. Sifneou, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία, pp. 316–17 and ‘Από τη μουσουλμανική στη χριστιανική πόλη’, p. 406. The newspaper Salpinx (27–10–1910) condemned this practice by pointing out that ‘the weak and poor creatures, who

Communal af fairs and society in the post-Tanzimat era, 1876–1908

63

Furthermore, it should be noted that the authority of  the Christian upper social groups was further buttressed by the identification of  their interests with those of  the Ottoman upper social groups and authorities. The incidents relating to the closure – in 1902 – of  the Municipal Chemistry Laboratory (Dimarchiako Chimeio), which had been in operation in Mytilene since 1894 and which was charged with ‘controlling imported goods and local fraud’, are revealing of this observation. The specific laboratory operated under the directorship of Michaïl Stefanidis, a man of various interests and sound educational background,180 who maintained in 1909 that ‘relations with the commercial community and the Ottoman customs were not always good’.181 In essence, there were two reasons for the closure of  the Laboratory: firstly, it was contrary to the local merchants’ interests, because it sought to put an end to the lucrative and well-established practice of adulterating goods; secondly, it deprived the local Ottoman authorities of  the bribes they were accustomed to receiving in exchange for turning a blind eye.182 In conclusion, it could be argued that the sources of  the period indicate that Abdulhamid’s attempts at Islamizing the state183 had no observable impact on Mytilenian society. In essence, the sources present a Christian society of remarkable wealth and prosperity, whose members sought to coexist peacefully with their Muslims compatriots, who might today be considered their ancient enemies. The existence of a Greek Orthodox community within the Empire with a strong socio-economic profile, buttressed aspirations to further growth, and ever greater access to the state machinery. The favourable reception of  the first proclamations of  the Young

180 181 182 183

were predestined to spend their lives in the kitchen of a mansion, still have the right to live as human beings’. V. Anastasiadis & S. Karavas, ‘Προλεγόμενα’, in M. Stefanidis, Χυμεία και Λέσβος (Mytilene: Panepistimio Aigaiou, 1996 [1909]), p. vii. M. Stefanidis, Χυμεία και Λέσβος, p. 4. V. Anastasiadis & S. Karavas, ‘Προλεγόμενα’, p. xix. As Selim Deringil pointed out, ‘Ottomanism, from being ostensibly supra-religious during the heyday of  the Tanzimat (1839–1876), would undergo a shift in emphasis to become more Islamic in tone and nuance during the reign of  Abdulhamid II’; Selim Deringil, The well-protected domains. Ideology and the legitimation of power in the Ottoman Empire 1876–1909 (London: I.B. Tauris, 1998), p. 46.

64

Chapter 1

Turk regime in July 1908 bears witness to these aspirations. However, the question to be addressed in the following chapters is how the financially and socially robust Christian community of  Mytilene could continue to coexist peacefully in a state whose Ottoman identity assumed an increasingly Turkish character during the Young Turk era (1908–1912).

Chapter 2

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908: enthusiasm and hopes for the new regime

Chapter 1 set out to delineate the social and economic profile of  Mytilene’s Greek Orthodox community from the start of  Abdulhamid’s reign (1876) until the summer of 1908, demonstrating that the absolutist nature of  the regime did not impact on the significant economic and social development that had begun on Lesbos in the mid-nineteenth century. Chapter 2 will argue that the Young Turk revolt of  July 1908 triggered the expression of social and political demands in the community of  Mytilene and – above all – revealed in a clearer light its members’ desire for a greater role in the political life of  the island. Section 1 traces the initial enthusiasm and first manifestations of the hopes placed in the new regime, which would soon take the form of the persecution of Christians and Muslims linked to the ancien régime of Abdulhamid. Section 2 argues that the election of two Greek Orthodox deputies from Lesbos to the Ottoman Parliament largely realized the ambitions nursed by members of the community for greater political involvement. Unfortunately, the extant sources do not allow for a more detailed analysis of some issues related to the elections. For instance, the political programme of Vostanis, one of  the two MPs elected in 1908, has not been found. Nevertheless, according to the extant sources, it could be claimed that the election of the two Greek Orthodox deputies enhanced the self-reliance of the Greeks, who now had their own parliamentary representatives to lobby on their account. At the same time, the transfer of a large part of the Patriarchate’s political power to lay members of the community led to its status as the Greeks’ only power centre being called into question. Overall, the chapter will posit that new political practices came to light after the summer of 1908 which had not manifested themselves earlier due to the absolutist nature of the regime.

66

Chapter 2

Figure 5  Christians and Muslims celebrating together the proclamation of  the Constitution in the city’s waterfront in July 1908.

Initial responses to regime change The Young Turk movement can be traced back to 1889, when it emerged as an intellectual opposition to the regime of  Sultan Abdulhamid II. The CUP (Committee of  Union and Progress), an outgrowth of  the Young Turk movement, was founded in Paris in 1892 by Turkish émigrés attracted to European elitist theories of  the late nineteenth century.1 However, its members, the Young Turks, did not enter upon real political activity until 1

On the political ideas of  the Young Turks, see Sukru Hanioglu, The Young Turks in opposition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 200f f and Preparation

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

67

the years immediately prior to the revolution of 1908.2 In June 1908, with the intention of crushing the Young Turk movement, the Sultan dispatched teams of investigators to Macedonia and arrested some of  the military CUP leaders. In addition, rumours were f loated of an agreement to partition Macedonia by King Edward VII of  Britain and Tsar Nicholas II in Reval (today’s Tallinn) between 9 and 12 June 1908. These motivated the CUP members in Macedonia and sparked the revolution. In a coordinated campaign, the Young Turks expressed their discontent to the Sultan and demanded the restoration of  the Constitution.3 Having failed to quell the revolt, the Sultan finally gave in and restored the Constitution on the night of 10 July 1908 after an interval of  thirty two years.4 When the Young Turks assumed power in July 1908, they prioritized the modernization of  the state through the abolition of absolutism and the implementation of a constitutional regime. The imperative need to deliver the Empire from the multiple domestic and external perils that were directly threatening its territorial integrity made the political rejuvenation of  the Empire a necessity.5 By attempting to introduce European constitutional institutions and, through these, to revitalize the state, the Young Turks prolonged the life of  the ‘sick man of  Europe’.

2 3

4 5

for a revolution: The Young Turks, 1902–1908 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 289–311. S. Hanioglu, Preparation for a revolution, pp. 3–4 and 130f f. B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, pp. 206f f ; E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 90–4 and 144; S. Hanioglu, The Young Turks in opposition, p. 31. For a more detailed account of  the preparation for the revolution and its causes, see Zurcher, The Unionist factor. Role of  the Committee of  Union and Progress in the Turkish national movement, 1905–1926 (Leiden: Brill, 1984), A. Kansu, The revolution of 1908 in Turkey (New York: Brill, 1997) and S. Hanioglu, Preparation for a revolution. According to S. Hanioglu, the Sultan’s decision ref lected a ‘realistic appraisal of  the situation, as he could not risk a civil war between Ottoman armies’; S. Hanioglu, Preparation for a revolution, p. 278. As S. Hanioglu pointed out, ‘parliament, as well as representative government, meant little to the Young Turks, except for its value as a modern symbol and a mechanism for preventing the Great Powers’ intervention in favor of  the Christians of  Macedonia and the Armenians living in the six eastern provinces of  the Empire’; S. Hanioglu, The Young Turks in opposition, p. 31.

68

Chapter 2

On a social level, the Young Turks constituted the new leadership group of intellectual, bureaucratic and military elites, and comprised the main conduit for the introduction of  European ideas in the Empire. On an ideological level, the Young Turks were eclecticists, since their common denominator was more a sum of views and attitudes than a single shared programme.6 However, despite the coexistence of a range of dif ferent tendencies, Ottomanism – in the sense of  the free, equal and peaceful cooperation of all peoples, irrespective of creed, within the framework of a multiethnic, multi-religious Empire – became their of ficial ideology from 1908 until the Balkan War of 1912, when events rendered Ottomanism a dead letter.7 It is of  little significance whether the Young Turks were sincere in their initial intentions to apply the aforementioned principles of  Ottomanism. Firstly, their of ficial adoption of  these principles was both logical and to be expected. However, as loyal members of the Empire’s ruling group, their task was to defend its supremacy – or at least its existence – against the dangers that threatened it; otherwise, they would be handing over two-thirds or more of its territories.8 Thus, it quickly became apparent that, despite their initial promises to guarantee the freedom and equality of all ethnic groups, the Young Turks adopted in many cases an ‘aggressive Ottomanism’, which their opponents considered tantamount to ‘Turkification’.9 Besides the Young Turks of the Committee, there were also the Liberals, led by Prince Sabahaddin, who propounded a political programme which, in its main points, supported the implementation of a decentralized system 6

7

8 9

The ideological currents were not mutually exclusive. Thus, many Young Turks simultaneously supported Ottomanism, were emotionally linked to a romantic pan-Turkic nationalism, and were devoted Muslims; E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 127–32 and S. Hanioglu, Preparation for a revolution, pp. 289f f. From quite early on, from the reign of  Abdulhamid II, there had been many Young Turks who had rejected Ottomanism as an impracticable fantasy, since the Empire ‘was not a nation, but rather a domination, a hegemony of  the conquerors of an Empire over the peoples they had conquered’; B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 228. B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, pp. 228–9; Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 129. S. Hanioglu, Preparation for a revolution, p. 315.

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

69

of administration and promised to pursue a tolerant policy towards the nonMuslim element of  the Empire.10 Its support of  the aforementioned principles explains why so many Greeks supported the Liberals.11 However, the Young Turks of  the CUP found themselves at the political forefront from 1908 until 1912, and the Liberal camp remained on the political fringe.12 In June 1908, the political unrest besetting the Empire and the mobilization of  the Young Turks seems to have worried the Sultan. The latter despatched a secret agent, Hakki Bey (counselor in the Constantinople Prefecture), to Smyrna and then to Salonika, via Mytilene, in order to gauge the public’s stance on the Young Turks and cancel any revolutionary plans of  the latter. On the island, he met his friend Panos Kourtzis, the eminent banker and entrepreneur, and confessed that he wanted to find out whether the Greeks were involved in any way in the Young Turks’ plans. In addition, Hakki Bey asked Kourtzis to intercede so that the branch of  Bank of  Mytilene in Salonika provided him all possible assistance to carry out his mission. We do not know what Kourtzis replied, but it would seem likely, given Kourtzis’ good relations with the Sultan’s court, that he sought to set his mind at rest.13 The Greek vice-consul on the island, Karatzas, who together with his colleagues across the Empire had been told by the Greek Minister for Foreign Af fairs, Georgios Baltatzis, that ‘for their personal security as well as national reasons, the Greek element should remain loyal towards the dominant authority, but also keep an eye on the Young Turks’ activities’,14 informed his superiors about Hakki Bey’s visit without express10 On Sabahaddin’s political programme and the criticism of  his opponents, see S. Hanioglu, Preparation for a revolution, pp. 82f f and B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, pp. 199–200 and 209. For the meaning of  liberalism at this specific political juncture, see Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 88. 11 See below chapter IV, p. 124 and 140f f. 12 As S. Hanioglu pointed out, ‘CUP’s propaganda likened Sabahaddin Bey’s decentralization programme to a partition scheme, and this caused many intellectuals who had originally seen it as beneficial to the Empire to distance themselves from it’; S. Hanioglu, Preparation for a revolution, p. 316. 13 See P. Kourtzis, ‘Memoirs’, p. 20. 14 A. Panayotopoulos, ‘Early relations between the Greeks and the Young Turks’, Balkan Studies 21/1, p. 93.

70

Chapter 2

ing his views on the Young Turks’ plans.15 Nevertheless, in the event, the regime change was hailed with enthusiasm by the Greeks in the majority of  the Empire’s provinces.16 Obviously, the restoration of  the 1876 Constitution was something the Empire’s people had both wanted and hoped for. For this reason, as soon as the granting of  the Constitution and the proclamation of elections had been confirmed, the Empire’s Turks, Arabs, Jews, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians and Armenians felt as though they had been set free and ‘took to the streets to express their happiness’. Everyone in the Empire assumed that ‘the Young Turks’ promises to grant constitutional freedom, justice and equality before the law to all, regardless of creed, would immediately solve all the problems that had crept in during the era of autocracy’.17 The Constantinopolitan daily Sabach noted that on the day the Constitution was proclaimed ‘freedom glowed in the people’s eyes. […] Men and women expressed the conviction that they and their children would live happy lives under the wings of  freedom, justice and equality’.18 Mytilene’s Christian and Muslim leading groups seem to have learned of  the Sultan’s proclamation on 14 July. The mutasarrif  Ali Nosrend Pasha tried to mislead them at first, saying that the Sultan himself  had taken the

15 16

17 18

IAYE 1908/88, no 528, Karatzas to MFA (Ministry of  Foreign Af fairs), 3 June 1908. Dates of  IAYE documents correspond to the Julian calendar. S. Anagnostopoulou points out that the Young Turk revolution was not greeted with the same enthusiasm in every province of  the Empire. Referring to Cappadocia, she observes that ‘the Christians and Muslims, who had strong religious feelings, considered the Young Turk revolt a threat to their values’, and were consequently ‘not concerned about changes which, at least initially, seemed to have had little impact on their lives’; S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, p. 460. On the way that the people of  Izmir experienced the change of  the regime, see V. Kechriotis, ‘Celebration and contestation: The people of  Izmir welcome the second constitutional era in 1908’, in K. Lappas et al., eds, Μνήμη Πηνελόπης Στάθη. Μελέτες ιστορίας και φιλολογίας (Irakleio: Panepistimiakes ekdoseis Kritis, 2010). By way of illustration, see S. Shaw & E. Shaw, History of  the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, vol. II, p. 273. Cited in Amalthia, 14/27 July 1908.

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

71

initiative in granting the Constitution.19 According to the Smyrna daily Amalthia, the governor announced that ‘His Majesty [the Sultan] granted the Constitution for the sake of  his people’, and stressed that they ought to express their gratitude to him.20 The local leaders maintained their reservations. Three days later, having learned from another source – possibly the press – that it was the new political force, the Young Turks, rather than the Sultan that was responsible for the granting of  the Constitution, the inhabitants of  Mytilene, Christian and Muslim alike, could not contain their enthusiasm.21 We know that there were demonstrations in the streets and various displays of unbridled joy from the pages of  the Amalthia, as Mytilene would not acquire a newspaper of its own for another few months. On 18 July, it reported that, the whole of  last night was spent in celebrations and the air resounded with celebratory gunfire. Pouring in from several dif ferent places, the population of  Mytilene congregated in the port and headed for the Greek Orthodox Cathedral, where they burst into thunderous ‘hurrahs’.

The celebrations lasted for two weeks or so, and were intense enough to worry Vice-consul Karatzas, who informed his superiors about ‘noisy demonstrations’ held by Christians and Muslims ‘around the clock’ in the streets of  the town accompanied by music and Greek and Ottoman f lags. As he noted, ‘Mytilene is, generally speaking, like a madhouse’ with ‘people making speeches in cof fee houses’, with Christians and Muslims embracing and ‘wishing for a Greek-Turkish alliance’.22 In essence, Christians and Muslims alike blamed some local authorities for absolutist behaviour, associating them with the old regime. And it 19

The Sultan initially tried to let it be known that he had granted the Constitution himself, and to prevent word getting out about the Young Turk movement in Macedonia; see E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 93. 20 Amalthia, 18/31 July 1908. 21 Similar enthusiastic demonstrations also took place in Constantinople and Smyrna. See, for example, Amalthia 12/25, 15/28, 18/31, 19/1, 21/3 and 23/5 July 1908; also, Ekklisiastiki Alithia, no 30, 30 July 1908: 351–4. 22 ΙΑYΕ 1908/111, no 580, Karatzas to MFA, 17 July 1908.

72

Chapter 2

was in this spirit that they proceeded to remove some of  the public servants across the island from their posts. The angry mob’s first target was the mutasarrif, Ali Nosrend, who had tried to deceive them in relation to the declaration of  the Constitution. On 19 July/1 August, they denounced him as ‘anti-constitutional’ and forced him to resign. In an article entitled ‘People’s purges’, Amalthia’s correspondent noted that the governor had not only spoken against the Constitution, but had allegedly arrested several individuals who had demonstrated in its favour, whereupon crowds of  Christians and Muslims had gathered in front of  the Greek Orthodox cathedral. There, they were addressed by the Metropolitan of  Mytilene, Kyrilos Moumtzis,23 who told them that the governor’s ‘anti-constitutional behaviour’ was just a rumour. Upon hearing this, the crowd began to shout: ‘Down with the covering up! Down with the patching up! Down with the governor! Long live the Constitution’. The metropolitan’s ef forts at mediation having failed, the governor sought to explain his ‘behaviour’ himself; however, faced with an increasingly hostile crowd, he bowed to the inevitable and resigned, with the metropolitan advising those assembled that the disgraced (former) mutasarrif should be af forded ‘the hospitality due to a citizen by citizens of a constitutional regime’.24 The rationale for the governor’s removal by ‘people’s power’ is lucidly expressed in a letter by a local Ottoman Greek, possibly to a relative:

23 Moumtzis (1867–1925) was born in Sinope, a region of  Pontus. He became Metropolitan of  Mytilene in 1897 at the age of 30, and retained his position until 1925. Prior to that, he had lived in Constantinople, having graduated from the Faculty of  Theology in Chalki in 1888. He also served as Chief  Secretary of  the Holy Synod. According to Alfonsos Delis, he possessed ‘intellectual acuity, diplomatic talent and administrative abilities’; A. Delis, ‘Μεθόδιος Αρώνης και Κύριλλος Μουμτζής. Μητροπολίτες Μυτιλήνης, 1867–1876 και 1893–1925’, in Lesviako Imerologio 2001 and ‘Μητροπολίτες Μυτιλήνης στα χρόνια της δουλείας 1708–1925. Από τον Νικόδημο Αϊναζή ως τον Κύριλλο Μουμτζή’, in Aiolika Chronika VII (2005). 24 Amalthia, 19 July/1 August 1908; IAYE 1908/111, no 3604, Karatzas to MFA, 19 July 1908 and no 674, Karatzas to MFA, 22 July 1908; Zannis Kambouris, ‘Τα τελευταία χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας στη Λέσβο, 1908–1912, in Lesviaka IV, p. 114.

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

73

On Sunday afternoon, our good Governor left, or rather escaped, on an Egyptian ship. What a coincidence. The ship left at 10 pm and the CUP man charged with arresting him arrived at midnight. […] I believe he will eventually be caught and receive his just reward for his iniquities. He took as much as six thousand liras with him: the yield of  Mytilene, of course. His supporters have gone to ground in their homes and do not dare come out. The Committee is in the process of purging the State of  thieves, scum, informers, dirty scoundrels, corrupt of ficials, etc. They have sucked the state dry – or, rather, they have sucked on our sweat to amass their enormous fortunes. But they are already being arrested and brought to Justice. The way things are going, the position of  the Constitution is more solid every day. Things had reached the point of no return.25

In addition, some of  the local religious of ficials were also identified with the old regime and ousted from of fice. Metropolitan Kyrilos had been an object of popular disapprobation, being considered an accomplice ‘in the Ottoman governor’s debaucheries and abuses’, probably on account of  his friendship with him and his attempt to support the latter in the demonstration held in the cathedral against the governor’s ‘anti-constitutional’ behaviour. He ultimately retained his position, though Karatzas underlines that two clergymen – ‘both of suspicious behaviour’ – were forced to resign to appease popular demands.26 Moreover, the speech made by Archimandrite Vasilios Komvopoulos to a few Christians in the cathedral courtyard definitely sounded a dissonant note in the general symphony of celebration for the new political situation. The archimandrite urged his audience to show reserve with regard to the Young Turks’ promises of  freedom, justice and equality before the law for all nationalities.27 Clearly, the men and women celebrating the concession of constitutional freedom could not have shared the clergyman’s scepticism towards the new regime. Similar demonstrations vis-à-vis religious prelates were also staged in Smyrna, Chios and other regions around the Empire.28 In all likelihood, 25 26 27 28

Grimanis collection, Agia Paraskevi Lesvou, 30 July 1908. ΙΑYE 1908/111, no 674, Karatzas to MFA, 22 July 1908. F. Dimos-Paroditis, Ιστορία της τουρκοκρατούμενης Λέσβου, vol. III, p. 142. On Smyrna, see S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, p. 460 and V. Kechriotis, ‘Celebration and contestation: The people of  Izmir welcome the second constitutional era in 1908’. In Chios, the intense dislike of  the metropolitan persisted

74

Chapter 2

the original phenomena were amplified by the negative stance that the Ecumenical Patriarch Ioakeim III (1878–1884 and 1901–1912) initially took towards the Constitution, which he believed would curtail the prerogatives the Patriarchate had enjoyed until then as the highest authority of  the Greek Orthodox millet from both a religious and political point of view.29 Ioakeim III was attached to the old regime, ‘knowing full well from the long experience of centuries that loyalty to the Sublime Porte was the key to the survival both of  the Church and its f lock in the Empire, and of  the continued guarantee of  the Patriarchate’s traditional privileges’.30 On the other hand the Orthodox Greeks were bound to be disappointed with the Patriarch’s negative stance, since they nurtured so many hopes concerning the new regime. Besides, they were not particularly upset by the curtailment of  the Patriarchate’s political authority, since the Young Turks were transferring a part of it to the people themselves via participation in the administration of  their local communities and – more importantly – their future representation in the Ottoman Parliament. The incidents in question thus indicate quite clearly that the lay members of  the community were ready to accept the changes promised by the Young Turks, even if  this implied their opposition to the Patriarchate, which had until then led the Greek genos in the East.

in the months that followed and af fected the electoral campaign, dividing the community into two opposing groups; see A. Panayotopoulos, ‘Ο εκλογικός αγώνας του 1908 στη Χίο. Μια άποψη της κοινοτικής διαπάλης’, Deltio Kentrou Mikrasiatikon Spoudon I (1977). On the Metropolitan issue in Chios, see also Ekklisiastiki Alithia, no 37 (17 September 1908: 423–4), no 40 (10 October 1908: 462) and no 42 (23 October 1908: 470). 29 According to the Amalthia, the Patriarch reported to the Holy Synod that he had expressed his sorrow at the restoration of the Constitution to the Grand Vizier. In addition, during a demonstration staged by Orthodox Greeks, he declared the following: ‘As Orthodox Christians, you know that my Church has a distinguished position in the Ottoman State. The leader of  the Church cannot ignore that position and accept any action which could harm its privileges’; Amalthia, 21 July/3 August 1908. 30 P. Kitromilides, ‘“Imagined communities” and the origins of  the national question in the Balkans’, p. 184.

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

75

An article in the Amalthia describes the indignation, dejection and agitation felt by the Greeks upon receiving ‘the strange news’ that the Patriarch was against the Constitution and had expressed ‘his approval and sympathy for this already condemned dark system of  the most deplorable despotism’.31 It also declared that if  Ioakeim’s ‘beliefs have turned him against his own Nation, [now that] the sun of  freedom has risen, his preference for the darkness of despotism must force him to withdraw’; staying on his throne, as he did, he was automatically assumed to share ‘the wishes, ardent desires and joy of  the Greek population like any honest and conscientious man’. The author of  the article proceeds to explain that it is impossible for the nation to be governed by ‘an anti-Constitutionalist Patriarch and a sympathiser of a regime condemned in the conscience of  the civilized world’. In his opinion, the leader of a nation which had loved freedom passionately throughout its history must pledge his loyalty to liberal institutions, ‘as long as the latter do not challenge the vested rights of  the Genos’. Several demonstrations against the Patriarch’s stance were staged at this time by Orthodox Greeks, despite a number of articles in the of ficial journal of  the Patriarchate, the Ekklisiastiki Alithia, seeking to dissuade Christians from participating in such protests.32 In this way, the Patriarch was pressured by the Greeks to change his stance towards the new regime. Additionally, the Committee made contact in an ef fort to smooth out the situation with the leader of  the Orthodox Church. More specifically, on 17 July a certain Fazli Bey visited the Patriarch and of ficially confirmed that the Committee ‘has never even considered challenging the rights and privileges of  the Patriarchate’ and that any misunderstandings were due to unfounded rumours which should not be taken seriously.33 Given the circumstances, the Patriarchate adapted to the new political situation and publicly renounced Ioakeim’s negative declarations regarding the Constitution. As representatives ‘of  the entire Genos’, the Mixed Ecclesiastic Council and the Holy Synod expressed in an encyclical to the

31 32 33

Amalthia, 22/4 July 1908. Ekklisiastiki Alithia, no 29, 24 July 1908: 347–8. Ekklisiastiki Alithia, no 33, 21 August 1908: 381.

76

Chapter 2

Sultan their profound feelings of gratification and gratitude at the restoration of  the Constitution.34 The Ekklisiastiki Alithia also tried to smooth the unrest stirred up by the Patriarch’s ‘anti-constitutional’ statements,35 especially after a patriarchal encyclical praising the new regime.36 As has already been noted, the Patriarchate’s ability to survive rested largely in the fact that ‘it managed, on almost every occasion and sometimes paying the price attached to such practices, to adapt the capital of symbols of which it was the keeper to the necessities stemming from the dominance of novel constitutional structures and the discourses to which the latter eventually gave birth’.37 In the months that followed, the Patriarch would cooperate with the Young Turks and the Greek state in the parliamentary electoral process. In fact, a reassessment of  the Patriarchate’s relations with the Greek state was undertaken after 1908, as Ioakeim, ‘in contrast to the legacy of  the Enlightenment’, sought to bring together the Greek state and Church by emphasizing Greece’s Byzantine past, and thus ‘encompassing Orthodoxy within the ethnic definition of  Hellenism’.38 On 21 July/3 August 1908, the Amalthia recorded the warm reception af forded to the Metropolitan of  Athens by the Patriarch on his visit to Constantinople, the first ever such visit by the head of  the autocephalous Greek Church. Responding to the new political situation, the Patriarchate entered a period of modernization and embraced a changing role further illustrated by the part played by representatives of  the Orthodox Church in the electoral campaign of autumn 1908.39 Certainly, the Greeks of  Mytilene were aware of all these developments thanks to the newspapers that reached the island. The anger the mob directed at churchmen was the result both of  the Orthodox Church’s 34 35 36 37 38 39

Ekklisiastiki Alithia, no 29, 24 July 1908: 344. Ekklisiastiki Alithia, no 28, 15 July 1908: 332 and no 29, 24 July 1908: 346. Ekklisiastiki Alithia, no 29, 24 July 1908: 345–6. D. Stamatopoulos, Μεταρρύθμιση και εκκοσμίκευση, p. 377. P. Kitromilides, ‘“Imagined communities” and the origins of  the national question in the Balkans’, p. 186. See section 2 of  this chapter.

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

77

initial hostility towards the Young Turks, and of  their friendly relations with Muslim representatives of  the ancien régime. In addition, Muslims of ficials of  the old regime were either summarily ousted or had their authority directly challenged. In the village of  Polichnitos, a Greek Orthodox monk heeded the villagers’ complaints against the mudur, assembled them in the churchyard and proceeded to remove him from his position by proclamation. Following this incident, the ‘inspired’ monk undertook ‘a constitutional campaign which was daring, but at the same time noble in its originality’ in other villages on the island.40 In Plomari, the inhabitants chased the kaymakam out of of fice, while in Polichnitos the president of  the court was asked to account for the donations made for the construction of  the administration building.41 Moreover, the people refused to pay taxes and displayed a general tendency towards civil disobedience. The Amalthia reprinted a letter written by an islander which had been published in a Turkish newspaper. Its author stressed that the situation had reached the point of no return: ‘The mob is sending the authorities running, is not paying taxes and is refusing to recognize anyone’.42 Similar incidents were taking place in other regions of  the Empire, too, revealing the scale of opposition to the old regime and the growing expectations raised by the Young Turks.43 It is clear that the purging of  the local authorities was not ethnicallybased. Nonetheless, the uncontrollable impetus of  the – largely Christian – crowd and the sheer length of  the demonstrations were very troubling for the Young Turks. Members of  the Salonika CUP visited Mytilene with two aims: to halt the demonstrations and to show to the people that they owed respect to the Empire’s new political leaders. They were af forded a most cordial welcome, and the enthusiasm of  both the local leaders and the crowd of 10–15,000 people seem to have worried Vice-consul, Karatzas, as did the ‘radical’ speeches by the members of  the Committee. Ιn the

40 41 42 43

Amalthia, 1/14 August 1908. Z. Kambouris, ‘Τα τελευταία χρόνια της τουρκοκρατίας στη Λέσβο’, p. 113. Amalthia, 23 August 1908. See E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 93.

78

Chapter 2

report he despatched to Athens, he drew attention to the speech made by a member of  the Salonika CUP, Roussin Bey, who, he said, sang the praises first of  the Young Turks and then of  the Greek Macedonian Committee in Ottoman Macedonia, which had of fered its help to several CUP members in 1907, describing its members as ‘brave young men of  the mountains’ (guerrillas). Russin Bey emphasized that ‘the Constitution is everything, the Sultan is a servant of  the Constitution and if  he is unwilling to adopt it to the letter, he will lose his head’. According to Karatzas, the Young Turks seemed determined to impose changes and to restrict the Sultan’s authority – by violence, if necessary. He also reported that Roussin Bey urged both the metropolitan and the kadi in no uncertain terms to restrict themselves to the limits of  their religious duties, and not to interfere in secular and political af fairs – thus clearly elucidating the Committees’ intention to limit the powers of  the Empire’s religious leaders. Roussin also directed the inhabitants to form a local committee which would temporarily administrate the island and obey the orders issued by the central CUP in Salonika. Karatzas noted that the crowd applauded the speakers energetically.44 Regarding the local branch of  the CUP, there is evidence that it was set up a few days later,45 although an essential document on the CUP network reveals that a branch of  the CUP was already formed in Mytilene in 1896 with one hundred secret members. This, in all probability, went into decline after the Greco-Turkish War of 1897.46 The enthusiasm manifested in the days after the proclamation of  the Constitution was expressed by people of every ethnicity, religion and social position. However, the accounts of members of  Mytilene’s Greek middle social groups make it clear that the abolition of absolutism had raised expectations among them of greater participation in the political administration of  the Empire. For example, a letter written by the pharmacist Karatzas in late July 1908 reveals, before all else, the faith he placed in the Young Turks’ promises of equality and justice:

44 ΙΑYΕ 1911/105, no 680, Κaratzas to MFA, 23 July 1908. 45 Private letter in Grimanis collection, 10 September 1908. 46 S. Hanioglu, The Young Turks in opposition, pp. 86–7.

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

79

A major event is to be recorded in the annals of  history: the conversion of  Turkish authoritarianism into a constitutional order. I believe you will already have been made aware by the newspapers of what has taken place in Constantinople, Smyrna and Mytilene. The once-enslaved Greeks are now in a frenzy induced by the proclamation of  the Constitution. The rayas, the slave of  the Turkish despotism of yesterday, is now a constitutional citizen, enjoying equal rights with his honour, life and property secure.

In another letter, also written in late July, Karatzas exclaimed: Long live the Young Turks who forced the Sultan to capitulate. Long live the army, long live freedom, long live the Constitution and the reborn Turkey, so it may turn out to be the rebirth of  the Byzantine Empire. The Greeks outside the Greek state, once slaves and now free, are powerful by birth and endowed with youthful vigour; I am of  the opinion that now, in the noble battle guaranteed by equality before the law, they will successfully dominate every other ethnicity with which they cohabit and powerfully defend the rights of  Hellenism in the Turkish Parliament.47

The above extracts allow one to maintain that Karatzas’ enthusiastic reception of  the new regime largely ref lected the hopes nurtured by the members of  the middle social groups that they would now acquire political power to match their economic strength – a hope bolstered by the calling of parliamentary elections for the autumn of 1908 in which the Greeks could take part. Karatzas seems to have assimilated some of  the motifs of  the irredentist rhetoric of  the Greek Kingdom, but to have adapted them to his own take on events and his own issues. One such motif is the description of  the Ottoman Greeks as a constituent part of  ‘enslaved Hellenism’. However, it is far from certain that Karatzas himself ever felt part of  the Greek nation outside of  the Greek Kingdom or of  ‘enslaved Hellenism’. The second motif relates to the Great Idea and the reconstitution of  the Byzantine Empire, which also seems to have slipped into Karatzas’ conceptual sphere.48 In his discourse, this vision takes the 47 Karatzas collection, village of  Agiasos in Lesbos, July 1908 (the recipient is not named). 48 On the versions of  the Great Idea and on Greco-Ottomanism, see A. Liakos, Η ιταλική ενοποίηση και η Μεγάλη Ιδέα, 1859–1862 (Athens: Themelio, 1985); E. Skopetea, Το πρότυπο βασίλειο και η Μεγάλη Ιδέα. Όψεις του εθνικού προβλήματος

80

Chapter 2

form of  the peaceful rise to dominance of  the Greek element, and seems to take place in a reborn Turkey that is actually the Byzantine Empire risen from the dead; a Byzantine Empire, which would dif fer from that of  the Palaiologoi in being Greek-Turkish in nature. Karatzas’ views are quite similar to the vision of  Greco-Ottomanism promoted mainly by A. Souliotis-Nikolaїdis, and also by I. Dragoumis, the founders of  the Constantinople Organization (Organosis Konstantinoupoleos).49 It would be quite risky to consider Karatzas’ views representative of  the political aspirations of  the Mytilene middle social groups, since no other accounts have come to light to allow conclusions to be drawn. However, Karatzas’ letters are a useful first indication which can be compared with the views of members of  Mytilene’s leading groups and intelligentsia would express a few months later in the local press.50 It should be noted that the change in the political situation would also raise expectations of an improvement in working conditions in the Empire. People in employment – and manual workers, in particular – seem to have become conscious both of  their power and the fact that they could make their voice heard via forms of collective action, and a number of  farmers’ and labourers’ movements and strikes were reported in cities across the Empire from the summer of 1908 onwards.51 Workers also held strikes on Mytilene for the first time in autumn 1908. Reporting a number of strikes by soap workers, porters and boatmen in late summer στην Ελλάδα, 1830–1880 (Athens: polytypo, 1988) and ‘Οι Έλληνες και οι εχθροί τους’; S. Anagnostopoulou, ‘The “Nation” of  the Rum sings of its Sultan: The many faces of  Ottomanism’, in L.T. Baruh & V. Kechriotis, eds, Economy and Society on both shores of  the Aegean. 49 Indicatively, see D. Xanalatos, ‘The Greeks and the Turks on the eve of  the Balkan Wars’, Balkan Studies 3 (1962), Th. Veremis & K. Boura, ‘Εισαγωγή’, in A. SouliotisNikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (Athens–Ioannina: Dodoni, 1984) and V. Kechriotis, ‘Greek-Orthodox, Ottoman Greeks or just Greeks?’. Also, see footnote 264. 50 See below chapters IV and V. 51 E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 93–4. On the first strikes by various employees (porters, railwaymen, bakers, sailors, stevedores, etc) that took place in Smyrna, Constantinople and Aydin, see Amalthia, 28–29 July /10–11 August 1908.

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

81

1908, Amalthia’s correspondent noted that ‘the freedom granted by the Constitution set the dream of  freedom alight in the minds and hearts of  the lowest, as well as the upper and middle classes’.52 The paper’s editors had already expressed the view that, ‘a growing sense of injustice and the right to protest against it developed among our workers along with the liberal institutions’,53 because the wretched people were hungry for freedom. And this is the reason why we hear a new strike announced every day. The day before yesterday it was the steamship crews, yesterday it was the porters, and today it is the seamen; who knows who it will be tomorrow. All those who have worked like slaves, all those who toil from dawn till dusk but never earn more than their daily bread, all those who labour but are not adequately rewarded, and all the multitudes who slave for insuf ficient pay have raised their heads high and spoken in a stentorian voice: ‘The time of slavery is gone. Today, a worker is his own master; we now have our personal freedom, and we demand to be treated as human beings – we want to inspire the requisite humanity in you’. Now is the time to understand there are no human beasts of  burden.54

An Amalthia journalist who interviewed strikers in Smyrna reported thus: We approach a group of strikers, who, confident about the successful outcome of  the strike, are joking among themselves. ‘What are your demands?’ we ask. ‘Well, you know, we have freedom now, and poor people must eat.’ ‘All right, but why have you left your jobs?’ Very few – indeed, hardly any – of  the workers could answer that truly, whereas many replied: ‘We do not know.’ After many attempts, we eventually find someone – one of  the architects of  the strike – who, full of socialist inspiration, undertakes to explain the worker’s demands to us.55

It is clear that, in the wake of regime change, the Empire’s people believed they would be given the opportunity to demand solutions to their problems.

52 53 54 55

Amalthia, 6/19 September 1908. Amalthia, 28/10 July 1908. Amalthia, 29 July/11 August 1908. Amalthia, 28 July/10 August 1908.

82

Chapter 2

The parliamentary elections The elections were organized by the Committee and held in autumn 1908. The Committee drew up the lists, determined the parliamentary seats, and asked the dif ferent ethnic groups to name their representatives. Candidates were elected by a body of electors rather than directly by the voters, and every sancak was considered an electoral constituency. The male members of every district who were at least 25 years of age and had no pending tax obligations could choose the electors by vote; these were usually eminent members of  the local community, men of  the upper and middle social groups who had already participated in the administration of their respective communities. Every constituency with a population of up to 75,000 was allotted one seat; districts with a population of  between 75,000 and 125,000 were entitled to two seats. The municipal headquarters served as polling centres.56 The Committee’s general policy for nominating and supporting candidates stated that it would back all potential candidates ‘with the necessary moral and intellectual qualifications’. In districts with no Unionist candidates, the Committee would support the candidacy of  those ‘who met its standards’. At the same time, the opposition, gathered principally around Sabahaddin Bey, who was also actively conducting propaganda for his own candidates in the capital and the provinces.57 The Committee charged the religious authorities responsible for conducting the elections. The Greek Orthodox communities’ candidates were to be handpicked by the Patriarch and the local metropolitans. This is rather interesting in view of  the Young Turks’ stated intention of curtailing the political role of  the Church. Clearly, though the role of  the Church as ‘head of  the ethnos’ was being called into question, the organization of  the Orthodox Greeks into a political body was modelled on and orchestrated by the Church.58 Οδηγίαι περί της εφαρμογής του περί βουλευτών κανονισμού (Smyrna, 1908); see also A. Kansu, The revolution of 1908 in Turkey, p. 194. 57 On the dif ferent political parties in the Empire and the party af filiations of  the deputies, see Kansu, The revolution of 1908 in Turkey, pp. 196f f. 58 S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, pp. 467–9. 56

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

83

It is also interesting that the Greek state also cooperated with the local metropolitans in the election campaign via its consular authorities. Their common goal was to elect as many Orthodox Greek candidates as possible. A circular issued by the Patriarchate and addressed to the prelates and notables of  the districts encouraged them to work ‘to resolve every disagreement and division, and to maintain good relations with the other ethnic groups in the Empire and the Muslims, in particular’.59 In view of  the elections, they were advised to make a systematic and ef ficient ef fort to achieve a substantial Greek representation in parliament. Βaltatzis sent the same circular to the Greek consular authorities in the Empire, urging them to collaborate with the local metropolitans in order to get ‘our deputies’ elected.60 The Athenian daily Patris welcomed the change of regime ‘because Greek deputies will also participate in the Parliament which is soon to be constituted, who will be entitled to protect our ethnic rights and interests in many ways’.61 Similarly, the Constantinople Organization (CO) founded by Ion Dragoumis and Athanasios Souliotis-Nikolaїdis in April 1908, was working towards the same goal.62 Ultimately, it would be the CO which would designate the Greek Orthodox candidates in close cooperation with the Patriarchate. Kyrilos, the Metropolitan of  Mytilene, was a member of  the CO, whose other members included Theodoros Kourtzis (Manager of  the Bank of  Mytilene, brother of  Panos Kourtzis

59 60 61 62

ΙΑYΕ 1908/99, no 5876/3420, Constantinople, July 1908. ΙΑYΕ 1911/105 no 4859, MFA to the Greek Consular authorities, 10 September 1908. Cited in Amalthia, 18/31 July 1908. For more on the aims of  the CO and the activities of its members, see A. Chamoudopoulos, Η νεωτέρα Φιλική Εταιρεία (Athens: Tsaïlas, 1946), D. Xanalatos, ‘The Greeks and the Turks on the eve of  the Balkan Wars’, A. SouliotisNikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Th. Veremis & K.Boura, ‘Εισαγωγή’, Α. Panayotopoulos, ‘The “Great Idea” and the vision of eastern federation: A propos of  the views of  I. Dragoumis and A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis’, Balkan Studies 21/2 (1980), R. Stavridi-Patrikiou, ‘Ίων Δραγούμης. Πηγές και στόχοι του εθνικισμού’ in Etaireia Ellinikou Logotechnikou kai Istorikou Archeiou (E.L.I.A.), Η Ελλάδα των Βαλκανικών πολέμων (Athens: E.L.I.A., 1993), Th. Veremis, ‘The Hellenic Kingdom and the Ottoman Greeks: The experiment of  the “Society of  Constantinople”’, Deltio Kentrou Mikrasiatikon Spoudon XII (1997–1998) and V. Kechriotis, ‘GreekOrthodox, Ottoman Greeks or just Greeks?’

84

Chapter 2

and a candidate in the 1908 elections), Panagiotis Vostanis (land owner and merchant, Lesbos deputy in the 1908 elections), Michaїl Sifneos (merchant involved in shipping), Michaїl Saltas (Professor of  Law, Lesbos deputy in the 1908 elections).63 In fact, the political programme of  the Greeks in the Empire was determined from July 1908 onwards in Constantinople by the CO, the Patriarchate and the Greek consular authorities. All the above co-operated to ensure the election of as many Greek Orthodox deputies as possible. In addition, in July 1908, eminent members of  the Greek Orthodox community in Constantinople made their first attempt at founding a Political Association (Politikos Syllogos). They were convinced of  the necessity of such an association ‘to ally the Greek element in the Ottoman constitutional Empire’ in view of  the upcoming elections. Otherwise, the Amalthia reported, they feared the risk ‘of our appearing below our real strength, and of one day seeing issues critical to us resolved without our participation and, in all likelihood, at our expense’. The eminent Constantinopolitans believed that membership of such an association would furnish them with a ‘road map at this new crossroads in our political life and allow us to present ourselves to our Turkish fellow citizens with given virtues and a single voice, united as ethnos and not as individuals each charting his own course’.64 In Mytilene the task of  forming a branch of  the Political Association, an undertaking of  ‘great importance to the nation and timely in the utmost’, was carried out by the ‘Metropolitan authorities’.65 As Vice-consul Karatzas noted, such an association aimed at ‘the promotion of ethnic interests’,66 while its more immediate aim was to coordinate the preparations for the parliamentary elections. As regards the electoral procedure in Lesbos, the municipalities were instructed to start registering male electors in early August.67 The island was then part of  the Archipelagos vilayet, which consisted of  four sancaks: 63 64 65 66 67

A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, pp. 219–30. Amalthia, 28 July 1908. Amalthia, 23 August 1908. ΙΑYΕ 1908/111, no 4508, Karatzas to MFA, 22 August 1908. ΙΑYΕ, 1908/99, no 689, Karatzas to MFA, 5 August 1908.

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

85

Rhodes, Chios, Lesbos and Lemnos. The sancak of  Lesbos also included the island of  Moschonisi with a total population of 75,200, according to the last census; it would therefore elect two deputies.68 Surviving sources record the following as candidates: P. Ambatzis, P. Vlachopoulos, P. Vostanis, L. Grimanis, Th. Kourtzis, A. Mitrelias, M. Saltas and Halim-Kulaksiz.69 Karatzas expressed his apprehensions about an eventual division of  the population due to the plethora of candidates aspiring to become deputies. He reported that many dif ferent parties had emerged, each one supporting its own candidate. He therefore considered it absolutely necessary to visit the most important small towns on the island where, as he observed, the consulate exerted a far greater inf luence than it did in the capital. His aim was to consolidate cooperation and understanding between the Orthodox Greeks with a view to getting the chosen deputies elected.70 In another report, he highlighted the necessity of  his cooperation with the island’s two metropolitans, who, he wrote, ‘concern themselves with ethnic issues, whose successful handling relies on them’.71 The electors of  Lesbos were chosen in the last week of  September. However, there is no information relating to the activities of dif ferent parties on the island or their political programmes. As regards the candidates, we know that Th. Kourtzis and P. Ambatzis resided in Constantinople, while Kourtzis, Saltas and Vostanis are mentioned by Souliotis-Nikolaïdis as members of  the CO.72 It is therefore possible that the Patriarchate and the CO approved or even suggested their participation in the elections, though this is a point that cannot yet be verified.73 The Amalthia published

68 IAYE, 1911/105, Karatzas to MFA, 18 September 1908. 69 Z. Kambouris, ‘Τα τελευταία χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας στη Λέσβο’, p. 121; Amalthia, 23/6 September 1908, 24/7 September 1908, 26/9 September 1908, 2/15 October 1908 and 13/26 October 1908. 70 ΙΑYΕ 1908/99, no 689, Karatzas to MFA, 5 August 1908. 71 ΙΑYΕ 1908/99, no 3462, Karatzas to MFA, 2 August 1908. In his reports, the viceconsul did not mention which candidates he intended to support. 72 A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, pp. 82 and 224. 73 Interestingly, neither Kourtzis nor Ambatzis were elected; the electors of  Lesbos chose deputies who lived on the island and were better acquainted with their interests and

86

Chapter 2

the pre-election statement of one candidate, the Professor of  Law, M. Saltas, who emphatically declared that his goal was to defend Greek interests: With head held high, I declare this and this alone: that I have never forgotten and will never forget that I am a Greek, suckled on the most divine of all languages, formed in the history of  the fatherland, which has taught us that the most sacred mother and father of all is the homeland, whose teachings all civilized peoples hold close to their heart. This I say, and I shall remain steadfast and loyal to that f lag until my dying breath. By my word of  honour.74

The Amalthia also published articles written by Saltas on the constitutional regime.75 In these, he supported the Young Turks’ restoration of  the Constitution, though his focus was primarily on how the Constitution would profit the Greeks. He believed that ‘only a precise definition of what is what, only the granting of our people’s just claims to guaranteed securities will convince us all that all the noble intentions and eager promises can be fulfilled. Until both are achieved, however, we must not impetuously declare our joy and must remember that promises and actions are two quite dif ferent things.’76 It is obvious that his main concern was to highlight the promotion of  Greek claims and interests. And it is surely not a coincidence that on 18 October the island’s electors (71 Orthodox Greeks and three Muslims)77 elected him and Vostanis to represent the island in parliament.78 Their election was enthusiastically celebrated by the Greek Orthodox inhabitants of  Mytilene. The Amalthia pointed out that, admittedly, the electors of  Lesbos could not have exercised their vote better, as a result of which the people of  Mytilene spontaneously and as a man expressed their pleasure and applauded their successful election with all their heart. It was to this

74 75 76 77 78

concerns. It is not a coincidence that Saltas, one of  the candidates who were elected, published a number of articles in the Amalthia during this period (see footnote 277). Amalthia, 7/20 October 1908. Indicatively, see Amalthia, 23/5 August 1908, 27/9 August 1908, 28/10 August 1908, 4/17 September 1908, 6/19 September 1908 and 8/21 September 1908. Amalthia, 23/5 August 1908. ΙΑYΕ 1912/ΑΑΚ-D, unsigned and undated document. A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, p. 81.

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

87

the sea of  humanity bore witness as it paraded through the marketplace and along the quayside cheering and calling the names of  the honourable members of parliament at their head. […] It was thanks to this most joyous and auspicious event that the island echoed with the report of  fireworks, and it was this success that Mytilene’s fine orchestra [celebrated].79

Vostanis and Saltas belonged to the upper social groups, in contrast with the vast majority of  Greek Orthodox candidates in other areas who belonged to the middle social groups.80 Saltas was a Professor of  Law born in Kydonies, the son of a doctor, whose wife came from one of  the wealthiest families in Mytilene.81 Vostanis, on the other hand, was a rich landowner and entrepreneur from Pamfila.82 Both were considered ‘independents’, because they did not publicly come out in favour of either the CUP or the Liberals.83 They are also mentioned by Souliotis-Nikolaїdis as members of  the CO, though he did not specify whether they became members before or after their election.84 However, it is certain that they collaborated with the CO, 79 Amalthia, 21/3 October 1908. 80 S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, p. 469. 81 See Eleni Svoronou, ‘Μικρασιατικόν Ημερολόγιον’, Lesviako Imerologio 2006 (2006 [1909]). 82 Panagiotis Vostanis (1858–1934) and his brothers inherited a substantial estate and were the owners of a steam-driven oil press, a factory processing olive kernels and a soap factory. They also owned three shops selling olive oil and soap. The Vostani brothers had no descendants. They left their fortune to the charitable institutions of  Mytilene and financed the hospital which still bears their name in Mytilene, as well as the primary school in Pamfila; see A. Koutzamanis, ‘Τέσσερα δικαιοπρακτικά έγγραφα και ένα διοικητικό, αναφερόμενα στα περιουσιακά στοιχεία των αδελφών Βοστάνη, που περιήλθαν στα Εκπαιδευτικά και Φιλανθρωπικά Καταστήματα Μυτιλήνης’, Lesviako Imerologio 2006. 83 See A. Kansu, The revolution of 1908 in Turkey, p. 263. 84 Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, p. 82. In Lemnos, the successful candidate was supported by Metropolitan Gennadios; Georgios Papapanagiotis, ‘Πολιτικά της Λήμνου 1908–1936’, in Aiolika Chronika VI (2005), pp. 98–9. On the contrary, the promotion of  Theotokas by the metropolitan in Chios ruined his chances of  being elected, since the Christian community was involved in a bitter conf lict with the latter. The Chios case is another example of  the involvement of  the Church and the Greek vice-consul in the electoral procedure; see A. Panayotopoulos, ‘Ο εκλογικός αγώνας του 1908 στη Χίο’.

88

Chapter 2

at least on some issues, and they also participated in the Greek Group of deputies which was formed in parliament in 1911.85 During the electoral process the Young Turks were accused of maladministration and the violation of  the rights of non-Turkish ethnic groups throughout the Empire.86 Thanks to the press and consular authorities, the inhabitants of  Mytilene were clearly aware of  these accusations. In a telegram to the Patriarchate, the Metropolitan of  Mithymna declared that ‘the Christians of  Mithymna persist in demanding that the election of parliamentarians take place by ethnicity’.87 As there is no evidence of maladministration by the Young Turks on the island, this statement most probably sought the election of as many Greek candidates as possible, given that the Greeks outnumbered the Muslims on the island. Judging from the election results, the desired result was achieved. The election of  the two Greek deputies in Lesbos, combined with the interference of  the Greek consular authorities in the elections in many cities of  the Empire, annoyed the Young Turks to a considerable degree.88 Simantiris, the Greek vice-consul of  France noted that ‘the enthusiastic demonstrations which took place on the day the two Christian deputies were elected irritated the Muslims, who looked ahead, not without anxiety, to a time when the indigenous Muslims would be deprived of  their local of fices, given that the Christians constituted the majority of  the island population’.89 Another event that undermined relations between the Young Turks and the Greek element of  the Empire was the declaration of union with 85 C. Boura, ‘Οι βουλευτικές εκλογές στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία’, p. 77. 86 See Amalthia, 1/14 October 1908, 11/24 October 1908, 16/29 October 1908; Ekklisiastiki Alithia, no 40, 10 October 1908. Also, see D. Dakin, The Greek struggle in Macedonia 1897–1913 (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1966), p. 391. 87 Amalthia, 26/9 September 1908. 88 Cf. the strict recommendations made by Hilmi Pasha to the Patriarch concerning the cooperation of  the metropolitans with the Greek consular authorities in IAYE 1908/88, Gryparis to MFA, no 1251, 4 December 1908. Also, see C. Boura, ‘Οι βουλευτικές εκλογές στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία’, p. 73 and A. Alexandris, ‘Οι Έλληνες στην υπηρεσία της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας 1850–1922’, p. 394. 89 Cited in Z. Kambouris, ‘Τα τελευταία χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας στη Λέσβο’, p. 122.

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

89

Greece by the Greeks of  Crete, a decision taken on 6 October, which is to say while the election procedure was under way. It coincided with the annexation of  Bosnia Herzegovina by Austro-Hungary and the unilateral proclamation of  Bulgarian independence. These incidents dealt powerful blows to the prestige of  the Ottoman Empire, and most probably strengthened the Young Turks’ dissatisfaction with the Greek element.90 In Turkish eyes ‘this response by Europe and the Balkan Christians to the events of  July 1908 was what could only be described as aggression and betrayal’.91 In addition, at the local level, the foundation of  the Atlas sport club in early October 1908, and in particular the activities of its president, Stamatakis Georgiadis, who was a citizen of  Austria and associated with the Greek consular authorities, displeased the Young Turks. According to the Amalthia, on the day of  the inauguration of  the Atlas, the athletes ‘in their blue and white strips and during the games, secretly sang the verse “That day took long to come, and everything was silent” as they marched with joy on their faces’.92 Kleanthis Paleologos recalled in 1973 that, from the beginning, the Atlas took another route apart from the athletic. Its president was an impetuous patriot who, protected by his Austrian citizenship, became more and more provocative day by day. He had the athletes forming platoons, performing manoeuvres and taking part in parades and excursions. He drew his platoons up and made provocative appearances parading, giving orders, using trumpets and drums, involving discipline. He heartened his young supporters by repeating promises made to him by the [Greek] consul general in Smyrna concerning the acquisition of uniforms and the appointment of a coach.93

90 The Greek Embassy in Constantinople did everything to prevent the negative consequences of  these events having an impact on the Greek element of  the Empire. It was on its initiative that Orthodox Greeks took part in demonstrations against Bulgaria and Austria, a move designed to make it clear that the Greek side supported the Turks; ΙΑYΕ, 1908/88, Greek Embassy in Constantinople to MFA, no 953, 24 September 1908 and no 5860, 3/16 October 1908. 91 B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 210. 92 Amalthia, 3/16 October 1908. The lines are from the fourth stanza of  Solomos’ ‘Ode to Liberty’; K. Trypanis, Greek Verse (Suf folk, 1971), p. 501. 93 K. Paleologos, ‘Διαγόρας και Άτλας τον καιρό της Τουρκοκρατίας’, Lesviaka VI (1973), p. 114. Also, see S. Anagnostou, ‘Αθλητικές δραστηριότητες στη Λέσβο στα τελευταία

90

Chapter 2

In response to the activities of  the Atlas, the Young Turks sent military troops to the island, which often led to friction with the locals. The Greek vice-consul wrote in early December that, the whole city was restless due to the misconduct of certain organs of authority, and more specifically of  the soldiers who, fulfilling the function normally reserved for the police and patrolling the streets, pushed some of our own people around, beat another two or three, and generally behaved in an unsuitable way.94

At the same time, the Tanin, the Constantinopolitan of ficial newspaper of  the CUP, criticized the Greek element of  the island, attributing reactionary and revolutionary tendencies to it.95 The vali of  the Aegean, Ekrem Bey, came to the island to see the situation for himself; before leaving, he published an announcement in the Constantinopolitan press to the ef fect that the locals were in compliance with the law.96 In his report to Athens, Karatzas wrote that ‘these incidents have been exaggerated by some and thought to be the first sign of  the prolonged suf ferings to come. However, in truth, they are nothing more than isolated incidents, and are not in any way indicative of  the general Ottoman disposition. Nevertheless, they must not be ignored; recommendations have been made and measures taken to prevent them happening again or degenerating, at some future date, into more serious of fences’.97 What can be deduced from the aforementioned χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας’, in Lesviako Imerologio 2001 and ‘Λέσχες, αδελφότητες και λοιπά σωματεία του αλύτρωτου ελληνισμού ως φορείς της εθνικής συνείδησης. Η περίπτωση της Λέσβου’, in P. Voutouris & G. Georgis, eds, Ο ελληνισμός στον 19ο αιώνα. Ιδεολογικές και αισθητικές αναζητήσεις (Athens: Kastaniotis, 2006). On the symbolic national and political dimensions of  the athletic contests in Greece during the period 1870–1922, see Ch. Koulouri, ‘Voluntary associations and new forms of sociability: Greek sports clubs at the turn of  the nineteenth century’ and Αθλητισμός και όψεις της αστικής κοινωνικότητας. Γυμναστικά και αθλητικά σωματεία, 1870–1922. 94 ΙΑYΕ 1908/111, no 955, Karatzas to the Embassy in Constantinople, 5 December 1908. 95 See IAYE 1908/88, no 897, Karatzas to MFA, 17 November 1908. 96 Z. Κambouris, ‘Τα τελευταία χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας στη Λέσβο’, p. 123. 97 ΙΑYΕ 1908/111, no 955, Karatzas to the Embassy in Constantinople, 5 December 1908.

The constitutional revolution and the parliamentary elections of 1908

91

incidents is that almost two months after the proclamation of  the new regime, there was a climate of mistrust in Lesbos which af fected both the Young Turks and the Greeks. In general, on a first level, it could be claimed that the events of 1908 coincided with the peak of  the growth of  the Greek Orthodox community of  Mytilene, and that they brought forth a freer expression of  the community’s political and social demands. At the same time, 1908 is also a turning point, a point of  transition to new conditions, since it marks the first manifestations of  Young Turk nationalism. In the years to come, on the one hand, the Young Turks would increasingly identify the survival of  the Empire with its Turkification, and strive to assimilate the Empire’s other ethnic groups.98 The Greeks, on the other hand, would insist on promoting their own ‘rights’ and ‘privileges’. One of  the main aims of  the chapters that follow is to identify the way in which the Greeks of  Mytilene responded to the Young Turk nationalism from 1909 onwards.

98 S. Shaw & E. Shaw, History of  the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, vol. II, p. 289 and R. Davison, Turkey (New Jersey: Englewood Clif fs), pp. 111f f.

Chapter 3

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

During the first months of 1909, hand-in-hand with the publication of  the first newspapers on the island, a generation of journalists emerged. Involved in journalism and conscious of  the power of  the press in forming public opinion and improving the social and political situation in the Ottoman Empire and their homeland, they participated through their writings in the political and social developments of the community. Admittedly, there were signs of  their presence in the public sphere from the end of  the nineteenth century, prior to their engagement with journalism. In the capital, Mytilene, as well as in various villages around Lesbos, most were employed as teachers or lawyers and worked – as they claimed – towards the intellectual and cultural improvement of  the island. The prevailing social and economic conditions on the island during the last decades of  the nineteenth century contributed greatly to the success of  this new generation of journalists. Due to the prominence of  the new upper and middle social groups engaged in commerce and industry, the number of people who had access to higher education had increased. Higher education was no longer a privilege of  the descendants of  the ‘aristocracy’ of dimogerontes and landowners, and large numbers of people were educated to the level required to edit the daily and periodical press. In addition, the island’s prosperity, the extension of its educational network and the increase in rates of  literacy meant that there were also more people who could finance these newspapers and comprise their readership and subscribers. The timing of  these newspapers’ appearance was largely determined by the current political situation. It is no coincidence that the appearance of  the local press dates to early 1909 and the period following the Young

94

Chapter 3

Turk revolution and its promises of constitutional equality and freedom of  the press and speech. This favourable political climate was highlighted on the front pages of  the local newspapers.1 Chapter 3 will present the profile of  the editors of  the local papers, examining their social origins, their professional background and their activities in the public sphere. In particular, their participation in the establishment of  the first Teaching League of  Lesbos (Didaskalikos Syndesmos Lesvou) will be discussed, along with their opinions on the language issue and the attempted educational reforms. Moreover, Chapter 3 will examine the manner in which the editors of  the two political newspapers, the Salpinx and the Laïkos Agon, commented on the other Greek Orthodox leading social groups, the dimogerontes and the ephors, and the Church. It will be supported that their views and aspects of  their activities made them prime agents of social modernization at the local level.

The profile of  the journalists A local Greek press appeared relatively late on Lesbos compared with Constantinople and neighbouring Smyrna, and a year after the first local newspaper entered into circulation on Chios.2 The fact that newspapers were published in the aforementioned regions despite the restrictions

1 2

See below p. 93. In Smyrna and Constantinople, Greek newspapers first appeared before the mid nineteenth century. In Smyrna the first Greek newspaper, Amalthia, was published in 1839. On Chios, the Panchiaki and the Nea Chios appeared in 1908 and 1910 respectively, while the Aiolikos Astir magazine and the political and philological newspaper Kiryx went into circulation in Kydonies in 1911 and 1912 respectively; see L. Droulia & G. Koutsopanagou, eds, Εγκυκλοπαίδεια του ελληνικού Τύπου 1784–1974. Εφημερίδες, περιοδικά, δημοσιογράφοι, εκδότες (Athens: E.I.E., 2008), vol. 1, pp. 183–4 and vol. 3, pp. 275–77 and 385–7; G. Valetas, Αιολική βιβλιογραφία 1566–1939, pp. 89 and 94; Megali Elliniki Engyklopaidia, vol. 22 (Athens: Foinix), p. 59.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

95

enforced by the regime of  Abdulhamid II compels us to seek other – probably local – reasons for the delay in the appearance of  the Lesbian daily and periodical press. It should be noted that three predominantly encyclopedic and literary periodicals – Pittakos (1877–1879; 24 nos.), Pandektis (1879–1880; 12 nos.) and Sapfo (1881; 12 nos) – had made a short-lived appearance, primarily on the initiative of  teachers,3 in the last quarter of  the nineteenth century.4 That they were exclusively financed by scholar-teachers proved a major obstacle to their survival. The island was going through a transitional stage in its development during this period, and there were insuf ficient subscribers to make such publications viable.5 In addition to financial dif ficulties, the editors also faced hostility from conservative (primarily ecclesiastical) circles, which neither desired nor were used to freedom of speech. In the case of  the Pittakos, its editor wrote that his quest ‘to redress the abuses and misdemeanours which human weakness brings about so indecently, even within the sacred churches that God hallows and in which he reveals His presence’ was the true reason ‘for the authoritarian, illegitimate and, many would say, despotic cessation and suspension [of  the Pittakos].6 The 3

Their initiative is evaluated as an attempt ‘to write the history of  the island, to disseminate the encylopaedism of  knowledge and to translate foreign literary works into the ancient tongue of  the Greeks’; P. Argyris, ‘Η “Χαραυγή”, ένα πρωτοποριακό περιοδικό της Μυτιλήνης’, Lesviaka X (1987), p. 21. The editors of  the Pittakos, Pandektis and Sapfo were, respectively, the teacher Gavriil Charalambidis-Filios (1849–?), the philologist Christoforos Lailios (1814–1886), who taught at Mytilene’s high school, and the teacher Georgios Archontopoulos (c.1830–?). 4 A. Platon, ‘Η ιστορία της λεσβιακής δημοσιογραφίας’, Mytilene IV (1991), pp. 195–7, K. Missios, ‘Οι ποιητές και στιχοπλόκοι των περιοδικών “Πιττακός”, “Πανδέκτης” και “Σαπφώ”’, Lesviaka XIII (1991), p. 203 and Η λεσβιακή άνοιξη εν καρποφορία (Mytilene: Asterias, 1994), pp. 40f f. The fact that all three publishing ventures emerged in the late 1870s and within five years of one another (1877–1881) warrants research. 5 The magazines encountered intense financial dif ficulties, and subscribers were often reminded not to pay their subscriptions late; see Pittakos and its notice on ‘those who have neglected to send the subscriptions they owe’ (15 February 1879), as well as its note addressed to named subscribers to ‘send your subscriptions in arrears’ (15 October 1879); K. Missios, Η λεσβιακή άνοιξη εν καρποφορία, pp. 50 and 52–3. 6 Missios, Η λεσβιακή άνοιξη εν καρποφορία, pp. 50–1.

96

Chapter 3

abuses and mistakes referred to the administration of  the Church’s assets, which consisted mainly of donations. In a piece entitled ‘The sad thoughts of an overly sensitive man’ that appeared in five instalments between May and September 1878 as a response to the dismay of  the local Church at the Pittakos having published an obituary to a Catholic resident of  the island, the ‘overly sensitive’ Lesbian argued that this was just the pretext. Fully aware of  the reactions his article would cause, he made sure to bid his readers farewell in advance: I bid farewell to all my dear readers and promise to renew our acquaintance once again if  the Pittakos is not smothered in its cradle by the Extinguishers of  Light, or if  Mytilene’s ill-treated journalism should survive under a dif ferent name, I sign of f as the much-wronged G. Charalambidis Filios, who was fortunate enough to be its first founder and the first to suf fer unjust outcries, persecution and financial loss for its sake. But Mytilene’s Extinguishers of  Light and haters of  beauty will soon be facing their day of reckoning […]!!7

The periodical’s editor in vain sought to appeal to the ‘progressive sensibilities of  the inhabitants of  the island of  Lesbos, convinced that noble lovers of  the arts will always be found throughout it to subscribe to and support [the Pittakos]’; the last issue appeared in September 1879.8 The same conservative factors – the dimogerontes and the Church – that had previously hindered the spread of  the Enlightenment, opposed the educational ef forts of  Veniamin the Lesbian, and, by and large, had been responsible for the relative delayed establishment of a High School on Mytilene (1840) compared with other Ottoman-ruled areas with a substantial Greek Orthodox element, seem to have contributed to the discontinuation of  these periodicals.9 The absence of a local press was covered prior to 1908 by the circulation of  the Greek newspapers of  Constantinople, Athens, Trieste

7 8 9

Ibid., p. 52. Ibid., pp. 52–3. See G. Aristidis, Βενιαμίν ο Λέσβιος ήτοι βίος αυτού (Athens: Proodos, 1880), p. 29; P. Samaras, Η εκπαίδευση στη Λέσβο, pp. 1–2 and 18; Ph. Iliou, Τύφλωσον Κύριε τον λαόν σου (Athens: Poreia, 1988), p. 72; D. Mantos, Λεσβιακή παιδεία και πνευματική ζωή την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας, p. 227.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

97

and – above all – Smyrna.10 This met the need for information without the risk of negative aspects of  the establishment being challenged that only a local newspaper could be in a position to know and criticize.11 However, the situation changed after 1909. The publication of the first newspapers coincided with the completion of  the social transformation that had been ongoing on the island since the mid-nineteenth century. The traditionally powerful groups of  the dimogerontes and landowners had faded away or were engaged in new activities, such as commerce and industry. By the end of  the century, new middle and higher social groups had already formed which derived their power from the financial possibilities provided by the Tanzimat. Their members undertook the administration of  the Greek Orthodox community, through the BECE managed the island’s educational and charitable establishments and, as church-wardens (epitropoi), handled ecclesiastical matters. At the same time, the number of  local high school graduates had increased, with many of  them working as teachers in elementary schools. Others continued their studies in Constantinople, Smyrna, Athens, while an increasing number went to Europe before returning to the island to form a local intelligentsia whose members would eventually spearhead the appearance of  the local press. In addition, the operation of six printing-houses in the island towards the end of  the nineteenth century made possible the publication of  the local newspapers a few years later.12 The island’s first two newspapers appeared within a month of each other: the satirical newspaper Mytilinios on 21 February and the political

10 S. Vareltzidis, ‘Ιστορικά των πρώτων χρόνων του δημοτικισμού στη Λέσβο’, in A. Delis & D. Matzouranis, eds, Λεσβιακές Σελίδες 1950 (Mytilene: Petras, 1999 [1950]), p. 95. Likewise, Ch. Molinos mentions that Sokratis Solomonidis’ Amalthia and Miltiadis Seïzanis’ Armonia were the only newspapers widely available on Lesbos under Ottoman rule; see Ch. Molinos, ‘Για το λεσβιακό Τύπο’, in A. Delis & D. Matzouranis, eds, Λεσβιακές Σελίδες 1950 (Mytilene: Petras, 1999 [1950], p. 67. 11 S. Vareltzidis (‘Ιστορικά των πρώτων χρόνων του δημοτικισμού στη Λέσβο’, p. 96) mentions a students’ magazine entitled Orai Scholis (1898–1899), though no copies have been found. 12 M. Eleftheriadis 1950: 55–7.

98

Chapter 3

newspaper Salpinx on 15 March. Both eloquently set forth way the intentions of  their owners in their inaugural issues: the Mytilinios underlined in verse how, with the change of regime and the promulgation of  the Constitution, ‘a fresh breeze blew / and the chains of slavery were lifted of f our breasts / and our desires shone free in the light of day / and golden dreams adorned the dawn of  liberty. / And with whatever little knowledge I possess, I dare timidly to bring the Mytilinios to press’.13 For its part, the Salpinx maintained that the commencement of journalistic life had coincided with the ‘freeing of  the state from the collar of autocracy’.14 Both expressed the opinion that the absence of newspapers had created an irreplaceable void which the collaborators of  the newspaper would try to compensate for with all their powers and ‘sparing no expense or ef fort’. When it comes to the programmatic aims of  the local press, the editorial of the Mytilinios underlined how the only concern of its publisher-editor would be the benefit of  his homeland, Mytilene.15 The Salpinx emphasized how its sole ambition was to fight ‘for the interests of  the Homeland and the Ethnos, forever holding aloft the standard of  the general good’. In its ef forts to implement ‘its pure and good plan’, the newspaper believed it would have the support ‘of all the brave individuals, who fortunately are not rare in the provinces, and who, for obvious reasons, remain more pure and more ethnically-minded than their counterparts in the urban centres’,16 a view that probably was designed to f latter potential readers in the provinces. It is clear that the Salpinx’s programmatic remit is wider than that of  the Mytilinios, since it focuses not only on the ‘Homeland’ but also on the ‘Ethnos’. Here ‘Homeland’ encompassed both Mytilene and the Empire. On the other hand, the emphatic reference to the Ethnos echoes the perception

Mytilinios, no 2, 28–2–1909, probably written by the newspaper’s owner and editorin-chief, Th. D. Theodoridis. 14 The first issue has not survived. The quotations are from an article by K. Missios published in the newspaper of  Mytilene Dimokratis, no 813, 16–2–2006. 15 Mytilinios, no 2, 28–2–1909. This encyclical was included in the second issue of  the newspaper; the first issue has not survived. 16 See footnote 314. 13

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

99

that the Orthodox Greeks of  Lesbos were part of  the Greek ethnos and thus, though they were part of  the Empire, were also interested in news from the Greek state.17 Indicatively, the contents of  the two main political newspapers (Salpinx and Laϊkos Agon) confirm this two-fold focus. For example, although the column devoted to Ottoman news on the second page of  these newspapers is bigger than that allotted to news from the Greek state, in both cases priority is clearly given to news report that concern or directly af fect the Greeks of  the Empire. By contrast, in their programmatic announcement in May 1911, the editors of  the Lesvos emphasized principles like honesty, impartiality and the duty to strive for valid, clear news. They argued that their ‘greatest’ mission is to be there at the side of  the people, ‘sleepless guardians of its inviolable rights’, counsellors ‘at the crossroads of its progress and the development of its obligations to the individual, the family, society, the homeland and its sacred ethnic traditions’.18 These aims give the impression of a paper that emphasizes traditional principles and values. And it is through the application of  these that its editors believed they would pave the way for the development and progress of  their homeland, Lesbos. The clear preference for the terms ‘people’ and ‘Christian element’ over ‘ethnos’ and ‘Greek’ in both the newspaper’s plan programmatic announcement and its main articles – to the extent that we can ascertain given the limited number of issues that have survived – is illustrative of what the newspaper seems to support: the harmonious coexistence of  ‘all the Ottomans in their common homeland’.19 The changed political situation admittedly explains this marked dif ference between the Lesvos and the newspapers that appeared in 1909. By 1911, the policies of  the Young Turks, which often appeared threatening towards the Greeks of  the Empire, had enforced a certain decree of restraint and more careful phrasing in the newspapers’ programmatic aims as well as the toning down of more overt ethnically-based demands.

17 18 19

On the Press as an agent of national identity, see B. Anderson, Imagined communities, pp. 37f f. Lesvos, no 1, 4–5–1911. Lesvos, no 3, 9–5–1911.

100

Chapter 3

The appearance of  the Lesvos was followed by another political newspaper in December 1911, which initially was published as a Sunday paper, since no other papers came out on that day.20 Laϊkos Agon was the first local newspaper with demands of a predominantly social character included in its programme. Its aims are suggested by both its title and subtitle: People’s Struggle, Newspaper of  the People’s Interests. Initially, its programme included a ‘summary of  the political situation in general, and an overview of world movements and events on the island’. The owners-editors declared that they would work hard to gain the warm moral and material support of  their fellow-townsmen and, above all, of  ‘the popular classes in their homeland [the Ottoman Empire and Lesbos in particular], whose mouthpiece the Agon is’.21 The fact that five months later the newspaper came out three times a week highlights the priority given to promoting the interests of common people: ‘Proceeding courageously once more with this progressive reform, we consider it essential to declare that the Laïkos Agon has but a single ambition, a single dream it would make reality: to prof fer its wholehearted support to everything relating to our island in general, and the interests of its popular classes in particular’.22 It is apparent that both the Laïkos Agon and the Lesvos emphasized the term ‘people’, as one that had no ethnic connotations. Moreover, in the case of  the Laïkos Agon, its main aim, which was the promotion of demands of a social character, enforced usage of  this term. The fact that from the fifth issue the paper included a column entitled ‘Free Forum’ in which anyone could publish their opinion, illustrates the paper’s desire to communicate with its readers. At the same time, it constitutes a tangible indication of respect for their opinions and desires. The editors pointed out that the aim of  the column was ‘to encourage its readers to exchange their thoughts and opinions’. They also made it clear to their readers that 20 In fact, two newspapers were published on Sunday 4 December 1911: The Agon as a weekly political, commercial and social review’ with A. Samaridis and T. Theodoridis as manager-owners, and the Laos. However, from the very next Sunday (11 December 1909) the two were merged into one under the title Laïkos Agon with A. Samaridis and T. Papadopoulos as editor-owners. 21 Agon, no 1, 4–12–1911. 22 Laïkos Agon, no 20, 18–4–1912.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

101

they would publish ‘all and every study or treatise on anything of general interest and for the public good […] as well as any complaint or suggestion as to how to improve the conditions of  the popular classes’.23 Moreover, the topics that were chosen and the approach followed in the discussion and analysis of  these, situate the Laïkos Agon among the main advocates of  the new ideas on a local level, with social, linguistic and feminist issues fitting neatly into its ambit. Though these topics were discussed in the other local newspapers, too, the editors of  the Laïkos Agon were driven by socialist ideals and for this reason were characterized by their fighting spirit and a greater tendency to criticize and question established views and ideas. At the same time, the principles of socialism af fected the newspaper’s suggestions on the ethnic issue. Thus, while concern was expressed about the promotion of  the interests of  the Greek element in the Empire, it was often presented in a spirit of internationalism and the promotion of universal humanistic ideals.24 By contrast, a somewhat ethnocentric discourse is evident in the case of  the non-political ‘illustrated fortnightly’ philological-literary magazine Charavgi (October 1910). Its editors set out as their aim ‘the awakening of  the Greek soul’, inspiring it with ‘a love of modern Greek letters and literature in general’. Parallel to this, they promised to present all the ‘beautiful and true’ works of  Greek and foreign literature, to promote ‘whatever ennobles self-esteem, strengthens sentiment, moulds the soul’, in the hope that it will contribute ‘to elevating our Ethnos from the prosaic to inhabiting the enchanted palaces of art’.25 Emphasis is therefore given here to the intellectual elevation of  the Greek ethnos by a magazine that promised to initiate its readers into the world of  Greek literature, in particular. The opening towards contemporary Greek literature constitutes a new direction which contrasts with the past, when the local educated community

23

Of course, it was made clear that articles should be signed before being sent to the newspaper, and accompanied by a note stating whether the author wanted their name to be published or not. Moreover, it was stated that ‘no attacks of a personal nature’ were allowed; Laïkos Agon, no 5, 8–1–1912. 24 See below chapters IV and V. 25 Charavgi, no 1, 15–10–1910.

102

Chapter 3

was dedicated to classicism and reserved its admiration exclusively for foreign – and particularly French – literature. This is verified by the content of  the three earlier magazines – Pandektis, Sapfo and Pittakos – as well as by the plethora of  translated works of ancient Greek and world literature published by the intellectuals of  Lesbos in the past.26 The equal importance assigned to the main Greek centres (Constantinople, Smyrna and Athens) in terms of collaborators, as well as the equal importance assigned to Russian and French literature, comprise some of  the most interesting features of  the magazine’s general contribution. Along with literary works by Ottoman Greek authors including Michaїl Seïzanis (Smyrna), N. Amorgianos (Constantinople), N. Kastrinos (Constantinople), Y. Adamantidou (Bosporus), the works of  writers from the Greek state were also published, including Kostis Palamas, Romos Filyras, Alexandros Papadiamantis, Sotiris Skipis, Gerasimos Vokos, Stephanos Martzokis, Spyros Melas, Zacharias Papantoniou, Dionysis Voutyras, Alexandros Pallis, Kostas Varnalis and Napoleon Lapathiotis. Of course, the presence of intellectuals from Lesbos was also in evidence, with the works of  Dimitrios Alvanos, Manolis Vallis, Miltos Kountouras, Melikertis (the pen-name of  Thrasyvoulos Stavrou), Dimitrios Stavros, Chrysanthos Molinos, Filon Oferetis (the pen-name of  Michaïl Stefanidis), Ioannis Olymbios, Michaїl G. Michaїlidis, Theodoros Doris (the pen-name of  Theodoros Theodoridis), Aristidis Delis, Dimos Verenikis (the penname of  Dimitrios G. Vernardakis), Argyris Eftaliotis, Stratis Myrivilis, Kostas Kontos, Kostas Frilingos. All of  the aforementioned writers, with the exception of  I. Olymbios and M.G. Michaїlidis, were supporters of  the then growing movement in favour of demoticism. In general, it could be claimed that the collaborators, the subjects and, especially, the warmth with which the demoticist linguistic movement was supported, place the magazine among the papers, which attempted the initiation of  the reading public of  Mytilene to modern ideas.27

26 See G. Valetas, Αιολική βιβλιογραφία and K. Michaïlidis, Συμβολή στην αιολική βιβλιογραφία. 27 See P. Argyris, ‘Η “Χαραυγή”, ένα πρωτοποριακό περιοδικό της Μυτιλήνης’, pp. 23–4.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

103

Although further research will admittedly shed more light on the public output of  the numerous individuals who contributed to the local press, here I will mainly focus on the profiles of editors-in-chief and owners, not only because they often wrote the front page articles which set the ideological mark of  the paper, but also because they determined the subjectmatter and chose the contributors. Therefore, I believe that the examination of  key features regarding their professional background and activities can contribute significantly to the understanding of  the ideas they espoused and sought to disseminate.28 Table 4 reveals a number of  features shared by the people who comprised the island’s first journalists during the period 1909–1912. To begin with, most of  them – A. Mariglis, Ch. Delingiavouris, Th. Theodoridis, M. Vallis, D. Alvanos and K. Poimenidis – were working as teachers in elementary schools on the island;29 two of  them – N. Paritsis and Ar. Samaridis – had studied and were practising Law. They all belonged to the same generation, and were all between 30 and 40 years of age when they first got involved with journalism. Most of  them kept their jobs as teachers or lawyers in addition to their involvement with journalism. The fact that both Samaridis and Paritsis – the two lawyers who were engaged in journalism – completed their higher education in Athens serves as evidence that they were given the opportunity to become shareholders of a somewhat dif ferent conceptual and ideological environment than that of  the Empire. Also, their participation in the Greco-Turkish war of 1897 indicates their desire to support the Greek state.30

28 No biographical information exists for the following: Timotheos Papadopoulos, co-editor-in-chief of  the Laïkos Agon; K.G. Poimenidis, owner of  the Laϊkos Agon; P. Kalamidas and N. Tachtatzis, editor-in-chief and editor respectively of  the Lesvos. 29 The only certain information about K. Poimenidis, editor of  the Laϊkos Agon, is his teaching occupation. See Lesvos, no 22, 22–6–1911. 30 On the volunteers from Lesbos, who joined the Greek army during the Greco-Turkish war of 1897, see S. Anagnostou, O ελληνοτουρκικός πόλεμος του 1897, p. 103. In 1910, a front page article of the Salpinx expressed resentment towards the ‘Greek state’s politicians who led the ethnos to the deplorable defeat of 1897’; Salpinx, 19–10–1910.

Table 4  The journalists/intellectuals

Nikolaos Paritsis (1876–1942)

Alkiviadis Mariglis (1879–1937)

Christos Delingiavouris (1896–1960)

Dimitrios Alvanos (1874–1916)

Name

Journalistic posts

Co-founder of  the Charavgi, Contributor to the newspaper Armonia (Smyrna).

Place of  birth

Studies

Occupation Public sphere

Polichnitos

No information. Fluent in many languages. Expert in Greek and world literature.

Teacher

Played a leading part in the formation of  the first Teaching League of  Lesbos (1908), Supporter of demoticism and socialist ideas, Supporter of  the Liberal Party of  Venizelos.

Member of  the following associations: ‘Proodeftiko Kentro’ (Smyrna), Adelfato Ethnikis Glossis’ (Constantinople), ‘Ekpaideftikos Omilos’ (Athens).

Editor-in-chief of  the Skorpios, Contributor to the Mytilinios.

Mytilene

No information

Teacher and writer

Contributor to the Mytilinios (February–May 1909), Co-editor-in-chief of  the Skorpios, Co-editor-in-chief of  the Laïki Efimeris (1916), Owner of  the Laïki Enosis (1919).

Agiasos

No information

Teacher

Editor-in-chief of  the Salpinx (1909–1929) and its owner from 1911 onwards.

Studies in Constantinople and Petersburg, Constantinople Graduate of  the School of  Law (University of  Athens).

Lawyer

Private secretary to the Greek ambassador in Constantinople (before 1909), Volunteer in the Greco-Turkish war of 1897, Liberal Party MP (1915, 1923, 1933), Governor General of  Crete (after 1912), Prefect of  Attikovoiotia (1931).

Theodoros Theodoridis Aristidis Samaridis (1881 or 1882–?) (1874–1950) Manolis Vallis (1868 or 1869–1943)

Editor-in-chief of  the Laïkos Agon (1911–1913), Editor-in-chief of  the Neos Kiryx (Mytilene, 1915–1917).

Editor-in-chief and owner of  the Mytilinios, Contributor to the Salpinx, Laïkos Agon, Charavgi and Kosmos tis Smyrnis (Smyrna), Editor-in-chief of  the magazine Idea (1919–1920), Editor-in-chief of  the Mytilinios in 1920, as a political paper supporting communist ideas. Contributor to a number of newspapers of  Constantinople and Smyrna, co-founder of  the Charavgi, Regular contributor to the Salpinx, Editor-in-chief of  the Lesvos (1912), Founder of  the newspaper Tharros (1915), Editorin-chief of  the newspaper Eleftheros Logos (1916), Editor-in-chief of  the Salpinx (1926), Co-editor-inchief of  the communist newspaper Embros (Mytilene, 1932).

Polichnitos

Graduate of  the School of  Law (University of  Athens).

Lawyer

Volunteer in the Greco-Turkish war of 1897, Liberal Party candidate (1915, 1920), Democratic Union candidate (1923).

Vatousa

Graduate of  the Gymnasion of  Mytilene (1899) and the Divinity School of  Chalki (1902).

Teacher, writer and music composer.

Played a leading role in the formation of  the first Teaching League of  Lesbos (1908), Author of numerous pedagogical books and school anthologies.

Teacher

Played a leading part in the formation of  the first Teaching League of  Lesbos (1908), Key supporter of demoticism and advocate of socialist ideas, Liberal Party MP (1920), Member of  the Communist Party of  Greece from the mid-1920s.

Polichnitos

No information

Note: Gleaned from: Droulia & Koutsopanagou, Εγκυκλοπαίδεια του ελληνικού Τύπου; M. Eleftheriadis, ‘Ο τύπος και το πνεύμα στα χρόνια της σκλαβιάς’, pp. 54–8; N. Fotiou, ‘Νικόλαος Παρίτσης 1876–1942’, in Lesviakon Imerologion 1956, pp. 170–4; K. Missios, ‘Οι δημιουργοί του λεσβιακού Τύπου, 1861–1981’, in Dimokratis, no 813 (2006), pp. 804, 813, 816; K. Missios, Η λεσβιακή άνοιξη εν καρποφορία, pp. 91–5 and 108–27; A. Platon, ‘Η ιστορία της λεσβιακής δημοσιογραφίας’, pp. 189–221; and various issues of  the Laïkos Agon, Lesvos, Mytilinios, Salpinx, Skorpios and the Charavgi.

106

Chapter 3

Information on the educational background of  the teachers-journalists is scarce. It is most probable that they were graduates of  the Mytilene High School or had, at the very most, graduated from schools in Smyrna or Constantinople.31 Yet, the fact that they did not study in a dif ferent environment than that of  Lesbos or the Empire, does not mean that they were not informed about the intellectual pursuits and ideological agitations taking place in the wider Balkan and European area. As this chapter will argue, this is illustrated by their writings and the pioneering modernizing ideas they expressed. Likewise, it is not possible to precisely trace the social background of  these teachers-journalists. Most probably, most of  them came from the middle social groups, since their names do not belong to any well-known families from the upper social groups. After all, the teaching occupation, and particularly that in primary education, which most of them followed, does not seem to have figured among the preferences of  the upper social groups. However, it is quite peculiar that in a period in which the teaching profession and the value of education were generally recognized as important factors in the island’s progress, teachers were neither rewarded satisfactorily, nor received any particular social appreciation or standing.32 Their professional future was insecure, since they were subject to the whims of  the school board that would hire them for one or two years and would only renew their contract if it was satisfied with their work. In his work Kouventes [Speeches] (1926), Vallis described the dif ficult position of  teachers and the various problems they faced. Characteristically, he mentioned that ‘to be a good teacher and stay years in their post, being honest and literate was not enough. A teacher could know as little or as much as he wanted, but these qualities were not of primary importance. What was most important was knowing how to f latter the boss. It was important not to disagree with even the stupidest things they said, and not to have an opinion on them’.33 In addition, in the report he compiled for the Ministry of  Education in Athens in 1913 just a few months after the annexation of  the island, the inspector appointed by the Greek state, wrote 31 32 33

See Geniki Dioikisis, Διάφοροι μελέται περί των νήσων, p. 121. Salpinx, 26–8–1912. M. Vallis, Κουβέντες, p. 99.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

107

that ‘the members of  the school boards (ephors) are by and large people of very limited education who consider the teacher a blind organ of  their will and virtually a servant with no social standing whatsoever. The teacher’s position and pay depend entirely on the board’s decisions. Of course, the miniscule salary the teacher receives has a far from insignificant impact on their social position’.34 Given that the teachers-journalists were not very comfortably of f  financially, their involvement in journalism seems particularly risky, all the more so in cases where they owned a newspaper. Nevertheless, the newspapers’ longevity and increasing frequency of circulation reveal the presence of a public that was willing to support their ef forts.35 It should be noted that the editors-in-chief of  the local papers – with the exception of  the editors of  the Charavgi – rarely signed their articles. It is, however, certain that they wrote at least the main front-page articles. In addition, they quite often published articles in other local papers. For example, Delingiavouris also wrote for the Mytilinios,36 Vallis was a frequent contributor to the Salpinx,37 as well as editor-in-chief of  the Lesvos for a short period of  time in 1912,38 some of  Paritsis’ articles appeared in the Charavgi,39 while we often find columns in the Salpinx and the Laϊkos Agon signed ‘Doros’, the pen-name of  Theodoridis, the editor of  the Mytilinios, who also wrote short literary pieces for the Charavgi.40 34 Geniki Dioikisis, Διάφοροι μελέται περί των νήσων, p. 124. 35 No data on print-runs and circulation numbers are available. However, there is evidence for the increasing frequency of circulation of  the newspapers Salpinx and Laϊkos Agon, due to the economic support of  their subscribers; see also p. 18. 36 For example, see Mytilinios, no 141, 6–10–1912. 37 See Salpinx, 27–3–1909, 4–4–1909 and 8–4–1910. 38 With the withdrawal of  Kalamidas from the position of editor-in-chief of  the Lesvos, M. Vallis seems to have taken over at least until the end of  August 1912. This change is detected in issue number 126 of 2 March 1912. The name of  Vallis as editor-inchief is not mentioned in the first page, though it does appear at the top left of  the third page. A lot of  the previous issues of  the newspaper are missing. Therefore, it was not possible to determine the exact date of  the transition (the last issue that is saved in the Public Library of  Mytilene is number 42, 8 August 1911). In October 1912, Angelos Simiriotis appears as editor-in-chief. 39 For example, Charavgi, no 1, 15–10–1910: 6–7 and no 3, 15–11–1910: 46–7. 40 For example, Charavgi, no 6, 31–12–1910, no 10, 28–2–1911 and no 18, 30–6–1911.

108

Chapter 3

Apart from the main editors, the majority of  the island’s intellectuals contributed articles, wrote columns and short literary pieces for all three political newspapers as well as for the Charavgi. For example, the local news columns of all three newspapers included contributions sent from various villages around the island as well as from Mytilene town. Unfortunately, one cannot assign a name to these contributions, as most were either unsigned or an unidentified pen-name was used. The fact that this was the first period of journalism on the island partly explains the widespread use of pen-names: it was utterly reasonable for the authors to feel insecure, especially when their ideas challenged the established ideas and interests of  the Muslim and Christian leading groups. For example, Paritsis was sued by the island’s Ottoman authorities for publishing news which was said to be ‘untrue’ and to have ‘of fended’ Muslims.41 However, apart from a few cases of prosecution, which usually ended in the acquittal of  the defendants and without the imposition of any penalties, there is no indication of newspapers being closed down by the authorities. The local press also published pieces by individuals residing in other areas of the Empire, most commonly in Constantinople, Kydonies, Edremit, Smyrna and Chios. The Salpinx and the Lesvos had permanent correspondents in Constantinople, each writing a special column.42 Moreover, extracts were often published from articles that had originally appeared in the Greek and Turkish press of  Constantinople, Smyrna and Crete, as well as in the Athenian and European press. Although most contributions were from Lesbos, in the case of  the Charavgi one observes a substantial number of pieces, mostly literary ones, written by journalists and intellectuals residing in Athens. Despite the large number of correspondents and contributors who originated from without, the island’s press was by and large a home-grown matter. Even prior to its appearance, a number of soon to become editorsin-chief were actively engaged either in local enterprises that sought to modernize the local community or in movements that espoused modernist

41 Salpinx, no 151, 11–3–1910 and no 160, 1–4–1910. 42 The former also had non-permanent correspondents in Athens.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

109

stances. For example, Alvanos and Vallis of  the Charavgi and Theodoridis of  the Mytilinios were among the founding members of  the Teaching League of  Lesbos (TLL), the first of its kind on the island.43 Its establishment in September 1908 coincided with that of  the Teaching League of  Professors and Teachers of  Constantinople and the Suburbs. According to the statutes of  the TLL, its main objective was to ‘improve the education and position of  teachers in society’.44 In this respect, the TLL, as well as its counterpart in Constantinople, could be seen as constituting a first attempt at the unionization of  teachers in contrast to the Athenian Teaching League, which was in many ways principally a branch of state-sponsored education.45 In the TLL’s articles of association,46 the founding members declared that they aspired to organize meetings in various parts of  the island to examine and discuss several school issues, as well as to allow members to debate all the problems that arose. They envisaged the organization of excursions around the island ‘for the purpose of studing inter alia its history, nature, archaeological remains and geographical features’. They also aimed to set up a library and a reading-room, to hold lectures and discussions on educational issues, to publish annually a yearbook with pieces on the island’s geography, history, archaeology and the like, and to correspond and communicate with other Greek teaching leagues. Membership was open to ‘every teacher in Lesbos, and every teacher of  Lesbian descent practising her/his profession elsewhere’. However, there is no evidence that Muslim teachers joined the league, partly at least due to the non Muslim composition of its administrative board, which comprised the director of  the Mytilene High School as president ex-of ficio and the metropolitans of  Mytilene and Mithymna as honorary presidents for life. Either way, the ambitious aims of the founding members were not met. For example, none of  the cultural and publishing 43 See G. Valetas, ‘Η πνευματική Λέσβος. Ο πρώτος Λεσβιακός Διδασκαλικός Σύνδεσμος. Άγνωστα στοιχεία και πληροφορίες’, Lesviaka VIII (1983) pp. 25 and 28–9. 44 Κανονισμός της Ορθοδόξου Χριστιανικής Κοινότητος Μυτιλήνης 1908, article 2. 45 On the Teaching League of  Athens, see S. Bournazos, ‘Η εκπαίδευση στο ελληνικό κράτος’, in Ch. Chadziiosif, ed., Ιστορία της Ελλάδας του 20ού αιώνα. Οι απαρχές 1900– 1922, vol. IIa (Athens: Vivliorama, 1999). 46 Κανονισμός της Ορθοδόξου Χριστιανικής Κοινότητος Μυτιλήνης 1908, article 3.

110

Chapter 3

aims mentioned above seem to have materalized. Hesitation and indif ference on the part of potential members either because of pecuniary concerns, as membership came at a cost of an annual fee, or because of an inherent fear of  the novelty of  the whole enterprise,47 condemned the TLL to a life of anonymity, as is attested by the fact that even in the local press references to the league are few and far between. What can be stated with certainty, however, is that some of the TLL’s founding members seemingly were ahead of  their times, and that in tandem with their ‘new’ colleagues they would soon articulate their modernist ambitions through journalism. That much is evident in their support of  the par excellence modernist movement in the turn of  the century Greek world, demoticism.48 Ch. Molinos, a professor of  French in the Commercial Department of  the Mytilene High School (1909–1911) and a journalist, maintained that the conf licts regarding the language issue and the demoticist movement manifested in Athens were little known in Mytilene until the late nineteenth century. As he characteristically put it: We either knew nothing about [demoticism] or heard about it second hand from people who had only contempt for it. And our source was Constantinople and Smyrna, because […] our political, economic and intellectual centre was obviously Constantinople. […] Of course, all the Smyrna and Constantinople newspapers that reached our island had only condemnation, sarcasm and revulsion for the demoticist movement, and fanatically declared themselves supporters of  the ‘Language of our Fathers’, meaning the katharevousa. So everyone who read those things was infected with the same hatred, and since they belonged to the so-called leading classes for one reason or another, they turned the rest of  the people against it, too.49

47 G. Valetas, ‘Η πνευματική Λέσβος. Ο πρώτος Λεσβιακός Διδασκαλικός Σύνδεσμος’, pp. 26–7. 48 For the demoticists in the Greek state and their linguistic, social and political views, see R. Stavridi-Patrikiou, Δημοτικισμός και κοινωνικό πρόβλημα (Athens: Ermis, 1976), D. Tziovas, The nationism of  the demoticists and its impact on their literary theory, 1888–1930 (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1986) and Οι μεταμορφώσεις του εθνισμού και το ιδεολόγημα της ελληνικότητας στο Μεσοπόλεμο (Athens: Odysseas, 1989) and P. Mackridge, Language and national identity in Greece, 1766–1976 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 49 Ch. Molinos, ‘Για το λεσβιακό Τύπο’, p. 70.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

111

Indeed, until the end of  the nineteenth century, the Mytilene High School, the main medium for the mass transmission of ideas since its founding in 1840, was the stronghold of classicistic ideas and the katharevousa. This is demonstrated by its syllabus and the string of classical philologists who served as its principal: G. Aristidis-Pappis, Ch. Lailios, G. Vernardakis, P. Papageorgiou, E. David, M. Michaїlidis and I. Olymbios.50 However, the last years of  the nineteenth century are conventionally considered a turning point, with the presence of  the teacher of religious studies Giannis Delis in the high school, and that of  Stratis Papantonis in Gera.51 M. Vallis and D. Alvanos had met Papantonis, the leading figure of  the demoticist movement in Lesbos, while they were working as teachers in Gera. In 1899, Papantonis, who was a native of  Gera, was a first year student at the University of  Athens. There, he was introduced to the demoticist movement and went on to promote it on the island. At the same time, he was intensely critical of  the authority of  the dimogerontes, and had no qualms about stigmatizing religious superstitions, social injustice and inequality.52 Alvanos and Vallis followed Papantonis’ example, both in their views and stances regarding the language issue, and in the adoption of a critical attitude towards the social inequalities on the island. That much is ref lected in their articles and their journalistic and social activity in general. Alvanos began sending articles to the Smyrna newspaper Armonia in 1903, which led Metropolitan Kyrilos to caution him and to suggest that he ‘avoids too much publicity’.53 Later, in the Charavgi, Vallis and Alvanos published a series of  texts of contemporary Greek literature in the demotic. Moreover, Vallis, in articles published in the Salpinx that he signed with the pen-name Proteus, argued that the demotic was also suitable for instruction in schools, implying that teachers’ insistence on the katharevousa was confusing for students.54 50 P. Samaras, Η εκπαίδευση στη Λέσβο, pp. 37f f. 51 S. Vareltzidis, ‘Ιστορικά των πρώτων χρόνων του δημοτικισμού στη Λέσβο’, pp. 95–6, K. Missios, Η λεσβιακή άνοιξη εν καρποφορία, p. 93 and P. Pantazis, ‘Στρατής Παπαντώνης ο “πρωτοκήρυκας” του δημοτικισμού’, Lesviaka XII (1989), p. 289. 52 P. Pantazis, ‘Στρατής Παπαντώνης ο “πρωτοκήρυκας” του δημοτικισμού’ and S. Vereltzidis, ‘Ιστορικά των πρώτων χρόνων του δημοτικισμού στη Λέσβο’, p. 96. 53 Vareltzidis, ‘Ιστορικά των πρώτων χρόνων του δημοτικισμού στη Λέσβο’, p. 97. 54 See Salpinx, no 25, 12–5–1909.

112

Chapter 3

This promotion of demoticism on the part of  the editors of  the Charavgi provoked negative comments from some subscribers of  the magazine and from some newspapers of  Constantinople. Vallis and Alvanos replied to the accusation levelled by some of  their subscribers that ‘many of  those that write in the Charavgi reek of vernacularism’ by arguing thus: There has been so much confusion during the recent boiling over of  the language issue in Athens, and as a result of  the noise generated by the newspapers, that many were fanaticized and began to condemn everything they read in the demotic as vernacular […]. For the sake of accuracy, we must declare that today, most – indeed, almost all – literary works (poems, short stories, dramas) are written in the demotic tongue.

They also pointed out that there is a distinction between the demotic and the vernacular (malliari), the latter being adopted by G. Psycharis and his supporters: When we say ‘demotic’, we do not mean the idiom written by its extreme supporters, with a host of  foreign words and neologisms that clash with our sense of  linguistic beauty, but rather the pure and unadulterated demotic tongue in which our immortal folk songs are written, the poems of our great poets Solomos, Valaoritis et al, and whose words are used by all the Greek people, from the rector of  the university to the most humble manual labourer.

They were thus arguing for the demotic, while declaring their opposition to Psycharis’ ‘heresy’, which had powerful critics including the Church.55 In this way, they sought to avoid extreme positions that might alienate a section of  their journal’s readership. A moderate stance was also taken by the editor-in-chief of the Salpinx, Paritsis, who condemned both linguistic extremes of puritanism and vernacularism (malliarismos). Instead, he suggested cultivating ‘the language of  the home’ which, ‘when improved and ennobled’, could contribute to the cultural and spiritual elevation of  the people.56 In a series of articles he wrote in 1910, he pointed out the destructive consequences of  the language

55 56

Charavgi, no 11, 15–3–1911: 180. Salpinx, no 133, 26–1–1910 and 28–10–1910.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

113

division, and opined that modern times made it necessary ‘to sacrifice all those elements which, despite the ef forts and struggling torment of teachers and students, cannot fit into the students’ living language and are foreign to their soul, thus enabling Hellenism to rid itself of  the nightmare called the “language issue” which, we repeat, costs Hellenism its soul’.57 Since the Laϊkos Agon appeared some time later (in December 1911), at a time when the Greeks of  the Empire were preoccupied with political problems of a critical nature, its editors did not involve themselves with the language issue. However, they did choose to write their articles in a trim form of  the demotic. The moderate support of  the demoticist movement went hand-in-hand with calls for the modernization of education. Most editors-in-chief were supportive of  the introduction of reforms that would allow education to obtain a more practical character, and took part in the discussions about educational reform then taking place in the Empire, the Greek state and Europe.58 In Mytilene, the establishment of  the Astiki Scholi (Urban School) in 1896,59 of  the Commercial Section in the high school in July 1909,60 and of  the French department in the girls’ school late in 1909, accorded with the demands of society as it grew increasingly urban by giving a more practical

Salpinx, 16–3–1910. Some issues are partially damaged and as a result no issue number is indicated. 58 The issue of reforming the educational system to enable it to respond to socio-economic developments and provide an education that would prepare its students for their social and professional life was first raised in Athens and Constantinople at the end of  the nineteenth century; see S. Bournazos, ‘Η εκπαίδευση στο ελληνικό κράτος’, p. 190 and S. Ziogou-Karastergiou, Το Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο, η οθωμανική διοίκηση και η εκπαίδευση του Γένους. Κείμενα-Πηγές: 1830–1914 (Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis, 1998), p. 630. Especially, the Ottoman state hoped that professional and practical education would redress the inferiority of  Ottoman Muslims to Christians in the fields of commerce and industry; see S. Somel, The modernization of public education in the Ottoman Empire, p. 178. 59 See S. Anagnostou private collection, Αrchive of  the BECE: Vivlion Praktikon Eforias 1898–1918, and S. Lykiardopoulou-Kontara, Κοινωνία και παιδεία στη Λέσβο την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας, pp. 140–7. 60 See Αrchive of  the BECE: Vivlion Praktikon Eforias 1898–1918. 57

114

Chapter 3

direction to education. The strictly classical orientation of  the high school, which provided little by way of vocational training or preparation to its graduates apart from the teaching profession, clearly failed to meet the needs of  large numbers of students. The registration records of  the BECE reveal a significant increase in the number of students attending the Urban School. Thus, while there were 613 students registered in 1897, the school’s second year in operation, there were 852 students in 1903 and 890 by 1909.61 In addition, the foundation of  the Commercial Section and the French department also sought to limit the enrolment of students from the Greek Orthodox community in the city’s two French Catholic schools,62 which were regarded with hostility and suspicion by the Orthodox Church, the BECE and some of  the local journalists.63 Paritsis in particular considered it dangerous for parents to entrust their daughters to ‘people of a dif ferent gender or religion’ who could not provide ‘Orthodox Greek women with an appropriate religious and moral education’.64 At the same time, the Salpinx’s editor-in-chief consistently supported the establishment of an evening Laϊki Scholi (Working-Class School) for working men of all ages, who had not had the opportunity to complete their primary education for financial reasons study.65 Paritsis emphasized how the establishment of such schools was of social, moral and national importance since ‘they would be charged with elevating the lower classes and making honourable citizens out of  them’. The education of common people ‘who were not fortunate enough to have been educated in our national schools, who are ignorant of religion and history and have no idea of  their duties and rights’ was judged necessary since, Αrchive of  the BECE: Mitroa engrafon Eforias 1897–1910. The Boys’ School was established in 1901 by Marist monks, while the respective Girls’ School was established in 1902 by French nuns of  Saint Paul. Both operated at least until 1912 despite local opposition. 63 See A. Stergellis, ‘Καθολικισμός και γαλλική δράση στη Μυτιλήνη στις αρχές του αιώνα’ and Archive of  the BECE: Vivlion Praktikon Eforias 1898–1918. 64 Salpinx, no 110, 28–11–1909. 65 Following the proclamation of  the Constitution, numerous such schools were set up in the Empire’s Greek Orthodox communities; indicatively, see Salpinx, no 163, 8–4–1910. 61 62

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

115

the corner stone of every society and the foundations of every Ethnos is the education of  the people of which it consists. When they are suitably educated, when they understand what their duties are to their fathers, on the one hand, and themselves and their children on the other, then the future of  the Ethnos, especially when it is small and weak, is assured and its progress is undeniable.66

Despite the fact that the discussions over the necessity of such schools had been ongoing since 1909, the people responsible for education hesitated over taking the initiatives required, and the situation reached a stale-mate.67 With the establishment of a Laϊki Scholi in Kydonies in April 1910, Paritsis returned to the issue, urging those responsible to act: Fortunately, we have the example of  Kydonies to galvanize us and to prove groundless and imaginative our fears of responsibility and reservations about cost. The hope is reborn that we will soon be reporting on the establishment in our city of [such a] school, backed by the pride of  the people of  Mytilene, who would not want to see themselves lagging behind like yokels in a project of  this significance.68

A few days later, the Salpinx announced happily the establishment of a Laϊki Scholi underlining that ‘our city, like any other city, is in absolute need of  this school, where its working class, which is not assisted by fate to achieve development and receive an education, may get an education’.69 In the context of  the school’s curriculum, Sunday lectures were delivered by prominent members of  the town’s Greek Orthodox community, including the journalists Paritsis, Alvanos and Vallis.70 It seems that these modernizing ef forts, which were supported by the local press, did not result in substantial changes in education. The town’s High School was still classically orientated both in its language of

66 Salpinx, no 33, 30–5–1909. 67 ‘Our city has been talking about setting up a night school of  this sort for years now, and there have been plan after plan, discussion after discussion. And the result? A resounding nothing’; Salpinx, 3–4–1910. 68 Salpinx, 3–4–1910. 69 Salpinx, 8–4–1910; also, see S. Lykiardopoulou-Kontara, Κοινωνία και παιδεία στη Λέσβο την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας, pp. 166–74. 70 See indicatively Charavgi, 15–3–1911 and Salpinx, 19–10–1910.

116

Chapter 3

instruction and in its curriculum. In addition, as the curriculum taught at the Urban School until 1912 shows, there was no significant change in relation to the other, extant schools, to give the education it provided a more practical thrust.71 Thus, it is with sadness that the editors of  the Laϊkos Agon remarked on the school’s indif ference to youths that would not follow university studies, and to the provision of vocational guidance. They suggested that the community’s educational system would improve by replacing its classical character with a more practical orientation through additional support for the High School’s Commercial section.72 Moreover, they underlined the complete neglect of  foreign languages, including the of ficial language of  the state (Turkish).73 Also, almost two years after the establishment of  the Laϊki Scholi, the editors of  the Laϊkos Agon sadly reported a fall in the number of its students.74 Nevertheless, that the necessity for change was expressed through the press on a wide scale for the first time undoubtedly marks a break with the past. In addition, it seems that the local Orthodox Church was supportive of  the ef forts to educate the working classes and make education more practical in character. Admittedly, this positive attitude towards these specific reforms was generated by the Church’s suspicion of, and hostility towards, the French Schools run by Catholic monks and nuns.75 However, it could be argued that the representatives of  the local Church were in general more tolerant towards modernization than they had been in the past, since they supported change instead of  hindering it, if  they believed these changes would contribute to communal progress.

71 See S. Lykiardopoulou-Kontara, Κοινωνία και παιδεία στη Λέσβο την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας, pp. 145–7. 72 Laϊkos Agon, no 40, 3–6–1912. 73 Laϊkos Agon, no 25, 29–4–1912. 74 Laϊkos Agon, no 1, 11–12–1911 and no 2, 18–12–1911. 75 It should be noted that the polemic aimed at the two Catholic schools did not extend to the island’s Muslim schools, most probably because they were not a significant pole of attraction for pupils from the Greek community; see S. Lykiardopoulou-Kontara, Κοινωνία και παιδεία στη Λέσβο την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας, p. 496.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

117

The views expressed on the language issue and on the need for change in the educational sphere often provided the editors of the local newspapers with scope for social criticism. For instance, Paritsis maintained that the Laϊki Scholi constituted an urgent social need, given that ‘a not inconsiderable number of young people has yet to taste the benefits of education’ and as a result ‘swell, albeit unconsciously, the ranks of  those citizens who can only be called “useless”’. He considered that the large numbers of  ‘useless citizens’ constituted a factor impeding progress and, crucially, a threat to the ethnos.76 He appealed to the leading groups of  the community to help the working classes and further their intellectual and moral cultivation: ‘For while attending to the curing of  the body of suf fering Man is a sacred and holy duty, attending to the mental and spiritual health of  those that have not been fortunate enough to receive an education is a still more sacred and holy duty’.77 According to Paritsis, the working classes will then reciprocate, bringing about ‘solidarity among the social classes, which makes all men brothers’.78 Evidently, he believed that social cohesion would be realized by educating the working classes and, what is more, in the precise manner preferred by the leading groups of  the local society: the dimogerontes, the ephors and the Church. By contrast, for the editors of  the Laϊkos Agon the workers’ access to education was a right, not a concession by, or display of magnanimity on the part of, the leading groups; and they held their employers responsible for preventing them from studying in the Laϊki Scholi, either expressly or by forcing them to work in the evening.79 The editors’ varying stances were manifested on other socio-political issues as well. For instance, Paritsis was not critical of  the community’s electoral system, which essentially favoured those who paid land tax – that is to say members of  the upper and middle social layers.80 On the occasion of  the election of  the new dimogerontia in March 1909, he restricted himself  to congratulating the successful candidates, emphasizing that their 76 77 78 79 80

Salpinx, 22–4–1910. Salpinx, 29–4–1910. Salpinx, 8–4–1910. Laikos Agon, no 1, 11–12–1911 and no 2, 18–12–1911. See chapter I, pp. 28–31.

118

Chapter 3

experience and education provided ‘every guarantee that they would execute their duties in a conscientious and exemplary fashion’.81 On the contrary, the editors of  the Laϊkos Agon challenged the voting system for the municipal elections of  January 1912. In an ironic tone, they pointed out that only ‘privileged’ citizens could vote, since ‘all those who constitute the entirety of  the municipality, all the children of  this small homeland of ours, all those who stand to benefit, all those whom the future mayor is under an obligation to care for’ were excluded by the Municipal Law. They were annoyed by the fact that the existing law only gave the right to vote to people who contributed at least 50 grosia in agrarian tax annually. ‘It is only those with property who are good citizens [and] able to run for of fice; are the rest scapegoats?’, they wondered, pointing out that the law ‘is rooted in materialistic ideas which were prevalent when it was voted in, and our modern culture and our modern state are completely incompatible with it’. They concluded that the law should be immediately altered and the mayor chosen henceforth by the entire adult male population.82 In other words, they were condemning a law instituted by the ancien régime that protected the interests of  the upper social groups. The editors of  the Laϊkos Agon were aware that their views on these issues would provoke public opinion, especially among the ‘plutocratic’ circles that had provided the members of  both the dimogerontia and the BECE for many years due to regulations benefitting ‘autocracy and despotism’. They underlined the need for this unfair system to be abolished, because it excluded everyone who was not rich enough from the right to vote and to hold of fice, arguing that material wealth should not be a precondition for either.83 As their calls for reforming the municipal law went unheeded, in early June 1912 they advised those that enjoyed the right to vote in the upcoming elections for the municipal council and the of fice of mayor to choose ‘the best candidates, who stand out for their excellent education, their vigour and the zeal with which they pursue activities of 

81 82 83

Salpinx, no 2, 18–3–1909. Laϊkos Agon, no 6, 15–1–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 36, 25–5–1912, no 38, 30–5–1912 and no 39, 1–6–1912.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

119

benefit to the community as a whole’.84 At the same time, they accused the outgoing BECE members of  ‘indif ference’, ‘arbitrariness’, ‘favouritism’, and ‘financial mismanagement’ in carrying out their duties, arguing that the new ephoroi should rise ‘above political passions’, and should be ‘zealous pursuers of good’ – in other words, ‘men who want to and are capable of working for the common good’.85 Whereas the editors of  the Laϊkos Agon of fered their readers a wholesale critique of  the communal system and its functionaries on the occasion of  the elections of  June 1912, Paritsis and his Salpinx adopted an accommodating stance vis-à-vis both – save for a general condemnation of  ‘clientism’ (kotsampasismos), which was described as a negative phenomenon responsible for several evils in the local community.86 Such a position was in line with Paritsis’ ‘social conservatism’, which had been manifested on a number of instances in the immediate past. For example, on the occasion of a three-month long strike of soap makers in Plomari in late 1909– early 1910, the future Liberal Party MP had written thus: ‘Concerned, as always, with the good of  the island, the Salpinx has nothing to commend to the hard-working soap makers save the moderation that will bring good results’.87 A month later, he noted that the strike ‘is, unfortunately, continuing to the considerable detriment of  the soap makers themselves, the soap industry and the island in general’, implicitly ‘advising’ the strikers to ‘bring the strike to an end’ for the good of  Lesbos.88 And in June 1910, Paritsis showed his true colours, so to speak, as regards his views on strikes and the working classes. In a front page article, he maintained that socialist ideas in Mytilene were misconceived and were driving workers into harmful industrial action, particularly since ‘the majority of our workers are not driven to exhaustion, are paid relatively well, and a number of  the more diligent and hard-working have succeeded in putting a little aside’. Strikes, 84 Laϊkos Agon, no 40, 3–6–1912. 85 Laϊkos Agon, no 42, 8–6–1912; also, see Laϊkos Agon, no 52, 1–7–1912, no 53, 4–7–1912, no 54, 6–7–1912 and no 55, 8–7–1912. 86 Salpinx, 5–6–1912. 87 Salpinx, no 128, 14–1–1910. 88 Salpinx, no 137, 4–2–1910.

120

Chapter 3

he opined, were harmful to the interests of capital owners and workers, exacerbated problems, and cultivated hatred and conf licts. The time has come for the simmering struggle that has been waged on the island for years between capital and labour to come to an end. […] Capital and labour are interlinked, and the one cannot be extricated from the other. Their struggle destroys both, and especially the workers. The relationship between owner and worker should be like that between father and son, based on love, mutual admiration, respect and dedication. This should be taken seriously into account by the labourers, who have wrongly interpreted some of  the problems besetting labour on our island.89

Belatedly, the Laϊkos Agon responded to Paritsis’ paternalistic and somewhat condescending stance. They ridiculed his view that the working classes of  Mytilene lived in better conditions than European workers by enumerating the continuous deprivations imposed on them. Our workers will wake up here, too, if  the competent authorities do not act in time, taking the example of what is done elsewhere to provide our workers with welfare. For if  they do not, the workers will find a way to force them to respect their rights and improve the conditions in which they live.90

The paper’s sympathy and support for the middle and especially the working classes is also evident in the case of the bankruptcy of  the Bank of  Mytilene in late 1911.91 Accusing Kourtzis of indif ference,92 they predominantly expressed their concern for the working classes who had lost their meagre savings deposited with the bank, and underscored that the people in charge should immediately inform depositors whether and when they will get their money back.93 They also voiced their suspicion that the depositors’ money had been invested in the ambitious business projects of  the bank’s managers, and warned them that ‘the despair of  the small depositors is such that it may explode uncontrollably against those that have treated them unjustly, if  89 90 91 92 93

Salpinx, no 192, 17–6–1910. Laϊkos Agon, no 8, 29–1–1912. See Ch. Εxertzoglou, ‘Η Τράπεζα Μυτιλήνης’, pp. 41–2. Laϊkos Agon, no 1, 11–12–1911. Laϊkos Agon, no 2, 18–12–1911.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

121

they are not convinced of  the fate of  their deposits’.94 Unsurprisingly, given that every time the Salpinx referred to Kourtzis it took care to stress the family’s contribution to the welfare of  the community,95 Paritsis did not comment on the incident or accuse anyone; he just expressed the hope that the depositors would get their money back.96 Admittedly, Paritsis’ overall ‘moderation’ was firmly rooted in his desire neither to upset the local social order nor challenge established interests but work towards the modernization of  the former from within. On the other hand, the ‘militancy’ of  the Laϊkos Agon and their acerbic approach to social matters97 were indicative of  the editors’ ‘assertive’ socialism, examples of which were also to be found both in other regions of  the Empire98 and in the Greek state.99 Despite their divergent opinions and beliefs, the two main political newpapers seemingly held complimentary views regarding the local ecclesiastical authorities –less so regarding the Ecumenical Patriarch. Both the Salpinx and the Laϊkos Agon praised the conduct of  the former;100 and both looked upon Greek Orthodoxy as one of  the cohesive elements of  the Greek community and as a core ingredient of its national identity. Yet Paritsis projected the identification of  ‘Christianity with Hellenism’,101 while the editors of  the Laϊkos Agon pointed out the association of  ‘Christianity’ with

Laϊkos Agon, no 3, 25–12–1911. Indicatively, see Salpinx, no 85, 1–10–1909 and no 120, 22–12–1909. Salpinx, 29–3–1912. Indicatively, see Laϊkos Agon, no 7, 22–1–1912, no 12, 26–2–1912 and no 13, 4–3–1912. See E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 102. There were several advertisements in the Laϊkos Agon for the Athenian socialist periodical Erevna. On the socialist intellectuals in the Greek state, see S. Marketos, ‘Ο Αλέξανδρος Παπαναστασίου και η εποχή του. Αντινομίες του μεταρρυθμιστικού σοσιαλισμού’, PhD thesis (Athens: University of  Athens, 1998), Ph. Iliou, ed., Δημήτριος Γληνός, Άπαντα, vol. I & II (Athens: Themelio, 1983), L. Axelos, Γ. Σκληρού έργα (Athens: Stochastis, 1976), P. Noutsos, Η σοσιαλιστική σκέψη στην Ελλάδα από το 1875 ως το 1974, vol. II: 1907–1925 (Athens: Gnosi, 1992) and V. Karafoulidou, Η γλώσσα του σοσιαλισμού. Ταξική προοπτική και εθνική ιδεολογία στον ελληνικό 19ο αιώνα (Athens: Vivliorama, 2011). 100 Indicatively, see Salpinx, 29–5–1912, and Laϊkos Agon, no 3, 25–12–1911. 101 Salpinx, no 167, 17–4–1910. 94 95 96 97 98 99

122

Chapter 3

the principles of  ‘Socialism’ – ‘altruism and humanism’ – and argued that ‘Christ was the first socialist’.102 And whereas in the Salpinx the Ecumenical Patriarchate of  Constantinople was presented as the ‘ethnic and religious centre’ of  the Greeks of  the Empire, and Ioakeim’s presence on the patriarchal throne was regarded as a stroke of  ‘genuine luck’ for the ethnos,103 in the Laϊkos Agon Ioakeim’s autocratic style was condemned and his habit of  threatening to resign every time he came into conf lict with members of  the Holy Synod censured. ‘The Holy Synod is a body which decides matters by majority vote’, the paper noted, ‘and whose decisions are executed by the Patriarch’.104 The article in question is indicative of a strand of opinion that not only challenged the patriarch’s role as ‘leader of  the ethnos’ but also sought the transferral of additional power to lay members of  the Greek Orthodox community.105 Crucially, the latter was a modernizing aim that even Paritsis implicitly espoused. As he put it, ‘most of  the Ethnos want a revision of  the [ecclesiastical] regulations, and its leaders would benefit from hearing what they have to say’.106 It is obvious that the editors-in-chief of  the local papers on their part were aware of  the importance of  the press and the unquestionable authority they possessed as representatives and shapers of public opinion. The editors of  the Laϊkos Agon mentioned that ‘when the press in a state aims collectively at achieving a given goal, nothing can stand in its way, be it legislation, the government, ethics or philosophy’.107 Its authority is attributed to the political thought it can direct, and to its capability for critiquing events, actions and individuals. The wielding of  this authority by the editors-inchief  legitimized their leading role in the community. This role allowed them to contribute through their work to the introduction and promotion of ideas that would gradually bring about the rejuvenation of  the local community. In essence, the editors’ support for the demoticism movement 102 103 104 105 106 107

Laϊkos Agon, no 3, 25–12–1911. Salpinx, no 132, 23–1–1910. Laϊkos Agon, no 25, 29–4–1912. See below chapter IV. Salpinx, no 167, 17–4–1910 and no 190, 12–6–1910. Laϊkos Agon, no 53, 4–7–1912.

Journalists as an agent of modernization in the Young Turk era, 1909–1912

123

and educational reform, coupled with their critical social standpoint could possibly place them alongside the demoticists – those in the Noumas circle of  Athens, in particular.108 In general, it could be claimed that the first seeds of  the challenge to traditional institutions are to be found in this period, when quests come to the foreground which prefigure major changes in the socio-political sphere on the island. The following chapter will focus on the political views expressed by the representatives of  the local press in the light of  the Young Turks’ policies.

108 On the Noumas and the demoticism, see R. Stavridi-Patrikiou, Δημοτικισμός και κοινωνικό πρόβλημα, D. Tziovas, The nationism of  the demoticists and its impact on their literary theory and Οι μεταμορφώσεις του εθνισμού και το ιδεολόγημα της ελληνικότητας στο Μεσοπόλεμο and P. Mackridge, Language and national identity in Greece, 1766–1976.

Chapter 4

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

The first section of  Chapter 4 examines how the Salpinx presented and discussed the counter revolution of  April 1909 and its outcome. Section 2 looks at the causes of  tension and representative moments of  friction between the Greek Orthodox element and the Ottoman government. Section 3 focuses on the 1912 elections. Chapter 2 has already provided an analysis of  the 1908 elections and the atmosphere of enthusiasm in which they were held, with the Greek community expecting much of  the Young Turk regime. In this respect, the elections of 1912 were a very dif ferent af fair, and the analysis depicts how the experience of  the four preceding years had coloured the community’s take on them, as manifested in the local press. Finally, section 4 examines additional instances of  friction at the local level during the last months of  Ottoman rule over the island. In this chapter, it will be shown that the local press perceived the Young Turks’ policies as an attempt at systematically calling Greek ‘rights’ into question. The fundamental question, which will be further addressed and elaborated in Chapter 5, is whether in light of  ‘Turkification’, the representatives of  the local press continued to associate the political future of  their island with that of  the Empire.

126

Chapter 4

The counter-revolution of 1909: between the Scylla of a return to absolutism and the Charybdis of  the CUP One of  the main demands of  the Young Turks was the restriction of  the socio-economic af f luence of  the non-Turkish ethnic groups and their replacement by Turks capable to play a leading role in the economy of  the Empire.1 For their part, the Greeks of  the Empire were gradually realizing that the preferential living conditions that the Hamidian regime had guaranteed them were continuously being put into dispute. Specifically, the Greeks of  Constantinople and the coasts of  Asia Minor ceaselessly expressed, through the press, complaints concerning the ‘chauvinistic’ manner with which the state was being governed by the CUP, and insisted on entering into and developing a discourse on the preservation of  their ‘age-long and inalienable rights and privileges’ within the Empire.2 The Greeks of  Mytilene were no exception. The main line that the Salpinx put forward early on – and subsequently, by and large, adhered to – was to condemn the policy promoted by the CUP leadership in no uncertain terms, labelling it ‘authoritarian’, ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘chauvinist’. It deemed that such a policy did anything but facilitate the course of modernization. Maintaining that the CUP was functioning as a secret society, the paper’s leader claimed that it essentially directed the political life of  the country3 – a claim also made in certain European circles, which

1

2

3

Ch. Issawi, ‘The transformation of  the economic position of  the millets in the nineteenth century’, in B. Braude & B. Lewis, eds, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, vol. I (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1982), p. 262 and K. Tsoukalas, Εξάρτηση και αναπαραγωγή, pp. 307–8. A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, pp. 65, 70–1 and 270–4. On how the Armenians and the Jews looked the CUP’s measures and policies, see B. Braude & B. Lewis, eds, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, A. Levy, ed., The Jews of  the Ottoman Empire (Princeton: Darwin, 1994) and M. Goldish, Jewish questions: Responsa on Sephardic life in the early modern period (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). Salpinx, no 9, 4–4–1909.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

127

described it as constituting a ‘peculiar regime that combined the exertion of suf focating control in the governing of  the Empire with complete exemption from its responsibility’.4 The first target of  the Salpinx’s criticism was the government of  Huseyin Hilmi Pasha, a native of  the island, which was supported by the Committee. Its forceful displacement of opposition supporters from the political scene on the grounds of publicly opposing the Committee’s actions was labelled ‘unconstitutional’, while its aim of assimilating non-Turkish ethnic groups into the dominant Turkish one was described as ‘chauvinist’.5 As regards the former claim, the paper cited the case of  Grand Vizier Kiamil Pasha, who resigned on 14 February 1909, because he had not approved of  the political actions of  the Committee and had joined forces with the Ottoman Liberal Union Party.6 The CUP was also held directly responsible for the murder of  Hasan Fehmi Bey, a journalist with the liberal newspaper Serbesti, whose funeral was turned into a mass demonstration against the CUP.7 Fehmi was described as a ‘noble victim of noble principles, the first pure martyr of  liberated Turkey, an individual that the whole Ethnos will hold up with pride to future generations’.8 At the same time, it claimed that death threats had been issued against the deputy from Berati, Ismail Kemal Bey, and also against Ali Kemal Bey, the Liberal-supporting editor of  the newspaper Ikdam.9 The Salpinx believed that owing to these ‘provocative’ actions, the government of  Huseyin Hilmi Pasha was obliged to resign,10 a view shared by the Turkish press that sympathized with the Liberal opposition.11

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

E. Skopetea, Η Δύση της Ανατολής, pp. 165–7. Salpinx, no 3, 20–3–1909. Salpinx, no 5, 25–3–1909 and no 6, 27–3–1909; see also E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 95. E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 96. Salpinx, no 6, 27–3–1909 and no 7, 29–3–1909. Salpinx, no 6, 27–3–1909. Salpinx, no 6, 27–3–1909. E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 96.

128

Chapter 4

The armed uprising that broke out in Constantinople on 31 March/13 April 1909, which aimed at the overthrow of  the regime, caused the Salpinx to express, even more explicitly, its dislike for the government of  Huseyin Hilmi Pasha. In a leader on 14 April, the paper recited a long list of alleged cases of persecutions and arbitrary acts carried out by the CUP against the Greeks and their ‘spiritual leader and Ethnarch’, the Ecumenical Patriarch. In many respects, the paper echoed the disappointment felt in equal measure by the Constantinople Organization and the Political League, as well as the majority of  Greeks, particularly in the provinces of  European Turkey.12 As it had emphatically argued a few days earlier, the systematic relegation of  the non-Turkish ethnic groups had justifiably led ‘the Greek ethnos in Turkey [to follow] the development of  the constitutional life of  Turkey with a colder glance’ from September 1908 onwards.13 As a measure though of  the non-significant weight of  the Greek Orthodox element in the political process, there was no direct involvement of non-Turkish ethnic groups in the uprising. The latter was carried out by ‘fanatical’ Muslims and the Liberal opposition, both of which were equally opposed, though for dif ferent reasons, to the CUP and, indeed, disappointed by the loss of important territories of  the Empire to AustroHungary and Bulgaria.14 The Sultan had maintained a cautious stance whilst the events were unfolding, maintaining his distance from the insurgents. However, there are suggestions that he participated in the uprising, though these have not been confirmed.15

12 13 14

15

C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics: aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks 1908–1912’, PhD thesis (London: King’s College, 2005), pp. 123–4. Salpinx, no 9, 4–4–1909. For the causes of  the uprising, the groups that participated in it and their demands, see B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, pp. 210–13, E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 95–9 and A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, 1908–1913 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 77f f. E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 99.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

129

Initially, the Greek press in Constantinople hailed the uprising as an act of patriotism.16 Similarly, the Salpinx – without knowing exactly who the insurgents were and what their demands were – aligned itself with them from the outset. It considered the uprising an explosion of  the ‘liberal sentiment’ of a great number of citizens, which now no longer felt the oppression of  the government. As it noted, ‘if  the Committee had not attempted to gag the press, to eliminate whoever was a dissident and to direct the executive power according to its dictates, the conscience of citizens seeking deliverance from a yoke more horrible than any authoritarian one would never have risen in revolt’.17 At the local level, the political upheaval in the Empire coincided with the trial of a number of  Ottoman Greeks on charges of  having exhibited aggressive behaviour towards of ficials of  the local administration in the immediate aftermath of  the proclamation of  the Constitution.18 According to the Salpinx, the charges had been fabricated by ‘chauvinistic circles’, with the aim of  ‘terrorizing and oppressing’ the Greek population of  the island.19 The defendants were acquitted of  the charges, but after several months’ of imprisonment. Infuriated by the stance of  ‘Young Turk chauvinists’, the Salpinx stressed that ‘our ethnos has comprehended that Absolutism has been changed in the Constitution in name alone; in reality, the absolute Monarch has been replaced by a group bearing the name: Young Turk Committee’.20 The incident in question constitutes an additional reason in accounting for the positive stance held by the Salpinx concerning the uprising; one that was manifested by several demonstrations organized by the Ottoman Greeks on the island, in which they expressed their delight at ‘the overthrow of  the Committee by the Liberals’.21 That during one of  these its ring leaders were arrested by the authorities might also account for the fact there are no reports of  Muslim participation in the demonstrations. 16

C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 125. 17 Salpinx, no 9, 4–4–1909. 18 See above chapter II, p. 76. 19 Salpinx, no 9, 4–4–1909. 20 Salpinx, no 13, 14–4–1909. 21 Salpinx, no 9, 4–4–1909.

130

Chapter 4

At the same time, the Salpinx openly sided in favour of  the formation of a new government led by Ahmed Tevfik Pasha, despite the fact that he had placed respect for the seriat­alongside that for the Constitution, as the cornerstone of  the political regime.22 The Constantinople Organization also showed sympathy towards the new government, in spite of  the urgings of  the Greek ambassador in Constantinople to Souliotis-Nikolaїdis, calling for a cautious stance to be maintained and relations with the Committee not to be breached, owing to the uncertainty of  the political situation.23 However, the fact alone that a new government would be formed by people who had sought the overthrow of  the Committee was considered by the secular leadership of  the Greeks in Constantinople and the press an important step towards the improvement of political life in the state. Thus, the Salpinx diplomatically rejected the demand issued by the Thessaloniki-based representatives of  the Committee to the local authorities of  Mytilene that they come to an understanding directly with them, ignoring the leaders of  the uprising, maintaining that the ‘wise’ people of  Mytilene, ‘both the Turks and our own’, did not cease and would not cease to be ‘law-abiding’ and to respect any government of  the state, whether its prime minister be Tevfik Pasha or Hilmi Pasha. By projecting the loyalty of  the people to any government, it appeared to endorse the protagonists of  the uprising, and at the same time keeping its distance from the supporters of  the Committee in Thessaloniki.24 Nevertheless, the outcome of events ran contrary to the initial assessments of  the Salpinx and the desires of  the majority of  the Greeks of  the Empire for the overthrow of  the regime. The Committee, assuming action initially in Macedonia, won the propaganda battle with ease and convinced the population that the Constitution was in danger. It subsequently sent in the army, led by General Mahmud Shevket Pasha, at Constantinople, and on 11/24 April quelled the uprising.25 E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 96. C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 125. 24 Salpinx, no 11, 9–4–1909. 25 B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 212; E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 97–8. 22 23

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

131

The first, hazy pieces of information concerning these developments necessitated a readjustment of  the Salpinx’s interpretation of  the events. On 9 April, Achilleas Kalevras, its correspondent in Constantinople, wrote thus: Who are those who undermine the constitution? The army and the Young Turk Committee suggest that a high-ranking figure has been moving against the constitution. It is dif ficult to judge whether this suspicion is valid or not. But one thing is certain, however; that the propagation [of  this suspicion] is singularly gaining ground, to such a degree that surprises are anticipated.26

The high-ranking figure, who was not named, was none other than Sultan Abdulhamid II. Very soon afterwards the situation would become clearer. In an ef fort to redress previous erroneous appraisals and to enlighten its readership, in the next issue of  the Salpinx, Kalevras noted that ‘even at this late stage, the entire press in Constantinople’ now agreed that ‘the insurgents of 31 March were autocrats, handsomely rewarded by the interested party’, that is, by Sultan Abdulhamid II. In light of  these new facts, the newspaper labelled the uprising of 31 March a ‘conspiracy’ of  the supporters of autocracy, aiming at the reintroduction of  the pre-1908 political regime.27 Consequently, its quelling by the Committee’s army was ultimately considered an act of salvation for the state. Moreover, the Christians who were slaughtered at Adana during the days of  the uprising28 were described as victims of  the action of  ‘absolutist circles’, ‘martyrs of  freedom’, just as the victims of  the ‘liberator army’ of  the Committee had been labelled.29 Likewise, the tribulations that the state had been experiencing since the 1908 change of regime were imputed mainly to Sultan Abdulhamid II. He was deemed to have intervened in political events in an attempt to restore absolutist rule, and was considered the prime instigator of the coup d’état of 31 March. His demise in the days that followed was considered equal to the fall of  the Bastille, and was viewed as an occasion for a new, more auspicious 26 27 28 29

Salpinx, no 11, 9–4–1909. Salpinx, no 12, 11–4–1909. B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 212. Salpinx, no 17, 23–4–1909.

132

Chapter 4

evolution of  the political life of  the Empire. The Salpinx belauded the ‘liberator army’ and issued a call to all to celebrate the event which would make them, from that day forth, ‘genuine Ottoman citizens’. Abdulhamid II was labelled a ‘tyrant’ and held responsible for the maintenance of  the ‘iniquitous’ absolutist regime, ‘for the completely politically guilty actions and sins against the fatherland, the civilization, the ethnos, the people’.30 The exact same interpretation was of fered by the Greek press of Constantinople. Initially, it had sided against the Committee and in favour of  the uprising; then, it praised the liberator army of  the Committee and denounced the Sultan.31 As for the Political League, after sensing that the uprising had failed, it published a proclamation in the newspapers of  Constantinople, in which it welcomed the liberator army of  the Committee and urged the Ottoman Greeks to trust it, because it ‘struggles only in favour of what is good for the fatherland’. Thus, in a diplomatic way, it attempted to avoid the displeasure of  the Committee concerning its support for the uprising.32 Even though the Salpinx laid the biggest part of  the political responsibility with the Sultan, the Committee was not completely exonerated from past errors that had been ascribed to it. It was deemed responsible, to a great degree, for the political crisis in the country, owing to the tolerance it had shown towards absolutist circles and for its laxity in implementing all that it had promised in July 1908 – liberty, equality, fraternity and the security of  the peoples of  the Empire. Above all, it was reproached for the persecutions, revilement and threats against the Greek element, which, as was stressed, had been ‘the only one that, from the very first moment, had heartily pledged its assistance and cooperation’ to it.33 At the same time, the Salpinx maintained that the overthrow of  the Abdulhamid autocracy, the disappearance of  ‘political corruption’ and the ascent of  Mehmed V, the new ‘constitutional Sultan’, constituted a

30 Salpinx, no 13, 14–4–1909; also, see Mytilinios, no 10, 25–4–1909. 31 C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 126. 32 A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, p. 102. 33 Salpinx, no 16, 21–4–1909.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

133

‘day of renaissance’, and the start of a ‘new period of constitutional life’.34 The occasion of  the enthronement of  the new Sultan was celebrated in the city of  Mytilene and in various villages on the island with enthusiastic joint festivities of  Christians and Muslims. The participation of all residents of  the island in the celebrations, irrespective of creed and ethnicity, was interpreted by the Salpinx as an indication of  their abhorrence for the autocracy of  the former Sultan and their hope for ‘the emergence of a new period for the beloved Fatherland and its children’ through the application of constitutional principles.35 Similar celebrations took place in Constantinople, Thessaloniki and other cities of  the Empire.36 The fact that at his enthronement ceremony the new Sultan ‘extended his hand to the Orthodox Patriarch’ caused emotion among the Greeks and was considered by the Salpinx not as a simple diplomatic gesture, but rather as ‘the utmost evidence in favour of  Greek interests’ and an indication of  his desire to acquire the ‘undivided love and devotion of  the Greek subjects, who were faithful to him’. In parallel, the hope was expressed that this handshake would constitute a ‘new, honourable page in the history of progress and civilization for our state’.37 For the Salpinx, the initial endorsement of  the new Sultan did not signify its abandonment of  the Liberals, on which it had so often in the recent past pinned its hopes for the improvement of  the political situation. Although a month after the quelling of  the uprising, it described as ‘regrettable’ the fact that ‘many of  the Liberals who were considered engineers of  the eminently free institutions had been caught abusing the trust with which a section of  the Ottoman Empire had of fered them’,38 the paper made positive reference to the Liberals again in August 1909, when it opined that they had unjustly suf fered the consequences of  the ‘reactionary movement’ of 31 March, and that they had to reorganize, since the exist34 Salpinx, no 14, 16–4–1909 and no 20, 30–4–1909. 35 Salpinx, no 15, 18–4–1909 and no 16, 21–4–1909. 36 C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 128. 37 Salpinx, no 22, 5–5–1909. 38 Salpinx, no 22, 5–5–1909.

134

Chapter 4

ence of an opposition would be to the benefit of parliamentarianism and to the progress of  the country.39 Likewise, the paper continued to advocate liberal political principles and expressed the hope that these would be promoted by moderate members of  the Committee, who had been educated in Europe, and by ‘fresh faces’ in the new ministerial council, untainted by the absolute rule of  Abdulhamid II.40 One of  the latter, General Mahmud Shevket Pasha, who had restored the constitutional regime in April 1909, following the quelling of  the uprising, was hailed as the ‘commander-in-chief of  the glorious Macedonian phalanges’, as one most suitable to assume political action for the reconstruction of  the country, provided that he did not carry out a military campaign, but rather a ‘moral, social and religious revolution’.41 However, despite the initial, optimistic estimations of  the Salpinx, Mahmud Shevket Pasha, as inspector general of  the armed forces, acquired immense power and exercised the authority of a ‘dictator’, imposing martial law in European provinces from the summer of 1909 until July 1912.42 Consequently, the Committee was able to dynamically carry into ef fect its programme and become the predominant political force in the state up to and including 1911.43 The fact that very few ‘fresh faces’ appeared in the government that Hilmi Pasha formed in late April 1909 was not lost on the Salpinx, which expressed its disappointment in unequivocally ethnocentric terms. As its leader put it, the appointment of a Greek to a ministry ‘of no significance’ was hardly representative of  ‘the brilliance and the ability of our race (φυλή)’, and was interpreted as an indication of  the systematic attempt to relegate

39

40 41 42 43

Salpinx, no 63, 8–8–1909. In fact, the Liberals started to rebound and their presence on the political scene began to be felt again the following year, when discontent for the political line followed by the Committee had again become pervasive throughout the Empire; see E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 101. Salpinx, no 18, 25–4–1909. Salpinx, no 17, 23–4–1909. See B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 215 and E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 99–100. B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 215.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

135

the ‘Greek ethnos’.44 However, caught between the Scylla of a return to absolutism and the Charybdis of  the Committee, it considered that it was the duty of members of  Parliament, as well as of every ‘true patriot’, to support the government, because opposition to it would bring about a new, serious political disquiet in the state.45 In the event, the new government, with the support of the Committee, which had come out stronger following the suppression of  the uprising, dynamically put its programme into ef fect. As from August 1909, its main concern became the introduction of  laws that aimed at the reinforcement of central power and the curbing of  the liberties particularly of  those belonging to non-Turkish ethnic groups. The restrictive laws ‘on public gatherings’, ‘on associations’, ‘on the prevention of  brigandage and strikes’, ‘on the press’ and the law on the military conscription of non-Muslims were all indicative examples.46 The enforcement of  the specific legislative measures – independent of  the degree of sincerity of  the initial intention of  the Young Turks – contributed decisively to the spread of  Turkish nationalism, ‘forever terminating the Ottoman dream of  free, equal and peaceful cooperation among peoples, within the framework of common devotion to a monarch of a multiethnic, multireligious Empire’.47 As it has been argued, ‘pro-CUP feelings among non-Turkish nationalities in the European provinces turned sour; ruthless authoritarianism gained ascendancy in government’.48 The concentrative, repressive policy of  the Committee did not take aim at only the Greeks of  the Empire; such a policy was also pursued in respect to the non-Turkish Muslims of  the Empire, especially Arabs and Albanians. In parallel, supporters of  the opposition were met with

44 Salpinx, no 18, 25–4–1909. 45 Salpinx, no 27, 16–5–1909. 46 B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 213; E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 100. 47 B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 214. 48 S. Pavlowitch, A history of  the Balkans 1804–1945 (London: Longman, 1999), p. 170.

136

Chapter 4

exceptional harshness.49 On the occasion of the continuous uprisings against the government in various areas of the Empire, the Salpinx stressed it ‘should cease to govern through the army and through force’. It had an obligation to resolve, in a peaceful manner, the problems of  the various peoples (laoi). Only then ‘will we be blessed to see Albania and Macedonia and Yemen and the whole of  the fatherland tranquil, blissful in a truly constitutional observance of  law and order, and the government leading not with military strength, court martial and martial laws, but with the policy of  true liberty, true equality and indisputable egalitarianism’.50

Causes of  tension, moments of  friction From the summer of 1909, a commotion broke out in Mytilene when charges began to be levelled against Greeks who were members of  the Atlas sports club.51 The Salpinx attributed the charges, according to which members of  the club had revolutionary tendencies against the regime, to ‘monstrous slanders’ by Turkish chauvinists who were active in Mytilene. The newspaper avoided naming them, but it is likely that the accusations originated from members of  the local branch of  the Committee, and specifically from its president, Hakki.52 Owing to these specific charges, the president of  the club and some of its members were put on trial in early 1910. Despite the fact that they were later unanimously acquitted owing to the vagueness of  the charges,53 the government sent troops to the island and declared that it was determined to suppress what it considered as a ‘Greek nationalist movement’. The Salpinx stressed that ‘the people of  49 See B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 215 and N. Clayer, Οι απαρχές του αλβανικού εθνικισμού (Ioannina: Isnafi, 2009). 50 Salpinx, no 297, 19–2–1911. 51 Accusations were also addressed against the Atlas after the elections of autumn 1908; see chapter II, pp. 87–8. 52 Z. Kambouris, ‘Τα τελευταία χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας στη Λέσβο’, p. 140. 53 Salpinx, no 141, 13–2–1910.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

137

Mytilene have proven that they have always known how to respect the regime’. It noted that until recently only thirty gendarmes comprised the armed forces of  the entire island. Despite this, no concern had ever been expressed on the part of  the authorities. The Greeks of  the island, it continued, despite being ‘peace-loving and law-abiding’, were now facing the threat of  ‘a few puny men, supposed patriots’, who wished to assume the task of directing the general interests of  Turkey and who were slandering the accused ‘with heedless passion to satiate infantile, petty ambitions’.54 The Greek vice-consul of  France, deemed that the dispatch of  forces to the island for insignificant reasons was the ‘work of  the local branch of  the Committee’, which was trying to create issues, in order that, at a suitable opportunity, ‘it delivers a decisive blow against the Greek element of  the island’.55 The fact is that the soldiers, upon their arrival on the island, provoked incidents and carried out acts of violence against Greeks. The British vice-consul was also a victim and, in reporting the looting of  his house, noted that the ‘aim of all of  these incidents is to create discontent among the population and to provoke disturbances so that they find the suitable opportunity to impose martial law’.56 The imposition of martial law on an empire-wide basis did little to either hinder the dominance of  the ‘all-mighty Committee’57 or diminish the public’s dissatisfaction with the government in Constantinople. In December 1909, discontent with the governmental measures led to the resignation of  Hilmi.58 His successor, Grand Vizier Ibrahim Hakki Pasha, was faced with a number of pressing financial and foreign policy concerns.59 Among the latter, was the need to avert an Albanian uprising in Kosovo, which ultimately broke out in March 1910.60 This particular insurrection,

Salpinx, no 193, 19–6–1910. Z. Kambouris, ‘Τα τελευταία χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας στη Λέσβο’, p. 130. Ibid., p. 132. Salpinx, no 125, 5–1–1910. For the reasons of  his resignation, see A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey 1908–1913, pp. 161f f. 59 E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 123–5. 60 See O. Pearson, Albania and King Zog. Independence, republic and monarchy 1908–1939 (London: Centre for Albanian Studies, 2004), pp. 10–11. 54 55 56 57 58

138

Chapter 4

and those that followed in 1911 and 1912, was a demonstration of  Albanian exasperation concerning the implementation of  laws related to taxation and conscription, as well as over the concentrative policy that the government had been pursuing more generally. The Albanians interpreted this policy as an attempt at their Turkification and were reacting, leaning towards independence from the Empire.61 The Salpinx seized on the opportunity presented by the Albanian uprisings to stress once more to the government that it should respect the rights of  the various ethnic groups and examine their demands carefully and in good faith. Otherwise, the repression of the Empire’s other ethnic groups and the violation of  their rights could lead to unrest that would primarily hurt the state itself.62 Clearly, the newspaper’s priority was to promote the rights of  the Ottoman Greeks; the rights of  the other ethnic groups were supported tangentially and when they were not antagonistic to those enjoyed by the Greeks. On the ground, commonality of purpose between the island’s two main ethnic elements was brief ly demonstrated in spring 1910, when they publicly joined their forces in opposition to the government’s proposed abolition of  the Aegean vilayet and its replacement by a new one at Mugla, a region in Asia Minor with a significantly larger percentage of  Muslim electors. What had disturbed the government most had been the fact that only Greek deputies had been elected for the Aegean vilayet in the 1908 elections. However, following the intense reactions of  Christians and Muslims on the islands, the government was forced to yield. A great demonstration with the participation of  both Christians and Muslims was also held in Mytilene town.63 The Muslim elders were, in many cases, supportive towards the demands of  their Christian fellow citizens. Aside from their love for their common homeland, and their attempt to maintain a tranquil climate on the island, they were also linked by common For the Albanian national movement, see E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 104–5, S. Pavlowitch, A history of  the Balkans 1804–1945, pp. 170–3, O. Pearson, Albania and King Zog and N. Clayer, Οι απαρχές του αλβανικού εθνικισμού. 62 Salpinx, no 159, 30–3–1910. 63 AGYM 96M, Simantiris to French consul at Smyrna, 18–4–1910; see also Ζ. Kambouris, ‘Τα τελευταία χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας στη Λέσβο’, pp. 141–3. 61

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

139

‘class’ interests. They constituted the leadership groups of  the island and did not desire changes which could shake their vested rights. However, there was suspiciousness and insecurity among the Christian and Muslim elements. Greek contemporaneous sources make mention of a ‘kindling of racial hatred’, provoked by the Young Turks of  the Committee.64 The existence of  this is attested by articles in the local press, mainly in 1912, which reported on cases of violent acts having been perpetrated against the Christian population – but no longer by soldiers or gendarmes, but rather by members of  the Muslim civilian population.65 Naturally, no such camaraderie could be manifested in the case of governmental attempts that af fected the educational privileges of  the Greek Orthodox element. From as early as March 1909 the Salpinx had noted that following the 1908 change of regime, the Young Turks had sought, using any means available, to force ‘the dif ferent nations (έθνη) in the Empire to forget their language and history, their desires and dreams, their tears and ancestral graves, and to acquire the Turkish nationality (εθνικότητα), that is, to become part of  the Turkish race (φυλή)’.66 This view would be confirmed by the overt public statement made in Parliament in July 1909 by Riza Tevfik, a deputy and one of  the most prominent members of  the Committee, that ‘the foundation of  the Turkish regime is the Supremacy of  the Turkish race in the Empire’.67 The Salpinx considered that it was impossible for the aims of  the Committee to be realized, because the people would react, demanding ‘rights which the conqueror had recognized for the conquered non-Muslim people and all great Sultans had af firmed’. As it noted with emphasis, these privileges shall exist, whatever regime may be enforced within the Empire. From the moment that even just one ‘Greek Christian lives in Turkey, he will glorify his God and will be educated in the language of  his fathers’.68

64 65 66 67 68

Kambouris, ‘Τα τελευταία χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας στη Λέσβο’, p. 164. Indicatively, see Salpinx, 13–9–1912. Salpinx, 22–3–1909. Salpinx, no 52, 14–7–1909. Salpinx, no 37, 9–6–1909.

140

Chapter 4

In principle, the Committee’s attempt to unify the educational system, and consequently to abolish the autonomy of  Greek schools, which according to the old regime fell under the jurisdiction of  the Patriarchate and the local communities, constituted a breach of  the ‘privileges of  the ethnos’. The Young Turks posited the common education of all Ottoman citizens in Turkish schools as a basis for the ‘fraternization of people’ and for the ‘creation of a new Ottoman ethnotita (ethnicity)’.69 The attempts to intervene and control Greek schools began in the summer of 1909. The major issue was that the Committee did not desire that people who held foreign – and above all Greek – citizenship teach in those schools, as they were considered carriers of ideas that were dangerous and nationalistic, and a threat to the state. It should be noted that, owing to the lack of adequately trained teaching staf f, there were teachers working in many schools that had been sent in by the Greek state.70 Certainly, the Patriarchate was not satisfied seeing its competence as supervisor of education in Greek schools being disputed.71 The Salpinx, in principle, considered it reasonable that the supervision of schools should be carried out by government employees. However, it stressed that the rectification of any chance improprieties should be conducted by the ‘ab antique spiritual authorities’, because education constituted the ‘eminent right of each nation’.72 It is clear that its acceptance of  the government’s right of oversight was only a formality, and that it would not accept any changes to the existing educational regime. The attempt to alter the educational system, it bluntly opined, had only one aim in mind: the ‘Turkification of  the people of  the Empire’ by means of  ‘the absorption of  the non-Turkish ethnic groups through education’.73 In practice though, or at least in the case of  Lesbos, the above aim does not seem to have been realized. Although in March 1910 the governor’s 69 Salpinx, no 286, 25–1–1911. 70 These teachers were sent by the Greek state, but were paid by the local community. Indicatively, see numerous relevant documents in IAYE, 1911/105 and IAYE, 1911/105. 71 Ch. Exertzoglou, ‘Το προνομιακό ζήτημα’, p. 72. 72 Salpinx, no 33, 30–5–1909. 73 Salpinx, no 33, 30–5–1909; see also Mytilinios, no 21, 11–7–1909.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

141

of fice informed the Metropolitan of  Mytilene of  the Ministry of  Education’s decision that henceforth ‘foreign citizens and Greek citizens’ would be prohibited from teaching at non-Muslim Ottoman schools,74 seven months later vice-consul Karatzas informed Athens that the said teachers ‘teach in the schools, without hindrance and freely’, and that no deportation of  Greek citizens had taken place, nor was there any departure imminent ‘owing to pressures or loss of employment’.75 Still, the attempt alone to impose such measures cultivated suspicion and hostility towards the government on the part of  the Greek element. In the case of  the implementation of another legislative measure that directly concerned the Ottoman Greeks, in all likelihood the responsibility for the rise of  tension in relations between the two elements is equally shared. When the conscription law was instituted in the summer of 1909, it had met with no particular objections from the Patriarchate, the Constantinople Organization and the Greek press, as it was in accordance with the principle of equality among citizens, as set out in the Constitution. In fact, the Ottoman Greeks were urged by their leaders to rush and enlist, because in this way they would be able to demand the same rights as their Muslim fellow citizens.76 Similarly, in May 1910 Athens instructed its consular authorities to use any means to persuade the ‘Greek natives in Turkey’ to turn up in great numbers for army service; by doing so, they would be able to demand, with greater boldness, their two major rights: the preservation of  their ‘Greek status’ and the safeguarding of  ‘egalitarianism’.77 The Salpinx also warmly supported the enlistment of  Christians, considering it a sacred obligation of every Ottoman citizen. It stressed that ‘as Ottoman citizens, the Christians have a duty to gladly rush under the f lag 74 IAYE 1911/105 no 230, Karatzas to Ministry of  Foreign Af fairs and Embassy in Constantinople, 31–3–1910. 75 IAYE 1911/105 nos 806 & 807, Karatzas to Ministry of  Foreign Af fairs, 10 and 13–10–1910. 76 A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, p. 177, C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 152 and Ch. Exertzoglou, ‘Το προνομιακό ζήτημα’, p. 72. 77 IAYE 1911/105 no 813, 3–5–1910.

142

Chapter 4

and serve the fatherland’. Military service was the ‘holiest and highest of all’, while he who did not serve in the army was considered an ‘illegitimate citizen’ and ‘not entitled to exercise the rights provided him under the law’.78 In essence, the Christians who avoided serving in the army ‘scorn the Church and humiliate the ethnos. They are unworthy of  being called their of fspring’.79 It is evident that the Salpinx’s endorshment was connected with the entrenchment of  the rights of  the Ottoman citizen. Greeks, serving in the Ottoman army, would prove their patriotism in practice, would develop brotherly feelings towards the other ethnic groups of  the Empire, and would certify that the same feelings of  love towards their common fatherland ran through them as well.80 Nonetheless, the paper argued that the conscription of  the Greek Orthodox element had to be applied according to conditions, which ‘our national centre’ (that is, the Ecumenical Patriarchate) was ‘entitled and obliged’ to set.81 The most important of  these was the formation of military units comprising only Christian conscripts. Additionally, the entry of  Christians into the higher military schools and the fulfilment of  their military service obligations in the prefecture of  their origin, were also considered necessary preconditions. The fact that neither the Young Turk leadership could assent to anything of  this sort, which is to say the formation of a distinct, and potentially hostile, force within its own armed forces, a state within a state, nor that such preconditions ran contrary to the spirit of equality and brotherhood seemingly was lost on the paper’s editors. They explained their stance on the grounds that it was likely that the coexistence of  Christians and Muslims in the same unit would cause frictions that would be dangerous to the state. For the time being at least, the Salpinx considered it dif ficult for there to be a harmonious coexistence in the military between people of dif ferent ethnicities and religions, as had already occurred in Austria. Under the existing conditions, it stressed that

78 79 80 81

Salpinx, no 48, 4–7–1909. Salpinx, no 70, 27–8–1909 and no 82, 24–9–1909. Salpinx, no 72, 1–9–1909. Salpinx, no 72, 1–9–1909; also, see Ch. Exertzoglou, ‘Το προνομιακό ζήτημα’, p. 72.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

143

for the conscription measure to have success, it would be necessary for it to be vested with all those guarantees that would safeguard the ethnicity of  the soldier, his religious convictions and his mores.82 Provided the above preconditions were met, the paper considered it regrettable and unacceptable on the part of  Christians to avoid military conscription by resorting to the solution of  buying out their service or f leeing abroad. These ‘supposed men’, it maintained, committed a crime against the fatherland and our Ethnos, showed irreverence towards our Ethnarch, destroyed their very selves, they were forever estranged from the land of  their fathers. […] Our Ethnos must not fall short of  the other people of  Turkey. Everyone – small and big, rich and poor – must finally comprehend this. To the army, everyone!83

Despite the paper’s exhortations, of  the 55 men from the kaza of  Mytilene who were called up to serve in the army during the first months of 1910, only six presented themselves, while five out of  thirty three from the kaza of  Plomari appeared.84 Until the very last moment, the Salpinx stressed that they had an obligation to turn up – not only because if  they were declared draft dodgers they would face heavy sanctions, but also as this was what ‘the honour of  the Ethnos and the honour of  Mytilene’ demanded.85 At the same time, it expressed its thanks and congratulations to the ‘noble’ Muslim of ficers and soldiers, both fellow citizens, who with ‘truly brotherly feelings’ received ‘our compatriot’ recruits and it wished that ‘the Muslim soldiers throughout the entire state’ be imbued with the same sentiments.86 It commended the Christian conscripts, emphasizing that the ‘presence of  Turks and Greeks together in the barracks in favour of  their common fatherland constituted a positive step towards the actualization of  Greek-Turkish friendship’. Fellowship between soldiers from a young age ‘alleviates racial hatred and breeds the feeling of  friendship and love 82 83 84 85 86

Salpinx, no 7, 29–3–1909 and no 24, 9–5–1909. Salpinx, no 76, 10–9–1909. Salpinx, no 143, 18–2–1910 and no 177, 13–5–1910. Salpinx, no 143, 18–2–1910. Salpinx, no 144, 20–2–1910.

144

Chapter 4

in their tender souls’.87 However, at the same time, the paper observed, with evident concern, that the demands that had been presented to the government concerning the Christian conscripts had not yet been met.88 Unsurprisingly, the paper lost no time in publishing reports on the alleged maltreatment and discrimination of  Ottoman Greek soldiers, which focused on instances of attempted religious conversions, taunts made during prayer time, and the violation of  fasts and insults directed towards all those who were ignorant of  the Turkish language. It emphasized that a dif ference in mores, a dif ference in religion and language, are very serious reasons, which do not permit cohabitation in the present day and for many years. Education and the reduction of  fanaticism among Muslims must necessarily precede, in order that a concordance of  feelings between Muslims and Christians, which the government is seeking and is so valuable for the fatherland, may consequently be realized.

This is what the government would have to seriously take into account if it wished to have Christians in the army. Otherwise, the rich would buy of f  their service and the poor would take refuge abroad. From a general viewpoint, both of  these were fatal, even though there were a few ‘Turkish chauvinists’ who considered them beneficial and sought them. Fortunately, however, the newspaper concluded, ‘the chauvinists were not the government’.89 These views clearly annoyed the garrison commander of  Mytilene, who took the editor-in-chief  to court, where he was sentenced to fifteen days imprisonment. The local Muslim authorities would issue writs against the Salpinx for articles it published on other occasions in the period under examination.90 This is indicative of  the ef forts made by the Muslim authorities to discourage the publication of articles condemning ‘Turkish chauvinism’ and promoting Greek interests.

87 88 89 90

Salpinx, no 146, 25–2–1910. Salpinx, no 147, 27–2–1910. Salpinx, no 151, 11–3–1910 no 176, 11–5–1910, no 188, 8–6–1910 and no 191, 15–6–1910. Salpinx, no 176, 11–5–1910, no 188, 8–6–1910 and no 191, 15–6–1910.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

145

In any case, the dif ficult conditions that the Christians faced in the army made more and more of  them to buy out their service or emigrate.91 In August 1910, of  the one hundred Christians from the kaza of  Mytilene who were called up to serve in the Ottoman f leet, only thirty presented themselves. The Salpinx called upon the ‘fugitives’ to present themselves in order to avoid the sanctions of  the law.92 The unwillingness on the part of  those called up to appear was partly due to the violent behaviour of  the gendarmes, who had assumed the task of rounding them up. The paper asserted that the ‘noble chief of police Nuri Bey’ was not cognizant of  the violent behaviour of  the gendarmes and would punish whoever violated his duty.93 Whatever the case, the departure of conscripts in August 1910 took place without the making of speeches or celebrations.94 As vice-consul Simantiris informed Paris, now the conscripts no longer parade through the streets of  Mytilene to music. […] A consequence of  the letters that the conscripts send, in which they describe the situation in a negative light, is that all of  the youth aged from twenty to thirty is abandoning Mytilene. They estimate the number of immigrants at 15,000. Labour is becoming scarce and wages are continuously rising.95

The Salpinx repeated, once more, that it was necessary for the government to take into consideration the just demands of  the Christians and to see to the removal of  the dif ficulties that were leading the youths to draft dodging and immigration.96 The emigration was so acute that in February 1912 the paper admitted that it had been wrong in the past in supporting the governmental plan for the conscription of  Ottoman Greeks, proposing instead its repeal in order that ‘the numerical strength of our race (φυλή) be preserved in Turkey’. As it noted, only if  the rulers comprehended that 91

C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 141. 92 Salpinx, no 214, 7–8–1910, no 216, 12–8–1910 and no 217, 14–8–1910. 93 Salpinx, no 216, 12–8–1910, no 217, 14–8–1910 and no 220, 21–8–1910. 94 Salpinx, no 218, 17–8–1910. 95 Z. Kambouris, ‘Τα τελευταία χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας στη Λέσβο’, p. 149. 96 Salpinx, no 272, 21–12–1910.

146

Chapter 4

the Turkish army ‘is not Muslim, but Ottoman’, would the Christians contemplate to enlist. Otherwise, it would be best to uphold the previous system, that is, that of  the non-obligatory military service of  Christians.97 Likewise, the Laϊkos Agon expressed its opposition on the issue.98 With much bitterness it opined that the government, upon which so many hopes had rested, used conscription ‘as a pretext to depopulate our lands of  their Greek populations’.99 A. Simantiris, the vice-consul of  France in Mytilene, also held this view, referring in one of  his reports to the placement of undrilled Christian soldiers in dangerous areas, such as Montenegro. ‘All of  these things’, he noted, ‘prove outright that mass recruitments are not dictated by military needs, but rather by political considerations, that is, the gradual enfeeblement of  the Greek element on the island’.100 This specific observation concerned Lesbos, but also applied to other areas of  the Empire as well. For example, the government in Constantinople, seeking to alter the ethnological composition of  Macedonia, an aim that its counterpart in Athens and Sofia also shared, had proceeded to settle Muslim colonists in areas that had been abandoned by Christians f leeing conscription.101 The dissatisfaction with the government climaxed in August 1910 with the holding of a ‘national assembly’ of  Ottoman Greeks in Constantinople under the aegis of  the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which would confer on the question of  the Greek rights in the Empire. The main reason that had necessitated such a course of action was the tension that had been created between the Patriarchate and the Porte following the implementation in July of a law, which ruled on the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of  the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Bulgarian Exarchate over a number of disputed dioceses in Macedonia and Thrace and which, in the eyes of  the Patriarch, 97 98 99 100 101

Salpinx, 9–2–1912, 5–6–1912 and 29–7–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 3, 25–12–1911, no 12, 26–2–1912 and no 72, 19–8–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 73, 21–8–1912. AGYM 125E, Simantiris to French Consul in Smyrna, 6–3–1912. A. Chamoudopoulos, Ελληνισμός και Νεότουρκοι (Thessaloniki: Beros, 1926), p. 16, C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics’, p. 141 ; also, see S. Karavas, ‘Μακάριοι οι κατέχοντες την γην’. Γαιοκτητικοί σχεδιασμοί προς απαλλοτρίωση συνειδήσεων στη Μακεδονία.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

147

undermined his authority.102 The national assembly was scheduled to take place on 1 September and would be comprised of delegates, one from each metropolitan province.103 The Constantinople Organization and the Athens Foreign Ministry were not against a national assembly and they agreed on what the Patriarchate considered as the violation of  the rights of  the Greek population in the Empire. However, both of  them condemned the ‘inf lexible and uncompromising’ stance of  the Patriarch that led to an open and direct confrontation with the Ottoman government.104 The Grand Vizier Hakki Pasha, on the grounds that the Patriarch had no right to intervene in political matters, expressly forbade the holding of  this gathering105 and proceeded to violently remove the delegates from the venue where it was being held, imprisoning several of  them, including Orestis Kyprianos, the delegate for the kaza of  Mithymna to the National Assembly.106 The Salpinx deemed that ‘the government acted as though it wants to dishearten our Ethnos and to force it to cease protesting against government actions that are destroying its age-long and inalienable rights’.107 It wondered how ‘the largest Christian Ethnos of  the fatherland, which verbally had been recognized by Hilmi Pasha as joint sovereign’, was being

102 This tension coincided with the new stirring of  the Cretan issue and the boycott of  Greek products and Greek shipping in the Ottoman Empire; see C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, pp. 146f f and Ch. Exertzoglou, ‘Το προνομιακό ζήτημα’, pp. 72–3. 103 A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, p. 112. 104 C. Boura argued that ‘the conduct of  the af fair revealed the antagonism among the leadership of  Hellenism in the Ottoman Empire, namely the Patriarchate on the one hand, and the Greek Embassy and the Constantinople Organization on the other’; C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 149. 105 C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 146. 106 Μichaїl Sifneos, who elected unanimously by the dimogerontia to represent the kaza of  Mytilene, had not accepted the call to attend ‘for reasons of ill-health’, but also because he was ‘against the national assembly’; see Metropolitan Code E, Sifneos to the Metropolis of Mytilene, Constantinople 24–8–1910 and Salpinx, no 222, 26–8–1910. 107 Salpinx, no 225, 2–9–1910.

148

Chapter 4

persecuted and in need of devising ways to ‘lawfully and constitutionally’ defend its ‘ethnic self-existence’. It questioned how the situation had changed so abruptly, despite the fact that ‘the paeans and battle songs in Turkish newspapers in favour of our Ethnos were still vibrant’. ‘How, as joint sovereigns, did we become subservient? How did we, the constitutionalists, become reactionaries? How were we, the patriots, declared enemies of  the fatherland? Neither the fatherland, nor the common interest of  the two people (laoi)’ had anything to gain from the rupture between the government and the Patriarchate. The responsibility lay exclusively with those Turks who did not realize that it was in the greatest interest to provide the Greeks with constitutional equality and justice, since, had the Greeks not coexisted with the Turkish race, ‘Turkey would not have had, from an international viewpoint, any importance greater than that of  Morocco or Persia’. It emphasized that the Greeks had every will to cooperate and, consequently, would not be the ones, in the future, who would have to explain themselves ‘before the judicial court of  history’.108 In similar vein, a couple of weeks later, the paper expanded on what it perceived as a clear violation of  the Ottoman Greeks’ privileges by directly attacking those it considered responsible: The Young Turk regime, among other errors that have arisen out of inexperience and fervent Turkism, has committed the great political error of  believing that pressure – moral and material – against the non-Muslim elements bolsters Turkism, which lies adroitly hidden beneath the pretext of a non-existent Ottomanism. And this pressure is directed mainly against the spiritual centres of  the Christian people of  the fatherland.109

It is clear that the Salpinx was both aware of what was happening and willing now to proclaim that Ottomanism was merely a cover for the political Turkification pursued by the CUP. It supported that respect for the ‘rights and the self-existence of all races’ of  the Empire should be the duty and mission of government.110 It expressed, however, the wish that the competent authorities would see the light in good time and go back onto the road of  108 Salpinx, no 226, 4–9–1910. 109 Salpinx, no 231, 16–9–1910. 110 Salpinx, no 225, 2–9–1910.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

149

lawfulness and ‘true patriotism’, renouncing a policy that had created – and would create – only disasters for the fatherland and its people.111 The same reasoning ran through the memorandum that the Constantinople Organization submitted to the government following the dissolution of  the ‘national assembly’. Written by Souliotis-Nikolaїdis in cooperation with the majority of  the Ottoman Greek MPs, including P. Vostanis,112 the memorandum enumerated in great detail a long list of alleged violations of  the Ottoman Greeks’ privileges by the Young Turks.113 The Salpinx, as was the case with most Greek newspapers,114 published the memorandum in its entirety. It deemed it a historic text, ‘evidence of  the patriotism, sincerity, the keenness of observation and the correct thinking of  that small group, which in the Ottoman Parliament represents and interprets the thoughts, the hopes, the desires of  the largest Christian people of  the fatherland, and fights for the vital interests of  the entire fatherland and all of its races’. Like the memorandum’s authors, it upheld the Greek ethnos’ inalienable right to ‘maintain its ethnismos (nationality)’ while contributing handsomely towards the prosperity of  the fatherland.115 Unsurprisingly, the mobilization of  the Ottoman Greek MPs and the attempt to hold a ‘national assembly’ displeased the Committee, leading to a sustained call for the boycott of  Ottoman Greek businesses in many cities of  the Empire.116 Although there is no evidence of a boycott taking place in Lesbos, in many respects the events of  late summer 1910 hardened the stance of  both parties, at least at a national level. The Salpinx repeated its call for a change of government, suggesting the moderate politicians Kiamil Pasha and Kucuk Mehmet Sait Pasha as the most appropriate figures for

111 Salpinx, no 232, 18–9–1910. 112 C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 159. The other MP for the Aegean vilayet, M. Saltas, was absent from Constantinople at the time. 113 A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, pp. 112–18. 114 C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 148. 115 Salpinx, no 218, 17–8–1910. 116 C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 149.

150

Chapter 4

the position of  Grand Vizier.117 However, governmental change did not come immediately, and when it did, yet again it was hardly conducive to the protection of  the Ottoman Greeks’ ‘inalienable rights’.

The parliamentary elections of 1912 The omnipotence of  the members of  the Committee in the administration and the military, and the exclusion of dissidents were all maintained for quite some time, despite the animosities and the internal antagonisms they had been causing in the political life of  the state. Nonetheless, the accumulation of antagonisms led, in early 1911, to the first significant internal fracture of  the Committee.118 Several of its members resigned, among them Talaat Bey, Minister of  the Interior, and Emrullah Efendi, Minister of  Education, both hardcore members.119 Τhe jarring of  the power of  the Committee led to the formation of  two new parties: The ‘New Party’ (Hizb-i Cedid) and the ‘Progress Party’ (Hizb-i Terakki). From opposition, these new parties harshly criticized the political and social line that the Committee leadership had been following up to that point.120 The assessment of  the Salpinx was that the domestic political crisis in Turkey would be overcome through the formation of a powerful government that would sincerely embrace the constitutional regime. It considered that there were ‘many Turks and non-Turks’ who would be excellent for working in the government. ‘The protection of  the regime is a sacred duty of all who love their fatherland and the longevity of  the state, and envisage the salvation of  their very own race’.121 Additionally, at the end of 1910, the Party of  Greek Deputies (PGD) (Komma Ellinon Voulefton) was established, on the initiative of  the CO, 117 118 119 120 121

Salpinx, no 231, 16–9–1910; see also B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 210. See A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, pp. 215f f. Ibid., pp. 218–19 and 221. B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, pp. 215–17. Salpinx, no 292, 8–2–1911.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

151

with the aim of promoting more ef fectively the interests of  the Greeks. Sixteen out of  the twenty-four Greek deputies, including the Mytilene deputies M. Saltas and P. Vostanis, joined the new party.122 One of  the eight, who did not join, P. Karolidis, argued that its establishment would limit the possibilities for negotiation with the Committee, a fact that did not serve Greek interests, in the least.123 The congress of the Committee that took place in August and September 1911 was the first to be held in an atmosphere filled with tensions and serious altercations, owing in part to the threatening situation that had arisen following the 29 September assault by the Italians on Tripoli, the last remaining Ottoman province in Africa. The government of Ibrahim Hakki Pasha assumed responsibility for the negative developments and resigned. Kucuk Mehmet Said Pasha, who was supported by the Committee, took over as the new Grand Vizier.124 The ever-increasing discontent on the part of the public towards the Committee and the errors that had been committed by government of ficials during the course of the Turko-Italian War, led to a further reinforcement and mustering of opposition forces. Thus, November 1911 saw the establishment of a new party, the so-called Liberal Union, with almost all of  the opposition forces coming together under its banner. As most of its founders were sitting MPs, its opposition to the Committee in Parliament went into immediate ef fect.125 At the same time, public opinion in Constantinople had also expressed itself against the Committee with much intensity. On 20 December, Mehmed Kiamil Pasha, a fervent supporter of the Liberals, sent a letter to the Sultan, in which he considered the Committee responsible for the problems of the Empire and requested its dissolution.126 On 28 December 1911, the Party of  Greek Deputies (PGD), acting in accordance with the instructions of  the CO, signed a document of 122 C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics. Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 160. 123 P. Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I (Athens: Petrakos, 1913), pp. 222 and 332–3. For reasons unknown, the establishment of  the party was not commented upon the Salpinx. 124 E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 102 and A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, p. 265. 125 A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, pp. 287f f. 126 B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, pp. 217–18.

152

Chapter 4

cooperation with the Liberal Union.127 Said Pasha resigned and it was doubtful whether the Committee possessed more than a bare majority, if  that, in parliament.128 The Salpinx issues of  that period have not survived, while the Laϊkos Agon did not take any stance whatsoever on the particular event. The political preferences and proposals of the two newspapers would become more discernable a few months later with the holding of elections. However, the Agon, in its first and only issue (as it would be renamed Laϊkos Agon one week later), ascertained that ‘the political horizon of our land, more than at any other time, is filled with dense clouds, threatening the outbreak of a storm at any moment’. While the Turko-Italian War was raging, subversive movements were active in Macedonia, and the Cretan question found itself in a new period of intense activity. Particularly in the case of  the islands of  the Aegean, which had already been hit financially by the Turko-Italian War, there was an immediate danger of  their occupation by the Italian f leet. Consequently, the columnist of  the Agon described the political situation as ‘deplorable and dreadful’ in every way ‘for our land, the common target of everyone’.129 At the same time, the publication of articles by Turkish chauvinists taking aim at ‘the leading Christian race of  the state’ and the complaints that came in from various areas of  the island concerning violence on the part of gendarmes towards Christians, caused the concern and discontent of  the Laϊkos Agon. As it observed, such behaviour constituted a violation of authority by those in power, and it was not possible to lead to either ‘enculturation’, or to the ‘fraternization of ethnicities (έθνη)’.130 The Committee, aware of  the general discontent against it and with the danger of  losing control of parliament now visible, proclaimed new elections in late January 1912.131 As far as the Ottoman Greeks were concerned, they had reason to be displeased with the policies of  the Committee 127 128 129 130 131

See A. Panayotopoulos, ‘On the economic activities of the Anatolian Greeks’, pp. 104–5. A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, p. 306. Agon, no 1, 4–12–1911. Laϊkos Agon, no 2, 18–12–1912. B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, pp. 217–18; E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 102–3; A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, p. 307.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

153

in the immediately preceding years. Essentially, the electoral showdown became the setting for a display of the intense rivalry between Greek ‘ethnic’ (national) centres, which sought to assume the organization of  the electoral battle, vying for the leadership role of  the Greeks of the Empire. The manner in which the elections were carried out in Lesbos constitutes an example of  how the local leadership, the press and the electorate responded to the policy being drawn up by the ‘ethnic’ centres in Constantinople and Athens. From the first days following the announcement that elections would be held, the lead stories in the two political newspapers of  Mytilene, the Salpinx and the Laϊkos Agon,132 concerned the ‘illegal acts’ that had been committed by the Committee in Lesbos, and also in other areas of  the Empire.133 An article in the Laϊkos Agon published several months following the elections summarized how the Greeks perceived the handling of  the matter on the part of  the Committee: The violence exercized during these [elections], the f lagrant electoral illegalities, all of  these strongly prove that the present parliament cannot be considered an inference of popular rule. The elected deputies, regardless of whether they are good or bad, are not representatives of  the people; they are simply instruments of a party which, making use of  the abuse of its power, conducted so-called elections as a pretence toward both the Ethnos and Europe, which is vigilantly following our af fairs.134

Such assessments were not the only ones made. Generally, the elections of 1912 became known in history as the ‘elections with the stick’ (sopali secim), owing to the arbitrariness shown by the Committee in a bid to secure a majority in parliament and to continue to play the leading role in the political life of  the country. Indeed, the Committee did win the

132 Very few issues of  the newspaper Lesvos dating to this particular period have survived; thus, it is not possible to draw conclusions with certainty concerning electoral issues. The same applies in the case of  the satirical newspaper Mytilinios. Issues of  the satirical newspaper Skorpios have survived to 1911. Finally, no mention of  the elections is made in the literary magazine Charavgi. 133 Indicatively, see Salpinx, 4–2–1912 and 28–2–1912; also, Laϊkos Agon, no 14, 11–3–1912, no 15, 18–3–1912 and no 17, 1–4–1912. 134 Laϊkos Agon, no 57, 12–7–1912.

154

Chapter 4

majority of seats in parliament, as only six opposition deputies – out of a total of 275 – managed to get elected.135 Initially, the Laϊkos Agon expressed its opposition to the existing electoral system. In a related article, it labelled the elections, which would be held in the Empire based on the regulations of 1908,136 a ‘parody’. It considered the claim that ‘the sovereign people’ would exercise the ‘highest right of  the constitutional citizen’ ludicrous, not only because it believed that the people were not sovereign under the existing regime, but even more so because the voter had not yet managed to become a ‘constitutional citizen’, and remained an ‘Ottoman subject’. It held the Committee responsible for this situation, but also found fault with the deputies, who had not enlightened the people concerning their constitutional rights and duties. It apportioned a part of  the blame to the people themselves, who, as it emphasized, had not become accustomed to asserting their rights on their own. The preservation of  the system of indirect voting – that is, the election of deputies by an electoral body – plausibly was considered an ‘imperfect’ system, which did anything but contribute to the expression of popular will, since it ‘substituted the opinion of  five hundred electors for that of one voter’.137 Consequently, the elections that would be held under this system would not bear any weight, since once again deputies who would be to the liking of  ‘the powerful’ would be elected. At the same time, it characterized the existing system as ‘anachronistic’, at the moment indeed when in several European countries the possibility of women participating in the voting was already being examined. It considered that, in a constitutional regime, the system of universal voting was fitting and that this had to be enforced, if  their state wished to keep abreast of  the developments of  the day.138 These were modernist views that were being

135 B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 218; E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 103. 136 See Οδηγίαι περί της εφαρμογής του περί βουλευτών κανονισμού and above chapter II, p. 81. 137 Laϊkos Agon, no 6, 15–1–1912. 138 Laϊkos Agon, no 10, 12–2–1912.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

155

expressed by a newspaper that was receptive to the socialist messages that had been arriving from Athens and mainly from Europe during this period. Thus, the proclamation of elections met with reservations initially by the Laϊkos Agon, owing to the ‘arbitrary acts of  the Committee and the opposition to the existing electoral system’. This stood in marked contrast to the enthusiasm that had been demonstrated by the Ottoman Greeks during the elections of 1908. The Laϊkos Agon compared the two electoral showdowns and considered the enthusiasm that had been manifest four years earlier justified, owing mainly to the unbounded expectations that the promises of  the Committee had cultivated. ‘Back then’, it noted, ‘we had not fully understood what it was all about, and were handing out our votes like broiled wheat at obsequies, without even knowing those we were voting for by name. Our vote was in relation to the pies-in-the-sky that the ceded Constitution promised us’. It stressed that ‘now, however, the matter is dif ferent, since we have fully comprehended the worth of  the Constitution’.139 In any case, what disturbed the local community most was how the Committee, through various measures it had put in place, was attempting to prevent the election of  two Greek deputies from the electoral district of  Lesbos – a ‘reasonable’ aim in light of  the fact that Vostanis and Saltas had joined the PGD, which, following the instructions of  the Constitutional Political League (CPL) (Syntagmatikos Politikos Syndesmos)140 and the Constantinople Organization (CO), had been pursuing a policy of opposition to the CUP in parliament.141 As in 1908, for any electoral district to send to parliament more than one deputy it should have an overall population of more than 75,000.

139 Laϊkos Agon, no 14, 11–3–1912. 140 The ‘Political League of  Constantinople’ was founded in 1908 by the secret ‘Constantinople Organization’ (CO) in order to have a public apparatus that could operate, and promote its policy, within the constitutional framework. In April 1910, when the law was passed forbidding the establishment of associations with political overtones, the ‘Political League’ was renamed the ‘Constitutional Political League’; A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, p. 72. 141 A. Chamoudopoulos, Η νεωτέρα Φιλική Εταιρεία, p.  17; Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, p. 82.

156

Chapter 4

In March, the Salpinx reported that the population stood at 76,670.142 Simantiris concurred with this figure, and attributed the increase in the adult male population of  the island relative to 1908 to omissions in the old electoral roll.143 Both, however, failed either to provide their source(s) for this figure or to take into consideration the likely decrease in the number of eligible voters in light of  the emigration of adult males in previous years so as to avoid conscription.144 Simantiris went one step further, accusing the Committee of purposely detaching a part of  the Moschonisia sub-district so as to bring the overall population below the 75,000 mark.145 Additional Committee ‘machinations’ were ‘discovered’ behind a ministerial decree, which provided that draft dodgers absent from their place of residence for more than year and residents who lived abroad would be struck of f the electoral rolls. As the Salpinx wishfully maintained, the decree constituted a misinterpretation of articles 5 and 16 of  the existing law on the election of deputies. It was put into ef fect in the Molyvos sub-district, where approximately 4,000 males were struck of f  the rolls, though not in those of  Mytilene and Plomari, as the electoral rolls there had already been posted and the deadline for their legal alteration had elapsed.146 Either way, the dimogeronties of  Mytilene and Kalloni lost no time in addressing letters of protest to the Ottoman authorities.147 For its part, the Laϊkos Agon sarcastically noted the ‘originality’ with which the constitutional principles were being applied in the Empire and called upon Europeans to take lessons ‘from our wise Constitutionalists’.148 In similar vain, the Salpinx denounced the infringement ‘of  the inalienable rights of  the leading Christian ethnos in a twentieth-century, under a fully constitutional regime, in the midst

142 Salpinx, 13–3–1912. 143 AGYM, 127Β, Simantiris to French Consul in Smyrna, 30–3–1912. 144 In a later report, Simantiris maintained that only 15 per cent of  those eligible for conscription had remained on the island; AGYM 131K, Mytilene 21–8–1912. 145 Also, see Laϊkos Agon, no 6, 15–1–1912. 146 Salpinx, 13–3–1912; also, see Salpinx, 19–8–1912. 147 Laϊkos Agon, no 21, 20–4–1912 and no 22, 22–4–1912; also, Salpinx, 19–4–1912 and 21–4–1912. 148 Laϊkos Agon, no 17, 1–4–1912 and no 19, 15–4–1912.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

157

of  Europe and in an age when the country is being threatened north and south by hurricanes and tempests’.149 In the event, and in light of the Greeks’ ‘accusations’, the electroral district’s population did ‘of ficially’ fall below the 75,000 mark. The Salpinx ironically commented that ‘it is fortunate that our island was not entirely excluded from the right to elect a deputy’,150 while one of  the Greek candidates, Dimitrios Savvas, expressed the hope that such illegal practices would not be repeated in the future ‘for the glory of  the electorate and for ours as well’.151 Admittedly, the ‘Turkification’ policy of  the Committee and the disputes between its members and the Liberal opposition intensified the conf lict between the ethnic groups within the Empire.152 However, as will be argued further down, a great share of  the responsibility for the consolidation of  this conf lict lay with the leadership of  the Greeks and the electoral policy they pursued. The Laϊkos Agon made reference to the development of an intense ethnismos, which took on a ‘comical hue’, as every ethnic group tried to vote for its own representatives without taking into consideration whether they possessed the necessary qualifications to be elected. Its editor, Timotheos Papadopoulos, characteristically noted that it did not cross the electors’ minds to look for candidates who were excellent, active, those who would have not only the will but also the strength to impose their views and contribute to something good for the land; in fact, the number of such people in all of  Turkey could be counted on the fingers of a single hand. The principal issue was to elect a Turk even if  he were a dunce, to elect a Christian even if  he were more speechless than a fish, to elect an Armenian even if  he were capable of only nodding his head, in any event to elect someone who belonged to the ethnic group of  the elector even if  he were only good enough to pocket the subsidy.153

149 150 151 152 153

Salpinx, 22–3–1912. Salpinx, 10–4–1912. Salpinx, 17–4–1912. A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, pp. 336f f. Laϊkos Agon, no 6, 15–1–1912.

158

Chapter 4

His view was in keeping with the principles of  Ottomanism, and also suited a broad socialist viewpoint that Papadopoulos certainly held. It is not of particular significance to try to get a sense of which of  these two principles – Ottomanism or Socialism – prevailed in the stance he took on the matter. What is important and must be noted is that in an age when Ottomanism, in the sense of an equal coexistence of all ethnic groups, had been projected as the of ficial ideology of  the state,154 the search for ‘excellent’, ‘impartial’ and ‘active’ candidates irrespective of ethnicity should have been the primary concern of all. The fact that every ethnic group tried, at all costs, to have its candidates elected, ultimately confirmed that the proclaimed goal of 1908 for a modern and multiethnic Ottoman state had been irretrievably undermined by events. Even the Laϊkos Agon, which had criticized the selection of candidates along ethnic lines, in the end supported the ‘national’ candidates, as will be shown below, while no mention was made anywhere of  the Muslim candidates of  the island. The policy of promoting the rights of ethnic groups (politiki ton ethnotiton)155 was espoused by the Constitutional Political League (CPL), an of f-shoot of  the Constantinople Organization that undertook the planning and carrying out of  the electoral campaign on behalf of  the Ottoman Greeks. It dynamically sought to become the main power centre for the Ottoman Greeks, challenging the authority of  the Patriarch and his role as ethnarch, which he had hitherto exercised. Crucially, its leading member, the former Greek deputy from Serfidje (Servia) Georgios Bousios, was a fierce opponent of  the CUP.156 For its part, the latter sought to come to an understanding with Patriarch Ioakeim by promising to respect the privileges of  the Church and work towards the election of a significantly

154 E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, pp. 128–9. On the meaning that the Committee gave to Ottomanism, see M. Arai, Turkish nationalism in the Young Turk era (Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 2f f. 155 G. Bousios, Το πολιτικόν πρόγραμμα του ελληνισμού εν Τουρκία (Constantinople, 1912), p. 13. 156 A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, p. 332.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

159

greater number of  Greek deputies in relation to 1908.157 For Ioakeim, the potential cooperation with the Committee held the prospect of allying the Ottoman Greeks with the strongest political party in the field and, crucially, reasserting his authority as ethnarch.158 In the event and despite his initial intentions, the Patriarch stated to the CUP that he was not competent to take decisions on political issues, and thus ceded the management of the electoral campaign to the CPL. Karolidis believed that he was pressured into making this decision. Although he did describe him as a ‘noble victim of  the terrorism’ exerted against him by the CPL and the Greek embassy of  Constantinople, he contended that Ioakeim, too, bore a share of  the responsibility. His action to forego his ‘ethnarchical’ role constituted a type of betrayal of ‘extremely invaluable ageold ethnic and religious rights’.159 As it has been argued, in this crucial and ambiguous political situation Ioakeim pursued an ‘opportunistic’ policy, attempting to reinforce his position through negotiations and agreements with both the CUP and the CPL.160 However, he was driven to this stance not by choice, but by necessity, accepting his inability to preserve his role as ethnarch, which had been undermined intensely not only by the Ottoman authorities, but also by the secular leadership of  the Greeks in the Empire. Under these circumstances, the CPL chose to pursue a policy of direct opposition to the CUP and allied itself with the Liberal Union, which had promised to guarantee the rights of ethnic groups and to maintain the privileges of  the Greek Church.161 It nominated as candidates those who had agreed, in writing, to join the PGD and to pursue a ‘national’ policy in parliament, according to its instructions,162 and branded those who

157 P. Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I., pp. 336–7; A. Chamoudopoulos, Ελληνισμός και Νεότουρκοι, p. 49; A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, p. 327. 158 P. Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I., pp. 372f f ; E. Emmanouilidis, Τα τελευταία έτη της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας (Athens: Kallergis, 1924), p. 303. 159 P. Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I., p. 346. 160 S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, p. 516. 161 A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, pp. 326–7. 162 C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics: Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 178.

160

Chapter 4

did not fall in line ‘traitors of  the ethnos’.163 Seven of  the existing Greek deputies deemed it preferable to collaborate with the politically powerful CUP,164 and criticized the CPL’s electoral alliance with the Liberals. Karolidis labelled it a mistake, as it relegated the ethnos to a political party, which the CUP justifiably and necessarily fought against.165 By contrast, Souliotis-Nikolaїdis maintained that the Greeks who supported the CUP ‘had no path to show other than the subservient policy of ploys, craftiness, f lattery towards the Turks, whining and endurance’.166 As regards the Greek diplomatic authorities, they supported the choices made by the CPL.167 As has been demonstrated, the intervention of  the Greek state in the political process at the electoral level became quite evident during this period, and it came to assume the shape of a dominant power centre for (and over) the Ottoman Greeks.168 Even the CUP, which in 1908 had denounced as illegal the intervention of  the Greek consular authorities in the electoral process, was now accepting Athens’ leadership role over the Ottoman Greeks.169 The fissures in the ethnos’ political alignments were also manifested in the Ottoman Greek press, with most papers supporting the policy of  the CPL, save the inf luential Imerissia and Amalthia of  Smyrna and the Tachydromos of  Constantinople.170 The Laϊkos Agon argued that the CPL was the most suitable political authority to assume the direction and organi-

163 P. Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I., p. 332; E. Emmanouilidis, Τα τελευταία έτη της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας, p. 307; A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, p. 328. 164 C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Turkish politics: Greeks in the Ottoman Parliament, 1908–1918’, in D. Gondicas & C. Issawi, eds, Ottoman Greeks in the age of nationalism (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1999), p. 198. 165 See also a related article by Kyriakidis appearing in P. Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I., p. 369. 166 A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, p. 83. 167 P. Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I., pp. 346f f. 168 S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, p. 492. 169 Ibid., p. 483. 170 IΑΥΕ 1912/25, no 318: Karatzas to the Greek Embassy at Constantinople, 16–4–1912. Also, see P. Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I., pp. 348, 362 and 364 and A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, p. 328.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

161

zation of  the elections. In parallel, it maintained that the interference of  the Patriarch in the parliamentary elections was inexpedient for the Church and catastrophic for the ethnos. His remit was the ‘religious governance of  the Orthodox and the safeguarding of privileges’. Any involvement in the electoral process would relegate him to the position of  ‘party boss’, while in the event his chosen candidates were not elected, he would automatically be labelled an authority in opposition to the government. Such an outcome, it concluded, would reduce the prestige of  the Church and would provoke the ire of  the government at the expense of  the Greeks. In response to the view that the Greek deputies should continuously cooperate with the Patriarchate so as to be able to defend their privileges ef fectively, the paper opined that the Patriarchate could defend those privileges by itself provided that ‘those at the Phanar had the required energy and courage to act on the basis of a certain programme from which they would not deviate, either in the face of  threats or in light of vague promises’.171 In ef fect, the socialist-leaning paper was articulating a viewpoint that favoured the complete disentanglement of  the Church from the electoral process and the severe curtailment of  the political authority it had traditionally wielded. In September 1912 it would go a step further and argue that the continuation of  the genos’ privileges was not conducive to a constitutional regime and that any talk about these only served as a stumbling block in the conduct of a smooth constitutional life in the Empire: ‘We accuse others of chauvinism but prove to be the most chauvinistic of all. We accuse the ruling race of not implementing a real constitution but ask for the implementation of a system that does not exist in any constitution’.172 However, such candidness and a disposition for self-criticism had not stopped the Laϊkos Agon from supporting the CPL and attacking those candidates who were either cooperating with the CUP or were planning to stand as independents.173 It considered it preferable for the Greek candidates to line up with the Liberal Union, even if  this meant that fewer would be

171 Laϊkos Agon, no 7, 22–1–1912. 172 Laϊkos Agon, no 78, 2–9–1912. 173 Laϊkos Agon, no 17, 1–4–1912.

162

Chapter 4

elected. Under no circumstances, it stressed, should they entreat with the CUP. ‘Our Ethnos would not be worthy of its name and would prove to be unmindful of its origin and its liberal traditions if it so quickly forgot the humiliations it has suf fered by the CUP’. It would be a true ‘disgrace’, the paper concluded, ‘for the Greek Ethnos, if  for a few seats, it forfeited its traditional, liberal principles’.174 The Salpinx’s take stood in complete contrast to that of  the Laϊkos Agon. Paritsis’ paper maintained that candidates should not align themselves with either of  the two parties, and castigated the PGD and the CPL for hastening to declare their collaboration with the Liberal Union. It considered it much better that they followed a ‘policy that was independent and opportunistic […] since we cannot secure our privileges and national selfexistence’ through electoral alliances with either of  the two main parties. Once the election was over, the Greek deputies should follow an ‘ethnic policy’, that is they should sound out the situation and join forces as independents with whichever group in the new Parliament could better advance their interests.175 The CPL’s strategy to label traitors those candidates who did not toe its line176 and, especially, its attempt to ‘guide’ the electorate came in for harsh criticism. The electorate should be left alone to vote of  their own accord since they knew the candidates and local needs better, while the ‘recommendations by those in Constantinople […] should stop’.177 In ef fect, the Salpinx was rejecting the ‘leadership’ role of  the CPL. As news of  the Liberal Union landslide in numerous electoral districts came in, it noted with much bitterness: Those who direct[ed] the political course of  the Genos should have demonstrated greater political discretion, prudence and shrewdness. […In future], our leaders should follow a programme that is truly beneficial to the Genos and the homeland, a programme of equable and reasoned support of  the rights of  the Genos.178

174 175 176 177 178

Laϊkos Agon, no 16, 25–3–1912. Salpinx, 4–2–1912. Salpinx, 24–2–1912. Salpinx, 21–2–1912. Salpinx, 13–3–1912.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

163

Where the two main political newspapers of  the island converged was in their decision not to openly endorse any candidate. Both also agreed that candidates had to cease acting of fstage and make their programmes public so that the electorate could know for whom they would vote,179 while the electors, for their part, should state publicly for which of  the candidates they would vote.180 In other words, they considered necessary the prevalence of  transparency during the electoral process. Although particular candidatures were not endorsed by the local press, the CPL undertook this by selecting the standing MP P. Vostanis as an ‘ethnic’ candidate. The Greek Embassy in Constantinople and the Foreign Ministry in Athens concurred with the CPL’s choice. In his report to the Foreign Ministry, Karatzas noted that Vostanis ‘does not have anything in his record worthy of mentioning save his [unfulfilled] promise to work for the opening of a CPL of fice’ in Mytilene.181 He also expressed the view that he had been recommended ‘by those in Constantinople’, in spite of  the fact that there was a possibility there would be reactions concerning his selection, because he did not lack ‘fine sentiments’ and was willing ‘to collaborate with those in competent positions’.182 Evidently Vostanis’ ‘credentials’ were suf ficient enough to have ‘those in Constantinople’ endorse him as an ‘ethnic’ candidate, despite the fact that as an MP he had not worked diligently for the benefit of  the islanders. Indeed, both sitting MPs had been accused by a section of  the local press of  ‘inertia’ and ‘indif ference’ in carrying out their duties,183 and both had been the object of ridicule in the columns of  the Mytilinios and the Skorpios.184 What is somewhat striking 179 Salpinx, 11–2–1912. 180 Laϊkos Agon, no 7, 22–1–1912. 181 As in the case of other Greek Orthodox communities, the failure to open a CPL of fice was due to local opposition, spearheaded in Mytilene by Metropolitan Kyrilos, for fear of provoking the rage of  the CUP; see IΑΥΕ 1911/100, no 608: Karatzas to MFA, 16–8–1911, and C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics: Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, pp. 164–5. 182 IAYE 1912/34, no 124: Karatzas to MFA, 14–2–1912. 183 Salpinx, 9–1–1910. 184 Indicatively, see Mytilinios, no 16, 6–6–1909 and Skorpios, no 3, 4–12–1909 and no 56, 18–2–1911.

164

Chapter 4

is that although the Laϊkos Agon had aligned itself with the CPL, it did not endorse Vostanis. In a vehement denouncement of  both sitting MPs, it noted that ‘we should be careful not to send fruitless trees to Parliament again […], people who are indescribable and unworthy of parliamentary of fice and not capable of supporting our “ethnic” rights’.185 Evidently, when the paper talked of  ‘ethnic rights’, it was referring mainly to the MPs’ obligation to defend the local interests of  Mytilene’s Christians. In the event, as many as eighteen candidates stood for election in addition to Vostanis. Two hailed from Plomari, two from Molyvos, one from Gera, and two Muslims and eleven omogeneis (Greeks) from the city of  Mytilene, while most were either lawyers or civil servants.186 Some candidates published brief articles in the local press by way of introduction, projecting mainly the righteousness of  their character without mentioning anything about the programme that they would follow in the event they were elected, much to the dissatisfaction of  the Laϊkos Agon. ‘Our candidates are neither “progressives” nor “liberals”, neither “of  the ruling party” nor “of  the opposition party”, neither “pro-government” nor “antigovernment”. They are “unhinged”’.187 One candidacy that the local press seemingly backed was that of  G. Bousios, one of  the most active members of the CPL and editor of  the CO’s mouthpiece, the Politiki Epitheorisis.188 The fact that the CUP had hindered his candidature in his native Servia in central Macedonia prompted both the Salpinx and the Laϊkos Agon to praise his ‘patriotism’ and support his successful application to relocate his legal place of residence from the Prefecture of  Thessaloniki to the Prefecture of  the Archipelago so as to stand for election.189 Initially Bousios’ candidancy was also looked upon 185 Laϊkos Agon, no 7, 22–1–1912. 186 Data extracted from various issues of  the Salpinx and the Laϊkos Agon and from IAYE, 1912/34, no 124, Karatzas to MFA, 14–2–1912. 187 Laϊkos Agon, no 12, 26–2–1912; see also no 9, 5–2–1912 and no 14, 11–3–1912. 188 A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, pp.  83–4 and A. Chamoudopoulos, Η νεωτέρα Φιλική Εταιρεία, p. 18. 189 Salpinx, 4–2–1912, 24–2–1912 and 1–5–1912; Laϊkos Agon, no 12, 26–2–1912, no 16, 25–3–1912, no 18, 8–4–1912 and no 25, 29–4–1912.

165

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

favourably by Athens. However, after Karatzas had expressed the view that his chance election would provoke the rage of  the CUP, Athens decided not to back him.190 Table 5  The election results Polling Stations

Vostanis Eleftheriadis

Nianias

Savvas

Bousios

Electors

Mytilene

15

8

7

4

-

34

Plomari

3

1

11

-

-

15

Molyvos

1

6

-

18

1

26

Total

19

15

18

22

1

75

Note: Salpinx, 1–5–1912, Laϊkos Agon, no 25, 29–4–1912 and IΑΥΕ 1912/34, no 367, Karatzas to MFA, 7–5–1912.

In the event, on 28 April 1912 the island’s 75 electors (59 Christians and 16 Muslims)191 cast their vote in favour of  Dimitrios Savvas.192 Although there is reason to believe that he had agreed to collaborate with the CUP,193 during the electoral campaign he had not openly taken sides in favour of any party for fear of  being labelled ‘traitor’ by the CPL.194 In a letter he sent to the Salpinx he had stressed that ‘if  I am honoured with the vote of my fellow citizens, as a Greek Ottoman (Ellinothomanos) deputy I will pursue a policy in accordance with the true interests of  the Church and the Race and the entire State, that is, the policy of our national centre in Constantinople’.195

190 IΑΥΕ 1912/34, no 367, Karatzas to MFA, 7–5–1912. 191 Laϊkos Agon, no 21, 20–4–1912 and Salpinx, 19–4–1912. 192 A. Kansu considers Savvas as an ‘independent’; A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, p. 460. 193 P. Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I, p. 448. 194 AGYM 130B, Simantiris to French Consul in Smyrna, 4/17–5–1912. 195 Salpinx, 17–4–1912.

166

Chapter 4

Announcing his election, the Laϊkos Agon of fered its readers a detailed curriculum vitae of  Savvas: ‘A young man, extremely amiable and benevolent, with a sterling character, debonair in his manners and noble in his soul, […] a distinguished legal expert, conscientious lawyer with an excellent command of  Turkish, the scion of one of  the first families of  Molyvos’.196 What was missing from this laudable character witness statement was any reference to the political convinctions of  the new elected MP, who, in the not so distant past, had supported that ‘the ethnic groups in Turkey should contribute to the splendour of  the Ottoman homeland, maintaining their ethnicism (ethnismos) and religion’.197 In a subsequent piece on Savvas, which was also ‘relegated’ to the third page, the Laϊkos Agon expressed the wish that he would prove ‘worthy of  his virtuous sentiments and worthy of  the expectations both of  the people of  Lesbos and of our entire Ethnos’.198 A few days later, the paper announced Savvas’ arrival in Mytilene, on a stopover before leaving for Constantinople. It remarked that ‘no of ficial reception took place, because Mr Savvas, who avoids displays, did not inform anyone of  his upcoming arrival’. In a brief interview he granted at the time to the Laϊkos Agon, Savvas ‘expressed much bitterness towards “well-wishers” who wanted to ascribe anti-national sentiments to him, adding that he wished to reply to these gentlemen not through words but

196 Laϊkos Agon, no 25, 29–4–1912. Born in Molyvos in 1874, Savvas completed his formal studies in Mytilene. He subsequently went to Constantinople, where he achieved native-level proficiency in the Turkish language, intending to enter into the legal profession. He later studied at the Law School of  the University of  Athens, where he received his doctorate. For a significant period of  time following his studies he worked in Constantinople, where he became involved in the study of  Turkish laws. For twelve years prior to his election, he had practiced law in Molyvos. He had also served as councillor on the administrative council of  Molyvos, as member of  the council of  the general administration of  the Aegean, as member of  the superintendent board for the schools of  his hometown, while he was also a regular contributor to the Salpinx. In later years, he was three times elected MP for Lesbos in the Greek parliament; see D. Savvas, ‘Αναμνήσεις από την απελευθέρωση του Μολύβου’, in P. Samaras, ed., Lesviakon Imerologion 1956, p. 98. 197 Salpinx, 27–7–1910. 198 Laϊkos Agon, no 26, 1–5–1912.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

167

through deeds’.199 That much he seems to have done in light of  his ‘hard work’ towards the dredging of  the Mytilene harbour. ‘Finally’, the Laϊkos Agon exclaimed, ‘a suitable person has been found who with much eagerness has undertaken to untie this Gordian knot called the harbour question’.200 For its part, the Salpinx announced the election of its former columnist in a front-page article bearing the characteristic title ‘Our sorry state’. Like the Laϊkos Agon, it expressed the wish that Savvas would work for the good of  Lesbos and ‘the entire Genos’, and clarified that its criticism was nor directed at him, but at the island’s electors, charging that not one among them had the boldness to express his opinion, the boldness to publicly support his opinion on the candidates. They were guided by ‘secrecy and of fstage machinations’.201 As Vice-Consul Karatzas put it, ‘Mr Vostanis failed simply because a nomination from the centre was thrown into a mire of  treason, deceit, ignobility, disrespect, intrigues, the dishonouring of promises made, hatreds, passions, personal interests, fear, and buy-of fs’.202 In fact, what had particularly displeased Paritsis, a sentiment shared by the Laϊkos Agon, was the fact that Savvas had received the vote of all Muslim electors as well as that of  the majority of  their Christian colleagues.203 The want of understanding between the Christian electors notwithstanding, the Salpinx had some harsh words to say about the CPL as well. ‘Thanks to the “centre” of  Pera,204 we became divided into nationalists (ethnikous) and anti-nationalists (antethnikous), and everyone who did not give in to the twitches of  the eyebrows of [the CPL] was disavowed’.205 Evidently, the CPL’s insistence to promote, in a manner almost authoritarian, particular candidates did not take into consideration local needs and wishes.206 Laϊkos Agon, no 27, 4–5–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 50, 27–6–1912. Salpinx, 1–5–1912. IΑΥΕ, 1912/34, no 367, Karatzas to MFA, 7–5–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 25, 29–4–1912 and Salpinx, 1–5–1912; see also P. Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I, p. 448. 204 A district of  the capital, where the CPL headquarters were situated. 205 Salpinx, 19–7–1912. 206 Of  the sixteen Greek candidates elected, sixteen were CUP and only four were CPL nominees; see Boura 1999: 198 and 205, S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919, pp. 493 and 516, and Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I, p. 370. 199 200 201 202 203

168

Chapter 4

In the case of  Lesbos, it overlooked the discontent that had repeatedly been expressed by way of  the press concerning Vostanis owing to his indif ference to the advancement of  local issues. The end result was ‘a division amongst the Christian electors, their split and the spreading out of  their votes among various candidates’. In contrast, the Muslim electors ‘voted as one’,207 and, together with their coreligionists, eagerly participated in the only festivities held accross the island, in Molyvos, to mark the election of  Savvas, who assured the crowd that he ‘will prove to be deserving of  the expectations of  those who honoured him with their vote, working in Parliament nationally and conscientiously in favour of  the Homeland’.208

The dying days of  the Ottoman Fatherland The CUP’s dominant position in the new Parliament, which went hand in hand with the curtailment of  the Ottoman Greek’s civil liberties,209 did not arrest the decline of  the Empire’s fortunes in the international arena. The conclusion of a series of bilateral agreements between the Balkan states in late spring-early summer 1912, which posed the real danger of a combined attack against the Empire, caused concern to the local press. Both newpapers deemed that the policies of  the CUP had justifiably provoked the discontent of neighbouring states, and particularly that of  Greece. However, whereas the Salpinx insisted that the situation could be reversed if  the Empire forged an alliance with Greece, the Laϊkos Agon considered all of  the Balkan states ‘natural allies’, and supported the formation of a Balkan alliance which would include Turkey as well, and would turn itself 207 Ibid. On 1 May 1912, the Salpinx published the following extract from the Constantinopolitan Vatan: ‘Our land truly deserves to be proud and to take delight that Mr Dimitrakis Savvas received the majority of votes’. 208 Salpinx, 10–5–1912. 209 C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics: Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 191 and Laϊkos Agon, no 33, 18–5–1912.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

169

against the Great Powers, which cultivated tensions in the area in order to promote their own interests.210 Earlier in spring, had seen the appearance of a considerable number of  leaders that focused on the ‘dangerous’ handling of  the Turko-Italian War by the government. A continuation of  the hostilities, and in particular their extension to the Aegean, was deemed worrying not least because already a few panic-stricken Mytilene residents, upon learning of  the Italian occupation of  the neighbouring Dodecanese, had abandoned their homes and crossed over to Asia Minor.211 The Laϊkos Agon advised its readers to remain calm and of fered them a ray of optimism: ‘If  today the Empire finds itself in a distressful position, tomorrow its suf ferings will cease and it will fulfil its destiny on earth. Turkey is destined to live and will live’ provided the CUP respected the rights of all ethnic groups and cooperated with them in order to surpass all problems, both in the domestic and international arena.212 For its part, the Salpinx of fered them a ray of stability in the form of  the return to the island, following a two-year absence in Constantinople, of  Metropolitan Kyrilos – a ‘valuable guarantee of calm and general security’.213 At the same time, the intention of  the Young Turks to promulgate a new law, according to which religious leaders and communal members of non-Muslim ethnic groups would be excluded from prefectural and local councils, led to new complaints on the part of  the of  the Salpinx, which stressed that the measure constituted one more indication of  the attempt by the ‘progressives of  Turkey’ to carry out the ‘Turkification’ of  the administrative machinery. It called upon Christians and their religious leaders to be on the alert, arguing that if  the law went ahead ‘all guarantees of  the state in favour of its Christian citizens would cease to exist’.214 Ten days later, it was the Laϊkos Agon’s turn to castigate the government’s new Law on Freedom of  Assembly, which, in its view, did not befit a constitutional 210 211 212 213 214

Indicatively, see Salpinx, 24–5–1912 and Laϊkos Agon, no 42, 8–6–1912. Indicatively, see Laϊkos Agon, no 30, 11–5–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 37, 27–5–1912. Salpinx, 29–5–1912. Salpinx, 2–6–1912.

170

Chapter 4

regime. ‘Those governing Turkey today’, it exclaimed, ‘bore no relation’ to those who had led the movement for the re-introduction of  the constitution in July 1908.215 Discontent towards the government was also accumulating on the side of  Muslims. Thus, a great number of military of ficers supported the League of  Saviour Of ficers (Halaskar Zabitan) in Constantinople,216 which in early June called for the disentanglement of  the army from politics, the dissolution of  the ‘illegal’ CUP government and the proclamation of new elections so that the state could return to constitutional legality.217 A month later, the Minister of  War Mahmud Shevket Pasha, a powerful CUP-supported figure, resigned owing to the political disorder, which had worsened because of  the unfortunate outcome of  the Turko-Italian War and the uprising in Albania.218 The ministerial crisis that resulted provided the Laϊkos Agon with the opportunity to underscore that the very being of  the Empire, ‘as a state composed of various ethnicities’, imposed the need ‘to seek out the opinion of not only important Turks, of not only former or future ministers, but also of major figures from all other ethnicities’. It stressed how erroneous it had been that from July 1908 onwards ‘things were examined only from the Turkish viewpoint’. It urged all ‘Turkish patriots’ to cast their glance towards everything that was going on around them and to collaborate with the other ethnic groups of  the Empire in order that an end be put to the existing political crisis as soon as possible.219 A few days later, and on the occasion of  the fourth anniversary of  the Constitution, the socialist-leaning paper ascertained that both on the domestic and the external front, ‘we find ourselves in a position worse than that before 10 July 1908’. ‘Nevertheless’, it went on, ‘we must not be disheartened. Everything 215 Laϊkos Agon, no 44, 13–6–1912. 216 According to A. Kansu, the League was formed sometime in 1911; Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, p. 398. 217 F. Ahmad, ‘Unionist relations with the Greek, Armenian and Jewish communities of  the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1914’, in B. Braude & B. Lewis, eds, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, vol. I, p. 107 and A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, pp. 377f f. 218 A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, p. 388. 219 Laϊkos Agon, no 53, 4–7–1912.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

171

has not been lost yet’, as long as ‘those governing’ understand that ‘the salvation of  the fatherland lies in the enforcement of a real Constitution’.220 Unsurprisingly, therefore, the stepping down of  the Mehmet Sait Pasha government on 17 July,221 and above all the revocation of martial law, which had been in force for a good of  three years, was considered by the Laϊkos Agon ‘a pleasant turn of events for the af fairs of  the state’ and an opportunity for a policy change which would lead to the creation of a truly ‘New Turkey’.222 Similarly, the formation on 21 July of a new government, the ‘Great Ministry’, with Gazi Ahmet Muhtar Pasha as Grand Vizier and with the participation of several Liberal politicians,223 was seen as evidence of  the realization that ‘it is not possible for Turkey to live only as a Turkish state’, and was hailed as an important development that heralded the end of  ‘the era of state violence and disdain for people and ethnicities’.224 The Salpinx also made reference to the rights of ethnic groups, to the need to concede equal rights to all, and to the allocation of administrative positions in proportion to the population, in order that there were no complaints or causes for disputes within the state. It urged the new government to respect ‘the age-long rights of  the Christians’, to observe ‘their ethnic selfexistence’ and to invite them to participate in the administration of  the state. It maintained that if  this were to occur ‘speedily and sincerely’, then the tranquillity and progress of  the state would be secured. However, the fact that not even one Greek minister was appointed to the government (13 of  the 14 were Turks, and one was Armenian) was considered an insult against the ‘most important Christian element in the state’ and against the rights of ethnic groups. It estimated that it was most likely that the new government would follow the well-trodden political path that had caused the state so much misfortune.225

220 Laϊkos Agon, no 56, 10–7–1912. 221 B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 219. 222 Laϊkos Agon, no 54, 6–7–1912. 223 Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, pp. 219–20; E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 103; A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, pp. 396–7. 224 Laϊkos Agon, no 57, 12–7–1912. 225 Salpinx, 14–7–1912.

172

Chapter 4

Indeed, the Great Ministry of  Ahmet Muhtar Pasha did not seem to be able to provide a solution to the problems that were preoccupying the state. The dominance the Committee continued to exercise in Parliament caused discontent and led to the resignation of a few ministers. Finally, on 5 August the Sultan Mehmet Resat dissolved Parliament and proclaimed new elections for early October.226 The Salpinx seized on the opportunity to declare that the ‘extremely malignant oligarchic autocracy’ would finally be abolished, and advised the new government to ‘bestow egalitarianism with unhesitant willingness. […] Let it fortify, through complete respect, the ingredients of  the racial essence of each of its people; let it abolish discriminatory distinctions; and, in short, let it make the country one that endows equal civil rights’.227 The Salpinx also ‘advised’ the CPL to avoid any involvement in the upcoming elections. It considered as most appropriate the implementation of a decentralized nomination system, according to which the provinces would select candidates.228 The main aim of  the Greeks had to be the election of  the greatest possible number of deputies in order to protect ‘the vital rights of  the race ef fectively’ and to form an ‘ef fective base of resistance against a possible return of chauvinist policy’. The attainment of  this target was considered assured, provided that all of  the competent bodies, the CPL and the dimogeronties, acted in accordance with the instructions of  the Patriarchate, their ‘ethnic centre’, and pursued an opportunistic policy to the benefit of  their ‘ethnic’ interests.229 The Laϊkos Agon projected, with the same intensity as the Salpinx, the need to promote ‘ethnic’ interests and the election of  two Greek deputies from the district of  Lesbos.230 However, it insisted that the CPL, and not the Patriarchate, was the most competent body of  the Ottoman Greeks and maintained that their interests would be

226 B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 224 and A. Kansu, Politics in postrevolutionary Turkey, pp. 406–8. 227 Salpinx, 31–7–1912. 228 Salpinx, 28–7–1912. 229 Salpinx, 4–8–1912, 19–8–1912, 1–9–1912, and 2–9–1912. 230 Laϊkos Agon, no 59, 17–7–1912 and no 63, 26–7–1912.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

173

best served by siding with the Liberals.231 At the time, the socialist-leaning paper ‘outdid’ its rival by arguing that ‘the ethnicities’ should be represented in the new parliament ‘not only in proportion to the size of each, but also in relation to the splendidly adorned qualities of each’.232 In the event, ‘preparations’ for the (never to be held) elections were completely overshadowed by the outbreak of  the First Balkan War in October when first Montenegro and then Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia declared war on the Empire.233 Realizing the gravity of  the situation for the fate of  Anatolia, the local press expressed the wish that dif ferences be resolved peacefully: ‘What does the future hold in store? Only the god of war knows. Let us wait and hope that the bloodshed of our dearest Anatolia be prevented through the peaceful resolution of all issues and the fulfilment of  the lawful desires of  the peoples of  the fatherland’.234 The formation of a new government with no CUP representation under the Liberal Kiamil Pasha235 seemed to point to the ‘fulfilment of  lawful desires’ – or so the Salpinx reasoned. Describing him as ‘extremely patriotic [and] moderate’,236 the paper applauded his attempts to put into place measures that would benefit the Christian inhabitants of  the Empire. When the adverse days that our fatherland is going through come to pass undoubtedly more felicitous and peaceful days will follow. And when this materializes, with God’s help, we can hope that this new governmental policy will continue to the common interest of  the state and the peoples of  the fatherland.237

231 Laϊkos Agon, no 65, 31–7–1912 and no 71, 14–8–1912. 232 Laϊkos Agon, no 63, 26–7–1912. 233 A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, pp. 420–1 and C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics: Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 200. 234 Indicatively, see Salpinx, 20–9–1912. 235 A. Kansu, Politics in post-revolutionary Turkey, 2000: 420f f and C. Boura, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics: Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks’, p. 201. 236 Salpinx, 10–10–1912. 237 Salpinx, 9–10–1912.

174

Chapter 4

And with the appointment of  the Armenian Eram Bey as the island’s new governor, the Salpinx did not loose time in pointing out the islanders’ desire that in the near future an [Ottoman] Greek governor was appointed. This is both fair and lawful. It does not impinge on anything. In fact, it is also extremely patriotic, insofar as it provides complete satisfaction to the lawful desires of the people, tightens the bonds between government and citizens, bolsters their love towards the state, reinforces Ottomanism, strengthens the fatherland.238

Of course, it was not to be. Despite the attempts of  the Kiamil government to give state policy a more liberal direction, it proved impossible for it to confront the dif ficult situation. The Greek army occupied Thessaloniki on 28 October239 and the Bulgarians reached as far as the outskirts of  Constantinople.240 The Laϊkos Agon, believing that the war would soon come to an end with the Empire losing most of its European provinces, stressed that the government thenceforth was obliged to put into ef fect the reforms that it had promised before the start of  the war.241 An indication of its sincere intentions concerning reforms would be the appointment of more non-Muslims as ministers and the participation of  ‘prominent figures’ from non-Turkish ethnic groups as well in the governmental bodies charged with ‘saving the fatherland’. This proposal, it noted, was imposed by the constitution itself, as the principle that ‘Turkey is no longer a state that is exclusively Turkish’ was explicitly laid down in it. Moreover, it considered that the implementation of reforms would inf luence, in a manner favourable to the Empire, the decisions and actions of  Europe and the belligerent Balkan states.242 238 Salpinx, 14–10–1912. 239 On the occupation of  Thessaloniki, see S. Karavas, ‘Εκατόν ένας κανονιοβολισμοί για τη Θεσσαλονίκη’, in A. Mattheou et al, eds, Στην τροχιά του Φίλιππου Ηλιού. Ιδεολογικές χρήσεις και εμμονές στην ιστορία και την πολιτική (Athens: Mouseio Benaki, 2008). 240 B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 220; E. Zurcher, Turkey, a modern history, p. 107. For the reasons of the Ottoman army’s defeat, see F. Yasamee, ‘Ottoman war planning and the Balkan campaign of October–December 1912’, in Kermeli & Ozel, eds, The Ottoman Empire: Myths, realities and ‘black holes’ (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2006). 241 Laϊkos Agon, no 100, 30–10–1912. 242 Laϊkos Agon, no 99, 28–10–1912.

Scepticism and concern for the new regime, 1909–1912

175

Firmly believing that it expressed the common feelings of all islanders, but perhaps also accepting the inevitable fact that sooner rather than later Ottoman rule over Lesbos would come to an end, the socialist-leaning paper thanked the local Ottoman authorities for the maintenance of good relations between Christians and Muslims, expressing the hope that when ‘these adverse circumstances for our fatherland’ come to pass, ‘these good servants [will work hard] so that our Mytilene will rise to the prominent position of prestige of which all we patriots dream’.243 Five days later, and with the Greek f leet visible from Mytilene harbour, the Salpinx’s front-page featured a leader that focused on the CUP’s culpability regarding ‘the present condition of our country’. It wondered whether ‘a man would finally appear who, for the sake of  the fatherland, would arrest all those “buf foons”, sit them in the dock [and convict them] of  high treason against the fatherland’.244 Though much less polemical than Salpinx’s front-page, that of  the Laϊkos Agon (an article by Prince Sabahaddin in which he expressed the hope that the Empire would be able ‘to recover from this tragic war’),245 could also be read as a valedictory lament for an era that was coming to an end. Predictably enough, the following day the front-page of  both papers was adorned by a waving Greek f lag and detailed accounts of  the joyous celebrations occasioned by the arrival of  the Greek f leet. The ‘change of  heart’ of  the local press can be interpreted in many dif ferent ways. Greek ‘national’ historiography favours an interpretation that retains only the joyous celebrations and the waving of  Greek f lags, which is accounted for in terms of  the Christians’ desire for their island to be Greek, a desire that existed in the past, but had not been expressed for fear of provoking the Ottoman authorities.246 A second explanation might hinge on the opportunism of  the newspapers, which wanted to 243 244 245 246

Laϊkos Agon, no 104, 3–11–1912. Salpinx, 8–11–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 108, 8–11–1912. Indicatively, see Syndesmos Filologon Lesvou, ed., Ιστορία της Λέσβου, pp. 212 and 216, P. Paraskevaïdis, Οι περιηγητές για τη Λέσβο, p. 10, S. Anagnostou, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου’, pp. 457–60 and S. Lykiardopoulou-Kontara, Κοινωνία και παιδεία στη Λέσβο την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας, pp. 56f f.

176

Chapter 4

honour the new power that had come to replace Ottoman rule. Without necessarily wishing to challenge the validity of either explanation, the fact of  the matter remains that the possibility that Lesbos could become part of  Greece did not figure among the possible scenarios discussed in – even less so, advanced by – the local press. Even in the critical month (8 October to 8 November 1912) between the outbreak of  the First Balkan War and the arrival of  the Greek f leet, the local press neither predicted the end of  Ottoman rule over the island nor, crucially, clamoured for it; and the same holds true of  Metropolitan Kyrilos and the dimogeronties.247 In other words, though unhappy with the Ottoman fatherland, the local press had not broken with it and had never expressed the desire in any way, directly or indirectly, to bind their island’s political future to the Kingdom of  Greece at any time prior to 8 November 1912. As Chapter 5 will argue, evidently the ‘true Greek Power’ was not Athens.

Figure 6  The Greek f leet in the port of  Mytilene, 8 November 1912.

247 See P. Kourtzis, ‘Memoirs’ and AGYM: Simantiris to French Consul in Smyrna, 11/24 November 1912.

Chapter 5

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

The establishment of  the Young Turk regime, along with the concomitant attempt to Turkify the Ottoman realm, contributed to a further exacerbation of national movements in the Balkans, and also accelerated the Empire’s decay. It was at this crucial moment in the unfolding of  the Eastern Question1 that the expectations, desires and fears of  the Greeks of  Mytilene were articulated, within an environment that challenged them to determine precisely who they were and what exactly they were seeking. The first section of  the chapter examines the ways in which the local press delineated the position and aims of  the Ottoman Greek element in the Empire. It will be argued that the consciousness of cultural superiority felt by the Greeks of  the Empire2 and their economic strength shaped and supported their prevalent desire for peaceful domination in the East. For this ‘grand peaceful dream’ to be realized the Greeks of  the Empire knew that they needed the cooperation of  the Young Turks. However, as it will be argued in the second section, the Cretan Question constituted a ‘thorn’ in their desire to attain cooperation between the Greeks and the Turks. In addition, the Balkan alliances caused justifiable worry and concern in the local press over the political present and future of  the Greeks of  Mytilene and of  the Empire more generally, and led it to support the territorial integrity of  the Empire at a time when it was challenged from without. 1 2

The bibliography on the ‘Eastern Question’ is immense; indicatively, see M. Anderson, The eastern question, 1774–1923. A study in international relations (London: Macmillan, 1983). Herein the terms ‘Greeks of  the Empire’ and Ottoman Greeks denote the Ottoman Greeks of  the Empire’s Asiatic provinces, including Constantinople and the north Aegean islands.

178

Chapter 5

The main working hypothesis of  this chapter is that the press in Lesbos, as was the case among Greek circles in Constantinople and Asia Minor,3 did not call for the island’s union with Greece. For the Salpinx and the Laϊkos Agon, the Empire remained the ‘national state of  Greek dreams’,4 at least until the First Balkan War and the arrival of  the Greek f leet on 8 November 1912.

The ‘True Greek Power’ During the second half of  the nineteenth century and up to the first decade of  the twentieth, the Western European Powers looked to peacefully resolve problems in the area of  the Balkans and the Near East seeking to preserve the balance of power. Essentially, the doctrine that the integrity of  the Ottoman Empire was to be maintained constituted mainly the nucleus of  British policy, particularly following the Crimean War, and this was upheld through a fear of pan-Slavism and Russian expansionism. The crisis of  the years 1875–1878 did not, in essence, alter this main policy choice, despite the partial concessions that were made to the Balkan peoples.5 However, the heightening of  Greek, Bulgarian, Turkish, Serbian and Albanian nationalisms in the Balkans, during the first decade of  the twentieth century, rendered the doctrine of  the territorial integrity of  the Empire a dead letter and led to the creation of a new balance of power among the Great Powers.6 As 3 4 5

6

Indicatively, see P. Karolidis, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα, vol. I, pp. 371f f, S. Anagnostopoulou, Μικρά Ασία, p. 503 and V. Kechriotis, ‘The Greeks of  Izmir at the end of  the Empire’, pp. 275–6 and 288. E. Skopetea, ‘Οι Έλληνες και οι εχθροί τους’, p. 27. After the Congress of  Berlin (1878), Serbia, Romania and Montenegro became independent states, and autonomous Bulgaria was divided into smaller sections. On the Congress of  Berlin and its consequences in the Balkan area, see M. Laskaris, Το Ανατολικόν ζήτημα 1800–1923, vol. I: 1800–1878 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1948). G. Yianoulopoulos, ‘Εξωτερική πολιτική’, in Ch. Chadziiosif, ed., Ιστορία της Ελλάδας του 20ού αιώνα. Οι απαρχές 1900–1922, vol. Ib, p. 111.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

179

Serbia, Montenegro, Romania and, above all, Bulgaria seemingly enjoyed preferential treatment from Russia, Britain pinned its hopes on Greece, which, amongst the would-be successors to the Ottoman Empire, appeared to be the principal guarantor of  long-term British interests in the area.7 As concerned the Balkans, almost the entire territory of  Ottoman Macedonia constituted the main field of contention after 1878.8 During the second half of  the nineteenth century, the certainty became firmly rooted within the Greek state – as well as amongst the Greeks of  the Empire – that they had the right to dominate in Macedonia.9 The incorporation of  the Byzantine period into the core of national history had played a decisive role in this; it was S. Zambelios10 and K. Paparrigopoulos11 who 7

8

9 10

11

See G. Yianoulopoulos, ‘Η ευγενής μας τύφλωσις…’. Εξωτερική πολιτική και ‘εθνικά θέματα’ από την ήττα του 1897 έως τη μικρασιατική καταστροφή (Athens: Vivliorama, 2003), pp. 194–5 and A. Dialla, Η Ρωσία απέναντι στα Βαλκάνια. Ιδεολογία και πολιτική στο δεύτερο μισό του 19ου αιώνα (Athens: Alexandreia, 2009), pp. 330f f. On the Eastern Question and Great Power diplomacy, see also F. Yasamee, Ottoman diplomacy: Abdulhamid II and the European Great Powers 1878–1888 (Istanbul, Isis Press, 1996) and D. Cof fman, The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). As has been noted, ‘the delayed transition of  the Christian population of  Macedonia from the common religious consciousness of an Orthodox race to the newer perception of  “national” identity, constituted the basis of  the claims made by neighbouring Balkan states – mainly Greece and Bulgaria’; G. Yianoulopoulos, ‘Η ευγενής μας τύφλωσις…’. Εξωτερική πολιτική και ‘εθνικά θέματα’ από την ήττα του 1897 έως τη Μικρασιατική καταστροφή, p. 196. On the claims and activities of  the Greeks and Bulgarians in Macedonia, see indicatively D. Dakin, The Greek struggle in Macedonia 1897–1913, G. Yianoulopoulos, ‘Η ευγενής μας τύφλωσις…’. Εξωτερική πολιτική και ‘εθνικά θέματα’ από την ήττα του 1897 έως τη Μικρασιατική καταστροφή and S. Karavas, ‘Η μεγάλη Βουλγαρία και η μικρά Ιδέα’, in Etaireia Spoudon Moraiti, Εν έτει…1878, 1922 (Athens: Etaireia Spoudon Moraiti, 2008). Indicatively, see P. Matalas, Έθνος και Ορθοδοξία and S. Karavas, ‘Η μεγάλη Βουλγαρία και η μικρά Ιδέα’. On Spyridon Zambelios, see Κ. Th. Dimaras, Ελληνικός Ρωμαντισμός (Athens: Ermis, 1982), pp. 368 and 460–1; also, see I. Koubourlis, La formation de l’ histoire nationale grecque: l’apport de Spyridon Zambelios, 1815–1881 (Athens: Institut de recherchés neohelleniques, 2005). On K. Paparrigopoulos and national claims, see S. Karavas, ‘Ο Κωνσταντίνος Παπαρρηγόπουλος και οι εθνικές διεκδικήσεις, 1877–1885’, in P. Kitromilides & T.

180

Chapter 5

had ef fected this integration through their works. The Greeks considered the Slavs as their main rivals and enemies in Macedonia. The fear of  Slavism constituted a basic element of  Greek nationalist ideology for many years and was rekindled during the Eastern Crisis (1875–1878) and with the encouragement of  Britain.12 In the ‘hierarchy’ of  the most dangerous enemies of  Greece, undoubtedly the Bulgarians held top spot amongst the Slavs, as they claimed the same territories as the Greeks, and even the same populations in Macedonia.13 The Serbs were considered less dangerous than the Bulgarians, though they too had designs on Macedonia.14 The Romanians did not seriously preoccupy the Greek state, as they did not claim any territories, nor did they enjoy any serious Western support. They claimed as their own the Vlachs, who were located in specific mountainous pockets in Macedonia, Epirus and Thessaly and, consequently, could not be included within the boundaries of  their own state.15 The Romanians, just as the Montenegrins, were not a danger to Greek interests. They simply increased Balkan national ‘congestion’ through their presence. As far as the Albanians were concerned, they were viewed by the Greek state with sympathy, and up to the end of the nineteenth century as a ‘type of  Sklavenitis, eds, Ιστοριογραφία της νεότερης και σύγχρονης Ελλάδας 1833–2002, vol. I. (Athens: E.I.E., 2004). On the question of  ‘continuity’ in Modern Greek historiography, see A. Liakos, ‘Το ζήτημα της “συνέχειας” στη νεοελληνική ιστοριογραφία’, in P. Kitromilides & T. Sklavenitis, eds, Ιστοριογραφία της νεότερης και σύγχρονης Ελλάδας 1833–2002, vol. I. 12 On the formation of anti-Slavism in the Greek state even prior to the Crimean War, see Ε. Skopetea, Το πρότυπο Βασίλειο και η Μεγάλη Ιδέα. Όψεις του εθνικού προβλήματος στην Ελλάδα, 1830–1880, pp. 325–36; also, R. Stavridi-Patrikiou, Οι φόβοι ενός αιώνα (Athens: Metaichmio, 2008), pp. 53–4. 13 For the origins of  the Greek-Bulgarian dispute, see A. Lymberatos, Οικονομία, πολιτική και εθνική ιδεολογία. Η διαμόρφωση των εθνικών κομμάτων στην Φιλιππούπολη του 19ου αιώνα. 14 See L. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453 (New York: New York University Press, 2000), pp. 448–66. 15 On the Romanians and their claims, see L. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453, pp. 483–95 and 521. Concerning the geographical distribution of  the Vlachs, see G. Weigand, Οι Αρωμούνοι (Βλάχοι) (Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis, 2001) and A. Koukoudis, Μελέτες για τους Βλάχους, 3 vols (Thessaloniki, Zitros, 2000–2001).

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

181

Greek’ who would be completely assimilated a few generations later. During the first decade of  the twentieth century, their claims disturbed the Greeks, but not as much as those of  the Slavs and especially the Bulgarians.16 As for the Turks, there was, of course, a fear of and a dislike for them within the Greek state; however, they were considered to be ‘transients’ in Europe, and for this reason could be confronted more easily. Aside from this, the Greeks believed that they would be able to take the place of  the Turks at the head of  the Empire.17 The policy of  the Greek state during the first years of  the new Turkish government, as has been argued, may be summarized by the dilemma of whether to detach as many territories from the Empire as possible, or to strengthen the position of  the Greeks within the Empire.18 Essentially, however, this was not a dilemma; rather, it had to do with a gulf existing between desires and possibilities. Specifically, the nationalists of  the Greek state considered its territorial expansion to the north to be of vital significance.19 However, the Greek state, from as far back as the Crimean War and especially after the defeat in 1897, remained hesitant concerning the realization of any expansionist designs whatsoever. Feeble economically, unreliable politically and having weak armed forces, the Greek state did not have the capability so as to exert an aggressive foreign policy, both towards achieving a resolution of  the Cretan Question and for the advancement of  Greek claims in Ottoman Macedonia.20 Some attempts that were made by the government of  Georgios Theotokis (1908–1909) in relation to military 16

On the national awakening of  the Albanians, who were under Ottoman domination, and their struggle for autonomy, see L. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453, pp. 496–512, O. Pearson, Albania and King Zog and N. Clayer, Οι απαρχές του αλβανικού εθνικισμού. 17 For details on the ‘Greeks and their enemies’, see E. Skopetea, ‘Οι Έλληνες και οι εχθροί τους’; also, see R. Stavridi-Patrikiou, Οι φόβοι ενός αιώνα, pp. 41–54. 18 A. Panayotopoulos, ‘The “Great Idea” and the vision of eastern federation: A propos of  the views of  I. Dragoumis and A. Souliotis-Nikolaїdis’, p. 345. 19 Indicatively, see A. Liakos, Η ιταλική ενοποίηση και η Μεγάλη Ιδέα and E. Skopetea, Το πρότυπο Βασίλειο και η Μεγάλη Ιδέα. Όψεις του εθνικού προβλήματος στην Ελλάδα, 1830–1880. 20 S. Shaw & E. Shaw, History of  the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, vol. II, pp. 206–7.

182

Chapter 5

armament did not bring about the desired result, and thus Greece remained far from being considered an appreciable force in the region.21 Consequently, conscious of its economic and military insuf ficiencies, the Greek state declared that it aimed at the reinforcement of  the Greek populations in the Empire and in its foreign policy opted for a cooperative and friendly relationship with the Young Turks, in order that the dangerous Slavic expansionist designs be jointly confronted. In 1908, Prime Minister Theotokis, following instructions from Germany, sought to come to an understanding with the Turks and the Romanians. In fact, a plan was drawn up for an Eastern federation and customs union amongst the three states. In Constantinople, the representatives of  the Greek state G. Kazanovas, G. Skalieris and Theocharidis signed an unof ficial cooperation memorandum with the Liberals and the Young Turks. However, when the latter gained power, they called of f negotiations.22 The Greek government did not trust that a prospective cooperative ef fort with the Bulgarians would resolve the Macedonian Question. In November 1910, the Greek diplomat Ioannis Gennadios wrote to Venizelos that he viewed any cooperation with the Bulgarians with extreme distrust, describing them as ‘ever devious and disloyal’. He considered that the Bulgarians had territorial designs and interests that clashed directly with those of  the Greeks.23 For most Greek diplomats involved in the Macedonian Question, the only solution would be to reach an understanding with Turkey and acquire benefits through negotiations. Venizelos himself – from the autumn of 1910, when he assumed the governance of the Greek state for the first time, and through the spring of 1912 – did not take sides against the Young Turks, nor did he promote a policy disputing their 21

22 23

G. Yianoulopoulos, ‘Εξωτερική πολιτική’, p. 112 and ‘Η ευγενής μας τύφλωσις…’. Εξωτερική πολιτική και ‘εθνικά θέματα’ από την ήττα του 1897 έως τη Μικρασιατική καταστροφή, pp. 195f f ; V. Kechriotis, ‘Greek-Orthodox, Ottoman Greeks or just Greeks? Theories of coexistence in the aftermath of  the Young Turk revolution’, pp. 5–6. G. Ventiris, Η Ελλάς του 1910–1920, vol. I (Athens: Ikaros, 1970 [1929]), p. 93. E. Gardika-Katsiadaki, ‘Βενιζέλος και υπουργείο Εξωτερικών: Σύγκρουση ή συνεργασία;’, in Elliniko Logotechniko kai Istoriko Archeio [E.L.I.A.] & Mouseio Benaki, Συμπόσιο για τον Ελευθέριο Βενιζέλο (Athens: E.L.I.A. & Mouseio Benaki, 1988), pp. 268–9.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

183

authority. Conversely, he had assigned the ambassador to Constantinople, Ioannis Gryparis, known for his philo-Turkish disposition, the task of promoting cooperation between Greece and Turkey. Venizelos’ aim was the maintenance of  the balance of power between the two states and the avoidance of ill-timed clashes, which the Greek state did not yet have the capability to confront. Thus, on questions such as those of  Crete and Macedonia, he followed a moderate policy, dissociating immediate claims from distant aims. His adherents considered his stance ‘realistic’, whilst his political rivals saw in his stance ‘a lack of national memory and vision’.24 However, from the start of  his premiership he did work feverishly for the reorganization of the military and the improvement of  the economic condition of  the state, in order for Greece to be able to pursue its interests more dynamically during the next significant f lare-up of  the Eastern Question.25 A substantial shift in policy for the Greek state would come to be realized – as shall become evident in what follows – in the spring of 1912, through a closer approach towards the Slavs, and subsequently by way of assertive claims to territories from the Ottoman Empire (the First Balkan War). As concerned the Greeks of  the Empire, it was not possible for them to remain uninf luenced by the various nationalisms – Turkish, Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian and especially Greek – that were running rampant in the Balkans. There were no watertight compartments separating the Greeks of  the Empire from the Greeks living within the borders of  the Greek state, nor was there a generalized dif ferentiation concerning their national visions, which were none other than the prevalence of  the Greek element in the East. In addition, as has been noted, a wealth of mainland Greek agents were active in the Empire, while in Greece there was a presence of 24 Ibid., p. 270. 25 See S. Pavlowitch, A history of  the Balkans, 1804–1945, pp. 187–8 and L. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453, pp. 477–82. Concerning the relationship between the economy and the foreign policy of  the Greek state on the eve of  the Balkan Wars, see Ch. Chadziiosif, ‘Η εξωστρέφεια της ελληνικής οικονομίας στις αρχές του 20ού αιώνα και οι συνέπειές της στην εξωτερική πολιτική’, in Η Ελλάδα των Βαλκανικών πολέμων 1910–1914 (Athens: E.L.I.A., 1993) and ‘Issues of management, control and sovereignty in transnational banking in the eastern Mediterranean before the First World War’.

184

Chapter 5

expatriate capital, and many scholars and journalists who were originally from the Empire and had permanently settled in Athens.26 However, the Greeks of  the Empire were above all else concerned with the future of  the Empire and their relationship with the Turks, as the realm of  the Empire was their preferred area of activity. The Macedonian and Cretan questions were relegated to a secondary level. It is indicative that during a period of crisis in the Cretan Question or when there were situations of commotion in Macedonia, what concerned them, first and foremost, was for the tension to be overcome, in such a way that GreekTurkish relations would not become unsettled. They were well aware that every time Greek-Turkish relations worsened, the Young Turks regarded them with suspiciousness and hostility.27 In order that the specific dif ferentiation in priorities that existed between the Greek state and the Ottoman Greeks become clear, it should be noted that from the time of  the Tanzimat (1839 and 1856) and the granting of a Constitution in December 1876 by Abdulhamid and again by the Young Turks in 1908, the promise had been made of  total equality and full-f ledged participation of  the Christians alongside the Muslims. Thus, the hope was cultivated amongst the local Greek bourgeoisie that they would be raised to the point of politically being a jointly sovereign element along with the Turks in the Empire.28 This particular prospect encouraged the Ottoman Greeks to consider that the Empire would be the state where they would realize their visions of dominance. The version of  the Megali Idea that they supported was, according to the Salpinx, the prevalence of  the Greek element in Anatolia through peaceful means. In fact, the economic prosperity of  the Greek communities of  Anatolia and the extensive dissemination of  the Greek language created the image of a mighty ‘Greek power’ that was found 26 E. Skopetea, ‘Οι Έλληνες και οι εχθροί τους’, pp. 30f f ; also, V. Kechriotis refers to an overlapping of identities and to strong bonds between ‘Hellenic Greeks’ and ‘Ottoman Greeks’; V. Kechriotis, ‘Greek-Orthodox, Ottoman Greeks or just Greeks?’, p. 7. 27 See Salpinx, 24–5–1912 and below pp. 190f f ; also, see Ph. Carabott, ‘The Dodecanese Question 1912–1924’, p. 32. 28 Indicatively, see A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

185

beyond the borders of  the Greek state. The ‘Greek ethnos’ of  the Empire had awareness of its strength and followed its own course for the realization of  ‘the peaceful dream of a greater Greece’, without the clashes of  the ‘petty politicians of  Athens’ who ‘did not know this Greece and confused its great cultural ideals with their ignoble petty interests’.29 This article, which appeared in February 1910 (that is, seven months prior to Venizelos becoming prime minister) supported that the consequence of a prospective defeat of  Greece in a war would certainly be the loss of a number of men. However, something like that would not harm ‘the Greek ethnos’ as a whole, since its fate was not based ‘on arms, but on commerce, language and the religious sentiment, which attracts – to the point of  fanaticism – all the Greeks around the bearded priests’. The columnist underscored that while ‘in Turkey and in Asia Minor knowledge of  the Turkish language is not necessary for everyday needs, one is not to be without the knowledge of  Greek, and this also applies in Sudan, and on the banks of  the Nile’. The Greeks of  Anatolia ‘through commerce imposed their language, which by way of  tradition and with zeal was maintained intact through their great schools of  “spreading”’: It appears that the petty politicians of  Athens do not know this Greece and confuse its great cultural ideals with their ignoble and petty interests. It, however, can live without them. Unperturbedly following its own course it triumphs, indif ferent to the ministerial crises in Athens and the recriminations and abuses traded between ministers. All of its strength lies in its anonymous people. It is not borne of an empty political rhetoric, but is the fruit of  the continuous, insistent work and peaceful popular dream of a greater Greece.

Describing the creation ‘of a great Greece’ as a ‘popular dream’, the paper underscored the great impact of  that particular peaceful vision, which initially had been supported by the high – and middle – Greek bourgeois groups of  the Empire.

29 Salpinx, no 143, 18–2–1910.

186

Chapter 5

Essentially, such reasoning brings to mind the views supported by the Mytilenean scholar and teacher G. Aristidis (1819–1891) in a number of public speeches he had made in the late 1850s and early 1860s: Everywhere throughout the world, the spirit is engaged in a formidable and multifarious struggle against matter, light against darkness, truth against lie, civilization against barbarity. Weapons in this struggle are not Armstrong cannons, nor Miniéan lead balls; they are the divine Codex of  the Gospel, the immortal books of our ancient ancestors, the immeasurable trumpet of  the press, the sciences, the newer inventions. Stand firm, then, with the others who have undertaken the intellectual struggle. […] Show a manly spiritual stature, a Greek character, brave volition in favour of assisting the schools of  the fatherland. Assistance in favour of education is glory unto God, a service of fered to the fatherland, to the entire ethnos, to humanity.30

Despite the fact that the political situation in the Empire had changed significantly since Aristidis’ times, the local press during the period 1909–1912 continued to maintain that the struggle of  the Greek nation to prevail within the borders of  the Empire would be won through peaceful means. Certainly, the Greeks of  the Empire at the beginning of  the twentieth century – the residents of  Mytilene included as well – recognized that they could not built a modern Ottoman state alone without the Young Turks, who had already assumed this task. They did, however, possess the certainty that through time they would take the Empire from the inside and would Hellenize it at some point. Joint rule would essentially evolve into a succession of  Greeks in power and the establishment of a GreekTurkish political entity or an Eastern Empire.31 The main supporters of  this particular vision were A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis and I. Dragoumis of  the CO. It is not a coincidence that its ‘national programme’ focused on the strengthening of  ‘outside Hellenism’, the ultimate vision being the ‘Hellenization of  the Ottoman state’.32

30 G. Aristidis, Τετραλογία πανηγυρική, pp. 44–5. 31 I. Dragoumis opined thus: ‘We must look to first become joint rulers and then replace them. This can happen, if  the Slavs allow us’; I. Dragoumis, Όσοι ζωντανοί (Athens: Nea Zoї, 1926), p. 119. 32 A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, pp. 47–8.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

187

Specifically, the press of  Mytilene promoted a diarchic regime in the Empire, with the joint rule of  Greeks and Turks, according to the AustroHungarian model.33 In July 1910, the Salpinx, deeming unfounded and ‘libellous’ the accusations made by a Turkish newspaper, which had presented the Greeks of  the Empire as the instruments of a ‘pan-Hellenistic movement’ aiming at the demise of  the Ottoman Empire – responded that: ‘Our Ethnos recognizes that it has absolute need of  the shield called Turkey. It is aware that its slanderers say that a demise of the Empire means the extermination of  Hellenism and its absorption after two or three generations under Slavism’. However, as it emphasized, we struggle in favour of  the fatherland, of  the rights of our Ethnos being respected, of its sacred Ethnarch being respected by the rulers, of its national possessions not being confiscated. […] Primordial resident of  these lands, which it kneaded with its blood and elevated to a birthplace of civilization and culture, [our Ethnos] seeks the position that befits it and asks that it be protected at all costs from everyone harbouring cravings, not wishing that its 500-year servitude now be transformed into another, a heavier one, a pan-Germanic or pan-Slavic one.34

It is evident that according to the Salpinx, the Greeks of  the Empire did not simply desire – but considered imperative – friendship and cooperation with the Young Turks, in order that they be relieved of  the main enemy they felt was threatening them: Slavism. A support of common interest – the newspaper emphasized – had to spur the Young Turks as well into cooperating with the Greeks – if  they wished to secure the salvation of  their common fatherland. It was, however, perfectly clear that in this joint venture, the Greeks sought to hold the position of joint ruler – and not subject. In order to support their claims, the Greeks of  the Empire did not find it dif ficult to adopt a ‘Western language’, in contrast to the intrinsic dif ficulty that the Greek state faced in this direction. They advocated, in Indicatively, see Salpinx, no 74, 5–9–1909. On Austro-Hungary as a model for organizing the Ottoman Empire, see V. Kechriotis, ‘Ρέκβιεμ για την Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία’, in Kechriotis et al, Η συγκρότηση του ελληνικού κράτους Διεθνές πλαίσιο, εξουσία και πολιτική τον 19ο αιώνα (Athens: Nefeli, 2008), pp. 33–5. 34 Salpinx, no 209, 27–7–1910. 33

188

Chapter 5

words, at least, the ‘principle of nationalities’, at the very moment that the Greek state had dif ficulty recognizing the rights of other nations.35 According to the Salpinx, the twentieth century was ‘the century of nationalities’, ‘the age of  the domination of national consciousness’ and, consequently, it was not possible for the broader area of south-eastern Europe to remain detached from the quests and concerns of the times. The newspaper, faithful to the model of  the German perception concerning the concept of  the ‘nation’, emphasized that various ‘ethnological groups are fashioned by nature’ and that these ‘are neither designed nor created through laws and restrictive measures’. It was a natural and inalienable right of each ethnic group to preserve ‘its national status’, to defend its language, history, religious convictions, customs and mores – that is, all that constituted the ‘ingredients of its blood, the molecules of its soul’. It underscored that ‘nationality is the cardinal external feature of  the people, and no government is entitled to suppress the nationality of  the people’.36 Only ‘moral “shipwrecks” and social “wear” are capable of denying consciousness and language, and mores and religion, in relation to the other ethnic groups’.37 Furthermore, it emphasized that ‘racial discrimination, just as religious confession, depends upon the absolute freedom of an adult citizen’. These rights constitute ‘natural rights, primordial and sacred’, which, if violated – as occurred during the period of absolutism – ‘insurrection, fanaticism and the maturation of racial consciousness’ would be the only thing that the rulers would achieve. It believed that the constitutional charter of  the fatherland had come to safeguard respect for these rights. Thus, the Salpinx commended the passing of a law in parliament that provided for the recording of  the nationality of each citizen on one’s identity papers. In fact, it estimated that this particular measure had special significance for the area of  Macedonia. Aligned with the views of  the press in the Kingdom of  Greece, as regards the numerical supremacy and sovereign rights of  the Greeks in Macedonia, it underscored that ‘if  the expatriate populations there manage to relieve themselves of  the pressures of  the 35 36 37

E. Skopetea, ‘Οι Έλληνες και οι εχθροί τους’, p. 29. Salpinx, no 176, 11–5–1910. Salpinx, no 33, 30–5–1909.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

189

numerous Committees and Subcommittees, and freely and of  their own free will declare their nationality in censuses’, only then ‘can the serious question be answered concerning which Christian ethnicity has a surplus in numbers in the European region of  the state’. ‘It is in this direction’, it noted, ‘that the government, and also every ecclesiastical and communal authority, should cooperate’.38 The Salpinx also viewed the development of a ‘national sentiment’ between the Muslims of  the Empire in a positive spirit – whenever, of course, this did not come into conf lict with the ‘eternal and inalienable Greek rights’. As it characteristically noted in the autumn of 1909, the Albanians justifiably refused ‘to be absorbed by the Turks’.39 Three years later, however, it described the demands of  the Albanians as ‘overweening’, given that these af fected the ‘vested historical or locational rights of neighbouring people’.40 Certainly, there was no absence of contradictions in the writings of  the Salpinx. It emphasized, for example, that the ‘principle of nationalities’ had inf luenced not only the inhabitants of  the Empire but also those of neighbouring states that were ‘consanguineous’ and ‘homoglot’. It was unlikely that the various ethnic groups of  European Turkey would stop desiring a final resolution of  the Eastern Question, ‘each stirred by further struggles and religious contentions’. For this reason, it considered the calm that prevailed in the Balkans to be ‘superficial’ and deemed the Eastern Question complex, since ‘the majority of  the peoples and states [of  the Balkans] held opposing principles and had dif ferent desires, held conf licting designs and real or completely imaginary historical rights’.41 It believed that this excitation of  the desires of  the Balkan peoples and states 38 Salpinx, no 137, 4–2–1910. 39 Salpinx, no 94, 22–10–1909. 40 Salpinx, 20–9–1912. See also the commentary of  the Lesvos (no 2, 6–5–1911), which deemed that the Albanian movement, as well as the proclamation of  Montenegro as a Kingdom, was incited by Russian propaganda. As it characteristically underscored with gloom, ‘the Russian wind blows from all points’. As regards the issue of  the government handling of  the Albanian revolutionary movement, it deemed it ‘extremely sensible’. 41 Salpinx, no 3, 20–3–1909.

190

Chapter 5

was fomented by the chauvinistic policy that the Ottoman government pursued from July 1908 onwards towards the non-Turkish ethnic groups, both Christian and Muslim. It estimated that through this particular policy the Committee was seeking what was absolutely unattainable: That is, ‘to force the various nations of  the Empire to forget their language and history, their desires and dreams, the graves of  their forefathers and to acquire the Turkish nationality – that is, to become Turks’.42 The Salpinx rejected the ‘Turkification’ of  the Empire and demanded the confinement of  the Turks to the boundaries of  their race. ‘[The Young Turks] believe’, it characteristically noted, that they will now succeed in stif ling our national consciousness through the exclusion of national education and the formation of a new artificial ethnicity, the Ottoman, in which Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Albanians and Druze will be assimilated along with the Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians and Jews.

However, what ‘our politicologists’ should ‘maturely’ think about was the way in which ‘the various ethnicities in Turkey will be able – at the same time as cooperating politically – to serve their own interests and also the general interests of  the common fatherland and the whole state’.43 A few months later, the newspaper clarified: Only one thing remains doubtless: that the entire constitutional state, composed of many equal states, is obliged to enforce constitutional liberties in complete respect of  the inalienable rights of each of  them to self-existence, and to avoid the chimera of  those hot-heads who dream of a funnel of racial fusion and the consolidation of  the other races with theirs.44

Consequently, it deemed that ‘any dif ference between the government and an ethnic group of  the fatherland can be resolved through mutual understanding, mutual compromise and the satisfying of  the legal and just demands of  that ethnic group; otherwise, this constitutional regime

42 Salpinx, no 3, 20–3–1909 and no 4, 22–3–1909. 43 Salpinx, no 74, 5–9–1909. 44 Salpinx, no 103, 12–11–1909.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

191

too will degenerate into overlordship’.45 It was in this same spirit that the future Mytilene deputy D. Savvas, in an article he wrote for the Salpinx in July 1910, maintained that ‘it was a truly constitutional principle’ that ‘the ethnic groups in Turkey must preserve their ethnicity and religion, [and] must contribute to the grandeur of  the Ottoman fatherland’.46 It is evident from the above that the Salpinx rejected Ottomanism in the sense of  the creation of a ‘forged ethnicity’, the Ottoman, in which all other ethnicities would be amalgamated and the Turkish ethnicity characteristically would prevail. Instead, it countered that there should be respect for the rights of each ethnicity, in order to promote their common fatherland, the Ottoman. In its leader on the first anniversary of  the proclamation of  the Constitution, the Salpinx explicitly expressed the view that despite all the negative aspects, there was indeed hope for an improvement in the situation of  the Empire, but not ‘through the prevalence of  the most fanatic chauvinism and the stepping of one single ethnicity on the neck of  the others, nor through the kindling of  further passions’. It was argued that the situation would be improved only through respect for the rights of  those peoples who are natives of  their lands, and whom the conquering Turks found there; through the recognition of specific rights unto them, as well; through the non-kindling of  further passions, and through the shaping of a political regime that would enable Turks and Greeks and Arabs and Armenians and Kurds and Slavs and Israelites to regard the Ottoman Empire as their possession, one for which they would be ready to sacrifice everything.

According to the columnist, the salvation of  Turkey lies in the formation of a people made up of various ethnic groups, freely maintaining their language, religion and traditions, but equally interested concerning the progress of  both the other ethnicities and the entire fatherland. And this is accomplished through virtuous Liberty; may suspicion remain far from the men governing the fate of  the New Turkey. If one loves one’s nation, the consequence is not that one hates the state, while that nation prospers and progresses; it is the contrary, in fact.47 45 Salpinx, no 282, 15–1–1911. 46 Salpinx, no 209, 27–7–1910. 47 Salpinx, no 50, 9–7–1909.

192

Chapter 5

Consequently, the local press asked – at least verbally – for equality of rights for all nationalities of  the Empire, condemning the policy of  Turkification advanced by the Young Turks. Essentially, however, it allotted top place in a hierarchy of nationalities to the Greeks, reserving the right to transcend the limits of  ‘race’ for the Greeks, ‘the biggest Christian race of  the state’.48 In this respect, the articles in the press of  Mytilene did not dif fer much from those found in other Greeks newspapers of  Constantinople and Asia Minor, for which, as has been argued, the common fatherland of  the Ottoman ethnic groups was, in reality, the ‘field of joint Greek-Ottoman rule’.49 Along similar lines, the press underscored the spiritual superiority and racial supremacy of  the Greeks, elements it considered to be in their interest to exploit – to the benefit of  the Ottoman state. In the spring of 1909, the Salpinx maintained that the Greeks comprised that element which ‘in terms of numbers and spiritual supremacy and education and character and tradition has been called upon and whose splendour is being summoned to provide service to the struggle for civilization and progress’.50 The Greeks had rights in the East, which stemmed ‘from [their] historical past’; this was linked to ‘their religious and political stature’, and they could guarantee both their development and the progress of  the state to which they belonged.51 At the same time, the newspaper promoted the far-reaching cultural destiny of  the Greek race: ‘The heavens, when this race was created, gave it a wish, together with a curse: To be a forerunner on the road leading to culture and the ennoblement of  humanity; to be the noble standard bearer of all lofty ideas’.52 One year later, in the summer of 1910, it noted: ‘Our race constitutes the greatest element among the non-Muslims of  Turkey, owing to wealth, education, numbers and development’.53 Stressing this even more, in the spring of 1912 it emphasized that the Greeks constituted the second ethnic group in terms of population in the Empire, but were the 48 49 50 51 52 53

Laϊkos Agon, no 2, 18–12–1911. See E. Skopetea, ‘Οι Έλληνες και οι εχθροί τους’, pp. 29–30. Salpinx, no 16, 21–4–1909. Salpinx, no 17, 23–4–1909. Salpinx, no 54, 18–7–1909. Salpinx, no 188, 8–6–1910.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

193

first in terms of cultural radiance: ‘The Greeks as an element, in terms of  their spirit, education, culture, surpass all of  the nations in the East, indeed making the nation the social ruler in the Eastern section of  the state’.54 Thus, the Greeks of  the Empire would perform the same role that ‘divine providence’ had reserved for the Greek Kingdom as regards its destiny to enlighten the East in Ioannis Kolettis’ 1844 speech on the Megali Idea.55 Certainly, it was on the same wavelength that the Salpinx attacked the assertions made by Philip Fallmerayer, which placed into doubt the ancient Greek origins of  the modern Greeks and the uninterrupted continuity of  the Greek race through the centuries.56 As it noted, the Greeks in antiquity – as well as during Roman, Byzantine and Turkish rule – ‘blended with other races’, but without becoming diluted and without losing ‘their national character’. As regards the particular features of  the modern Greeks, their language, their sense of  hospitality (filoxeneia), their ability to develop the arts and poetry, their ‘exemplary’ family lives, mores and customs ascertained that they were identical to those of  the ancient Greeks, a fact that, as the paper emphasized, certified the purity and the continuity of  the Greek race through the centuries. At the same time, it projected the vivacity and charm of  the ‘Greek spirit’, which contributed to the enculturation of  the West, thus constituting a diachronic symbol of  liberty and humanism.57 The proclamation of  the first Pan-Mytilenean Athletics Contest by the Diagoras Gymnastics Society of  Mytilene in the spring of 1909 was seen by the Salpinx as a revival of  the athletic competitions that were held in antiquity.58 Thus, the Greek athletic tradition of antiquity found its continuation in the organization of  the particular contests after centuries of  having been interrupted.

54 Salpinx, 5–5–1912 and 8–5–1912. 55 See K. Th. Dimaras, Ελληνικός Ρωμαντισμός, pp. 405–6. 56 On Fallmerayer’s theory and its ef fect on Modern Greek ‘national’ ideology, see G. Veloudis, O Jakob Philip Fallmerayer και η γένεση του ελληνικού ιστορισμού (Athens: Mnimon, 1982) and E. Skopetea, ‘Οι Έλληνες και οι εχθροί τους’. 57 Salpinx, no 153, 16–3–1910 and no 154, 18–3–1910. 58 Salpinx, no 13, 14–4–1909.

194

Chapter 5

Indeed, the element of national continuity through the incorporation of  the Byzantine period as well into the history of  the island, which had been ‘neglected in the works of mid-nineteenth century local scholars’,59 was fully adopted by the local press. For example, ‘the more than 3,000-year-old history of  the Greek nation’ did not permit Greeks to forsake their ‘language, history, religion, past’, to proclaim ‘new gods’ or ‘to be assimilated with other people’.60 Consequently, it could be argued that a potent racism was developed through the press, which at least on a verbal level borrowed several elements from the ‘national’ discourse that was developed in the Greek state. The aim was to project the Greek nation as being the one most suitable to lead the way, along with the Young Turks, on the course towards the progress and reformation of  the new Turkey. In addition, the designations used by the local press in reference to the Greeks of  the Empire serve as identity markers, indicating how they perceived themselves. Specifically, the prevalence of  the term ‘Greek nation’ as opposed to ‘Greek race’ (genos or fyli), a term which, as can be seen through the works of  local scholars, was gradually consummated in the mid-nineteenth century as a result of  the spread of  the ‘principle of nationalities’, also became apparent in the articles that appeared in the local press.61 Of course, while the term ‘Greek nation’ came to dominate, the term ‘Greek race’ also continued to have some currency. Essentially, the use of  the latter, which was typical of  the ethnoreligious organization of  the Greek communities of  the Empire, was combined with the use of  the Indicatively, see S. Anagnostis, Λεσβιάς Ωδή and D. Petrou, Λεσβιάς, ήτοι ιστορικόν εγκώμιον της νήσου Λέσβου (Mytilene: Archontopoulos-Voulalas, 1878); cf. A. Liakos, ‘Το ζήτημα της “συνέχειας” στη νεοελληνική ιστοριογραφία’ and S. Karavas, ‘Ο Κωνσταντίνος Παπαρρηγόπουλος και οι εθνικές διεκδικήσεις, 1877–1885’. As late as 1909, references to the Byzantine period are limited to the second edition of S. Taxis; see Μ. Mandamadiotou, ‘Ιδεολογικοί προσανατολισμοί και πολιτικά προτάγματα στη Λέσβο του 19ου αιώνα’, pp. 61–4. 60 Salpinx, no 39, 13–6–1909; also, see Salpinx, 5–5–1912 and 8–5–1912. 61 On the significance and use of these terms by Greek scholars of the nineteenth century, see D. Tziovas, The nationism of  the demoticists and its impact on their literary theory, 1888–1930 and Οι μεταμορφώσεις του εθνισμού και το ιδεολόγημα της ελληνικότητας στο Μεσοπόλεμο, pp. 31f f. 59

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

195

modernist term ‘nation’ (ethnos), and they appeared interchangeably and without any notional distinction – even within the very same newspaper article.62 The notional equality of  the two terms indicates how the genos no longer constituted a religious entity, but, rather, a national one. However, the modernist element that eminently characterized the local press of  the period 1908–1912 was the widespread use and promotion of  the term ‘Ottoman Greeks’; this was indicative of a process of gradual nationalization and politicization of  the Greek Orthodox millet of  the Empire, which was activated and accelerated following the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. Thus, the journalists of  Mytilene defined themselves – and also referred to their compatriots – as ‘Ottoman Greeks’ (Ellino-Othomanoi): Greeks that is, in nationality, but Ottoman citizens. As ‘Ottomans’ they declared themselves willing to be sacrificed ‘in favour of  the interests of  the sacred land of  the fatherland’. At the same time, however, as ‘Greeks’ they appeared determined to uphold their ‘sacred duty to their Nation’. As the Salpinx repeatedly noted ‘a person is an Ottoman if  he willingly accepts to be sacrificed in favour of  the interests of  the sacred land of  the fatherland, but also equally observes the sacred duties of one’s special Nation, respecting its language, its mores and its religion’. It clarified that if everyone did not accept the above principle, ‘for many years we will be seeking the coveted [constitutional] equality in vain’.63 It is evident that language, religion and mores constituted, for the newspaper, the basic features of  the Greek ethnic group of  the Empire, the major attributes of  ‘its national consciousness’.64 In fact, the Salpinx projected the Orthodox Christian religion of  the Greeks as an element that was supplementary to and indivisible from their national being. Often, in fact, the designation ‘Christian’ replaced 62 Indicatively, see Salpinx, 7–4–1909. 63 Salpinx, no 46, 30–6–1909. 64 E. Hobsbawm considers these attributes as constituent parts of  ‘proto-national’ communities; E. Hobsbawm, Nations and nationalism since 1780, pp. 14f f. Ch. Exertzoglou opines that ‘consciousness’ was used during this period as the ‘key-category in the construction of  the symbolic realm of national identity’; Ch. Exertzoglou, ‘Shifting boundaries: Language, community and the “non-Greek-speaking Greeks”’, Historein I, 1999, p. 81.

196

Chapter 5

the designation ‘Greek’ in the articles whose subject was the question of privileges. In these articles, it was underscored that the Christian religion, along with the Greek language, constituted the main characteristics of  the Greek ethnic group, which had to be preserved: ‘In our conscience, God and the genos are conterminous, and the person who denies one’s God is proclaimed equally sinful as the person who denies one’s nationality’.65 In early 1911, when the Young Turks recognized the right of  the CryptoChristians in the Empire to worship openly, the Salpinx fully endorsed this measure. It emphasized that ‘we consider religious confession and national consciousness indivisible matters’ and underlined that these had to become respected and safeguarded by the Constitution, if  ‘New Turkey also wished to permanently be part of  the truly civilized states’.66 At the same time, it was underscored that the Christian religion of  the Greeks of  the Empire was not an impediment to their being Ottoman citizens and did not conf lict with constitutional principles, since it promoted the principle of equality. As the Salpinx noted during the Easter celebration of 1909, Christianity is the ‘religion of absolute equality, of  the most virtuous altruism, of  the highest self-sacrifice, of  the divinest justice’. In contrast, the Muslim religion created ‘obstacles in the implementation of constitutional principles’, since it emphasized the ‘distinction between the faithful [Muslims] and the infidels [non-Muslims]’.67 In addition, whenever the ‘oppression’ of  the Ottoman authorities became more intensely felt, the Greek national consciousness was projected with an even greater emphasis – though even in these instances it appeared completely attuned to Ottoman citizenship. For example, in September 1909, on the occasion of a school in the community of  Bournova (a suburb north-east of  Smyrna) being prohibited by the Ottoman authorities to write the word ‘Greek’ on its sign, the Salpinx noted: ‘We were born Greeks. We were educated as such. That is who we are. Greeks, Ottoman citizens. Loving the common Fatherland as much as our Nation’. It was

65 Salpinx, no 33, 30–5–1909. 66 Salpinx, no 290, 3–2–1911. 67 Indicatively, see Salpinx, no 6, 27–3–1909.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

197

under­scored that the name of  the school was simply a formality, since, even if  the govern­ment imposed a change in its name, the residents of  the community would not cease to be Greeks: ‘Name what you will the school of  the Greek community of  Bournova. At this school Greeks will be educated in regard of  their origins and their self-awareness, being moulded into upright citizens of  the Ottoman state and upright members of  the Greek Nation’.68 Likewise, in a speech he delivered at a protest rally spurred by the governmental concession of churches in Macedonia to the Bulgarians, the coadjutor of  Mytilene, Vasilios Komvopoulos, declared that, as ‘Orthodox in denomination and Greeks in nationality’, Mytileneans were concerned about the ‘special interests of  their genos’ and, as ‘Ottoman citizens’ were not at all indif ferent ‘concerning the universal interests of the pan-Ottoman Fatherland’.69 Certainly, he meant that no concessions should be made to the Bulgarians, and by doing so linked the interests of  the Empire with those of  the Greeks. In addition, when, in October 1912 a lawsuit was filed by the Mytilene Governor Faiq Aali against N. Paritsis, the editor-in-chief of  the Salpinx over the publication of articles containing ‘anti-Ottoman’ content, the latter, evidently displeased, noted: ‘We are Greek-Ottoman patriots, much better than those who think that patriotism means being a mute and deaf and blind citizen, never asking for one’s rights as provided for by the Constitution, the laws and the firmans. We, on the contrary, are true patriots, asking for the implementation of reforms, as only through those will the Fatherland and we, its children, be saved from the foreign “lovers” of our country’.70 It is evident that the Greeks of  Mytilene were not experiencing some kind of dilemma, nor did they appear to be divided between their Greek nationality and their Ottoman citizenship. These two attributes appeared to be completely interwoven and harmonized, since for them, the interests of  the Greeks and of  the Empire were identical. Consequently, the parallel projection of  their Greek national being and their status as Ottoman

68 Salpinx, no 73, 3–9–1909. 69 Salpinx, no 200, 6–7–1910. 70 Salpinx, 2–10–1912 and 6–10–1912.

198

Chapter 5

citizens did not originate from an attempt to maintain their legitimacy and from a necessitous respect for Ottoman sovereignty; the Empire was, first and foremost, their fatherland and they themselves, at that given period of  time, were conscious that they were no longer vassals, subjects of an absolutist monarch, but, rather, citizens of  the Ottoman state. As Ottoman citizens, they believed that they had the right to assert political rights that were at least equal to those of  the other Ottoman citizens. As Greeks, of course, they felt the certainty that they had the right to much more: Respect, owing to their racial superiority and the preservation of  the educational and religious privileges that had been conceded to them in the past, on the basis of  ‘firmans and imperial laws’.71 Regarding the appellation Romios (an inhabitant of the Eastern Roman Empire), it is rarely found in articles in the local press and, in the instances where it is used, it has a negative connotation.72 For example, the Salpinx critically noted that an ‘incorrigible Romios’ trader continued to open his grocery on Sundays, breaking the law concerning the recently established day of rest.73 In addition, prompted by irregularities that took place during a fund-raising collection, it emphasized that ‘we, too, here have our own similar personal contentions; we are, in a word Romioi, and that is why our progress on all our national issues is so slow and dif ficult’.74 With even greater clarity, the Mytilenean teacher N. Hiotellis, speaking at the Laϊki Scholi, explained how the term Romios, in contrast to those of  Hellene and Grecian, conveyed a sense of  ‘subservience and subordination’, initially to the Romans and then to the Turks. In contrast, he belauded the appellation Hellene, which, as he noted, referred to antiquity and a time when the ‘Hellenic nation’ shone and became the symbol of what was ‘true, good and beautiful’.75 At the end of  his speech, he concluded thus: 71

Despite the assertions of  the Greek Press, there are no of ficial imperial documents certifying in writing the granting of privileges to the Orthodox Patriarch and his congregation; see V. Kechriotis, ‘The Greeks of  Izmir at the end of  the Empire’, pp. 135f f. 72 On the concepts of  Romaios, Romios and Romiosyni, see M. Mantouvalou, ‘Ρωμαίος, Ρωμιός και Ρωμιοσύνη’, Mantatoforos XXII (1983). 73 Salpinx, no 216, 12–8–1910. 74 Salpinx, 12–7–1912; also, see Salpinx 21–7–1912. 75 Salpinx, 5–5–1912.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

199

Let us appear worthy of  bearing, with pride, the name ‘Hellene’, which had remained hidden below the tatters of  Romiosyni for so many centuries, taking on the splendour of its historic past. We shall achieve this not by lauding our ancestors and boasting that we are their descendants – as this is precisely what has hurt us so much – but by being ‘baptised’ in the clear waters of  Greek civilization, and carrying out deeds worthy of our ancestors.76

In addition, the designations used by the press in reference to the Greeks of  the Empire were inextricably linked to the way in which the press approached and gave meaning to the notion of  the fatherland.77 Specifically, the Empire was understood to be the fatherland of  the Greeks, and patriotism was identified with their love for their Ottoman fatherland. However, in the spring of 1912, commenting upon the views of  European intellectuals, the Salpinx referred to the existence of yet another ‘notional’ fatherland, to which the Greek ethnic group belonged. Subscribing to the ‘wonderful’ ideas of  the French academic Émile Fage, it noted that ‘the Sacred Idea of  the Fatherland despite the cosmopolitanism plaguing humanity is and will be a powerful sentiment still governing relations in the world’. It clarified that the notion of  ‘fatherland’ was defined, on the one hand, by a person’s dedication to a piece of  land in which one was born and to which one was connected through tight bonds, and, on the other, a ‘spiritual fatherland’, that is, the bond the person maintained with one’s fathers and ancestors.78 In the second part of  the article, it paralleled the fatherland of  the Greeks with that which a monk defines as his own fatherland. It noted that a monk, in addition to the order to which he belongs, considers the heavens his fatherland. In a similar way, it supported that the Greeks, in addition to the Empire, also belonged to a Greek fatherland that ‘as a common idea is handed over from generation to generation through the recollections and traditions and dedication to it’. Thus, the monk furnished ‘the type of patriot that created, in addition to what was literally his fatherland, another, but one equally alive and solid’.79 76 Salpinx, 8–5–1912. 77 On the content and evolution of  the notion of  the ‘fatherland’, see E. Hobsbawm, Nations and nationalism since 1780, pp. 14–17. 78 Salpinx, 24–5–1912. 79 Salpinx, 26–5–1912.

200

Chapter 5

It is evident that the columnist considered the fatherland of  the Greeks, both geographically and politically, to be the Empire. At the same time, however, he had the awareness that the Greeks of  the Empire were part of a broader ‘imagined’ community, that of  the Greek nation. For example, the Laϊkos Agon, on the occasion of  the 1912 elections, supported that as Greeks they had to see after ‘the interests of  their common fatherland [the Ottoman Empire], their nation [the Greek nation] and their special fatherland [Mytilene]’.80 Thus, the ‘triangle’ of  Ottoman Empire, Greek nation and Mytilene was the main concern of the representatives of  the local press. Essentially, the three elements were considered by the press to be intertwined, since it was their conviction that the Greek element of  Mytilene constituted a substantial and vital part of  the Empire. In February 1910, the editor-in-chief of  the Salpinx maintained that ‘the Ottoman Empire of  today rests on dual foundations: On the one hand on the Ottoman element, which possesses military and political power, on the other on the Greek one, which through its trade, schools and churches represents the whole of  the living civilization of  the Empire’.81 It is not by chance that ‘Anatolia’ is characterized as the ‘birthplace’ and ‘natural home’ of  the Greek nation.82 Their homeland was their ‘sweet mother’, since they were its native inhabitants and had been living there for thousands of years.83 Thus, there was a pervasive belief in the local press that the Ottoman Empire belonged more to the Greeks than to the Turks or to the other ethnic groups. It was underscored that the Greeks were the ‘most ancient residents’ of  the land, in which they had co-habited over the last five centuries with their new masters, by dint of might, the conquering Turks.84 They constituted the ‘race’ from which ‘the Turks took over the state’ and for this reason had rights that had to be respected.85 In other words, the press was not simply of  the view that the Greeks of  the Empire belonged to 80 81 82 83 84 85

Laϊkos Agon, no 15, 18–3–1912. Salpinx, no 143, 18–2–1910. Salpinx, no 75, 8–9–1909. Salpinx, no 202, 10–7–1910. Salpinx, no 4, 22–3–1909. Salpinx, no 126, 9–1–1910.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

201

Anatolia; essentially, they believed that Anatolia belonged to the Greeks. An article of  the Salpinx, which conveyed the ‘wise speeches of  the elderly Patriarch’ Ioakeim III, maintained that it was vitally important that they remained in the Empire, where they had been born, by ‘Divine Providence’. The removal of  the Greek ‘nation’ from the East was tantamount to its disappearance.86 The weakening of  Ioakeim’s congregation would have had as its consequence a further lessening and jarring of  his own power. In the main, however, what is noteworthy mentioning is that the Salpinx espoused the view of  the Patriarch that considered the ‘national’ existence of  the Greeks outside the Kingdom unbreakably linked to their remaining within the Empire. It emphasized that the ‘wise speeches of  the elderly Patriarch constitute ‘the only national programme, which all compatriots [i.e. Greeks] of  Turkey are obliged to follow’. In fact, the representatives of  the Mytilenean press saw the future of  their special homeland and of  the other Greek communities as being dependent upon the future of  the Empire; however, this did not necessarily mean that, at the same time, they were unaware of  the existence of common bonds with the Greek state. As concerned news originating from the Greek state, references in the local press were quite limited until July 1909. The same could also be supported concerning the references to the Greek state made in the works of  local scholars of  the period. This fact shows how they, the Greeks of  the Empire, knew that they were following a dif ferent course to that of  their compatriots within the Greek state. The significant economic, social and political problems that the Greeks of  the Greek Kingdom were facing up to the first decade of  the twentieth century understandably did not make their position particularly enviable in the eyes of  the Mytileneans, especially when compared with their own economic, cultural and social development under the Tanzimat.87

86 Salpinx, no 303, 8–3–1911. 87 See M. Mandamadiotou, ‘Ιδεολογικοί προσανατολισμοί και πολιτικά προτάγματα στη Λέσβο του 19ου αιώνα’.

202

Chapter 5

For this reason as well, the irredentist dreams that politicians in the Greek state had spoken of during the nineteenth century did not appear to particularly touch the locals. It is indicative that the non-participation of  Lesbos in the Greek Revolution of 1821 was described in 1850 by Stavrakis Anagnostis as a ‘proper act’ that saved residents from a pointless sacrifice and spared the area from many inf lictions.88 Even in 1911, when conditions in the Empire had changed, the local scholar and teacher Emmanouil Mouchtouris continued to support that ‘during the Greek Revolution, the island acting well remained quiet’.89 Even references to the Greek Kingdom were almost absent in the works of  local scholars, since, in their eyes, the product of  the Revolution, the independent Greek state, not only could not be conceived as a “model”, but on many occasions aroused pity.90 This trend, of course, diminished over time, especially during the last two decades of  the nineteenth century and onwards, but without the political fate of  Lesbos ever being combined with the imperatives of  the Greek Kingdom. However, as far as the local press was concerned, the scene changed radically from August 1909 onwards. It appears that the of ficers’ movement at Goudi in Athens created the hope that political life would be ‘rehabilitated’ and that there would be a more general recovery of  the Greek state. Thus, there was an evident increase in the number of related articles, with bitterness and discontent no longer being expressed in these over the situation in the Greek state, but rather an enthusiasm being shown concerning the movement. In fact, common points were identified with the military revolution of  the Young Turks which, as they noted, had changed the political landscape; the confidence was being expressed that finally Greece too would be reformed politically and strengthened, as had been occurring in the Empire since 1908. At the same time, the Salpinx emphasized that the military reorganization that the Greek of ficers were professing and seeking should not be of any concern to the Empire; in contrast, it should gladden them, as in the case of an alliance between Greece and the Empire, which 88 S. Anagnostis, Λεσβιάς ωδή, pp. 51–2. 89 E. Mouchtouris, Ιστορία και τοπογραφία της νήσου Λέσβου (Smyrna, 1911), p. 25. 90 M. Mandamadiotou, ‘Ιδεολογικοί προσανατολισμοί και πολιτικά προτάγματα στη Λέσβο του 19ου αιώνα’, pp. 54–5.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

203

they desired, the latter would acquire a strong ally in the area. Thus, the two states, with their forces replenished, would be able to achieve their aims in the East. The paper went on to describe the inhabitants of  the Greek state as ‘brothers in language, in blood, in religion’ and expressed ‘natural love’ for them, to whom they were connected through common ‘racial, linguistic and religious bonds’.91 The fact that the Greek state was pursuing a course of development caused satisfaction among the Greeks of  the Empire. In addition, the moderate policy that the Greek governments had been pursuing concerning the Empire, at least until the spring of 1912, strengthened their hopes that the Greek element would peacefully prevail in the East. They deemed that only if  the two states joined forces would they be able to defend their common interests, ‘defusing’ the Slavs and any harmful intervention by the Great Powers. Thus, any news that could possibly have reinforced the friendly bonds between the Empire and the Greek state was promoted by the press with special emphasis.92 Also within the framework of  this attempt, every time that the Empire faced political problems with other states, references were made to the supportive stance of  Greece. Thus, the Salpinx noted that from July 1908 onwards Greece had been the ‘sincerest friend of  Turkey’. When, in the autumn of 1908, Austria and Bulgaria attempted to benefit from the political disarray in Empire by detaching territories, Greece ‘not only maintained an extremely friendly and sympathetic stance towards the new regime, but also, in practice, proved that it desired and wished to find itself in cordial relations with the Turks’.93 The Young Turks, however, as the Salpinx argued, did not show the least recognition of  this friendly stance on the part of  Greece, and fended of f every one of its attempts at closer relations.94 Using the Cretan Question as an excuse, they hurled abuse and threats of war against Greece, the latter enduring insults and humiliations Salpinx, no 96, 27–10–1909 and no 183, 27–5–1910. For the attribution of  family terms to ‘cultural or national bonds’, see V. Kechriotis, ‘Greek-Orthodox, Ottoman Greeks or just Greeks?’, pp. 10–11. 92 Indicatively, see Salpinx, 23–4–1909. 93 Salpinx, no 28, 19–5–1909. 94 Salpinx, no 29, 21–5–1909. 91

204

Chapter 5

‘patiently, confessing its weakness’ and avoiding ‘every friction and pretext for misunderstanding’.95 It was argued that, if  the Young Turks had behaved in a friendly manner towards the Greeks, then many ills would have been avoided, mainly for their fatherland, the Empire. The Salpinx greeted the emergence of Ε. Venizelos onto the political scene of  the Greek state in March 1910 with particular enthusiasm, mainly because it provided the hope for a substantial improvement in relations with the Empire: The people living in Greece and the East comprise one family. When one of its members is suf fering, the others commiserate morally and materially. The ‘rehabilitation’ of  Greece reinforces the East and clears from within any hint of irregular movement of  forces that would disturb the desired and precious peace. Thus, let us all elatedly greet yesterday’s event [the assumption of  the premiership by Venizelos] and let us make a wish for the peaceful progress of our neighbour and brotherly country.96

The moderate and appeasing policy that Venizelos would go on to pursue absolutely matched the desire of  the Salpinx for a closer relationship and alliance between Greece and the Empire. The Laϊkos Agon also emphasized the friendly stance of  Venizelos’ Greece towards the Empire. In its first issue, in December 1911, it recognized that the political situation was ‘truly deplorable and awful for our land the common aim of everybody’, with the Turko-Italian War continuing, the Macedonian and Cretan questions creating problems for the Empire, and with the Great Powers, particularly Russia and Britain, trying to benefit, promoting their own interests in the area. Within this truly hostile environment, it stressed that ‘only the Greek Kingdom – at present, at least – appears to be maintaining virtuous relations with us’. As it noted, Venizelos attempted in every way to prevent the dispatch of plenipotentiaries from Crete to the Greek Parliament, in order to avoid the possibility of  the entanglement of  Greece as well in the war with Turkey, which would have worsened the position of  the Empire even more.97 95 Indicatively, see Salpinx, no 53, 16–7–1909. 96 Salpinx, no 154, 18–3–1910. 97 Agon, no 1, 4–12–1911.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

205

Owing to the ‘prudent’ policy that Venizelos had been pursuing, his re-election as prime minister of  Greece in March 1912 was promoted as an especially auspicious event, both for Greece and the Empire. At the same time, it was maintained that Venizelos was a fresh figure who had managed to remain far from the corrupt political environment of  the past and had imposed a state of  law, substantially improving the political situation in Greece. For this reason, it was argued, his case should have also constituted an example for the creation ‘of a new Turkey’. Specifically, the Laϊkos Agon deemed that in order for a real political reconstruction to come about within the Empire, a turn towards liberalism had to take place through the emergence of new political figures, foreign to the old administration and ignorant of  the stratagems of  the absolutist regime. It hoped, then, that ‘the God of  Turkey quickly reveals for the country its own Venizelos, its Messiah’.98 The Salpinx expressed the same wish as well; that is, that the Empire, ‘for the good of all of  the races that comprise it’, was led ‘by a man like Venizelos, who is suitable for the crucial situations of  today and competent to direct, with a safe hand, the ship of  the dear but unlucky fatherland’.99 Consequently, the local press maintained that, on the part of  the Greek state and the Greeks of  the Empire, there were no obstacles to a closer approach and cooperation with the Young Turks. Of course, there continued to be ‘family’ discords between the Greeks and Turks, for which the responsibility lay exclusively with ‘the Turk chauvinists’. ‘We Greeks’, the Salpinx claimed, ‘comprehend our common interest and extend a hand of  friendship to the Turks, and have always maintained the same stance as that during the July 1908 period – one not only friendly but completely brotherly, supporting the Turks as though we were doing it for ourselves’. However, as it stressed, the CUP systematically promoted an uncompromising policy towards the Greek element, both within and outside of  the Empire:

98 Laϊkos Agon, no 15, 18–3–1912. 99 Salpinx, 22–3–1912.

206

Chapter 5 The Turks unfortunately have not yet comprehended that we are their most honest friend; that we cherish this land even more so than they do; that we consider any defeat of  Turkey by the Bulgarians a national disaster; and, that we alone and even with our blood will reinforce Turkey against the brash provocations of  the boy scouts of  Slavic interests.100 People living together and knowing each other well for five centuries and more, have an absolute duty to settle the dif ferences between them through mutual concessions and to constitute a single body, a single force, an incontestable force, a force capable of quashing every action by common enemies.101

Reasons of a long co-habitation and common devotion to the land that both considered to be their fatherland connected the Greeks with the Turks. In fact, it was stressed that divine will had connected them with a joint fate: Τhe fate of  the Christian people of  the fatherland has been connected for 450 years – but through divine will – with the fate and existence of  the Turkish race in Europe and Asia Minor; the supreme interests are common and happiness or misfortune have a direct repercussion on the condition of  the Greek race in Turkey.102

Mainly, however, the friendship and cooperation with the Greek element inside of and beyond the Empire had been imposed by the need to confront their common enemies, the Slavs. Just as the Salpinx had emphatically stated in its first issues in 1909, the Laϊkos Agon reiterated some three years later, almost verbatim, that the ‘Greeks and Muslims’ were ‘natural allies’, since they were linked by common interests and had to face the same enemies, the Slavs.103 It was maintained that the Bulgarians, through the consolidation of  the Exarchate in September 1908, had driven the Empire to humiliation, and, at the same time, had given ‘all of  Europe and especially Anatolia and its people a resounding slap on the face’. The worst thing, however, was that the Bulgarians, the ‘boy scouts of  Slavic interests’, had wished to occupy the whole of  Macedonia, which, as was stressed, belonged to the Greeks, ‘the natives in these lands’, and to their present possessors, the Turks, who had 100 101 102 103

Salpinx, no 22, 5–5–1909. Salpinx, no 28, 19–5–1909. Salpinx, no 218, 17–8–1910. Salpinx, no 3, 20–3–1909 and Agon, no 1, 4–12–1911.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

207

come to these areas as conquerors. The Salpinx noted that ‘any progress by Bulgaria meant progress for Pan-Slavism, meant the descent of  Russia towards the territories of our fathers’.104 The Bulgarians, ‘unscrupulous’ as they were, used every means for the realization of  their expansionist designs. Whenever they could not put their military strength into action, they mobilized means of propaganda, ‘audaciously’ playing ‘the role of  the liberator of  Macedonian populations’.105 In ‘long-suf fering’ Macedonia, the ‘fatherland of  Alexander, the blond-manned demigod of  Macedonian Hellenism’, the ‘fatherland of  Aristotle’, ‘rivers of  blood of our Race were being spilt, caused by the untamed beasts that Sofia armed and sent’ with the sole aim of  ‘eradicating Hellenism, destroying its luminous hearths, schools and temples’.106 It sarcastically noted that ‘civilised and democratic Bulgaria’ was responsible for murders and slaughters, encroachments and the torching of  Greek temples and schools.107 The Bulgarians were described as ‘the nocturnal murderers of  Sofia […], arsonists, criminals and robbers’.108 The myopic policy of  the Turkish chauvinists, who erroneously considered the Greeks enemies of  the Empire and not the Bulgarians, facilitated the plans of  the latter. These chauvinists, it was underscored, ‘implementing the Machiavellian divide et impera forty years earlier, had been working towards the annihilation of  the age-long rights of  the Orthodox Church and the destruction of our Nation’. However, in attempting to assail the Greeks essentially through the establishment of  the Bulgarian Exarchate, the painful results weighed heavily mainly upon the Empire.109 The Salpinx deemed that only through sincere cooperation between Turks and Greeks could ‘an insurmountable barrier be placed before the descent of  the Bulgarian hordes’.110 ‘How happy would the whole of near Anatolia be’, it stressed,

104 105 106 107 108 109 110

Salpinx, no 22, 5–5–1909. Salpinx, no 2, 18–3–1909, no 22, 5–5–1909 and no 30, 23–5–1909. Salpinx, no 2, 18–3–1909. Salpinx, no 6, 27–3–1909 and no 22, 5–5–1909. Salpinx, no 16, 21–4–1909. Salpinx, no 29, 21–5–1909. Salpinx, no 3, 20–3–1909, no 29, 21–5–1909 and no 50, 9–7–1909.

208

Chapter 5 if  Turkey and Greece were amicably linked and supported their common interests, jointly inserting an obstacle against the southerly descent of  the Slavic torrent. Constantinople and Athens walking side-by-side, implementing a joint programme and combatting common historical enemies, which would establish us as sole masters of  the East, as well as the most important agent in international policy.

And it added: ‘The true friends of  Anatolia advise the Turks and the Greeks to band together, to come to a cordial understanding to their common interest, towards their common prosperity’. If  they continued this way, they would become, without realizing it, ‘helots of a newly-created Tsarist crown. […] Turks and Greeks will only be saved by settling their dif ferences amicably, becoming unbreakably linked’.111 If  this particular collaborative ef fort were not realized, then ‘let us all prepare’, the Salpinx emphasized, ‘Turks and Greeks, to relinquish our fatherland to that force which pledged its plan to our extermination’.112 ‘We Greeks’, the paper declared, ‘are willing through even our blood too to save our dear fatherland from abominable foreign enemies and to heroically square our shoulders with those of  the Turks in favour of  their supremacy’. However, under no circumstances ‘are we disposed to lose our national identity’: ‘It is not possible for Greeks to be anything else but only Greeks: Greeks in conviction and in soul, with traditions and desires, but at the same time warm supporters of Turkish rule in the [Balkan] Peninsula, friends of  the Turkish people’. Consequently, it called upon the Young Turks ‘to disavow their chimerical and dangerous programme of  forming the national and moral unity of  Turkey through the amalgamation of non-Turkish people and the abolition of  their educational and religious privileges’. The only thing that they had the right to demand of  the Greeks was their loyalty to the new regime and to the preservation of  the territorial integrity of  the Empire – nothing more beyond this, however.113 Consequently, closer relations between Greece and the Empire were suggested as the sole solution for the ef fective confrontation of  their common enemy, the Bulgarians. Essentially, Greek-Turkish coop-

111 Salpinx, no 28, 19–5–1909. 112 Salpinx, no 126, 9–1–1910. 113 Salpinx, no 3, 20–3–1909 and 22–3–1909.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

209

eration was the proposal that the local press espoused right up to the last days of  Ottoman rule. Such a stance not only facilitated the major aim of  the Greeks of  the East for their peaceful prevalence in the area but it was also attuned to the of ficial policy that the Greek state pursued, at least until the spring of 1912.

Obstacles to the realization of  the ‘grand peaceful dream’ Cooperation between Greeks and Turks was put forward by the local press as the panacea to the political problems of  the Empire. However, the Cretan Question constituted an important obstacle to the realization of  this cooperation. Crete was one of  the most poorly administered provinces of  the Empire, and this was the main reason for the wealth of uprisings that had been carried out by the Christians from the 1850s onwards demanding reforms and/or enosis with the Greek state. In the event, by the end of 1898 the island had come to constitute an autonomous political entity, the Kritiki Politeia, though still under the Sultan’s sovereignty, while subsequent demands for enosis had met with the unbending refusal of  the Young Turks and the unwillingness of  the Great Powers. As for the Greek state, weak as it was militarily and economically following the defeat of 1897, it could not support the demand of  the Christian Cretans in a dynamic way.114 From 1910 and until the spring of 1912, as has already been noted above, Venizelos maintained an inactive and moderate stance 114 See G. Yianoulopoulos, ‘Η ευγενής μας τύφλωσις…’. Εξωτερική πολιτική και ‘εθνικά θέματα’ από την ήττα του 1897 έως τη Μικρασιατική καταστροφή, pp. 132f f ; K. KalliatakiMertikopoulou, Ελληνικός αλυτρωτισμός και οθωμανικές μεταρρυθμίσεις. Η περίπτωση της Κρήτης, 1868–1877; Ε. Driault, Το Ανατολικό ζήτημα από τις αρχές του έως τη συνθήκη των Σεβρών, vol. III, pp. 219f f ; R. Holland, ‘Nationalism, ethnicity and the concert of  Europe: The case of  the high commissionership of  Prince George of  Greece in Crete, 1898–1906’, Journal of  Modern Greek Studies 17 (1999); R. Holland & D. Markides, The British and the Hellenes, pp. 81f f.

210

Chapter 5

towards Turkey on all outstanding issues, trying to avoid tensions that could prove catastrophic to Greek interests. He had taken charge of  the Cretan Question himself – not to resolve it, but so as not to allow it to erupt prematurely, at a moment when Greece was not yet ready to pit itself against Turkey militarily. Furthermore, there was the general belief  that a solution to the Cretan Question would come in time, as a consequence of  the next crisis in the Eastern Question.115 Within the Empire, this particular question did not concern only the Christian Cretans, but also all Ottoman Greeks after the Young Turks had hardened their stance. The appearance of a plethora of articles in the press of  Mytilene constitutes an indication of a pervasive concern for the outcome of  the Cretan Question. The Salpinx viewed the struggle of  the Cretans with sympathy and discreetly supported their demand. It deemed that the Great Powers had determined the existing regime in Crete and had pledged to resolve the question according to the will of  the ‘sovereign’ Cretan people. The island had been governed for a decade by a Greek high commissioner and had been placed under the supervision of  the Great Powers. Consequently, the newspaper emphasized that ‘Europe had already detached Crete from the Empire decades before, and Greece is not responsible if  Europe does not mean for Crete to revert to the Empire’.116 Essentially, by placing the resolution of  the question within the competence of  the Great Powers, the Salpinx attempted to dissociate the Greek state and the Greeks of  the Empire from the demands of  the Christian Cretans. Such an attempt is understandable at a time when, in periods of  tension concerning the Cretan Question, the Young Turks were coming out with threats of a declaration of war against the Greek state and taking revenge – usually of an economic nature (boycott) – against the Greeks of  the Empire.117 In July 1909, the Salpinx considered it irrational that the Young Turks were reproaching the Greeks of  the Empire because 270,000

115 See G. Ventiris, Η Ελλάς του 1910–1920, vol. I, pp. 98–9 and E. Gardika-Katsiadaki, ‘Βενιζέλος και υπουργείο Εξωτερικών: Σύγκρουση ή συνεργασία;’, p. 267. 116 Salpinx, no 28, 21–5–1909. 117 Salpinx, no 27, 16–5–1909.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

211

of  their ‘compatriots’ in Crete – with the agreed opinion of  Europe as well – did not wish to be citizens of  Turkey. It argued that it was neither just nor logical for all of  the Greeks of  the Empire to be labelled ‘enemies of  Turkey’ and to be considered responsible for the choices made by the Christian Cretans.118 As the articles published in the Salpinx show, in June and July 1910 some zealous armed Muslims in the villages of  Petra and Molyvos were mobilized by Ahmet Efendi, an employee in the Dette Publique of  Molyvos, and attempted to implement a blockade on vessels with Greek f lags and on those f lying an Ottoman f lag but belonging to Greeks.119 The incidents that were caused were described as ‘anti-patriotic’, since they essentially harmed the economy of  the island and that of  the Ottoman state more generally. Specifically, the Salpinx wrote of a boycott that was ‘sui generis, the truth being that we Ottomans are the ones being harmed, instead of  the inhabitants of  the Greek state being harmed’.120 In addition, the attempt to impose the boycott in Lesbos was also criticized by the local Muslim authorities. At the same time, according to an order issued on 16 June by Constantinople to the customs house of  Mytilene, no obstacle was to be placed concerning the clearance of goods, whatever their place of origin.121 Thus, it is likely that in this case, one had to do with isolated incidents, rather than the imposition of a boycott. The events noted above did not assume any particular dimension, nor did they last more than two months. Moreover, from the summer of 1910 onwards, no mention was made in the local press of any commercial blockade being imposed upon Lesbos. As corroborated by an unpublished report, which was likely written up during the first few months of 1912 by a consular employee,

118 Salpinx, no 52, 14–7–1909. 119 Salpinx, 1–6–1910; also, see AGYM 99C, Simantiris to the Consul of  France in Smyrna, 14–6–1910, and AGYM 100F, Simantiris to the Consul of  France in Smyrna, 9–7–1910. 120 Salpinx, 3–6–1910 and 5–6–1910. 121 Salpinx, 5–6–1910 and 15–6–1910.

212

Chapter 5 the commercial blockade imposed by Turkey everywhere upon Greek steamships and products, did not at all af fect trade in Mytilene, as no blockade occurred here. This is owing to the fact that both trade and port activities are in the hands of  the Greeks, and although Committee representatives of ficially did not wish to impose the blockade, unof ficially their views were not taken into account.122

What appears to have concerned the Salpinx most intensely was the fact that the Cretan Question was creating problems in Greek-Turkish relations and hindering the promotion of desired Greek-Turkish cooperation. In order that this particular obstacle be overcome, it placed especial emphasis upon the impeccable political stance of  Greece towards the Empire, noting that the interests of  the Empire dictated that there be a warm friendship and collaboration with Greece. It observed that ‘the neighbouring little Kingdom’ had maintained a ‘tolerant stance’, had sought to avoid ‘frictions and occasions for misunderstanding’, and yet had been the ‘recipient of insults and humiliations’.123 Moreover, in the past, whenever the Empire had found itself  facing the predatory dispositions of  Austria and Bulgaria, it was Greece that had advised Cretan people to be calm, in order that no additional problems be created. It emphasized how European diplomacy – and several Turkish politicians as well – had admitted that Greece’s stance on the Cretan Question had been and continued to be ‘impeccable’. In contrast, those ruling the Empire, knowing the military weakness of  Greece and the wider internal problems it was facing, threatened it with a declaration of war at every opportunity. The Salpinx deemed that a group of chauvinists was responsible for the threats of war, as well as for the wider abuse hurled at the Greek element. These chauvinists were obliged to finally comprehend that ‘Turkey had an absolute need for quiet and peace, in order that the regime be consolidated and that progress come about’. The continuous broaching of issues on the part of chauvinists did not render them ‘true friends of  Turkey or genuine of fspring of  the fatherland’.124 It did, however, express the hope that ‘the truly constitutional Turks will 122 Anonymous, ‘Η Λέσβος υπό εμπορικήν, βιομηχανικήν και γεωργικήν έποψιν’, unpublished and undated report, personal collection. 123 Salpinx, no 53, 16–7–1909. 124 Salpinx, no 27, 16–5–1909 and 27–5–1909.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

213

assert their authority over the military element, which wishes to drag the State into a lamentable adventure’.125 News that made reference to attempts undertaken by the Great Powers to achieve a permanent settlement of  the Cretan Question seems to have brought about especial satisfaction for the Salpinx. In regards to one such attempt that occurred in the summer of 1909, the newspaper noted with relief  that ‘the clamour, the rumours and the concerns unsettling the East’ would now cease, and how, fortunately, a question that provoked the ‘suspiciousness of  Turkey towards Greece’ would disappear. As it observed, the existence of a constitutional regime provided the opportunity for ‘the valuable Greek-Turkish understanding to be attained, provided that every­ one loving Turkey would work towards it’.126 Despite all of  this, the Cretan Question would remain in abeyance for quite some time yet to the regret of  the editors of  the Salpinx. Every time negotiations came to an impasse, the Salpinx emphasized the dif ficulties that European diplomacy faced in its attempt to find a resolution. Essentially, it had to reconcile the irreconcilable, since ‘it has Turkey demanding the preservation of its sovereignty over the island; and, it has the Cretan people demanding – under the threat of their eradication – the realization of  their desires and the promises of  Europe’. Yet, according to the paper, some of  the Great Powers, in particular Austria and Germany, were hindering the resolution of  the question. It viewed their behaviour with a substantial dose of  bitterness and exasperation, and wondered how Austria would dare tell the Cretan people to accept a solution contrary to their desires, while ‘it, for no reason, swallowed up the whole of  Bosnia and Herzegovina’; and how Germany, which prodded its ally Austria into taking this action, ‘will express an opinion overturning the will of an entire people’.127 It is evident that Salpinx wished that the question be resolved by the Great Powers and as noiselessly as possible, in order that the calm in the East not be disturbed.

125 Salpinx, no 63, 8–8–1909. 126 Salpinx, no 39, 13–6–1909, no 41, 18–6–1909 and no 47, 2–7–1909. 127 Salpinx, no 60, 1–8–1909.

214

Chapter 5

By contrast, the Laϊkos Agon recognized the right of every ethnic group, when oppressed, to wish to be integrated into the state belonging to its compatriots. Thus, it maintained that ‘like the Cretans as Greeks have the right to ask for union with Greece, so do the Turko-Cretans, as Turks, have the right to react to that union’.128 It argued that the opposing desires of  the Greeks and Turks in Crete could definitely be resolved ‘if  European interests did not get in the middle’.129 It deemed that the Great Powers were purposely delaying resolving the Cretan Question, taking advantage of  the desires of  ‘the agonizing people, the Cretans, the Greeks and the Turks’. The cause of  this stonewalling was the rivalry amongst them over who would prevail and manage to more ef fectively promote its own economic and political interests in the area. It emphasized that their strategy was to cultivate hopes in every direction in order to create in people the need to arm. ‘Crete and Greece were arming themselves in order to assert, through weapons as well, the fulfilment of  their desires and the Empire was doing so as to defend its territories’. Loans upon loans with high rates of interest were contracted, leading to economic dependence upon the Great Powers. In addition, it was maintained that ‘anxiety and daily conscription certainly hindered Greece and Turkey from attending to more substantial issues, such as progress and their economic development’. Unfortunately, as was stressed, the political leaders of  the two states were jointly responsible, along with the Great Powers, for the situation as they had failed to come to a ‘benevolent understanding, through which the desires of one side would be fulfilled as much as possible without insulting the prestige and pride of  the other side’. Instead, in the midst of political upheaval and armaments outlays, ‘various slickers [had] made their biggest “pinches”’.130 At the same time, it admonished the murders of  Muslims on Crete carried out by some of  their Christian compatriots, describing them a ‘crime against the fatherland, and also against humanity’.131 For the socialist-leaning paper, the solution would be provided by ‘the people, who have awakened and 128 129 130 131

Laϊkos Agon, no 13, 4–3–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 1, 11–12–1911. Laϊkos Agon, no 2, 18–12–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 13, 4–3–1912.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

215

are ever awakening and comprehending that all of  these issues are being created and kept at this acute point by a few tricksters, so as to shamefully take advantage of  them, so as to enjoy everything at the expense of  the people’. Any other solution, ‘even Union through imposition by Europe’, would be temporary and would always leave room ‘for the profiteering dispositions of  European diplomacy’.132 Yet, despite the evident dif ferences in the views that the two papers held and expressed on the issue, both desired an immediate resolution of  the Cretan Question in a manner that would neither burden Greek-Turkish relations nor serve as an excuse for the disruption of peace in the area. In other words, the Cretan Question was a ‘thorn’ hindering the explicit desire of  the local press to work for ‘New Turkey’ – a modern, multinational state, with the Turks, along with the Greeks of  the Empire, as protagonists. Notwithstanding the Cretan ‘thorn’, it was the bilateral agreements concluded between the Balkan states from spring 1912 onwards that caused concern to the local press. Directed against the ‘Ottoman fatherland’, these admittedly could (and indeed, would) hinder the realization of  the newspapers’ ‘grand peaceful dream’. The Salpinx’s response to Venizelos’ gradual abandonment of  the policy of  Greco-Turkish cooperation and Athens’ concomitant military alliance with Bulgaria was to blame the ‘unceasing intransigence’ of  the Young Turks towards both the Ottoman Greeks and the Greeks in general for what it described as a change of policy forced upon Athens.133 For its part, the Laϊkos Agon initially refrained from of fering any comments, merely citing a couple of articles from the European press on the on-going Greco-Bulgarian negotiations,134 before going on to refer to these as a ‘disposition towards understanding’ among the two states, and not the conclusion of an alliance, which, however, had already been concluded. In addition, like the Salpinx, it attributed to Bulgaria and not to Greece the attempt at ‘closer relations’, stressing that Venizelos had made everything possible in order that Greece and the Empire have friendly relations.135 132 133 134 135

Laϊkos Agon, no 2, 18–12–1911. Salpinx, 22–5–1912 and 24–5–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 20, 18–4–1912 and no 23, 25–4–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 27, 4–5–1912.

216

Chapter 5

It is clear that the local press appeared initially to have been taken aback by the alliance between Greece and Bulgaria, and then it attempted to downgrade the event, justifying Athens for its policy shift. At the same time, it continued to view the Slavs with suspiciousness and dislike, even following the conclusion of  the Greco-Bulgarian alliance.136 The Laϊkos Agon, with evident concern over the possible Slav prevalence in Macedonia, in early June 1912 published a ‘worthy to be read’ article from the Ottoman newspaper Hakk, in which it was emphasized that: ‘The absence of  Turkey from Macedonia heralds the destruction not only of  Greece but also of  the whole of  Hellenism. The powerful Slavic current descending from the North inevitably will assimilate the Greeks’.137 Fear of  Slavism was what made the Laϊkos Agon and hold for the formation of a ‘dyadic Greek-Turkish Kingdom’, deeming that the establishment of a ‘Balkan federation’ would have ‘no positive result’ and ‘would aim only at the settlement of af fairs in Macedonia’. In contrast, ‘a Greco-Turkish federation would permanently resolve the Eastern Question’.138 Thus, the Laϊkos Agon, dissociating itself  from the political choices of  the Greek government, continued to promote the establishment of a Greco-Turkish political entity, firmly supporting the vision of  the prevalence of  the Greek element within it. With the Balkan alliance already in place, the Laϊkos Agon stood firm on its vision of a Greco-Turkish political entity while calling for the unequivocal respect of  the rights of ethnic groups within the Empire. ‘The existence of various ethnic groups in the Empire sharing the same descent, the same language, the same religion, the same mores and customs as the inhabitants of neighbouring states, would always create a particular empathy on the part of each nation for its compatriots’, it maintained; but ‘if  the life of  the ethnic groups in Turkey were made to be the same as that of  their free compatriots, then the reason for the designs of certain nations against Turkey would itself  be eliminated’.139

136 137 138 139

Salpinx, 9–8–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 41, 6–6–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 35, 23–5–1912. Laϊkos Agon, no 42, 8–6–1912 and no 49, 24–6–1912.

Expectations, desires and fears of  the ‘true Greek Power’, 1909–1912

217

Later in the summer, the Laϊkos Agon noted that a war between the Balkan allies and the Empire would pitch members of  the ‘same family’ against each other.140 For its part, the Salpinx regretted that ‘by necessity today we see Greece comprising part of an anti-Turkish coalition’.141 And both newspapers continued to emphasize that an alliance between Greece and the Ottoman Empire was the only way forward. It was not to be. On 2 October, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia delivered a joint note to the Porte demanding the immediate implementation of reforms in the Empire’s European provinces. Of course, Ottoman agreement was not expected and war declarations from all sides followed during the next few days. By 18 October the First Balkan War was underway;142 and with it, that ‘grand peaceful dream’ was laid to rest.

Figure 7  Snapshot from the ceremony for the delivery of  Mytilene to the Greek authorities. 140 Laϊkos Agon, no 82, 11–9–1912. 141 Salpinx, 20–9–1912 and 22–9–1912. 142 B. Lewis, The emergence of modern Turkey, p. 224; S. Shaw & E. Shaw, History of  the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, pp. 293–4.

Epilogue

The modernization of  the Ottoman Empire inaugurated by the period of  the Tanzimat triggered important socio-economic developments in the Greek Orthodox community of  Mytilene and led to the emergence of  the local leading groups. Their members pursued important administrative, financial and entrepreneurial activities, undertook the foundation of associations and educational establishments and, later on, the publication of newspapers. This set of activities provides an image of a vibrant Greek Orthodox community in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, which was certainly not standing in the background waiting for ‘redemption’. In essence, despite the rivalries between the community’s secular authorities, the dimogerontes and the ephors on the one hand, and the Church on the other, a dynamic system of administering the af fairs of  the community was in place that functioned ef ficiently within the Ottoman context. Indeed, it is legitimate to argue that the community as a whole self-identified both with the Greek genos and the Ottoman fatherland. The former was attested, inter alia, by an educational curriculum that fostered the belief in the Greeks’ cultural superiority. At the same time, the latter is thrown into high relief when one considers not only that at the turn of  the century key posts in the island’s administration were held by local Christians but also that until 1908 the community’s grievances were principally tax-related – further evidence of  the fact that Ottoman rule over the island was far from repressive and stif ling.1 As in the case of other Greek Orthodox communities in the Empire,2 that of  Mytilene welcomed the restoration of  the Constitution in July 1908. The joint celebrations of  Christians and Muslims in the streets were not simply formal exercises; they were sincere expressions of collective 1 2

See chapt. I, pp. 36–7. See chapt. II, pp. 70–1.

220 Epilogue

relief  that perhaps the Young Turks could save the society in which they all might coexist. Furthermore, having f lourished under the ancien régime and its authoritarian restrictions, there was a widespread belief among the leading members of  the Christian community that the regime change could further enhance their vested financial interests and simultaneously their civic and political rights, now as Ottoman citizens rather than subjects. In this respect, the election of  two Greek Orthodox MPs for Lesbos constituted a turning point in more ways than one: On the one hand, it attested to full-blown participation in Ottoman political life; on the other, it brought the community face-to-face for the first time with the ‘demands’ of  that most modern of ideologies, nationalism, in the guise of  the Young Turks and the various Greek ‘national’ centres. In the years to come, the former would increasingly identify the survival of  the Empire with its Turkification,3 whereas the latter would strive to defend their people’s ‘inalienable’ rights and privileges. A by-product of  the latter phase of  the Tanzimat, a generation of professionals seized the opportunity provided by the new regime’s initial espousal of  freedom of  the press and brought out the first local newspapers. Prior to 1909, principally as lawyers and teachers, they had played an important role as agents of modernization by supporting the demoticist movement of mainland Greece, calling for educational reform at the local level, and espousing a critical social standpoint vis-à-vis the leading groups of  the island. Firmly believing that ‘when the press aims collectively at achieving a given goal, nothing can stand in its way, be it legislation, the government, ethics or philosophy’,4 they sought to enhance their role as agents of modernization by engaging in print journalism. As editors-in-chief and/or newspaper owners, they became the ‘voice’ of  the Greek Orthodox community, a role that neither the ‘traditional’ local poles of authority nor indeed the two MPs could – or wanted to – undertake.

3 4

S. Shaw & E. Shaw, History of  the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, p. 289 and R. Davison, Turkey, pp. 111f f. Laϊkos Agon, no 53, 4–7–1912.

Epilogue

221

From its appearance onwards, the Mytilenean press denounced the legislative changes and governmental practices of  the CUP that sought to ‘Turkify’ the Empire. Yet, both the Salpinx and to a lesser extent the Laϊkos Agon, given that its first issue appeared in late 1911 by which time things had taken a turn for the worse, had no qualms in noting that few of  these ‘unconstitutional’ and/or ‘chauvinistic’ practices impinged at the local level – not least because of  the benign attitude of  the local Muslim authorities.5 The only exception, with important ramifications for that, related to the implementation of  the law requiring Christians to perform military service. The harsh treatment that the first Lesbian conscripts were said to experience led many youths of  the island to immigrate. Lack of manpower pushed up wages, inf lation rose, while the island’s commerce and economy experienced further blows on account of  the Italo-Turkish war and the bankruptcy of  the Bank of  Mytilene in late 1911. These developments had a negative impact on the leading members of  the community, who witnessed a reversal in the economic and social advancement they had thus far enjoyed. Crucially, they also impacted upon the elections of spring 1912 as an overall decrease in the island’s population due to emigration, in conjunction with what the local press described as ‘machinations’ on the part of  the CUP, meant that Lesbos would elect only one MP. That aside, a greater shock for the community was the result of  the elections. Essentially, it was not the favourite of  the CPL and Vice-Consul Karatzas who was defeated in May 1912 but Greek egotism: the perceived social and cultural superiority of  the island’s Greeks over the island’s Muslims. The Greek electors had failed to take the most fundamental thing of all into account: that their Muslim counterpart would vote for ‘their own’ Savvas, who was also supported by a good number of  Greek electors, mainly from Molyvos. The unexpected result numbed the Greeks of  Mytilene and showed that, on the local level at least, they were unwilling to share their ascendancy with their Muslim compatriots. Although Savvas was a Greek, symbolically at least, during this election race he was the Muslims’ horse. And it was on Savvas that the CUP and the local Muslim element placed 5

Indicatively, see Agon, no 1, 4–12–1911 and Salpinx, 17–7–1912 and 22–5–1912.

222 Epilogue

its bets. Savvas’ success was the success of  the minority which now had ‘its own’ MP in Parliament, while four years earlier the island’s two elected MPs had exclusively represented the Greeks of  the island. The local press responded to this ‘shocking’ result by accelerating its condemnation of what it perceived as the ‘Turkification of the Empire’, and rallying around the cause of  Greek ‘privileges’. In fact, its fixation on the ‘natural rights of  the Greek ethnos’ constituted its take on the modernization of  the Ottoman state. As the Salpinx had been typically arguing since late 1909, ‘however and from wherever these so-called privileges are granted or recognized and af firmed, it is of primary importance to state that they are not privileges, grants or benefits, but national rights, life rights, which cannot exist or be understood without communities’.6 In parallel, it supported with obstinacy the ‘peaceful dream’ that ‘another Greece, the true Greek power’, would prevail in the Empire.7 The support of  this particular ‘dream’ was adequately justified by the economic and social profile of  the Greeks of  the Empire. In order to realize it, the Mytilenean journalists did not simply advocate Greco-Turkish cooperation, but, rather, the institutionalization of a regime of joint rule between Greeks and Turks. They proposed the implementation of a liberal system of governance along the lines of  the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in which the dif ferent ethnic groups coexisted and respected each other’s language, faith and traditions. In reality, however, they were less interested in the representative nature of  Hapsburg governance than in its two-headed power structure. This is why they used that Empire as their paradigm rather than a nation state: in the context of a Greco-Turkish Empire, they aspired first to co-rule alongside the Turks and ultimately, in all likelihood, to side-line the Turks. In other words, the Greeks of  Mytilene – unlike the Greek element of other island provinces of  the Empire, such as Crete and the Dodecanese – were reluctant to break with the Ottoman Empire. In essence, the local press linked the salvation of  the state to the implementation of a decentralized system that would provide special rights to

6 7

Salpinx, no 101, 7–11–1909 and no 199, 3–7–1910. Salpinx, no 143, 18–2–1910.

Epilogue

223

every ethnic group, though above all to the Greeks, who, it was argued, enjoyed ‘historical rights’ and were the ‘bearers of civilization to the East’.8 Its take on the political reorganization of  the Empire admittedly dif fered from that of  CUP. Yet, although mutually incompatible, these two views were essentially two sides of  the same coin. Having made inroads into the Empire, nationalism had made it dif ficult for the various ethnic groups to live together and had rendered the tenets of  Ottomanism untenable. In fact, the Young Turks failed to modernize the state, yet did initially maintain the hitherto peaceful coexistence among Christians and Muslims. The Mytilenean journalists, adopting the vocabulary and the ideology of  the nationalisms around them, developed a discourse which, comparable with that prevailing in Constantinople and Athens, also accentuated the Greek people’s rights in the Empire. However, in its Mytilenean manifestation, this discourse would remain non-irredentist, in the sense that no desire was expressed in the press or by any social group or individual to see the island detached from the Empire and incorporated into a dif ferent political entity. For this reason, the development of  this nationalist discourse was always linked with hopes for an improvement in the political situation and a consequent improvement in the position of  the Empire’s ethnic groups. In other words, although the local press continued to prioritize Greek ‘national rights’ until the First Balkan War, the geopolitical sphere in which these ‘rights’ could f lourish remained their Ottoman homeland, the Empire. That the editors of  the Salpinx should in late September 1912 have called upon their fellow Greeks to lay claim ‘to their rights by legal means’, if  they wished to remain in touch with the ‘progress of  Mankind’ and save ‘their national being’ from the threat of  ‘obscurity’ and ‘death’,9 is entirely typical. Even after the outbreak of  hostilities in October 1912, the Salpinx insisted on the establishment of a ‘dyadic Greco-Turkish Kingdom’, while the Laϊkos Agon alternatively asked for the formation of a ‘new, powerful Balkan power’ with the participation of  the Turks as well, lending a

8 9

Salpinx, no 306, 15–3–1911. Salpinx, 20–9–1912.

224 Epilogue

dif ferent substance to the slogan ‘The Balkans for the Balkan People’.10 For both newspapers such ‘proposals’ constituted a final attempt to settle the Eastern Question bloodlessly and without losses for the ‘true Greek power’, the Greek ethnos of  the Empire, at a time when Athens had undertaken alone the defence of  ‘Greek rights’. The dreams, desires, anxieties and fears expressed by the local press, the ‘voice of  the community’, converged in their gist with those of  the upper and middle social groups, who were more interested in advancing their multifarious activities across the expanse of  the Empire than in linking them with the prospect of union with Greece, as the island’s political, social and economic life was part and parcel of  the Ottoman system. The absence of a political and economic foothold in the Greek state provides another fundamental explanation why they did not disengage their political future from the Empire, even when they realized the Young Turks were systematically implementing measures contrary to their interests. The memoirs of  Panos Kourtzis, a leading figure in the local Greek haute bourgeoisie, which were written immediately after Mytilene’s incorporation into the Greek state, are imbued with a fin d’époque pessimism and display insecurity and uncertainty about what future might there be in in store as part of a nation state with which the local bourgeoisie had neither economic nor political ties. As it turned out, a historical reality that favoured the formation of nation states would belie their ambitions and reveal their goals to be unrealistic. Although the Greeks of  Mytilene presented their Greek national identity in updated terms and sought political modernization, they did not envision the political future of  their island within the impoverished geographical bounds of  the Greek state. Consequently, they greeted the end of  Ottoman rule in November 1912 with mixed feelings of joy and uneasiness. Greek historiography would pay scant attention in the years that followed to the ambitions Mytilene’s Greeks had nursed with regard to the Ottoman state until November 1912, and claim instead that they had spent four centuries waiting for the ‘Turkish yoke’ to be lifted of f  their 10

Salpinx, 11–10–1912 and 14–10–1912; Laϊkos Agon, no 97, 26–10–1912.

Epilogue

225

shoulders. In similar vein, it has hushed up the unwillingness of  Mytilene’s Muslim element to be integrated into the Greek state, and the active resistance it maintained against the Greek forces until December 1912.11 In this way, with the compliance of  the local elite of  the island, the history of  Ottoman Mytilene has been incorporated into an unequivocally Greek historical narrative. As has been pointed out, ‘Greeks, Albanians, Turks, Slavs, Roma and Bulgarians have been manipulated for years by the way in which their histories have been written’.12 In this light, it is important that there are recent historical work attempts a new approach to the local communities during the last years of  the Ottoman Empire, outside the framework imposed by post-Ottoman ethnocentric historiography.13

11

12 13

Indicatively, see Niki Eleftheriadi private archive, no 252, Greek Political Directorate to the Military Directorate in Mytilene, 11–12–1912. Also, see N. Vlachos, Ιστορία των κρατών της χερσονήσου του Αίμου, 1908–1914, vol. I (Athens: Organismos Ekdoseon Scholikon Vivlion, 1954), pp. 497–8. I. Blumi, Reinstating the Ottomans. Alternative Balkan modernities, 1800–1912, p. 189. See prologue, pp. 12–13.

Primary Sources

I. Archives Anagnostou private collection, Mytilene: Grimanis collection (private letters and documents of  the dimogerontia in Agia Paraskevi); Karatzas collection (private letters); Vivlion Praktikon Eforias 1872–1898. Anonymous, ‘Η Λέσβος υπό εμπορικήν, βιομηχανικήν και γεωργικήν έποψιν’: unpublished and undated report, personal collection. Archeio Gallikou Ypoproxeneiou Mytilinis (Archive of  French Vice-Consulate in Myti­ lene; AGYM) Mytilene. Archive of  the Board of  Educational and Charitable Establishments of  Mytilene (ABECE), Mytilene. Eleftheriadi private collection, Athens: documents of  the Greek Political Directorate in Mytilene, December 1912. Ergani Archive, Mytilene: Manuscript of  P. Kourtzis’ ‘Memoirs’ (Kourtzis N.d.). Istoriko Archeio Ypourgeiou Exoterikon (Historical Archive of  the Greek Ministry of  Foreign Af fairs; IAYE) Athens. Metropolitan Codes of  Mytilene (MCM) Mytilene.

II. Newspapers Amalthia (Smyrna, July–December 1908) Laïkos Agon (Mytilene, 1911–1912) Lesvos (Mytilene, 1910–1912) Mytilinios (Mytilene, 1909–1912) Salpinx (Mytilene, 1909–1912) Skorpios (Mytilene, 1910–1911)

228

III. Periodicals Charavgi (Mytilene, 1910–1912) Ekklisiastiki Alithia (Constantinople, 1908–1912)

Primary Sources

Bibliography

Ahmad, Feroz, ‘Unionist Relations with the Greek, Armenian and Jewish Communities of  the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1914’, in B. Braude & B. Lewis, eds, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, vol. I (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1982), pp. 401–34. Alexandris, Alexis, ‘Οι Έλληνες στην υπηρεσία της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας 1850– 1922’, Deltion tis Istorikis kai Ethnologikis Etaireias tis Ellados XXIII (1980), 365–404. Anagnostis, Stavrakis, Λεσβιάς ωδή ή ιστορικόν εγκώμιον της νήσου Λέσβου (Mytilene: Petras, 2000 [1850]). Anagnostopoulou, Sia, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919. Οι ελληνορθόδοξες κοινότητες. Από το μιλλέτ των Ρωμιών στο ελληνικό έθνος (Athens: Ellinika Grammata, 1998). ——,‘ The “Nation” of  the Rum sings of its Sultan: The many faces of  Ottomanism’, in L.T. Baruh & V. Kechriotis, eds, Economy and Society on both Shores of  the Aegean (Athens: Alpha Bank, 2010), 79–105. Anagnostou, Stratis, ‘Αθλητικές δραστηριότητες στη Λέσβο στα τελευταία χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας’, in Lesviako Imerologio 2001 (2001), 334–41. ——, Ο ελληνοτουρκικός πόλεμος του 1897 και ο αντίκτυπός του στη Λέσβο (Mytilene: Poreia, 1997). ——, ‘Λέσβος και απέναντι μικρασιατική ακτή. Ενιαίος γεωγραφικός χώρος ώς το 1922’, in P. Kitromilides & P. Michaїlaris (eds), Μυτιλήνη και Αϊβαλί. Μια αμφίδρομη σχέση στο βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο (Athens, E.I.E., 2007), 132–48. ——, ‘Λέσχες, αδελφότητες και λοιπά σωματεία του αλύτρωτου ελληνισμού ως φορείς της εθνικής συνείδησης. Η περίπτωση της Λέσβου’, in P. Voutouris & G. Georgis, eds, Ο ελληνισμός στον 19ο αιώνα. Ιδεολογικές και αισθητικές αναζητήσεις (Athens: Kastaniotis, 2006), 55–65. ——, ‘Η οικιστική εξέλιξη της Λέσβου (1462–1912). Η μετάβαση από την αγροτική συγκρότηση του χώρου στην αστική διάρθρωσή του’, PhD thesis, University of  the Aegean (Mytilene 2004). Anastasiadis, V. & S. Karavas (1996), ‘Προλεγόμενα’, in Michaïl Stefanidis, Χυμεία και Λέσβος (Mytilene: Panepistimio Aigaiou, 1996 [1909]), viii–xx. Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities. Ref lections on the Origin and Spread of  Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983).

230 Bibliography Anderson, Matthew, The Eastern Question, 1774–1923. A Study in International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1983). Anonymous [Anagnostou, Stavrakis], Κυδωνιακά ή οι νέοι των Κυδωνιών τριάκοντα τύραννοι (Malta: Irsfeld, 1842). Apostolakis, N., Κυδωνιακαί μελέται και παραλληλισμοί (Kydonies, 1914). Arai, Masami, Turkish Nationalism in the Young Turk Era (Leiden: Brill, 1992). Archontopoulos, Georgios, Λέσβος ή Μυτιλήνη ήτοι συνοπτική ιστορία πασών των πόλεων, κωμοπόλεων και χωρίων (Mytilene: Nikolaïdis, 1894). Argyris, Pantelis, ‘Η εξανάστασις των Φαυλοβίων’, Ta Istorika XVI/1 (1992), 49–64. ——, ‘Η Χαραυγή, ένα πρωτοποριακό περιοδικό της Μυτιλήνης’, Lesviaka X (1987), 19–40. ——, ‘Το Λειμωνιακό ζήτημα’, Lesviaka XII (1989): 24–55. ——, ‘Λέσβος: Από την κατάκτηση (1462) στη σύγχρονη εποχή’, in Λέσβος η Αιολική (Athens: Asterismos, 1995), 36–70. Argyropoulou, Roxani & Paschalis, Kitromilides, ‘Ο Διαφωτισμός στον χώρο της Αιολίδας’, in P. Kitromilides & P. Michaїlaris, eds, Μυτιλήνη και Αϊβαλί. Μια αμφίδρομη σχέση στο βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο (Athens: E.I.E., 2007), 59–74. Arikan, Zeki, ‘Namik Kemal, gouverneur de l’ile de Mytilene’, in P. Kitromilides & P. Michaїlaris, eds, Μυτιλήνη και Αϊβαλί. Μια αμφίδρομη σχέση στο βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο (Athens: E.I.E., 2007), 333–40. Aristarchi Bey [Grigorios], Législation ottomane (Constantinople: Nikolaïdis, 1874). Aristidis, Georgios, Βενιαμίν ο Λέσβιος ήτοι βίος αυτού (Athens: Proodos, 1880). ——, Τετραλογία πανηγυρική (Mytilene: Petras, 1999 [1863]). Augustinos, Gerasimos, The Greeks of  Asia Minor. Confession, Community and Ethnicity in the Nineteenth Century (Kent: Kent State University Press, 1992). Axelos, Loukas, ed., Γ. Σκληρού έργα (Athens: Stochastis, 1976). Blumi, Isa, Reinstating the Ottomans. Alternative Balkan Modernities, 1800–1912 (New York: Macmillan, 2011). ——, Rethinking the late Ottoman Empire. A Comparative Social and Political History of  Albania and Yemen, 1878–1918 (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2003). Boura, Catherine, ‘The Greek millet in Ottoman politics: Aspects of political relations between Greeks and Young Turks 1908–1912’, PhD thesis, King’s College (London, 2005). ——, ‘The Greek millet in Turkish politics: Greeks in the Ottoman Parliament (1908– 1918)’, in D. Gondicas & C. Issawi, eds, Ottoman Greeks in the Age of  Nationalism (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1999), 193–206. ——, ‘Οι βουλευτικές εκλογές στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία. Οι Έλληνες βουλευτές 1908–1918’, Deltio Kentrou Mikrasiatikon Spoudon IV (1983), 70–85.

Bibliography

231

Bournazos, Stratis, ‘Η εκπαίδευση στο ελληνικό κράτος’, in Ch. Chadziiosif, ed., Ιστορία της Ελλάδας του 20ού αιώνα. Οι απαρχές 1900–1922, vol. IIa (Athens: Vivliorama, 1999), 189–281. Bousios, Georgios, Το πολιτικόν πρόγραμμα του ελληνισμού εν Τουρκία (Constantinople, 1912). Braude, Benjamin & Bernard Lewis, eds, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, 2 vols (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1982). Carabott, Philip, ‘The Dodecanese Question 1912–1924’, PhD thesis, King’s College (London, 1991). Chadziiosif, Christos, ‘Η εξωστρέφεια της ελληνικής οικονομίας στις αρχές του 20ου αιώνα και οι συνέπειές της στην εξωτερική πολιτική’, in Η Ελλάδα των Βαλκανικών Πολέμων 1910–1914 (Athens: E.L.I.A., 1993), 143–60. ——, ‘Issues of management, control and sovereignty in transnational banking in the Eastern Mediterranean before the First World War’, in K. Kostis, ed., Modern Banking in the Balkans and West-European Capital in the 19th and 20th Centuries (Ashgate: Brookfield, 1999), 160–77. Chamoudopoulos, Αntonios, Ελληνισμός και Νεότουρκοι (Thessaloniki: Beros, 1926). ——, Η νεωτέρα Φιλική Εταιρεία (Athens: Tsaïlas, 1946). Christidou-Lionaraki, Sevasti, ‘Το οθωμανικό εκπαιδευτικό σύστημα και τα ελληνικά μειονοτικά σχολεία την εποχή του Τανζιμάτ 1839–1876’, Synchrona Themata 74–5 (2000), 148–56. Clayer, Nathalie, Οι απαρχές του αλβανικού εθνικισμού (Ioannina: Isnafi, 2009). Cof fman, Daniel, The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003). Dakin, Douglas, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897–1913 (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1966). Davison, Roderic, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–76 (New York: Gordian Press, 1973). ——, Turkey (New Jersey: Englewood Clif fs, 1968). Delis, Alfonsos, ‘Μεθόδιος Αρώνης και Κύριλλος Μουμτζής. Μητροπολίτες Μυτιλήνης (1867–1876 και 1893–1925)’, in Lesviako Imerologio 2001, 3–10. ——, ‘Μητροπολίτες Μυτιλήνης στα χρόνια της δουλείας 1708–1925. Από τον Νικόδημο Αϊναζή ως τον Κύριλλο Μουμτζή’, Aiolika Chronika VII (2005), 34–58. Delis, Giannis, Οι Γατελούζοι εν Λέσβω 1355–1462 (Mytilene: Entelecheia, 1997 [1901]). Deringil, Selim, The Well-Protected Domains. Ideology and the Legitimation of  Power in the Ottoman Empire 1876–1909 (London: I.B. Tauris, 1998). Dialla, A., Η Ρωσία απέναντι στα Βαλκάνια. Ιδεολογία και πολιτική στο δεύτερο μισό του 19ου αιώνα (Athens: Alexandreia, 2009). Dimaras, K.Th., Ελληνικός Ρωμαντισμός (Athens: Ermis, 1982).

232 Bibliography Dimos-Paroditis, Fotios, Ιστορία της τουρκοκρατούμενης Λέσβου 1462–1912, vol. I: 1462– 1770 (Mytilene: Tsivilis, 1931). ——, Ιστορία της τουρκοκρατούμενης Λέσβου 1462–1912, vol. III: 1826–1912 (Mytilene: Tsivilis, 1935). Dragoumis, Ion, Όσοι ζωντανοί (Athens: Nea Zoï, 1926). Drakos, Efstratios, Μικρασιανά ή γενική πραγματεία περί Εκατονήσων (Athens, 1895). ——, Μικρασιανά ή ιστορία των Μοσχονησίων υπό έποψιν εκκλησιαστικήν (Athens, 1895). Driault, Edouard, Το Ανατολικό Ζήτημα από τις αρχές του έως τη συνθήκη των Σεβρών, vol. I (Athens: Katoptro/Istoritis, 1997). ——, Το Ανατολικό Ζήτημα από τις αρχές του έως τη συνθήκη των Σεβρών, vol. IΙΙ (Athens: Katoptro/Istoritis, 2000). Droulia, Loukia & Gioula Koutsopanagou, eds, Εγκυκλοπαίδεια του ελληνικού Τύπου 1784–1974. Εφημερίδες, περιοδικά, δημοσιογράφοι, εκδότες, 4 vols (Athens: E.I.E., 2008). Dumont, Paul, ‘La période des Tanzimat (1839–1878)’, in R. Mantran, ed., Histoire de l’Empire Ottomane (Paris: Fayard, 1989), 459–522. Eldem, Edhem, ‘The Imperial Ottoman Bank in Mytilene’, in P. Kitromilides & P. Michaїlaris, eds, Μυτιλήνη και Αϊβαλί. Μια αμφίδρομη σχέση στο βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο (Athens: E.I.E., 2007), 261–86. Eleftheriadis, Mimis, ‘Ο τύπος και το πνεύμα στα χρόνια της σκλαβιάς’, Lesviaka VI (1973), 54–8. Emmanouilidis, Emmanouil, Τα τελευταία έτη της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας (Athens: Kallergis, 1924). Exertzoglou, Charis, ‘The development of a Greek Ottoman bourgeoisie: Investment patterns in the Ottoman Empire, 1850–1914’, in D. Gondicas & C. Issawi, eds, Ottoman Greeks in the Age of  Nationalism: Politics, Economy and Society in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1999), 89–114. ——, ‘Shifting boundaries: Language, community and the “non-Greek-speaking Greeks”’, Historein I (1999), 75–92. ——, Εθνική ταυτότητα στην Κωνσταντινούπολη τον 19ο αι. Ο Ελληνικός Φιλολογικός Σύλλογος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως 1861–1912 (Athens: Nefeli, 1996). ——, ‘Το προνομιακό ζήτημα’, Ta Istorika IX (1992), 65–84. ——, Προσαρμοστικότητα και πολιτική ομογενειακών κεφαλαίων. Έλληνες τραπεζίτες στην Κωνσταντινούπολη: Το κατάστημα ‘Ζαρίφης Ζαφειρόπουλος’ 1871–1881 (Athens: Emboriki Trapeza Ellados, 1989). ——, ‘Η Τράπεζα Μυτιλήνης’, in K. Konnaris, ed., Αρχείο Κουρτζή: Ιστορική τεκμηρίωση (Mytilene: Istoriko Archeio Aigaiou Ergani, 2007), 33–49. Fortna, Benjamin, Imperial Classroom: Islam, the State and Education in the late Ottoman Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Bibliography

233

Fotiou, N., ‘Νικόλαος Παρίτσης 1876–1942’, Lesviakon Imerologion 1956 (1956), 170–4. Gardika-Katsiadaki, Eleni, ‘Βενιζέλος και υπουργείο Εξωτερικών: Σύγκρουση ή συνεργασία;’ in Συμπόσιο για τον Ελευθέριο Βενιζέλο (Athens: E.L.I.A. & Mouseio Benaki, 1988), 265–87. Geniki Dioikisis Nison Aigaiou [General Directorate of  Aegean Islands], ed., Διάφοροι μελέται περί των νήσων. Α΄ Λέσβος (Mytilene, Lesbos, 1913). Goldish, Matt, Jewish Questions: Responsa on Sephardic Life in the Early Modern Period (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). Hanioglu, Sukru, Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902–1908 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). ——, The Young Turks in Opposition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). Hobsbawm, Eric, Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Holland, Robert, ‘Nationalism, Ethnicity and the Concert of  Europe: The Case of  the High Commissionership of  Prince George of  Greece in Crete, 1898–1906’, Journal of  Modern Greek Studies 17 (1999), 253–76. Holland, Robert & Diana, Markides, The British and the Hellenes. Struggles for Mastery in the Eastern Mediterranean 1850–1960 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Iakovos (Metropolitan), ‘Τα φιλανθρωπικά καταστήματα Μυτιλήνης και το Βοστάνειον Ιερόν Γενικόν Νοσοκομείον’, Lesviaka VIII (1982–1983), 5–20. Iliou, Philippos, ed., Δημήτριος Γληνός άπαντα, 2 vols (Athens: Themelio, 1983). ——, Κοινωνικοί Αγώνες και Διαφωτισμός. Η περίπτωση της Σμύρνης (1819) (Athens: Mnimon, 1986). ——, Τύφλωσον Κύριε τον λαόν σου (Athens: Poreia, 1988). Inalcik, Halil, ‘The application of  the Tanzimat and its social ef fects’, Archivum Ottomanicum 5 (1973), 97–128. Inalcik, Halil & Donald Quataert, eds, An Economic and Social History of  the Ottoman Empire, vol. II: 1600–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Issawi, Charles, ‘The Transformation of  the economic position of  the millets in the nineteenth century’, in B. Braude & B. Lewis, eds, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, vol. I (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1982), 261–85. Kaïtatzidis, Michaїl, Aegean Steam Navigation P.M. Courtgis & Co 1883–1911 (Patra: To donti, 2009). Kalliataki-Mertikopoulou, Kallia, Ελληνικός αλυτρωτισμός και οθωμανικές μεταρρυθμίσεις. Η περίπτωση της Κρήτης 1868–1877 (Athens: Estia, 1988). ——, ‘Literacy and unredeemed peasants: Late nineteenth-century rural Crete faces education’, in P. Carabott, ed., Greek Society in the Making 1863–1913: Realities, Symbols and Visions (Ashgate: Aldershot, 1997), 115–29.

234 Bibliography Kambouris, Zannis, ‘Τα τελευταία χρόνια της Τουρκοκρατίας στη Λέσβο, 1908–1912’, Lesviaka IV (1962), 102–88. Κανονισμός του Λεσβιακού Διδασκαλικού Συνδέσμου τη εγκρίσει και επικυρώσει της Ιεράς Μητροπόλεως Μυτιλήνης (Mytilene, 1908). Kansu, Aykut, Politics in Post-Revolutionary Turkey, 1908–1913 (Leiden: Brill, 2000). ——, The Revolution of 1908 in Turkey (New York, Brill, 1997). Karadimou-Gerolymbou, Aleka, Μεταξύ Ανατολής και Δύσης. Βορειοελλαδικές πόλεις στην περίοδο των οθωμανικών μεταρρυθμίσεων (Athens: Trochalia, 1997). Karafoulidou, V., Η γλώσσα του σοσιαλισμού. Ταξική προοπτική και εθνική ιδεολογία στον ελληνικό 19ο αιώνα (Athens: Vivliorama, 2011). Karavas, Spyros, ‘Εκατόν ένας κανονιοβολισμοί για τη Θεσσαλονίκη’, in Α. Matthaiou et al., eds, Στην τροχιά του Φίλιππου Ηλιού. Ιδεολογικές χρήσεις και εμμονές στην ιστορία και την πολιτική (Athens: Mouseio Benaki, 2008), 75–88. ——, ‘Ο Κωνσταντίνος Παπαρρηγόπουλος και οι εθνικές διεκδικήσεις, 1877–1885’, in P. Kitromilides & T. Sklavenitis, eds, Ιστοριογραφία της νεότερης και σύγχρονης Ελλάδας 1833–2002, vol. I (Athens, E.I.E., 2004), 149–68. ——, ‘Η Λέσβος τον 19ο αιώνα: Δημογραφικές παρατηρήσεις’, in S. T[axis], Συνοπτική ιστορία της Λέσβου και τοπογραφία αυτής (Μytilene: Panepistimio Aigaiou, 1996), iii–xxv. ——, ‘Μακάριοι οι κατέχοντες την γην’. Γαιοκτητικοί σχεδιασμοί προς απαλλοτρίωση συνειδήσεων στη Μακεδονία, 1880–1909 (Athens: Vivliorama, 2010). ——, ‘Η μεγάλη Βουλγαρία και η μικρά Ιδέα’, in Εν έτει…1878, 1922 (Athens: Etaireia Spoudon Scholis Moraïti, 2008), 11–81. Kardaras, Christos, ‘Η ίδρυση του υποπροξενείου της Μυτιλήνης (1834–1846)’, Lesviaka XIV (1992), 89–95. Karolidis, Pavlos, Λόγοι και Υπομνήματα, vol. I (Athens: Petrakos, 1913). Karpat, Kemal, Ottoman Population, 1830–1914. Demographic and social characteristics (London: The University of  Wisconsin Press, 1985). ——, ‘The roots of  the incongruity of nation and state in the post-Ottoman Era’, in B. Braude & B. Lewis, eds, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, vol. I (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1992), 141–70. Kechriotis, Vangelis, ‘Celebration and contestation: The people of  Izmir welcome the second constitutional era in 1908’, in K. Lappas et al. eds, Μνήμη Πηνελόπης Στάθη. Μελέτες ιστορίας και φιλολογίας (Irakleio: Panepistimiakes Ekdoseis Kritis, 2010), 157–81. ——, ‘Greek-Orthodox, Ottoman Greeks or just Greeks? Theories of coexistence in the aftermath of  the Young Turk Revolution’, Études Balkaniques I (2005), 51–72. ——, ‘The Greeks of Izmir at the end of the Empire. A non-Muslim Ottoman community between autonomy and patriotism’, PhD thesis, University of  Leiden (2005).

Bibliography

235

——, ‘Ρέκβιεμ για την Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία’ in Kechriotis et al., Η συγκρότηση

του ελληνικού κράτους. διεθνές πλαίσιο, εξουσία και πολιτική τον 19ο αιώνα (Athens: Nefeli, 2008), 17–51. Kerevanian, Lazaros, ‘Η κοινότητα των Αρμενίων στη Λέσβο’, Lesviako Imerologio 2004, 381–5. Kyprianos, Orestis, ‘Το δημογραφικόν πρόβλημα της Λέσβου’, in M. Kalloneos, ed., Λέσβος. Το νησί της αγάπης και της αρμονίας (Athens, 1934), 28–33. Kitromilides, Paschalis, ‘“Imagined communities” and the origins of  the national question in the Balkans’, in P. Kitromilides, ed., Enlightenment, Nationalism, Orthodoxy (Aldershot: Variorum, 1994), 149–92. Kolaxizelis, Stratis, Θρύλος και ιστορία της Αγιάσου της νήσου Λέσβου (Athens: Filoproodos Syllogos Agiasoton, 1997). Konnaris, Kristis, ‘Αρχείο Κουρτζή. Ιστορικά σημειώματα επιχειρήσεων και προσώπων’, in K. Konnaris, ed., Αρχείο Κουρτζή: Ιστορική τεκμηρίωση (Mytilene: Istoriko Archeio Aigaiou Ergani, 2007), 17–31. Konstantinos (Metropolitan), ‘Επιστολή προς το Νικηφόρο Γλυκά’, Deltion tis Ieras Mitropoleos Mithimnis VI (1940), 138. Kontogiorgis, Giorgos, Κοινωνική δυναμική και πολιτική αυτοδιοίκηση. Οι ελληνικές κοινότητες της Τουρκοκρατίας (Athens: Nea Synora, 1982). Koubourlis, Ioannis, La formation de l’histoire nationale grecque: l’apport de Spyridon Zambelios, 1815–1881 (Athens: Institut de recherches neohelleniques, 2005). Koukoudis, Asterios, Μελέτες για τους Βλάχους, 3 vols (Thessaloniki: Zitros, 2000–01). Koulouri, Christina, Αθλητισμός και όψεις της αστικής κοινωνικότητας. Γυμναστικά και αθλητικά σωματεία 1870–1922 (Athens: E.I.E., 1997). ——, ‘Voluntary associations and new forms of sociability: Greek sports clubs at the turn of  the nineteenth century’, in P. Carabott, ed., Greek Society in the Making 1863–1913: Realities, Symbols and Visions (Ashgate: Aldershot, 1997), 145–60. Koutzamanis, Aristidis, ‘Τέσσερα δικαιοπρακτικά έγγραφα και ένα διοικητικό, αναφερόμενα στα περιουσιακά στοιχεία των αδελφών Βοστάνη, που περιήλθαν στα Εκπαιδευτικά και Φιλανθρωπικά Καταστήματα Μυτιλήνης’, Lesviako Imerologio 2006, 247–77. Laskaris, Michaїl, Το Ανατολικόν ζήτημα 1800–1923, vol. I: 1800–1878 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1978 [1948]). Lefkias, Prokopios, Διατριβή περί εργασίας και εργάτου, συγγραφείσα και απαγγελθείσα υπό του αυτού εις πέντε συνεδρίας των μελών της εν Μυτιλήνη Εργατικής Αδελφότητος κατά τον χειμώνα του έτους 1887–1888 (Athens: Perris, 1888). Levy, Avigdor, ed., The Jews of  the Ottoman Empire (Princeton: Darwin, 1994). Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of  Modern Turkey (London: Oxford University Press, 1961).

236 Bibliography Liakos, Antonis, ‘Το ζήτημα της “συνέχειας” στη νεοελληνική ιστοριογραφία’, in P. Kitromilides & T. Sklavenitis, eds, Ιστοριογραφία της νεότερης και σύγχρονης Ελλάδας 1833–2002, vol. I (Athens: E.I.E., 2004), 53–64. ——, Η ιταλική ενοποίηση και η Μεγάλη Ιδέα 1859–1862 (Athens: Themelio, 1985). Lykiardopoulou-Kontara, S., Κοινωνία και Παιδεία στη Λέσβο την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας (Mytilene: Doukas, 2010). Lyberatos, Andreas, Οικονομία, πολιτική και εθνική ιδεολογία. Η διαμόρφωση των εθνικών κομμάτων στην Φιλιππούπολη του 19ου αιώνα (Irakleio: Panepistimiakes Ekdoseis Kritis, 2009). Mackridge, Peter, Language and National Identity in Greece, 1766–1976 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Mandamadiotou, Maria, ‘Ιδεολογικοί προσανατολισμοί και πολιτικά προτάγματα στη Λέσβο του 19ου αιώνα’, MA thesis, University of  the Aegean (Mytilene, 2004). Mantos, Dimitrios-Efthymios, Λεσβιακή παιδεία και πνευματική ζωή την περίοδο της Τουρκοκρατίας, 1462–1840 (Mytilene: Doukas, 2004) Mantouvalou, Maria, ‘Ρωμαίος, Ρωμιός και Ρωμιοσύνη’, Mantatoforos XXII (1983), 34–72. Mardin, Serif, The Genesis of  Young Ottoman Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962). Marketos, Spyros, ‘Ο Αλέξανδρος Παπαναστασίου και η εποχή του. Αντινομίες του μεταρρυθμιστικού σοσιαλισμού’, PhD thesis, University of  Athens (1998). Matalas, Paraskevas, Έθνος και Ορθοδοξία. Οι περιπέτειες μιας σχέσης. Από το ‘ελλαδικό’ στο βουλγαρικό σχίσμα (Irakleio: Panepistimiakes Ekdoseis Kritis, 2002–2003). Mavrogordatos, George, Stillborn Republic. Social Coalitions and Party Strategies in Greece, 1922–1936 (Berkeley: University of  California Press, 1983). Mazower, Mark, The Balkans (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000). Megali Elliniki Engyklopaideia (Athens: Foinix). Michaïlaris, Panagiotis, ‘Νεώτεροι χρόνοι’, in D. Talianis, ed., Λέσβος. Από τη Σαπφώ στον Ελύτη (Mytilene: Dimos Mytilinis, 1995), 20–33. Michaïlidis, Michail, Λεσβιακαί Σελίδες, vol. II (Mytilene: Trivolos, 1939). Michaïlidis, K., Συμβολή στην αιολική βιβλιογραφία (Athens: Sergiadis, 1940). Missios, Kostas, Η λεσβιακή άνοιξη εν καρποφορία, Mytilene, 1994b). ——, ‘Μυτιληνιοί λόγιοι και λογοτέχνες. Συμβολή στην ιστορία της λεσβιακής γραμματείας (Mytilene: Asterias, 1994). ——, ‘Οι ποιητές (και στιχοπλόκοι) των περιοδικών Πιττακός, Πανδέκτης και Σαπφώ’, Lesviaka XIII (1991), 202–33. ——, ‘Σταματάκης Γεωργιάδης (1875–1959). Η εθνική του δράση το 1909 και 1942’, Aiolika Chronika III (2001), 175–206. ——, ‘Οι δημιουργοί του λεσβιακού Τύπου (1861–1981)’, Dimokratis, no 813 (2006). Molinos, Ch., ‘Για το λεσβιακό Τύπο’, in A. Delis and D. Mantzouranis, eds, Λεσβιακές σελίδες 1950 (Mytilene: Petras, 1999 [1950]), 67–72.

Bibliography

237

Mouchtouris, Emmanouil, Ιστορία και τοπογραφία της νήσου Λέσβου (Smyrna, 1911). Moutzouris, Ioannis, ‘Τα Λειμωνιακά 1866–1886’, Klironomia XXII (1990), 125–85. Nobuyoshi, Fujinami, ‘The patriarchal crisis of 1910 and constitutional logic: Ottoman Greeks’ dual role in the second constitutional politics’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 27 (2009), 1–30. Noutsos, Panagiotis, Η σοσιαλιστική σκέψη στην Ελλάδα από το 1875 ώς το 1974, vol. II: 1907–1925 (Αthens: Gnosi, 1992). Οδηγίαι περί της εφαρμογής του περί βουλευτών κανονισμού (Smyrna, 1908). Palaiologos, Kleanthis, ‘Διαγόρας και Άτλας τον καιρό της Τουρκοκρατίας’, Lesviaka VI (1973), 109–16. Panayotopoulos, A., ‘Ο εκλογικός αγώνας του 1908 στη Χίο. Μια άποψη της κοινοτικής διαπάλης’, Deltio Kentrou Mikrasiatikon Spoudon I (1977), 241–65. ——, ‘Early relations between the Greeks and the Young Turks’, Balkan Studies 21/1 (1980), 87–95. ——, ‘The “Great Idea” and the vision of eastern federation: A propos of  the views of  I. Dragoumis and A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis’, Balkan Studies 21/2 (1980), 331–65. ——, ‘On the economic activities of  the Anatolian Greeks, mid 19th century to early 20th’, Deltio Kentrou Mikrasiatikon Spoudon IV (1983), 87–128. Panselinos, Asimakis, Τότε που ζούσαμε (Athens: Kedros, 1974). Pantazis, P., ‘Στρατής Παπαντώνης ο “πρωτοκήρυκας” του δημοτικισμού’, Lesviaka XII (1989), 289–94. Papapanagiotis, Georgios, ‘Πολιτικά της Λήμνου 1908–1936’, Aiolika Chronika VI (2005), 95–124. Papastathis, Charalambos, Οι κανονισμοί των Ορθόδοξων ελληνικών κοινοτήτων του Οθωμανικού Κράτους και της Διασποράς, vol. I (Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis, 1984). Paraskevaїdis, Panagiotis, Η Λέσβος κατά την Τουρκοκρατία. Οι αιώνες της ανάκαμψης (17ος-18ος) (Mytilene: Doukas, 2001). ——, Οι περιηγητές για τη Λέσβο (Mytilene: Doukas, 1996). Pavlidis, Ioakeim, Ο μοναχικός βίος και τα μοναστήρια εν τε τη Ανατολή και εν τη Δύσει (Smyrna, 1879). Pavlowitch, Stevan, A History of  the Balkans 1804–1945 (London: Longman, 1999). Pearson, Owen, Albania and King Zog. Independence, Republic and Monarchy 1908– 1939, London: Centre for Albanian Studies, 2004). Petrou, Dimitros, Λεσβιάς ήτοι ιστορικόν εγκώμιον της νήσου Λέσβου (Mytilene: Archontopoulos-Voulalas, 1878). Petrov, Milen, ‘Tanzimat for the countryside: Midhat Pasa and the vilayet of  Danube, 1864–1868’, PhD thesis (Princeton University, 2006). Platon, Antonis, ‘Η ιστορία της λεσβιακής δημοσιογραφίας’, Mytilene IV (1991), 189–221. Sakellariou, Neilos, ‘Έκθεσις περί της εκπαιδευτικής καταστάσεως της Λέσβου’, in Geniki Dioikisis Nison Aigaiou, ed., Διάφοροι μελέται περί των νήσων. Α΄ Λέσβος (Myti­ lene, 1913), 116–40.

238 Bibliography Samaras, Panagiotis, Η εκπαίδευση στη Λέσβο (από τα χρόνια της σκλαβιάς) (Mytilene: Marzelos, 1948). ——, ‘Η Μυτιλήνη στον ΙΘ΄ αιώνα (ιστορικά-τοπογραφικά)’, Lesviaka III (1959), 3–16b. ——, ‘Πώς τούρκεψε ο Κλαπάδος’, in P. Samaras, Lesviakon Imerologion 1954 (Myti­ lene), 191–97. Sariyildiz, Gulden, ‘The soap production of  Lesvos’, in P. Kitromilides & P. Michaïlaris, eds, Μυτιλήνη και Αϊβαλί. Μια αμφίδρομη σχέση στο βορειοανατολικό Αιγαίο (Athens: E.I.E., 2007), 237–46. Savvas, Dimitrios, ‘Αναμνήσεις από την απελευθέρωση του Μολύβου’, in P. Samaras, Lesviakon Imerologion 1956 (Mytilene), 98–100. Shaw, Stanford & Ezel Shaw, History of  the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). Sifneou, Evridiki, ‘Η ακτοπλοία στο Αιγαίο και το στοίχημα της οικογένειας Κουρτζή’, in K. Konnaris, ed., Αρχείο Κουρτζή: Ιστορική τεκμηρίωση (Mytilene: Istoriko Archeio Aigaiou Ergani, 2007), 61–72. ——, ‘Από τη μουσουλμανική στη χριστιανική πόλη. Η δυναμική των μεταβολών της πόλης της Μυτιλήνης στην ύστερη φάση της Τουρκοκρατίας (1840–1912)’, in Etaireia Meletis Neou Ellinismou, ed., Η πόλη στους νεότερους χρόνους. Μεσογειακές και βαλκανικές όψεις (19ος–20ος αι.) (Athens: Etaireia Meletis Neou EllinismouMnimon, 2000): 389–414. ——, ‘Η εκβιομηχάνιση της Λέσβου κατά την ύστερη Τουρκοκρατία’, Lesviaka 16 (1996), 454–78. ——, Έλληνες έμποροι στην Αζοφική. Η δύναμη και τα όρια της οικογενειακής επιχείρησης (Athens: E.I.E., 2009). ——, Λέσβος. Οικονομική και κοινωνική ιστορία (1840–1912) (Athens: Trochalia, 1995). ——, ‘From Greek-Οttomanism to Mediterranean cosmopolitanism: P.M. Kourtzis and the birth of  the Aegean Steam Navigation Company’, unpublished and undated paper. Skopetea, Elli, Η Δύση της Ανατολής. Εικόνες από το τέλος της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας (Athens: Gnosi, 1992). ——, ‘Οι Έλληνες και οι εχθροί τους. Η κατάσταση του έθνους στις αρχές του εικοστού αιώνα’ in Ch. Chadziiosif, ed., Ιστορία της Ελλάδας του 20ού αιώνα. Οι απαρχές 1900–1922, vol. Ib (Athens: Vivliorama, 1999), 9–35. ——, Το πρότυπο βασίλειο και η Μεγάλη Ιδέα. Όψεις του εθνικού προβλήματος στην Ελλάδα (1830–1880) (Athens: Polytypo, 1988). Somel, Selcuk, The Modernization of  Public Education in the Ottoman Empire, 1839– 1908. Islamization, Autocracy and Discipline (Leiden: Brill, 2001). Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Athanasios, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (Athens-Ioannina: Dodoni, 1984).

Bibliography

239

Sperantsas, Theodosis, Κωνσταντίνου Οικονόμου του εξ οικονόμων λόγοι (Athens: 1971). Spyropoulos, N., Στατιστικοί πίνακες του πληθυσμού κατ’ εθνικότητας της Ελλάδος, της Βουλγαρίας, της Σερβίας, της Αλβανίας και των Δωδεκανήσων (Athens, 1917). Stamatopoulos, Dimitrios, Μεταρρύθμιση και εκκοσμίκευση. Προς μια ανασύνθεση της ιστορίας του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου τον 19ο αιώνα (Athens: Alexandreia, 2003). ——, ‘Ecumenical ideology in the Orthodox millet (19th–20th centuries)’, in L.T. Baruh & V. Kechriotis, eds, Economy and Society on both Shores of  the Aegean (Athens: Alpha Bank, 2010), 201–47. Stavrianos, L., The Balkan Federation. A History of  the Movement towards Balkan Unity in Modern Times (Hamden: Archon Books, 1964). ——, The Balkans since 1453 (New York: New York University Press, 2000). Stavridi-Patrikiou, Rena, Δημοτικισμός και κοινωνικό πρόβλημα (Athens: Ermis, 1976). ——, ‘Ιων Δραγούμης. Πηγές και στόχοι του εθνικισμού’, in Η Ελλάδα των Βαλκανικών Πολέμων 1910–1914 (Athens: E.L.I.A., 1993), 243–52. ——, Οι φόβοι ενός αιώνα (Athens: Metaichmio, 2008). Stefanidis, Michaïl, Χυμεία και Λέσβος (Mytilene: Panepistimio Aigaiou, 1996 [1909]). Stergellis, Aristidis, ‘Καθολικισμός και γαλλική δράση στη Μυτιλήνη στις αρχές του αιώνα’, Lesviaka XII (1989), 321–8. Strohmeier, Martin, ‘Mehmed Tevfik Bey, companion and collaborator of  Namik Kemal during his years in the Aegean province’, Archivum Ottomanicum 23 (2005–2006), 269–84. Svoronou, Eleni, ‘Mικρασιατικόν Ημερολόγιον’, Lesviako Imerologio 2006, 43–6. Syndesmos Filologon Lesvou, ed., Ιστορία της Λέσβου (Mytilene: Syndesmos Filologon Lesvou, 1996). Tansel, Fevziye, ed., Namik Kemal’in Hususi Mektuplari, vol. II (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1969). Taxis, Stavros, Συνοπτική ιστορία της Λέσβου και τοπογραφία αυτής (Mytilene: Panepistimio Aigaiou, 1996 [1874]). ——, Συνοπτική ιστορία και τοπογραφία της Λέσβου (Mytilene: Panepistimio Aigaiou, 1995 [1909]). Trypanis, Konstantinos, Greek Verse (Suf folk: 1971). Tsoukalas, Konstantinos, Εξάρτηση και αναπαραγωγή. Ο κοινωνικός ρόλος των εκπαιδευτικών μηχανισμών στην Ελλάδα (1830–1922) (Athens: Themelio, 1992). Tziovas, Dimitris, Οι μεταμορφώσεις του εθνισμού και το ιδεολόγημα της ελληνικότητας στο Μεσοπόλεμο (Athens: Odysseas, 1989) ——, The nationism of  the demoticists and its impact on their literary theory (1888–1930) (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1986). Valetas, Georgios, Αιολική βιβλιογραφία 1566–1939 (Athens: Georgios Xenos, 1939).

240 Bibliography

——, ‘Η πνευματική Λέσβος. Ο πρώτος Λεσβιακός Διδασκαλικός Σύνδεσμος. Άγνωστα

στοιχεία και πληροφορίες’, Lesviaka VIII (1983), 24–9. Vallis, Manolis, Κουβέντες (Mytilene, 1929). Vareltzidis, Stratis, ‘Ιστορικά των πρώτων χρόνων του δημοτικισμού στη Λέσβο’, in A. Delis & D. Matzouranis, eds, Λεσβιακές Σελίδες 1950 (Mytilene: Petras, 1999 [1950]), 93–100. Veloudis, Giorgos, Ο Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer και η γένεση του ελληνικού ιστορισμού (Athens: Mnimon, 1982). Ventiris, Georgios, Η Ελλάς του 1910–1920, vol. I (Athens: Ikaros, 1970 [1929]). Veremis, Thanos, ‘The Hellenic Kingdom and the Ottoman Greeks: The experiment of  the “Society of  Constantinople”’, Deltio Kentrou Mikrasiatikon Spoudon XII (1997–1998), 203–12. —— & C. Boura, ‘Εισαγωγή’, in A. Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (Athens-Ioannina: Dodoni, 1984), 9–23. Vlachos, Nikolaos, Ιστορία των κρατών της χερσονήσου του Αίμου 1908–1914, vol. I (Athens: Organismos Ekdoseon Scholikon Vivlion, 1954). Vlachos, Pavlos, ‘Ο ιατρός Κ. Κανταρτζής και τα χειρόγραφά του’, Lesviaka XI (1989), 92–127. Vlachou, Elli, ‘Εμπορικές εταιρείες με έδρα την Μυτιλήνη, Κωνσταντινούπολη και Αίγυπτο μέσα από τις συμβολαιογραφικές πράξεις του ελληνικού υποπροξενείου της Μυτιλήνης’, Lesviaka ΧΙΙΙ (1991), 85–108. Weigand, Gustav, Οι Αρωμούνοι (Βλάχοι) (Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis, 2001). Xanalatos, Diogenis, ‘The Greeks and the Turks on the eve of  the Balkan Wars’, Balkan Studies 3 (1962), 277–96. Yasamee, Feroze, Ottoman Diplomacy: Abdulhamid II and the European Great Powers 1878–1888 (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1996). ——, ‘Ottoman War planning and the Balkan campaign of  October–December 1912’ in Kermeli & Ozel, eds, The Ottoman Empire: Myths, Realities and ‘Black Holes’ (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2006), 347–66. Yianoulopoulos, Giannis, ‘Εξωτερική πολιτική’, in Chadziiosif, ed., Ιστορία της Ελλάδας του20ού αιώνα. Οι απαρχές 1900–1922, vol. Ib (Athens: Vivliorama, 1999), 107–47. ——, ‘Η ευγενής μας τύφλωσις…’. Εξωτερική πολιτική και ‘εθνικά θέματα’ από την ήττα του 1897 έως τη Μικρασιατική καταστροφή (Athens: Vivliorama, 2003). Ziogou-Karastergiou, Sidiroula, Το Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο, η οθωμανική διοίκηση και η εκπαίδευση του Γένους. Κείμενα–Πηγές: 1830–1914 (Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis, 1998). Zurcher, Erik, The Unionist Factor. Role of  the Committee of  Union and Progress in the Turkish National Movement, 1905–1926 (Leiden: Brill, 1984). ——, Turkey, a Modern History (London: I.B. Tauris, 2007 [1993]).

Index

Abdulaziz, Sultan  2 Abdulhamid II, Sultan  2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 20, 30, 44, 48, 63, 65, 66, 68, 95, 131–2, 134, 184 absolutism  7, 67, 78, 129, 135, 188 Adana 131 Adamantidou, Y.  102 Aegean  7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 41, 44, 47, 57, 58, 138, 149, 152, 166, 169, 177 see also Archipelago Aegean Steam Navigation Company (Atmoploïa Aigaiou)  40, 48, 52 Africa 151 Agia Paraskevi  29, 31 Agiasos  21, 79, 104 Agon (newspaper) 100, 152 see also Agon and Laïkos Agon Agricultural Bank (Georgiki Trapeza) 39 Ahmed Tevfik Pasha  130 Ahmet Efendi  211 Ahmet Muhtar Pasha  172 Aiolikos Astir (magazine) 94 Albania  5, 136, 170; Albanians  5, 135, 138, 180–1, 189, 190, 225 Alexander [the Great] 207 Alexandria  36, 41, 47 Ali Kemal Bey  127 Ali Nosrend Pasha  31, 70, 72–3 Alvanos, Dimitrios  102, 103, 104, 109, 111–12, 115 Amalthia (newspaper)  10, 42, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81, 84, 85, 86, 89, 94, 97, 160 Ambatzis, P.  85 Amorgianos, N.  102

Anagnostis, Stavrakis  42, 43, 202 Anagnostopoulou, S.  50, 70 Anagnostou, S.  40 Anatolia  173, 184, 185, 200, 201, 206, 207, 208 Arabs  70, 135, 190, 191 Archipelago  15, 84, 164 Archontopoulos, Georgios  95 Argentina 50 Argyris, P.  46, 60 Arikan, Z.  30 Aristarchis, Iakovos ( James)  33 Aristidis-Pappis, Georgios  21, 22, 43, 111, 186 Aristotle 207 Armenians  16, 67, 70, 126, 157, 171, 190, 191 Armonia (newspaper)  42, 97, 104, 111 Asia Minor  17, 19, 22, 32, 40, 42, 43, 53, 60, 126, 138, 169, 178, 185, 192, 206 Athens  16, 58, 78, 90, 96, 97, 102, 103, 104, 106, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 123, 141, 146, 147, 153, 155, 160, 163, 165, 166, 176, 184, 185, 202, 208, 215, 216, 223, 224 Atlas, sport club of  89–90, 136 Austria  40, 89, 142, 203, 212, 213 Austro-Hungary  16, 89, 128, 187 Aydin 80 Ayvalik see Kydonies Balkans  6, 9, 177, 178, 179, 183, 189, 224 Balkan Wars  6, 9, 31, 68, 173, 176, 178, 183, 217, 223 Baltatzis, Georgios  69, 83

242 Index Bank of  Mytilene (Trapeza Mytilinis/ Midilli Bankasi)  39, 48, 49, 52, 69, 83, 120, 221 Bank of  the Orient  39 Bastille 131 Beirut 23 Bell Asia Minor, steam Navigation Company of  40 Berati 127 Berlin, Congress of  178 Black Sea  17, 36 Board of  Educational and Charitable Establishments (BECE) (Eforia Filanthropikon kai Ekpaideftikon Katastimaton)  8, 9, 13, 23–4, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 51, 52, 53, 97, 114, 118, 119; BECE Brotherhood (Adelfato Eforias Filanthropikon kai Ekpaideftikon Katastimaton)  51, 52, 53 Bosnia 213 Bosnia Herzegovina  89 Bosporus 102 Boura, C.  147 Bournova  196, 197 Bousios, Georgios  158, 164, 165 Braila 47 Britain  16, 67, 179, 180, 204; British  23 Bulgaria  5, 50, 89, 128, 173, 178, 179, 203, 207, 212, 215, 216, 217; Bulgarians  5, 70, 174, 179, 180, 181, 182, 190, 197, 206, 207, 208, 225 see also Exarchate, Bulgarian Bursa 40 Byzantine Empire  79, 80 capitalist system  1, 37, 40 Capitulations 17 Cappadocia 70 Catholics 16 Chalki 72

Charalambidis-Filios, Gavriil  95, 96 Charavgi (magazine)  9, 10, 101, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 153 Chios  15, 18, 41, 56, 73, 74, 85, 87, 94, 108 commercialization  46, 59 Committee of  Union and Progress (CUP)  66–7, 68, 69, 73, 75, 77, 78, 82, 87, 90, 126–32, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 189, 190, 205, 212, 221, 223 Constantinople (Istanbul)  7, 10, 19, 20  23, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 61, 62, 71, 72, 76, 79, 80, 84, 85, 89, 94, 96, 97, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 122, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 137, 146, 149, 151, 153, 159, 160, 162, 163, 165, 166, 169, 170, 174, 177, 178, 182, 183, 192, 208, 211, 223 Constantinople Organization (CO) (Organosis Konstantinou­ poleos)  80, 83–4, 85, 87, 128, 130, 141, 147, 149, 150, 151, 155, 158, 164, 186 Constitution  2, 3, 67, 70–2, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 86, 98, 114, 129, 130, 131, 141, 155, 161, 170, 171, 174, 184, 191, 196, 197, 219 Constitutional Political League (CPL) (Syntagmatikos Politikos Syndesmos)  155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 172 Cos 21 council of elders see dimogerontia Courdzibad, company of  48, 52 Crete  30, 36, 39, 89, 104, 108, 183, 204, 209, 210, 211, 214, 222

Index Cretan Question  147, 152, 177, 181, 184, 203, 204, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215 Crimean War  20, 178, 180, 181 Cyprus  49, 52 Dardanelles 17 David, E.  111 Delingiavouris, Christos  103, 104, 107 Delis, Alfonsos  72 Delis, Giannis  111 demoticism  102, 104, 105, 110, 111, 112, 122, 123 Deringil, Selim  63 Diagoras Gymnastics Society  193 dimogerontia  13, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 51, 52, 53, 60, 117, 118, 147, 156, 172, 176 Dimokratis (newspaper) 98 Dodecanese  21, 169, 222 Doris, Theodoros (and Doros) see Theodoridis, Theodoros Dragoumis, Ion  80, 83, 186 Druze 190 Eastern Question  177, 179, 183, 189, 210, 216, 224 Edremit 108 Edward VII, King  67 Eftaliotis, Argyris  102 Egypt  40, 41, 42, 52, 53 Ekklisiastiki Alithia (magazine)  10, 75, 76 Ekrem Bey  90 Eleftheriadi, Niki  225 Eleftheriadis, N.  165 Eleftheros Logos (newspaper)  105 Ellinismos see Hellenism Ellino-Othomanos  165, 195 Ellino-Othomanismos (Greco-Ottomanism)  79, 80

243 Embros (newspaper)  9, 105 Emrullah Efendi  150 Enlightenment  27, 55, 56, 76, 96 Epirus 180 Eram Bey  174 Eresos 21 Erevna (magazine) 121 Esek (magazine) 10 Ethnarch  128, 143, 158, 159, 187 Europe  1, 35, 37, 58, 61, 67, 89, 97, 113, 134, 153, 155, 157, 174, 181, 188, 206, 210, 211, 213, 215; Europeans  120 European Powers  178 see also Great Powers Exanastasis ton favlovion (Uprising of  the Prof ligates)  29, 31 Exarchate, Bulgarian  146, 206, 207 Exertzoglou, Ch.  48, 195 Fage, Émile  199 Faiq Aali  197 Fallmerayer, Philip  193 Fazli Bey  75 Filyras, Romos  102 France  16, 40, 88, 137, 146; French  16, 35, 114, 199 Frassinet & Cie, steam Navigation Company of  40 Frilingos, Kostas  102 G.O. Jolie Victoria & Cie, steam Navigation Company of  40 Gattelusi, family of  17 Gattelusi, Francisco  14 Gattelusi, Nicola  14 Gazi Ahmet Muhtar Pasha  171 Gennadios, Ioannis  182 Georgiadis, family of  38 Georgiadis, Stamatakis  89 Gera  21, 38, 41, 111, 164 Germany  16, 52, 182, 213; Germans  50

244 Index Gialousis, Spyros (Spyros efendi)  33 Glykas, Nikiforos see Nikiforos, Metropolitan Goudi 202 Goutos, family of  47, 52 Goutos, A.  52 Goutos, Emmanouil  52 Goutos, Konstantinos  52 Goutos, Loukis  52 Goutos, Michaїl  52 Goutos, M. & Cie  52 Goutos, Vasilios  52 Goutou, Myrsini  52 Great Idea see Megali Idea Great Powers  20, 67, 169, 178, 179, 203, 204, 209, 210, 213, 214 Greco-Ottomanism see Ellino-Othomanismos Greco-Turkish war  78, 103, 104, 105 Greece (or Greek state or Greek Kingdom)  4, 6, 8, 10, 16, 39, 44, 50, 57, 59, 76, 79, 83, 89, 90, 99, 102, 103, 105, 106, 110, 113, 121, 140, 160, 168, 173, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 193, 194, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 220, 222, 224, 225 Greek War of  Independence (or Greek Revolution)  17, 56, 202 Grimanis, L.  85 Gryparis, Ioannis  183 Gulhane Hatt-i Humayun (Noble Edict of  the Rose Garden)  1, 37 Hakk (newspaper)  216 Hakki (president of  the CUP branch in Mytilene) 136 Hakki Bey  69 Hakki Pasha, Grand Vizier  147 Halim-Kulaksiz 85

Hanioglu, S.  67, 69 Hartum 53 Hasan Fehmi Bey  127 Hediviye 40 Hellenism  76, 79, 113, 121, 147, 186, 187, 207, 216 Herzegovina 213 Hiotellis, N.  198 Hobsbawm, E.  59, 195 Huseyin Hilmi Pasha  88, 127, 128, 130, 134, 137, 147, 151 Idea (magazine)  105 Ieremias, Patriarch  55 Ikdam (newspaper) 127 iltizam, tax-farming system of  18, 35 Imerissia (newspaper) 160 Imperial Ottoman Bank (Osmanli Imperatorlugu Bankasi) 39 industrialization  46, 54, 59 intellectuals  10, 69, 102, 108, 121, 199 Ioakeim III, Patriarch  29, 31, 74, 75–6, 121–2, 128, 133, 146–7, 158–9, 161, 201 Ipandrevmenos, Zafirakis  27, 29 Islahat Fermani (Reform Edict)  1 Islam 56 Islamism 2 islamization  16, 46 Ismail Kemal Bey  127 Istanbul see Constantinople Italy 16; Italians 151 Izmir see Smyrna Jews  15, 16, 70, 126, 190 Kalamidas, P.  103, 107 Kalevras, Achilleas  131 Kallinikos, Metropolitan  23 Kalloni  19, 21, 27, 27, 156 Kambouri, Evoulia  52

Index Kambouris, family of  47, 52 Kambouris, F.N., 52 Kambouris, M. Kambouris, P.F.  52 Kansu, A.  165, 170 Karatzas (pharmacist, Agiasos)  78–9 Karatzas, Ioannis  69, 71, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85, 90, 141, 163, 165, 167, 221 Kardaras, Ch.  16 Karolidis, Pavlos  151, 159, 160 Karpat, Kemal  15 Kastrinos, N.  102 Katartzis, K.  29 Kato Tritos  52 Katsanis, family of  47 Kavetsos, Konstantinos  23 Kazanovas, G.  182 Kemal, Namik  2, 28, 29, 30, 49 Kiamil Pasha  127, 149, 173, 174 Kioski 16 Kiryx (newspaper) 94 Kolettis, Ioannis  193 Komvopoulos, Vasilios, Archimandrite  73, 197 Kontos, Ioannis  27, 28, 29, 31 Kontos, Kostas  102 Kosmos tis Smyrnis (newspaper)  105 Kosovo 137 Koumba, Olga  52 Koumba, Pelagia  52 Koumbas, family of  52 Koumba, Victoria  52 Koumbas, A.B.  52 Koumbas, A.P.  52 Koumbas, G.A.  52 Koumbas, G.M.  52 Koumbas, Michaïl  48, 49 Koumbas, Nikolaos  52 Koumbas, P.  52 Koumbas, V.  52

245 Konstantinos, Metropolitan  27, 29 Kountouras, Miltos  102 Kourtzi, Evanthia  52 Kourtzi, Lopa  52 Kourtzis, family of  39, 47, 48, 51, 52, 120–1 Kourtzis, D.  52 Kourtzis, Georgios  52 Kourtzis Koumbas & Cie  48, 52 Kourtzis, Michaїl  52 Kourtzis, Mitsas  44, 52 Kourtzis, Panos  39, 40, 44, 48–50, 52, 69, 83, 120–1, 224 see also Courdzibad, Bank of  Myti­ lene and Aegean Steam Navigation Company Kourtzis, P.M. & Cie  48, 52 Kourtzis, Theodoros  83, 85 Kucuk Mehmet Said Pasha  151, 149 Kucuk-Kaynarca, treaty of  17, 36 Kurds  190, 191 Kydonies (Ayvalik)  19, 29, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 53, 56, 60, 87, 94, 108, 115 Kyprianos, Orestis  147 Kyriakidis 160 Kyrilos, Metropolitan  31, 72, 73, 83, 111, 163, 169, 176 Laїki Efimeris (newspaper)  104 Laїki Enosis (newspaper)  104 Laïkos Agon (newspaper)  9, 10, 94, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 107, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 146, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 178, 200, 204, 205, 206, 214, 215, 216, 217, 221, 223 see also Agon and Laos Lailios, Ch.  95, 111 Laos (newspaper) 100 see also Agon and Laïkos Agon

246 Index Lapathiotis, Napoleon  102 Lazos, K. Koumbas, V.P. & Cie  52 League of  Saviour Of ficers (Halaskar Zabitan) 170 Lefkias, Prokopios  61 Lemnos  15, 18, 85 Lesvos (newspaper)  9, 10, 99, 100, 103, 105, 107, 108, 153, 189 liberalism  1, 2, 69, 205 Limonos monastery  27, 29 Limoniako zitima (Limonos Question or the Limoniaka)  27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 54 Lloyd, steam Navigation Company of  40 Loutra 53 Macedonia  67, 71, 78, 130, 136, 146, 152, 164, 179, 179, 180, 180, 181, 183, 184, 188, 197, 206, 207, 216 Macedonian Question  182, 184, 204 Mahmud Shevket Pasha  130, 134, 170 Mahsuse, steam Navigation Company of 40 Mandamados 21 Mandras, family of  42, 53 Mandras, G.  53 Mandras, Gr.  53 Mandras, M.  53 Mandras, Panos  53 Mandras, Petros  53 Mandras, V.N.  53 Mandras, V.P.  53 Mariglis, Alkiviadis  103, 104 Marinos, family of  47 Marseilles  36, 47, 53 Martzokis, Stephanos  102 Megali Idea (Great Idea)  79, 184, 193 Mechmed Tevfik Bey  15 Mehmed Kiamil Pasha  151 Mehmet Pasha  15 Mehmed V, Sultan  132 Mehmet Resat, Sultan  172

Mehmet Sait Pasha  171 Meïmaris, Dimitris  33 Melas, Spyros  102 Melikertis see Stavrou, Thrasyvoulos Melissa (magazine) 55 Metropolitan Codes of  Mytilene (MCM) (Mitropolitikoi Kodikes Mytilinis)  8, 9, 32, 33, 51 Michaïlidis, Michaїl  102, 111 Midilli (newspaper) 10 millet  19, 20, 32, 74, 195 Missios, K.  98 Mithymna  27, 29, 54, 88, 109, 147 Mitrelias, family of  47, 53 Mitrelias, Alexandros  53, 85 Mitrelias, Apostolos  53 Mitrelias, Athanasios  53 Mitrelias, Charilaos  53 Mitrelias, Dimitrios  53 Mitrelias, M.  53 Mitrelias, Nikolaos  53 Mitrelias, Panagiotis  53 Mitrelias, Vasilios  53 modernization  1, 3, 7, 56, 67, 76, 94, 113, 116, 121, 126, 219, 220, 222, 224 Molinos, Chrysanthos  97, 102, 110 Molyvos  16, 19, 21, 27, 28, 38, 41, 156, 164, 165, 166, 168, 211, 221 Montenegro  146, 173, 178, 179, 189, Montenegrins 180 Morfosis (magazine) 9 Morocco 148 Moschonisia (today’s Cunda)  18, 19, 60, 85, 156 Mouchtouris, Emmanouil  202 Moumtzis, Kyrilos see Kyrilos, Metropolitan Mouzalas, family of  38, 47, 53 Mouzalas, Antonios  53 Mouzalas, Apostolos  53 Mouzalas, Asimakis  53 Mouzalas, Vasilios  42, 53

Index Mugla 138 Municipal Chemistry Laboratory (Dimarchiako Chimeio) 63 Murat V, Sultan  2 Myrivilis, Stratis  102 Mytilinios (newspaper)  9, 97, 98, 104, 105, 107, 109, 153, 163 nationalism  1, 8, 32, 68, 91, 135, 178, 183, 220, 223 Nea Chios (newspaper) 94 Nea Imera (newspaper) 42 Neologos (newspaper) 42 Neos Kiryx (newspaper)  105 New Ottomans see Young Ottomans New Party (Hizb-i Cedid) 150 Newton, Charles  23 Nianias family  42, 47, 53 Nianias, A.  53 Nianias, D.  42 Nianias, Konstantinos  53 Nianias, Maliakas  53 Nianias, N.  53, 165 Nicholas II, Tsar  67 Nikiforos, Metropolitan  27 Nile 185 Noble Edict of  the Rose Garden see Gulhane Hatt-i Humayun Noumas (magazine)  123 Nuri Bey  145 Odessa  41, 47, 52 Oferetis, Filon see Stefanidis, Michaïl Olymbios, Ioannis  102, 111 Orai Scholis (magazine) 97 Ottomanism  63, 68, 148, 158, 174, 191, 223 Palamas, Kostis  102 Paleologos, Ioannis V, Emperor  14 Paleologos, Kleanthis  89 Pallis, Alexandros  102 Pamfila  42, 53, 87

247 Panayotopoulos, A.  45 Panchiaki (newspaper) 94 Pandektis (magazine)  95, 102 Panellinios, steam Navigation Company of 40 Papadiamantis, Alexandros  102 Papadopoulos, Timotheos  100, 103, 157, 158 Papageorgiou, P.  111 Papantoniou, Zacharias  102 Papantonis, Stratis  111 Paparrigopoulos, K.  179 Papoutsanis, family of  47 Paraskevaїdis, P.  17 Paris  66, 145 Paritsis, Nikolaos  103, 104, 107, 108, 112, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 162, 167, 197 Party of  Greek Deputies (PGD) (Komma Ellinon voulefton)  150–1, 155, 162 Pasiouras, P.  42 Patris (newspaper) 83 Paul, St  114 Pavilidis, Ioakeim  27–9, 31, 42 Peloponnese 36 Pera 167 Persia 148 Petersburg 104 Petra 211 Phanar 161 Pittakos (magazine) 25, 95, 96, 102 Plomari  19, 21, 38, 41, 45, 77, 16, 119, 143, 156, 164, 165 Poimenidis, K.  103 Polichnitos  21, 77, 104, 105 Political League of  Constantinople (Politikos Syndesmos Konstantinoupoleos)  8, 128, 132, 155 see also Constitutional Political League Politiki Epitheorisis (newspaper) 164 Pontus 72

248 Index Porte see Sublime Porte Poulias, family of  47 Progress Party (Hizb-i Terakki) 150 Pronomiako zitima (Privileges Issue)  30, 32 Proodos, association of  61 protestantism 27 Proteus see Vallis, Manolis Psakis, M.  42 Psycharis, G.  112 Public Debt Administration  39, 52 Rallis, family of  47 Reval (today’s Tallinn)  67 Rhodes  15, 18, 21, 30, 85 Riza Tevfik  139 Roboly, Charles  20 Roma 225 Romania  42, 52, 178, 179; Romanians  180, 182 Rostov 41 Roussin Bey  78 Russia  16, 17, 36, 42, 52, 179, 204, 207 Russian-Turkish war  36 Sabach (newspaper) 70 Sabahaddin, Prince  68, 69, 82, 175 Said Pasha  152 Saliari, Sofia  43 Salonika (Thessaloniki)  23, 69, 77, 78, 130, 133, 164, 174 Salpinx (newspaper)  9, 10, 15, 62, 94, 98, 99, 104, 105, 107, 108, 111, 112, 114, 115, 119, 121, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 184, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200,

201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 217, 221, 222, 223 Saltas, Michaïl  84, 85, 86, 87, 149, 151, 155 Samaridis, Aristidis  100, 103, 105 Sapfo (magazine)  95, 102 Savvas, Dimitrios  157, 165, 166, 167, 168, 191, 221, 222 Seїzanis, Michaïl  102 Seїzanis, Miltiadis  97 Serbesti (newspaper) 127 Serbia  173, 178, 179, 217; Serbs  5, 70, 180, 190 Serfidje (Sѐrvia)  158, 164 Sifneos, family of  47 Sifneos, Michaïl  84, 147 Sifneou, E.  16, 40, 42, 60 Sigri 19 Simantiris, A.  47, 88, 145, 146, 156 Simiriotis, Angelos  107 Sinope 72 Skalieris, G.  182 Skipis, Sotiris  102 Skorpios (newspaper)  9, 104, 153, 163 Skrip (magazine) 9 Slavs  180, 181, 183, 186, 191, 203, 206, 216, 225 Smyrna  10, 23, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 53, 60, 61, 62, 69, 70, 71, 73, 79, 80, 81, 89, 94, 97, 102, 105, 106, 108, 110, 111, 160, 196 Nea Smyrni (newspaper) 28 socialism  101, 121, 122, 158 Sofia  146, 207 Solomonidis, Sokratis  97 Solomos, Dionysios  112 Souliotis-Nikolaïdis, Athanasios  80, 83, 85, 87, 130, 149, 160, 186 Sourlangas, family of  47 Spain 53 Spyropoulos, N.  15

249

Index Stavros, Dimitrios  102 Stavrou, Thrasyvoulos (pen-name Melikertis) 102 Stefanidis, Michaїl (pen-mame Oferetis, Filon)  63, 102 Stergellis, Aristidis  16 Strik-Strak (magazine) 9 Sublime Porte  18, 23, 30, 31, 36, 49, 58, 74, 146, 217 Sudan 185 Tachtatzis, N.  103 Tachydromos (newspaper) 160 Talaat Bey  150 Tannin (newspaper) 90 Tansel, Fevziye  30 Tanzimat, reforms of  1–3, 4, 7, 20, 21, 22, 50, 55, 56, 63, 97, 184, 201, 219, 220 Taxis, Stavros  42, 45, 194 Teaching League of  Lesbos (TLL) (Didaskalikos Syndesmos Lesvou)  94, 104, 105, 109, 110 Tenedos 27 Tevfik Pasha  130 Tharros (newspaper) 105 Theocharidis 182 Theodoridis, Theodoros (pennames Doris, Theodoros and Doros)  98, 100, 102, 103, 105, 107, 109 Theotokas 87 Theotokis, Georgios  181–2 Thessaly 180 Thrace 146 Trepizond 23 Trieste  41, 42, 97 Tripoli 151 Turkification  68, 91, 125, 138, 140, 148, 157, 169, 190, 192, 220, 222 Turko-Italian War  31, 47, 151, 152, 169, 170, 204, 221

urbanization  7, 59, 60, 62 Valaoritis, Aristotelis  112 Valiadis, Konstantinos see Konstantinos, Metropolitan Vallis, Manolis (pen-name Proteus)  102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 115 Vamvouris, family of  47 Varna  47, 53 Varnalis, Kostas  102 Vasileiou, family of  47, 53 Vasileiou, A.  53 Vasileiou, Charalambos  53 Vasileiou, Panagiotis  42, 47, 53 Vasileiou, Periklis  53 Vasileiou, Vasilios  23, 53 Vatan (newspaper) 10, 168 Vatousa 105 Veniamin the Lesbian  55, 56, 96 Venizelos, E.  104, 182, 183, 185, 204, 205, 209, 215 Venlis, family of  47 Vernardakis, Dimitrios (pen-name Verenikis, Dimos)  102 Vernardakis, Grigorios  111 Vlachopoulos, P.  85 Vlachou, Elli  41 Vlachs 180 Vokos, Gerasimos  102 Vostanis, family of  47 Vostanis, Panagiotis  84, 65, 85, 86, 87, 149, 151, 155, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168 Vournazos, family of  47 Vournazos, K.  47 Voutyras, Dionysis  102 Vrisa  29, 31 westernization  1, 3 Workers’ Fraternity (Ergatiki Adelfotis) 61

250 Index Yemen 136 Yeni Havadis (newspaper) 10 Young Ottomans (New Ottomans)  2, 3 Young Turks  3, 7, 32, 65–81, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 99, 123, 125–76, 177, 182, 184, 186, 187, 190, 192, 194, 196, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 209, 210, 215, 220, 223, 224

see also Committee of  Union and Progress (CUP) Zambelios, Spyridon  179 Zarifis, Georgios  48, 49, 50 Zerbinis, D.  42

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies Edited by Andrew Louth, Professor Emeritus of Patristic and Byzantine Studies, University of Durham. David Ricks, Professor of Modern Greek and Comparative Literature, King’s College London.

This series encompasses the religion, culture, history, and literary production of the Greek-speaking world and its neighbours from the fourth century AD to the present. It aims to provide a forum for original scholarly work in any of these fields, covering cultures as diverse as Late Antiquity, the Byzantine empire, the Venetian empire, the Christian communities under Ottoman rule, and the modern nation states of Greece and Cyprus. Submissions in English are welcomed in the form of monographs, annotated editions, or collections of papers.

Volume 1 Anthony Hirst, God and the Poetic Ego: The Appropriation of Biblical and Liturgical Language in the Poetry of Palamas, Sikelianos and Elytis. 425 pages. 2004. ISBN 3-03910-327-X Volume 2 Hieromonk Patapios and Archbishop Chrysostomos, Manna from Athos: The Issue of Frequent Communion on the Holy Mountain in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries. 187 pages. 2006. ISBN 3-03910-722-4

Volume 3 Liana Giannakopoulou, The Power of Pygmalion: Ancient Greek Sculpture in Modern Greek Poetry, 1860-1960. 340 pages. 2007. ISBN 978-3-03910-752-0 Volume 4 Irene Loulakaki-Moore, Seferis and Elytis as Translators. 392 pages. 2010. ISBN 978-3-03911-918-9 Volume 5 Maria Mandamadiotou, The Greek Orthodox Community of Mytilene: Between the Ottoman Empire and the Greek State, 1876–1912. 270 pages. 2013. ISBN 978-3-0343-0910-3 Volume 6 Eugenia Russell, St Demetrius of Thessalonica: Cult and Devotion in the Middle Ages. 213 pages. 2010. ISBN 978-3-0343-0181-7 Volume 7 Ivan Sokolov, The Church of Constantinople in the Nineteenth Century: An Essay in Historical Research. Forthcoming, 2013. ISBN 978-3-0343-0202-9