The Patriarchal Crisis of 1910 and Constitutional Logic: Ottoman Greeks’ Dual Role in the Second...

The Patriarchal Crisis of 1910 and Constitutional Logic: OttomanGreeks' Dual Role in the Second Constitutional Politics

Fujinami Nobuyoshi

Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Volume 27, Number 1, May2009, pp. 1-30 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/mgs.0.0057

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by Harvard University at 02/23/11 10:35PM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mgs/summary/v027/27.1.fujinami.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mgs/summary/v027/27.1.fujinami.html

Journal of Modern Greek Studies 27 (2009) 1–30 © 2009 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

1

The Patriarchal Crisis of 1910 and Constitutional Logic:

Ottoman Greeks’ Dual Role in the Second Constitutional Politics

Fujinami Nobuyoshi

Abstract

From January to March 1910, the Ottoman Greeks experienced severe internal strife and a major crisis due to circumstances surrounding elections for the Holy Synod. An analysis of this crisis reveals some important aspects of the political structure of Ottoman Greek society. The Greeks were split into two camps with Patriarch Joachim III, lay councilors, the Hellenic legation, and the urban masses on one side and the metropolitans, intellectuals, and “middle class” on the other. The clerics remained influential even after the Young Turk Revolu-tion of 1908. Moreover, there were several points of conflict within the Greek Orthodox community—the Joachimist/anti-Joachimist split, the lay/clerical controversy, the existence of two national centers, and the relationship with the Bulgarians. Ottoman Greeks employed the logic of constitutionalism, the domi-nant legitimacy discourse after the Young Turk Revolution, in both intra- and inter-communal politics. Political maneuvering in the Second Constitutional Period and the Greeks’ dual role therein must be re-examined with reference to the interaction of these complex political actors and arenas of conflict.

Introduction

Beginning in January 1910, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul expe-rienced a severe internal crisis during the elections of the Holy Synod. Patriarch Joachim III refused to accept three metropolitans whom the Holy Synod had proposed as new members, while the latter body insisted on its decision. Patriarchal activities stagnated until this crisis was finally resolved two months later in March. Strangely, this event, which was one of the most important issues the Ottoman Greeks encountered in the final years of the Ottoman Empire, has not yet been adequately studied (Anestidis 1986–1987:407; Stavridis 2004:244–245). In fact, neither Turk-ish nor Greek historians of the Second Constitutional Period (1908–18)

2 Fujinami Nobuyoshi

have referred to this event (Ahmad 1969; Aks*in 1987; Atalay 2001; Boura 1999; Kansu 2000; Veremis 1999; Xanalatos 1962).

It is useful to consider recent historiographical trends concerning Greeks of the late Ottoman Empire to understand this crisis better (see Kechriotis 2002). As a reaction to the age-old tradition of nationalist historiographical discourse, which has tended to regard Greek sub-jects as “traitors” (in the Turkish view) or “unredeemed” co-nationals oppressed under the “Turkish yoke” (in the Greek view), recent works on the Ottoman Greeks direct our attention to their role and participa-tion in Ottoman society. A compilation edited by Dimitri Gondicas and Charles Issawi (1999) marked the turning point for this new tendency and represents the great progress being made in describing the insti-tutional framework of the Greek Orthodox community (Rum milleti), as well as Greek socio-economic activities within the Ottoman Empire (Anagnostopoulou 1998, 2003; Augustinos 1992; Bozkurt 1989; Clogg 1982; Exertzoglou 1999b, 2003; I Ænalcık 1991; Kasaba 1999; Kenanog¨lu 2004; Konortas 1998, 1999; Panayotopoulos 1983; Sahara 2003). Above all, recent scholarship on nationalism has dramatically enriched our knowledge of ideological developments among the Greeks (Anagnos-topoulou and Kappler 2005/2006; Exertzoglou 1999a; Fleming 2000; Kechriotis 2005; Skopetea 1999; Strauss 2002).

Thanks to these studies, we now know there were several ideological trends that affected Greek national identity. The famous Megali Idea, a manifestation of irredentist Greek nationalism, represented aspirations to gather all Greeks in the arms of a Hellenic state whose boundaries would run deep into Ottoman territory. Since there were many “unredeemed” Greeks outside the borders of the newly-born Hellenic state, this idea became a major part of the national agenda of Greece in the nineteenth century (Dakin 1972; Skopetea 1988). The ideologues of the “Eastern Federation,” claiming the incompetence of the Hellenic government in realizing this national agenda, dreamed of a brand new federated state where citizens from every ethnicity and religion would be treated with absolute equality. In actuality, their vision was heavily Hellenocentric. The “Society of Constantinople” was one of the most active advocates of this ideal (Augustinos 1977; Panayotopoulos 1980a; Todorov 1995). Helleno-Ottomanism, influenced by Tanzimat egalitarianism and modern-izing ideals, was a vision of gradually Hellenizing the Ottoman Empire through the penetration of Greek elements into both the economic and administrative spheres. Influential Greeks in Istanbul—bankers, entrepreneurs, and high ranking officials called Neo-Phanariots—were thought to be the main advocates of this idea. The Istanbul Patriarchate, true to its time-honored ecumenical tradition, attempted to unite the

3Patriarchal Crisis of 1910 and Constitutional Logic

Orthodox under its authority, while its vision of “nationalized” ecumenism eventually created more ethnically conscious clerics, even among its own personnel, and thus alienated its non-Greek flock. Patriarch Joachim III embodied this ecumenical idea (Anagnostopoulou 2004a; 2004b; see also Papadopoullos 1981 for the ecumenical tradition).

Political studies of the Ottoman Empire have evolved less. We still lack sufficient information about the political structure of the Ottoman Greeks on which ideological trends were constructed. Very little is known about the actual political course that the Ottoman Greeks charted, espe-cially after the Young Turk Revolution. A proper understanding of the effects that the abovementioned ideologies had on daily politics is still wanting. Catherine Boura (1999) and Thanos Veremis (1999) provide us with only a general overview. There are many reasons for this. First, there is a strong assumption that the Young Turks, and especially the Unionists (members of the Committee of Union and Progress, hereafter the CUP), consistently pursued a policy of “Turkification” under the guise of “Ottomanization” (Anagnostopoulou 1998:453–456; Boura 1999; Panayotopoulos 1980a; Panayotopoulos 1980b; Xanalatos 1962). As a consequence, non-Turkish elements in general, and Ottoman Greeks in particular, have been simply described as “victims” of the Young Turks’ “draconian” measures.1 Second, many historians consider Ottoman Greeks as a monolithic entity whose sole aim was to realize the Megali Idea (Ahmad 1962, 1982; Atalay 2001; Kansu 2000). In both cases, few have been motivated to analyze the political structure of the Greek Orthodox community in any depth. Moreover, almost all historians of the Otto-man Greeks conduct their research in the framework of Greek-Turkish relations. Needless to say, this makes it almost impossible to place both Turks and Greeks (and many actors within both communities) in the broader framework of the Ottoman political arena in which many other religious/ethnic groups participated.

Much about the political structure of the Ottoman Greeks in the Second Constitutional Period can be revealed by analyzing the Patriarchal Crisis of January–March 1910, because this event is very indicative of the dual role of the Orthodox Greeks in the Ottoman political arena. Not only did several points of conflict within the Greek Orthodox community become apparent during this event, but the logic of constitutionalism was applied by both of the opposing camps. By identifying the relevant political actors and illustrating their priorities and dual roles in the new environment of the Ottoman constitutional politics, much can be learned about this particular event and its consequences.


The Patriarchal Crisis

Problems with the Holy Synod elections surfaced on 25 January 1910. According to the second article of the synodal regulation,2 a part of the National Regulations (Rum Patriklig¨i Nizamatı/Εθνικοί Κανονισμοί) or the “millet constitution,” which was enacted in 1862 and in effect from that point onward, the synodal members were to be elected from among metropolitans for two-year terms of office with half the members being re-elected every year.3 This time, the Synod elected three metropolitans to replace those whose terms were expiring. These nominations were made according to the rotation system stipulated in the National Regula-tions. The new nominees were the Metropolitans of Kadıköy/Χαλκηδόνα, Midilli/Μυτιλήνη, and Karahisar-ı S*arki/Κολωνία. In addition, the Synod requested a one-year extension of the term of the metropolitan of Isparta/Πισιδείας.

Patriarch Joachim III refused to accept these three metropolitans on the grounds that they had shown hostility toward him for years and it was, therefore, impossible for him to work with them. Actually, it was a well-known fact that the Metropolitan of Kadıköy, Germanos, had been the archenemy of Joachim, actively taking the leadership of the anti-Joachimists (Bartas 1908:375–376; Cayré 1913:322–323; Spanoudis 2000:64–65, 128–129). Nevertheless, the Holy Synod insisted on its decision by asserting that, according to the eighth article of the synodal regulation, even the Patriarch had to obey the decision of the majority of the Synod (see Montmasson 1911 for the relationship between the Patriarch and the Synod). Although Joachim did not resign, he protested by refraining from the performance of his duties as Patriarch, including presiding over the Holy Synod, and thus precipitated the Patriarchal Crisis of 1910 (I Ækdam 1910a; The Levant Herald 1910a; Le Moniteur Ori-ental 1910a; Sada-yı Millet 1910b; Yeni Gazete 1910a). The Synod insisted on its decision, but lacked an effective tool to compel Joachim to obey. Replacing him was also problematic; the twelfth article of the synodal regulation required a two-thirds majority of the members of both of the two Patriarchal councils (i.e., the Holy Synod and the mixed council) to dismiss the Patriarch. Since the Holy Synod comprised 12 metropoli-tans, and the mixed council was made up of eight lay councilors and four synodal metropolitans, two-thirds of both councils meant 14 votes. Thus, both the laymen and clerics had veto power. In this case, the lay councilors of the mixed council unanimously supported the Patriarch, leading to a stalemate (I Ækdam 1910b, 1910f; 1910m; Sada-yı Millet 1910c; S*ura-yı Ümmet 1910a; Yeni Gazete 1910b; Tanin 1910a).

What was the main source of the conflict in this event? The issue


was whether the decision made by the majority of the Synod or the will of the Patriarch should be given priority or, in other words, whether the National Regulations or the αριστίνδην (merit) system should pre-vail. Αριστίνδην, or the right of the Patriarch to select anyone he liked for the Synod (which was not stipulated in the National Regulations), presumably on the basis of merit, had been introduced by Patriarch Gregory VI when he ascended the throne for the second time in 1867, and this method was accepted as a customary rule from that point onward (I Ækdam 1910f, 1910q; Sada-yı Millet 1910a; Bartas 1910:117; Karolidis 1913:187, 197; Stamatopoulos 2003:282, 284). In fact, both Joachimists and anti-Joachimists had benefited from this method as a convenient means of controlling the Synod (Cayré 1913:323; Daubray 1913:183; Karolidis 1913:154–155; Spanoudis 2000:70; Stamatopoulos 2001:209). A Joachimist newspaper, Sada-yı Millet, accused the synodal metropolitans of having a double standard, a logical point, since Joachim had selected some members of the Synod by the method of αριστίνδην (Sada-yı Millet 1910b).

Why, then, did the Synod object to Joachim’s use of the αριστίνδην procedure at this particular time? It is because the list that Joachim rejected included Germanos, the Metropolitan of Kadıköy (Daubray 1913:183; Stavridis 2004:245). Since the 1880s, Germanos had been the archenemy of Joachim and was considered to be the leader of the clerical and anti-Joachimist camps. Indeed, both Ioannis Griparis, the Hellenic minister to Istanbul, and Georgios Theoharidis, a lay councilor, feared that the Synod would fall into Germanos’s hands if he were elected (Karolidis 1913:157, 177). The fact that Joachim’s first concession was to accept the election of Germanos might be interpreted as further evidence to support this assumption, since he and his entourage believed that this measure would soften the attitude of the Synod and anti-Joachimists.

Eventually, Joachim took some reconciliatory steps. As early as 29 January he announced that he would accept Germanos; as for the other two members, he proposed to elect the Metropolitans of Niksar/Νεο-καισαρείας and Konya/Ικόνιο in place of the two nominated by the Holy Synod (I Ækdam 1910e; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910c; Sabah 1910b; Yeni Gazete 1910c; Tanin 1910b; Yeni Tasvir-i Efkar 1910a). This seems an attempt by Joachim to compromise by a half measure to save face for both camps (Bartas 1910:119). Furthermore, he put forward several other sugges-tions, the most significant of which was one to convene a joint council comprising members of the two Patriarchal councils in order finally to resolve the situation (I Ækdam 1910o; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910i; Yeni Gazete 1910g; 1910k; Yeni Tasvir-i Efkar 1910c, 1910d). The Holy Synod, however, held firm to its refusal on the grounds that lay councilors had

Figure 1. The Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III, 1902. Image courtesy of Panagiotis Pournaras.


no say in religious affairs such as synodal elections, and the synodal metropolitans stuck to the decision they had made on 25 January (The Levant Herald 1910d; I Ækdam 1910r; Yeni Gazete 1910h, 1910i, 1910l; Yeni Tasvir-i Efkar 1910e).

If we believe the account of Pavlos Karolidis/Παύλος Καρολίδης, a historian and deputy from I Æzmir, this whole affair was a result of Griparis’s interference. He wanted the metropolitans of Niksar and Konya, who were obedient to him, to be placed on the Holy Synod, and thus he pushed the reluctant Joachim to convince the synodal metropolitans to approve his list of nominees. Griparis put further pressure on the Synod, enlisting the support of Ottoman Greek deputies (Karolidis 1913:180–182), but the Synod did not give in, despite the urgings of Yorgi Bos*o/Γεώργιος Μπούσιος, a deputy from Serviçe, and Yorgi Huneyos/Γεώργιος Χωναίος of Salonica, both of whom were members of the Society of Constantinople (I Ækdam 1910h; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910g, 1910k; Yeni Gazete 1910f; Tanin 1910c). At last, Bos*o openly criticized the Synod (Bartas 1910:119–120; I Ækdam 1910s), but to no avail; on the contrary, rumors had spread among the metropolitans that Griparis was behind this whole affair with the sole aim of making money (Karolidis 1913:183, 192). Moreover, from around 11 February, the Synod stiffened its attitude and began to consider call-ing for an extraordinary meeting of the metropolitans in which they would take special steps to dismiss the Patriarch (I Ækdam 1910n, 1910p; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910j; Karolidis 1913:196).

On 27 February, the lay councilors of the mixed council consulted with seven Ottoman Greek deputies and decided that all of them should intervene on behalf of the Greek nation (I Ækdam 1910u; Karolidis 1913:182, 187). The next day, all Greek deputies met at the Chamber of Deputies and passed a resolution which requested Joachim to concede in order to resolve the crisis (Le Moniteur Oriental 1910o; Tanin 1910d; Yeni Gazete 1910n; Karolidis 1913:188). In addition to making this resolution, they visited both the Patriarch and the Holy Synod on 1 March and asked for a settlement. Nevertheless, their intervention failed; both camps declined to concede (I Ækdam 1910v; The Levant Herald 1910e; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910p; Yeni Gazete 1910o; Karolidis 1913:188–191).

The Holy Synod was backed by a number of metropolitans, especially those from Macedonia. They were followed by many Greek merchants, lawyers, doctors, and students in Istanbul who eventually announced their approval of the Synod’s decision. Karolidis declined Griparis’s request to persuade the Synod to concede (Karolidis 1913:195–196). Furthermore, the synodal metropolitans planned to send Joachim an ultimatum by 17 March which would inform him of their intention to rally provincial metropolitans for the purpose of dismissing him (Le Moniteur Oriental


1910s; Karolidis 1913:196). Faced with this difficult situation, Joachim finally yielded. On 17 March he declared his acceptance of the synodal decision made on 25 January, resulting in the resolution of the Patriarchal Crisis (The Levant Herald 1910f; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910t, 1910u; Sada-yı Millet 1910g; S*ura-yı Ümmet 1910b; Tanin 1910e; I Ækdam 1910x).

Actors and logic: the Ottoman Greek version of constitutionalism

Undoubtedly, the single most important actor in this affair was the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III, then in his second term of office (1878–84, 1901–12). The Holy Synod (meclis-i ruhani/Ιερά Σύνοδος) and the mixed council (meclis-i muhtelit/Διαρκές Εθνικό Μικτό Συμβούλιο), were the official administrative bodies of the Patriarchate. These two councils had been set up according to the National Regulations which formed the constitutional text of the Greek Orthodox community. The Holy Synod was to deal with religious affairs, while the duty of the mixed council was to administer other worldly business.

Other constitutional actors were the Greek deputies in the Otto-man parliament. Of the 24 Ottoman Greek deputies, Yorgi Bos*o, Yorgi Huneyos, Pavlos Karolidis, and Aristidi Pas*a (from I Æzmir) were the principal actors. In addition, the Hellenic minister to Istanbul between 1903 and 1910, Ioannis Griparis, played a role. He would later become the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Kingdom, serving from 1910 to 1912.

Conflict within the Patriarchate was not all that exceptional. What made the Patriarchal Crisis of 1910 extraordinary was the fact that this whole affair occurred in the new political and ideological environment in the aftermath of the Young Turk Revolution and resulted in the polarization of Greeks involved. This division continued throughout the crisis and was witnessed by many contemporary observers (Bartas 1910:119; Karolidis 1913:195–196; Perraud 1910:499–500). On one side stood Patriarch Joachim III, lay councilors, and the Hellenic lega-tion in Istanbul, favored by Greek papers such as Πρόοδος and Πατρίς. It is interesting that the urban masses of Istanbul were in favor of the Patriarch throughout the event. Every Sunday, a crowd gathered at the Patriarchate and applauded Joachim, blaming the synodal metropolitans for the conflict (I Ækdam 1910f, 1910l, 1910t; Levant Herald 1910b, 1910c; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910d, 1910f, 1910n; Sada-yı Millet 1910e, 1910f; Yeni Gazete 1910d, 1910e, 1910k, 1910m). On the other side were the metropolitans, intellectuals, and so-called urban “middle class.” The Greek-language newspapers Νεολόγος and Ταχυδρόμος defended the cause of the Holy Synod.


The lay councilors of the mixed council consistently and unani-mously sided with Joachim. This is a natural consequence of the fact that the mixed council was primarily made up of Joachimist sympathizers. Since his first Patriarchy, Joachim had been supported by influential

Figure 2. The Metropolitan of Kadıköy, Germanos. Image courtesy of Panagiotis Pournaras.


Phanariot bankers from among whom lay councilors were often elected (Perraud 1910:492; Stamatopoulos 2003:63–64, 351–352, 2006:266). Lay councilors saw this crisis as a good opportunity to affirm their supremacy over the affairs of the Patriachate (Perraud 1910:500). The Hellenic legation, and especially Minister Griparis (though always behind the scenes), intervened in support of Joachim. Some observers, including several influential metropolitans, thought it was these members who pushed a reluctant Joachim to open up the struggle with the Synod. In Karolidis’s account, Griparis instigated the whole affair (1913:177, 179, 184). A similar interpretation was offered in Ταχυδρόμος (I Ækdam 1910c, 1910k).

The attitudes of members of the Society of Constantinople and Otto-man Greek deputies were somewhat ambiguous. At first they took a more or less neutral and independent stance, but eventually, they sided with the Hellenic minister and the Patriarch and tried to persuade the synodal metropolitans. It seems that lay councilors like Georgios Theoharidis and Solon Kazanovas, who collaborated with the Society of Constantinople, finally let society members intervene on their behalf.

It is difficult to determine precisely why Griparis supported Joachim, especially if we recall the fact that Joachim often fought with the Hellenic government during his first term as Patriarch (Kofos 1986; Stamatopou-los 2006:266). Evidently, Griparis was influenced by a number of events. After its defeat in the Ottoman-Greek war of 1897, the Hellenic govern-ment did not––indeed, could not––actively intervene in the affairs of the Patriarchate. Especially after the Young Turk Revolution, the Hellenic government refrained from taking any definitive measures against the Ottomans. Moreover, at this time the Hellenic state was largely impotent as a result of the chaos caused by the Goudi coup in 1909 (Gardikas-Katsiadakis 2006:87, 97–98, 107; Karolidis 1913:194; Svolopoulos 1984). As a consequence, Griparis took an opportunistic attitude toward Otto-man Greeks, employing a “wait-and-see” approach without any concrete policy. Ion Dragoumis’s and Athanasios Souliotis-Nikolaidis’s complaints about the Hellenic government’s inability to act in a way that would benefit the Ottoman Greeks must be understood in this context (Augus-tinos 1977:96–101, 117–134; Dragoumis 1991; Panayotopoulos 1980a; Souliotis-Nikolaidis 1984:35, 68–71). Therefore, Griparis’s attempt to preserve the status quo by recognizing the Joachimists’ hegemony over the Patriarchate was the least dangerous course of action (Karolidis 1913:157), especially since the Ottoman government was very wary of certain influential clerics like Chrysostomos, the Metropolitan of Drama/Δράμας and later of I Æzmir/Σμύρνη because of their pro-Hellenic attitudes (Sabah 1909; Sada-yı Millet 1910i; Tanin 1911). Moreover, by supporting


Joachim, Griparis could expect that the two metropolitans most obedi-ent to him would be elected to the Synod, thus facilitating his control over the Patriachate.

On the other hand, the Holy Synod and almost all the metropoli-tans in the provinces opposed the Patriarch. Notable exceptions were the Metropolitans of Niksar and Konya who were on the legation’s list (Karolidis 1913:194–195) and the Metropolitan of Ankara, who was the only supporter of Joachim in the Synod (I Ækdam 1910d; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910c). In late February the metropolitans from Macedonia conducted an unofficial meeting and declared their support for the Synod (I Ækdam 1910t, 1910w; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910j, 1910m, 1910q, 1910r; Bartas 1910:119; Karolidis 1913:195), making it impossible for the synodal members to concede to Joachim without a legitimate reason (Karolidis 1913:188, 193). Maneuvering by the Hellenic legation and lay councilors to split the Synod was unsuccessful (Le Moniteur Oriental 1910h; Karolidis 1913:180–181). Therefore, Souliotis-Nikolaidis is exaggerating when he retrospectivelly asserts that the two councils were in the pocket of the Society of Constantinople (1984:68). Furthermore, Greek merchants in Istanbul refused the lay councilors’ request for aid (I Ækdam 1910d), and some of their representatives either visited or sent telegrams to the Synod to express their support (I Ækdam 1910i; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910e, 1910l). Members of the doctors’ and lawyers’ associations thanked the Synod for their inclination to comply with the law (I Ækdam 1910g; Sabah 1910c). 200 Greek students of higher education did the same (I Ækdam 1910i), while the Greek students from Istanbul University (Darülfünun) announced their support for the Synod (Yeni Tasvir-i Efkar 1910b) and some 60 Istanbul Greek notables, along with their counterparts from Edirne, urged Joachim to accept the decision made by the Synod (Yeni Tasvir-i Efkar 1910d; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910l).

This polarization indicates the important fact that, while the lay councilors of the mixed council, who were elected almost exclusively from among the big bourgeois entrepreneurs and Neo-Phanariots, were supporters of Joachim, urban liberal professionals and students (the so-called middle class) supported the cause of the Holy Synod. Viewed from this perspective, the Patriarchal Crisis of 1910 was not a struggle between laymen and clerics. Those in the secular middle class allied themselves with the synodal metropolitans against the previously all-powerful upper classes. Sia Anagnostopoulou and Matthias Kappler consider this newly emerged middle class as an agent of Greek nationalism, while regarding the Neo-Phanariot upper classes as elements of a fading Helleno-Otto-manism (2005/2006:50; Anagnostopoulou 1998:301–307, 312–318). The polarization which emerged during the Patriarchal Crisis, however,


suggests that the middle class was more attached to the Ottoman order than is usually believed. By employing the logic of constutitionalism, the Ottoman Greek middle class aligned itself with the synodal metropolitans in order to oppose the monopolistic rule of Neo-Phanariots.

The victory of the Holy Synod over the alliance of lay councilors, the Hellenic legation, and Patriarch Joachim suggests another important feature: proof of the Synod’s influence and power within the Patriarchate and toward the Hellenic Kingdom. Recent scholarship underscores the power of laymen and the influence of the bourgeois, with their inclination toward Greek nationalism and, by implication, the secularization of the Patriarchate and its submission to the Hellenic Kingdom (Anagnosto-poulou 1998:467–488; Anagnostopoulou and Kappler 2005/2006:48–51; Kechriotis 2007:59–70). In actuality, clerics remained a considerable force (their power and influence legally and institutionally secured), though not to the degree they had once enjoyed. For instance, one observer remarked that the Patriarch was a captive, under the strict control of the synodal metropolitans (Cayré 1912). Some even criticized the National Regulations themselves on the grounds that they diminished the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch to such a degree as to render him inferior to a mere metropolitan (The Levant Herald 1910a; Karolidis 1913:185–187; see also Manouil Gedeon’s account, cited in Stamatopoulos 2001:207). In fact, as Dimitrios Stamatopoulos indicates, the clerics succeeded in preserving their influence by the very articles of the National Regulations, which in themselves formed the peak of the laicization process during the nineteenth century (2001:191). In the provinces, as ex-officio members of provincial councils, local metropolitans also maintained their influence (Anagnostopoulou 1998:318–325; Davison 1968:98, 102–103).

As for their relationship with the Hellenic state, even in the so-called “Macedonian Struggle,” the Hellenic government had to work hand-in-hand with, and sometimes rely heavily upon, the metropolitans as their principal agents in the Ottoman territories (Kofos 1990:104–110). If the local metropolitans found the instructions from the Hellenic authorities unreasonable, many dared to oppose them (Karolidis 1913:181). Thus, clerics, and especially the Holy Synod, continued to be among the most important political actors, even after the Young Turk Revolution.

The logic followed by the Holy Synod was not that of a lay-clerical controversy. Both the metropolitans and their lay supporters criticized Joachim’s autocratic behavior by underscoring the importance of comply-ing with the law. Once the Ottoman Empire was governed by constitution-alism and the Greek Orthodox community was subject to the National Regulations, it is apparent that even the Patriarch was expected to act according to the law and obey the majority of the Synod. Majority is the


key principle of constitutionalism. Synodal metropolitans objected to the intervention of lay people in religious affairs on the grounds that such intervention was contrary to the spirit of the National Regulations which mandated separate roles for the religious and secular domains. Inasmuch as Holy Synod elections were religious, Joachim’s attempt to introduce lay councilors into this affair had to be rejected (see the editorials of Νεολόγος and Ταχυδρόμος quoted in I Ækdam 1910b, 1910c; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910a, 1910c; Karoldis 1913:185). This logic had much in com-mon with the one employed when the National Regulations were being drafted. The clerics, responding to influential laymen, had to accede to the creation of a lay body within the Patriarchate while, at the same time, using the logic of constitutionalism to preserve a religious sphere where laymen could not interfere (Stamatopoulos 2001:216).

The Hellenic legation and the lay councilors also used the logic of constitutionalism, but from a slightly different point of view. First of all, there was no illegal aspect in the behavior of Joachim; the αριστίνδην measure was a customary rule that even the Holy Synod had recognized, at least implicitly (Sada-yı Millet 1910a; see also the official public release of the Patriarchate written from the Joachimist point of view, Le Moniteur Oriental 1910q; Yeni Gazete 1910p). In addition, they argued for the need to defend national interests through the representatives of the nation; i.e., lay councilors. According to them, the synodal metropolitans were poorly equipped to represent the national will since they were elected only from the clergy (Sada-yı Millet 1910b; Karolidis 1913:177). The Joachimist paper Πρόοδος tried to describe this affair as a sign of the harsh struggle between clerics and the people, but, of course, it was clerics who neglected the national interest (Le Moniteur Oriental 1910a).

The Greek-owned Turkish paper, Sada-yı Millet, introduced some-thing new to the ideological debate. In stressing the vital importance of reconciling the common interest (menfaat-ı umumiye) of the Ottomans with the particular interest (menfaat-ı hususiye) of the Greeks, it praised Joachim as the only person who had been able to accomplish this difficult task. Contrarily, the synodal metropolitans were seen as only concerned with their own narrow interests; therefore, true Ottoman citizens had to back Joachim and support his patriotic policy (Sada-yı Millet 1910b, 1910c, 1910d). It seems that these editorials were directed toward Otto-man rather than Greek public opinion since Sada-yı Millet was published in Turkish and was read by the Ottoman public. Hence, it attempted to convince the Ottomans that the Joachimist camp was more patriotic than its opponents. Whether this rhetoric achieved the expected result is another matter. In actuality, Tanin, the de facto mouthpiece of the CUP, did not by any means trust Sada-yı Millet ’s “patriotic” tone. Editorials


published in Tanin maintained that the reason it took this stance was due to its inferior position in the face of its opponents (Tanin 1910f).

It would be naïve to consider that both camps were true constitu-tionalists. Joachim’s antipathy towards the Young Turk Revolution and the new regime is well known, and he often behaved in opposition to both the letter and the spirit of the National Regulations (Anagnostopoulou 1998:458–459; Boura 1999:196; Veremis 1999:185; Souliotis-Nikolaidis 1984:69). As for the anti-Joachimist clerics, they had opposed the Joachi-mists’ reforms with a mentality loyal to the age-old “Gerontismos” tradi-tion, which had assured senior metropolitans almost exclusive power in ruling the community (Cayré 1913:63–65; Spanoudis 2000:118–122).

What is important here is that both camps employed the logic of constitutionalism to legitimize their positions. The synodal metropolitans justified their version of the secular/religious distinction by reference to the terms of the National Regulations, the constitutional texts for the community administration. The lay councilors claimed they were more constitutional than the clerics because they were the political representatives of the “nation.” In this regard, it is extremely interesting that Ottoman Greeks interpreted constitutionalism (and the secular/religious distinction) very differently in the intra- and inter-communal political arenas. For example, when it came to the “Privileges Question” (the conflict between the Ottoman government and the Patriarchate with regard to the latter’s oversight of education, military conscripiton, church properties, and so on [see Kechriotis 2007]) and the Greco-Bulgarian Church Problem (the ethnic/religious conflict between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Bulgarian Exarchate), Ottoman Greek political actors united against the common “enemies” and employed a communitarian interpretation of constitutionalism, one very different than that favored in the Patriarchal Crisis.4 This demonstrates how deeply the Ottoman Greeks were embedded in the new legitimacy discourse after the Young Turk Revolution, invoking the logic of constitutionalism whenever possible, albeit from different points of view according to the circumstances and tactical concerns.

Another important feature during the course of these events was the non-intervention policy of the Ottoman government and the CUP. The Patriarchate’s decision not to inform the Ottoman government officially about this affair must have had some effect (Le Moniteur Oriental 1910a; Yeni Gazete 1910j). Baha, the head of the religious affairs in the Ministry of Justice and Religious Affairs, declared that the government did not want to interfere in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate (Sabah 1910d; Yeni Gazete 1910j). Indeed, neither the government nor the CUP spoke out and the Patriarchate repeatedly thanked the government for its non-


intervention policy (I Ækdam 1910l; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910f; Sada-yı Millet 1910f, 1910h; Yeni Gazete 1910e). The only information we have is that Ahmet Rıza, president of the Chamber of Deputies, informally counseled Joachim to make concessions, advice offered from the constitutionalist point of view (I Ækdam 1910c; Le Moniteur Oriental 1910b; Sabah 1910a).

The attitudes of Turkish newspapers were similar. Turkish papers covered the affair with very limited enthusiasm and from a more or less neutral standpoint. Even the Armenian-owned Turkish paper, Sabah, displayed little interest in this affair. Yeni Gazete and especially I Ækdam were exceptional in reporting the details of the event with I Ækdam supporting the cause of the Holy Synod, using almost the same constitutional logic as that applied by the Synod itself. I Ækdam even advised the Synod to request government intervention on its behalf (I Ækdam 1910j, 1910q). Moreover, I Ækdam severely criticized the interference of Griparis, a “foreigner,” in the matters of the Patriarchate which it considered an Ottoman domes-tic affair (I Ækdam 1910f, 1910h). Yet, Ottoman public opinion as a whole was characterized by its indifference. This means that, although it was important in the context of Ottoman Greek intra-communal politics, the Patriarchal Crisis of 1910 had little effect in the Ottoman political arena as a whole. Among the various issues which affected the vital interests of the Greek Orthodox community, some drew the attention of non-Greeks, others did not. The process of this affair was in marked contrast to that of the Church Problem in the second half of the same year when the Ottoman Greeks were confronted with and opposed by almost all non-Greek political actors, including non-Greek Christian deputies (Fujinami 2004, 2007). By contrast, in the Patriarchal Crisis of January–March 1910, non-Greeks played no role whatsoever.

Many areas of conflict

There were several areas of institutional/ideological conflict within the Greek-Orthodox community. Indeed, many of them overlapped with each other, but they were definitely different things. Consequently, a simple projection of any one of them to the actual political process of the Second Constitutional Period would be misleading. Also, the Greek Orthodox intra-communal political arena was relatively independent of the broader, more general Ottoman political sphere. Therefore, when analyzing the behavior of the Ottoman Greek political actors, it is essential to consider both their intra- and inter-communal policies.

1) During the period in question, the Ottoman Greeks faced several sets of institutional/ideological conflict. The Joachimist/anti-Joachimist controversy, which can be traced back to the 1880s, was the major source


of conflict in the Patriarchal Crisis of 1910. While the Patriarch himself and lay councilors were Joachimists, the synodal metropolitans belonged to the anti-Joachimist camp and Metropolitan Germanos of Kadıköy, the next Ecumenical Patriarch after Joachim, was the leader of them. The former were often called “reformists” and/or “progressives,” while those belonging to the latter were labeled “conservatives.” According to anti-Joachimists, however, the Patriarch was a demagogue always playing up to his Phanariot patrons (Alexandris 1992:34–35; Cayré 1913:63–65, 166–167, 322–327; Daubray 1913; Karolidis 1913:153–155; Spanoudis 2000:53–134, especially 54–55, 115–128).

2) Another source of conflict was the lay-clerical relationship. This revolved around the question of who had the right to represent and who would take the initiative within the Greek Orthodox community. As this controversy largely overlapped with the Joachimist/anti-Joachimist rivalry, it appears that it played some role in the Patriarchal Crisis of 1910. At the same time, it should not be forgetten that this was not the determining factor with regard to the posture of the laymen. While those belonging to the so-called middle class supported the Holy Synod, influential lay councilors supported Joachim (Bartas 1908:375; Cayré 1912:401–404; Daubray 1913:178; Stamatopoulos 2001:209; Stavridis 2004:243–244). In addition, we have no reason to deny the existence of another source of conflict relating to the clerics—simony and personal interests, both major factors in the Joachimist/anti-Joachimist controversy (Cayré 1913:65; Daubray 1913:179; Karolidis 1913:183, 192, 195, 197–198).

3) There was a problem regarding prioritization in the two cen-ters of the Greek nation—the Hellenic Kingdom and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Anagnostopoulou 1998:419–428; Kitromilidis 1984, 2001; Kofos 1986; Veremis 1990). Patriarch Joachim was the champion of (nationalized) ecumenism and the εθνάρχης/milletbas*ı (national lea-der) tradition (Anagnostopoulou 2004a; Anagnostopoulou and Kappler 2005/2006:51–55; Anestidis 1986–1987). But the Hellenic bureaucrats stood against this ecumenism with their Megali Idea mentality, while mem-bers of the Society of Constantinople saw both the impotent Hellenic government and the obstinate Patriarchate as obstacles to its ideal of an “Eastern Federation” (Dragoumis 1991; Souliotis-Nikolaidis 1984:71; Veremis 1999). In addition, there were some clerics, like Chrysostomos, who opposed Joachim’s version of ecumenism and looked forward to the leadership of the Hellenic state (Kitromilidis 2001). It is interest-ing that those representing the latter three ideological currents against Joachim’s ecumenism were divided among themselves, at least on the occasion of the Patriarchal Crisis of 1910; Griparis supported Joachim, Chrysostomos was one of the leaders of the anti-Joachimist metropolitans,


and the Society of Constantinople took an intermediary position. This is largely due to the unstable condition of the Hellenic state and its weak foreign policy at this time.

4) Since the nineteenth century, the relationship with the Bulgar-ians was an extremely important matter for both Hellenic Greeks and Ottoman Greeks. Eventually, this problem prompted each Greek political actor to choose one of two options: to cooperate with the Bulgarians to throw off the “Turkish yoke” or to ally with the Turks to oppose the “Bulgarian threat.” Thus, this conflict also determined attitudes toward the Ottoman government. While the Hellenic government and the Society of Constantinople eventually adopted the first option (Panay-otopoulos 1980a; Souliotis-Nikolaidis 1984), Karolidis and Metropolitan Ger manos were famous for their strong anti-Bulgarian sentiments (Dau-bray 1913:184; Karolidis 1913, 1992, 1993). Joachim proved himself to be exceptional when he was simultaneously willing to restore the relation-ship with the Bulgarians and still remain loyal to the Ottoman order of things (Cayré 1913:431–443; Kofos 1984, 1986). Although this conflict was the main reason for dividing Ottoman Greek political actors into opposing camps after the autumn of 1910, it did not surface beforehand (Fujinami 2007).

5) Last but not least, there was a major conflict between the classes, though it was more potential than real. To understand this, it is neces-sary to distinguish between the big bourgeois entrepreneurs—bankers and important bureaucrats whom the lay councilors represented at the Patriarchate in the Neo-Phanariot tradition; the newly emerged middle class—those in such liberal professions as medicine, law, commerce, and education (professors and students); and the lower class of laborers and anonymous urban masses who were gradually inclined to the socialist movement (Centre of Marxist Studies 1989; Noutsos 1984; Panayotopou-los 1980b). In the course of the Patriarchal Crisis of 1910, the middle class challenged the monopolistic rule of Neo-Phanariots while the urban masses seem to have been manipulated by lay councilors.

Each of these five conflicts was undoubtedly significant and deeply affected the interests of the Greek Orthodox community. One must be cautious, however, when interpreting these conflicts in the context of Ottoman Greek politics, since, as shown above, none of them was more important than any other. In other words, friend/enemy relationships in any one of those antagonistic contexts do not necessarily explain the relationships among political actors in the other areas of conflict. Instead, the Ottoman Greek political structure must be analyzed against the backdrop of the interaction between all of these sets of institutional/ideological conflict.


This conclusion introduces another important point. Among these sets of conflict, some featured Ottoman Greek actors in close relation-ships with their non-Greek counterparts; others did not. For example, the conflicts described in 4 and 5 had a great deal to do with non-Greek actors. On these issues, Ottoman Greeks had to negotiate with their non-Greek counterparts, including the Ottoman government and the CUP, in order to achieve their goals. Besides, there was the Privileges Question which united almost all the Greek actors and brought them into opposition with the Ottoman government. On the other hand, Greeks behaved almost independently of non-Greeks in regard to the conflicts described above in 1, 2, and 3, at least after the Young Turk Revolution. That only Greeks were interested in these issues is demonstrated by the fact that, although the Hellenic government occasionally intervened, the same was rarely true of the Ottoman government.5

Conclusion

The political structure of the Ottoman Greek community was more strongly conditioned by the influence of clerics than is usually recog-nized. This is not to say that laicization had not left its imprint or that laymen were inferior to clerics in terms of power; rather, it is a fact that clerics did preserve their influence, secured by both the Ottoman legislation and the National Regulations. Clerics were not the obedient objects of the policies and instructions handed down by the Hellenic government and/or lay councilors. In this sense, what Stamatopoulos has argued about the consequences of the laicization process during the nineteenth century holds largely true for the early twentieth century as well (2003:27–30, 375–377). At the same time, the lay-clerical controversy was not the sole source of conflict. Class differentiation within the Greek Orthodox community brought about a struggle between different tiers of society. The middle class occasionally opposed the monopolistic rule of Neo-Phanariots, even in alliance with the clerics.

Furthermore, the new ideological facet in the Second Constitutional Period must not be over looked. Besides the National Regulations in force from 1862 onward, Ottoman Greeks were also subject to the Ottoman Constitution of 1876; they adapted themselves to the new legitimacy discourse of constitutionalism after the Young Turk Revolution. The logic of constitutionalism provided each actor with an influential tool which it could wield over its opponents. This is one of the most remark-able aspects of Second Constitutional politics. Ottoman political actors, regardless of their ethnicity and creed, had to legitimate themselves by the logic of constitutionalism. Since all the concerned parties did the


same, the interpretation of constitutionalism became one of the most important issues in Ottoman politics.

In all the sets of conflict described herein, each Ottoman Greek actor pursued his own policy, sometimes in conjunction with and some-times independent of his non-Greek counterparts. Thus, Ottoman Greeks played a dual role in Second Constitutional politics. They simultaneously belonged to the broader, more general Ottoman political arena and the narrower, more particular arena of the Orthodox Greek community. Ottoman Greeks acted differently in their intra- and inter-communal political arenas because their interests and friend/enemy relationships were different in each sphere. Still, they utilized the logic of constitu-tionalism in both spheres, albeit from different points of view. Politics in the Second Ottoman Constitutional Period and the Greeks’ role in it must be re-examined against the backdrop of the interaction of these multiple actors and sets of conflict. Likewise, Ottoman Greeks’ behaviors and ideologies must be analyzed in the context of their dual role in the game of Ottoman constitutional politics.

THE UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO

NOTES

Acknowledgements. This paper is based on a presentation made at the Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 4 December 2007. I appreciate those present for their com-ments and I am greatly indebted to the two anonymous referees of the Journal of Modern Greek Studies for their insightful advice. My thanks also go to Vangelis Kechriotis, who kindly provided me with invaluable sources and useful suggestions. Some of the materials I used in this paper were collected during my stay in Istanbul, which was realized by a Research Grant from the Matsushita International Foundation.

1 The Young Turks’ policies and the intentions conveyed in them are currently being re-examined. According to recent studies, the policies of the Young Turks were, in essence, more “Ottoman” than “Turkish” (Arai 1992; Kayalı 1997; Toprak 2006). It is somewhat misleading to consider Young Turks as being determined to pursue a policy of “Turkification” from the early days of the Second Constitutional Period, as the common understanding has thus far asserted.

2 Synodal regulation was a part of the National Regulations (see below) and called Cemaat-ı Metropolitanın Heyetiyle Suret-i Tes*ekkülünü Mutazammın Nizamnamesinin Tercümesidir in Turkish (Düstur 1289H:912–915) and in Greek, Κανονισμός τρίτος περι του τρόπου του σχηματισμού της Συνόδου των μητροπολιτών (The third regulation concer-ning the composition of the Synod of metropolitans) (Papastathi 1984:91–94; Stavridis 2004:859–862).


3 The National Regulations were officially called Rum Patriklig¨i Nizamatı in Turkish and appeared in Düstur, the code of laws of the Empire (Düstur 1289H:902–937). The Greek version was published in 1888 by the Patriarchate as Γενικοί Κανονισμοί περι διευθετήσεως των εκκλησιαστικών και εθνικών πραγμάτων των υπο τον Οικουμενικόν Θρόνον διατελούντων Ορθοδόξων Χριστιανών υπηκόων της Α.Μεγαλειότητος του Σουλτάνου (General Regulations con-cerning the settlement of ecclesiastic and ethnic matters under the Ecumenical Throne of the remaining Orthodox Christian subjects of his Majesty the Sultan) (1988). The text is found in Papastathi (1984:78–110) and Stavridis (2004:851–877).

4 This is a very important problem that must be treated separately. I would like to elaborate on this issue on another occasion. For the time being, consult Fujinami (2004, 2007).

5 Of course, this is not to say that the Ottoman government never interfered in the internal affairs of the Greek Orthodox community. On the contrary, it played a significant role when the National Regulations were being drafted (Davison 1963:126–129; Stam-atopoulos 2001:192; 2003:77–109, 135–156). I refer only to the attitude of the Ottoman government in the early years of the Second Constitutional Period.

REFERENCES CITED

Ahmad, Feroz1969 The Young Turks: the Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics, 1908–1914.

Oxford: Clarendon Press.1982 “Unionist Relations with the Greek, Armenian, and Jewish Communities of the

Ottoman Empire, 1908–1914.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Volume 1 The Central Lands, edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, 401–434. New York: Holmes and Meiers.

Aks*in, Sina1987 Jön Türkler ve I Ættihat ve Terakki (The Young Turks and the Union and Progress).

Istanbul: Remzi.

Alexandris, Alexis1992 The Greek Minority of Istanbul and Greek-Turkish Relations 1918–1974. Athens:

Centre for Asia Minor Studies (first edition 1983).

Anagnostopoulou, (Athana) Sia1998 Σία Αναγνωστοπούλου, Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.–1919. Οι Ελληνορθόδοξες κοινότητες:

Από το μιλλέτ των Ρωμιών στο Ελληνικό έθνος (Asia Minor, the 19th Century–1919. The Greek Orthodox Communities: From the Greek Millet to the Hellenic Nation). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.

2003 Athanasia Anagnostopulu, “Tanzimat ve Rum Milletinin Kurumsal Çerçevesi: Patrikhane, Cemaat Kurumları, Eg¨itim” (“Tanzimat and the Institutional Environment of the Greek Millet: the Patriarchate, Community Institutions, and Education”). In 19.Yüzyıl I Æstanbul’unda Gayrimüslimler (Non-Muslims in the 19th Century Istanbul), edited by Pinelopi Stathis, 1–35. Traslated by Foti and Stefo Benlisoy. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. (Originally published as Πηνελόπη Στάθη, Η παρουσία των εθνικών μειονοτήτων στην Κωνσταντινούπολη του 19ου αιώνα [The Presence of Ethnic Minorities in 19th Century Istanbul]. Athens: Sindesmos Megaloscholiton, 1997).


2004a “The Terms Millet, Genos (‘Christian Orthodox Race’), Ethnos (Nation), Oikoumenikotita (Ecumenicity), Alytrotismos (Irredentism) in Greek Histo-riography.” In The Passage from the Ottoman Empire to the Nation-States: a Long and Difficult Process, the Greek Case, edited by Anastasia Anagnostopoulou, 37–55. Istanbul: Isis.

2004b “Église oecuménique, église nationale. Le problème des rapports entre reli-gion et nation dans les Balkans, 19ème siècle – début 20ème siècles. L’example grec.” In The Passage from the Ottoman Empire to the Nation-States: a Long and Difficult Process, the Greek Case, edited by Anastasia Anagnostopoulou, 57–73. Istantbul: Isis.

Anagnostopoulou, Anastasia, editor2004 The Passage from the Ottoman Empire to the Nation-States: a Long and Difficult Process,

the Greek Case. Istanbul: Isis.

Anagnostopoulou, Sia and Matthias Kappler2005/2006 “Ζήτω Ζήτω ο Σουλτάνος/Bin Yas*a Padis*ahımız: The Millet-i Rum Singing

the Praises of the Sultan in the Framework of Helleno-Ottomanism.” Archivum Ottomanicum 23:47–78.

Anestidis, Stavros Th.1986–1987 Σταύρος Θ. Ανεστίδης, «Ιωακείμ ο Γ΄: Αρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως και

Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης (1878–1884, 1901–1912)» (“Joachim III: Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch [1878–1884, 1901–1912]”). Deltio Kentro Mikrasiatikon Spoudon (Bulletin of the Centre for Asia Minor Studies) 6:391–411.

Arai, Masami1992 Turkish Nationalism in the Young Turk Era. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Atalay, Bülent2001 Fener Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi’nin Siyasi Faaliyetleri (1908–1923) (The Politi-

cal Activities of the Phanar Greek Orthodox Patriarchate [1908–1923]). Istanbul: Tatav.

Augustinos, Gerasimos1977 Consciousness and History: Nationalist Critics of Greek Society 1897–1914. Boulder,

CO: East European Monographs (distributed by the Columbia University Press).

1992 The Greeks of Asia Minor: Confession, Community, and Ethnicity in the Nineteenth Century. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Bartas, G.1908 “Au Patriarcat oecuménique.” Échos d’Orient 11:372–379.1910 “Chez les Grecs orthodoxes.” Échos d’Orient 13:115–121.

Blinkhorn, Martin and Thanos Veremis, editors1990 Modern Greece: Nationalism and Nationality. Athens: Eliamep.

Boura, Catherine1999 “The Greek Millet in Turkish Politics: Greeks in the Ottoman Parliament

(1908–1918).” In Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism: Politics, Economy, and Society in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Dimitri Gondicas and Charles Issawi, 193–206. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press.


Bozkurt, Gülnihâl1989 Alman-I Ængiliz Belgelerinin ve Siyasî Gelis*melerin Is*ıg¨ı Altında Gayrimüslim Osmanlı

Vatandas*larının Hukukî Durumu (1839–1914) (The Legal Status of Non-Muslim Ottoman Citizens in the Light of German-British Documents and Political Developments [1839–1914]). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.

Braude, Benjamin and Bernard Lewis, editors1982 Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Volume

1. The Central Lands. New York: Holmes and Meier.

Cayré, Fulbert1912 “L’autorité spirituelle du Patriarche grec de Constantinople.” Échos d’Orient

15:395–404.1913 “Joachim III Patriarche grec de Constantinople 1834–1912.” Échos d’Orient

16:61–67, 163–172, 322–330, 431–443.

Centre of Marxist Studies1989 Κέντρο μαρξιστικών ερευνών, Η σοσιαλιστική οργάνωση «Φεντερασιόν» Θεσσαλονίκης

1909–1918 (The Socialist Organization “Federation” of Thessaloniki 1909–1918). Athens: Sinkroni Epohi.

Clogg, Richard1982 “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman

Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Volume 1 The Central Lands, edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, 185–207. New York: Holmes and Meier.

Dakin, Douglas1972 The Unification of Greece, 1770–1923. London: Ernest Benn.

Davison, Roderic H.1963 Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856–1876. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.1968 “The Advent of the Principle of Representation in the Government of the Otto-

man Empire.” In Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East: The Nineteenth Century, edited by William R. Polk and Richard L. Chambers, 93–108. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.

Dragoumis, Ion1991 Ίων Δραγούμης, Ελληνικός πολιτισμός (Greek Civilization). Athens: Nea Thesis

(first edition 1913).

Daubray, Jean1913 “Chronique des églises orientales unies et non unies: Grecs. III.—Patriarcat

de Constantinople.” Échos d’Orient 16:177–184.

Düstur1289H (1871) Düstur, cüzi-i sani (Code of Laws, Second Volume). Istanbul: Matbaa-i

Amire.

Exertzoglou, Haris1999a Haris Eksertzoglou, Osmanlı’da Cemiyetler ve Rum Cemaati: Dersaadet Rum

Cemiyet-i Edebiyesi, 1861–1912 (Associations and the Greek Community in the Otto-man Empire: The Hellenic Philological Association of Constantinople, 1861–1912). Translated by Foti Benlisoy and Stefo Benlisoy. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt


Yayınları. (Originally published as Xάρης Εξερτζόγλου, Εθνική ταυτότητα στην Κωνσταντινούπολη τον 19ο αιώνα: Ο Ελληνικός Φιλολογικός Σύλλογος Κωνσταντι-νουπόλεως, 1861–1912 [Ethnic Identity in Constantinople of the 19th Century: The Hellenic Philological Associaiton of Constantinople, 1861–1912]. Athens: Nefeli, 1996).

1999b “The Development of a Greek Ottoman Bourgeoisie: Investment Patterns in the Ottoman Empire, 1850–1914.” In Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism: Politics, Economy, and Society in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Dimitri Gondicas and Charles Issawi, 89–114. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press

2003 “The Cultural Uses of Consumption: Negotiating Class, Gender, and Nation in the Ottoman Urban Centers during the 19th Century.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 35:77–101.

Fleming, Katherine E.2000 “Athens, Constantinople, ‘Istambol’: Urban Paradigms and Nineteenth-Century

Greek National Identity.” New Perspectives on Turkey 22:1–23.

Fujinami, Nobuyoshi2004 “The Greco-Bulgarian Church Problem and Ottoman Nationhood.” Suravu

Kenkyu (Slavic Studies) 51:97–131 (in Japanese).2007 “‘Church Law’ and Ottoman-Greeks in the Second Constitutional Politics,

1910.” Études Balkaniques 43, 1:107–132.

Gardikas-Katsiadakis, Helen2006 “Venizelos’ Advent in Greek Politics, 1909–12.” In Eleftherios Venizelos: the Trials

of Statesmanship, edited by Paschalis M. Kitromilides, 87–114. Edinburgh: Edin-burgh University Press.

Gondicas, Dimitri and Charles Issawi, editors1999 Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism: Politics, Economy, and Society in the Nine-

teenth Century. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press.

I Ækdam1910a I Ækdam (Effort [newspaper in Ottoman-Turkish]), “Rum Patrig¨i’nin I Æstifası”

(“Resignation of the Greek Patriarch”). 5516. 26 January.1910b “Rum Patrig¨inin I Æstifası” (“Resignation of the Greek Patriarch”). 5517. 27

January.1910c “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı: Ne Lehte, Ne Aleyhte” (“The Greek Patriarchal

Crisis: Neither For, Nor Against”). 5518. 28 January.1910d “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranından” (“From the Greek Patriarchal Crisis”).

5519. 29 January.1910e “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranından” (“From the Greek Patriarchal Crisis”).

5520. 30 January.1910f “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5521. 31

January.1910g “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5522. 1

February.1910h “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5523. 2

February.1910i “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5524. 3

February.1910j “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5525. 4

February.


1910k “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranından” (“From the Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5526. 5 February.

1910l “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5528. 7 February.

1910m “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5530. 9 February.

1910n “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5534. 13 February.

1910o “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5537. 16 February.

1910p “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5539. 18 February.

1910q “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5540. 19 February.

1910r “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5544. 23 February.

1910s “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5547. 26 February.

1910t “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5549. 28 February.

1910u “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5550. 1 March.

1910v “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5551. 2 March.

1910w “Rum Patrig¨i ve Mühlet-i Karar” (“The Greek Patriarch and the Delay of Decision”). 5552. 3 March.

1910x Yeni I Ækdam (New Effort [newspaper in Ottoman-Turkish, continues I Ækdam]), “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 5. 5 March.

I Ænalcık, Halil1991 “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans.” Turcica

21–23:407–436.

Kansu, Aykut2000 Politics in Post-Revolutionary Turkey, 1908–1913. Leiden: Brill.

Karolidis, Pavlos1913 Παύλος Καρολίδης, Λόγοι και υπομνήματα (Speeches and Memoranda). Athens:

Petrakou.1992 Η Ανατολική Ρωμυλία και ο Ελληνισμός: Θράκη καί Μακεδονία (Eastern Rumelia and

Hellenism: Thrace and Macedonia). Athens: Risos (first published in Ellenismos, 1902.)

1993 Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Εθνούς 19ος τομός: Απο την ένωση της Θεσσάλιας και της Ηπείρου μέχρι τον Πρώτο Παγκοσμίο Πόλεμο (History of the Greek Nation, 19th Volume: From the Union of Thessaly and Epirus to the First World War). Athens: Kaktos (first published in 1932)

Kasaba, Res*at1999 “Economic Foundations of a Civil Society: Greeks in the Trade of Western Ana-

tolia, 1840–1876.” In Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism: Politics, Economy, and Society in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Dimitri Gondicas and Charles Issawi, 77–87. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press.


Kayalı, Hasan1997 Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire,

1908–1918. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kechriotis, Vangelis2002 “From Trauma to Self-Reflection: Greek Historiography Meets the Young Turks’

‘Bizarre’ Revolution.” In CLIO in the Balkans: the Politics of History Education, edited by Christina Koulouri, 91–108. Thessaloniki: Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe.

2005 “Greek-Orthodox, Ottoman Greeks or just Greeks? Theories of Coexistence in the Aftermath of the Young Turk Revolution.” Études Balkaniques 41, 1:51–71.

2007 “The Modernization of the Empire and the Community ‘Privileges’: Greek Orthodox Responses to the Young Turk Policies.” In The State and the Subaltern: Modernization, Society and the State in Turkey and Iran, edited by Touraj Atabaki, 53–70. London: I.B. Tauris.

Kenanog¨lu, M. Macit2004 Osmanlı Millet Sistemi: Mit ve Gerçek (The Ottoman Millet System: Myth and Reality).

Istanbul: Klasik.

Kitromilidis, Paschalis M.1984 Πασχάλης M. Κιτρομηλίδης, «Το τέλος της εθναρχικής παράδοσης. Μαρτυρίες από

ανέκδοτες επιστολές του Χρυσοστόμου Σμύρνης προς τον Ίωνα Δραγούμη» (“The End of the National Leader Tradition: Testimonies from the Unpublished Letters of Chrysostomos of Smyrna to Ion Dragoumis”). In Αμητός στη μνήμη Φώτη Αποστολόπουλου (Harvest in the Memory of Foti Apostolopoulos), 486–507. Athens: Kentron Mikrasiatikon Spoudon (Centre for Asia Minor Studies).

2001 «Τό ελληνικό κράτος ως εθνικό κέντρο» (“The Hellenic State as Ethnic Center”). In Ελληνισμός–Ελληνικότητα: Ιδεολογικοί καί βιωματικοί άξονες της νεοελληνικής κοινωνίας (Hellenism–Greekness: Ideological and Experiential Axes of Modern Greek Society), edited by D. G. Tsaousis, 143–164. Athens: Estias (first edtion 1983).

Kofos, Evangelos1984 “Attempts at Mending the Greek-Bulgarian Ecclesiastical Schism (1875–1902).”

Balkan Studies 25, 2:347–375.1986 “Patriarch Joachim III (1878–1884) and the Irredentist Policy of the Greek

State.” Journal of Modern Greek Studies 4, 2:107–120.1990 “National Heritage and National Identity in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century

Macedonia.” In Modern Greece: Nationalism and Nationality, edited by Martin Blinkhorn and Thanos Veremis, 103–141. Athens: Eliamep.

Konortas, Paraskevas1998 Παρασκευάς Κονόρτας, Οθωμανικές θεωρήσεις για το οικουμενικό πατριαρχείο: Βεράτια

για τους προκαθήμενους της μεγάλης εκκλησίας (17ος–αρχές 20ου αιώνα) (Ottoman Perspectives on the Ecumenical Patriarchate: Berat for the Presidents of the Great Church [17th–Beginning of the 20th Century]). Athens: Ekdoseis Alexandreia.

1999 “From Tâ’ife to Millet: Ottoman Terms for the Ottoman Greek Orthodox Community.” In Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism: Politics, Economy, and Society in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Dimitri Gondicas and Charles Issawi, 169–179. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press.


The Levant Herald (newspaper)1910a “La Crise patriarcale.” 30, 5. 29 January.1910b “La Crise patriarcale.” 30, 6. 5 February.1910c “Manifestation au Patriarcat oecuménique.” 30, 6. 5 February.1910d “La crise patriarcale.” 30, 7. 12 February.1910e “La crise patriarcale.” 30, 10. 5 March.1910f “Dénouement de la crise patriarcale.” 30, 12. 19 March.

Le Moniteur Oriental (newspaer)1910a “La crise patriarcale.” 5568. 26 January.1910b “La crise patriarcale.” 5570. 28 January.1910c “La crise patriarcale.” 5571. 29 January.1910d “La crise patriarcale.” 5572. 31 January.1910e “Patriarcat oecuménique.” 5576. 4 February.1910f “La crise patriarcale.” 5578. 7 February.1910g “Patriarcat oecuménique.” 5580. 9 February.1910h “Patriarcat oecuménique.” 5582. 11 February.1910i “La crise patriarcale.” 5586. 16 February.1910j “La crise patriarcale.” 5589. 19 February.1910k “La crise patriarcale.” 5591. 22 February.1910l “La crise patriarcale.” 5593. 24 February.1910m “La crise patriarcale.” 5595. 26 February.1910n “La crise patriarcale grecque.” 5596. 28 February.1910o “La crise patriarcale grecque.” 5597. 1 March.1910p “La crise patriarcale grecque.” 5598. 2 March.1910q “La crise patriarcale grecque.” 5599. 3 March.1910r “La crise patriarcale grecque.” 5604. 9 March.1910s “La crise patriarcale grecque.” 5609. 16 March.1910t “La crise patriarcale grecque.” 5610. 17 March.1910u “Au patriarcat oecuménique.” 5611. 18 March.

Montmasson, E.1911 “Organisation de l’église grecque orthodoxe de Constantinople.” Échos d’Orient

14:110–116, 161–166.

Noutsos, Panagiotis1994 “The Role of the Greek Community in the Genesis and Development of the

Socialist Movement in the Ottoman Empire: 1876–1925.” In Socialism and Nationalism in the Ottoman Empire 1876–1923, edited by Mete Tunçay and Erik Jan Zürcher, 77–88. London: British Academy Press.

Panayotopoulos, Alkis J. (Alkiviades)1980a “The ‘Great Idea’ and the Vision of Eastern Federation: Apropos of the Views

of I. Dragoumis and A. Souliotis-Nicolaïdis.” Balkan Studies 21, 2:331–365.1980b “The Hellenic Contribution to the Ottoman Labour and Socialist Movement

after 1908.” Études Balkaniques 16, 1:38–57.1983 “On the Economic Activities of the Anatolian Greeks, Mid 19th Century to

Early 20th.” Deltio Kentron Mikrasistiakon Spoudon (Bulletin of the Centre for Asia Minor Studies) 4:87–128.


Papadopoullos, Theodore H.1981 “Nouvelle Rome: aspects de l’oecuménisme orthodoxe post-byzantin.” In Atti

del I Seminario Internationale de Studi Storici “Da Roma alla Terza Roma” 21–23 Aprile 1981, 417–432. Rome.

Papastathi, Haralambou K.1984 Χαραλάμπου Κ. Παπαστάθη, Οι κανονισμοί των ορθοδόξων ελληνικών κοινοτητών του

Οθωμανικού κράτους και της διασποράς. Τόμος πρώτος: νομοθετικές πηγές–κανονισμοί Μακεδονίας (The Regulations of the Greek Orthodox Communities of the Ottoman State and of Diaspora. First Volume: Legislative Sources–Regulations in Macedonia). Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis Brothers.

Perraud, Raymond1910 “La crise de l’Orthodoxie grecque.” Questions diplomatiques et coloniales 29,

316:492–500.

Sabah1909 Sabah (Morning [newspaper in Ottoman-Turkish]), “Drama Metropolidi”

(“The Metropolitan of Drama”). 6988. 10 March.1910a “Rum Patrikhanesi (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 7311. 29 January.1910b “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 7312. 30 January.1910c “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 7314. 1 February.1910d “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 7332. 19 February.

Sada-yı Millet1910a Sada-yı Millet (The Voice of Nation [newspaper in Ottoman-Turkish]), “Synod

I Æntihabatı” (“The Election of the Synod”). 53. 22 January.1910b “Rum Patrig¨i Efendi Hazretleri” (“His All Holiness Greek Patriarch”). 57. 26

January.1910c “Rum Patrig¨i’nin I Æstifası” (“Resignation of the Greek Patriarch”). 58. 27

January.1910d “Rum Patrikhanesi Meselesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate Problem”). 59. 28

January.1910e “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 62. 31 January.1910f “Patrikhane Havadisi” (“Events in the Patriarchate”). 69. 7 February.1910g “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 108. 18 March.1910h “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 110. 20 March.1910i “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 123. 2 April.

Sahara, Tetsuya2003 Modern Balkan Cities: Religion and Ethnicity in Pluralist Society. Tokyo: Tosui Syobo

(in Japanese).

Skopetea, Elli1988 Έλλη Σκοπετέα, Το «Πρότυπο Βασίλειο» και η Μεγάλη Ιδέα: όψεις του εθνικού

προβλήματος στην Ελλάδα (1830–1880) (The “Ideal Kingdom”and the Megali Idea: Aspects of the National Problem in Greece [1830–1880]). Athens: Politipo.

1999 “Οι Έλληνες και οι εχθροί τους: η κατάσταση του έθνους στις αρχές του 20ού αιώνα” (“Greeks and Their Enemies: The Condition of the Nation in the Beginning of the 20th Century”). In Ιστορία της Ελλάδας του 20ού αιώνα: Οι Απαρχές 1900–1922. Α΄ τόμος, μέρος 2ο (History of Greece in the 20th Century: The Begin-nings 1900–1922. First Volume, Second Part), edited by Christos Chatziosif, 9–35. Athens: Bibliorama.


Souliotis-Nikolaidis, Athanasios1984 Αθανάσιος Σουλιώτης-Νικολαΐδης, Οργάνωσις Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (The Society

of Constantinople), edited by Thanos Veremis and Katerina Boura. Athens: Dodoni.

Spanoudis, Konstantinos P.2000 Κωνσταντίνου Π. Σπανούδη, Ιστορικαί σελίδες. Ιωακείμ ο Γ΄ (Historical Pages. Joachim

III ). Thessaloniki: P. Pournaras (first edition 1902).

Stamatopoulos, Dimitrios2001 Δημήτριος Σταματόπουλος, «Η εκκλησία ως πολιτεία: Αναπαραστάσεις του ορθό-

δοξου μιλλέτ και το μοντέλο της συνταγματικής μοναρχίας (δεύτερο μισό 19ου αι.)» (“Church as State: Representations of the Orthodox Millet and the Model of the Constitutional Monarchy [Second Half of the 19th Century]”). Mnemon 23:183–220.

2003 Μεταρρύθμιση και εκκοσμίκευση: προς μια ανασύνθεση της ιστορίας του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου τον 19ο αιώνα (Reform and Secularization: Towards a Reappraisal of the History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the 19th Century). Athens: Alexandreia.

2006 “From Millets to Minorities in the 19th-Century Ottoman Empire: an Ambigu-ous Modernization.” In Citizenship in Historical Perspective, edited by Steven G. Ellis, Gudmundur Hálfadanarson and Ann Katherine Isaacs, 253–273. Pisa: University of Pisa Press.

Stavridis, Basileios Th.2004 Βασίλειος Θ. Σταυρίδης, Οι οικουμενικοί πατριάρχαι 1860–σήμερον: ιστορία και

κείμενα (The Ecumenical Patriarchs 1860–Today: History and Texts). Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis (first edition 1977).

Strauss, Johann2002 “Ottomanisme et ‘ottomanité’: Le témoignage linguistique.” In Aspects of the

Political Language in Turkey (19th–20th Centuries), edited by Hans-Lukas Kieser, 15–39. Istanbul: Isis.

S*ura-yı Ümmet1910a S*ura-yı Ümmet (National Assembly [newspaper in Ottoman-Turkish]), “Rum

Patrikhanesi – I Æhtilaf – Nümayis*” (“The Greek Patriarchate – Conflict – Demonstration”). 206. 3 February.

1910b “Müteferrik” (“Miscellanea”). 213. 24 March.

Svolopoulos, Constantin1984 “Eleuthère Vénizèlos et les dilemmes de la politique extérieure de la Grèce

lors de la crise balkanique de 1908.” Balkan Studies 25:485–489.

Tanin1910a Yeni Tanin (New Echo [newspaper in Ottoman-Turkish, continues Tanin]),

“Rum Patrig¨i’nin I Æstifası” (“Resignation of the Greek Patriarch”). 503-34. 27 January.

1910b “Rum Patrig¨i” (“The Greek Patriarch”). 506-37. 30 January.1910c “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 510-41. 3

February.1910d Tanin (Echo [newspaper in Ottoman-Turkish]), “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı”

(“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 537. 2 March.1910e “Patrikhane Buhranının Hitamı” (“The End of the Patriarchal Crisis”). 555.

20 March.


1910f “Yeni Bir Komedya” (“A New Comedy”). 563. 28 March.1911 Senin (Yours [newspaper in Ottoman-Turkish, continues Tanin]), “I Æzmir

Metropolidi Meselesi” (“The Smyrna Metropolitan Problem”). 1008-32. 22 June.

Todorov, Varban N.1995 Greek Federalism during the Nineteenth Century. Boulder, CO: East European

Monographs (distributed by the Columbia University Press).

Toprak, Zafer2006 “Bir Hayal Ürünü: I Ættihatçıların ‘Türkles*tirme Politikası’ (“A Product of

Imaginary: The ‘Turkification Policy’ of the Unionists”). Toplumsal Tarih (Social History) 146:14–22.

Veremis, Thanos1990 “From the National State to the Stateless Nation 1821–1910.” In Modern Greece:

Nationalism and Nationality, edited by Martin Blinkhorn and Thanos Veremis, 9–22. Athens: Eliamep.

1999 “The Hellenic Kingdom and the Ottoman Greeks: The Experiment of the ‘Society of Constantinople.’” In Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism: Politics, Economy, and Society in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Dimitri Gondicas and Charles Issawi, 181–191. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press.

Xanalatos, Diogenis1962 “The Greeks and the Turks on the Eve of the Balkan Wars: A Frustrated Plan.”

Balkan Studies 3, 2:277–296.

Yeni Gazete1910a Yeni Gazete (New Gazette [newspaper in Ottoman-Turkish]), “Rum Patrigï

Yuvakim Efendi’nin I Æstifası” (“The Greek Patriarch Joachim’s Resignation”). 509. 26 January.

1910b “Rum Patrigï’nin I Æstifası Meselesi” (“The Problem of the Resignation of the Greek Patriarch”). 510. 27 January.

1910c “Rum Patrigï” (“The Greek Patriarch”). 513. 30 January.1910d “Rum Patrig ï Efendi Lehinde” (“For the Greek Patriarch”). 514. 31

January.1910e “Rum Patrikhanesi’nde Yeni Nümayis*” (“New Demonstration at the Greek

Patriarchate”). 521. 7 February.1910f “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 523. 9 February.1910g “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 530. 16 February.1910h “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 531. 17 February.1910i “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 532. 18 February.1910j “Rum Patrikhanesi’nde” (“At the Greek Patriarchate”). 533. 19 February.1910k “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 536. 22 February.1910l “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 537. 23 February.1910m “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 542. 28 February.1910n “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 543. 1 March.1910o “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 544. 2 March.1910p “Rum Patrikhanesi” (“The Greek Patriarchate”). 545. 3 March.


Yeni Tasvir-i Efkar1910a Yeni Tasvir-i Efkar (New Description of Opinions [newspaper in Ottoman-

Turkish]), “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı—Dünkü Nümayis*” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis—Demonstration of Yesterday”). 241. 31 January.

1910b “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 246. 5 February.

1910c “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 257. 16 February.

1910d “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 264. 23 February.

1910e “Rum Patrikhanesi Buhranı” (“The Greek Patriarchal Crisis”). 265. 24 February.

The Patriarchal Crisis of 1910 and Constitutional Logic: Ottoman Greeks’ Dual Role in the Second...

Documents

Transcript of The Patriarchal Crisis of 1910 and Constitutional Logic: Ottoman Greeks’ Dual Role in the Second...