‘Discord and Confusion … under the Pretext of Religion’

At the end of the eighteenth century, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was a religious leader of global stature, exercising direct authority over millions of Christians in the Ottoman Empire and a primacy of honor in the wider Orthodox ecumene. By the 1830s, however, the Patriarchate confronted a new international order that was broadly hostile to its claims. Tensions became particularly bad between the Patriarchate and the British government as both sides asserted their right to control religious affairs on the Ionian Islands, a British-administered protectorate lying off the western coast of Greece. A dispute over who had the power to regulate family law in Ionia escalated in the late 1830s into a minor international incident, with the British government demanding that the Ottoman government depose the reigning patriarch, Grigorios VI. These demands sparked a broader discussion among all the Great Powers as to what the legitimate bounds of the Patriarchate's authority might be. One of the more striking aspects of the incident was the determination of the Powers not to recognize any 'Orthodox Pope' in international affairs, illustrating the impact of the modern state system on transnational religious organizations beyond the borders of Europe. Keywords: Orthodox ChurchIonian IslandsGreat Britainsecularizationdiplomacy Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Ted and Elaine Athanassiades Foundation and of the National University of Singapore. Special thanks go to Thomas Gallant and to Thomas DuBois, Richard Clogg, and Paul Werth for their comments, assistance and advice. Notes 1. For biographical information on Abdülkadir Bey (–1846), see: M. Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmanî (Istanbul, 1996), i. 115. 2. Le Moniteur Ottoman, 14 March 1840 [Hijri date: 10 Muharrem 1256], 1–3. 3. R. Horowitz, 'International Law and State Transformation in China, Siam and the Ottoman Empire during the Nineteenth Century', Journal of World History, xv (2004), 475–9. 4. I. Kant, Der Streit der Fakultäten in drei Abschnitten (Leipzig, 1880), 80. Vattel, in his highly-regarded Law of Nations, specifically praised governments like those of Britain, France, and the Swiss cantons for appreciating that: 'The conductor of the state must have the inspection of matters concerning religion and authority over the ministers who teach it ... [since] without this power, the sovereign would never be able to prevent the disturbances that religion might occasion in the state...' E. de Vattel, Droit des gens, ou principes de la loi naturelle appliqués a la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains (Paris, 1820), i. 123, 128. For other examples of European political thought on this point, see: M. Raeff, The Well-Ordered Police State: Social and Institutional Change through Law in the Germanies and Russia, 1600–1800 (New Haven, 1983), 56–69. 5. On the difficulties of reconciling Ottoman and European diplomatic ideas and practices see the excellent collection of essays in: A. Nuri Yurdusev (ed), Ottoman Diplomacy: Conventional or Unconventional? (Houndmills, 2004). Also see: R. H.Davison, 'The Westernization of Ottoman Diplomacy in the Nineteenth Century' in E. Ingram (ed), National and International Politics in the Middle East: Essays in Honour of Elie Kedourie (London, 1986), 54–65; C.V. Findley, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The Sublime Porte 1789–1922 (Princeton, 1980), 126–39; J. C. Hurewitz, 'The Europeanization of Ottoman Diplomacy: The Conversion from Unilateralism to Reciprocity in the Nineteenth Century', Belleten, xxv (1961), 455–66; and T. Naff, 'Reform and Conduct of Ottoman Diplomacy in the Reign of Selim III, 1789–1807', Journal of the American Oriental Society, lxxxiii (1963), 295–315. 6. R. Abou-el-Haj, 'The Formal Closure of the Ottoman Frontier in Europe: 1699–1703', Journal of the American Oriental Society, lxxxix (1969), 468–9. 7. V. Aksan, Ottoman Wars 1700–1870: An Empire Besieged (Harlow, 2007), 27. Also see: P. Brummett, 'Imagining the Early Modern Ottoman Space, from World History to Piri Reis' in V. Aksan and D. Goffman (eds), The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire (Cambridge, 2007), esp. 23–32, 46–58; A. C. S. Peacock (ed), The Frontiers of the Ottoman World (Oxford, 2009); and R. Brauer, 'Boundaries and Frontiers in Medieval Muslim Geography', Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, NS lxxxv (1995), 11–30. 8. This is well illustrated by the history of the Greco-Ottoman border. G. Gavrilis has argued that Britain and the other Powers worked hard following the creation of the new Kingdom of Greece to pass on to the Greek and Ottoman states 'a view of the border as an instrument of sovereign power'. This meant encouraging both governments to establish a strict border regime, directed from the center, that clearly marked off their exclusive territories. The Ottoman and Greek states generally ignored this advice until the 1870s, preferring to leave the border zone porous and to devolve control over it to local forces. See G. Gavrilis, The Dynamics of Interstate Boundaries (New York, 2008), 69–72. It should be noted that Britain and the other Powers themselves often disregarded the advice they gave the Porte and made use of anomalous legal spaces and quasi–sovereign arrangements – such as on the Ionian Islands – where these served their own interests. See: Lauren Benton, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires 1400–1900 (New York, 2010), esp. Chapter 5. 9. See, for example, Sabri Ateş's study of the long and difficult process of converting the Perso-Ottoman borderlands from a frontier to a boundary: Empires at the Margin: Towards a History of the Ottoman-Iranian Borderland and the Borderland Peoples, 1843–1881 (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 2006). Also: H. Özoğlu, Kurdish Notables and the Ottoman State: Evolving Identities, Competing Loyalties, and Shifting Boundaries (Albany, NY, 2004), chapter 3. 10. Count Johann von Pallavicini to Berchtold, quoted in F. R. Bridge, 'The Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire, 1900–1918' in M. Kent (ed), The Great Powers and the End of the Ottoman Empire (London, 1996), 42. 11. When the Ottomans were forced in 1774, for example, to surrender political control of the Crimea, they insisted on writing into the terms of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca that the Sultan would continue to exercise authority over the religious affairs of Muslims there. See the third article of the treaty in: Treaties, &c. between Turkey and Foreign Powers, 1535–1855 (London, 1855), 465. 12. The Ottoman caliphate was endorsed by the British government in the secure knowledge that Istanbul was too distant to be much of a threat and that the sultan could generally be counted upon to encourage obedience to British rule. See: M. Naeem Qureshi, Pan-Islam in British Indian Politics: a Study of the Khilafat Movement, 1918–1924 (Leiden and Cologne, 1999), 18–53. Also see: S. Oliver-Dee, The Caliphate Question: The British Government and Islamic Governance (Lanham and Plymouth, 2009). 13. The Austrian government, for example, had adopted this policy early on and had been at pains for centuries to erect barriers between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its Orthodox subjects. See W. M. Plöchl 'Die Orthodoxe Kirche in der Habsburgischen Donaumonarchie (1526–1918)', Balkan Studies, xiii (1972), 17–39. 14. Examples of the nineteenth century's preference for 'nationalized' religion are legion and became more marked as the century advanced. For French policies on the 'Khmerization' of Buddhist monks and practices in Cambodia, for example, see: P. Edwards, Cambodge: The Cultivation of a Nation, 1860–1945 (Honolulu, 2007), 110–19, 168–72; and A. R. Hansen, How to Behave: Buddhism and Modernity in Colonial Cambodia, 1860–1930 (Honolulu, 2007), 111–20. For the effects of similar nationalizing pressure on French Catholic missionaries abroad, see: J. P. Daughton, An Empire Divided: Religion, Republicanism and the Making of French Colonialism, 1880–1914 (New York, 2006), 261–3. For Dutch policies on pilgrims and Sufis in Southeast Asia, see: M. Laffan, Islamic Nationhood and Colonial Indonesia: The Umma Below the Winds (London and New York, 2003), 37–3, 79–82, 93–4, 124–7; M. Ricklefs, Polarising Javanese Society: Islamic and Other Visions (c. 1830–1930) (Singapore, 2007), 55–78; and A. Reid, 'Nineteenth Century Pan-Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia', The Journal of Asian Studies, xxvi (1967), 267–83. For Russian policies, see: D. Brower, 'Russian Roads to Mecca: Religious Tolerance and Muslim Pilgrimage in the Russian Empire', Slavic Review, lv (1996), 567–84; R. Crews, For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia (Cambridge, MA and London, 2006), 50–1, 71–4, 325; and E. Kane, 'Pilgrims, Holy Places and the Multi-Confessional Empire: Russian Policy towards the Ottoman Empire under Tsar Nicholas I, 1825–1855' (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 2005). 15. For an overview of the process of secularizing European state relations in the early modern era see: L. Gross, 'The Peace of Westphalia, 1648–1948', The American Journal of International Law, xlii (1948), 26–29. Also interesting is: D. Philpott, 'The Religious Roots of Modern International Relations', World Politics, lii (2000), 206–45. 16. Two arguable exceptions to this rule were the Bishop of Urgell, who continued to be co-prince of Andorra, and the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta, which continues today to be recognized by some states. For some good general works on the tribulations of the Catholic Church in the West during this period, see: N. Aston, Christianity and Revolutionary Europe, 1750–1830 (Cambridge, 2002); D. E. D. Beales, Prosperity and Plunder: European Catholic Monasteries in the Age of Revolution, 1650–1815 (Cambridge, 2003); P. Wende, Die geistlichen Staaten und ihre Auflösung im Urteil der zeitgenössischen Publizistik (Lübeck, 1966). 17. Such scruples might, of course, conveniently be set aside whenever it was clearly in the interest of the state to do so. The British would thus enjoy relatively good relations for many years with the Mayan state of Chan Santa Cruz in Yucatan, which was 'theocratic' but also warmly pro-British and engaged in a roaring arms trade with British Honduras. See: W. Clegern, 'British Honduras and the Pacification of Yucatan', The Americas, xviii (1962), 243–54. 18. C. M. Philliou, Biography of an Empire: Governing Ottomans in an Age of Revolution (Berkeley, 2011), 88–9, 100–101. 19. Ibid., 129–30. 20. 'Private Correspondence', The Times, 13 Sept. 1838, 5. For the full text of the agreement, see: 'Convention of Commerce and Navigation between her Majesty and the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, with Three Additional Articles thereunto Annexed', The Times, 19 Dec. 1838, 4. 21. For examples of reports in the British and French press, see: The Times (London) for 28 Feb. 1840, 6; 5 March 1840, 4; 9 March 1840, 4–5; 16 March 1840, 5; 30 March 1840, 5; 30 April 1840, 4; and Journal des débats politiques et littéraires for 10 March 1840, 2; and 26 Feb. 1840, 1. The affair was considered important enough for the Spanish Ambassador at Istanbul to dedicate an entire report to it, despite no obvious point of contact with Spanish interests. Antonio López de Córdoba to Evaristo Perez de Castro, 6 March 1840. [Madrid, Archivo General del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores] Correspondencia/Embajadas y legaciones, H1770. 22. For examples of how this event has been remembered by different historians, see: Anonymous, Une Réforme praticable en Turquie (Athens, 1853), 32; Τ. Gritsópoulos, 'Grigórios o ST' o Fourtouniádis,' Thriskeftikí kai Ithikí Engiklopaideía [Religious and Moral Encyclopedia] (Athens, 1964), 4: 745–6; Z. Mathás, Katálogos istorikós ton próton episkópon kai ton efexís patriarchón tis en Konstandinoupólei Ayías kai Megális tou Christoú Ekklisías [Historical List of the First Bishops and later Patriarchs of the Holy and Great Church of Christ in Constantinople] (Athens, 1884), 178; G. Drakatos Papanicolas, The Ionian Islands: What They have Lost and Suffered under the Thirty-Five Years' Administration of the Lord High Commissioners Sent to Govern Them (London, 1851), 48; V. Stavrídis, Oi Oikoumenikoí Patriárchai 1860 – símeron [The Ecumenical Patriarchs, 1860–Today] (Thessaloniki, 1977–1978), 174; L. Ufford, The Pasha: How Mehemet Ali Defied the West, 1839–1841 (Jefferson, NC, 2007), 80–1; M. Yedeón, Patriarchikís istorías mnimeía [Monuments of Patriarchal History] (Athens, 1922), 30. One of the most recent and serious treatments of the event is in: D. Stamatópoulos, Metarríthmisi kai ekkosmikéfsi: pros mia anasínthesi tis istorías tou Oikoumenikoú Patriarcheíou ton 19o aióna [Reform and Secularization: Towards a Reconstruction of the History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Nineteenth Century] (Athens, 2005), 42–3. 23. Typical of such views was the declaration of one nineteenth-century Greek historian, that the trial: 'reveals English policy in all its ugliness and draws back a corner of the veil which concealed its plans for the Ionian Islands ... the minutes of this trial make manifest their culpable intentions to change the religion of the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands.' E. Kiriakídis, Istoría tou sínkronou Ellinismoú : apó tis idríseos tou Vasileíou tis Elládos méhri ton imerón mas, 1832–1892 [History of Contemporary Hellenism: From the Foundation of the Kingdom of Greece to Our Days] (Athens, 1892), 2, 410–21; for similar assessments see N.I. Sokolov, Konstantinopol'skaia Tserkov' v XIX veke: Opyt istoricheskago Izsledovaniia [The Church of Constantinople in the Nineteenth Century: An Experiment in Historical Research] (St Petersburg, 1904), 258–68; and F. Vafeídis, Ekklisiastikí istoría apó tou Kiríou imón Iisoú Christoú méhri ton kath'imás chrónon [Ecclesiastical History from Our Lord Jesus Christ until Our Times] (Constantinople, 1928), iii, 108. 24. Several historians also identify the Ambassador incorrectly as Lord Stratford Canning de Redcliffe. See, for example: Sokolov, Konstantinopol'skaia Tserkov' v XIX veke, 266. 25. T. W. Gallant, Experiencing Dominion (Notre Dame, 2002), 15–55. 26. T. Maitland, in S.W. Fullom, The Life of General Sir Howard Douglas (London, 1863), 340–41. 27. For a typical example, see: J. Emerson Tennent, The History of Modern Greece, from Its Conquest by the Romans B.C. 146, to the Present Time (London, 1830), 334, 412. 28. Bishop Samuel Gobat to Stratford Canning de Redcliffe, 14 April 1855 [Kew, United Kingdom National Archives, Public Record Office ], F[oreign] O[ffice Records] 352/42A. 29. Gallant, Experiencing Dominion, 185-–6. 30. H. Jervis-White Jervis, History of the Island of Corfu and of the republic of the Ionian Islands (London, 1852), 277–8. 31. P. Smythe, Viscount Strangford to George Canning, 10 Feb. 1823, FO 78/114. 32. T. W. Gallant, 'Peasant Ideology and Excommunication for Crime in a Colonial Context: The Ionian Islands (Greece), 1817–1864', Journal of Social History, xxiii (1990), 492. 33. See ibid., 485–512. 34. A complete summary of the Orthodox Canons regarding permissible marriages can be found in: D. Cummings (ed and trans), The Rudder (Pedalion) of the Metaphorical Ship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Christians (New York, 1983), 977–99; also see the very full explanation in A. Mavrakis, The Law of Marriage and Divorce in the Church of England and the Church of Greece in recent times (1850 to 1980) with its Theological Implications (Athens, 1992), 172–85. 35. Howard Douglas to Charles Grant, Baron Glenelg, 31 Oct. 1838, FO 195/155. 36. Douglas also requested that the Patriarch instruct the Ionian clergy to comply with several other minor - but still controversial - decrees which had been issued by the colonial administration. Among the decrees, for example, was a directive forbidding the interment of the dead within the grounds of Orthodox churches as a hazard to public health. Douglas to Ponsonby, 6 Aug. 1838, FO 195/105. 37. Douglas to Ponsonby, 7 July 1838, FO 195/105. 38. For discussion of this historic voyage, see the works of Borys Gudziak, especially: and The the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the of the of (Cambridge, and 'The Church and Patriarch to concerning the and Studies, (1995), A is in: Paul of The of Patriarch of by his Paul of in (London, Also see: P. Russia, and The of in the Century NY, and N. v [The of between Russia and the Orthodox in the and For some examples of such see: et en and la de del Archivo de S. del xxiii 42. late as for example, the Ottoman government from the Patriarchate to a to the Greek government, see and de la (Paris, The complete text of the declaration is in: S. (ed), ton tis tis Ekklisías tis Elládos ton tou méhri símeron of the of the Holy of the Church of Greece, with from until (Athens, J. A. Politics and in the Kingdom of Greece, (Princeton, Charles The Orthodox Church and Greece, (Cambridge, These in See: Journal de Sept. 2; and R. Clogg, 'The and of by the British and Foreign Journal of History, R. Clogg, at the of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Review, Gallant, 'Peasant Ideology and Excommunication for Crime in a Colonial ton kai pros en to or Orthodox the and to the of the Holy (Athens, kai pros pros ton [Ecclesiastical and Orthodox to (Athens, 20. For a of the see: tou Oikoumenikoú Patriarcheíou ton and G. The of Asia and in the Nineteenth Century and London, 1992), J. of the American of Commissioners for Foreign in History of American to the from their to the Present Time See, for example: o ton tis Ekklisías kai tis ton the Three of the and concerning the Apostolic Douglas to Ponsonby, FO 195/105. See: the and Bishops of the Ionian and the of the Ionian Islands and to the Orthodox 10 Dec. tou Oikoumenikoú the of the Ionian Islands and to the Orthodox Dec. A. and M. ton kai ton kai kai ton kai kai kai ton of the and Canons of the Holy and of the Ecumenical and and of the Holy (Athens, 1855), 5. the and Bishops of the Ionian 32. Douglas to Ponsonby, FO 195/105. For of most of these see: tis tou Christoú ton kai ton pros to tou kai pros tis of the Holy Great Church of the of the Islands of to the of Marriage and Other (Constantinople, Ibid., The of the Greek for example, had been by the British Ambassador at Sir as of the most important of the Sir to Viscount 9 FO Douglas to Ponsonby, Oct. FO 195/105. Douglas to Lord Glenelg, 31 Oct. 1838, FO 195/155. to Aug. FO to Feb. FO Grigorios was through his and to the Russian and to the and within the Ottoman government by the Foreign See C. Findley, Ottoman a Social History (Princeton, and T. tou apó tou kai kai kai of the of Patriarch of with his and and (Constantinople, to 19 FO to de April in and M. de la (Paris, i. to Feb. FO Austrian policy on this point however, much more the British the not to see the Greek Church under Russian it had to between the Patriarchate and the Greek Church See, for example: to Baron von 30 April and de la Politics and in the Kingdom of Greece, has the very of any such Society, that it was by within the Greek government in order to Russia and the 'The Russian and at the of the American for the of Slavic Studies, to 7 1840, FO The entire report is as an in Politics and in the Kingdom of Greece, The is from to Ponsonby, FO to Nuri 14 2. to Ponsonby, FO to French 13 1840, to French 13 1840. del G. to Ponsonby, 19 1840. by to his of 1840, 3. 80. to 1840, to 5 Feb. 1840, to April 1840, to April 1840, to Count von 5 Feb. date: 1840. to Feb. 1840, to 5 Feb. date: 1840, to April 1840, to April date: 9 1840, to Ponsonby, Feb. 1840, See to Ponsonby, 7 Feb. 1840. 5 and 10. to Feb. 1840, 9. to Feb. 1840, FO to Feb. 1840, and to Feb. 1840, FO to Feb. 1840, FO This of the of in which the Porte was at the it a which in Biography of an Empire has of and diplomatic from the of the and the of the Sublime Porte to to Feb. 1840, also made much use in this affair of the of as an between and For more information on this see: Philliou, Biography of an Empire Bey to Ponsonby, Feb. 1840. to of 26 Feb. 1840, FO Le Moniteur Ottoman, 14 March 1840 [Hijri date: 10 Muharrem 1256], 1–3. Also see: to 28 Feb. 1840, Le Moniteur Ottoman, 14 March 1840, 2. from the of the trial are Greek and Russian in: E. Kiriakídis, Istoría tou sínkronou 410–21; and N.I. Sokolov, Konstantinopol'skaia Tserkov' v XIX veke, to Feb. 1840, to Ponsonby, March 1840, 15. Douglas to Ponsonby, Feb. 1840, FO 195/105. to Feb. 1840, FO to March 1840, The of the affair is by Russian See, for example: to March date: 1840. to March date: 5 1840. Lord et and 1853), Le Moniteur Ottoman, 14 March 1840, 3. The made of Grigorios was by the that the Ottoman state made a point of Grigorios a and a in which to his The Russian this as of a on the of the to March date: 5 1840. set an for the to be but

Ancient history · Confusion · Diplomacy · Political science · Politics · Pretext · History · Law · Psychology · Religion and Society Interactions

• Found and buy, study and appropriate, build and reconfigure

  Open Access•Elena Astafieva•European journal of Turkish studies•2016

  Add to list

• Fonder et acheter, étudier et s'approprier, construire et reconfigurer

  Open Access•Elena Astafieva•European journal of Turkish studies•2016

  Add to list