Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

‘Discord and Confusion … under the Pretext of Religion’: European Diplomacy and the Limits of Orthodox Ecclesiastical Authority in the Eastern Mediterranean

2012; Routledge; Volume: 34; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/07075332.2012.620237

1949-6540

Jack Fairey,

Religion and Society Interactions

Abstract 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: Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Genesis of the Union of Brest (Cambridge, MA, 1998) and 'The Sixteenth-Century Muscovite Church and Patriarch Jeremiah II's Journey to Muscovy, 1588–1589: Some Comments concerning the Historiography and Sources', Harvard Ukrainian Studies, xi (1995), 200–25. 39. A first-hand account is provided in: Paul of Aleppo, The Travels of Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, written by his attendant archdeacon, Paul of Aleppo, in Arabic, F.C. Belfour (trans) (London, 1836). Also see: P. Meyendorff, Russia, Ritual and Reform: The Liturgical Reforms of Nikon in the 17th Century (Crestwood, NY, 1996); and N. Kapterev, Kharakter otnoshenii Rossii k pravoslavnomu vostoku v XVI i XVII stoletiiakh [The Character of Relations between Russia and the Orthodox East in the XVI and XVII Centuries] (Sergiev Posad, 1914). 40. For some published examples of such correspondence, see: A.P. Péchayre, 'La lettre du Prince Eugène à Zosime d'Ochrida et Sisanion en 1715', Échos d'Orient, xxxviii (1939), 57–69; and J.M. Floristán Imizcoz, Fuentes para la política oriental de los Austrias. La documentación griega del Archivo de Simancas (1571–1621) (León, 1988). 41. S. Kahne, 'L'Azione politica del patriarca di Peć, Arsenio Crnojević dal 1682 al 1690', Orientalia Christiana Periodica, xxiii (1957), 267–312. 42. As late as 1828, for example, the Ottoman government used bishops from the Patriarchate to carry a peace offer to the Greek government, see É Driault and M.L'Héritier, Histoire diplomatique de la Grèce (Paris, 1925), i, 398–400. 43. The complete text of the declaration is given in: S. Yiannópoulos (ed), Silloyí ton engiklíon tis Ierás Sinódou tis Ekklisías tis Elládos metá ton oikeíon nómon, vasilikón diatagmáton,ipouryikón engráfon, odiyión ktl. Apó tou 1833 méhri símeron [A Collection of the Encyclicals of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, together with Domestic Laws, Royal Decrees, Ministerial Documents, Directives, etc., from 1833 until today] (Athens, 1998), 7–13. 44. J. A. Petropulos, Politics and Statecraft in the Kingdom of Greece, 1833–1843 (Princeton, 1968), 182; Charles Frazee, The Orthodox Church and Independent Greece, 1821–1852 (Cambridge, 1969), 120–6. 45. These were, in actuality, quite modest. See: Journal de Constantinople, 11 Sept. 1845, 2; and R. Clogg, 'The Publication and Distribution of Karamanli Texts by the British and Foreign Bible Society Before 1850, II', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xix (1968), 187. 46. R. Clogg, 'Some Protestant Tracts printed at the Press of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople: 1818–1820', Eastern Churches Review, ii (1968), 152–64. 47. Gallant, 'Peasant Ideology and Excommunication for Crime in a Colonial Context', 490–91, 497. 48. K. Flamiátos, Ápanda ítoi, foní orthódoxos perí ton mellónton kathós kai epistolí pros tous en to Ayío Órei Patéras [Collected Works, or Orthodox Voice Concerning the Future and Letter to the Fathers of the Holy Mountain] (Athens, 1910), 51. 49. Ibid. 50. Engíklios ekklisiastikí kai sinodikí epistolí, parainetikí pros tous apandahoú Orthodóxous, pros apofiyín ton epipolazousón eterodidaskalión [Ecclesiastical Encyclical and Synodal Epistle urging Orthodox everywhere to flee thoughtless heterodox teachings]. (Athens, 1837), 20. 51. For a description of the anti-missionary campaign, see: K. Mamóni, 'Agónes tou Oikoumenikoú Patriarcheíou katá ton missionarión', Mnimosíni [Mnemosyne], viii (1980–1981), 179–212; and G. Augustinos, The Greeks of Asia Minor: Confession, Community and Ethnicity in the Nineteenth Century (Kent, OH and London, 1992), 117–20. 52. J. Tracy, 'History of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions', in History of American Missions to the Heathen from their Commencement to the Present Time (Worcester, MA, 1840), 272–4. 53. See, for example: Konstandínos Oikonómos o ex Oikonómon, Perí ton trión ieratikón tis Ekklisías vathmón epistolimaía diatriví. En í kai perí tis gnisiótitos ton Apostolikón Kanónon [A Solicited Treatise Concerning the Three Hieratical Ranks of the Church. In and concerning the Most Pure Apostolic Canons] (Nafplia, 1845). 54. Douglas to Ponsonby, 4 Nov. 1839, FO 195/105. 55. See: 'To the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Ionian Islands', Nov. 1838 [Julian date] and 'To the Parliament of the Ionian Islands and to the Orthodox there', 10 Dec. 1838. [Istanbul, Archeiofilákio tou Oikoumenikoú Patriarcheíou], K[ódikes] P[atriarchikís] A[llilografías] XIX, 32, 46. 56. 'To the Parliament of the Ionian Islands and to the Orthodox there', Dec. 1838 [Julian date]. KPA XIX, 46. 57. Y. A. Rállis and M. Potlís, Síndagma ton theíon kai ierón kanónon ton te ayíon kai paneffímon Apostólon, kai ton ierón kai oikoumenikón kai topikón Sinódon, kai ton katá méros ayíon Patéron [Constitution of the Divine and Sacred Canons of the Holy and Most Celebrated Apostles, of the Sacred Ecumenical and Local Synods and of the Various Holy Fathers] (Athens, 1855), 5. 164–76. 58. 'To the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Ionian Islands', Nov. 1838 [Julian date], KPA XIX, 27, 32. 59. Douglas to Ponsonby, Corfu, 3 May 1839, FO 195/105. For published copies of most of these letters, see: Práktika tis ayías tou Christoú megális ekklisías. Perí vathmoloyías ton sinoikesíon, kai ton anagoménon os pros to Ierón Mistírion tou Gámou, kai állon tinón anikónton idía os pros tous archiereís tis Eptanísou [Minutes of the Holy Great Church of Christ. To the Archhierarchs of the Heptanese Islands Regarding Degrees of Matrimony, Things Leading to the Sacred Mystery of Marriage and Other Matters Similarly Pertaining] (Constantinople, 1839), 163–88. 60. Ibid., 188. 61. The reformation of the Greek church, for example, had been embraced by the British Ambassador at Athens, Sir Edmund Lyons, as 'one of the most important fruits of the revolution'. Sir Edmund Lyons to Henry Temple, Viscount Palmerston. 9 Jan. 1839, FO 32/85. 62. Douglas to Ponsonby, 18 Oct. 1839, FO 195/105. 63. Douglas to Lord Glenelg, 31 Oct. 1838, FO 195/155. 64. Edward Dawkins to Palmerston, 20 Aug. 1833, FO 195/109. 65. Palmerston to John Milbanke, 8 Feb. 1839, FO 7/278. 66. Grigorios was connected through his main lay supporters (Nikolaos Aristarchis and Sotirios Kalliadis) to the Russian Legation and to the pro-Russian and pro-Austrian faction within the Ottoman government headed by the Foreign Minister, Âkif Pasha. See C. Findley, Ottoman Civil Officialdom, a Social History (Princeton, 1989), 78; and T. Aristoklís, Konstandíou A' tou apó Sinaíou aoidímou patriárchou Konstandinoupóleos tou Vizandíou viografía kai singrafaí ai elássones ekklisiastikaí kai filoloyikaí, kai tinés epistolaí aftoú [Biography of Konstandios I the Constantinopolitan of Sinai, Renowned Patriarch of Constantinople, together with his Minor Ecclesiastical and Philological Writings and Certain Letters] (Constantinople, 1866), 69. 67. Ponsonby to Palmerston, 19 May 1839, FO 78/356. 68. Mathieu-Louis Molé to Théodose de Lagrenée, 25 April 1839. Quoted in É. Driault and M. l'Héritier, Histoire diplomatique de la Grèce (Paris, 1925), i. 193. 69. Milbanke to Palmerston, 23 Feb. 1839, FO 7/280. Austrian policy on this point was, however, much more ambiguous than the British since, although the Ballhausplatz emphatically did not wish to see the Greek Church come under Russian control, it had fewer objections to links between the Patriarchate and the Greek Church per se. See, for example: Metternich to Baron Bartholomäus von Stürmer, 30 April 1844, [Vienna], H[aus-], H[of- und] S[taatsarchiv], Staatenabteilungen Türkei VI, karton 92, fo. 101. 70. Driault and L'Héritier, Histoire diplomatique de la Grèce, 194. 71. Petropulos, Politics and Statecraft in the Kingdom of Greece, 329–43. Lucien Frary has recently questioned the very existence of any such Panorthodox Society, arguing that it was essentially concocted by elements within the Greek government in order to discredit Russia and the NAP-ist party. Lucien Frary, 'The Philorthodox Conspiracy: Russian Society and Independent Greece'. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Toronto, Canada, 23 Nov. 2003. 72. Lyons to Douglas, 7 Jan. 1840, FO 286/11. 73. The entire report is given as an appendix in Petropulos, Politics and Statecraft in the Kingdom of Greece, 519–33. The quotation given here is from p. 519. 74. Palmerston to Ponsonby, 25 Nov. 1839, FO 78/353, fo. 141. 75. Ponsonby to Nuri Effendi, 14 May 1839. [Istanbul, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi], H[ariciye] N[ezareti] S[iyasi] K[ısım], Dosya 1770, Gömlek 1, Item 2. 76. Palmerston to Ponsonby, 25 Nov. 1839, FO 78/353. 77. Ponsonby to Reşid Pasha (in French translation), 13 Jan. 1840, HNSK, Dosya 1770, Gömlek 1, Item 12–13. 78. Ponsonby's instructions to Pisani (in French translation), 13 Jan. 1840. [Moscow, Ministerstvo inostrannykh del RF, Istoriko-dokumental'nyi departament], A[rkhiv] V[neshnei] P[olitiki] R[ossiiskoi] I[mperii], Fond 180, opis' 517/1, delo 167, fo. 112. 79. G. Franceschi to Ponsonby, 19 Jan. 1840. Copy annexed by Stürmer to his dispatch of 22 Jan. 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen, Osteuropa/Levante, Türkei VI, karton 73, fo. 3. 80. Stürmer to Metternich, 22 Jan. 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen, Osteuropa/Levante, Türkei VI, karton 73. 81. Stürmer to Metternich, 5 Feb. 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen, Osteuropa/Levante, Türkei VI, karton 73. 82. Stürmer to Metternich, 1 April 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen: Türkei VI, karton 74, fo. 22; Stürmer to Metternich, 8 April 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen: Türkei VI, karton 74, fo. 71. 83. Apollinarii Butenev to Count Karl von Nesselrode, 5 Feb. [Julian date: 24 Jan.], 1840. AVPRI, Fond 180, opis' 517/1, delo 167, fo. 88–92. 84. Stürmer to Metternich, 12 Feb. 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen, Osteuropa/ Levante, Türkei VI, karton 73. 85. Butenev to Nesselrode, 5 Feb. [Julian date: 24 Jan.], 1840, AVPRI, Fond 180, opis' 517/1, delo 167, fo. 88–92. 86. Stürmer to Metternich, 8 April 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen: Türkei VI, karton 74, fo. 70; Butenev to Nesselrode, 21 April [Julian date: 9 April], 1840, AVPRI, fond 180, opis' 517/1, delo 167, fo. 315. 87. Reşid Pasha to Ponsonby, 1 Feb. 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen, Osteuropa/ Levante, Türkei VI, karton 73. See also: Reşid Pasha to Ponsonby, 7 Feb. 1840. HNSK, Dosya 1770, Gömlek 1, items 5 and 10. 88. Ponsonby to Reşid Pasha, 3 Feb. 1840, HNSK, Dosya 1770, Gömlek 1, Item 9. 89. Ponsonby to Palmerston, 27 Feb. 1840, FO 78/392, fo. 190. 90. Ponsonby to Reşid Pasha, 3 Feb. 1840, HNSK, Dosya 1770, Gömlek 1, Item 9; and Ponsonby to Palmerston, 27 Feb. 1840, FO 78/392. 91. Ponsonby to Palmerston, 27 Feb. 1840, FO 78/392. 92. This ad hoc commission provides further evidence of the sort of innovations in governance which the Porte was making at the time. In particular, it mirrors a pattern which Philliou in Biography of an Empire (p. 113) has identified of shifting official and semi-official diplomatic meetings from the physical space of the imperial court and the offices of the Sublime Porte to private residences. 93. Stürmer to Metternich, 12 Feb. 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen, Osteuropa/ Levante, Türkei VI, karton 73. 94. Reşid also made much use in this affair of Stefanaki Vogoridis, the Prince of Samos, as an intermediary between himself and Ponsonby. For more information on this fascinating character, see: Philliou, Biography of an Empire (passim). 95. Stefanaki Vogoridis Bey to Ponsonby, 24 Feb. 1840. Annexed to Ponsonby's dispatch of 26 Feb. 1840, FO 78/392. 96. Le Moniteur Ottoman, 14 March 1840 [Hijri date: 10 Muharrem 1256], 1–3. Also see: Stürmer to Metternich, 28 Feb. 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen, Osteuropa/Levante, Türkei VI, karton 73. 97. Le Moniteur Ottoman, 14 March 1840, 2. Extended exerpts taken from the transcripts of the trial are given (in Greek and Russian translation respectively) in: E. Kiriakídis, Istoría tou sínkronou Ellinismoú, ii, 2: 410–21; and N.I. Sokolov, Konstantinopol'skaia Tserkov' v XIX veke, 258–68. 98. Ibid. 99. Stürmer to Metternich, 12 Feb. 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen, Osteuropa/ Levante, Türkei VI, karton 73. 100. Reşid Pasha to Ponsonby, 3 March 1840, HNSK, Dosya 1770, Gömlek 1, Item 15. 101. Douglas to Ponsonby, 3 Feb. 1840, FO 195/105. 102. Ponsonby to Palmerston, 27 Feb. 1840, FO 78/392. 103. Stürmer to Metternich, 4 March 1840, HHSA, Staatenabteilungen, Osteuropa/Levante, Türkei VI, karton 73. The negative fallout of the affair is further confirmed by Russian reports. See, for example: Butenev to Nesselrode, 4 March [Julian date: 21 Feb.], 1840. AVPRI, Fond 180, opis' 517/1, delo 167, fo. 166–170; Butenev to Nesselrode, 17 March [Julian date: 5 March], 1840. AVPRI, Fond 180, opis' 517/1, delo 167, fo. 221. 104. Ch.-L. Ficquelmont, Lord Palmerston, l'Angleterre et le Continent (Brussels and Leipzig, 1853), ii. 125–6. 105. Le Moniteur Ottoman, 14 March 1840, 3. 106. The 'example' made of Grigorios was further weakened by the fact that the Ottoman state made a special point of granting Grigorios a pension and a house in which to live out his remaining years. The Russian Embassy saw this as evidence of a guilty conscience on the part of the Porte. Butenev to Nesselrode, 17 March [Julian date: 5 March], 1840. AVPRI, Fond 180, opis' 517/1, delo 167, fo. 222. 107. Reşid set an official date for the patriarchal elections to be held, but then secretly auth