The Island that Wasn’t: Autonomous Crete (1898–1912) and Experiments of Federalization

Abstract

This paper discusses the inauguration of the Autonomous State of Crete in an attempt to address both the specific contextual characteristics of its foundation and a few broader theoretical questions regarding the issues of interdependency and shared sovereignty in the context of modern state building. Specifically, the paper addresses the federal aspects of the Cretan polity by reference to region and religion. At a parallel level, it integrates this discussion with three political actors directly involved in the making of Autonomous Crete: the Great Powers, Greece and the Ottoman Empire. Moving away from acute dichotomies, this discussion suggests that autonomy reveals the blurry boundaries between nation-state and empire, as well as the origins of minority politics by reference to late 19th-century colonialist interventions.

Notes

1. For the prince’s own account of his appointment, see HRH Prince George of Greece, The Cretan Drama: The Life and Memoirs of Prince George of Greece, R. Speller and Sons, New York, 1959, pp. 17–29.

2. For the proceedings and diplomatic communications that resulted in this arrangement, see Great Britain, Notes Addressed by the Representatives of Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia to the Turkish and Greek Governments in Regard to Crete Presented to Both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty, Harrison and Sons, London, 1897; France, Diplomatic Documents: The Greek–Turkish Conflict, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Athens, 1897 [in French].

3. Prince George, ‘Proclamation’, Gazette of the State of Crete, 1, 25 December 1898 [in Greek].

4. On the debates that resulted in the eventual design of the flag as decided by the Great Powers and Ottoman suzerain in Istanbul, see the reports of the office of the Military General Staff Aids and correspondence of the office of the Grand Vizier and imperial palace, in Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri (henceforth mentioned as BOA): Yaveran ve Maiyyet-i Seniyye Erkan-ı Harp (henceforth mentioned as Y.PRK.MYD), 21/100, 29 Recep 1316 (13 December 1898); Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Arzuhal Ve Jurnaller (henceforth mentioned as Y.PRK.AZJ), 37/120, 05 Şaban 1316 (19 December 1898).

5. See the reports submitted to and reactions of the Grand Vizier’s office, in BOA, Yıldız Sadaret Hususî Maruzat Evrakı (henceforth mentioned as Y.A.HUS), 390/138, 26 Cemaziyilahir 1316 (11 November 1898) and 392/25, 09 Şaban 1316 (23 December 1898); Bâb-ı Âlî Evrak Odası Belgeleri (henceforth mentioned as BEO), 08 Şaban 1316 (11 December 1898).

6. Most indicative was the flag raised in Akrotiri, which was reminiscent both of revolutionary banners used by islanders during the Greek War of Independence; and of a most celebrated local symbol of resistance, the flag raised by the guerrilla chief George Daskalaki in 1866. The latter was blue, dominated by the white cross in the middle. Each blue quarter was marked by an acronym standing, respectively, for ‘Crete’, ‘Union (with Greece)’, ‘Freedom’ and ‘Death’. The religious symbol in the middle translating into ‘Jesus Christ Conquers’ was a clear reference to the Eastern Roman Empire that had ruled from Constantinople (Istanbul) between the 4th and 15th centuries. For an example of said Greek revolutionary flags and for Daskalaki’s flag, see respectively exhibits 3654VII and 6392 in J. C. Mazarakis-Ainian, Flags of Liberty, the National Historical Museum’s Collection, National Historical Museum, Athens, 1996.

On the celebratory reinterpretation of all these symbols in 1896–97, see the example of a coverage of the uprising in Akrotiri in ‘The Cretan Insurrection’, Le Petit Parisien, 14 March 1897 [in French]. For the reactions of the Ottoman regime to the general situation and specific use of Greek flags by the rebels, see BOA: Yıldız Sadaret Resmî Maruzat Evrakı (henceforth mentioned as Y.A.RES), 89/23, 17 Cemazeyilevvel 1315 (14 October 1897); Mabeyn Erkanı ve Saray Görevlileri Maruz (henceforth mentioned as Y.PRK.SGE), 8/6, 11 Cemaziyilahir 1315 (7 November 1897); Y.PRK.MYD, 20/23, 19 Cemaziyilahir 1315 (15 November 1897).

7. Indicatively, later attempts to replace the Cretan flag with the Greek one, which implied the island’s de facto union with Greece, invited intense reactions not only on the part of the Ottomans but also the Great Powers, see BOA, Y.A.HUS, 410/36 (11.Ca.1318/6 September 1900), 410/39 (13.Ca.1318/8 September 1900), 410/58 (21.Ca.1318/16 September 1900).

8. For an interesting comparison, see Martin Strohmeier, ‘Economy and society in the Aegean province of the Ottoman Empire, 1840–1912’, Turkish Historical Review, 1(2), 1 November 2010, pp. 164–195.

9. On the connection between Crete and Greek expansionism, see D. Tsitselikis and D. Christopoulos, ‘From the experience of the “Cretan state” and the “Great Idea” of the early 20th century to the “multicultural society” of the early 21st century’, in D. Christopoulos (ed.), The Untold Issue of the Minorities, KEMO—Kritiki, Athens, 2008, pp. 33–67; Anastasia Stouraiti and Alexander Kazamias, ‘The imaginary topographies of the Megali Idea: national territory as Utopia’, in Nikiforos Diamandouros et al. (eds), Spatial Conceptions of the Nation: Modernizing Geographies in Greece and Turkey, I. B. Tauris, London, 2010, pp. 11–34. For an example of the different historiographical readings of the Greek ‘Great Idea’, see indicatively Elli Skopetea, The Model Kingdom and the Great Idea: Aspects of the National Issue in Greece, 1830–1880, n.p., Athens, 1988 [in Greek]; Paschalis Kitromilides, ‘On the intellectual content of Greek nationalism: Paparrigopoulos, Byzantium and the Great Idea’, in D. Ricks and P. Magdalino (eds), Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity, Ashgate, Aldershot, 1998, pp. 25–33; Socrates D. Petmezas, ‘The formation of early Hellenic nationalism and the special symbolic and material interests of the new radical republican intelligentsia (ca. 1790–1830)’, Historein, 1, 1999, pp. 51–74.

10. Donald M. Reid, ‘The symbolism of postage stamps: a source for the historian’, Journal of Contemporary History, 19(2), 1 April 1984, pp. 223–249.

11. Notwithstanding the ongoing debates regarding the specific origins of the symbol, admittedly the ‘star and crescent’ resonated with the very evolution of the Ottoman polity as a matrix of multiple regional influences, see, for instance, Elizabeth Zachariadou, ‘Co-existence and religion’, Archivum Ottomanicum, 15, 1997, pp. 119–129; Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992, pp. 101–116; Karen Barkey, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 28–195. On the ‘borrowed’ quality and various meanings of symbols introduced during the Tanzimat, see Edhem Eldem, Pride and Privilege. A History of Ottoman Orders, Medals and Decorations, Ottoman Bank Archives and Research Centre, Istanbul, 2004.

12. To compare the system of full autonomy to the charters of regional administration introduced earlier under direct Ottoman control, see Cretan Governorate, Cretan Codex Including the Privileges and Relevant Firmans from 1868 to This Day, All of The Edicts Issued by the Governorate Contained in the Cretan Legislation, Circulars of the Prosecutors of the Appeals Court, Chania, 1893 [in Greek].

13. Indicative are, in this respect, the proceedings of the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies during and after the war of 1897, see BOA, Meclis-i Vükelâ Mazbataları (henceforth mentioned as MV), 92/62, 04 Safer 1315 (5 July 1897); 97/9, 12 Şevval 1316 (23 February 1899).

14. Prince George, The Cretan Drama, op. cit., pp. 28–29.

15. Jean-Stanislaw Dutkowski, ‘The experience of international administration over one territory, the occupation of Crete (1897–1909)’, Hellenic Journal of International Law, 7(1), January–March 1954.

16. See, for instance, a report submitted to the Imperial Gendarmerie, based on the testimony of Çakiri Arif Bey from Chania in the spring of 1900, in BOA, Yıldız Parekende Zabtiye (henceforth mentioned as Y.PRK.ZB), 25/86, 08 Safer 1318 (30 May 1900).

17. In this there was a connection between the Hamidian administration and the process of standardizing and bureaucratizing conversions as described in Selim Deringil, Conversion and Apostasy in the Late Ottoman Empire, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.

18. On similar debates on the notion and use of sovereignty, see W. G. Werner and J. H. De Wilde, ‘The endurance of sovereignty’, European Journal of International Relations, 7(3), 1 September 2001, pp. 283–313; Thomas L. Ilgen (ed.), Reconfigured Sovereignty: Multi-layered Governance in the Global Age, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2003, pp. 1–6.

19. See a relevant petition submitted to the Porte in 1875 in General Governorate of Crete, Cretan Codex, Publishers of the General Governorate of Crete, Chania, 1878, Vol. A, pp. 111–118 [in Greek].

20. The non-Muslim members on the committee were: Elefterios Venizelos, Kon. Foumis, Minoas Isihakis, Har. Pologeorgis, Frantzis Frantzeskakis, Manousos Koundouros, Emm. Zaharakis, Stil. Fotakis, Antonios Hatzidakis, Nikol. Giamalakis and David Ksanthoudidis. The Muslim members were: Mehmet Petinakis, Nesim Farfourakis, Ali Veisakis and Hasan Skilianakis. For the relevant edict, see Prince George, ‘Edict on the formation of a Drafting Committee for the Constitution’, Gazette of the State of Crete, 25 December 1898 [in Greek].

21. Manousos R. Koundouros, Journal: Historical and Diplomatic Revelations; The Cretan War of Independence and the Cretan Commissionary, G. H. Kalerge kai Sia, Athens, 1921, pp. 12–18, 142–144 [in Greek]. See also Leonidas Kallivretakis, ‘A century of revolutions: the Cretan question between European and Near Eastern politics’, in P. Kitromilidis (ed.), Elefterios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2006, pp. 29–30.

22. Elefterios Prevelakis, The Opposition’s Revolution in Crete (1895–1896), Academy of Athens, Athens, 2014.

23. ‘Proceedings’, Gazette of the State of Crete, 4, 10 February 1899.

24. When Hasan Skilianakis resigned from his position in May 1899 he was replaced by Ηüseyin Yenitsarakis, see Prince George, ‘Princely edict’, Gazette of the State of Crete, 33, 10 May 1899 [in Greek].

25. Prince George, ‘Proclamation’, op. cit.

26. This expectation is clearly expressed also in the High Commissioner’s own writings, see Prince George, Cretan Drama, op. cit., pp. 3–22.

27. A most telling example of the Ottoman federal ideal as expressed in the early 19th century was Prince Sebahattin whose ideology, I argue, was born out of rather than contradicted broader 19th-century reform tendencies, see, for instance, Prince Sebahattin, Eighth Letter to the Committee of Union and Progress: How Can One Save Turkey and Some Explanations, Ayraç Yayınevi, Ankara, 1999 [in Turkish].

28. Varban N. Todorov, Greek Federalism during the Nineteenth Century: Ideas and Projects, East European Monographs, Boulder, CO, 1995; Theodore George Tatsios, The Megali Idea and the Greek–Turkish War of 1897: The Impact of the Cretan Problem on Greek Irredentism, 1866–1897, East European Monographs, Boulder, CO, 1984.

29. On the Greek case, see Vangelis Kechriotis, ‘The modernization of the empire and the community “privileges”: Greek Orthodox responses to the Young Turk policies’, in Touraj Atabaki (ed.), The State and the Subaltern: Modernization, Society and the State in Turkey and Iran, I. B. Tauris, London, 2007, pp. 53–71 and ‘The Greeks of Izmir at the end of the empire: a non-Muslim Ottoman community between autonomy and patriotism’, Universiteit Leiden, 2005 [unpublished dissertation thesis]. See also Joseph G. Rahme, ‘Namik Kemal’s Constitutional Ottomanism and non‐Muslims’, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 10(1), 1 March 1999, pp. 23–39; Yonca Köksal, ‘Imperial center and local groups: Tanzimat reforms in the provinces of Edirne and Ankara’, New Perspectives on Turkey, 27(26), 2002, pp. 107–138.

30. On the various manifestations of the Great Idea, see Skopetea, op. cit.; K. Th. Dimaras, Hellenic Romanticism, Ermis, Athens, 1985 [in Greek]; Antonis Liakos, Italian Unification and the Great Idea (1859–1862), Themelio, Athens, 1985 [in Greek]; Maria Koundoura, The Greek Idea: The Formation of National and Transnational Identities, Tauris Academic Studies, London, 2007.

On Venizelos’s foreign policy, see a collection of his own speeches in Eleftherios Venizelos, The Vindication of Greek National Policy, 1912–1917, a Report of Speeches Delivered in the Greek Chamber, August 23 to 26, 1917, G. Allen & Unwin, London, 1918 and Three Speeches, Eurasia, Athens, 2000 [in Greek]. See also Svolopoulos Konstantinos D., Elefterios Venizelos and the Political Crisis of Autonomous Crete 1901–1906, Ikaros, Athens, 2005; Manolis Karellis, Historical Notes on Crete: From the Revolution of 1866 to the Occupation, Crete University Press, Heraklion, 2005, pp. 148–159 [in Greek]; Michael Llewellyn Smith, ‘Venizelos’ diplomacy, 1910–1923: from Balkan alliance to Greek–Turkish settlement’, in Paschalis M. Kitromilides (ed.), Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2008, pp. 134–193.

31. Caesar E. Farah, ‘Great Britain, Germany and the Ottoman Caliphate’, Der Islam, 66(2), January 1989, pp. 264–288; Selim Deringil, ‘Legitimacy structures in the Ottoman state: the reign of Abdulhamid II (1876–1909)’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 23(3), August 1991, pp. 345–359; Ş. Tufan Buzpinar, ‘Opposition to the Ottoman Caliphate in the early years of Abdülhamid II: 1877–1882’, Die Welt des Islams, 36(1), 1 March 1996, pp. 59–89 and ‘Some new evidence and remarks on the Ottoman Caliphate’, Türk Kültürü İncelemeleri Dergisi, 10, 2004, pp. 1–38 [in Turkish].

32. See Article 7: ‘All Cretans are equal before the law and have the same rights, regardless of religion’; Article 8: ‘Public posts are open to all Cretans, regardless of religion, according to their skills and qualifications’; Article 10: ‘Freedom of religion is protected and proselytism is prohibited though not against the personal will of citizens who have henceforth the right to publicly declare their religious beliefs. Religious differences, or change of religion, have nothing to do with property rights, real rights, and legal obligations’; Article 11: ‘Public worship of all officially recognized religions is free and protected by the state as long as it does not violate the law or police regulations’; Article 21: ‘Education is free, but it has to be provided by individuals scientifically and morally qualified according to the criteria established by law, and under the supervision of the relevant authority, with regard to morality, public order, and respect of governmental law. Primary education is compulsory and free.’ Also, see Article 107, according to which the Central Administration of Muslim Pious Foundations was recognized as a legal individual with the right to hold religious communal property in Constitution of the Cretan State, Publishers of the Cretan State, Chania, 1899 [in Greek].

33. Prince George, ‘Edict on the Constitution of the Cretan Assembly’, Gazette of the State of Crete, 1, 9 January 1899.

34. Prince George, ‘Address to the representatives of the Cretan Assembly’, Gazette of the State of Crete, 7, 8 February 1899 [in Greek].

35. Constitution of the Cretan State, Publishers of the Cretan State, 1899.

36. See how the clash of 1905 was described by the left-wing British journalist H. N. Brailsford, ‘The future of Crete’, The North American Review, 1905, pp. 251–260. See also Robert F. Holland, ‘Nationalism, ethnicity and the Concert of Europe: the case of the High Commissionership of Prince George of Greece in Crete, 1898–1906’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 17(2), 1999, pp. 253–276; Kallivretakis, op. cit., pp. 11–35.

37. On the context of the military uprising of 1909—known as the Goudi Rebellion—see Victor S. Papacosma, The Military in Greek Politics: The 1909 Coup d’État, The Kent State University Press, Kent, 1977; Thomas W. Gallant, Modern Greece, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, pp. 120–129; Helen Gardikas Katsiadakis, ‘Venizelos’ advent in Greek politics, 1909–12’, in Kitromilides, The Trials of Statesmanship, op. cit., pp. 87–114; Marios Hatzopoulos, ‘Messianism and monarchy: legitimating dynastic power in late 19th century Greece’, in Paschalis Kitromilides and Marios Hatzopoulos (eds), The Range of Neohellenice Political Thought. From the 19th to the 20th Century, National Research Institute, Athens, 2014, pp. 13–45 [in Greek].

38. Palmira Johnson Brummett, Image and Imperialism in the Ottoman Revolutionary Press, 1908–1911, State University of New York Press, Albany, 2000; M. Şükrü Hanioğlu, Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902–1908, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001. V. Kechriotis, ‘Greek-Orthodox, Ottoman Greeks or just Greeks? Theories of coexistence in the aftermath of the Young Turk revolution’, Etudes Balkaniques, 1, 2005, pp. 51–60 and Kechriotis, ‘The modernization of the empire and the community “privileges”’, op. cit., pp. 53–71; Hasan Kerimoğlu, Union and Progress and the Rums: 1908–1914, Libra Kitapçılık ve Yayıncılık, Istanbul, 2009 [in Turkish]; Garabet K. Moumdjian, ‘Struggling for a constitutional regime: Armenian–Young Turk relations in the era of Abdulhamid II, 1895–1909’, UCLA, 2012 [unpublished dissertation].

39. See Benjamin Braude, ‘Foundation myths of the millet system’, in Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (eds), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Holmes & Meier, Teaneck, 1982, pp. 69–88; Paraskevas Konortas, ‘From Ta’ife to millet: Ottoman terms for the Greek Orthodox community’, in D. Gondicas and C. P. Issawi (eds), Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism: Politics, Economy, and Society in the Nineteenth Century, Darwin Press, Princeton, NJ, 1999, pp. 169–179.

40. Johann Strauss, ‘The millets and the Ottoman language. The contribution of Ottoman Greeks to Ottoman letters (19th–20th centuries)’, Die Welt des Islams, 35(2), 1995, pp. 189–249; Haris Exertzoglou, ‘Investments and investment behaviour in the Ottoman Empire: the development of a Greek–Ottoman bourgoisie, 1850–1914’, in Gondicas and Issawi, op. cit., pp. 89–115; Dimitrios Stamatopoulos, ‘From millets to minorities in the 19th-century Ottoman Empire: an ambiguous modernization’, in Steven G. Ellis et al. (eds), Citizenship in Historical Perspective, Pisa University Press, Pisa, 2006, pp. 253–273.

41. My use of the term stems from Olga Demetriou, Capricious Borders: Minority, Population, and Counter-Conduct between Greece and Turkey, Berghahn Books, New York, 2013.

42. For the relevant discussions and decisions of the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies, see BOA, MV 100/43, 04 Rebiülevvel 1318 (1 July 1900); MV 100/73, 30 Rebiülevvel 1318 (27 July 1900).

43. See ‘Proceedings No. 15’, op. cit.

44. Article 6 stipulated the privileged relinquishment of Cretan citizenship (ιθαγένεια) to ‘those who participated into the liberation wars of Crete’ (Εις τους μετασχόντας των υπέρ ελευθερίας αγώνων της Κρήτης). Aside from this provision, citizenship (ιθαγένεια) was granted to: (a) those settled on the island before January 1897, if at least one of their parents was of ‘a Cretan origin’; (b) descendants of ‘Cretan-Ottoman subjects’, regardless of their present residence; (c) those born in Crete by unknown parents, see Constitution of the Cretan State, Publishers of the Cretan State, Chania, 1899 [in Greek].

45. BOA, Y.A.HUS, 393/127 (26.L.1316/9 March 1899).

46. ‘Proceedings No. 15’, op. cit.

47. On an interesting analysis of minority construction between neo-imperial and national influences, see Benjamin Thomas White, The Emergence of Minorities in the Middle East: The Politics of Community in French Mandate Syria, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2011.