Get Real! wrote:Once again we search for the book itself and author which MUST exist...
Only the same four Turkish propaganda sources!
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cypru ... =&gs_rfai=
Havent got to Shakallis yet but read this in the meantime. More to come and I might even come across the elusive Shakallis too.
FFS do not insult your own Greek authors. 
ting revenue from the population, upon the good-will and assistance of the Orthodox hierarchy.
188 Consequently, as, “a result of practice and custom rather than legislation,” the
Archbishop became also, “ex-officio member of the Great Council which shared in the
administration of the island and the bishops were ex-officio members of the District
Councils.”189 The Archbishop of Cyprus then, during much, though not all, of the Ottoman
era had power over the island rivalling, sometimes purportedly even exceeding that
of the Governor.190 As attested to by numerous foreign observers, he was certainly a prime
source of political power.
Ali Bey denoted the Archbishop simply as, “the real prince of the island.”191 Turner
assessed the power of the Archbishop quite straightforwardly, stating that, “Cyprus,
though nominally under the authority of a Bey appointed by the Qapudan Pasha, is in fact
governed by the Greek Archbishop and his subordinate clergy.”192 Lacroix, more expansively,
wrote:
The Archbishop of Nicosia, who had the title of ri’aya-vekili as representing the
Christian subjects of the Porte had annexed pretty well the whole administrative
authority, and not only made himself independent of the Muhassils, [i.e. Ottoman
governors], but generally determined on their appointment and recall … and all the
inhabitants, Turks and Greeks alike, looked upon him as the real Governor, and
grew accustomed to take no notice of the Muhassil.193
As Lacroix indicated, the Archbishop’s influence was felt not only on the island, but also
at the core of governmental power in Istanbul, the Porte, or Office of the Grand Vizier.
Nor even was the Archbishop the sole wielder of power emanating from within the
Greek Cypriot community. Another, the Dragoman, accompanied him. The Dragoman’s
role was not, as is sometimes thought, that of a simple, “lowly” translator.194 He dealt not
only with the governors’ personal linguistic requirements, but had great political and economic
influence over the island’s administration. Besides his role as governmental trans-
188. JENNESS 1962, 100.
189. PERSIANIS 1967, 243; Representation on these bodies, was to lose much of its meaning after reforms
introduced by the British, “restrict[ed] the previous rights of the Councils to formal duties connected almost
exclusively with the levying of certain taxes.” GEORGHALLIDES 1979, 60.
190. Luke explains the situation in the following way: “During the Ottoman régime in Cyprus the Archbishop
represented to his own flock on a smaller scale that which the Patriarch of Constantinople represented to the
generality of the Orthodox in Turkey. That is to say, he was not only the spiritual chief of the Cypriotes; he
became the ethnarch, the political and national representative of his people in its relations with the Ottoman
Government. He became even more. By an astonishing reversal of fortune the Archbishops of Cyprus
whose office had been recreated by the Turks after lying dormant for three hundred years, secured in the
course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the supreme power and authority over the island, and at
one period wielded influence greater than that of the Turkish Pasha himself.” [LUKE 1973, 79]; Persianis
maintains that, “The most important characteristic of the Cyprus Orthodox Church was the temporal authority
of the Church leaders which arose as a result of history,” and further describes how, “the temporal authority
of the Archbishop increased considerably,” during Ottoman rule. [PERSIANIS 1967, 241–242];
Çevikel also acknowledges the power wielded by the bishops in Cyprus, particularly in the late eighteenth
century, arguing that at the imperial centre in Istanbul this was appreciated as a means of balancing the
power of the island’s governors. ÇEVÝKEL 2000, 121–122.
191. ALI BEY 1993, 265.
192. COBHAM 1986, 447.
193. Ibid., 463.
194. In this respect the position and power of the Dragoman compared to that of the Phanariote Greek official
translators of the Porte who, while, “known as translators ... in reality ... managed the empire’s foreign relations.”
ITZKOWITZ 1980, 105.
64
lator, the Dragoman was also, throughout most of the span of the Ottoman period, the
official most involved in financial affairs and in the vital function of the assessment and
collection of taxation from the islanders. Though the Dragoman was almost without
exception appointed from the ranks of the Orthodox Greek community, he was at times to
have responsibility too for the collection of taxes from the Moslems.195 The crucial financial
function of the Dragoman was recognised by the fact that he was granted the right to
go above the head of the Governor and Archbishop and communicate directly with the
Sultan.196
As to the appointment of the two powerful posts of Dragoman and Archbishop, the
Ottomans, “either through indolence or out of genuine consideration for their subjects,”
197 left the matter essentially to the Orthodox community, with the Dragomans customarily
chosen by the Orthodox notables and bishops, and only confirmed by the Sultan,
and the Archbishop likewise being elected, “by the suffrages of the Orthodox population,”
and his appointment, “confirmed by a berat from the [Ottoman] Government,
which was sent on receipt of a request from the Holy Synod and the representatives of the
Orthodox population.”198
Thus, leaving to one side the fact that the Ottoman appointed governors were not
themselves by any means necessarily always of ethnic Turkish stock, there is little justification
for the impression sometimes portrayed of “the Turks” relentlessly oppressing “the
Greeks” during Ottoman rule in Cyprus, or of the Greeks, “exclusion from any share of
power.”199 Greeks themselves played a key role in ruling the island and were, in fact,
quite often more directly responsible for the subjugation of their own people, (even on
occasions in opposition to the wishes and commands of the Ottomans), than were the
Ottoman imperial rulers themselves.200 In the light of the available evidence, Spyridakis’
generalisations, that, on the one hand, “the Turkish rulers repressed and persecuted the
Greek people of the island,” while on the other, “The efforts of the Archbishops were
directed to defending the position of the Christians against Turkish exploitation and
towards making their burdens as light as possible,” and that these latter, “always offered
inestimable services to the Island and especially to the Greek population in it,” might
almost be amusing were it not for the weight they have been given.201
What seems to have helped play a role in changing the Greek Cypriot people’s perception
of the Church in Cyprus as “protector” of the Greek nation during Ottoman rule was
the temporary persecution of the Church hierarchy in Cyprus during the Greek Revolution
195. KYRISS 1976, 253 and 259.
196. HILL 1952, 17; Tofallis indicates the power of the Dragoman with the example of Hajigeorgiakis Kornesios,
who held this post from 1779–1809, and whom he describes as being, “in sole control of the economic
life of the island.” TOFALLIS 2002, 70.
197. HILL 1952, 16.
198. Ibid., 315; See also, PERSIANIS 1967, 242 and SCOTT-STEVENSON 1880, 306–307.
199. GEORGHALLIDES 1979, 56.
200. It should be realised that the structure and system of Ottoman administration in Cyprus did not aim to smother
or devastate its Orthodox Greek community. Undoubtedly this was sometimes the outcome of the policies
of local administrators, but not a general scheme that could be attributed to the Ottoman Government.
Hill puts it well when he says that, “Nothing could be more praiseworthy than the declarations of the
Government that the rayahs should be treated with justice and moderation.” Yet he acknowledges that, “by
contrast, the failure of the administration to exercise these virtues was [therefore] the more lamentable.”
201. SPYRIDAKIS 1964, 57 and 62; MANGOIAN 1947, 26d; Thankfully I am not alone in such criticism of
Spyridakis’ assertions. One exasperated Greek historian has been bold enough to describe him as an “Enosis
propagandist.” TERLEXIS 1968, 45.
65
of 1821. The fact that it was most dramatically the Church leadership that was persecuted
at the time of the Greek War of Independence allowed those nationalists who chose to do
so to portray the Church as having been the eternal champion of the Greek nation in Cyprus,
and Church leaders, thereafter, the opportunity to claim authority in directing the
nationalist cause.
2.4
