BALKAN NATIONALISM(S) AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE Dimitris Stamatopoulos (Editor) Vol I: National Movements and Representations THE ISIS PRESS ISTANBUL7 BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE: GREEK-BULGARIAN CONFRONTATION AND POLITICAL HEGEMONY IN THESSALONIKI FROM THE BULGARIAN SCHISM (1872) TO THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CONSULS (1876) Dimitris STAMATOPOULOS University of Macedonia The community dispute in 1872-1874 that was the cause for the oust- ing of metropolitan Neophytos of Byzantium (1858-1874)! from Thessaloniki 1 ‘The metropolitan of Thessaloniki Neophytos, also known as Vyzantios because of his Constan- tinopolitan roots, was one of the supporters of the reformist movement that led to the adoption of the General Regulations by the Millet-i Constituent Assembly of 1858-60, see Chrysanthos Philippidis, Archbishop of Athens, «Ox Pevixoi Kavongpoi toy Ox oopevixot Tlarpiapyetov ext mm Base tov KaSixos TE (paxnxé Edvoovvehe ioews 1858-60», [The General Regulations of the Ecumenical Patriarchate according to the Codex TE’ (Proceedings of the National Assembly 1858-60)], Hpaxeucé imc AcaSnuiag Ain viv (1946), p. 9. Before he moved to Thessaloniki, Neo- phytos had held the post of metropolitan at Veliko Tamovo (1840-56), where he fell out with the Bulgarian section of the population over both allegations of malpractice and embezzlement and the activity of his secretary Konstantinos Megavoulés, who followed Neophytos to his new seat. ‘The real reasons for their disagreement must be sought in the direction of his election as metro- politan of Veliki Tamovo, instead of the prominent Bulgarian nationalist Neophytos Bozveli, following the active involvement of the Patriarchate and in particular that of the powerful Neo- phanariotes, and Bulgarian in origin, Stephanos Vogoridis. Neophytos was forced out of Veliko Timovo in February 1857, and was elected to his new scat in January 1858, when his predecessor Kallinikos moved over to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, His election on the eve of the Assembly accounts for the favorable stance he adopted towards the intended reforms, see Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 30, Patriarch Anthimos VI to Neophytos, metro- politan of Veliko Tamovo, November 2, 1853, p. 15, December 3, 1853, pp. 39-40, February 3, 1854, p. 70, K.T.A. 32, Patriarch Cyril VII to Neophytos, metropolitan of Veliko Témovo, Feb- ruary 26, 1857, p. 160, Aimilianos, bishop of Miletos, (Tsakopoulos), ” Emax amuxot Kar doy,” [Catalogues of Bishops], OpBoSa¥ia, 32 (1957), pp. 174, 184, 320; Zina Markova, Balgarskoto darkovno-nadiolno drizenie do Krimskata vojna {The Bulgarian ecclesiastical-national movement during the Crimean War], Sophia 1976, pp. 31, 38; M. Th. Laskaris, To A waral xév Cijemua 1800- 1923 [The Eastern Question, 1800-1923], vol I, Thessaloniki 1978, p. 258, Neophytos’s squabble with the Slavic elements of Thessaloniki continued during his term in office there, following his decision to transfer the metropolitan of Polyane, Parthenios in 1865. For an extended review of Neophytos’s conduct in Thessaloniki, particularly during the 1860s, see Dimitris Stamatopoulos, “@ecoahoviey 1858-1874: H egapyoya tav Tevxdv Kavonondw Kat o pntparchims NeOpurce,” [Salonica 1858-1874: the implementation of the General Regulations and Neophy- tos, metropolitan of Thessaloniki], @caaal ovacdwvxdix, 1 (1997), pp. 87-99.102 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS is barely known in comparison with the intra-community clashes of the 1880s, during which two other metropolitans of the city, Kallinikos Photiadis (1873- 1883)? and Gregorios Kallidis (1883-1889)> were forced to forfeit their epis- copal seats as well+. Nevertheless, the political significance of the earlier con- flict must be seen as grander than that of the succeeding clashes given that, as. we shall see, it led to the definition of the opposing factions that dominated the political scene of the community during the next decades. At the same time, it contributed decisively to the establishment of the Educational Associ- ation of Thessaloniki in 1872, as well as in the drafting of the first community regulation in 1874. The said regulation was one of the first, if not the very first, that was drafted according to the rules that were provisioned in the text of the General Regulations®. It is generally agreed upon that the adoption of 2 For information about Kallinikos Photiadis see Andreas Nanakis, “Néx wropuxé otoyeta yta ‘TOV ENtparodim AépKov Kn inKo Darin (1841-1926) tov ax6 @eaoa2ovieng” [New histor- ical elements on Kallinikos Photiades (1841-1926), metropolitan of Derkoi ex-metropolitan of Thessaloniki], Exurmpovnr Exceypiia Ocaloyncis Sxalig Geooadovienc, turpa Ocaroyias, 1 (1990), pp. 163-93. 3 For information about the conduct of Gregorios Kallidis, albeit presented in biased form, please see the pamphlet of unknown authorship, To Mopdv 'Alac, jfrot o aaccxnpoypévor Ocooakoviens Tpnyépioc Kaliing Katy ovv~popia avtos, [The foolish salt: namely Grigorios Kallidis, the denounced metropolitan of Thessaloniki and his company], Thessaloniki 1888, 4 «4 few references can be found in K. Tattes: “Kew és @eaoahov ene” [Community of Thesse- loniki], Maxedovicd Hiepaldyto Tayyaxedovucod Zuid dyoo, 6 (1913), pp. 85-89; by the same writer: “O lodwvnc Taxdyng kor ta épya avtow” [Ioannis Papafis and his works], Tpnydpicc Iadayée, 2. (1918), pp. 302-03. For communal life in Thessaloniki during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, see K. Moskov: @ecoaloviey (1700-1912): roxy me ustanparncrg xélnc [Thessaloniki (1700-1912): the tuming point of a comprador city], Athens 1978, pp. 126-35 (hereinafter, Ocooadovin); St. Zapantis: “Or evdoxawonxé épidec amy EAnxd xovornta ‘MS Secourovienc and to 1881 péypt to 1912,” [The intra-community conflicts in the Greek community of Salonika from 1881 to 1912], Mpaxtadé ta I HaveMnvion btopxot Sowéptoo, Gcooarovien 1989, pp. 121-47, EA Hekimoglou, @easatoviey: Toopkoxpatia Kai Moor dieuoz, (Thessaloniki: Turkish domination and Inter-war period], Thessaloniki 1996, pp. 173-217, G. Moutafis, “H 8nnoyepovtia tag Geaoahovikns oto KavOVIKd mC xAaioto (1874- 1904),” [The council of the notables -demogerontia- in Thessaloniki and its social context (1874- 1904)] in H dtaxpovacr xopsia tov Koivoriq06 ory Maxedovia, Kévtpo lotopiag tov Atpou Geocarovixnc, Mpaxnxé Lvprosiov, Oscoakovikn 1991, pp. 235-53; P. Vakoufaris, “O avadewpnyévos Kavoviopds ms Eqvuctg xavertag @eaaahaviens tov 1874 Kar o Sievers Tov tomKan apyovrey,” [The revised regulation of the Greek Community in Salonika of 1874 and the conflicts between the local leaders}, Eriormmovacr) Erempia to Kémpov bropiac @eaoa ovixys, 3 (1992), pp. 169-84. > With the possible exception of the regulations governing the formation of the Orthodox Coun- cil of Elders of Smyma in 1864, which were strictly limited to dictating the rules for the layout of the Council. See also H. Solomonidis, H Hackyaia mc Zu tp wyc, [The Church of Smyma], ADtva 1960, pp. 295-96, Tevicoi xavovipoi xepi SwvBerioeus tw v exxAnowatx cv Kat Ova Ov Rpaye dren v tov on TOV Onomcracs bp évov Sutchotwwv Opboickuw Xrurravey vxyxdwv ms A Myalerirtos tw Zovitdvou ex me Maxpupymic ron Pévoog woxoypagiac. devOovoréme napa tw Frepdvo A Aquéstwcov, [General Regulations on the management of the ecclesiastical and millet-i affairs of the Orthodox Christians who belong to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and they are subjects of his Majesty the Sultan], Constantinople 1862. The General Regulations are repro-BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 103 the General (or “National” but actually Millet-i) Regulations (1858-1860) activated a process of rearrangements in the medium-sized and large commu- nities, and led to the drafting of community regulations precisely defining the duties and jurisdictions of local community notables as well as the relations of the latter with the agents of the Church?. However, this process resulted in redefining relations between clerics and laity on the social basis of the Ortho- dox millet, not only because it was uneven, as it is evident from the differ- ences in timing of the drafting of the community regulations and their con- stant revisions, but also because the whole process was heavily contradictive. Particularly in the case of Thessaloniki, one of the largest urban centres in the empire along with to Istanbul and Smyrna, the delay in the appearance of such a charter regulating community functions is distinctive (twelve years after the final ratification of the General Regulations in 1862 and ten years after the adoption of the law on the Vilayets in 1864, the one that reorganised the struc- tures of provincial governance)—even more so in the case of other cities that only got to have comparable charters just in the 1880s or the 1890s while at duced in Benlisoy Yorgo & Macar Elgin, Fener Patrikhanesi, (Ecumenical Patriarchate] Ankara 1996 and in Ch. K. Papastathis, O1 Kavoviopoi tv OpOéSazav ELanvacciv xowvorrjra v tov Bioware ob xp drag Kai m dior op éc, [The Regulations of the Greek Orthodox communities in the Ottoman state and Diaspora], Salonika 1984, pp. 88-110 (hereinafter, it is the latter publica- tion that will be referred to, as Or Kavovy.oi). Although the final draft of the General Regula- tions approved by the Assembly did not provide for communal organization in the provinces, the Regulation relating to the formation of the Permanent National Mixed Council was amended to some extent by the High Porte when it was submitted for approval. One such amendment was made to article sixteen, volume 2, regarding the responsibilities of the members of the Permanent National Mixed Council and providing for the formation of a mixed council of laymen and clerics (which is to say, the prelate) at every Bishopric, following the model of the council at Istanbul. This dictated that such councils could be established only following the provisions by and the instructions of the Porte, “after the Mixed Council of Constantinople and the regulations govern- ing its operations have been constituted.” The significance of this clause lies in heralding the Law on the Vilayets of 1864 and in extending the standardization of communal self-administration across the provinces. This amendment does not feature in the first edition of the General Regula- tions of 1862, which is reproduced in in Ch. K. Papastathis, O: Kavoviguot. The decodification of the General Regulations as a methodological tool for understanding the power relations and the conflicts between different interest groups in the Ecumenical Patriarchate, see D. Stamatopoulos, Reform and Secularization: towards a reconstruction of the History of the Ecumenical Patriar- chate during the 19th c., Athens: Alexandreia Publications 2003 (in Greek), p. 120, idem, “From Millets to Minorities in the 19° — Century Ottoman Empire: an Ambiguous Modernization”, in S. G. Ellis, G. Halfadanarson, AK. Isaacs (emy..), Citizenship in Historical Perspective, Pisa: Edizioni Plus — Pisa University Press, 2006, 253-273, idem, “Holy Canons or General Regula tions? The Ecumenical Patriarchate vis-a-vis the challenge of secularization in the 19” c.”, in Trine Stauning Willert, Lina Molokotos-Liederman (eds.), /nnovation in Christian Orthodox Tradition? The question of change in Greek Orthodox thought and practice, Farnham, Surrey- London: Ashgate Publications 2012, 143-162. 7 ChK Papastathis, “O xavoniowés om Maxedovia vad to KaSeotds tov Ebvxdw Kavoniopdw” [The communalism in Macedonia under the status of the National Regulations] in H dmpovmey ropeia tov Korocwpor’, pp. 135-55; Thanos Veremis, “Or Odapavixé; netappvdyicerc,” [The Ottoman Reforms], bropia ta» Edn vwob EOvovs, (History of the Greek Nation], vol. 13, p. 170.104 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS the same period the process of promoting the reforms in the Ottoman state had been postponed because of Sultan Abdul Hamid’s ascent to the throne®, As a result, it is necessary to interpret this time “gap” in implementing the reformist process in the center and the provinces with regards the reorgan- ising of the Orthodox millet and to explain why the representatives of the communities delayed adopting the option of the administrative restructuring. These reasons must be sought in the contradiction that became apparent thanks to the implementation of the reforms in the provinces (not only at the political, socio-economic level but at the ecclesiastical level as well) during the second period of the Tanzimat (1856-1876)°, as well as in the intensifica- tion of national rivalries between Greeks and Bulgarians after the Schism was announced in 187210, The confrontation in Thessaloniki between 1872 and 1874 offers a clear example of the emergence of these factors as definitive for the process of community restructuring. Based primarily on accounts in the Greek newspapers of Istanbul, the intra-community conflict in Thessaloniki appears to have begun in January 187211, We can detect three phases: the first, from January 1872 until the summer of that year, during which the classic characteristics of an intra- community conflict emerged with the shaping of two opposing factions; on one side was the body of the traditional heads of the Christian communities (the prokritoi), as expressed primarily by the majority of the members of the notables but also by some of the heads of the guilds, and on the opposite side were the great majority of the guilds’ members, apparently guided by a seg- ment of the powerful urban bourgeoisie.!? The second phase lasted until the permanent departure of metropolitan Neophytos from Thessaloniki in mid- 8 Ch. K Papastathis, Or Kavovuol, p. 145 onwards. 9 For Thessaloniki during the Tanzimat period, see Meropi Anastasiadou, Réaménagement du cadre urbain et changement social dans I'Empire ottoman & l'dge des réformes. Le cas de Salo- nique, 1830-1912, doctorate thesis, Paris 1995; idem, Salonique, 1830-1912. Une ville ottomane a Tage des Réformes, Leiden: Brill 1997, A Karadimou-Gerolympou, Mra&é Avatalig xat Atons: Bopeocliadiemse rélex omy xepiodo tov Obayuavacdy perappuéicew , [Between East and West: cities of the Northern Greece during the period of the Ottoman Reforms], Athens 1997. Nora Lafi, "The Municipality of Salonica between Old Regime, the Ottoman Reforms and the Transition from Empire to Nation State: Questions and Research Perspectives", in Proceedings of the conference ‘Thessaloniki 1912-2012’ (Oct. 18-21, 2012), Municipality of Thessaloniki, 2013, p.74-89. 10 On the Bulgarian Schism's interpretational approaches see Dimitris Stamatopoulos, “The Bulgarian Schism Revisited”, Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 24/25 (2008-2009), 105-125. 1) Anatolikos Astir (Eastern Star] newspaper, no 1008, 16/28 August 1872. 12 The term ‘bourgeois’ is meant to denote major landowners just as much as merchant princes, bankers, and industrialists. The reason is that, in Thessaloniki at least, we deal with a multi- purpose elite, whose landed property supplements, if not provides, the necessary prerequisite for unalloyed middle-class economic activities. The politically rival families of Abbott and Hatzi- Iazarou, who we are going to deal with in greater detail further on, are the case in point, Whereas the former engaged in commerce and the latter in banking, they both had significant landowning interests. See K Moskov, @cocad ovien, pp. 134-35.BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 105 October, a phase during which factors relating to the proliferation of the Bul- garian issue came to play and forced Neophytos to clash with nearly the city’s entire Greek Orthodox community. Finally, the third phase includes the time period up until the permanent resolution of the matter in March 1874, a phase during which the conflict mostly centred in the relations between the Greek Orthodox community and the Patriarchate—a case that was present, as we shall see, in the two earlier phases as well. Schools and Stavropegial monasteries Regarding the first phase of the intra-community conflict we must first clarify who its facilitators were, the accusations that they established against Neophytos, and finally, the causes of these accusations. In March 1872, we have the first reference on the community conflict in the newspapers of Istanbul, two months after it commenced. The Byzantis newspaper published an unsigned editorial mentioning letters of Thessalo- nikians that were sent to the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Holy Synod ex- pressing opposition to Metropolitan Neophytos. According to the editorial, these specific references “for which we have information that they were made by certain persons acting for their own personal interests, and all among those that signed these belong to the class of rabble.” The editorial noted that the prokritoi (kocabas) and démogerontes (notables)—the distinction between the two should be noted—of the province of Thessaloniki eagerly sent telegrams with which to renounce the alleged accusations “of a certain few” and prom- ised with official declarations to revoke the accusations against Metropolitan Neophytos.!3 The response to the editorial came from another Istanbul newspaper, Neologos!4, in the form of two letters. The first was dated March 28, and was a letter by an anonymous resident of Thessaloniki, who ironically enough signed as “one of the rabble.” The second, far lengthier, letter was dated March 24, 1872, and signed by the “Community Board of Thessaloniki” («Emtponi Kovérntos @ecca).ov ieng»). Both letters, especially the second, aimed to invalidate the claims in the Byzantis editorial that those signing them belonged to the “rabble class.” Therefore the content of the letters offers im- portant clues for identifying the social status of the persons opposing the sup- porters of Neophytos. We read in the letter sent by the Community Board: “From the reports that are already sent against his holiness the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, the honourable editor of ‘Byzantis’ can inform himself that among the signees are the foremen and the most prominent of the guilds, the most prominent of all the parishes, all of them peaceful and faithful citizens 13 Yyzantis newspaper, no. 1568, March 18, 1872. 14 Neologos newspaper, no. 982, April 4/16, 1872.106 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS that cannot be seen as rabble, they are rather intelligent and peaceful folk, and they have far more genuine feelings from the so-called prokritoi and the self- proclaimed démogerontes...”!5 The distinction made was clear; the opposi- tion group was composed mostly of the members of the guilds but also of some of Thessaloniki’s “most prominent” citizens, who do not appear to have had the status of notables. Conversely, the Metropolitan’s supporters appeared to be the notables or some among them, but also the majority the prokritoi, from whose ranks the démogerontes sometimes came (nevertheless, notables could rise from within the ranks of the guilds too). The term “self- proclaimed” used to describe the notables not only challenged their claim to represent the community’s broader interests, but also the processes by which they were commissioned in their positions, thus presenting clear protestations for the functions of the community’s structures as a whole. The Community Board’s letter concluded by requesting that the editor of Neologos publish the names of the prokritoi and démogerontes who had sent the telegram defending Neophytos as well as the reports they sent to the Patriarchate so that the Community Board may respond.!§ The telegram and the reports by Neophytos’s defenders were, indeed, published soon after- wards, but not by Neologos. On March 22, the Eastern Star!7, another news- paper based in Istanbul, published an article stating that the reports against Neophytos had been submitted to the Patriarchate by a three-member commit- tee that had come to Istanbul for that purpose. (The Community Board was apparently unaware of this article, given that their letter was dated March 24.) Also published in response to the accusations, the telegram sent by the prokritoi on March 2, 1872 to counter the opposition’s corresponding tele- grams, as is apparent from its content. This telegram is the only one of the publications in Istanbul’s newspapers where the names of the senders are ex- plicitly stated and is therefore very useful, as it confirms that the supporters of Neophytos were indeed from among the traditional body of the city’s prokritoi. The telegram was signed by ten citizens of Thessaloniki who were titled “démogerontes and headmen” (probably of guilds). The second designa- tion obviously refers to the heads of guilds, which implies that Neophytos had not totally lost any foothold he had in the said community groups!8, As for the accusations against Neophytos, his opponents mostly doubt- ed his ability to cover the extended duties of the diocese of Thessaloniki be- cause of his old age and his troubled health (podalgia). In the same issue of the Eastern Star in which the telegram from Thes- saloniki’s prokritoi was published—and in which publication of the reports 15 Neologos, Ibid. 16 Neologos, Ibid. 17 Anatolikos Astir, no, 966, March 22/April 4, 1872. '8 The telegram reads as follows: “To the Patriarch and the Synod. The telegrams contain per- sonal attacks.”BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 107 sent from Thessaloniki was also announced—we can find two more important pieces of information. The first is that the local authorities (possibly the gen- eral commissioner of the city) became involved in the intra-community dis- pute by sending a report to the Sublime Porte in which they expressed the “general satisfaction across the province for the hierarch in question.” The second and more crucial piece of information is that the Patriarchate eventual- ly invited Neophytos to come to Istanbul “regarding some unresolved issues of monasteries’ relevance, which require his presence in person”!9. Although the editor of the Eastern Star did not directly connect the Thessalonikians’ accusations against Neophytos to the Metropolitan’s summons by the Patriar- chate, a correlation of the two is mandatory. This is because in all patriarchal epistles to the diocese and to the notables of Thessaloniki between 1872 and 1874 years, the intra-community dispute is closely related to the said monas- teries’ issues. A patriarchal and synodic letter, which was sent to Neophytos and dated January 10, 187229, addressed the matter of the church of Aghios Hypatios (Aytos Ymérvoc, today Panagia Dexia) and the church of the Presen- tation of Christ (Ypapanti)”!, these churches and their surrounding estates were the centre of a long dispute between the Stavropegial monastery of Agh- ia Anastasia é Pharmakolytria in Galatista of Chalcidice, the monastery claim- ing each of these churches as a metochi, or dependency, and the démogerontes of Thessaloniki. As it is known, each metochi was taken over by the parish- ioners of the two churches on June 12, 1863, thanks to the silence of Neophy- tos and the approval of the démogerontes because the monastery had declined to accept the demand of the démogerontes and the populace of the parish to establish an annual tax on the income generated from lending the surrounding estates—a tax that was meant to be used to finance the educational workshops (exnadevtik 6 Kataot fata) of Thessaloniki22, And so we must assume that 19. Anatolikos Astir, ibid, 20 Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 43, Anthimos, Ecumenical Patriarch to Neophytos, metropolitan of Thessaloniki, no. 324, January 10, 1872, pp. 13-14. The date and possible time of arrival of the letter can be related to the very beginning of the intra~ community conflict, as this is placed chronologically through the publications of the Greek news- papers of Istanbul 21 For the Holy Temple of Ypapanti see M. Provatakis, O Nags mg Yauravrig tov Xpiotob @ecoadov eng [The Holy Temple of Ypapanti of Christ in Thessaloniki}, , Thessaloniki 1975. 22 Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 44, no 2287, April 1, 1873, pp. 128-132, where the timeline of the dispute between the monastery and the demogerontia and a reference to the occasional sigilia that confirmed the rights of the monastery over the two metochia. Also see, Vasileios Dimitriadis, Toxoypagia mc @cooudovieng Katé my exoxh tC Toopxocpatiag 1430-1912 [The topography of Thessaloniki during the Turkish domination, 1430-1912], Thessaloniki 1983. pp. 255-256, E. A. Hekimoglou, «Nedepec xat hav éy ovace edters ya ta eCodex of Correspondence of the Ecumenical PatriarchaterSevtifpia Kar tovG ucovopiK ois, ZOpous mE EdAnvopOSSoENs xawvértag @eacadaviens (1850-1912)» [Recent and Latent News on the educational institutions and the financial resources of the Greek Orthodox community of Thessaloniki], Exicmyovmy} Erempiba too Kéxpoo bropiag Osacakovixys, 5 (1994), pp. 134-135. The claims of the community over the two metochia based their legitimacy in a relevant sigilium of 1730, published during the reign of the Ecumenical Patriarch Paisios Il,108 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS between 1863 and 1872, the income that each metochi generated was directed towards strengthening the educational efforts in Thessaloniki23, In November 1865, the then-Patriarch Sophronios III (1863-1866) assigned the Metropoli- tan of Bodena Nicodemos as ecclesiastical exarch (é&apy0g), and Nicodemos managed to achieve a compromise between the two parties. This compromise in effect benefited the Thessalonikians’ side since even though it ascertained the monastery’s rights over each metochi in question, it gave their fiscal man- agement to commissioners elected from the parishioners.24 The compromise and a corresponding one of 1766, during the reign of Samuel Chantzeres (1763-1768). The latter ordained that “the temples of Aghios Athanasios, Theotokos Lagoudiane, Aghios Nikolaos Or- phanou, Aghios Hypatios, Ypapante of Thessaloniki do not partake of the Stavropegial value of the monasteries, but are instead under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Thessaloniki...” see N Delialis, «lotopixey éypagov agopaw my ExxAnowonxiy lotopiav @sacaov ing», [Elis torical document conceming the Ecclesiastical History of Thessaloniki], Mucedovacd Hep oh d10, (1938) p. 201, M Gedeon, Harp apyacoi ITivaxec, p. 659. The sigilium of 1730 was published by tev. L. Sophronios, see L. Sophronios, «H kp Movie Ay. Avactaciac ms Dappaxodiepuacy [The Holy Monastery of Saint Anastasia the Pharmakolytrial, [ny dprac ITadau dc, 2 (1918)546- 549. As it appears from the relevant signatures in the document’s end, this sigilium was used by Metropolitan Neophytos and the demogerontes during their dispute against the monastery in 1872, in order to reinforce their arguments. For the history of the Monastery in the early Ottoman centuries see Vera Tchentsova, "Marepaarnt 21a ucclelopais rpeiecKHX H GIaBIGCHX rpavor m3 Mowacrpt Cp, Auacraam Dapwaxawmrpan”, [Materials of research: Greck and Slavic Letters on the Monastery of Saint Anastasia the Pharmakolytria) in: Kanmepeoocue mens. Moscow, 2012, 10, c. 152-225. 23 Regarding educational activity in Thessaloniki of the 19th century see. Stephanos Papadopou- los, Eenawevrnr xai Kon var} dpacmprémea top Hy voyos me Maxedoviag xaré tov televraio ative me Toypxoxpatiac [Educational and Social Activities of the Hellenism of Mace- donia during the last century of the Turkish Domination], Thessaloniki 1970, pp. 97-130, N Terzis, Tu ekaqixé o.cheia om Oecoahovixn Katé tov tedsvraio aidwa tHe ToupKoKpariag [The Greek Schools in Thessaloniki during the last century of the Turkish Domination], Thessa- loniki 1994. In that work mainly St. Ziogou-Karastergiou, «H Ocooahovin «ev palnt choy ios p0eyy quév acy», pp.25-55. Also St. Ziogou-Karastergiou, «EvuBol.t| omy toropia tov oxchetov Gecoor.ovieng Kate to tedevtaio Térapto too 1900 aidwa» [Contribution to the History of the Schools in the Thessaloniki during the last quarter of the 19th c.], Maxedovecd 16 (1976) 325- 348, idem, «H exxandeuruxi Spactprsryta mg ehAnvaxtg KowérytaG Ocooakoviqng Kata tov tehevtaio audva ms Touproxpariac: Pevixd mhaioio opy avwons Kar Lettovpy ins Tov oyale inv, oxSiaKé KerpLo, Toroypayin Gecoad viens», [The educational activity of the Greek community of Thessaloniki during the last century of the Turkish Domination: general context of the organi- zation and function of the schools, schoo! buildings, topography of Thessaloniki), Eciotmovoct} Exempiba cov Kempo bropiac @cacad oviens, 3 (1992) 109-130, E. A. Hekimoglou, «Nedxepes xat have dvovaes exdtpeis ...», ibid, LA Skourtis, «To Bovkyapixd xaOckixd Feu apio oto Zetewhix (1858-1914)», [The Bulgarian Catholic Seminar in Zeytinlik (1858-1914), Hpaxrucé tov IE Mavelinview Ixopwot Zvvedpion (May 27-29, 1994), pp. 219-234. Also see Dimitris Stamatopoulos, «@esoaiA ov kn: 1858-1874», pp. 91-92, note. 34. 24 In truth, the compromise that was achieved thanks to Nicodemos was the result of the guide- lines the later received from the Patriarchate and the Holy Synod. These guidelines stated that although the ownership rights of the monastery over the two churches should not be compro- mised in any case, it was suggested that the management of their finances should be assigned to commissioners that the parishioners would elect. The guidelines insisted especially that the fax thers of the monastery should not reside in Thessaloniki and that the responsibility for the annual leasing of the surrounding estates of the two churches should be assigned to a layman who would Tepresent the monastery. The Metropolitan of Thessaloniki was to retain his privilege to decide who the priests of the two churches would be. Finally, in order to counterbalance the granting ofBETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 109 was eventually nullified by a synodic act during the rule of Patriarch Sophronios’s successor, Gregorios VI (1867-1871), on the grounds that any possible hint that the Ecumenical Patriarchate may be giving ground would mean that the way would be open for the violation of all the privileges of the stravropégé monasteries in general, even more so in a period of strong fiscal stagnation after the loss of many provinces to the Bulgarian Exarchate. The letter of the Patriarchate in January, by which time Anthimos VI (1871-1873) was on the Patriarchate’s throne, practically ratified the previous synodic act of Gregorios VI, while it was disapproving towards Neophytos because he did not defend, as he was obliged to, the rights of the stavropegial monastery. The letter also mentioned that Nicodemos himself, possibly after some persuasion, was the one to denounce the compromising settlement. In view of the fact that Neophytos’s stance was supportive of the démogerontes’ views, the reasons why some of the démogerontes came to his defence becomes apparent. However, this cannot explain the reasons why the guilds and a sizable part of the “most prominent” of the city turned against him. The development of the issue on the ownership status of the churches must have worked as the catalyst in the emergence of the opposition front against Neophytos. Therefore, the explanation of the dispute must be sought, at least partly, in the causes that “forced” Neophytos to engage in the exploi- tation of incomes that were generated from the metochia belonging to Stav- ropegial monasteries. In the second report of the two official ones published by Eastern Star in defense of Neophytos, we can clearly see the editor’s effort to invalidate certain accusations against that metropolitan that regarded mis- uses of funds. The letter, which was signed by the démogerontes of the villag- es in the province of Thessaloniki2® (the first letter was signed by the démogerontes of the city itself)?7, notes that “given that the city delays for the fiscal management, the parishioners would be expected to pay an annual sum to the monas- tery—an amount set at 1.500 kurus, see Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriar- chate 36, no. 5496,5498, November 6, 1865, pp. 412-3, Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 37, no. 1071,1072,1073, February 26, 1866, pp. 36-8, Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 37, no. 1106, March 3, 1866, p. 40, Patriarch Sophronios dealt positively with the demands of the Thessalonikeans and of Neophytos with ‘200d reason; both Neophytos and Sophronios, when the latter was Metropolitan of Amaseia, were supporters of the reforms during the constituent assembly (1858-60) that resulted to the drafting of the General Regulations. We should point out that the positive stance of the Ecumenical Patri- archate was enhanced by the personal initiative of Archimandrite Joachim, the chief-secretary of the Holy Synod, who made clear to the Holy Synod that the sincere intention of the parishioners and of the demogerontes was the betterment of educational procedures in the city. Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 36, n0. 5499, November 6, 1865, p. 413. 25 Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 43, no. 324, ibid. 26 snatolikos Astir ,n0. 972, April 12/24, 1872. 27 Anatolikos Astir, no, 968, April 29/May 10 1872. Both letters, along with the telegram of the “demogerontes and headmen” on March 2, were reprinted by the Eastern Star’s publisher, V. D. Kalliphronas, in V.D. Kalliphron, Exxanoworxy Endedpnon, ira Zudhoy’| tov ax mS apart pens to Oxovpevixod Tarprépyov Tpnyopiy Er’ exScSouévav smompov ExeAnjainonik Gw EyYpapav Kat ap Eeav, rep nb oc p”, [Ecclesiastical Review, namely the Collec-110 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS nine years the rights of the holy diocese that derive from its episcopal subsidy, all natural logical observers are bound to admit so, that is not possible for him to degenerate into materialistic misuse, him who doesn’t even speak up to defend his undeniable entitlements.”28 Most likely the author of this letter was. the close associate and relative of Neophytos (bridegroom to him from his niece), Konstantinos Megavoulés, who even happened to have been interpret- er of the general administration of Thessaloniki and was well known to the Thessalonikeans as ¢elebi Kostakis (the honorary title of gelebi was awarded to him during the reign of Sultan Abdul Mejid)?®. Therefore the given extract most likely echoed the stance of Neophytos himself. The letter’s defensive line, which viewed possible accusations against Neophytos for misuse in the fiscal management of the diocese’s income as related to the collapse of the episcopal subsidy system, is a most illuminating clue in the investigation of the issue. The episcopal subsidies system was established from the General Reg- ulations and replaced is old norm of episcopal wages, which was based on a series of “lucky” or “chance” (tvynp d/tychéra) income. The latter was a result of economic pressure that the archbishops exercised on the priests of their dioceses and the church candle-counters. By contrast, under the new system, the ‘subsidy’ was in effect a form of ecclesiastical taxation, which this time was levied evenly on the total population of each (ecclesiastical) province and utilized “stephano [=the couple}”?” as the taxation unit. This change made the system a lot more fragile because its successful implementation did not de- pend on the spiritual relation of each priest to his master-shepherd, as was the case before, but depended on the general tax capacity of the parishioners, and this extended to the collective resistances that this system could cause. As we’ve had the opportunity to examine the matter further elsewhere, the pro- cess of allocating the episcopal subsidy in the diocese of Thessaloniki, which was first implemented on January 1, 1863, had as a result that the correspond- ing amount of money “per stephano” was rather high, which resulted in pay- ment problems by the Orthodox populace?!, tion of the published official ecclesiastical documents and acts since the resignation of the Ecu- menical Patriarch Grigorios VI] vol. 2, Constantinople 1872, pp. 73-75. 28 Anatolikos Astir, ibid. 29 Aggelike Metalinou-Tsiomoy, Malad Ocoaalovicn cxcovoypagnstém, [Old Salonica pice tured], vol. 2, Thessaloniki 1939, p.55. M. Gedeon believes that Megavoulés bears main respon- sibility for the ‘failure’ of Neophytos’s service in Thessaloniki, see M. Gedeon, Araoperdpoca Apoveyp dp ov, [Notes of a Chronographer], Athens 1932, pp. 234, 310. 39 Ch. Papastathes, ibid, pp. 106-107. It is unclear whether the term ‘stephano’ corresponds to the term « hane » [=household], a traditional tax unit in Ottoman records, or if it means ‘married couple’. On this issue see D. Stamatopoulos, Reform and Secularization, pp. 63-65. 31D. stamatopoulos, «ecoakov bc: 1858-1874», pp. 93-95. 3.776 ‘stephana’ were recorded in po Pp the diocese of Thessaloniki and the amount corresponding to each one of them reached 24,5 kkurus per year. Which means it was double the average (10-12 kurus) of other provinces in theBETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 111 Therefore, if the said clue that the letter of the démogerontes of the vil- lages provides is true, it means that the episcopal subsidy was never collected in full until 1872. Neophytos, although during his time in the diocese “didn’t even speak up to defend his undeniable entitlements,” when time came for him to leave Thessaloniki, he brought up community financial demands that amounted to 300,000 Kurus of unpaid episcopal subsidy to his person>?. This amount of money represented about one-third of the total that had to have been paid in the period of the nine years (9 x 90,000 annual subsidy)?>. It should also be noted that, in total compliance with the reformist spirit of the early 1860s, Neophytos implemented the relevant articles of the General Reg- ulations soon after his arrival in Thessaloniki and also abolished a number of corresponding “tychéra” that were in effect for the priests of his diocese**. The inability to collect the full amount of the episcopal subsidy and the abol- ishment of the “tychéra” are clues that allow us to safely assume that Neophy- tos was forced to seek other means of funding for the diocese, for example the income generated from the utilization of the metochia of Stavropegial monas- teries; monasteries such as the Vlatades monastery (Movi Baatddev), in the case of the temple of Aghios Athanasios*®, and the monastery of Aghia Ana- stasia, in the case of the two churches. Other ‘income’ would also be from elections and transfers of bishops of his diocese, such as the case of the bish- op of Polyané (I1o\vav), but also the donations of affluent Thessalonikians with whom he maintained friendly relations, such as the Charisé family?6. empire. The amount of the subsidy that should be given to Neophytos was 90,000 kurus per year, plus 2,500 from the patriarchic subsidy, see Ch. Papastathis, ibid, p. 103. 32 Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 44, no. 5354, August 30, 1873, 275, Joakeim, who succeeded Neophytos in the diocese of Thessaloniki, will be forced in 1876 to reintroduce the old system of high-ranking clergy wages, “because of the Christians delay in paying each corresponding amount,” see Historical Archive of Macedonia (Thessaloniki), cod. 14, assemblies of &th February and 22nd September 1876.. The problem will persist in the com- munity in later decades. The revision of the first community regulation that took place in 1879, in the times of Metropolitan Kallinikos Photiadis, retained in effect the decisions taken during the time of Joachim, see Historical Archive of Macedonia, cod. 13, General Assembly of 25th Febru- ary 1879, We may assume that the same thing is true for the community regulation of 1886. However, the corresponding regulation of 1904 arranged for the direct subsidizing of the metro- politan by the community with the amount of 300 Ottoman lire, (Chapter XI, article 72), see Cb. Papastathis, ibid, p. 175. 33 Neophytos’s poor finances after his removal from the diocese of Thessaloniki are apparent as be was forced to borrow various sums of money from the National Fund of the Ecumenical Patri- archate, see evict Zovlevoy mpos avemardoraaiy roy uehiv me ext 1wv owovanmdy tov Onccous vaco’ Harp apyeion exp or fc, (General Assembly for the substitution of the members of the Committee of Financial Affairs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate], Constantinople 1875, pp. 14, 19,21 34 Anonymous, To MopdvAdag, p. 39. note 1, p. 43, note 2. 35 GA. Stogioglou, Hev @cccakovien xarpiapy xy pov tov Bar dbo, [The patriarchal mon- astery of Viatades in Thessaloniki], Thessaloniki 1971, p. 321 on. 36 D, Stamatopoulos, «@ecoah ov in: 1858-1874», p. 92 on.112 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS In light of all this, Neophytos’s lengthy tenure in Thessaloniki can be perceived as the result of a balance of powers that was achieved between him and the most powerful of the démogerontes as well as the families of promi- nent bourgeoisie of the city—sort of “alliance” that to a great extent secured his social and financial status. The progressive decline of his influence is sure- ly connected to the death of Theagenes Charisés (say ag Xap ions) in 1866, the end of a laymen’s supervision committee that was closely collaborating with him in the Vlatades monastery that same year?7, but also the deteriora- tion of his health. The latter prevented him from traveling to Istanbul in 1867, when he was invited as a member of the Holy Synod by the then-Patriarch Gregorios VI and later, in 1870, when he was elected to the constituent as- sembly that would amend the General Regulations. And so the unraveling issue of the metochi of Ypapanté and Aghios Hypatios naturally weakened his position within the intra-community balance of power. The Patriarchate letter in January ascertaining the synodic act from the reign of Patriarch Gregorios effectively affirmed the irreversible situation regarding the metochi issue. As a result, a number of the prokrifoi, and especially the guilds, tried to turn the tables at the level of the démogerontes; what we can assume is that the pres- sure exercised by the Patriarchate on Neophytos in order to implement its decisions pushed his opponents towards undermining his status. Their aim certainly wasn’t to get him to align his policy with the Patriarchate but to postpone a final resolution of the metochi problem until after Neophytos was replaced. A second aim was to disconnect Neophytos from any demands on the income from each metochi which, in any case, were meant to support the schools and their particularly high needs. Thirdly, and perhaps most im- portantly, it aimed to tip the balance against the prokritoi, who had aligned themselves with Neophytos on the basis of their joint-exploitation of the in- come that the Stavropegial monasteries’ assets generated. The Exarchate's allure The dispute’s root causes, however, are much deeper. The letter by “a Thessalonikian, “as it was signed, to the Neologos newspaper? is quite eluci- dating. The “Thessalonikian” openly accused K. Megavoulés as the author of the two reports published in the Eastern Star defending Neophytos. The “Thessalonikian” claimed Megavoulés had invited several other Thessalo- nikians to his home and used his position to pressure them into signing the report. He also said Megavoulés had sent Archdeacon Serapheim and the di- 37 And more specifically the committee included the following notables: Athanasios Mpliatis and Athanasios Papageorgiou, see G. A. Stogioglou, ibid, pp. 313-317 and especially pp. 315-6, 38 Anatolikos Astir, no. 465, May 6/18, 1867. 39 Neologos, no. 1004, May 4/16, 1872.BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 113 ocesan kavas“® out to the villages solicit signatures, but they had only man- aged to collect a few from ordinary citizens and none from proiritoi. The let- ter’s writer also linked these activities of Megavoulés to the Thessalonikians’ reaction in 1858 to Neophytos’s election as Metropolitan (because of the pre- vious record of his in the diocese of Tymavos, where as we saw‘! Mega- voulés was Neophytos’s secretary). Truly, the démogerontes of the communi- ty of Thessaloniki had reacted against the transfer of the then-Metropolitan Kallinikos, who became the Patriarch of Alexandria, and his replacement by Neophytos.42 In short, the letter described three different periods of the relations of Neophytos (as well as of K. Megavoulés, who is treated as an alter ego of the metropolitan) with the representatives of the community’s local governance, from the moment Neophytos arrived there until the start of the intra- community dispute in January 1872; “as soon as he arrived he managed to force all foreign nationals out of the diocese and the management of the community’s affairs, thus creating division across the citizenry. But even de- spite that division he was still facing obstacles as he saw the gathering of the most prominent among the Ottoman subjects destroying his plans, he intimi- dated the guilds and forced them out of the management of the community’s affairs as well. But since he didn’t manage to do so as thoroughly as he want- ed, he reinstated some of the most prominent until he finally broke down the démogerontes, and as truly as he admits himself in the report of the provin- cials, the diocese of Thessaloniki has been reduced to a hermitage where none of its citizens or its villagers come close to it since they cannot expect any help or support...43 The first period of Neophytos’s and Megavoulés’s involvement in the community’s affairs was defined, according to the letter’s author, by the ex- clusion of foreign nationals from the management of community affairs. This was chronologically placed directly after the arrival of Neophytos in Thessa- loniki at the end of 1860.‘* The letter-writer’s claim of the exclusion of for- eign nationals must be related to Neophytos’s efforts to implement, at a pro- vincial level, the spirit of the General Regulations and of the Law on the Vila- yets, which indeed effected the participation of exclusively Ottoman subjects 40 4 title in Ottoman bureaucracy that roughly means ‘commissioned clerk’ or messenger. 41 see note 2. 42 Historical Archive of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Office! 1858, 76/1, no. 30, ambassador AG. Kountouriotis to the minister of Foreign Affairs AR. Ragkavis, Istanbul March 7, 1858, idem 76/1, no. 9, ambassador AG. Kountouriotis to the minister of Foreign Affairs AR. Ragkavis, Istanbul March 11, 1858, idem 76/1, no. 32, no. 33, ambassador AG. Kountouriotis to the minister of Foreign Affairs A.R. Ragkavis, Istanbul March 14, 1858. 43 Neologos, ibid. 44 snatolikos Astir, no. 42, July 17, 1862114 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS in the communal and provincial committees that were being established.45 Relevant orders were repeated 1868,46 but also later*? on behalf of the Otto- man Government and the Ecumenical Patriarchate—a fact that implies that for the most part these directives faced a lot of difficulties in their implemen- tation. The exclusion of foreign nationals from the ranks of the démogerontes was meant to primarily exclude Greek nationals, who for the most part clus- tered around the Christian guilds*8, but was also for the city’s powerful bour- geoisie, many of whom enjoyed the benefits of foreign protection. But we must point out on this occasion that Neophytos’s stance towards the major bourgeois families was neither uniform nor consistent. Thus while, as we al- ready noted, his relations with the Charisé family, who were Austrian citi- zens,‘9 were especially sincere, the corresponding relations with the Abbott family, who had English citizenship, were strained.5° Two incidents—the marriage of the son of Saroula Abbott, (sister to the two prominent merchants, Rovertos and Tzek), which was not performed by Neophytos because it was conducted in Protestant ceremony*! and the removal of the priests attached to the private chapel of Rovertos Abbott by the metropolitan of Thessaloniki’s authorityS2—offer sufficient evidence of the tensions that characterized relations between the two parties. Perhaps the true cause of the clash between them was the same cause that forced Neophytos to search for other revenues to cover the amount of the episcopal subsidy, but on 45 Ch. Papastathes, ibid. p.45, where the first chapter of the Law on the Establishment of Vila- yets of 1864 can be found. 46 Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 39, a memorandum from the Patriarchate to all high-ranking clerics “about disallowing the involvement of foreign nationals in community management,” p. 206. 47 §. Zapantis, ibid, p. 134. 48 On the issue of members of Ottoman guilds acquiring Greek citizenship see S. Anagnostopou- lou, Mnxpa Aria, 190¢ a1-1919: 01 edn vopOAS ae xoivornrec [Asia Minor, 19th c. -1919: the Greek Orthodox communities], Athens 1997, pp. 308-312. 49 |. Vasdravellis, bropwé Apyeia MaxeSoviac, [Historical Archives of Macedonia] vol. J, Ar- chive of Thessaloniki, 1695-1912, p. 534. 50 Regarding the Abbotts, who were of English origin and where gradually Hellenized while retaining English citizenship, see K. Moskov, @scoahovien (1700-1912), pp. 128, 134, 236-7 note 16, A. Vakalopoulos, «lotopixé orayeia ya my axoyévea Abbott rc Geccakov eng oto fpyo “H otpanonuy Cor ev EA2.681"», [Historical elements on Abbott family of Thessaloniki in the work of an anonymous "The military life in Greece", MaxaSovacé 22 (1982) 214-220, C. Vacalopoulos, “Contribution & l'histoire de la colonie Européenne de Thessalonique vers la fin du XVIlle sigcle,” Mauxedovacé 12, (1972) 183-200, M. Anastassiadou, Réaménagement, pp. 498, 500. 51D, Stamatopoulos, «@ecoa)ovixn: 1858-1874», p. 90. 52 This was a chapel that R. Abbott had in his “rural house.” Some priests whom Abbott paid to conduct Eucharist on Sundays and festive days were forced to leave because Neophytos, and more specifically celebi Kostakes as his representative, demanded money from them, see KIT. A, 34, March 21, 1862, pp. 143-4.BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 115 this occasion with regards to the metropolitans of the diocese of Thessaloniki. Throughout the 1860s, several of them, such as Metropolitan Neophytos of Kassandreia and Metropolitan Jerotheos of Stromnitsa (previously Metropoli- tan of Kampania), were forced to borrow money from the Abbott family. It is possible that their economic dependence from the latter significantly nar- rowed the Metropolitan’s options for exploiting fiscal assignments, transfers, or part of the his bishops’ episcopal incomes*? The confrontation between Neophytos and the Abbotts, which was not resolved throughout the 1860s, and the exclusion of foreign nationals in gen- eral from the ranks of the démogerontes can help explain the increased influ- ence the Abbotts enjoyed with the guilds of Thessaloniki. Thus, the most like- ly case is the Abbott family, one of “the most prominent of the city” that worked with the guilds, ranked about Neophytos’s opponents promoting his dismissal—a cooperation that was to be repeated in the intra-community dis- putes of subsequent decades. This suggestion becomes stronger in view of the English consular authorities’ involvement in the intra-community dispute, as we shall see later. For the second period of Neophytos’s relations with the démogerontes, as described by the letter’s author—that is, the process of trying to affiliate the guilds so that the removal of Ottoman nationals could be achieved—we regretfully have a lack of evidence that could define the timespan during which it occurred or the causes that brought it about. But in the lead in to the third and final period, it is certain that the publication implied the January clash that led to this war of letters from the battlements of the Istanbul news- papers. A most interesting clue is that Neophytos had “utterly” destroyed the corps of the démogerontes, and this explains why the opposition chose to sign the reports against him as “Community Board.” In May 1872, the Patriarchate would send two legates to Thessaloni- ki— the Metropolitans of Imbros and Serres, the latter was to be replaced by the Metropolitan of Velissos—in order to investigate the problem that emerged with the internal division of the city’s prokritoi, in combination with Neophytos’s continuing refusal to implement the Patriarchate’s orders effect- ing the return of the each metochi to its deserving Stavropegial monastery “along with the churches and their assets.” The legates were also charged with demanding all the financial records from 1863 onwards.*4 But the accusations against Neophytos for his bad management of the diocese’s finances were not to end here; Patriarch Anthimos VI, possibly acting on allegations made by 53 Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 35, without number, March 28, 1863, pp. 140-1, Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 36, no. 5218, October 28, 1868, p. 394, Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 37, with out number, March 21, 1866, p. 65, Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 37, no. 4573, September 30, 1866, pp. 282-3 54 Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 43, no. 2624, May 17, 1872, p 80, KIA, 43, no. 2625, May 18, 1872, pp. 81-82.116 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS the contenders for Neophytos’s seat, would send a letter asking that the leg- ates, already in Thessaloniki, also investigate the records of the Makryraché monastery, which was under the jurisdiction of the bishopric of Kitros.55 Yet despite the Patriarchate’s repeated orders summoning Neophytos to Istanbul, the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki avoided compliance using vari- ous excuses for postponement. Meantime, K. Megavoulés was charged with sending a new telegram to Istanbul (dated July 19), which was again signed by residents of the province’s villages. Correspondingly, a new letter from the opposition (dated July 22) questioned the authenticity of the telegram’s signa- tures and requested that the letter to the Patriarchate be accompanied by a July 18 letter with the guilds’ seal as proof that the majority of guild members supported Neophytos’s removal. The Metropolitan’s attempts to split his op- ponents by approaching some of the most prominent members were to no avail. According to “the Thessalonikian’s” letter, “the pious citizens that man the guilds of the city, having understood the fabrications, having clarity of mind and the blessing of the Lord for their unity and concord, along the equal- ly pious committee which they elected, wish to end all hopeless efforts of his.”56 Under this pressure from both the Patriarchate and his opponents, Nephytos sent a telegram to the Patriarchate announcing his departure from Thessaloniki and set July 25 as the deadline. But despite his promise, on the morning of July 24, one day before his own deadline, Neophytos called an urgent general assembly of all the guilds “and of all other classes” of citizens in the courtyard of the holy temple of Aghios Ménas. This assembly ex- pressed the Thessalonikians’ general dissatisfaction with the Patriarch and Holy Synod for the negligence they displayed towards resolving the dispute. As the letter’s author notes: “certain causes being unknown, I omit the causes as they make a lot of noise on their own...a lot more worse things were said, none of which was a great laudation to the Great Church.”57 Those present decided to express their dissatisfaction to the legates in view of the inexcusa- ble delay in implementing the Patriarchate’s resolution and once again sent telegrams to Istanbul to this effect. But they vowed more radical action too: the city’s priests were threatened with the closure of city’s churches and, should the Patriarchate fail to meet their demand for Neophytos’s transfer, warned that they would join a different denomination (as we shall see later in this paper, the implicit threat was to convert to the Protestant faith). They thus 55 Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 43, no 3775, July 13, 1872, p. 128. In 1875, during the times of metropolitan Joakeim, the demogerontia wanted to secure the ownership of the Makryrachi monastery’s estates, In order to do so they pretended to concede these assets to the notable Stephanos Tattes, see Historical Archive of Macedonia, cod. 14, 9th assembly of 15th March 1875. Also see Anonymous, To Mup dv Adac, p. 70 on. 56 Neologos, no 1079, August 3/15, 1872. 57 Neologos, ibid.BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 117 managed to force the priests to commemorate only the Patriarch’s name and not that of Neophytos in their churches. The priests’ initial acceptance of this demand helped ease the spirits of those present. But the priests claimed that this decision had to be ratified by the legates. But instead of addressing the legates after the meeting, the priests visited Neophytos and informed him of the threats made during the meeting. Nevertheless, they were unable to per- suade him to adjust his stance towards the opposition. This positively- disposed attitude the priests displayed to their metropolitan should not be seen as merely a consequence of their spiritual ties to him, but also as deriving from the fact that Neophytos had disbanded the old episcopal incomes that were burden for them to collect. Eventually, being pressured from both the side of the guilds as well as from the side of Neophytos and Megavoulés, they were forced to telegram the Patriarch for instructions.*8 The guilds’ threat at the meeting—that is, the possibility of conversion to a foreign church—along with the July 19 telegram sent by K. Megavoulés to Istanbul and addressed to all members, high-ranking clergy and laymen, of the Local Synod, are two important clues that raise the intra-community dis- pute to a new level and connect the matter directly to the rapid succession of events of the period with regards to the Bulgarian question. And this was the case at a moment when the proliferation of Bulgarian initiatives in the broader area of Macedonia, two years after the declaration of the Bulgarian Exarchate, could also be felt in Thessaloniki itself. It is worth noting that a little earlier (possibly in 1871) the Ottoman State had recognized the city’s Bulgarian community; a Bulgarian school had been founded in September 1871—a school that attracted students from many Greek because of the wide range of taught subjects and especially foreign languages. This fact seems to have caused some turmoil within the Greek community, which fits chronologically with the outbreak of the conflict between the Metropolitan and the guilds. As Aggeliké Metalinou mentions: “as soon as...the parents of the Greek pupils realized that it was merely a case of Bulgarian propaganda, they promptly took their children away from there, in the end the graduating pupils of the 58 Neologos, ibid. 59 More specifically the curriculum included the teaching of Greek, Bulgarian, Turkish, and French, see A Metallinou-Tsiomou, «H mpémn Povyapxy Kawéms ei Ty @ccoudovixny» [The first Bulgarian community in Thessaloniki], Mucedovad Heepaléyro (1957) 139-142. In any case, we should question the accuracy of some of the information provided by Metallinou, at least until it is possible to crossreference it with corresponding historical evidence from primary material. We should add that the Bulgarian primary school operated in Thessaloniki from 1865, while a kindergarten was established along with the Bulgarian School in 1872, see Vasilis Pa- pageorgiou, «Mixpé& cOvixé Kowomres oTIV Odopavix | Geooah ove» [Small national com- munities in the Ottoman Salonica", Braud 26 (1997) 103-120, and especially pp. 104-106 where the Bulgarian community is mentioned, Yura Konstantinova, "H Ocoowhovie ye TY amd tov Body épav" [Thessaloniki through the Bulgarian perspective] in Proceedings of the conference ‘Thessaloniki 1912-2012” (oct. 18-21, 2012), Municipality of Thessaloniki, 2013, 192-210.118 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS first year were very few.”© This reduction in the number of pupils, which must have taken place progressively and not all at once (was it the result of free will, or the result of collective coercion?), must have been a process of ‘self-awareness’ of the members of the Greek Orthodox community, a process that made the community most sensitive regarding the matter or reorganizing and redefining the aims of educational procedures, The same problem was becoming more urgent during this period in the province of Thessaloniki, where some attempts were made to create Bulgarian schools in several villag- es,61 Yet, although their letters of the opposition from January up till the summer of 1872 made clear that the accusations against Neophytos on grounds of incompetence to comply with the new imperatives of the times, were related to the Bulgarians’ bold moves in the province of Thessaloniki, especially in the sphere of education, there were no reports openly accusing Neophytos of possible collaboration with the Bulgarian community or with providing some sort of political protection, which Neophytos may have ex- tended them. But after Neophytos’s resistance to leaving Thessaloniki and his constant delaying tactics, despite and against the clear orders of the Patriar- chate and the strong reactions of his opponents, whose stance against him worsened. Truly, in the January 22 letter by an opposition representative, we find the information that Neophytos’s opponents had accused him of contact- © 4 Metallinou-Tsiomou, ibid, p. 140, It is interesting that among the first students Metallinow mentions we find Demetrios Ninis, possibly son of Michael, who had signed the telegram of March 2 in favor of Neophytos as a demogerontas. Also see K Moskov, @ecaal ovicy (1700- 1912), p. 142. In 1874, after Neophytos’s removal from Thessaloniki, M. Ninis along with D. Mplatsis and Ath. Vliadis, would be accused of misappropriating 100 Ottoman lire earmarked for the support of the educational institutions’ ephorate; 70 of these 100 lire were bequests of the ‘community of Thessaloniki to Moscow, see Historical Archive of Macedonia. cod. 14, assembly of 17th October 1874. Eventually most of this case’s charges centered on D. Vlatsis, who later was the protagonist in community disputes over the management of community income for edu- cation, see Historical Archive of Macedonia, cod 14, assembly of February Ist, 1875, Anony- mous, To MupdvAdac, pp 7, 18, 36, 46-7. &1 Stephanos Papadopoulos, KCodex of Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate veut xa1 Kove vcr} Spaommpideyra, p. 117. During that same period, on December 29, 1871, the Otto- man government received reports from the Bulgarians of the provinces of Thessaloniki and Adri- anople regarding the implementation of Article 10 of the 1870 firman, according to which when there is the need for the establishment of ecclesiastical authorities (Patriarchic or Exarchic) in provinces that had mixed Greek and Bulgarian populations, the two-thirds majority of one of the two ethnic groups would be taken into account, see Stojan Makedonski, "L’ Exarchat Bulgare et F ensignement Scolaire en Macedoine (1870-1912)", Etudes Balkaniques, 7.12 (1971), 104-119 61 Neologos newspaper, ibid. The Chilandar monastery (which was controlled by Bulgarians and not Serbian monks at the time) truly owned a metochi in the area of Kalamaria, which was known as ‘Boulgariko (the Bulgarian)’, see G. Smymakis, To Aytov Opo; [The Holy Mountain), Athens 1968, mostly p. 12, Dimitrije Bogdanovic, Vojislav J. Djuric, Dejan Medakovie, Chilandar on the Holy Mountain, Belgrade 1978, pp. 190-193. In 1873, the Vazrojdenie association called for the raising of money for the building of a Bulgarian church—something made possible in 1876 with the construction of the temple of Cyril and Methodios in the centre of the city, see Vasilis Papageorgiou, ibid, p. 105, Yura Konstantinova, "H @cooah ova He TV Homé Tov Bovky dpov", p. 203.BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 119 ing the Exarch of the Bulgarians (Anthimos of Bidin) during this period with the purpose of converting to the Exarchate. These charges were repeated in the July 25 letter, along with allegations of persistent rumors in Thessaloniki that Neophytos would become Metropolitan for the Bulgarians of the city and that he would establish himself in the metochi of the Chilandari monastery (Mov XtAavapiov), where a church of the Exarchate would be built.6? This letter also claimed that Neophytos maintained close relations with Konstanti- nos Digas, his son G. K. Digov,® and a certain Georgios Katés—all consid- ered supporters of the Exarchate.§* In truth, these accusations where the opposition’s response to the July 19 telegram, which, as we saw, the opposition attributed to K. Megavoulés and signaled the second phase of the intra-community conflict. The telegram complained that by summoning Neophytos to Istanbul, the Patriarchate en- dorsed the actions of the self-proclaimed ‘Community Board’. However, the most important element found in the telegram was that it was signed by 40 individuals under the title “Heads of the Bulgarian-Greek villages of Thessa- loniki.”®5 This move by Neophytos can be interpreted in two ways: either he truly sought support among the newly-established Bulgarian community of Thessaloniki and was attempting to utilize the Slavophones in the province’s villages to strengthen his position (even more so after he was accused of mis- using the monasteries’ income) or he was trying to present himself as an hier- arch who did not face the problem of a divided congregation, possibly in or- der gain some sympathy with those circles in Istanbul that pursued a com- promising solution on the Bulgarian question. 82 Neologos newspaper, ibid. The Chilandar monastery (which was controlled by Bulgarians and not Serbian monks at the time) truly owned a metochi in the area of Kalamaria, which was known as ‘Boulgariko (the Bulgarian)’, see G. Smymakis, To Aytov Opog [The Holy Mountain], Athens 1968, mostly p. 12, Dimitrije Bogdanovic, Vojislav J. Djuric, Dejan Medakovic, Chilandar on the Holy Mountain, Belgrade 1978, pp. 190-193. In 1873, the Vazrojdenie association called for the raising of money for the building of a Bulgarian church—something made possible in 1876 with the construction of the temple of Cyril and Methodios in the centre of the city, see Vasilis Papageorgiou, ibid, p. 105, Yura Konstantinova, "H @soaahovin we Ty yatta tov Bovky dav", p.203. 63 Metallinou mentions that one of the Digkas brothers, possibly Constantinos who is mentioned in ‘Neologos’, was pronounced ephor of the Bulgarian community founded by Salantziev, and he was the holder of its seal. This Digkas, however, happened to be a Greek national and this result- ed to the involvement of the Greek consul, K. Vatikiotes. Digkas was imprisoned in the Greek consulate, but was freed soon after the Ottoman governor interfered. If we follow the narrative of Metallinou, these events should be placed before September 1871, see A Metallinou-Tsiomou, ibid. p. 139. 64 Neologos newspaper, no. 1199, January 3/15, 1873. 65 Anatolikos Astir newspaper, no. 1004, August 2/14, 1873. the telegram was sent to the Ecu- menical Patriarchate, the Holy Synod, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, the former patriarchs of Constantinople Joakeim JI and Grigorios VI, the Archbishop of Cyprus and the Metropolitans of Ephesus, Heracleia, Nicomedia, Chalkedon, Derkoi, Tymovo, Didy- moteicho, Samos, and Velegrades, to the members of the Continuous National Mixed Assembly, the Megas Logothetes Stavrakes Aristarches and to Alexandros Karatheodores, Konstantinos Karatheodores, Georgios Zariphes, Konstantinos Karapanos and Konstantinos Kalliades.120 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS The second possible interpretation is the most likely for two reasons. The fact that Neophytos had no intention of converting to the Exarchate, as implied by the eventual outcome of the relevant contacts but that he merely wanted to use the Bulgarian question as means of adding pressure on the Pa- triarchate becomes obvious in a letter of the opposition dated August 8. The letter mentions: “The Church needs not to be afraid of anything of the like; these are fantasies of Neophytos and Megavoulés, these nationless subjects of the church who seem to cherish the wounds ‘Bulgarism’ causes unto the body of the Church, it was them that gave the first push and they know stand as a despicable evil menace over the Church, so that they may scare the Church.”®6 Despite the indirect reference to the part that Neophytos played in the Polyanika issue, the extract makes clear that the Metropolitan’s allurement about the existence of Bulgarian population across the village of the province of Thessaloniki would make the Patriarchate think twice before replacing the Metropolitan on the grounds that Neophytos had the ability to maintain pre- carious balances between the two ethnic elements. But on the other hand, such a choice was only making the opposition’s work a lot easier, as it was easier now for them to associate Neophytos with the Exarchate and make good use of the resulting bad impressions that their accusations would create for the most radically nationalistic elements in the Constantinopolitan circles, circles that were demanding that Patriarch Anthimos should brand the Bulgarians as schismatic.67 Anthimos VI ascended to the patriarchal throne in September 1871. His election was based on promoting a policy of reconciliation towards the Bulgarian assertion of ecclesiastical independence after the failure of the pre- vious Patriarch, Gregorios VI, to effectively resolve the matter. The worsen- ing stance of the Bulgarian side in the following months, combined with the hardline opposition of the more radical Constantinopolitans against Anthimos, prepared the ground for the convening of the Local Synod (Tomtx f 2 W050), which would eventually excommunicate the Bulgarians for being schismatic. The opposition was led by Metropolitan Neophytos of Derkoi and bankers Georgios Zariphés and Chréstakés Zographos. However, there also was a strong reconciliatory predisposition, mostly among the neo-Phanariotes, led by the Megas Logothetes Stavrakés Aristarchés and by the then-Deputy Min- ister of Foreign Affairs, Alexandros Karatheodorés. These men believed that the solution of a schism would impair Hellenism’s relations not only with the Bulgarians but with Orthodox Russia as well.68 The telegram sent by Mega- voulés was addressed to representatives of both approaches to the dispute, but it was more logical to expect a more positive reaction from the conciliatory 6 Neologos newspaper, no. 1087, August 12/24 1872. ©7 In view of this, the publication of the letters of the opposition in “Neologos” of Stavros Vou- tyras was not a coincidence, given that the newspaper represented such circles. 68 Dimitris Stamatopoulos, Reform and Secularization, pp. 272 on.BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 121 side and Patriarch Anthimos himself, who as we shall see treated the case of Neophytos with notable leniency. Although the guilds and the “Community Board” that depended on them remained the primary opponents of Neophytos, the additional weight on the intra-community dispute of a rising ethnic and ecclesiastical rivalry that raised the problem of redefining the identity of the Greek Orthodox communi- ty of Thessaloniki against a rising adversary resulted in a change of heart against Neophytos even among those who had supported him during the first phase of the intra-community conflict. The consul of Greece in Thessaloniki, K. Vatikiotés, sent a letter to £. Kallergés, who was the attaché of the Greek embassy in Istanbul, invalidating the latter’s information that the prokritoi of Thessaloniki had since the end of June recommended potential replacements for Neophytos (the names mentioned were those of the Metropolitans of Serres and Philippoupolis as well as that of the former great vicar Eustathios Kleovoulos). The reason for these choices was that several of the high- ranking clergy in Istanbul, possibly members of the Holy Synod, were attract- ed by the prospect of acquiring the metropolitan seat of Thessaloniki for themselves. As a result, a premature announcement of any nomination would risk re-directing a part of the Holy Synod against the decision of the people of Thessaloniki to drive out Neophytos.© This game of balance of power, which had now gone beyond the nar- row scope of the Orthodox community of Thessaloniki, implicated members 69 Historical Archive of the Greek Foreign Office/1872,76/1 no.1880, ambassador E. Kallergis to the Minister of Foreign Affairs E. Deligiorgis, June 30, 1872, idem 76/1, no. 558, consul of Salo- nika K. Vatikiotés to E, Kallergis, Thessaloniki, July 15, 1872. According to Vatikiotés, there was a meeting of the prokritoi on July 14, where all possible nominations were discussed, such as those of the metropolitans of Serres, Larisa, Chios, Stromnitsa, loannina, and others. Yet they decided not to “elect and suggest a nominee” before the Patriarchate’s official announcement of Neophytos’s removal. According to the Greek consul, most of those present expressed their pref- erence for the nominations of the metropolitans of Chios Gregorios and of Ioannina Sophronios He also notes that the name of the Metropolitan of Philippoupolis (Plovdiv) was not put forth by anyone in the meeting. However, both Gregorios and the Metropolitan of Philippoupolis had a serious drawback that greatly decreased their chances for a nomination: their ignorance of the Turkish language, which was seen as a vital skill for a high-ranking cleric of the Thessaloniki diocese. Vatikiotes himself notes that the nominations of the metropolitans of Chios, Ioannina, and Philippoupolis met the standards that he had set himself for the election of a new metropoli- tan: a) an active attitude against the spreading of Bulgarism and, b) interest in spreading Greek Teaming, across the sensitive region of Macedonia, However, he promoted the nomination of Terotheos, Metropolitan of Stromnitsa, who had distinguished himself in his diocese with his actions regarding the first requirement. And there were more reasons behind the interest in his case. According to the Greek consul, this nomination had no support across the prokritoi and there were even some who ‘were fervently against him’, As already mentioned, the Metropolitan of Stromnitsa faced serious fiscal problems and had massive debts to the Abbott brothers. The ‘Abbotts had even foreclosed some of his assets and had financial demands over his episcopal subsidy. Therefore, the consuls’ views and the corresponding ones of the prokritoi did not neces- sarily coincide, While the consul was solely interested in a solution that would benefit the na- tion’s center, the prokritoi were forced to consider the financial consequences of the metropoli- tan’s replacement, as well as his capacity of adequately representing the interests of the commu- nity to the Ottoman governance122 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS of the highest clergy at the power centres of Istanbul. It thus aided Neophy- tos’s constant postponing tactics. Beyond this, however, Neophytos also placed his hopes in the forthcoming summoning of the Local Synod and de- velopments in Istanbul between the two opposing affinities. A possible domi- nation of the dispute by the conciliatory side (and a corresponding ‘vindica- tion’ of the initial views of Patriarch Anthimos) would reinforce Neophytos’s own status within the intra-community balance of power.” What is important, in any case, is that he was well-aware of what was taking place in Istanbul and adapted his tactical moves accordingly. His close associate, K. Mega- voulés, remained his link to the capital’s society. According to Vatikiotés, as soon as Megavoulés returned to the city on August 21—he had gone to Istan- bul at the same time the legates had left Thessaloniki, late July71—spread the rumor that not only did the Patriarchate have no intention of removing Neo- phytos, but that on the contrary the legates who were sent faced charges and were now under personal arrest because they had deceived the Great Church with their negative reports on Neophytos.’* Obviously, Megavoulés had tried with his visit to Istanbul to activate persons that friendly to Neophytos. But the spread of such ‘information’ escalated the tension in Thessaloniki; the more radical part of the opposition began organizing demonstrations against Neophytos’s continued presence—demonstrations that according to Vatikio- tés would be followed by vandalism of the Metropolitan building. Such acts were eventually avoided thanks to the mediation of more moderate opponents since it was certain that they would trigger the local authorities’ interference in favor of Neophytos. However, according to what the Greek consul tells us, the following day, August 22, some of the headmen of the guilds materialized the threat they had expressed in mid-July: they contacted “the locally-known agents of KpéoBv (possibly Crosby?), an English missionary of protestant propaganda” to discuss their conversion to Protestantism.73 Although this had 70 Historical Archive of the Greek Foreign Office /1872, 76/1, ap.558, av. 71 Neologos newspaper, 9.1087, August 12/24, 1872. 7 Historical Archive of the Greek Foreign Offcel872, 76/1 ap. 672, consul of Salonika K Vatikiotés to the Minister of Foreign Affairs E, Deligiorgis, Thessaloniki, August 22, 1872. 73 He was probably one of the two Protestant missionaries (of the British and Foreign Bible Society?), active among the Jewish community, according to the correspondence from Thessalo- niki of Lock, an American missionary in 1871, see The Missionary Herald, No. LXVII (1871) p. 361. This journal published the worldwide activities of the American missionary company Amer- ican Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, see on the issue K Kiskira, «To meptodux6 Missionary Herald, ia a@qoaipiomy myn ya my otopia to» Mixpacianikot FAnMopow (The journal "Missionary Herald", an unknown source of the History of the Asia Minor Hellen- ism], deitio Kénpoo Mupaomrwév Enovddéy, 11 (1995-96) 119-123, by the same author, «Tiporeotvtes Kpaxdorcha omy a0" nds Avatohy, 1819-1914: 1 Spéon tg American Board» [Protestant Missionaries in Our East, 1819-1914: the activities of American Board), Acizio Kémpoo Mupaorxrncy Sxovd¢iv, 12 (1997-98) 97-128. During this period, the Protestant missionaries were competing with the Catholic Lazarists over the conversion of primarily Bulgar- ian populations. However, according to Neophyios’s supporters, the Metropolitan was not onlyBETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 123 only minor support across the whole of the opposition front and was obvious- ly meant to be a direct answer to the Patriarchate’s continued inconclusive, the more moderate came to Vatikiotés so that he might help avoid such action by the “hardliners”.”4 But even the Russian side became involved in the dispute. A clerk for the Russian consular authorities advised the most prominent figures of the opposition against Neophytos to contact the Russian consulate in order to claim its protection towards the dispute’s final resolution.”5 Vatikiotés, being the one who brings our attention to the above-mentioned development, makes clear that Neophytos had limited opportunities to attract any help from the Russian consulate for all the reasons already discussed and, mainly, because any help that the Russians would provide to Neophytos at that time would mean the diminishing of what little influence the consulate enjoyed among Thessaloniki’s Greek Orthodox community. Vatikiotés believed the radical minority would be more likely to accept the consulate’s proposal than to actu- ally convert to Protestantism. ‘And, he added in his writing, that should such a thing take place, they would be addressed “not as Hellenes but as Helleno- Bulgarians, thus reversing this trick that Megavoulés had already come up with.”76 The ‘reversing’ part most likely means that the ‘trick’ of Mega- voulés—in effect, a trick of Neophytos—as it was articulated in the telegram of “the headmen of the Greek-Bulgarian villages, “did not intend to support any alleged conversion to the Exarchate, but was meant to secure Ottoman legitimacy while also defending the unity of the Orthodox congregation. On the other hand, the Russian consulate’s interference appears to have aimed at involvement in the dispute so that the consulate could gain a say in the matter and eventually suggest Neophytos’s replacement, and secondly, presenting the Russians as champions of the common interests of both the Bulgarians and the Greeks in the province. Meantime, the dismantling of the démogerontes by Neophytos had devastated all kinds of community functions. In light of this, the opposition, who viewed their dispute with the Metropolitan as a problem of both the arbi- trary dismantling of the supreme governing body of the community and of the supported by the city’s Ottomans but also by the representatives of the Jewish community. See “Anatolikos Astir, no. 1008, August 16/28, 1872. 74 ntistorical Archive of the Greek Foreign Office! 872, 76/1, no. 672, ibid. 75 This man was Georgios Harisis, interpreter of the Russian consulate. Ar. Papadopoulos, the secretary of the Greek Consulate, dismissively called him ‘honorable’, see Historical Archive of the Greek Foreign Office /1873, 76/1, no. 1276, A. Papadopoulos to Embassy of Constantinople, November 20, 1873, He possibly was a member of the Harisis family, with which Neophytos ‘maintained sincere relations during the 1860s. 76 Historical Archive of the Greek Foreign Office!872, 76/1, ap.672, ibid. Vatikiotes also un- derlined that the Russian consulates’ interference was very successful, in the case of the monas- tery of St Paul on Mount Athos, where the issue was resolved in favour of the monks and against the Patriarchate, And so a repetition of history was dreaded by Vatikiotes, especially in the case of Thessaloniki, which is why he besceched the embassy to resolve the issue of replacing ‘such a shameless cleric” as soon as possible.124 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS effective lack of spiritual authority since the mentioning of Neophytos’s name was banned in the city’s churches, decided to reassemble the body of the no- tables. And so, on August 26, and with the agreement of all of the guilds (‘via the medium of an officiating letter”), new notables were elected. These nota- bles, in cooperation with two priests—Archimandrite Anthimos and priest Manouel, who was a Stewart—decided to convene in the diocese’s building on regular dates for examining any spiritual affairs that could arise (marriag- es, divorces, etc.).77 This initiative of the guilds finalized their de-legitimation of Neophy- tos; after challenging his spiritual authority over the city’s Orthodox flock by re-establishing the notables body, they openly defied his role in the communi- ty’s managerial structure. This move must have also finalized their decision that the dispute had to be resolved from within the Greek Orthodox communi- ty without the cooperation of the Russian or English consulates. Yet, the threats from the Patriarchate regarding the alleged emancipation of the “Church of Thessaloniki” continued for some time. Neophytos viewed the new démogerontia as lacking legitimacy since he wasn’t at the body’s head, and thus reacted swiftly. On August 28, the Metropolitan contacted the governor-general, Omer Fevzi pasha, to whom he reproached the newly-elected démogerontes as well as the citizens who partic- ipated in electing them so that “the issue may become a political one if possi- ble.” Thus, in accordance with the governor’s orders, bailiffs accompanied by zaptiyes (rural policeman) were sent to the homes of the démogerontes, who were brought to the Headquarters. But no penalties were imposed on those arrested because of Omer Fevzi’s “governor’s prudence.” On the contrary, in their letter to the Patriarchate and Holy Synod, the démogerontes stated that the governor did not invalidate the elections, but furthermore he supported the creation of the démogerontia.”8 The reasons behind this are easy to guess since the length absence of a representative body (seven months) logically created a lot of problems in the Ottoman administration as well. Fevzi did not only ratify the démogerontes—possibly due to some pressure from them—but also sent a letter to the Ottoman government positioning himself against Neo- phytos’s behaviour. Seeing that he was now losing the last remaining foothold he had in Thessaloniki society after the defection of that assortment of prokritoi who had supported him during the first phase of the intra- community dispute, the Metropolitan tried to react by involving the Ottoman government in the dispute. He sent a telegram to the Prime Minister (Grand Vizier), the minister of foreign affairs, and the minister of finances (especially important given the overall nature of the dispute); that telegram was published 77 Neologos, no. 1199, January 3/15, 1873. 78 Neologos, ibid. The “demogerontes of Thessaloniki” signature on the letter that was written the day after the arrests suggests Neophytos did not manage to impose his views,BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 125 in the Istanbul newspaper “Courier d’ Orient” (no. 8124)7? and K. Vatikiotés provides a summary of its content. In the telegram, the Greek consul is brand- ed as having chief responsibility for the Thessalonikians’ stance against his person. Neophytos mentions that the consul was coercing him into creating an Educational Association in Thessaloniki so that the diocese would provide statistics regarding the demographics of the villages in the province of Thes- saloniki. The Metropolitan also added that Vatikiotés and his supporters “after coordination with the Patriarchate of Istanbul”8° roused the city’s population against him in order to bring in a different Metropolitan, who would then co- operate with them in materializing these aims. He also cr ized the stance of the Ottoman government and the local governor for making him an easy prey for his opponents. Vatikiotés answered all these accusations with one im- portant clue: that until then, that is, before directing his fury against the Greek consul, Neophytos had accused IoannisBitsos (keévvn¢ Mnitoc), the inter- preter of the English consulate, as perpetrating the hostility towards himself.8! Neophytos’s claim must be associated with the threats made by the radicals among his opposition about converting to Protestantism and the leading part the Abbott family played in this opposition. Neophytos turned against Vatikiotés in view of the developments across the Greek Orthodox community towards the creation of the Education- al Association of Thessaloniki. Setting up this this association was a tangible danger for the Metropolitan—a far greater danger than the guild’s threat to convert to Protestantism. And this was so because establishing the association was now combined with the re-establishment of the demogerontia under the opposition’s control, effectively creating a body that would assume several jurisdictions which previously had been left to the schools ephorate that was supervised by the demogerontia and, of course, the Metropolitan himself.82 79 iistorical Archive of the Greek Foreign Office /1872, 76/1, ap. evy. 732, K. Vatiokiotes to the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Thessaloniki, September 13, 1872. Neophytos’ telegram was, dated 7th of September 1872. Vatikiotes also mentioned that the correspondence that “Courier d° Orient” published against him was provided to the newspaper by a certain interpreter of the Rus- sian consulate of Thessaloniki, who happened to be in Istanbul at the time. That person may have been Georgios Harisis. A comparable correspondence was about to be published in the Turkish newspaper Khakaik and in the Levant Times. Vatikiotes managed to prevent the publication in the latter, while promising that he would attempt to convince either the Levant Times or some other newspaper of Istanbul to publish articles that would defend the “rights of Hellenism.”. 80 1f this part of the telegram is genuine and not an ‘addition’ by Vatikiotes meant for Neophy- tos’s embarrassment, then apparently Neophytos knew the final conclusions of the Local Synod many days before the announcement of the Schism. 81 Nikolaos, brother of lohannes, was the owner of the Kitros village, see K. Moskov, ibid, p 238, note 33. 82 11 is important to underline that in the years that Neophytos was Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, two distinct managerial bodies that handled the educational affairs existed despite the fact that there was no community regulation ruling them; there was the Educational and Philanthropic Institutions Committee, chaired by the Metropolitan himself and the Ephorate of School, see “Anatolikos Astir, no. 364, May 20/ June 1, 1866 and n0.419, 30 November 30/December 12, 1866. It is possible that the division of jurisdictions and responsibilities between the two bodies126 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS The problem was directly relevant to the beginnings of the intra- community dispute and the issue of managing the income from community assets that was meant to finance the expansion of educational activities. Therefore, Neophytos’s attempt to link the creation of the association to the activities of the Greek consul was not only intended to alert the Ottoman state’s mechanism to his favour, but also aimed at reviving the intra- community conflict by calling to the impulse of those who had initially sup- ported him. Those were, of course, the community’s traditional prokritoi—all of whom were Ottoman nationals. This is why in his report Vatikiotés defends not only himself against the accusations, but also defends the qualities of the new Association: “this Association aims not to be of a political nature, it is rather a product of the urgent need, that the fellow commoners comprehend, to improve their schools as well as the funding for that purpose thought com- munal contributions.”83 His purpose is obvious—the opposing sides had to overcome their respective differences and, through the new medium of the Association, concentrate their efforts on promoting Hellenic education in Thessaloniki and the city’s environs. Indeed, on September 14, the day after Vatikiotés’s report reached the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the “doctor and philosopher” (1atp op. 60 09 0s) Michael Papadopoulos created the Macedoni- an Educational Association of Thessaloniki (Moxedovixds OUexnaridevtuK d¢ LWA oy a5 OecoaAw kno), the activities of which, as it is known, were formed by the principles already set by the Association for the Dissemination of Hel- lenic Learning (2 WA oy 0¢ mp og Ardb caw tov FAAnvikéw Ppa drav) in Ath- ens or the Macedonian Educational Association of Serres, the founding of which had taken place a year earlier and definitely tipped the balance of the events unfolding in Thessaloniki as well.84 In Istanbul, meantime, during the proceedings of the Local Synod on September 14 and September 16, the ‘hard line’ taken by the more radical nationalists was prevailing and the Bulgarians were to be excommunicated as schismatic. This development explained Neophytos’s stance regarding the Patriarchate in the telegram he sent to the Ottoman authorities. And so Neo- phytos was seeing his choices fail in Istanbul and Thessaloniki simultaneous- ly; the establishment of the Association, formed from the nascent social pow- ers of Thessaloniki opened a whole new field of political activity that was not was the same as the one established during the times of metropolitan Ieronymos. See G. Sto- gioglou, Né& ctoxeia omy exoxy tov Myrporakiy Ep vue (1841-1853), [New elements on the age of the metropolitan Hieronymus], Thessaloniki 1985, p. 26 on. 83 Historical Archive of the Greek Foreign Office/1872, 76/1, no. 728, ibid. 84 4 Metallinou-Tsiomou, Madar @eaoai.oviey [Old Thessaloniki], vol. 2, p. 37, K Moskov, ibid, p. 121, 234, note 4. Regarding intra-community disputes in Serres during the period we study, see ArSta Maxadéxn, «H yepuavixy xpotestavmxcy xporayévSa omy Kad” nyé Avatohif pia «vor eyxixhioc» mg kpaxootokixt; Erawpciag toy Piyov xa a KawonKé épiBes orig Eppes (1870-1874)» [The German Protestant Propaganda in Our East: a secret encyc- lical of the Missionary Society of Rhine and the communal conflicts in Serres] , Jormp 10 (1997) 35-89,BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 127 necessarily controlled by the demogerontia or the Metropolitan. The associa- tion was thus formalizing the shift in control of the income meant for educa- tion, while the announcement of the schism delegitimized any attempt by Ne- ophytos to pretend he was a defender of the unity of the Orthodox flock. On September 15, during the Local Synod’s meeting, the Patriarchate decided to send a certain vicar named Matthaios from Thessaloniki as legate in order to escort Neophytos “forcefully so” back to Istanbul. The timing illustrates the importance of the case of Neophytos in the outcome of events in Istanbul as well. And so he was forced to leave Thessaloniki in mid-October. But according to what the newly-elected demogerontés reported to the Patri- archate, the Metropolitan misappropriated the diocese’s codex during his de- parture. The demogerontés demanded that the codex be returned immediately “as it is of outmost necessity for the daily affairs that are examined in the dio- cese,” and also called for the permanent replacement of Neophytos as well as for his exclusion from the episcopal list of high-ranking clergy eligible for episcopal duties. The misappropriation of the codex by Neophytos shows that the dispute’s origins were in his financial misconduct, mostly regarding the monasteries’ incomes. But as the sequence of events tells us, the social- economic status of the metropolitan (and this was a case not confined only to Neophytos) could no longer be tied to his ability to handle intra-community rivalries alone, but from the stance that he would hold regarding the emerging national and dogmatic rivalries in the provinces as well. From here on, the defense of Ottoman legality, and also the defense of the ‘ecumenical’ attitude that derived from it, would not be sufficient precondition for maintaining an episcopal seat. Middle Classes or Grand Bourgeoisie? Neophytos’s arrival in Istanbul reinforced the support he had within the Holy Synod; on April 28, 1873, he was found innocent unanimously of all charges against him.87 In the meanwhile, the Thessalonikians continued sub- mitting reports against him—reports that this time were not signed just by the guilds, but by the majority of the prokritoi as well. The reports’ assertions had also changed, as the allusions to the Patriarchate’s role became very subtle (“Thessalonikians were always obedient children of the Church”) and the 85 Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 43, no. 5036, 5037, p. 187, September 15, 1872. 86 Neologos, no. 1199, January 3/15, 1873. This fact explains the gap that exists in the archival material of the diocese of Thessaloniki during the period that Neophytos was metropolitan, see ‘Athanasios Aggelopoulos, «To toropix6v Apyciov ms Mntparcksw @zcoahovienc» [The His- torical Archive of the metropolis of Thessaloniki], Mucedovucé 15 (1975) 361-365, and especially p.362. 87 Anatolikos Astir, 0.1064, March 3/15, 1873.128 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS threats of a possible conversion to a different dogma stopped altogether.88 But Neophytos’s acquittal and the fact that his name was included in the mass transfers of high-ranking clergymen in April of the same year, reversed the situation somewhat.§? During that same month (on April 1), a sigilium®? of the Patriarchate permanently resolved the issue of the two metochia, of Ypa- pante and Aghios Hypatios, in favour of the Monastery of Aghia Anastasia. These Patriarchate’s actions again aggravated the Thessalonikians, who reit- erated their threats of secession even more belligerently. These threats even raised the possibility they would stop commemorating the Patriarch’s name, just as they had done in the case of Neophytos (they even mentioned the ex- ample of the Kaisarians, from when they were pursuing the election of Eu- stathios Kleovoulos as the Metropolitan of Kaisareia around the same time).91 At the community’s new assembly in early June—which, in addition to the guilds was also attended by the “majority...of the prominent figures and the prokritoi” —it was decided to commission a three-member committee of Demetrios A. Oikonomou (Mraitadépoc),9? Athanasios Karipés,93 and Stephanos Tattés.*4 They delivered notarised documents showing that the majority of the Thessalonikians resented the presence of Neophytos.5 Even- tually, the patriarchate decided to send a new legation comprised of Ben- ediktos, Metropolitan of Veroia, and Neophytos, Metropolitan of Serres (this was the third legation after the legations of the metropolitans of Imbros and Velissos, and that of vicar Matthaios who had been sent to bring Neophytos to Istanbul). The new legation was necessary because Neophytos had challenged the authenticity of the signatures on the reports sent by the opposition. At the same time, he produced new reports in his favour with 130 signees from among the people of Thessaloniki and another 500 from the villagers of the province. The opposition claimed these signatures were collected from im- 88 Neologos, no, 1264, May 23/Iune 4, 1873. 89 Neologos, no. 1294, May 3/15, 1873 and no. 1302, May 12/24, 1873. 99 Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 44, op. mpat. 2287, p. 128-132, 1 Anpi.iov 1873. 51 Neologos, no. 1302, May 12/24, 1873. They also brought up the issue of sending a committee to Istanbul that would request the replacing of Neophytos % D. A. Oikonomou, as we saw, stood by the side of Neophytos during the first phase of the intra-community conflict, as he was a representative of the traditional headmen’s class. 95 Regarding the Karipis or Karipoglou family, see K. Moskov, ibid, p. 134, 94 Regarding Stephanos Tattes, see D, G. Seremetis, «ODrdpave; Kev. Tértyg (1825-1910) om Sour me Kaveoviag m¢ tovpxoxpatorpevns @eoaahov tens (190, ardwac)» [Stephanos K. Tattes (1825-1910) in the structure of the society of the Turkish-dominated Salonika (19th c.)], Maxedovucd, 25 (1983-4) 266-296. 95 Anatolikos Asti, 6.1089, 2/14 lowviow 1873. But in the same publication, the validity of the ‘threats’ of the people of Thessaloniki about an alleged conversion to a different dogma was disputed following the acquittal of Neophytos. And a telegram signed by the “headmen of the villages of the province of Thessaloniki” was published, and it does not acknowledge the three- member legation. Also see K. Tattes, «O ko avvng Tan dgne», p. 303.BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 129 poverished Bulgarians either through violence or bribery by Serapheim, Neo- phytos’s deacon and by the former kavasis of the diocese. The mission of the legates was to confirm the authenticity of the signatures and seals present- ed by both sides.9” The three-member legation returned hastily to Thessaloni- ki?8 on June 19, as soon as the legation’s mission was announced. The evidence we have regarding the process of verification the signa- tures and seals by the legates are conflicting. The correspondence of a mem- ber of the opposition published in “Neologos” on July 17 stated that the two legates invited “from the church” the two opposing sides. But while there were thousands of citizens who came forth and asked for the removal of Neo- phytos, not one appeared as his defender. At the same time the legates discov- ered that one-third of the signatures (out of a total of 100) on the report de- fending Neophytos were forged, while there also signatures of deceased per- sons.?? In contrast, a corresponding letter of Neophytos supporters (undated) published in the “Eastern Star” made accusations of manipulative methods used by “the most prominent among the opposition.” Allegedly, when the latter were invited by the legates on July 24 for the verification of the signa- tures, the opposition insisted that a) only the signatures of the city’s popula- tion be investigated and not those of the villages “with the pretext that the villages had no right on the issue,” b) that the signatures be verified one by one but by merely calling upon the corresponding headmen of the guilds (a sign that their stance regarding the Metropolitan had been completely re- versed) and c) only the signatures against Neophytos be checked without veri- fying those signatures supporting him. This third demand greatly contradicts the information provided by the other side—that one-third of the signatures favoring Neophytos were forged. According to the same letter, the opposition organised mobs into demonstrations in order to force the two legates to accept the above-mentioned conditions. They even threatened the life of Benediktos, the legate of Veroia, who wanted to implement the Synodic procedures. And so the legate was forced to forfeit and he was replaced by the Metropolitan of Sisanio who happened to be in the city at that time! These developments made the prospect of Neophytos’s return to Thes- saloniki a forbidden option. Nevertheless, his acquittal by the Holy Synod, along with the rumors of a scenario where the metropolitans of Thessaloniki and Nikaia would mutually exchange their seats, caused considerable discon- tent against Anthimos, the patriarch at the time, and these were used as argu- 96 Neologos, p. 1342, 3/15 lovdiov 1873. 97 Anatolikos Astir, 0.1094, June 8/20, 1873. Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 44, no. 3632, June21, 1873, p. 190. 98 Anatolikos Astir, n0.1096, June 27/Suly 9, 1873. 99 Neologos, no.1359, July 23/August 4, 1873. 100 Anatolikos Astir, no.1102, July 22/August 3, 1873.130 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS ments against him by his opponents promoting his succession.!°! In any case, Neophytos never returned to. Thessaloniki. Furthermore, he never served in any other diocese until his death in Istanbul in 1880.1 Neophytos’s successor, Joachim of Varna, came to Thessaloniki at the beginning of 1874 and managed to ease intra-community disputes! until 1878 when he became patriarch of Istanbul. That same year, 1874, what was possibly the first regulation in the history of Thessaloniki’s community life was drafted by a committee of the following prokritoi: loannisAvgerinos, Takovos Rogkotés, Stephanos Tattés, Taskos Papageorgiou, Athanasios Kari- poglou (Karipés), and Demetrios Oikonomou (MmaAta8 ap 0¢).104 We can see in this committee the representation of two different trends from among the prokritoi of Thessaloniki; the first trend includes Demetrios Oikonomou, Ath- anasios Karipés, and Stephanos Tattés, who were steady supporters of Neo- phytos during his disputes with the Abbott family during the 1860s and until the crisis of 1872.15 This trend retracted its support to the person of Neophy- tos following accusation of his alleged cooperation with the Bulgarians, and this is verified by the visit of the three men to Istanbul in June 1873 as repre- sentatives of the community. The second trend was represented by Ioannis Avgerinos and Taskos Papageorgiou (it is possible to include Iakovos Rogkotés among them),!6 who appear to have been more positively-inclined towards the prospect of working with the Abbot family. This is proven by their participation with Albertos Abbott in the first elected managerial board of the Educational Association.1°7 101 Neologos, no.1375, August 11/23, 1873, no. 1380, August 18/30, 1873, where it is men- tioned that the Patriarch’s supporters claimed that Anthimos’s views did not enjoy a majority vote in the Holy Synod at the same time that his opponents claimed he pandered the decision. 102 ecdnoracrucr} Ariew [Ecclesiastical Truth], vol.1, (1880-1), pp. 181-182. 103 Neologos, no. 1519, February 8/20, 1874, no. 1560, April 2/14, 1874. It is mentioned that his date of arrival was the eve of the day of the feast of the Annunciation, March 24. The managing committee of the Educational Association was among the representatives who greeted him. The correspondent of ‘Neologos’ was pointing out from Thessaloniki that the city’s society was being left behind in a number of fields, particularly in the field of education, which is why the commu- nity now had great expectations from the ‘art-loving’ Joachim. One of the first issues that Joa- chim sought to resolve was the dispute between the Monastery of Saint Anastasia and the de- ‘mogerontia over the two churches, which had yet to be concluded, Codex of the Correspondence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 45, no. 253, February 9, 1874, pp. 65-66, n0.1812, March 14, 1874, p. 128. 104 K Tare «Koavors Secoa2ovixns», p. 87 105 4. Sraparér ovkos, «@eoouk ovicn: 1858-1874». pp. 90-91. 106 On the Rogkotis family, see E A Hekimoglou, «Oscoakonxéoy evepyéra to xAnpod mya tov Anuntpiov Poyxém» [Patrons of Thessalonikians: the foundation of Dimitris Rogkotis] , Greek North newspaper, no. June 9, 1996. 107 Neotogos, November 14/26, 1872, no. 1162, where a letter is to be found, dated October 15, 1872. A letter by the first elected managing committee of the Educational Association of Thessa~ loniki other than its president, M. Papadopoulos, the committee included Alfred Abbott, Taskos Papageorgiou (secretary), Ioannis Avgerinos, Apostolos Miliou, N. P. Petrou, and G.K. Panos.BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 131 Other than reducing the numbers of the demogerontia from twelve to eight, the chief element of this first regulation was that it institutionalized a new community board, the twenty-four-member committee, from among the twenty-four members of which new four-member committees (ephorates) were to be elected and be responsible for the management of educational and philanthropic institutions.!°8 This reform established by the constituent as- sembly, the transfer of administrative powers for the educational and philan- thropic institutions from the demogerontia to the twenty-four-member com- mittee must be explained in light of the influence of the second trend during the meetings of the constituents. But it can also be attributed to the wider po- litical climate that developed in Thessaloniki after the removal of Neophytos from his diocese and the opposition’s victory. However, while the new com- munity regulation promoted a wider representation in the new community structure,!99 and despite that the number of the members of the demogerontia was reduced and the absolute control it previously enjoyed on educational matters was now shattered, the demogerontia never seized to be the main body of political representation of the community. This fact was the prerequi- site so that the representatives of the traditional ruling class attempt later to redress the negative (for them) balance of power and against the activities of the twenty-four-member committee. And so, in the discussion that opened in 1879 regarding the revision of the first regulation, the question whether the demogerontia should or should not take part in the elections of the ephorates of the philanthropic and educational institutions, as well their participation in the processes supervising the ephorates’ work, was the most profound subject that was discussed (article ty’ in the text of the regulation of 1874). The Met- ropolitan at the time was Kallinikos Photiadés, and he managed to effect a compromise between the opposing views of those present by suggesting that the eight members of the demogerontia be included in the overall number of twenty-four-member committee members, an option that would allow them to take part in the “election and supervision of the management” of the ephor- ates.110 Also see M Tlaxa8 érovt.oc, «IIpdtov Era; tov ‘Ev @eo/vien OtkeCodex of Correspondence of the Ecumenical PatriarchatesSevrixov DviA6yav», Geooukovien 1874. Yet, this report on the association’s first year by M. Papadopoulos mentions that Pericles Hatzilazarou was included on the committee and he perfomed the duties of cashier. In contrast, the names of Georgios Hera- cleides and $. Spelaiopoulos (ibid, pp. 30-31) are not mentioned at all. These changes in the committee’s make up may be explained by the following extract from the Papadopoulos report: «Tlaparpézouev exionc Kar doa Aa ey évovto erg Ty StountucTY emtparty dims mp deve Kat 1a axoix avin xepiBheye Ovorécaca Ty Wiav avrig pONWinv exi to PoHod tw Kavod pgp ovtag» (ibid, p. 1) 108 see Ch. Papastathis, O Kavoviopot, p.16, where a relevant article by an anonymous author from the “Hermes” newspaper of Thessaloniki is reproduced (Hermes newspaper, no. 28, August 15, 1875). 109 & Tattes, ibid. 110 We do not know when it was that the number of the committee’s members dropped from twenty-four to twelve (evident in the proceedings). But because of this reduction, Kallinikos132 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS The reforms that the constituent assembly concluded definitely echoed the opposition’s views, including their view on the issue of foreign nationals. In the 1879 revision, article ty’ regarded the composition of the twenty-four- member committee and the right of the demogerontia to participate in the election of the ephorates. It also contemplated that the election of the mem- bers of the former would take place “regardless of citizenship” of the candi- dates.!1! The 1886 regulation stated that in the body of the demogerontia— which embodied a number of political, juridical, and administrative duties— the elector’s rights were reserved exclusively for Ottoman nationals. On the contrary, the elections for the committees of educational and philanthropic institutions conducted by the thirty-two members of the assembly (that now included the eight demogerontés), took place, yet again, “regardless of nation- ality.”!!2 For this reason it is possible that this legalistic wording was not in- cluded in the first regulation of 1874, considering that the issue of foreign national (and especially Greek nationals) had troubled both of the opposing sides. Correspondingly, the target of the formation of the twenty-four-member committee was not only to seize control of educational and philanthropic in- stitutions from the demogerontia; it also aimed at allowing and formalizing the participation of foreign nationals in their management.!!3 This develop- ment must be viewed in relation to the activities of the Educational Associa- tion, which encompassed all the major bourgeois families of the city that en- joyed a foreign citizenship. And thus the powerful persons of foreign nation- ality, such as Alfred Abbott for example, while unable to (or unwilling to) participate directly in the processes of community administration, something that demanded Ottoman citizenship, they could still operate in parallel, either asked that the article of the first regulation providing for twenty-four members be applied once more. See Historical Archive of Macedonia, cod. 13, assembly of February 25th, 1879. We should underline that the demogerontia had the right to inspect (but not to elect) the ephorate of the educational institutions, and this was according to the first regulation and it can also be found in the extract of “Hermes” that Ch. Papastathis published. See Ch. Papastathis, ibid. 111 Historical Archive of Macedonia, cod.13, ibid 112 Ch. Papastathis, ibid, pp. 149-150 (articles 17, 18, 19, 20), 152 (article 31), 153 (article 38). Zapantis mentions that “citizenship was not an obstacle for someone to partake in the administra- tion of the community, according to article 31 of the regulation that is” (page 134). But article 31, as well as article 38, mentions the formation of the for-member ephorates of the educational and philanthropic institutions “regardless of citizenship.” The articles are not about the demogeron- tia’s makeup, the members of which were obligated to be of Ottoman citizenship. 113 This fact is confirmed in an important extract from «Mupov Adac»: “since 1872, the cash registers of schools and of the Hospital were entrusted to the richest among the prominent citi- zens. Such elected administrators could be chosen among foreign nationals (co‘Sirc) that be- Tonged to the thriving in the world of trade families of Abbott, Harisis, Rogkotis, Hatzilazarou. Such cashier administrators, before 1872, were elected sometimes from among the Ottoman citizenry (payidiec) the following memorable figures of Demetrios Valtadoros and Athanasios Chaideutos, who were persistently requested to undertake the duty of the cashier...” (ibid, pp. 28-29).BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 133 as members of the twenty-four-member committee or as members of the ad- ministrative board of the Association! !4. Yet while the new conditions surely upgraded the status of the power- ful bourgeois families (not necessarily only that of the Abbotts), the same cannot be said for the members of the city’s guilds.!!5 The crisis of the guilds during the second half of the nineteenth century has been suggested as the explanatory framework that clarifies the community’s restructuring during those years,!!6 yet we should point out a few things in the confrontation of the years from 1872 to 1874, Although the great majority of the members of the guilds reinforced the ranks of the opposition, in the beginnings of the conflict Neophytos was supported by a considerable number of headmen (xpat omery ot opec), who were then administratively placed in the community self-governing system as it had operated until then. After all, Neophytos’s presence in Thessaloniki was associated with the convening of a general as- sembly in which both the prokritoi and the protomagistorés of the guilds par- ticipated for the first time in the history of the community’s self-governance in the city.!!7 At the same time, when matters came to important community issues, the body of the demogerontés took decisions and signed documents along with a delegation of representatives of the guilds.'!8 Also, the de- mogerontia itself was composed of members from the ranks of the prokritoi as well as from the ranks of the protomagistorés (the leaders of the guilds).!!9 The relatively elevated position of the protomagistorés in the commu- nity’s structure was not formally sanctioned in some article of community administration. Therefore one could expect that the issue at stake of the intra- community conflict that starts in 1872, at least when it comes to the guilds, would have been the ratification of previous practices. But such a thing never happened. Although the formation of the twenty-four-member committee introduced an increase of the community members who could take part in elections, it took place primarily in view of the following two criteria: the need to control the educational procedures and philanthropic donations as well as the participation of foreign nationals. In any case, it did not guarantee 114 §. Zapantis, ibid, pp. 127, note 31, where it is mentioned that “the Orthodox denomination of the Abbott family allowed them to participate in community govemance” and as an example, relevant activities of Alfred Abbott as a member of the twenty-four-member committee are men- tioned from 1879 on. Other examples are Abbott's participation in the committee revising the Regulation and the Educational Association. But we must underline that he never was a de- mogerontas precisely because he was an English national. 115 kK Vacalopoulos, «Xpioriavixiés ovvaxies, ovvtezvieg Ka exayy Spata mo Oeooad ovieng ota pévu tov 190 aréwa» [Christian neighborhoods, guilds and professions of Thessaloniki in the middle of the 19th. c.], Mucedovucd, 18 (1979) 103-140. 116 & A Hekimoglou, @eacad ovicn, pp. 174-178. Also see Avéwopos, To Mapév Akos, p. 27. 117 X Tattes, «H Kawémg Geooakov ixng», p. 86. 118 see the case of the dispute between Neophytos and Saroula Abbott in 1862, Dimitris Sta- matopoulos «@ecoa) ov xn: 1858-1874» ibid. 119 & A Hekimoglou, @eooahovicn, p. 177.134 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS the analogous participation of members of the guilds in the community boards. Although these two criteria were affecting the great majority of the guilds’ members, either because the new “national threat” that demanded the re-direction of the aims of educational procedures reflected the social crisis that they experienced themselves or because many of them had Greek nation- ality. The community’s changes was made possible not under the leadership of the guilds but under the control of a dynamic part of the city’s bourgeoisie. We should seek the causes of this in the fact that the ‘natural’ leaders of the guilds, their protomagistorés, did not prove capable of politically articulating their demand for upgrading their role.!2° This was because of their progres- sive weakening and because of their partial participation in the community administration system that Neophytos had established. And thus, while the guilds appeared as the battering ram of the opposition during the community crisis of 1872-1874, they failed in the end to avoid their even greater political marginalization, which eventually caused new intra~-community tremors. If this suggestion is valid, we should consider not only the ‘external’ causes for the decline of the guilds system (for example, the growth of international trade), but also some ‘domestic’ causes (such as the lack of trust by guild members in their protomagistorés). Consequently, in subsequent decades, the steadily-articulated demand for the widening of representation in the election system that determined the community boards was not only expressing the pressure on the prokritoi who traditionally withheld power in the community, it also expressed the crisis of representation from within the guilds; in pro- cesses of free election, each protomagistoras would lose his privileged rela- tion as mediator for the interests of the guild’s members, a relation that was somewhat secured by the previous regime. The slaughter of the consuls: a new interpretation After examining the consequences of the new community regulation on the ranks of the prokritoi and the guilds, we must examine the new condi- tions that the bourgeois families of Thessaloniki, as well as the consequences of the intra-community conflict of those years on the status of high-ranking clergy in the provinces. It is worth underlining that the differentiation among the leading families, at least as much as this is known in subsequent intra- community conflicts, should be sought in the crucial period of Neophytos’s ousting from Thessaloniki. As it is known, the families that led the two op- 120 For the downgrading of the guilds’ political role, see for example their dispute with the de- mogerontia in 1879 over the issue of the aims that the operation of the «Ov. drrxec Ade omey served, EA Hekimoglou, @cooadovicn, pp. 180-183.BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 135 posing sides of the community were the Abbott and Hatzilazarou families. '2! According to K. Moskov, Pericles Hatzilazarou, American consul since 1869,!22 and Alfred Abbott were the two corresponding heads of the “liberal” and “conservative” factions during the 1870s.!23 The author does not elabo- rate enough on this, leaving us to assume that the ‘conservative’ block, led by the Abbotts, was comprised of the city’s major land-owning families such as the Zannas and Papageorgious.}2* In contrast, the ‘liberal’ block represented the emerging bourgeois elements. But such an unlikely amalgamation of land- owning and business interests at the level of family activity,!?5 disqualifies any attempt to provide a linear explanation that could directly associate social status with political behavior. The problem of the two families’ involvement in community affairs merits a more thorough study. As we saw, the Abbotts became involved in the dispute for their own reasons and the opposition the guilds applied against the Metropolitan was under their lead, at least during the first phase. The Abbotts exercised similar influence on the champions of the Educational Association as well, including personalities such as M. Papa- dopoulos and K. Schinas.!6 Therefore, the ethnocentric logic evident in the arguments of Neophytos’s opponents, along with the threat the opposition expressed about a conversion to Protestantism as a tactical ‘weapon’ to force 121 Op the Hatzilazarou family, see A Metallinou-Tsiomou, Malaié @eccad ovicn, t. A’, p. 46, K Moskov, ibid, p. 135, E A Hekimoglou, «Eviuov XarCnhatapov: to yo evés dnowompéy ov xpoxpitov ms Gecoahov jo» (A souvenir of Hatzilazarou: the work of a forgot- ten notable of Thessaloniki], Mucedovecr} Zo7} 293 (1990) 23-25, Meropi Anastasiadou, Salo- nique 1830-1912. 122 ‘This information, which Hekimoglou brings forth after consulting the newspapers” publica- tions in 1908, is confirmed spectacularly by another source. The ambassador of Greece to Istan- bul in 1869, whose name was Alexandros Rizos Ragkavis, mentions in his memoirs that in that year he had suggested to the American ambassador in Istanbul (Morris) that Alfred Abbott should bbe appointed the American consul in Thessaloniki. Morris, however, replied that he had already suggested a different person for that position. That person was Pericles Hatzilazarou, who even- tually got the post. See A P. Ragkavis, Arquvjoweiyara [Memoirs], vol. 3, Athens 1930, p. 468, This testament by Ragkaves, beyond the fact that provides one of the causes for the two men’s hostility to each other, also proves the excellent relations the Abbotts enjoyed with both the representatives of the Greck state, embassy, and consulate, as well as with the powerful fami- lies of the Greek Orthodox community of Istanbul. Errikos Abbott, Alfted’s brother and consul of Prussia who was slaughtered in 1876 by a Turkish mob in Thessaloniki, was married to the daughter of Konstantinos Karatheodores, see A. P. Ragkavis, ibid. We should also note that Kon- stantinos Karatheodores had supported the solution of the Schism regarding the Bulgarian ques- tion, he had aligned himself with the anti-Russian circles of the capital in general, in marked contrast with his nephew Alexandros. See D. Stamatopoulos, Reform and Secularization, pp. 269- 270. 123 K Moskoy, ibid, p. 128. For a critical approach to those views see EA Hekimoglou, «Yipes avépdy cvurchiprov Kor evaépav. Iepi to exhopod Sucaréuatos Kat tov “coudzov’ omy eXyvop9650en Kawvérnza Gecaa.ovkenc», Greek North, September 12, 1996. 124 & Moskoy, ibid, p. 135. 125 See note 12. 126 y Zapantis, ibid, pp. 129-130.136 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS the Metropolitan’s removal, must both be attributed to the choices of the fami- ly, with Alfred Abbott being the most prominent of all. On the contrary, the sources provide no information on the Hatzilaza- rou family about any involvement in the intra-community dispute. But there is one especially important piece of information suggesting the family’s political alignment during that period. Shortly after Neophytos left for Istanbul in No- vember 1872, and while the accusations against him for alleged cooperation with the Bulgarians were fresh, the daughter of the “immensely rich merchant of the city” Ioannis Hatzilazarou (and sister to Pericles) married Karakanov, the doctor of the Russian embassy in Istanbul who was of Bulgarian origin. Ioannis Hatzilazarou himself was a Russian national and so were his two sons—Pericles and Nikolaos. Yakubovski, the head of the Russian consulate, attended the wedding, as did the “Bulgarian teachers and the prominent fig- ures of the Bulgarian Komitat.” The marriage’s procession itself was two- fold; it was celebrated jointly by the Orthodox ‘patriarchic’ priests of the par- ish along with Larion, the ‘schismatic’ archimandrite from the Bulgarian monastery of Zographou in Athos Mountain who was accompanied by yet another ‘schismatic’ priest.!27 This specific event caused a dolorous impression to the Greek Ortho- dox community of the city. The flamboyant manner, in which the Hatzilaza- rou family organized the ceremony, at a time when the ghost of the schism had a negative effect on the climate of national antagonisms in the city, does not necessarily mean that they acknowledged the Bulgarian ambitions them- selves. But perhaps the whole affair meant they chose to deal with the Bulgar- ian issue in general and with the newly-established Bulgarian community in particular on the basis of tolerance and compromise. Although we do not know the stance of Pericles Hatzilazarou during the events of 1872 or regard- ing the issue of the foundation of the Educational association,!28 he did en- gage fervently in its proceedings and never challenged its presence.!29 The Hatzilazarou family’s choice for a compromising deal on the Bulgarian ques- tion was not endorsed by the front created by the guilds and the Abbotts. But it did have its equivalent, as we saw, in a corresponding trend of the Greeks of Istanbul whom Neophytos tried to exploit. Consequently, more or less the same dividing lines that had appeared during the same period in the Greek Orthodox community of Istanbul were evident among the bourgeoisie of Thessaloniki as well; at one end there were the representatives of ethnocen- tricity (via the scheme of the presence of the guilds led and dominated bya 127 Historical Archive of the Greek Foreign Ministry/1872, 76/1, no. 913, consul of Thessaloniki K. Vatikiotis to the Embassy of Constantinople, Thessaloniki, November 17, 1872. 128 See note 110. 129 On the contrary, he decided to resign his place in the Ephorate of educational institutions, see Historical Archive of Macedonia., cod. 14, assemblies of August 10th, 1873, and March 22nd 1877.BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 137 dynamic part of the bourgeoisie)!3° and at the other we see the supporters of compromise and moderation regarding the Bulgarian claims (a moderation that had political expressions that were defined mainly by the need to conform with Russia’s new role). This ideological and political differentiation must be seen as important for the formation of the opposing community factions, the two families being the most prominent among them, at least during the first phase of the Educational Association’s operation. In reality, however, the clash between the two families had to do with the promotion of their own economic interests.'3! As was the case in Istanbul, where the confrontation of the two factions made things very precarious for each Patriarch at any given time, in the same manner the confrontation made Neophytos’s continuous presence in Thessaloniki virtually impossible. The question left unanswered is where exactly we can seek the qualita- tive shift in the status of the clergy in Ottoman provinces after the intra- community dispute in Istanbul, which in truth was the very first of a series of similar conflicts facilitated in the overall background of national antagonisms. In Istanbul, the aim of the reformist faction was to confine the Patriarch and the high-ranking clergy in general in the management of solely spiritual mat- ters by the ratification of the General Regulations. In the provinces, on the other hand, the status of high-ranking clergy objectively benefited mostly through the institutionalization of their role on local boards or in the commit- tees of the vilayets established with the Law on the Vilayets of 1864.12 Alt- hough the reformist program soon displayed its limitations without effectively halting the spreading of nationalism, the process of the millet’s transformation into a nation (or more accurately, the breakdown of the universal religious community into national sub-groups) reinforced rather than weakened the existing trend for an upgraded political role of the high-ranking clergy. Alt- hough the conflict between Greek and Bulgarian nationalism was taking place within the framework of Ottoman legality, and while the Ottoman state insist- ed on recognizing only religious communities and no ethnic collectivities, the 130 See the repetition of the same pattern in the relations between the two powerful bankers of Istanbul, G. Zariphes and Ch. Zographos, and the guilds of Istanbul. This is evident in both the events preceding the Local Synod in the summer of 1872, as well as in the case of the establish- ing of the “Rum Millet-i’s Committee” (Exirp ar tov Roya kov Eévovs), see Dimitris Stamato- poulos, Reform and Secularization, pp. 295-299. 131 This suggestion can explain from a different perspective the events of the consuls’ slaughter in 1876. The fatalities were the consul of Prussia (Errikos Abbott) and of France (Moullin). We should remember that the Hatzilazarou family was a prominent in concealing the young Slavo- phone Christian girl from Bogdantza threatened with conversion to Islam, see A Vacalopoulos, Ta. Spoparmcé peyovéea nyc Ocooalovieyc xaré tov Miao tov 1876 Kai o1 exdpGocK rove at0 Avecalucd Ziemua, (The dramatic events of Thessaloniki in May of 1876 and their influence on the Eastern Question], Thessaloniki 1980. 132 & Kostis, «Kawémtes, Fxxkyoia, xar MOLE ong “elOnvucés eproyéc’ mg Bopavucte cvtoxpatop ag karé my ep oS 0 Tav ustappvoy tev» (Communities, Church and Millet in the "Greek lands” of the Ottoman Empire during the Tanzimat Reforms], Mvyjio 13, (1989), pp. 57 75, and especially p. 73.138 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS official representatives of the millets—in our case the members of the high- ranking clergy—were forced to pick sides against the existing political prob- lem posed by their times; either the defense of the imperial scheme (that found its corresponding concept in the ideology of ecumenism of which the Patriarchate was the primary expression) or the convergence with one of the existing national movements that re-addressed the collective identities of their populations within the empire. In either case, the acknowledgment of the po- litical role they enjoyed within community self-management in the provinces was taken for granted. At the same time this acknowledgment had differing sources of validation; in the case of the former, there was the Ottoman state’s realities and therefore the possibilities of reforms within that framework, while in the case of the latter, there was the process of national self- determination of the peoples of the empire and as result the irredentist aspira- tions and policies of the nation-states that were already formed or were being formed. In view of the above, it is especially interesting to examine the ideas of the opposition that ousted Neophytos from Thessaloniki regarding the new role that the metropolitans should have in the province. After Neophytos was summoned to Istanbul, the accusations against him no longer focused on the issue of his alleged cooperation with the Bulgarians (further proof of the ephemeral nature of the accusations used as a tactic). Instead, the accusations focused on the ‘nonchalance’ and ‘indifference’ that he displayed regarding ‘public things’. As a result, the champions of ethnocentricity in Thessaloniki spoke of the adequacy that each given Metropolitan would have to display in the general management of community affairs. A member of the opposition against Neophytos wrote in a letter to Neologos: “Do the trusted ones forget the enslavement of the Christians [he means the high-ranking clergy and spe- cifically the Holy Synod], that they have not only rights over their spiritual children but duties as well, and these duties are not only spiritual but they include administrative and cultural duties. Or, and we hope that this is not the case, they haven’t comprehended the purpose of the clergy, our own clergy moreover, which is utilized by the political system that is in effect in Turkey and serves as a mediator for the implementation of all rights that the Chris- tians enjoy, and thus the clergy is the centre of all activities that have to do with the managing and improvement of the community things?”!33 It therefore becomes obvious that the agents of ethnocentricity take on the task of defending the political role of the high-ranking clergy directly from the arsenal of arguments of the reformers; the role of the ‘mediator’ that the reformists attributed to the high-ranking clergy!34 (and to religious au- 133 Neologos, November 5/17, 1873, no. 1469. 134 sia Anagnostopoulon, ibid, p. 283 on, Paraskevas Konortas, Odopavixé Ocwp fpeg ya to Oxovpeviké Matpiapysio, 170; — apyé; 2000 avdwa [Ottoman views on the Ecumenical Patriar- chate, 17th - beginning of the 20th c.], Athens 1998, p. 315 on.BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 139 thorities of the millet in general) for the re-establishment of the already- shattered authority of the Ottoman state in the provinces is used by the nation- alists as a means of promoting the collective interest of the populations—such an interest being understood as ‘national interest’. Assigning this new mean- ing to the political role of the representatives of the Church through the framework of the nation could not be without consequences in the upgrading of their role within the communities’ balance of power. Regardless of the in- tentions of both reformists and nationalists, in truth the role of the clergy in the province was not as powerful. As was the case in the center, in the capital of the empire the presence of the Holy Synod could, indeed, counterbalance the increased presence of the laity in the Patriarchate, as expressed through the operation of the Standing National Combined Council (Aiapké& E8viké Mixt6 LvpP otAr0). In the provincial capitals, however, it was very difficult for any Metropolitan to counterbalance the corresponding strength of the prokritoi. On the contrary, he was often called upon to mediate between rival community factions and adopt the new goals of Greek foreign policy imple- mented by the local consuls. For these reasons, the recognition of the political character of the role of the high-ranking clergy and its theoretical foundation by calling upon the principle of ‘mediation’ did not mean an instant im- provement of his status in the intra-community balance of power. This would be the case only to the extent that the clergy concurred with the new priorities set by national antagonisms. The anonymous opposition writer, in order to justify his view and to reject the view of the Holy Synod, added that the nec- essary prerequisite for osting a high ranking cleric from his province was the violation of some Holy Canon or of some article of penal code:!35 “The ethi- cal interests of a nation are much higher and more respected than the lawless act of a high-ranking cleric, his responsibility is seen as being more about his ethical duties or towards the common responsibilities deriving from common law, to which all humans are subject.”!3¢ Since the nation was now rearrang- ing even the field of Ethics, the high-ranking cleric was now compelled to 135 Anonymous, Ta 4 1op6etéx waz Exefyovea [The correctable and the emergent], Istanbul 1873 (2), pp. 10-12. Among other things the Anonymous writer of this bulletin charged that Patriarch Anthimos VI, during his third reign (1871-73), had acted with a double standards regarding accu- sations by notables against high-ranking clerics in their provinces. And while the Patriarch re- moved the metropolitans of Adrianople Cyril and of Ephesus Paisios, he did not do the same in the cases of metropolitans Neophytos of Thessaloniki and Meletios of Smyma (Indeed, Neophy- tos only left Thessaloniki immediately after Anthimos VI's downfall, on September 30, 1873). The anonymous writer defended the political dimension of a Metropolitan’s role as well, just as the Thessalonikeans “of the opposition,” but he did so in the direction of maintaining Ottoman legality, and he justified his stance with references to the Holy Rules (Jepo{ Kavévat) and the General Regulations; “Rules that are Holy and Regulations that are nation-saving demand that the Metropolitan remains for all his life in this divinely-ordained seat of his province, while they only consider him worthy of discharge or dismissal in the case of a scandalous braking of the Rules, in the case that he would wish to be proven incapable to comply with his spiritual or political duties, and in any case of disloyalty to the mighty kingship” (p. 10). 136 Neologos, ibid.140 DIMITRIS STAMATOPOULOS submit his activity to the new order of things. Even more so, his possible ad- vancement would result not from mediating for the interests of the Orthodox populations of the province (as Neophytos may have pursued) but from the mediation of the interests of “nationalized” populations (either Greek “Patri- archies” or Bulgarian “schismatics”). The strengthening of a metropolitan would not be on the terms of the millet’s restructuring in miniature scale (dominance of the religious over the political) but in terms of rising and de facto formalizing of the “nation” form (dominance of the political over the religious). In retrospect, we must point out the following regarding the case of Neophytos: Neophytos was a typical example of a high-ranking cleric who went through all stages of political and ecclesiastical “behavior” during the period examined. Engaged as he was with the disputes with the Slavic populations of provinces (Tyrnovo, Polyane), he was equated with the aims of the reformist trend, not only during the meetings of the Constituent Assembly but also during the first phase of his presence in Thessaloniki. The collapse of the episcopal subsidy system led Neophytos to search for alternate means of financing his diocese, while at the same time he was trying to reinforce his status by increasing his footholds in the community. These footholds, as we saw, were in the ranks of the traditional headmen but also in some of the city’s bourgeoisie (Charisé family). The emergence of the Bulgarian question and the inconclusiveness in the relations between the Metropolitan and the city’s community powers pursuing the overthrow of existing balances (guilds, Abbott family) led Neophytos to exploit the newly-founded Bulgarian community in Thessaloniki in order to bolster his position. He thus transformed the objective problem that emerged among the city’s Orthodox communities into his own comparative advantage in the intra-community balance of power; he managed to present himself before both the Patriarchate and the Sublime Porte as a high-ranking cleric capable enough to defend the unity of the Orthodox flock in his province. A consequence of his stance was to deny acknowledging the creation of the Educational Association—a fact that finalized the transfer of controlling the incomes of the community, incomes meant for the educational institutions, from the demogerontia to the newly-established association. His stance put him on a collision course with the city’s ‘prominent’ citizens (former supporters, prokritoi, guilds, bourgeoisie) and pitted him against the representatives of the Greek and English consulates. His ousting from Thessaloniki and his eventual replacement by Joachim, Metropolitan of Varna, resulted in the drafting of the first city community regulation in which a new balance of power was expressed. The regulation, therefore, was not the result of a natural and linear development of the reforms across the empire. On the contrary, it emerged through crisis—a crisis that rearranged the intra-community balances and created the need of representation of new social strata, not within the framework of the Orthodox millet but within the framework of aBETWEEN MIDDLE CLASSES AND GRAND BOURGEOISIE 141 nationalization of the Orthodox communities. We believe that the example of Thessaloniki can be applied in other cases of drafting community regulations during the following decades—an assertion that remains to be examined by new case studies that will allow the articulation of wider theoretical assertions and explanatory approaches.