Chapter IV: , VII (104)

"The Spanish revolution of 1820 [see SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827],
which was speedily followed by the revolutions of Naples,
Sicily, and Piedmont, caused a great excitement throughout
Europe, and paved the way for the Greek revolution of 1821.
Since the beginning of the century the Greeks had been
preparing for the struggle; in fact, for more than fifty years
there had been a general movement in the direction of
independence. … There had been many insurrections against
the Turkish authority, but they were generally suppressed
without difficulty, though with the shedding of much Greek
blood. Nearly every village in Greece suffered from pillage by
the Turks, and the families were comparatively few that did
not mourn a father, son, or brother, killed by the Turks or
carried into slavery, or a daughter or sister transported to a
Turkish harem. … Notwithstanding their subjugation, many of
the Greeks were commercially prosperous, and a large part of
the traffic of the East was in their hands. They conducted
nearly all the coasting trade of the Levant, and a few years
before the revolution they had 600 vessels mounting 6,000 guns
(for defence against pirates) and manned by 18,000 seamen. …
In laying their plans for independence the Greeks resorted to
the formation of secret societies, and so well was the scheme
conducted that everything was ripe for insurrection before the
Turkish rulers had any suspicion of the state of affairs. A
great association was formed which included Greeks everywhere,
not only in Greece and its islands, but in Constantinople,
Austria, Germany, England, and other countries, wherever a
Greek could be found. Men of other nationalities were
occasionally admitted, but only when their loyalty to the
Greek cause was beyond question, and their official positions
gave them a chance to aid in the work. Several distinguished
Russians were members, among them Count Capo D'Istria, a Greek
by birth, who held the office of private secretary to the
Emperor Alexander I. of Russia. The society was known as the
Hetaira, or Hetairist, and consisted of several degrees or
grades. The highest contained only sixteen persons, whose
names were not all known, and it was impossible for any member
of the lower classes to ascertain them. … All the Hetairists
looked hopefully towards Russia, partly in consequence of
their community of religion, and partly because of the
fellow-feeling of the two countries in cordially detesting the
Turk. … The immediate cause of the revolution, or rather the
excuse for it, was the death of the Hospodar of Wallachia,
January 30, 1821, followed by the appointment of his
successor. During the interregnum, which naturally left the
government in a weakened condition, the Hetairists determined
to strike their blow for liberty. A band of 150 Greeks and
Arnauts, under the command of Theodore Vladimiruko, formerly a
lieutenant-colonel in the Russian service, marched out of
Bucharest and seized the small town of Czernitz, near Trajan's
Bridge, on the Danube. There Theodore issued a proclamation,
and such was the feeling of discontent among the people, that
in a few days he had a force of 12,000 men under his command.
Soon afterwards there was an insurrection in Jassy, the
capital of Moldavia, headed by Prince Alexander Ipsilanti, an
officer in the Russian service. He issued a proclamation in
which the aid of Russia was distinctly promised, and as the
news of this proclamation was carried to Greece, there was a
general movement in favor of insurrection. The Russian
minister assured the Porte that his government had nothing to
do with the insurrection, and the Patriarch and Synod of
Constantinople issued a proclamation emphatically denouncing
the movement, but in spite of this assurance and proclamation
the insurrection went on. Count Nesselrode declared officially
that Ipsilanti's name would be stricken from the Russian army
list, and that his act was one for which he alone was
responsible. This announcement was the death-blow of the
insurrection in Moldavia and Wallachia, as the forces of
Theodore and Ipsilanti were suppressed, after some sharp
fighting, by the hordes of Moslems that were brought against
them. … Nearly the whole of Greece was in full insurrection
in a few months, and with far better prospects than had the
insurrection on the Danube.
{1607}
Turks and Greeks were embittered against each other; the
war-cry of the Turk was, 'Death to the Christian!' while that
of the Christian was, 'Death to the Turk!' The example was set
by the Turks, and, to the eternal disgrace of the Turkish
government, slaughter in cold blood was made official. It was
by the order and authority of the Porte that Gregory,
Patriarch of Constantinople, a revered prelate, eighty years
of age, was seized on Easter Sunday, as he was descending from
the altar where he had been celebrating divine service, and
hanged at the gate of his archiepiscopal palace, amid the
shouts and howls of a Moslem mob. After hanging three hours,
the body was cut down and delivered to some Jews, who dragged
it about the streets and threw it into the sea, whence it was
recovered the same night by some Christian fishermen. Some
weeks later it was taken to Odessa and buried with great
ceremony. This act of murder was the more atrocious on the
part of the Turks, since the Patriarch had denounced the
insurrection in a public proclamation, and his life and
character were most blameless and exemplary. It is safe to say
that this barbarity had more to do with fanning the fires of
revolt than any other act of the Turkish government. But it
was by no means the only act of the kind of which the Turks
were guilty. The Patriarch of Adrianople with eight of his
ecclesiastics was beheaded, and so were the dragoman of the
Porte and several other eminent residents of Constantinople,
descended from Greek settlers of two or three centuries ago.
Churches were everywhere broken open and plundered; Greek
citizens of the highest rank were murdered, their property
stolen, and their wives and daughters sold as slaves; on the
15th of June five archbishops and a great number of laymen
were hanged in the streets, and 450 mechanics were sold and
transported into slavery; at Salonica the battlements of the
town were lined with Christian heads, from which the blood ran
down and discolored the water in the ditch. In all the great
towns of the empire there were similar atrocities; some were
the work of mobs, which the authorities did not seek to
restrain, but the greater part of them were ordered by the
governors or other officials, and met the approval of the
Porte. At Smyrna, the Christian population was massacred by
thousands without regard to age or sex, and in the island of
Cyprus a body of 10,000 troops sent by the Porte ravaged the
island, executed the metropolitan, five bishops, and
thirty-six other ecclesiastics, and converted the whole island
into a scene of rapine, bloodshed, and robbery. Several
thousand Christians were killed before the atrocities ceased,
and hundreds of their wives and daughters were carried into
Turkish harems. These and similar outrages plainly told the
Greeks that no hope remained except in complete independence
of the Turks, and from one end of Greece to the other the
fires of insurrection were everywhere lighted. The islands, as
well as the mainland, were in full revolt, and the fleet of
coasting vessels, nearly all of them armed for resisting
pirates, gave the Turks a great deal of trouble. … On the
land, battle followed battle in different parts of the
country, and the narration of the events of the insurrection
would fill a bulky volume. … During the latter part of 1821,
the advantages to the Greeks were sufficient to encourage them
to proclaim their independence, which was done in January,
1822. In the same month the Turks besieged Corinth, and in the
following April they besieged and captured Chios (Scio),
ending the capture with the slaughter of 40,000 inhabitants,
the most horrible massacre of modern times. In July, the
Greeks were victorious at Thermopylæ; in the same month
Corinth fell, with great slaughter of the defenders. In April,
1823, the Greeks held a national congress at Argos; the
victories of Marco Bozzaris occurred in the following June,
and in August he was killed in a night attack upon the Turkish
camp; in August, too, Lord Byron landed at Athens to take part
in the cause of Greece, which was attracting the attention of
the whole civilized world. The first Greek loan was issued in
England in February, 1824; Lord Byron died at Missolonghi in
the following April; in August the Capitan Pasha was defeated
at Samos with heavy loss; in October, the provisional
government of Greece was set up; and the fighting became
almost continuous in the mountain districts of Greece. In
February, 1825, Ibrahim Pasha arrived with a powerful army
from Egypt, which captured Navarino in May, and Tripolitza in
June of the same year. In July, the provisional government
invoked the aid of England; in the following April (1826),
Ibrahim Pasha took Missolonghi after a long and heroic defence
[for twelve months]; and nearly a year later Reschid Pasha
captured Athens. Down to the beginning of 1826, the Greeks had
felt seriously the deprivation of Russian sympathy and aid for
which they had been led to look before the revolution. The
death of Alexander I., and the accession of Nicholas in
December, 1825, caused a change in the situation. The British
government sent the Duke of Wellington to St. Petersburg
ostensibly to congratulate Nicholas on his elevation to the
throne, but really to secure concert of action in regard to
Greece. On the 4th of April a protocol was signed by the Duke
of Wellington, Prince Lieven, and Count Nesselrode, which may
be considered the foundation of Greek independence. Out of
this protocol grew the treaty of July 6, 1827, between
England, Russia, and France, by which it was stipulated that
those nations should mediate between the contending Greeks and
Turks. They proposed to the Sultan that he should retain a
nominal authority over the Greeks, but receive from them a
fixed annual tribute. … The Sultan … refused to listen to
the scheme of mediation, and immediately made preparations for
a fresh campaign, and also for the defence of Turkey in case
of an attack. Ships and reinforcements were sent from
Constantinople, and the Egyptian fleet, consisting of two
84-gun ships, twelve frigates, and forty-one transports, was
despatched from Alexandria with 5,000 troops, and reached
Navarino towards the end of August, 1827. The allied powers
had foreseen the possibility of the Porte's refusal of
mediation, and taken measures accordingly; an English fleet
under Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, and a French fleet under
Admiral De Rigny, were in the Mediterranean, and were shortly
afterwards joined by the Russian fleet under Admiral Heiden.
… The allied admirals held a conference, and decided to
notify Ibrahim Pasha that he must stop the barbarities of
plundering and burning villages and slaughtering their
inhabitants.
{1608}
But Ibrahim would not listen to their remonstrances, and to
show his utter disregard for the powers, he commanded four of
his ships to sail to the Gulf of Patras to occupy Missolonghi
and relieve some Turkish forts, in effect to clear those
waters of every Greek man-of-war which was stationed there.
This he did easily, the allied squadrons being temporarily
absent. Admiral Codrington pursued him and, without
difficulty, drove him back to Navarino. … A general muster
of all the ships was ordered by Admiral Codrington,
Commander-in-Chief of the squadron. … The allied fleet
mounted 1,324 guns, while the combined Turkish and Egyptian
fleet mounted 2,240 guns. To this superiority in the number of
guns on board must be added the batteries on shore, which were
all in the hands of the Turks. But the Christians had a point
in their favor in their superiority in ships of the line, of
which they possessed ten, while the Turks had but three. …
The allied fleet entered the Bay of Navarino about two o'clock
on the afternoon of October 20, 1827. … In less than four
hours from the beginning of the contest the Ottoman fleet had
ceased to be. Every armed ship was burnt, sunk, or destroyed;
the only remaining vessels belonging to the Turks and
Egyptians were twenty-five of the smallest transports, which
were spared by order of Admiral Codrington. It was estimated
that the loss in men on the Turkish and Egyptian vessels was
fully 7,000. On the side of the allies, no vessels were
destroyed, but the Asia, Albion, and Genoa of the English
fleet were so much injured, that Admiral Codrington sent them
to Malta for repairs which would enable them to stand the
voyage home to England. Seventy-five men were killed and 197
wounded on the British fleet, and the loss of the French was
43 killed and 117 wounded. The Russian loss was not reported.
… It was feared that when the news of the event at Navarino
reached Constantinople, the lives of all Europeans in that
city, including the foreign ambassadors, would be in great
danger, but happily there was no violence on the part of the
Turks. The ambassadors pressed for an answer to their note of
August 16th, and at length the Sultan replied: 'My positive,
absolute, definitive, unchangeable, eternal answer is, that
the Sublime Porte does not accept any proposition regarding
the Greeks, and will persist in its own will regarding them
even to the last day of judgment.' The Porte even demanded
compensation for the destruction of the fleet, and
satisfaction for the insult, and that the allies should
abstain from all interference in the affairs of Greece. The
reply of the ambassadors was to the effect that the treaty of
July obliged them to defend Greece, and that the Turks had no
claim whatever for reparation for the affair of Navarino. The
ambassadors left Constantinople on the 8th December, and soon
afterwards Count Capo D'Istria, who had been elected President
of Greece, took his seat, and issued a proclamation, declaring
that the Ottoman rule over the country was at an end after
three centuries of oppression. Thus was the independence of
Greece established. There was little fighting after the events
of Navarino, and early in 1828 Admiral Codrington and Ibrahim
Pasha held a convention and agreed upon measures for
evacuating the land of the Hellenes. During the summer and
autumn Patras, Navarino, and Modon were successively
surrendered to the French, and the Morea was evacuated by the
Turks. Missolonghi was surrendered to Greece early in 1829,
and by the Treaty of Adrianople in September of the same year
the Porte acknowledged the independence of Greece, which was
henceforth to be one in the family of nations."

_T. W. Knox,
Decisive Battles since Waterloo,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, chapter 4._

_S. G. Howe,
Historical Sketch of the Greek Revolution._

_T. Gordon,
History of the Greek Revolution._

_Lord Byron,
Letters and Journals, 1823-4 (volume 2)._

_E. J. Trelawny,
Records of Shelley, Byron, etc.,
chapters 19-20 (volume 2)._

_S. Walpole,
History of England,
chapters 9 and 11 (volume 2)._

GREECE: A. D. 1822-1823.
The Congress of Verona.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.
The independent kingdom constituted under Otho of Bavaria.
Its unsatisfactoriness.
Dethronement of King Otho.
Election of Prince George of Denmark.

"On February 3d, 1830, a protocol was signed which constituted
Greece an independent State; and on the 11th of the same month
Prince Leopold of Belgium accepted the crown which was offered
to him by the Powers: He, however, soon resigned the honour;
giving for his main reason the hopelessness of establishing a
Greek kingdom from which Krete, Epeiros, and Thessaly were to
be excluded. The northern boundary, as drawn in 1830,
stretched from the Gulf of Zeitoun to the mouth of the
Aspropotamos, thus depriving Greece of the greater part of
Akarnania and Aitolia. After the assassination [by the family
of an insurgent chief] of Count Capodistna (who was the
popularly elected President of Greece from April 14th, 1827,
to October 9th, 1831), and after the Powers had selected
Prince Otho of Bavaria for the position declined by Prince
Leopold, an arrangement was concluded between England, France,
Russia, and Turkey, whereby the boundary was drawn from the
Gulf of Arta to the same termination in the Gulf of Zeitoun.
But a few months later the district of Zeitoun, north of the
Spercheios, was added to Greece; and the new kingdom paid to
the Porte an indemnity of 40,000,000 piastres, or about
£460,000. The Powers guaranteed a loan to Greece of 60,000,000
francs, out of which the payment of the indemnity was made;
and thus, at last, in the autumn of 1832, the fatherland of
the Greeks was redeemed. Under Otho of Bavaria the country was
governed at first by a Council of Regency, consisting of Count
Armansperg, Professor Maurer, and General Heideck. Maurer was
removed in 1834, and Armansperg in 1837; and at the close of
the latter year, after the trial of another Bavarian as
president of the Council, a Greek was for the first time
appointed to the principal post in the Ministry. The greatest
benefit conferred upon the country by its German rulers was
the reinforcement of the legal system, and the elevation of
the authority of the law. But, on the other hand, an
unfortunate attempt was made to centralize the whole
administration of Greece, her ancient municipal rights and
customs were overlooked, taxation was almost as indiscriminate
and burdensome as under the Turks, whilst large sums of money
were spent upon the army, and on other objects of an
unremunerative or insufficiently remunerative character, so
that the young State was laden with pecuniary liabilities
before anything had been done to develope her resources. …
{1609}
No national assembly was convened, no anxiety was shown to
conciliate the people, liberty of expression was curtailed,
personal offence was given by the foreigners, and by
Armansperg in particular; brigandage and piracy flourished,
and Greece began to suffer all the evils which might have been
expected to arise from the government of unsympathetic aliens.
… In addition to the rapid and alarming increase of
brigandage by land and piracy by sea, there were popular
insurrections in Messenia, Maina, Akarnania, and elsewhere.
One of the most capable Englishmen who have ever espoused the
cause of the Greeks, General Gordon, was commissioned in 1835
to clear northern Greece of the marauders by whom it was
overrun. He executed his mission in an admirable manner,
sweeping the whole of Phokis, Aitolia, and Akarnania, and
securing the cooperation of the Turkish Pasha at Larissa.
Hundreds of brigands were put to flight,—but only to return
again next year, and to enjoy as great immunity as ever. …
In the absence of a strong and active organization of the
national forces, brigandage in Greece was an ineradicable
institution; and, as a matter of fact, it was not suppressed
until the year 1870. Gradually the discontent of the people,
and the feebleness and infatuation of the Government, were
breeding a revolution. … The three Guaranteeing Powers urged
on Otho and his advisers the necessity of granting a
Constitution, which had been promised on the establishment of
the kingdom; and moral support was thus given to two very
strong parties, known by the titles of Philorthodox and
Constitutional, whose leaders looked to Russia and England
respectively. The King and the Government neglected symptoms
which were conspicuous to all besides, and the revolution of
1843 found them practically unprepared and helpless. On the
15th of September, after a well-contrived demonstration of the
troops, which was acquiesced in and virtually sanctioned by
the representatives of the three Powers, King Otho gave way,
and signed the decrees which had been submitted to him. The
Bavarian Ministers were dismissed, Mavrokordatos was made
Premier, a National Assembly was convoked, and a Constitution
was granted. For the first time since the Roman conquest,
Greece resumed the dignity of self-government. The
Constitution of 1844 was by no means an adequate one. It did
not fully restore the privileges of local self-rule, and it
only partially modified the system of centralization, from
which so many evils had sprung. But it was nevertheless a
great advance towards popular liberty. … The difficulties
which arose between Russia and Turkey in 1853, and which led
up to the Crimean War, inspired the Greeks with a hope that
their 'grand idea'—the inheritance of the dominion of Turkey
in Europe, so far as the Greek-speaking provinces are
concerned—might be on the eve of accomplishment. … The
Russian army crossed the Pruth in July, 1853, and preparations
were at once made by the Greeks to invade Turkey. … The
temper of the whole country was such that England and France
deemed it necessary to take urgent measures for preventing an
alliance between Russia and Greece. In May, 1854, an
Anglo-French force was landed at the Peiraios, where it
remained until February, 1857. Pressure was thus brought to
bear upon King Otho, who was not in a position to resist it.
… The humiliation of the Greeks under the foreign occupation
weakened the authority of the King and his Ministers, and the
unhappy country was once more a prey to rapine and disorder.
… From the year 1859 a new portent began to make itself
apparent in Greece. As the insurrection of 1821 may be said to
have derived some of its energy from the upheaval of France
and Europe in the preceding decades, so the Greek revolution
of 1862 was doubtless hastened, if not suggested, by the
Italian regeneration of 1848-1861. … On February 13th, 1862,
the garrison of Nauplia revolted; other outbreaks followed;
and at last, in October, during an ill-advised absence of the
Monarch from his capital, the garrison of Athens broke out
into open insurrection. A Provisional Government was
nominated; the deposition of King Otho was proclaimed; and
when the royal couple hurried back to the city they were
refused an entrance. The representatives of the Powers were
appealed to in vain; and the unfortunate Bavarian, after
wearing the crown for thirty years, sailed from the Peiraios
never to return. The hopes of the Greeks at once centred in
Prince Alfred of England for their future king. … But the
agreement of the three Powers on the establishment of the
kingdom expressly excluded from the throne all members of the
reigning families of England, France, and Russia; and thus,
although Prince Alfred was elected king with practical
unanimity, the English Government would not sanction his
acceptance of the crown. The choice eventually and happily
fell upon Prince George of Denmark, the present King of the
Hellenes; and neither Greece nor Europe has had reason to
regret the selection. … From this time forward the history
of modern Greece enters upon a brighter phase."

_L. Sergeant,
Greece,
chapter 5._

ALSO IN:
_L. Sergeant,
New Greece,
part 2, chapter 8-10._

GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850.
Rude enforcement of English claims.
The Don Pacifico Affair.

"Greek independence had been established under the joint
guardianship of Russia, France, and England. Constitutional
government had been guaranteed. It had however been constantly
delayed. Otho, the Bavarian Prince, who had been placed upon
the throne, was absolute in his own tendencies, and supported
by the absolute Powers; and France, eager to establish her own
influence in the East, … had sided with the Absolutists,
leaving England the sole supporter of constitutional rule. The
Government and administration were deplorably bad. … Any
demands raised by the English against the Government—and the
bad administration afforded abundant opportunity for
dispute—were certain to encounter the opposition of the King,
supported by the advice of all the diplomatic body. Such
questions had arisen. Ionians, claiming to be British
subjects, had been maltreated, the boat's crew of a Queen's
ship roughly handled, and in two cases the money claims of
English subjects against the Government disregarded. They were
trivial enough in themselves; a piece of land belonging to a
Mr. Finlay [the historian of mediæval and modern Greece], a
Scotchman, had been incorporated into the royal garden, and
the price—no doubt somewhat exorbitant—which he set upon it
refused. The house of Don Pacifico, a Jew, a native of
Gibraltar, had been sacked by a mob, without due interference
on the part of the police. He demanded compensation for
ill-usage, for property destroyed, and for the loss of certain
papers, the only proof as he declared of a somewhat doubtful
claim against the Portuguese Government.
{1610}
Such claims in the ordinary course of things should have been
made in the Greek Law Court. But Lord Palmerston, placing no
trust in the justice to be there obtained, made them a direct
national claim upon the Government. For several years, on
various pretences, the settlement of the question had been
postponed, and Palmerston had even warned Russia that he
should some day have to put strong pressure upon the Greek
Court to obtain the discharge of their debts. At length, at
the close of 1849, his patience became exhausted. Admiral
Parker, with the British fleet, was ordered to the Piræus. Mr.
Wyse, the English Ambassador, embarked in it. The claims were
again formally laid before the King, and upon their being
declined the Piræus was blockaded, ships of the Greek navy
captured and merchant vessels secured by way of material
guarantee for payment. The French and the Russians were
indignant at this unexpected act of vigour." The Russians
threatened; the French offered mediation, which was accepted.
The French negotiations at Athens had no success; but at
London there was promise of a friendly settlement of the
matter, when Mr. Wyse, the English Minister at the Greek
Court, being left in ignorance of the situation, brought fresh
pressure to bear upon King Otho and extorted payment of his
claims. The French were enraged and withdrew their Minister
from London. "For the time, this trumpery little affair caused
the greatest excitement, and, being regarded as a typical
instance of Lord Palmerston's management of the Foreign
Office, it formed the ground of a very serious attack upon the
Government."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 4, pages 200-203._

ALSO IN:
_S. Walpole,
History of England, from 1815,
chapter 22 (volume 4)._

_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 19 (volume 2)._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850.

GREECE: A. D. 1862.
Annexation of the Ionian Islands.

See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.

GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.
The Cretan struggle and defeat.
The Greek question in the Berlin Congress.
Small cession of territory by Turkey.

"The annexation of the Heptannesos [the seven (Ionian)
islands] was a great benefit to Hellas. It was not only a
piece of good fortune for the present but an earnest of the
future. … There still remained the delusion of the Integrity
of the Turkish Empire; but the Christians of the East really
cannot believe in the sincerity of all the Powers who proclaim
and sustain this extraordinary figment, any more than they are
able to fall a prey to the hallucination itself. The reunion
of the Heptannesos with the rest of Hellas was therefore
regarded as marking the beginning of another and better era—a
sanction to the hopes of other re-unions in the future. The
first of the Hellenes who endeavoured to gain for themselves
the same good fortune which had fallen upon the Ionians were
again the Cretans. They defied Turkey for three years,
1866-7-8. With the exception of certain fortresses, the whole
island was free. Acts of heroism and sacrifice such as those
which had rendered glorious the first War of Independence,
again challenged the attention of the world. Volunteers from
the West recalled the Philhellenic enthusiasm of old days. The
Hellenes of the mainland did not leave their brethren alone in
the hour of danger; they hastened to fight at their side,
while they opened in their own homes a place of refuge for the
women and children of the island. Nearly 60,000 fugitives
found protection there. For a while there was room for
believing that the deliverance of Crete was at last
accomplished. Russia and France were favourably disposed.
Unhappily the good-will of these two Powers could not overcome
the opposition of England, strongly supported by Austria.
Diplomacy fought for the enslavement of the Cretans with as
much persistence and more success than those with which it had
opposed the deliverance of Greece. Freedom has not yet come
for Crete. The islanders obtained by their struggle nothing
but a doubtful amelioration of their condition by means of a
sort of charter which was extracted from the unwillingness of
the Porte in 1868, under the name of the 'Organic Regulation.'
This edict has never been honestly put in force. However, even
if it had been carried out, it would not have been a
settlement of the Cretan question. The Cretans have never
concealed what they want, or ceased to proclaim their
intention of demanding it until they obtain it. At the time of
the Congress of Berlin they thought once more that they would
succeed. They got nothing but another promise from the Porte
'to enforce scrupulously the Organic Regulation of 1868, with
such modifications as might be judged equitable.' … The
history of the Greek Question at the Congress of Berlin and
the conferences which followed it, is not to be treated in
detail here. The time is not come for knowing all that took
place. … We do not know why Hellas herself remained so long
with her sword undrawn during the Russo-Turkish War—what
promises or what threats held her back from moving when the
armies of Russia, checked before Plevna, would have welcomed a
diversion in the West, and when the Hellenic people both
within and without the Kingdom were chafing at the do-nothing
attitude of the Government of Athens. Everyone in Greece felt
that the moment was come. The measures taken by hordes of
Bashi-Bazooks were hardly sufficient to repress the
insurrection which was ready in all quarters, and which at
length broke out in the mountains of Thessaly. … It was only
at the last moment, when the war was on the point of being
closed by the treaty which victorious Russia compelled Turkey
to grant at San Stefano, that the Greek Government, under the
Presidency of Koumoundouros, yielded tardily to the pressure
of the nation, and allowed the army to cross the frontier. It
was too late for the diversion to be of any use to Russia, and
it could look for no support from any other Government in
Europe. This fact was realized at Athens, but men felt, at the
same time, that it was needful to remind the world at any
price that there is a Greek Question connected with the
Eastern Question. The step was taken, but it was taken with a
hesitation which betrayed itself in act as well as in word.
… Diplomacy saw the danger of the fresh conflagration which
the armed intervention of Greece was capable of kindling.
{1611}
The utmost possible amount of pressure was therefore brought
to bear upon the Government of Athens in order to induce it to
retrace the step, and in the result an order was obtained to the
Greek Commander-in-Chief to recross the frontier, upon the
solemn assurance of the great Powers 'that the national
aspirations and interests of the Greek populations should be
the subject of the deliberations of the approaching Congress.'
… On July 5, 1878, the Congress accepted the resolution
proposed by the French plenipotentiary, 'inviting the Porte to
come to an understanding with Greece for a rectification of
the frontiers in Thessaly and Epiros, a rectification which
may follow the valley of the Peneus upon the Eastern side, and
that of the Thyamis (or Kalamas) upon the Western.' In other
words, they assign to Hellas the whole of Thessaly and a large
part of Epiros. Notwithstanding the abandonment of the island
of Crete, this was some satisfaction for the wrongs which she
had suffered at the delimitation of the Kingdom. … But the
scheme suggested by the Congress and sanctioned by the
Conference of Berlin on July 1, 1880, was not carried out.
When Turkey found that she was not confronted by an Europe
determined to be obeyed, she refused to submit. And then the
Powers, whose main anxiety was peace at any price, instead of
insisting upon her compliance, put upon Hellas all the
pressure which they were able to exercise, to induce her to
submit the question of the frontiers to a fresh arbitration.
… Hellas had to yield, and on July 2, 1881, three years
after the signing of the famous Protocol of Berlin, she signed
the convention by which Turkey ceded to her the flat part of
Thessaly and a small scrap of Epiros."

_D. Bikelas,
Seven Essays on Christian Greece,
essay 6._

GREECE: A. D. 1864-1893.
Government under the later constitution.

A new constitution, framed by the National Assembly, "was
ratified by the King on November 21, 1864. Abolishing the old
Senate, it established a Representative Chamber of 150
deputies, since increased to 190, and again to 307, elected by
ballot by all males over the age of twenty-one, from equal
electoral districts (they were afterwards elected by
nomarchies; the system now is by eparchies). Mr. Sergeant
gives the number of electors (in 1879) at 311 per 1,000, but I
do not know what he does with the women and minors, who must
be about 75 per cent of the population. The present [1893]
number of electors is 450,000, or 205 per 1,000. The King has
considerable power: he is irresponsible; he appoints and
dismisses his ministers and all officers and officials; and he
can prorogue or suspend Parliament. Nor is his power merely
nominal. In 1866 the Chamber behaved illegally, and the King
promptly dissolved it; in 1875 again the King successfully
steered his country out of a whirlpool of corruption; and,
lastly, in 1892, his Majesty, finding M. Deleyannes obstinate
in his financial dilatoriness, dismissed him. … Before King
Otho there were 4 administrations; under his rule 24 (13
before the Constitution was granted and 11 after), 10 in the
interregnum, and 42 under King George. This gives 70
administrations in 62 years, or about one every 10½ months,
or, deducting the two kingless periods, 56 administrations in
60 years—that is, with an average duration of nearly 13
months. This compares for stability very well with the
duration of French Ministries, 28 of which have lasted 22
years, or about 9½ months each. It should also be stated that
there has been a distinct tendency to greater Ministerial
longevity of late years in Greece. Under King Otho there were
seven Parliaments in 18 years, which allows 2 years and 7
months for each Parliamentary period. Under King George there
have been 13 in 28 years, or with a life of 2 years and 2
months each. However, we know that Parliament had not the same
free play under the first King that it has had under the
second; and, besides, the present Parliament, considering the
Prime Minister's enormous majority, is likely to continue some
time, and bring up the Georgian average. … There have been
no notable changes of the Greek Constitution since its first
promulgation, though there has been a natural expansion,
especially in the judicial section. This very fact is of
itself a vindication of Hellenic national stability."

_R. A. H. Bickford-Smith,
Greece under King George,
chapter 18._

----------GREECE: End----------

GREEK, Origin of the name.

See HELLAS.

GREEK CHURCH, The.

See CHRISTIANLY: A. D. 330-1054.

GREEK EDUCATION.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

GREEK EMPIRE, called Byzantine: A.D. 700-1204.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

GREEK EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE (A. D. 1261-1453).

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.

GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261.

The conquest of Constantinople by the Venetians and the
Crusaders, in 1204, broke the Byzantine Empire into many
fragments, some of which were secured by the conquerors and
loosely bound together in the feudal empire of Romania, while
others were snatched from the ruin and preserved by the
Greeks, themselves. For the sovereignty of these latter
numerous claimants made haste to contend. Three fugitive
emperors were wandering in the outer territories of the
shattered realm. One was that Alexius III., whose deposition
of Isaac Angelos had afforded a pretext for the crusading
conquest, and who had fled when Isaac was restored. A second
was Alexius V. (Murtzuphlos), who pushed Isaac Angelos and his
son Alexius IV. from the shaking throne when Constantinople
resolved to defend itself against the Christians of the West,
but who abandoned the city in the last hours of the siege. The
third was Theodore Lascaris, son-in-law of Alexius III., who
was elected to the imperial office as soon as the flight of
Alexius V. became known—even after the besiegers had entered
the city—and who, then, could do nothing but follow his
fugitive predecessors. This last was the only one of the three
who found a piece of defensible territory on which to set up
his throne. He established himself in Bithynia, associating
his claims with those of his worthless father-in-law, and
contenting himself with the title of Despot, at first. But the
convenient though objectionable father-in-law was not
permitted to enjoy any share of the sovereignty which he
acquired. Theodore, in fact, managed his affairs with great
vigor and skill. The district in which his authority was
recognized widened rapidly and the city of Nicæa became his
capital. There, in 1206, he received the imperial crown, more
formally and solemnly, anew, and rallied the Greek resistance
which was destined to triumph, a little more than half a
century later, over the insolent aggression of the Latin West.
{1612}
The small empire of Nicæa had to contend, not merely with the
Latins in Constantinople and Greece, and with the Turkish
Sultan of Iconium, but also with another ambitious fragment of
Greek empire at Trebizond, which showed itself persistently
hostile. His successors, moreover, were in conflict with a
third such fragment in Europe, at Thessalonica. But, ten years
after the flight of Theodore from Constantinople, his empire
of Nicæa "extended from Heracleia on the Black Sea to the head
of the Gulf of Nicomedia; from thence it embraced the coast of
the Opsikian theme as far as Cyzicus; and then descending to
the south, included Pergamus, and joined the coast of the
Ægean. Theodore had already extended his power over the
valleys of the Hermus, the Caister, and the Mæander." Theodore
Lascaris died in 1222, leaving no son, and John Dukas
Vatatzes, or Vataces as his name is written by some
historians, a man of eminent abilities and high qualities, who
had married Theodore's daughter, was elected to the vacant
throne. He was saluted as John III.—assuming a continuity
from the Byzantine to the Nicæan series of emperors. In a
reign of thirty-three years, this prudent and capable emperor,
as Gibbon expresses the fact, "rescued the provinces from
national and foreign usurpers, till he pressed on all sides
the imperial city [Constantinople], a leafless and sapless
trunk, which must fall at the first stroke of the axe." He did
not live to apply that blow nor to witness the fall of the
coveted capital of the East. But the event occurred only six
years after his death, and owed nothing to the energy or the
capability of his successors. His son, Theodore II., reigned
but four years, and left at his death, in 1258, a son, John
IV., only eight years old. The appointed regent and tutor of
this youth was soon assassinated, and Michael Paleologos, an
able officer, who had some of the blood of the imperial
Angelos family in his veins, was made in the first instance
tutor to the young emperor, and soon afterwards raised to the
throne with him as a colleague. In 1260 the new emperor made
an attack on Constantinople and was repulsed. But on the 25th
of July in the next year the city was taken by a sudden
surprise, while 6,000 soldiers of its garrison were absent on
an expedition against Daphnusia in the Black Sea. It was
acquired almost without resistance, the Latin emperor, Baldwin
II., taking promptly to flight. The destruction of life was
slight; but the surprising party fired a considerable part of
the city, to cover the smallness of its numbers, and
Constantinople suffered once more from a disastrous
conflagration. On the recovery of its ancient capital, the
Greek empire ceased to bear the name of Nicæa, and its history
is continued under the more imposing appellation of the Greek
empire of Constantinople.

_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
from 716 to 1453,
book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 62._

GREEK EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND.

See TREBIZOND: A. D. 1204-1461.

GREEK FIRE.

"The important secret of compounding and directing this
artificial flame was imparted [in the later part of the
seventh century to the Greeks, or Byzantines, at
Constantinople] by Callinicus, a native of Heliopolis, in
Syria, who deserted from the service of the caliph to that of
the emperor. The skill of a chemist and engineer was
equivalent to the succour of fleets and armies; and this
discovery or improvement of the military art was fortunately
reserved for the distressful period when the degenerate Romans
of the East were incapable of contending with the warlike
enthusiasm and youthful vigour of the Saracens. The historian
who presumes to analyze this extraordinary composition should
suspect his own ignorance and that of his Byzantine guides, so
prone to the marvellous, so careless, and, in this instance,
so jealous of the truth. From their obscure, and perhaps
fallacious hints, it should seem that the principal ingredient
of the Greek fire was the naphtha, or liquid bitumen, a light,
tenacious, and inflammable oil, which springs from the earth.
… The naphtha was mingled, I know not by what methods or in
what proportions, with sulphur and with the pitch that is
extracted from evergreen firs. From this mixture, which
produced a thick smoke and a loud explosion, proceeded a
fierce and obstinate flame … ; instead of being extinguished
it was nourished and quickened by the element of water; and
sand, urine, or vinegar were the only remedies that could damp
the fury of this powerful agent. … It was either poured from
the ramparts [of a besieged town] in large boilers, or
launched in red-hot balls of stone and iron, or darted in
arrows and javelins, twisted round with flax and tow, which
had deeply imbibed the inflammable oil; sometimes it was
deposited in fire-ships … and was most commonly blown
through long tubes of copper, which were planted on the prow
of a galley, and fancifully shaped into the mouths of savage
monsters, that seemed to vomit a stream of liquid and
consuming fire. This important art was preserved at
Constantinople, as the palladium of the state. … The secret
was confined, above 400 years, to the Romans of the East. …
It was at length either discovered or stolen by the
Mahometans; and, in the holy wars of Syria and Egypt, they
retorted an invention, contrived against themselves, on the
heads of the Christians. … The use of the Greek, or, as it
might now be called, the Saracen fire, was continued to the
middle of the fourteenth century."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52._

GREEK GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

See HELLENIC GENIUS, &c.

GREELEY, Horace,
The Peace Conference at Niagara.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY).

Presidential candidacy and defeat.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

GREEN, Duff, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

GREEN MOUNTAIN BOYS.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

GREENBACK PARTY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.

GREENE, General Nathaniel, and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1780-1781;
and 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

----------GREENLAND: Start--------

GREENLAND: A D.876-984.
Discovery and settlement by the Northmen.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 876-984.

GREENLAND: A. D. 1450-1585.
The lost Icelandic colony, absorbed by Eskimo. Rediscovery of
the country.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

----------GREENLAND: End----------

{1613}

GREENS, Roman Faction of the.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

GREENVILLE TREATY WITH THE INDIAN TRIBES.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

GREGORIAN CALENDAR.—GREGORIAN ERA.

See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

GREGORY I. (called The Great), Pope, A. D. 590-604.
Gregory II., Pope, 715-731.
Gregory III., Pope, 731-741.
Gregory IV., Pope, 827-844.
Gregory V., Pope, 996-999.
Gregory VI., Pope, 1044-1046.
Gregory VII., Pope, 1075-1085.
Gregory VIII., Pope, 1187, October to December.
Gregory IX., Pope, 1227-1241.
Gregory X., Pope, 1271-1276.
Gregory XI., Pope, 1371-1378.
Gregory XII., Pope, 1406-1415.
Gregory XIII., Pope, 1572-1585.
Gregory XIV., Pope, 1590-1591.
Gregory XV., Pope, 1621-162.
Gregory XVI., Pope, 1831-1846.

GRENVILLE MINISTRY, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763; and 1765-1768.

GRÉVY, Jules, President of the French Republic, 1879-1887.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

GREY, Earl, The Ministry of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832; and 1834-1837.

GREY FRIARS.

See MENDICANT ORDERS.

GREY LEAGUES, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

GREYS, OR BIGI, of Florence, The.

See BIGI.

GRIERSON'S RAID.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: MISSISSIPPI).

GRIQUAS.—GRIQUALAND.

"The Griquas or Baastards, a mixed race sprung from the
intercourse of the 'Boers' [of South Africa] with their
Hottentot slaves," migrated from Cape Colony after the
Emancipation Act of 1833, "and, under the chiefs Waterboer and
Adam Kok, settled in the country north of the confluence of
the Orange and Vaal, the present Griqualand West.
Subsequently, in 1852, Adam Kok's section of the Griquas again
migrated to the territory then called No Man's Land, between
Kafraria and southern Natal, now known as Griqualand East, or
New Griqualand. … In consequence of the discovery of
diamonds in the Griqua country in 1867, and the rush thither
of thousands of Europeans from all the surrounding states, as
well as from Europe, America, and Australia, the chief
Waterboer ceded his rights to the British Government, and this
region was annexed to the Cape Colony as the
Lieutenant-Governorship of Griqualand West in 1871."

_Hellwald-Johnston,
Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
chapter 23, section 5._

----------GRISONS: Start--------

GRISONS, The.
Achievement of democratic independence.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

GRISONS: The Valtelline revolt and war.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

----------GRISONS: End----------

GROCHOW, Battles of (1831).

See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

GROL, Capture of (1627).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

GRONENBURG: A. D. 1593.
Capture by Prince Maurice.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

GROS VENTRE INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA,
and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

GROSS BEEREN, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).

GROSS GÖRSCHEN, OR LUTZEN, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (APRIL-MAY).

GROSSE RATH, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

GROSSWARDEIN, Treaty of.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

GROTIUS, HUGO, Imprisonment and escape of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

GROVETON, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

GRUTHUNGI, The.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.

GRÜTLI, OR RÜTLI, The Meadow of.

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

GRYNEUM, The Oracle of.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

GUADACELITO OR SALADO, Battle of (1340).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

GUADALETE, Battle of the.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

GUADALOUPE HIDALGO, Treaty of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

GUADALUPES.

See GACHUPINES.

GUAICARUS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GUAJIRA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAJIRO.

GUANAJUATO, Battles of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

GUANAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GUANCHES, The.

See LIBYANS.

GUARANI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

GUASTALLA, Battle of (1734).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

----------GUATEMALA: Start--------

GUATEMALA:
The name.

"According to Fuentes y Guzman, derived from 'Coctecmalan'
—that is to say 'Palo de leche,' milk-tree, commonly called
'Yerba mala,' found in the neighborhood of Antigua Guatemala.
… In the Mexican tongue, if we may believe Vasquez, it was
called 'Quauhtimali,' rotten-tree. … Others derive it from
'Uhatezmalha,' signifying 'the hill which discharges water';
and Juarros suggests that it may be from Juitemal, the first
king of Guatemala."

_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 620, foot-note._

GUATEMALA:
Aboriginal inhabitants, and ruins of Ancient Civilization.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES;
also, MEXICO, ANCIENT.

GUATEMALA: A. D. 1524.
Conquest by Alvarado, the lieutenant of Cortes.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

GUATEMALA: A. D. 1821-1871.
Separation from Spain.
Brief annexation to Mexico.
Resistance to Central American Federation.
The wars of the states.

See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

----------GUATEMALA: End----------

GUAYANAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

{1614}

GUCK OR COCO TRIBES.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

----------GUELDERLAND: Start--------

GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.
Under the House of Nassau.
Acquisition by the Duke of Burgundy.

"The arable extent of Guelderland, its central position, and
the number of its ancient towns, rendered it at all times of
great importance. The men of Zutphen and Arnheim were foremost
among the claimants of civic freedom; and at Tiel and Bommel
industry struck early root, and struggled bravely to maturity
through countless storms of feudal violence and rapine.
Guelderland was constituted a county, or earldom, by Henry
III. [Emperor, A. D. 1079], and bestowed on Otho, count of
Nassau; and thus originated the influence of that celebrated
family in the affairs of the Netherlands. Three centuries
later the province was created a duchy of the empire. Vigour
and ability continued to distinguish the house of Nassau, and
they were destined to become eventually the most popular and
powerful family in the nation. Apart from their influence,
however, Guelderland hardly occupies as important a place in
the general history of the country as Utrecht or Holland." In
1473, when the House of Burgundy had acquired sovereignty over
most of the Netherland states, Charles the Bold availed
himself of a domestic quarrel between the reigning prince of
Guelderland and his heir "to purchase the duchy from the
former for 92,000 crowns of gold. The old duke died before the
pecuniary portion of the bargain was actually completed; and,
the rightful heir being detained in prison, the grasping lord
of Burgundy entered into possession of his purchase, for which
no part of the price was ever paid."

_W. T. McCullagh,
Industrial History of Free Nations,
chapters 8 and 10 (volume 2)._

GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1713.
The Spanish province ceded to Prussia.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

----------GUELDERLAND: End----------

GUELF PARTY, Captains of the.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

GUELF PARTY:
Guelfic origin of the House of Hanover, or Brunswick-Lüneburg.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714;
also, GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
and ESTE, HOUSE OF.

----------GUELFS: Start--------

GUELFS, OR GUELPHS, AND GHIBELLINES:
German origin of these Factions and their feuds.

On the death (A. D. 1125) of Henry V., the last of the
Franconian dynasty of Germanic emperors, Lothaire, Duke of
Saxony, was elected emperor, in rather a tumultuous and
irregular manner. Lothaire, and the Saxons generally, were
embittered in enmity against the house of Franconia, and
against the new family—the Suabiau or Hohenstauffen—which
succeeded by inheritance, through the female line, to the
Franconian claims. It was the object of his reign, moreover,
to pass the imperial crown from his own head to that of his
son-in-law, Henry the Proud. Hence arose a persecution of the
Suabian family, under Lothaire, which stirred deep passions.
Henry the Proud, for whose succession Lothaire labored, but
vainly, united in himself several ancient streams of noble
blood. He "was fourth in descent from Welf [or Guelf], son of
Azon marquis of Este, by Cunegonda, heiress of a distinguished
family, the Welfs of Altorf in Suabia." His ancestor, Welf,
had been invested with the duchy of Bavaria. He himself
represented, by right of his mother, the ancient ducal house
of Saxony; and, by favor of his imperial father-in-law, the
two powerful duchies, Bavaria and Saxony, were both conferred
on him. He also received Hanover and Brunswick as the dowry of
his wife. "On the death of Lothaire in 1138 the partisans of
the house of Suabia made a hasty and irregular election of
Conrad [one of the Hohenstauffen princes], in which the Saxon
faction found itself obliged to acquiesce. The new emperor
availed himself of the jealousy which Henry the Proud's
aggrandizement had excited. Under pretence that two duchies
could not legally be held by the same person, Henry was
summoned to resign one of them, and on his refusal, the diet
pronounced that he had incurred a forfeiture of both. Henry
made but little resistance, and before his death, which
happened soon afterwards, saw himself stripped of all his
hereditary as well as acquired possessions. Upon this occasion
the famous names of Guelf [or Guelph] and Ghibelin were first
heard, which were destined to keep alive the flame of civil
dissension in far distant countries, and after their meaning
had been forgotten. The Guelfs, or Welfs, were, as I have
said, the ancestors of Henry, and the name has become a sort
of patronymic in his family. The word Ghibelin is derived from
Wibelung, a town in Franconia, whence the emperors of that
line are said to have sprung. The house of Suabia were
considered in Germany as representing that of Franconia; as
the Guelfs may, without much impropriety, be deemed to
represent the Saxon line."

_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 5 (volume 2)._