Research Notes／研究ノート Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations The Greek Parliament’s Tackling of Refugee Settlement and Land Distribution in Thessaly (1906–1907)

MURATA SAWAYANAGI Nanako

Ⅰ . Introduction Ⅱ . The Influx of Greek Refugees Ⅲ . The Start of the Debate on Refugees in the Greek Parliament Ⅳ . Granting Greek Citizenship to the Refugees Ⅴ . Legislation on Land Distribution in Thessaly Ⅵ . Legislative Procedures and Their Aftermath Ⅶ. Conclusion

バルカンの国民国家形成とギリシア人 コミュニティの 再 編 テッサリアにおける難民定住と土地分配をめぐるギ リシア議 会 の取り組み（1906 ～ 1907 年） 村田（澤柳） 奈々子

20世紀初頭、排外的民族主義が興隆する中で、国民国家形成途上のバルカン諸国は 対立を深めていた。1906年に勃発したブルガリア、東ルメリア、およびルーマニアでの、 ギリシア系コミュニティに対する暴力事件・迫害行為の結果、大量のギリシア系住民が、

151 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 151151 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2421:16:24 難民としてギリシア王国に流入した。ギリシアは、これら難民にいかに対処するかと いう問題に、国家としてはじめて直面することになったのである。本論は、難民定住 と土地分配に関する立法措置へと至る、1906 年～07年のギリシア議会の取り組みと、 法案・法律の具体的内容を詳細に跡づけるとともに、ギリシア・ナショナリズムの政 治言説において、国境外のギリシア系住民がどのように位置づけられ、いかにしてギ リシア国民として受け入れられたかを検討する。 ギリシア系難民の発生は、オスマン帝国領マケドニアの領土獲得めざすギリシアと ブルガリアの武力衝突、マケドニアのヴラヒ人の民族帰属をめぐる、ギリシアとルーマ ニアの対立を背景としていた。ギリシア議会は、これら難民を、ギリシア愛国主義精 神の体現者と見なし、国力増強の一助とすべく、市民権・国籍を付与する特別措置を 講じた。さらに、政府との協調により、定住のための土地と資金の提供を可能とする 法的枠組みづくりを急いだ。難民の定住地とされたテッサリア地方では、オスマン時代 からの大土地所有（チフトリキ）制が維持されていた。難民の定住政策は、この大土地 所有制下にあった地元の分益小作人を、小規模自作農に転換させる政策と連動すること で、農業近代化の契機ともなった。1907年4月制定の法3202号は、困難な財政事情の下、 新たなコミュニティ建設のための国家支援を保障する内容を含む点で評価できる。 本論で考察する、難民問題解決にむけたギリシア議会での活発な議論と、早急かつ 実効ある立法措置に向けての真摯な取り組みは、腐敗と無秩序に支配されたとされる 20世紀初頭のギリシア政治にあって、特筆すべきものである。さらに、難民が領土拡 張主義政策の「殉教者」と位置づけられ、彼らの国内定住に向けての現実的な施策が採 られたことは、バルカン諸国のナショナリズムと対峙したギリシア国家が、自国領と しての併合を目指していた地域の完全な獲得を、もはや困難なものと考えていたこと を暗示する。 オスマン帝国を特徴づけた、多民族共生の社会は終焉を迎えようとしていた。1906 年に起こった、国境外のギリシア系コミュニティからの難民流入と、国内におけるコミュ ニティ再編は、その前奏に過ぎない。二度のバルカン戦争、第一次大戦、そして1922 年の対トルコ戦争での敗北によって、ギリシアは、さらに大量のギリシア系難民を受 け入れることになる。本論で論じた立法措置は、これら難民の受け入れに際し、ギリ シア政府の基本方針として引き継がれてゆくことになる。

I. Introduction

Greece gained its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1830 and its

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 152

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 152152 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2421:16:24 national border was officially established in 1832. The independent Greek state had within its frontiers only about 750,000 inhabitants while approximately two million ethnic Greeks (ομογενείς) were under Ottoman rule [Dakin 1972: 72](1). After Greece’s independence, the European territory of the Ottoman Empire was gradually ceded to the newly-born Balkan nation states throughout the nineteenth century. The framework of multi-ethnic coexistence that the Ottoman Empire had guaranteed was crumbling. As Justin McCarthy correctly puts it, “National states in the Balkans were to be states for ‘the people’ alone, defined as members of only one ethnic group. This was to be the continuing definition and practice of Balkan nationalism” [McCarthy 2001: 48]. Consequently the position of ethnic Greek communities that came under the domain of non-Greek nation states became precarious. Bulgarian anti-Greek vandalism in the summer of 1906 was a catastrophic disaster for the age-long Greek communities in Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria. Ethnic Greeks were compelled to leave their hometowns that were passed down from their ancestors, and flooded into Greece as refugees. Against the backdrop of this event, there were contested irredentist aspirations between Greece and Bulgaria over Macedonia in the Ottoman domain. Armed struggles between the two nations had intensified since 1904. While waging battle against the Greek guerrilla bands in Macedonia, the Bulgarians attacked the Greek communities in Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria and tried to destroy them in order to make their future national state ethnically homogeneous. The ethnic Greeks living there were vulnerable and became prime targets for the Bulgarians as the conflict between Greece and Bulgaria heated up. Greek communities in Romania were also under siege by Romanian nationalism in the beginning of the twentieth century. The dispute between Greece and Romania over the Vlach national identity of Macedonia provoked powerful anti- Greek movements in Romanian society, which placed the Greek communities at a disadvantage. The increasing pressure of the anti-Greek public opinion brought about the exodus of the Greeks from Romania to Greece. The Greek state faced, for the first time in its history, the challenge of dealing with refugees. The fact that the refugees were ethnically Greek̶they were Christians of the Patriarchate Eastern Orthodoxy and spoke the Greek language̶obliged the Greek state to assume the role of their protector. The disastrous damage to the Greek communities outside its national borders represented shrinking Hellenism, a

153 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 153153 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2421:16:24 phenomenon quite unfavorable to the “Great Idea,” the Greek irredentist dream(2). In historiography there have some, not many, studies on the anti-Greek movements of 1906 in the Balkans and ethnic Greek refugees who fled to Greece. Spiridon Sfetas looks at Bulgarian violence against Greek communities of 1906 in conjunction with the political intention of the Bulgarian government to induce European Powers to support Bulgarian territorial claim to Macedonia [Σφέτας 1993– 94]. Both Lena Divani and Xantippi Kotzageorgi briefly mention the events of 1906 from the standpoint of rooting out Greek minority [Διβάνη 1995: 353; Κοτζαγεώργη 1999: 63-70]. Theodora K. Dragostinova illustrates the malleability of ethnic identity among Greeks in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia while arguing that the Bulgarian government took up the task of systematically making the Greek inhabitants remaining in its lands full-fledged Bulgarian after the disturbances of 1906 [Dragostinova 2005: 42-87]. Ekaterini K. Karvela explores how the Greek state practically carried out the land distribution project for the refugees [Καρβέλα 2005]. These studies indicate that the anti-Greek movements of 1906 in the Balkan states, which caused a wave of ethnic Greek migration, were one of the important historic incidents for Greece in the light of its national policy. However, these studies, except for that of Karvela, do not consider the events of 1906 as a domestic political problem of the Greek state. They do not look at in detail how the Greek state actually treated the refugees in connection with their impact on the country once they arrived in its territory. Karvela grapples with the issue from the standpoint of the Greek internal affairs. She reveals the leading role the Greek state played in forming new communities for the refugees, fully focusing on the technical and administrative aspects during the period of 1907‒1911 when the Greek government put into practice the land distribution undertaking for the refugees in accordance with a series of laws and related cabinet decisions. Her study, however, does not pay enough attention to the very first phase in which the Greek state set about the task of providing a legal framework for the refugees’ status and their settlement within its borders. As the anti-Greek movements among the Balkan nations gave rise to Greek refugees, most of whom eventually headed for Greece to survive, it is significant to examine the initial endeavors of the Greek state to tackle the refugee problem immediately after the presence of the refugees in the country came to the fore. In this sense, it is meaningful to examine the debate on their treatment in the Greek Parliament, which commenced in November 1906. We need to look at, in

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 154

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 154154 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2421:16:24 chronological order, how the original state-sponsored refugee arrangements were made as a result of the debate. This paper intends to shed light on the first lawmaking process of the Greek state for refugee settlement by focusing on the parliamentary discussions which led to the enactment of Law 3202 of the Settlement and Land Distribution and of the Establishment of the Thessalian Agricultural Fund on April 7, 1907(3). In this paper, depicting the concrete parliamentary debate, we demonstrate how the refugees were regarded in the context of Greek irredentist nationalism; the measures that were first taken to formally incorporate the ethnic Greek refugees into the Greek state; the opinions on the settlement of the refugees in Thessaly and the land distribution to them that were advanced and how clashes of opinions were resolved; the condition of the relations between the incoming refugees and the native local Greeks over the issue of the land distribution project. For this purpose, we employ the following primary sources: Parliamentary Proceedings of the Hellenic Kingdom; Supplement of Parliamentary Gazette of the Hellenic Kingdom; legislative bills of the land distribution for refugee settlement; the text of Law 3202; contemporary Greek newspapers; some documents in the files of Stefanos N. Dragoumis at the Gennadius Library in Athens, Greece; and the British Foreign Office Reports. We first look at the development of ethnic rivalry in the Balkan states, which eventually forced the ethnic Greeks to take refuge in Greece. Then, we examine how the Greek Parliament began undertaking the task of the refugee settlement. The Parliament made a law to give them Greek citizenship, provoking the debate on land distribution among them.

II. The Influx of Greek Refugees

1. The Exodus of the Ethnic Greeks from Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria The violent persecution in Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria by the Bulgarians in the summer of 1906 drove huge numbers of Greeks to leave their native land. Some of these Greek refugees headed for Athens, the capital city of the Greek state, while others emigrated to Istanbul and southern Thrace under the Ottoman control [Romanos 1907: 30]. There were 80,000 Greeks living in Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria at that time [Romanos 1907: 3](4). Eastern Rumelia was originally established as an autonomous province by

155 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 155155 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2421:16:24 the Treaty of Berlin signed on July 13, 1878 (NS), with Plovdiv (Philippopolis) as its capital, by dividing Greater Bulgaria, which was founded by the Treaty of San Stefano signed on March 3, 1878 (NS)(5). This province was still within the political and military jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, the rights of the Turkish and Greek minority inhabitants were supposed to remain protected, as before. It was planned that, at the administrative level, the Permanent Council, with Turkish and Greek minorities included, would become the cabinet of the elected assembly. In reality, however, Bulgarians overwhelmingly dominated the administration. Moreover, the school system, alphabet taught at school, and military training were based on the Bulgarian precedent [Crampton 2005: 96]. In September 1885, Alexander of Battenberg, Prince of Bulgaria, proclaimed the annexation of Eastern Rumelia to Bulgaria. The international community did not recognize this annexation as valid. Eastern Rumelia remained nominally an integral part of the Ottoman domain, and its legal status was not changed. Yet, in reality, it was generally regarded as a part of the Bulgarian lands thereafter. Although anti-Greek movements were sporadically observed in the Bulgarian lands after the Greco-Ottoman War of 1897, the violence of 1906 against Greek communities was spread in full scale there [Κοτζαγεώργη 1999: 16]. In the summer of that year the first anti-Greek incident took place in Varna in Bulgaria. Then Bulgarian activities against Greek communities broke out not only in the neighboring towns of Varna but also in Eastern Rumelia. Varna had about 9,000 Greeks, of whom 7,500 were Bulgarian subjects out of a total population of 37,000. On June 24, a newly appointed Greek metropolitan from Istanbul had to face the Bulgarians, who prevented him from disembarking from the vessel, and was obliged to return. This incident was followed by an outburst of violence by the Bulgarians against the Greeks. The Bulgarians devastated the property that belonged to the Greek community and converted the Greek church into a Bulgarian exarchate one. Similar acts of vandalism against the Greeks were repeated elsewhere as well. On July 16, Burgas with 12,000 inhabitants, half of whom were Greek, was exposed to the Bulgarian rioters. On July 16, Plovdiv, with only 5,000 Greeks among 45,000 inhabitants, was attacked. Sténimachos, with 14,000 dwellers, of whom were 10,000 Greeks, was also attacked on July 23. The Bulgarian authorities dared not intervene, and the Bulgarian troops were not mobilized to stop these atrocities. It was considered that the instigation of the anti-Greek attacks was attributed to Dragoulef, who was the leader of the “Bâlgarski

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 156

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 156156 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2421:16:24 Rodoliubets” (Bulgarian Patriot). Its members were Bulgarian refugees from Macedonia. In this sense, these attacks were not spontaneous, but were rather well- organized and well-planned [Romanos 1907: 6-17](6). The last and most atrocious event took place in Anchialos on July 30. This town had 6,000 inhabitants, most of whom were Greek. It was a town on the west coast of the Black Sea, originally established, in the sixth century B.C., as a Greek colony; Ovid sang about its high walls in his poems in the year 9 A.D. This historic town was completely burned down by the Bulgarians. The fire blazed all day and destroyed some 900 houses and shops in the Greek quarter, while in the Bulgarian quarter, 272 houses, shops, and churches remained intact [Romanos 1907: 17-23]. Athos Romanos, the only politician of Greece that visited Anchialos relatively soon after this devastation, depicted what he saw there in the following words: “Amongst these ruins there is really nothing to be seen but ashes and burnt stones. Of the magnificent church̶once the pride of the Anchialites̶and of the School, only four walls are standing. The palace of the Archbishop and its beautiful library were entirely destroyed. It was a heart-rending sight to see despairing women wandering amongst the ruins of their burnt houses. They fixed on the passer-by a look in which the horror of the fire was still reflected, and they went shamefacedly to fetch the food distributed to them by the authorities” [Romanos 1907: 23]. Bulgarians explained these anti-Greek activities as retaliation against the Greeks, who dealt the Bulgarians a severe blow in Macedonia. It is true that Greeks set about, in real earnest, the task of battling against Bulgarians since 1904, when the Theotokis government of Greece, which could not ignore any longer the domestic nationalistic pressure of public opinion, finally took a supportive position toward the Greek guerrillas in Macedonia [Gounaris 1997:103; Mackridge and Yannakakis 1997: 9]. Greek bands went across the border to Macedonia to attack the Bulgarians and their sympathizers. A large number of Bulgarians fled to Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia from Macedonia and Thrace(7). Greek violence forced about 30,000 Bulgarians to leave Macedonia as refugees since 1903. The Bulgarians, the refugees in particular, were enraged at the acts of repeated murders of Bulgarian civilians by Greek bands in Macedonia in 1905 [Dragostinova 2005: 46]. From the Greek perspective, this armed enterprise was a self-defensive action against the Bulgarians [FO 1907: 131-135]. The Greek inhabitants in Macedonia had put up with Bulgarian violence. They had been subjugated by force to “Bulgarianization” without resistance

157 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 157157 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2421:16:24 and had waited for the anticipated reform plans to come into force. However, the reform plans were never properly introduced. The patience of the Greeks ran out, and they took up arms. European powers blamed the Greeks for their violence in the Ottoman territory. They said that it was the Greek bands that were fomenting acts of violence in Macedonia. However, according to a Greek nationalist logic, the Greeks could not ignore the peril of their compatriots exposed to ferocious Bulgarian attacks in Macedonia. It was natural for the Greeks to take up arms to help their compatriots to fight against the Bulgarians [Romanos 1907: 4-5; Kasasis 1907: 116-119]. While the Bulgarians connected the Macedonian struggle to the Bulgarian raids against the Greeks in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia and characterized them as revenge, the Greeks argued that these two events should be considered separately. The Greeks contended that the Greeks in Eastern Rumelia were those who should be protected on the basis of the rights stipulated in certain articles in the Treaty of Berlin and the Organic Statute of 1878(8). Immediately after these incidents, the Greeks in Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria, who understood that their security was not guaranteed any longer began to leave their homeland. A letter dated August 16, 1906 (NS) by a correspondent at Pyrgos reported as follows: “On the 12th instant the Greek steamer Antigone sailed from here with two hundred and fifty families of refugees from Anchialos. Oh, if you could have witnessed that scene! If you could have seen men and women, without boots, in tattered clothes, hungry, miserable, and mourning the loss of dear relations, abandoning their ruined houses, the land in which they lived” [Romanos 1907: 80]. The massive exodus of Greeks continued(9).

2. The Expulsion of the Greeks from Romania The persecution of the ethnic Greeks in Romania preceded the Bulgarian violence against the Greek communities. The rivalry between the Greeks and the Romanians over the Vlach population of Macedonia initiated the anti-Greek movement in Romania. The Vlachs were a people whose mother tongue was classified as a kind of Romance language, similar to Romanian. They had lived all over the Balkans for centuries. Romania did not geographically border on Macedonia and did not expect any territorial gain there, but took precautions against the Bulgarian expansion, which would disturb the balance of power among the Balkan states. Thus, the Romanians

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 158

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 158158 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2421:16:24 took advantage of the similarity between the Vlach and Romanian languages and regarded the Vlachs as their “brothers.” They attempted to use the Vlachs for their own political interests by offering them extravagant amounts of money for amenities such as schools and churches [Stavrianos 1958: 494]. This Romanian scheme was in conflict with the main Greek policy toward the Vlachs. In the course of the intensifying conflict in Macedonia between the Slavs and the Greeks from the end of the nineteenth century onward, and in order to overcome the numerical disadvantage of the Greek population there, Greece had to firmly reinforce the idea of the Greek national identity into the consciousness of the Vlachs, who had already been exposed to the strong influence of the Greek language and culture(10). As a result of both the Greek and the Romanian campaigns, the Vlachs in Macedonia and Epirus were divided into pro-Greek and pro-Romanian camps. The animosity between these two camps escalated. Pro-Greek schools and churches were destroyed by the pro-Romanian Vlachs, and the pro-Greek Vlachs paid them back in their own coin. They expelled each other and even murdered opponent schoolteachers and clergy [Κολτσίδας 1994; Νικολαΐδου 1995]. In May 1905 Sultan Abdul Hamid II recognized that there was a Vlach nationality with equal rights, like other non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire, such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, and Albanians [Velichi 1969: 535]. This pleased the Romanians and provoked anger among Greeks [Αβέρωφ-Τοσίτσας 1948: 53-54]. Abdurrahman, the Minister of Justice and Religion of the Ottoman Empire, also issued a document addressed to Joachim III, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Istanbul, to encourage the Vlachs, who were Ottoman subjects, to use their language in their schools and churches in order to protect their national identity [ΟΠ 1906: 100]. However, the rift among the Vlachs had widened too far for healing. The Romanian propaganda did not cease, and the pro-Greek Vlachs and the Greeks kept countering it. Mutual attacks and murders continued to occur. In June 1905, Papiniu, the new Romanian ambassador to Athens, accused the Greeks of attacking the pro-Romanian Vlachs in Macedonia as well as attempting to close Vlach/Romanian schools there. He also insisted that the Greek government should prevent the Greek bands from expelling the “Romanian population” and, furthermore, that it should ask the Ecumenical Patriarch to obey the Sultan’s decision. He expressed the fear that the Romanian public opinion would be induced to bring the

159 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 159159 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2421:16:24 Greeks in Romania into an unfavorable situation [Αβέρωφ-Τοσίτσας 1948: 54-55]. In fact, public pressure on the Greek communities in Romania gradually rose, and an anti-Greek atmosphere prevailed. Accordingly, the relations between the two countries deteriorated over the summer of 1905. As a result, Tombazis, the Greek ambassador to Bucharest, was recalled to Greece on September 4 (NS), while his Romanian counterpart left Athens on September 11 (NS). This was the beginning of the de facto breakup of the relationship. What was worse, on September 21, the Romanian government notified the final denouncement of the Greek‒Romanian Commercial Convention of December 1900, which would bring further harm not only to the Greek commercial activities but also to the Greek religious and educational spheres in Romania [Αβέρωφ-Τοσίτσας 1948: 56-59](11). A series of anti-Greek events followed, such as the expulsion of the Greeks, persecution of Greek schools, and confiscation of the estates owned by the Greeks. Eventually, on June 13, 1906 (NS), the Greek government notified the Romanian government of its official decision to terminate their relationship. This caused the further expulsion of the Greeks from Romania [Αβέρωφ-Τοσίτσας 1948: 56-59; NARS 1906].

3. The Total Number of Refugees The exact number of Greeks from Eastern Rumelia, Bulgaria, and Romania, who flooded into Greece, is difficult to estimate. They did not arrive in Piraeus, the port for Athens, by boat as a body, but intermittently from the north into Greece. Some sought shelter in Istanbul or in southern Thrace, under Ottoman rule [Romanos 1907: 30]. Racial migration continued and the number of refugees dramatically increased. According to a British Foreign Office report, there were 4,991 refugees in Greece in December 1906 [FO 1909: 7]. The British delegation in Athens reported on May 1, 1907 (NS), that 20,000 or 30,000 ethnic Greeks had left or were leaving Romania and Bulgaria with the expectation of obtaining land in Greece [FO 371/264, No. 14701]. The Greek weekly newspaper Oikonomiki Ellas, dated May 5, 1907, wrote that the number of the refugees had risen to at least 14,000 [Οικονομική Ελλάς 1907: 213]. In December 1907, 22,485 refugees, or more than four times as many as in the same period of the previous year, were reported to have arrived in Greece. In December 1908, there were 26,108 refugees [FO 1909: 7]. Although the number of the refugees toward the end of 1906 was relatively

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 160

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 160160 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 small in comparison with that of the later years, a group of approximately 5,000 people were too large to be ignored. It was evident that these refugees could not be smoothly settled without political initiative. It was a state obligation to take effective measures to help them. The necessity of solving the refugee problem implied not only simple philanthropy but also the possibility of national benefits. The issue of the Greek refugees could be interpreted as the flip side of the Macedonian struggle. These ethnic Greeks were the victims of the rivalry between the Greeks of the Greek kingdom and other Balkan nations over Macedonia. Therefore, refugee assistance was an inevitable task for the Greek state to bolster its national cause. Moreover, the refugee problem had to be also resolved in terms of social stability. Their very existence could lead to social unrest if the matter of the refugees was not properly arranged.

III. The Start of the Debate on Refugees in the Greek Parliament

Stefanos Dragoumis, an established politician of the opposition, played the leading role from the first to the last in confronting the refugee problem in the Parliament(12). On October 31, 1906, just before the opening of the extraordinary session of the eighteenth parliamentary period, Dragoumis advanced his opinion on the refugee issue on the front page of the newspaper Akropolis. He expressed strong dissatisfaction that the government had postponed the opening of the new session, which had been expected at the beginning of October. This postponement, he contended, delayed discussions in the Parliament on the relief arrangement for the refugees, which he considered as a pressing issue. He said

It was necessary to shed sufficient light on the issue of Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria at the National Assembly. The Parliament had to assiduously examine the unprecedented persecution of the Greeks and what the government had done in response to these events. It was necessary to widely discuss the matter and determine what should be done in order to bravely fight against the great difficulties resulting from the persecution … [If a new parliamentary session had convened as scheduled,] the deliberation in the Parliament would more effectively provide our refugee-brothers with necessary shelter and assistance. The vote in the Parliament would make possible, without risky

161 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 161161 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 delay, the effective provision for the definitive settlement of the Greeks, who were obliged to leave their native alters and fireplaces, wishing to serve the great Greek national interests. As the solution of this issue has been postponed for so long, the countless numbers of persecuted people have been left up in the air at present. The present situation is liable to bring about division, dispersion, and decomposition of the Greek nation with the net result that the first-class national force is lost [Ακρόπολις 1906a: 1].

Having said that, Dragoumis stressed that the government should take immediate action to provide care for the refugees as soon as the forthcoming session commenced. He fiercely criticized the lethargy of the government over many impending domestic and international issues. Especially concerning the sphere of the international relations Dragoumis stated that Greece was bogged down in a situation of “totally extraordinary complexity.” He further expressed his opinion saying, “[T]he complexity is of a rarer kind, or we would rather say that it is unprecedented in the years of European discord ever since the Greek revolution” [Ακρόπολις 1906a: 1]. According to him, the current confusing situation in the international arena had caused the expulsion of the ethnic Greeks from other Balkan states. The drifting refugees, now in Greece, embodied the intersection of the domestic and international domains, neither of which the Greek state had not been able to steer with sufficient skill. Dragoumis emphasized that first, the sluggish domestic morale had to be changed to successfully face up to the present international political situation. So, he accentuated the importance of offering appropriate care to the refugees. He warned the government that the situation of the refugees descending into Greece would never improve if the state just stood idly by. Therefore, he urged that the Parliament should meet immediately to achieve these ends. A new session of the Parliament finally began on November 11. In the third meeting of the session, on November 22, Dragoumis took the first steps to realize the relief arrangements necessary for the refugees. He addressed the question on the issue of the refugees from Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria and asked the government to answer how to cope with it. He argued that as the events in Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria violated the rights of the ethnic Greeks and the interests of the Greek state and Greek citizens, the government had to mitigate the damage either by promptly

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 162

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 162162 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 contacting the Bulgarian government or by referring the matter to the international community, which had the right of intervention(13). He called on the government to take measures on its own initiative to assist both those who had already been expelled to Greece and those who would be coming [ΠΣΒΕ 1907: 13]. On December 7, in his main speech concerning Greek diplomacy, Dragoumis referred to the refugee issue again. In his opinion, none of the Great Powers could be expected to work for the advantage of Greece. Bulgaria was considered to be geopolitically more important in the Balkans than Greece. The Powers knew that imposing sanctions on Bulgaria after the series of ferocious events in the previous summer would no doubt further kindle the Eastern Question. He presented the data on the Greek population of Eastern Rumelia, which had been 120,000 in 1880 and had decreased to 60,000 at present, and affirmed that Hellenism in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia would surely disappear sooner or later. Dragoumis proposed a very realistic response to this crisis of Hellenism. He told the Parliament that Greece should not expect the ethnic Greek refugees to return to their native land in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia. He also criticized the idea that the refugees should colonize Macedonia and Thrace and be utilized to Greece’s advantage in the Macedonian struggle, which implied that they would fall once more into a continuously unstable situation. Rather, Dragoumis argued that the Parliament should consider how they could take root in Greece under better conditions and how their sufferings could be compensated appropriately. It was imperative, he claimed, to provide them with work and a place to settle in within the boundaries of the Greek state [Ακρόπολις 1906c: 2]. Romanos, a member of the government party, the only Greek deputy who had actually visited Anchialos after its destruction, supported Dragoumis. Romanos described the refugees from Bulgaria and Romania as national martyrs and told the Parliament that the Anchialites no longer cared about their churches and houses in their hometown, which had already been ruined and burnt to ashes. He insisted that though Greece was in a poor economic condition, it should give a helping hand to the refugees who were surely adding new splendor to the pages of Greek history [Ακρόπολις 1906c: 2; 1906d: 1](14). Dragoumis did not relax his efforts to make the government seriously grapple with the refugee issue. On December 11, he contended that the government had to submit, without delay, a bill on the land distribution to these unfortunate people. He added that people from Eastern Rumelia and especially from Anchialos had sacrificed

163 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 163163 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 everything and because of this they deserved to receive proper protection from the state. Then he asked the government to map out a specific program for bringing a state of happiness to the “martyrs” [ΠΣΒΕ 1907:122].

IV. Granting Greek Citizenship to the Refugees

What had to be done first for the refugees was to make them true citizens of the Greek kingdom. Although they were Greeks in terms of ethnicity, most of the refugees were not Greeks in a legal sense. They needed to be accepted as Greek citizens in order to enjoy the benefits of life within the Greek state. Urged on by Dragoumis, Nikolaos Kalogeropoulos, the Minister of the Interior, submitted a bill of granting Greek citizenship to the refugees to the Parliament on December 13. In its preamble he mentioned

Many of the ethnic Greek refugees in Greece, who have fled from Eastern Rumelia, Bulgaria and Romania and desire to find a breadwinning job, are in a hopeless situation because of their lack of Greek citizenship, which is a prerequisite for obtaining a job. However, in accordance with the existing laws, it takes quite a long time for an applicant to gain the status of a Greek citizen, after making an application. I think that the immediate acquisition of Greek citizenship by the ethnic Greek refugees in question would help them to succeed in finding different breadwinning jobs, while it would also bring useful citizens to join the state [ΠΕΒΕ 1907b: 88].

Usually, one who wished to obtain Greek citizenship had to spend a certain period of time within the country, according to Article 15 of Civil Law, to be qualified as a citizen. This time, however, the government took a bold initiative to simplify the process. With small modifications, the bill quickly became Law 3185 on December 29, 1906, and came into force by being published in the Government Gazette on January 4, 1907. The law also prescribed that Greeks from the Caucasus would be able to obtain Greek citizenship [ΕΚΒΕ 1907a: 1-2](15). In addition to the citizenship law relating to the refugees, the Ministry of the

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 164

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 164164 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 Interior established an office of refugee care. It was in charge of temporary financial aid to the refugees, health care for them, hygiene maintenance in their makeshift housing etc. for the time being before the place of their ultimate settlement was decided [ΑΣΝΔΓΒ Φακ. 186, υποφακ. 186.2, εγγρ. 86].

V. Legislation on Land Distribution in Thessaly

The Parliament then proceeded to a discussion in order to launch a definitive project for the settlement of the refugees. There was a tacit agreement among the deputies that Thessaly was the district wherein the refugees should be settled. Although it had been ceded to the Greek state by the Ottoman Empire in 1881, Thessaly was still sparsely populated almost three decades later. Most of the Thessalian plains were under the large private estate (çiftlik) system in which landless sharecroppers cultivated the land and gave a part of their produce to their landowners(16). The sharecroppers had repeatedly asked the government for many years to emancipate them from the çiftlik system by distributing them land and thereby making them smallholders. Therefore, the project to distribute land in Thessaly to the refugees also acted as the best incentive for the government to take up the task of turning the Thessalian local sharecroppers under the çiftlik into smallholders. The initial government bill on land distribution in Thessaly was submitted to the Parliament on December 13, 1906 [ΠΕΒΕ 1907a: 78-87]. Then, the additional government bill was submitted on January 29, 1907 [ΠΕΒΕ 1907c: 123-127]. The special committee of the Parliament examined these bills and drew up a bill that amended the original bills and incorporated their ideas. It published its own bill on February 16, 1907 [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 260-270]. According to the government bill of December 13, 1906, the land to be distributed was limited to the state owned land known as “Stefanovik.” As it used to be a private estate owned by Ioannis Stefanovik Skilitsis, a Greek banker in London, it was called as such. The Stefanovik estate consisted of twenty six çiftlik villages situated in Larissa, Trikala, and Karditsa in Thessaly. The Greek state bought the estate in 1902 to nationalize it [ΑΣΝΔΓΒ Φακ. 184, υποφακ. 184.1, εγγρ.7; ΑΣΝΔΓΒ Φακ. 185, υποφακ. 185.3, εγγρ. 68]. The bill specified, on the basis of the quality of land, that each of 250 local cultivator families of Larissa would have 150 stremmata

165 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 165165 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 for farming, while each of 250 local cultivator families of Trikala and Karditsa would gain 75 stremmata(17). The cultivators would also receive some additional portions of land for other needs like building a house and garden. The farm servants would have the right to a small portion of land as well [ΠΕΒΕ 1907a: 79-80, 83 (άρθρο 9)]. Then, the rest of the land would be divided among about 1,200 refugee families [ΠΕΒΕ 1907a: 80-81]. The refugees who were grain cultivators would have the right to the same amount of land as the local cultivators. The refugees who were mainly engaged in sericulture, viticulture, arboriculture, and tobacco-growing would have 60 stremmata in Larissa and 30 stremmata in Trikala and Karditsa respectively [ΠΕΒΕ 1907a: 84 (άρθρο 16)]. The state would also provide financial aid to the refugees to enable them to build a house; buy farm animals, tools, and seeds; and feed their families, of up to 2,950 drachmas [ΠΕΒΕ 1907a: 86-87 (άρθρο 48)]. In principle, refugees from the same village would live together, forming a community. Thus, there would be a possibility that the local cultivators were to be compelled to move to other places to evacuate their village to concede to the refugees. In this case, the cultivators would be able to obtain a loan of 1,000 drachmas from the state [ΠΕΒΕ 1907a: 81, 87 (άρθρο 53)]. The refugees themselves were not silent either. On January 29, 1907, the government submitted an additional bill that allowed the limited national land in Almiros to be distributed to a small number of the refugees. However, due to the financial burden on the state, the government opposed the proposal that the private çiftlik land in Almiros should also be distributed to the refugees. The next day, G. A. Tsakiris, a representative of the Anchialites, expressed their opinion on the front page of the newspaper Skrip, entitled “Why Are the Anchialites Asking to Be Settled around Almiros?” In this article, Tsakiris attempted to convince the government that Almiros would be a better place for the Anchialites to live and work in than Stefanovik and to purchase more private çiftlik land there for them. The idea of land distribution in Almiros to the Anchialites, the largest group of the refugees, was originally proposed by Spiros Chasiotis, a director of the Agriculture Station of Tirinthos, on December 14, 1906 [Χασιώτης 1906]. Supporting Chasiotis’ research, Tsakiris advanced plausible reasons against the government bill. As the Anchialites were accustomed to viticulture, it would be difficult for them to successfully grow grain, the major product of Stefanovik. Referring to Chasiotis, Tsakiris pointed out that grain farming would need much larger capital reserves as a

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 166

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 166166 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 precaution in case of a bad harvest year, which the Anchialites could not afford. In addition, they would not stand the climate at Stefanovik̶the severe summer heat and cold winter̶as they had previously lived in the mild coastal climate of the Black Sea. The reason they desired to live around Almiros was not only its similar coastal environment to where they used to live. Around Almiros, they could cultivate tobacco profitably with the help of women and children whereas grain cultivation could hardly make use of their help. Tsakiris also pointed out that the Anchialites could work in horticulture, apiculture, and fruit-growing. Moreover, he enumerated the advantages of their settlement around Almiros by providing a financial assessment. He indicated that the settlement in Stefanovik was supposed to require more expense than in Almiros, and that the Anchialites would have to be loaned more money in Stefanovik than they would in Almiros. In this way, he strongly claimed that Stefanovik would be an appropriate place for other refugees from Romania and Bulgaria, but not for them [Τσακίρης 1907: 1]. The committee complied with the Anchialites’ request. The committee bill was framed on the basis of two categories according to the district of settlement, that is, the coastal settlement (Almiros and its neighboring areas) and the inland settlement (Stefanovik). In the coastal area, the refugees from Anchialos and its environs and those from Sozopoli, Varna, Pirgos, and other villages were intended to be settled [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 263 (άρθρο 3)]. It was estimated that the land distribution in Almiros would include less than 100 native cultivator families. The bill specified that the cultivators would keep their houses and become members of the settlement [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 261, 263 (άρθρο 4)]. The inland settlement was for the local cultivators and the refugees from Romania, the Caucasus, and other areas in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia, who were not considered for the coastal settlement [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 264 (άρθρα 11, 12)]. The inland settlement was subdivided into the two districts̶Larissa, Farsala, Agiia, and Tirnavos on the one hand, and Trikala and Karditsa on the other. In the inland settlement the cultivators, irrespective of their origin as natives or refugees, would be given 200 stremmata per household for farming land in Larissa, Farsala, Agiia, and Tirnavos while those in Trikala and Karditsa would obtain 100 stremmata [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 264 (άρθρο 13)]. In both districts the refugees who were silk-raising, vine-growing, arboricultural, tobacco-growing farmers would be allotted 60 stremmata per household [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 265 (άρθρο 14)]. In the coastal settlement, the bill stated that the extent of land to be distributed to each family would not exceed

167 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 167167 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 80 stremmata [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 263 (άρθρο 6)]. Settlers in both the coastal and inland settlements were also to be granted some additional land for building houses with gardens. With respect to monetary loans, while the government bill specified that only the refugees would have the right to apply for them, the committee bill extended this benefit to the local cultivators. Local cultivators in both the coastal and inland settlements would be able to receive 1,000 drachmas per household [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 264 (άρθρο 8)]. A refugee family of the inland settlement, who had been deprived of all their resources, would receive at most 3,000 drachmas in total to buy farming tools, seeds, and animals and to sustain themselves [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 265 (άρθρο 16)]. The coastal settlement classified the refugees into two groups: whether they were farmers or not. The former would gain 4,100 drachmas per household, while the latter would have 2,500 drachmas at most [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 264 (άρθρο 9)]. In the committee bill, there were four points to take note of. First, it stipulated that the value of portions to be distributed should be estimated by a special committee [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 266 (άρθρο 20)]. Second, surplus land would be granted to those who had a diploma in agriculture and who wished to live in Thessaly for the purpose of model instructive farming for agricultural development [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 268 (άρθρο 28)]. Third, if sufficient land remained in the village of Tsamasi after the regular land distribution had been completed, the refugee farmers from Romania could obtain the surplus portions [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 267-268 (άρθρο 27)]. Fourth, most importantly, the bill defined the foundation of the Thessalian Agricultural Fund. The Fund was intended to collect the money that the settlers were to pay for their land and to make loans to them and also to assume all the other tasks related to the revenue raised from the land distribution [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 269-270 (άρθρο 39)]. Heated discussions went on in the Parliament. It is worthwhile mentioning that Apostolos Alexandris, a new Thessalian deputy of the opposition, as well as Dragoumis effectively grappled with the project of land distribution. As a committee member, Alexandris worked together with Dragoumis. Broadly speaking, Dragoumis was deeply committed to the project from both the moral and emotional standpoints, while Alexandris approached the issue in terms of more practical and social conditions which he saw at first hand in Thessaly. Dragoumis continued to urge the government to actively tackle the problem of refugee settlement to achieve the “salvation of Hellenism.” He attacked the

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 168

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 168168 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 lukewarm attitude of the government as showing a lack of patriotism. Dragoumis’ patriotic stance was most obvious in the preamble of the committee bill written by himself [ΑΣΝΔΓΒ Φακ. 184, υποφακ. 184.1, εγγρ. 5]. Although the committee bill promoted the idea of realizing both purposes̶the refugee settlement and the creation of smallholders̶at a stroke, its preamble only touched lightly upon the problem of native Thessalian sharecroppers and instead made the refugees the central motif. Dragoumis depicted in detail the sufferings that the refugees experienced. He fiercely condemned the merciless vandalism conducted by the Bulgarians against the ethnic Greeks living in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia and underlined the duty of their care by the state.

[T]he storm of savage feelings that exploded in Bulgaria led to an unprecedented persecution in Christian countries in the modern times, which caused a mass exodus of the inhabitants of our same blood, especially after the slaughter, burning, plundering, and indeed, the total destruction of Anchialos. They abandoned their fatherland that had continued to exist for many centuries. Wandering naked and hungry, they asked for salvation in a free Greek soil, their mother. As a consequence, the absolute necessity arose that Greece should help our seriously suffering brothers to be finally rehabilitated. They are those who prefer abandoning their altars, their hearths, and the graves of their forebears, to remaining there exposed to brutal violence, with the hope of miserable salvation at the expense of their national belief and idea [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 260].

The preamble of the committee bill revealed the strong sense of national obligation to immediately take tender care of the refugees, which Dragoumis continued to speak about in the Parliament. We can easily imagine that Dragoumis, who had earnestly supported the Greek activities in the Macedonian struggle, tended to pay more attention to the destiny of the refugees expelled from the Balkan states rather than that of Thessalian sharecroppers. Another reason that Dragoumis emphasized the refugee issue seems to lie in the fact that the land distribution project ultimately would include more refugees than local sharecroppers. It was estimated that the number of the refugee families would be two and a half times bigger than that of the Thessalian sharecropper families(18).

169 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 169169 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 Nevertheless, the committee bill did not entirely ignore the care of the native sharecroppers. The committee fully acknowledged that the legislation they had prepared would become “a foundation stone supporting the land reform in Thessaly” [ΠΕΒΕ 1907d: 261]. For this purpose in particular, Alexandris actively participated in the discussions. Alexandris delivered three long speeches in the course of the legislation processes. In his speeches on February 1, March 14 and March 30, 1907, he did not focus on refugee settlement itself. Alexandris, as a Thessalian deputy, wished to make the government understand the real Thessalian agrarian problems and to convince it to promptly take steps to solve the problems in a proper way. Within this rather large framework, he put the issue of the refugees. Throughout his speeches, Alexandris expressed constructive opinions in order to further not only the success of the land distribution project but also the development of Thessalian agriculture as a whole. He believed that the emancipation of Thessalian sharecroppers from long-lasting misfortune would fail if the first attempt at reform was abortive [Ακρόπολις 1907j: 2]. First of all, he pointed out that the land even for the Thessalian cultivators was already in short supply and urged the government to purchase further private çiftlik land for distribution to both Thessalians and refugees. He insisted that the government distribute more, 100 stremmata, and not 70, to each cultivator family so that the cultivators could maintain a decent livelihood and cover their expenses for their land and for the debts to the state. Second, he also argued that the price of the land to be distributed should be predetermined from the viewpoint of the protection of the locals and the refugees. Otherwise, there would be a possibility that those who obtained the land would not be able to pay for it and consequently fail to become independent landed farmers. Third, he proposed that the native cultivators should be provided with 1,000 drachmas per household for the establishment of their new life, against the government’s proposal that 500 drachmas would be given. For these purposes, he contended, it was essential to set up the Thessalian Agricultural Fund to manage financial matters for the Thessalian cultivators and refugees. It should be also noted that he recommended that agriculturists should take part in the land distribution to conduct experiments on scientific farming to benefit future agricultural modernization in Thessaly. Furthermore, he proposed that some hundred stremmata, a relatively larger share, be given to the refugees from Romania who had were unfamiliar with fallow system, which Thessalian cultivators usually adopted. Although

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 170

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 170170 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 the government opposed this plan, Alexandris contended that as Greeks from Romania would work diligently, it would be a good model for local cultivators [Ακρόπολις 1907e: 2; 1907h: 2; 1907j: 2; Πατρίς 1907b: 2; 1907c: 2]. He regarded as the worst the fact that the government was stingy with money. He argued that a farmer and a worker were the two pillars that supported the whole edifice of the state and society. The state would be destroyed when these two elements became unstable. Alexandris acknowledged that this phenomenon had not yet appeared in Greece. However, in any event, he contended, sufficient financial support was indispensable for the Thessalian cultivators in Stefanovik to prevent the failure of the state’s project beforehand. He referred to examples of land distribution attempted in Germany, Italy and Romania, which ended in miserable failure due to insufficient farming capital [Ακρόπολις 1907j: 2]. Alexandris’ opinions were reflected in the committee bill to a high degree and influenced the passage of the final law on land distribution. A major difference of opinion between the government and the committee was the budget for the project. The committee resisted the government, which tried to curtail the expense of the refugee settlement. The government wanted to restrict the land distribution to only the refugees who had already arrived in Greece for whom 3,000,000 drachmas would be enough while the committee estimated the necessary cost of the whole program of the land distribution at 12,000,000 drachmas [Ακρόπολις 1907f: 2; Θεσσαλία 1907a: 2]. The discussion continued outside the Parliament as well. Dragoumis was the person whom the government directly made contact with. Anargiros Simopoulos, the Minister of Finance, visited Dragoumis to carry on negotiations. Simopoulos proposed the reduction of the financial support for the Thessalian cultivators and of the extent of land to be distributed. He also claimed that the proposals to grant large portions of land to the refugees from Romania and to settle agriculturists in Thessaly should be abolished [Ακρόπολις 1907g: 2]. Law 3202 of the Settlement and Land Distribution and of the Establishment of the Thessalian Agricultural Fund, enacted on April 7, 1907, was the product of the compromise between the government and the committee. Basically, the general framework of the committee bill was kept. The settlement area was divided into two̶coastal and inland. The latter was subdivided into the two districts, as the committee bill prescribed. The coastal settlement was exclusively for the refugees from Anchialos and its surrounding villages and those from Sozopoli, Pirgos, and

171 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 171171 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 Varna as they wished. Native cultivators and other farm servants of the coastal area were to move to Trikala and Karditsa district in the inland Stefanovik estate [ΝΓΣΒ 1907: 3-4, 6 (άρθρα 3, 6)]. The prior price-setting of land to be distributed, which the committee insisted on, was defined [ΝΓΣΒ 1907: 14-15 (άρθρο 18)]. The extent of the land to be distributed was reduced in accordance with the opinion of the government. Both the local and refugee grain cultivators in the inland settlement would have 150 stremmata in Larissa, Farsala, Agiia, and Tirnavos and 80 stremmata in Trikala and Karditsa. Other refugees would obtain 20–40 stremmata depending on their professions. Refugees in the coastal settlement would not have more than 80 stremmata for cultivation [ΝΓΣΒ 1907: 4-5, 8-10 (άρθρα 4, 11, 12)]. The proposals to grant surplus portions of land in the village of Tsamasi to refugees from Romania and to settle agriculturists in Thessaly were deleted, as the government wished. Instead, the law prescribed that the Greeks from the Caucasus would take part in the land distribution of Tsamasi [ΝΓΣΒ 1907: 8 (άρθρο 10)]. Concerning financial support, the refugees would be provided with a lesser amount of money than that of the initial plan of the committee while the local cultivators would have more. According to the law, in the inland settlement, refugees were supposed to receive 3,000 drachmas at most, while local cultivators would have 1,500 drachmas. In the coastal settlement, farmers would have 3,000 drachmas, and others would obtain 1,800 drachmas at the maximum [ΝΓΣΒ 1907: 6, 11 (άρθρα 7, 14)]. It is worth mentioning that Dragoumis persistently urged the government to conclude the loan in order not to leave the legislation in suspense. Without financial support, it was likely that the whole project would be aborted. On April 13, 1907, Law 3205 was enacted, by which the government succeeded in concluding the loan from the National, Athenian, Ionian, and Anatolian Banks. It allowed the state to acquire the private çiftlik land of Almiros area to be distributed, to execute land distribution there, and to build new communities [ΕΚΒΕ 1907b: 275-279].

VI. Legislative Procedures and Their Aftermath

The first state-sponsored legislative project to settle the refugees in the Greek territory can be regarded as quite successful. Once the government started to seriously grapple with the issue, urged by the insistent demands of Dragoumis to alleviate their

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 172

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 172172 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 difficulties with the initiative of the state, the discussions progressed in a relatively short period of time. The refugees legally acquired Greek citizenship and could secure land according to their preference. The British Foreign Office report wrote, “[T]he Hellenic Government, with commendable energy, took steps to elaborate a plan of colonisation for the new comers” [FO 1909: 6]. One possible reason the Parliament could quickly respond to this problem is that no opposing opinion was raised to interfere with the foreign-born ethnic Greeks becoming Greek citizens, since the principle of ius sanguinis, not of ius soli, underpinned Greek citizenship [Μπεντερμάχερ-Γερούσης 1976: 15-18; Koliopoulos and Veremis 2002: 257]. In addition, Dragoumis strongly appealed to the Parliament for furnishing the refugees with prompt and proper protection. He created an atmosphere in which all deputies, regardless of their party affiliation, shared a keen sense of the crisis of Hellenism and provided a cooperative framework in the Parliament. The land distribution enterprise was carried out not only for the refugees but also for the native cultivators. The attempt to turn sharecroppers into smallholders was secondary to the refugee problem. However, it was a thorny issue which had remained unresolved for many years after Greece gained Thessaly. A deputy like Alexandris was highly instrumental in the Parliament since he was a native Thessalian with adequate knowledge of the agricultural problems there. His realistic suggestions greatly contributed to making Law 3202 more feasible as well as more beneficial, not only for the refugees but also for the native cultivators. On September 30, 1907, Prince George laid the first stone of New Anchialos. The establishment of the new community for the Anchialites was nationally celebrated [Θεσσαλία 1907e: 3]. It was regarded as a national triumph since the refugees were expected to make Greece stronger in terms of manpower [Χασιώτης 1907:1]. However, we should neither overlook two negative aspects that the state- sponsored handling of the refugees opened up. First, there was resistance among the Thessalian Greeks against the project of refugee settlement in their region. Alexandris was recognized through his speeches in the Parliament as an expert on agrarian issues in Thessaly as well as a serious politician who looked current politics from the standpoint of the whole Greek nation and of Hellenism. However, Thessalian narrow-minded localism attacked him because he did not keep Thessaly exclusively for the native people and positively supported the program that would encourage

173 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 173173 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2521:16:25 ethnic Greeks to be settled there [Πατρίς 1907a: 1; Ακρόπολις, 1907i: 1]. Sofoklis Triantafillidis, an editor of the newspaper Panthessalia and a former deputy, objected to accepting the refugees even temporarily in Volos, a Thessalian town, claiming that the refugee settlement would be accomplished at the expense of the local population. He contended that the government intended to put the burden of the refugee problem on the Thessalians, while politicians in Athens would soon forget the refugees. He also argued that there was no room for the refugees in Thessaly and that they would starve and suffer in no time. Another Thessalian newspaper, Thessalia, criticized Triantafillidis’ attitude as a lack of tolerance toward the Greek brothers from other countries, arguing that the influx of the refugees would act as an incentive to revitalize Thessaly [Θεσσαλία 1907b: 1; 1907c: 1; 1907d: 1]. It is true, however, that not all the native Greeks gave the refugees a hearty welcome. For ordinary local people, the refugees were not compatriot Greeks per se, but outsiders(19). Second, a certain number of Greek refugees were reluctant to permanently stay in Greece and returned to the Bulgarian territory, their original homeland, after their initial settlement. One source shows that an estimated 20,000 ethnic Greeks left Bulgaria, including Eastern Rumelia, for the Greek state from 1906 onward. However, approximately 5,000 went back to Bulgaria until 1911(20). There were several reasons for their unwillingness to remain in Greece. For one thing, the state office dealing with the refugee issue required sacrifice and discipline of the refugees. In return for the state protection and care given to them, they were obliged to follow every direction from the state. The refugees felt somewhat uncomfortable with the state authorities supervising their every action [Dragostinova 2005: 59]. The second reason, more crucial to their decision to go back to Bulgaria, was that the land distribution project was not carried out exactly in the same way that the government had envisaged, which disappointed them. Some refugees had economic difficulties after the state ended its financial assistance, while others were not satisfied with the size of the plots provided for cultivation. In addition, marshes in Thessaly damaged the health of the settlers. Many suffered from malaria and died [Dragostinova 2005: 60-61]. Those who left Greece for Bulgaria chose to become Bulgarian. They acquired Bulgarian citizenship and assimilated into the Bulgarian society after going through the various vicissitudes of their life in the formative period of the Bulgarian nation [Dragostinova 2005: 19]. Contrary to Dragoumis’ assumption that the refugees naturally had Greek patriotic feelings and a sense of national loyalty to their “Mother Greece,” this fact shows

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 174

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 174174 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2621:16:26 that their national consciousness of being Greek was not primordial at all, but rather protean. They negotiated their self identity, depending on the circumstances. Indeed, Law 3202 did not entirely resolve the problems of the refugee settlement and of the creation of smallholders. A long-term endeavor was necessary to solve them. Other legislative measures and cabinet decisions were taken while royal decrees were issued(21). In 1911 the Office of the Thessalian Agricultural Fund published A Report Concerning the Achievement in the Settlement of Locals and Ethnic Greek Colonists in Thessaly so as to inform the Ministry of Finance of the results of the project that started with the enactment of Law 3202. According to the report, a total of 4,704 households of local cultivators, farm servants, and refugees had acquired land and had become settled. The inland settlement consisted of 1,410 households of local cultivators and farm servants and 1,517 households of refugees. In the coastal, there were 100 households of local cultivators and farm servants, and 1,677 households of refugees [ΓΘΓΤ 1911: 17-18](22).

VII. Conclusion

At the turn of the twentieth century, a period when the Greek territorial expansionist movement was at its zenith, the Greek nationalist agents were enthusiastically engaged in cultivating Greek consciousness among the population in Macedonia under the Ottoman rule, whose national identity was still vague and fluid [Karakasidou 1997: 77-137]. By completing this enterprise, they intended to establish their claim for Macedonia as their would-be national land. The Greek bands attacked those who did not show loyalty to Greece. In return, anti-Greek movements broke out in non-Greek Balkan countries such as Bulgaria and Romania and victimized Greek communities there, which caused a wave of ethnic Greek refugees arriving in the Greek state. The efforts devoted by the Greek Parliament to refugee settlement that we have examined in this paper represent another side of contemporary Greek nationalism. Although the “Great Idea” as a major unifying force of the Greek nation was never thoroughly discarded, the Greeks in the Greek kingdom recognized its clear setback and the impossibility of fully realizing their irredentist aspiration after the defeat of the Greco-Ottoman war of 1897. Instead, they had to face the reality that the

175 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 175175 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2621:16:26 other Balkan nations were encroaching upon the territories where Hellenism had historically flourished. The Greek state was powerless in military terms to fight back, while it was unrealistic to expect the Great Powers, with their realpolitik, to support Greece’s ambition. The Greek Parliament had to find practical measures to protect the persecuted ethnic Greeks outside the frontiers of Greece, who might contribute to developing the strength and therefore should not be estranged from the Greek state. The state presented itself as a benefactor of the Greek refugees. The prompt legislative proceedings in the Parliament could be highly appreciated in that they provided a realistic solution to the refugee issue at that point in time. Ethnically diverse communities that were very much characteristic of Ottoman society were doomed to extinction in the making of homogeneous nations. Voluntary and compulsory human migration as a result of the two Balkan Wars and World War I would further accelerate this process. Greece received some 1.1 million Orthodox Christian Greeks from Asia Minor after the Greek forces, aiming at realizing the “Great Idea,” were catastrophically defeated by the Kemalist army in 1922. In return, about 380,000 Muslims moved from Greece to the newly established Turkey. The legal arrangement for the refugees that we have discussed in this paper was to provide a reference point for the Greek government’s endeavors to tackle the problem of Asia Minor refugee settlement [Καρβέλα 2005: 17-18].

Notes

(1) Different figures and different population ratios are given with respect to the Greeks inside the Greek state and those outside. On the one hand, the above-mentioned Dakin’s figures indicate that the ratio of the Greeks inside the Greek state to those outside is about 1 to 3. On the other hand, Richard Clogg maintains that 750,000 of the approximately 2,000,000 Greeks under Ottoman rule were included in the new Greek state, which means that the ratio of the Greeks inside to those outside Greece is roughly 3 to 5 [Clogg 1982: 193; 1986: 70]. He also offers only the ratio of approximately 1 to 2 without representing the concrete numbers of the Greek population [Clogg 2002: 43, 46]. Here we follow Dakin’s figures. (2) The “Great Idea” is a general expression of Greek nationalism, which aspired to unify all the “unredeemed” Greeks within a greater Greek state at the expense of the Ottoman territory. Concerning the details of the political and ideological aspects of the “Great Idea,” see Σκοπετέα [1988] and Greene [2000: 688-690]. (3) The dates given in this paper follow, in principle, the Julian calendar that Greece used until 1923.

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 176

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 176176 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2621:16:26 In some cases, however, the dates are indicated with the Gregorian calendar marked with NS, for example: January 1, 1900 (NS). (4) Another source mentions that Eastern Rumelia alone had more than 150,000 Greeks [TPAA 1906: 4]. According to the information provided by the Bulgarian newspaper Den in July 1906, in 1900 there were 70,887 Greeks in Bulgaria including Eastern Rumelia, which corresponded to 1.8% of the total population [Dragostinova 2005: 32]. Concerning social and cultural activities of the Greeks in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia and multi-ethnic cultural interaction there, see Kotzageorgi [1991; 1994; 1995], Κοτζαγεώργη [1993-94], and Ploumidis [2005]. (5) The Berlin Treaty divided Greater Bulgaria into Bulgaria, Eastern Rumelia, and Macedonia. Since then, not only Macedonia but also Eastern Rumelia became primary target regions for Bulgarian irredentism [Crampton 2005: 83-84]. (6) Concerning the list of the churches, monasteries, schools, and other property of Greek communities in Bulgarian lands captured by the Bulgarians, see Kasasis [1907: 38-43] and TPAA [1907: 11-12]. (7) The Bulgarian government settled, on purpose, these refugees in regions such as Varna that had a population with a high percentage of Greeks, which resulted in intensifying the discord between Greeks and Bulgarians on the ethnic/nationalistic basis. The largest population of Varna, until 1878, the year of the establishment of Bulgarian Principality, consisted of Greek speaking people, affiliated with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul [Todorov 2005: 69-70]. (8) Concerning the details of the articles that stipulated the rights of the minority inhabitants with respect to religion, education, language etc., see Kasasis [1907: 29-38] and TPAA [1906: 4-7]. (9) It should be noted that during the anti-Greek turmoil of 1906, there were individual Greeks or Greek communities that declared loyalty to Bulgaria and kept surviving in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia. As an evidence of their loyalty to Bulgaria, they converted from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek Church, to the Exarchate, the Bulgarian Church. The Bulgarian government began to systematically “Bulgarize” the Greek minority through the conversion to the Exarchate and educational reform, although it apparently showed tolerance toward the Greek minority [Dragostinova 2005: 71-78]. (10) For the Vlachs, Greek was the main language of the church, education, and trade, even though they maintained their mother tongue at home. For an overview of their history, customs, life, and culture, see Wace and Thompson [1914] and Winnifrith [1987]. Rigas Velestinlis was a typical Vlach who had been under the strong influence of Greek culture. He planned a general uprising of all the Balkan peoples at the end of the eighteenth century in order to found a Balkan republic in which the Greek language and culture would be dominant. See Woodhouse [1995]. (11) A protocol that approved of the status of the Greek churches in Romania as a corporate body accompanied the Convention of 1900. As the Greek communities had depended totally on their churches, the denouncement of the Convention caused the problem of whether the Greek communities themselves would be able to continue. Georgios Streit argued, from the legal standpoint, that the denouncement of the Convention did not have a direct influence on the

177 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 177177 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2621:16:26 protocol and that the protocol was still valid. See Streit [1906]. (12) All the members of the Dragoumis family members were well-known as ardent supporters of the Greek struggle for Macedonia. Stefanos Dragoumis was one of the core members of the Macedonian Committee (Μακεδονική Επιτροπή) formed in 1904, which the government officially supported. Ion Dragoumis, Stefanos’ son, wrote many novels and articles to claim the Greek right to Macedonia. Pavlos Melas, a Greek partisan, who was murdered in Macedonia in October 1904, was Stefanos’ son-in-law. It should be noted that Ion Dragoumis published a novel entitled Blood of Martyrs and Heroes (Μαρτύρων και ηρώων αίμα) on the theme of the Macedonian struggle, which provoked strong patriotic feelings among the Greeks in early 1907, during the period when the issue of the refugee settlement was under discussion in the Parliament. Concerning a brief summary of the involvement of the Dragoumis family in the Macedonian struggle, see Karakasidou [2004: 200-202]. (13) The patriarch, Joachim III, already delivered statements to the Great Powers and the Ottoman state during the series of violent incidents in Eastern Rumelia and Bulgaria in the summer of 1906 to ask them for intervention. See Patriarcat Œcuménique [1906]. (14) Romanos also sent a letter to the French newspaper Le Temps in order to make it known to the French public that the Bulgarians had violated the minority rights in Eastern Rumelia guaranteed by the Treaty of Berlin [Ακρόπολις 1906b: 1]. (15) In contrast to the Greeks arriving in their “motherland” as a result of persecution by other nations, the Greeks of the Caucasus in the Russian Empire voluntarily came to Greece from the end of the nineteenth century onward. Their number rose to some hundreds. Concerning the background of their emigration, see Ευαγγελίδης [1900]. (16) According to Donald Quataert, the Ottoman state succeeded in confiscating the large holdings in Asia Minor while the large estates in the Balkans survived into the Tanzimat era. He writes, “The apparent absence of confiscation in the Balkan provinces may be due to concerns that it would disturb the relations between the Christian cultivators and Muslim landholders” [Quataert 2000: 873]. Concerning agrarian problems including the continuation of the çiftlik system in Thessaly, see Πετμεζάς [1999: 73-81]. (17) A stremma is a measurement of an area of land that is equal to 1,000 square meters (0.247acre). The plural form of stremma is stremmata. (18) The British delegate to the International Financial Commission in May 1907 reported that the number of refugee families who would benefit from the land distribution project was 1,750 in total, while that of the native cultivator families was 700 [FO371/264, No.14701]. (19) Throughout 1906, patriotism was at its zenith in Greece, which created an atmosphere to accept the refugees unconditionally. But, after 1908, the local Greeks overtly criticized the refugees for whom the state spent a lot of money, ignoring domestic necessary reforms [Dragostinova 2005: 67]. (20) Some of the refugees re-emigrated from Greece to southern Trace, or Smyrna under the Ottoman rule, Egypt, or even the United States [Dragostinova 2005: 56, 83n64].

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 178

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 178178 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2621:16:26 (21) Concerning a series of laws, cabinet decisions and royal decrees with respect to refugee settlement and land distribution from 1907 to 1911, see Καρβέλα [2005: 296-373]. (22) In 1910 the Dragoumis government set up the Ministry of Agriculture, Trade and Industry. It was a new ministry in Greece that specialized in agricultural matters. Its name was changed to the Ministry of National Economy in July 1911 under the Venizelos government. The constitutional reform of 1911 and laws speeded up the process for expropriating large estates and creating smallholders [Agriantoni 2006: 287-288; Andréadès 1918: 17-18].

References

Αβέρωφ-Τοσίτσας, Ευάγγελος Α. 1948. Η πολιτική πλευρά του κουτσοβλαχικού ζητήματος. Αθήνα: Εργοστάσιο Γραφικών Τεχνών Γερ. Σ. Χρήστου. Ακρόπολις 1906a. «Μία συνέντευξις με πανελλλήνιον πολιτευτήν», 31 Οκτωβρίου, 1. ———. 1906b.«Ο αγών του κ. Αθ. Ρωμανού», 1 Νοεμβρίου, 1. ———. 1906c. «Η εξωτερική πολιτική της κυβερνήσεως», 8 Δεκεμβρίου, 2. ———. 1906d. «Εκ της περί προσφύγων βαρυσήμαντου αγορεύσεως του κ. Αθ. Ρωμανού», 11 Δεκεμβρίου, 1. ———. 1907e. «Η Βουλή», 2 Φεβρουαρίου, 2. ———. 1907f. «Η κυβέρνησις και τα Στεφανοβίκεια— Τα εκατομμύρια της επιτροπής», 28 Φεβρουαρίου, 2. ———. 1907g. «Τα Στεφανοβίκεια. Διαφωνία μεταξύ επιτροπής και κυβερνήσεως. Ο κ. Α. Σιμόπουλος επισκεπτόμενος τον κ. Στ. Δραγούμην», 8 Μαρτίου, 2. ———. 1907h. «Βουλή», 15 Μαρτίου, 2. ———. 1907i. «Ο. κ. Α. Αλεξανδρής», 31 Μαρτίου, 1. ———. 1907j. «Βουλή. Έλη και Στεφανοβίκεια», 31 Μαρτίου, 2. ΑΣΝΔΓΒ (Αρχείο Στέφανου Ν. Δραγούμη της Γενναδείου Βιβλιοθήκης). Φακ. 184: Βουλευτής: Θεσσαλικά—Νομοσχέδια περί διανομής γαιών, υποφακ. 184.1: Νομοσχέδια (1906–08), εγγρ. 5, εγγρ. 7. ———. Φακ. 185: Βουλευτής: Θεσσαλικά—Αποκατάσταση προσφύγων (1900–09), υποφακ. 185.3: Στεφανοβίκεια κτήματα, εγγρ. 68. ———. Φακ. 186,υποφακ. 186.2: Ανατολική Ρωμυλία—Βουλγαρία, εγγρ. 86. ΓΘΓΤ (Γραφείον Θεσσαλικού Γεωγραφικού Ταμείου). 1911. Έκθεσις περί των εκτελεσθέντων προς αποκατάστασιν των εγχώριων και εποίκων ομογενών εν Θεσσαλία. Αθήνα: Εθνικό τυπογραφείο. Διβάνη, Λένα. 1995. Ελλάδα και μειονότητα: το σύστημα διεθνούς προστασίας της κοινότητας των εθνών. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Νεφέλη. ΕΚΒΕ (Εφημερίς της Κυβερνήσεως του Βασιλείου Ελλάδος. Τεύχος Α΄). 1907a. «Περί της δια Β. διατάγματος απονομής της Ελληνικής ιθαγενείας εις τους εξ Ανατολικής Ρωμυλίας, Βουλγαρίας και

179 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 179179 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2621:16:26 Ρωμουνίας ομογενείς πρόσφυγες Νόμος ΓΡΠΕ΄ υπ’αριθ.3185», αριθμός φύλλου 1, 4 Ιανουαρίου, 1-2. ———. 1907b. «Νόμος ΓΣΕ΄ υπ’αριθ.3205 περί κυρώσεως της μεταξύ του Δημοσίου και των Τραπεζών Εθνικής, Αθηνών, Ιονικής και Ανατολής συμβάσεως περί συνομολογήσεως Γεωργικού Θεσσαλικού δανείου δραχ. 10,000,000 και περί χορηγίας έκτακτου πιστώσεως εκ δραχ. 7,200,000 επί του ειδικού προϋπολογισμού των εξόδων του Υπουργείου των Οικονομικών της χρήσεως του έτους 1907», αριθμός φύλλου 70, 13 Απριλίου, 275-279. Ευαγγελίδης, Μαργαρίτης. 1900. Αιτία της εις Ελλάδα μεταναστεύσεως των εν Καυκάσω Ελλήνων του Πόντου και ιστορία των παθημάτων αυτών. Αθήνα. Θεσσαλία 1907a. «Η διανομή των Στεφανοβικείων», 28 Φεβρουαρίου, 2. ———. 1907b. «Ο εχθρός του Βόλου», 7 Μαρτίου 1907, 1. ———. 1907c. «Διατί δεν θέλουν τους Αγχιαλίτας εν Βόλω», 8 Μαρτίου, 1 ———. 1907d. «Και εκ τρίτου», 9 Μαρτίου 1907, 1. ———. 1907e. «Εθνική εορτή της χθες», 1 Οκτωβρίου, 3. Καρβέλα, Αικατερίνη Κ. 2005. «Μηχανισμοί εγκατάστασης αγροτικών πληθυσμών: πρόσφυγες και εγχώριοι στη Θεσσαλία 1907–1911» Διδακτορική διατριβή. Ιόνιο Πανεπιστήμιο. Κολτσίδας, Αντώνης Μιχ. 1994. Ιδεολογική συγκρότηση και εκπαιδευτική οργάνωση των Ελληνόβλαχων στο Βαλκανικό χώρο (1850–1913). Θεσσαλονίκη: Αδελφοί Κυριακίδη. Κοτζαγεώργη, Ξανθίππη. 1993–94. “Οι Έλληνες της Ανατολικής Ρωμυλίας (μέσα 19ου–αρχές 20ού αι.). Σωματειακή οργάνωση και κοινωνικός βίος.” Βαλκανικά Σύμμεικτα 5-6: 17-36. ———. (επιμέλεια). 1999. Οι Έλληνες της Βουλγαρίας: ένα ιστορικό τμήμα του περιφερειακού ελληνισμού. Θεσσαλονίκη: Ίδρυμα Μελετών Χερσονήσου του Αίμου. Μπεντερμάχερ-Γερούσης, Αιμίλιος. 1976. Ελληνικόν δίκαιον ιθαγενείας. τρίτη έκδοση. Θεσσαλονίκη: Αδελφοί Π. Σάκκουλα. Νικολαΐδου, Ελευθερία Ι. 1995. Η ρουμανική προπαγάνδα στο βιλαέτι Ιωαννίνων και στα βλαχόφωνα χωριά της Πίνδου (μέσα 19ου αι.–1900). τόμος. Α΄. Ιωάννινα: Εταιρεία Ηπειρωτικών Μελετών. ΝΓΣΒ (Νόμος ΓΣΒ΄ υπ’αριθ. 3202 της 7 Απριλίου 1907 περί συνοικισμού και διανομής γαιών εν Θεσσαλία και περί ιδρύσεως Θεσσαλικού Γεωργικού Ταμείου). 1907. Αθήνα: Εθνικό τυπογραφείο. Οικονομική Ελλάς 1907. «Ο μέγα ζήτημα των προσφύγων», 5 Μαΐου, 213. ΟΠ (Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο). 1906. Επίσημα έγγραφα περί της εν Μακεδονία οδυνηράς καταστάσεως. Κωνσταντινούπολη: Πατριαρχικό τυπογραφείο. Πατρίς. 1907a. «Τα Θεσσαλικά», 2 Φεβρουαρίου, 1. ̶̶̶. 1907b. «Η Βουλή», 2 Φεβρουαρίου, 2. ̶̶̶. 1907c.«Η Βουλή», 15 Μαρτίου, 2. ΠΕΒΕ (Παράρτημα της Εφημερίδος της Βουλής της Εκτάκτου Συνόδου της ΙΗ΄ Βουλευτικής Περιόδου). 1907a. «Αριθ. 42. Το νομοσχέδιον περί διανομής των εν Θεσσαλία εθνικών χωρίων πρώην Στεφάνοβικ», 78-87, Εθνικό τυπογραφείο και λιθογραφείο. ———. 1907b. «Αριθ. 43. Αιτιολογική έκθεσις του σχεδίου νόμου περί της δια Β. διατάγματος αποκτήσεως της ελληνικής ιθαγενείας υπό των εξ Ανατ. Ρωμυλίας, Βουλγαρίας και Ρωμουνίας

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 180

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 180180 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2621:16:26 ομογενών προσφύγων», 88. ———. 1907c. «Aριθ. 68. Νομοσχέδιον περί διανομής των εν τοις εθνικοίς εν Αλμυρώ λειβαδίοις καλλιεργουμένων και καλλιεργησίμων γαιών, εκχωρήσεως του επί των αγραναπαυομένων αλλοτρίων γαιών δικαιώματος βοσκής, και εκποιήσεως των εθνικών λειβαδίων», 123-127. ———. 1907d. «Aριθ.130. Το νομοσχέδιον περί συνοικισμού και διανομής γαιών εν Θεσσαλία και ιδρύσεως Θεσσαλικού Γεωργικού Ταμείου», 260-270. Πετμεζάς, Σωκράτης. 1999. «Αγροτική οικονομία». Σε Ιστορία της Ελλάδας του 20ού αιώνα. Οι απαρχές 1900–1922, τόμος Α΄-1. επιμ. Χρήστος Χατζηιωσήφ, 53-85. Αθήνα: Βιβλιόραμα. ΠΣΒΕ (Πρακτικά των Συνεδριάσεων της Βουλής της Εκτάκτου Συνόδου της ΙΗ΄ Βουλευτικής Περιόδου). 1907. Αθήνα: Εθνικό τυπογραφείο. Σκοπετέα, Έλλη. 1988. Το «Πρότυπο Βασίλειο» και η Μεγάλη Ιδέα: Όψεις του εθνικού προβλήματος στην Ελλάδα (1830–1880). Αθήνα: Πολύτυπο. Σφέτας, Σπυρίδων. 1993–94. «Οι ανθελληνικοί διωγμοί στην Ανατολική Ρωμυλία κατά το έτος 1906 στα πλαίσια της βουλγαρικής κρατικής πολιτικής» Βαλκανικά Σύμμεικτα 5-6: 75-91. Τσακίρης, Γ. Α. 1907. «Διατί Αγχιαλίται ζητούν να εγκατασταθώσι παρά τον Αλμυρόν», Σκρίπ, 30 Ιανουαρίου, 1. Χασιώτης, Σπύρος. 1906. Γνωμοδοτική έκθεσις προς την επιτροπήν των εξ Αγχιάλου προσφύγων. Αθήνα: Π.Α. Πετράκος. ———. 1907. «Η μεγάλη εθνική νίκη. Η Νέα Αγχίαλος», Ακρόπολις, 1 Οκτωβρίου, 1.

Agriantoni, Christine. 2006. “Venizelos and Economic Policy.” In Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship, ed. Paschalis Kitromilides, 284-318. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Andréadès, A. 1918. “Les Progrès matériels de la Thessalie depuis sa libération.” La Revue de Grèce 1 (1) (Septembre): 5-21. Clogg, Richard. 1982. “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Vol. 1 eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, 185-207. New York: Holmes and Meler. ̶̶̶. 1986. A Short History of Modern Greece. 2nd ed., Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. ̶̶̶. 2002. A Concise History of Greece. 2nd ed., Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Crampton, R. J. 2005. A Concise History of Bulgaria. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Dakin, Douglas. 1972. The Unification of Greece, 1770–1923. London: Ernest Benn. Dragostinova, Theodora K. 2005. “Between Two Motherlands: Struggles for Nationhood among the Greeks in Bulgaria, 1906–1949.” Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. FO (Foreign Office). FO 371/264, No. 14701. ̶̶̶. 1907. Turkey, No.1 (1907), Further Correspondence respecting the Affairs of South-Eastern

181 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 181181 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2621:16:26 Europe. London: Harrison and Sons. ̶̶̶. 1909. Annual Series, No. 4289, Diplomatic and Consular Reports: Greece: Report on the Finances of Greece for the Years 1907–1908. London: Harrison and Sons. Gounaris, Basil C. 1997. “Social Gathering and Macedonian Lobbying: Symbols of Irredentism and Living Legends in Early Twentieth-Century Athens.” In Greek Society in the Making: Realities, Symbols, and Visions, ed. Philip Carabott, 99-114. Aldershot, Hampshire, Great Britain; Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate/Variorum. Greene, Molly. 2000. “Great Idea.” In Encyclopedia of Greece and the Hellenic Tradition, Vol.1 ed. Graham Speake, 688-290. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. Karakasidou, Anastasia N. 1997. Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: Passage to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870-1990. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. ̶̶̶. 2004. “Affection of a Greek Hero: Pavlos Melas and Heroic Representations in Greece.” In Balkan Identity: Nation and Memory, ed. Maria Todorova, 197-232. New York: New York University Press. Kasasis, Neocles. 1907. Greeks & Bulgarians in the Nineteenth Centuries: An Open Letter to the Right Hon. Sir Charles W. Dilke. London: Ballantyne. Koliopoulos, John S. and Veremis, Thanos M. 2002. Greece: The Modern Sequel from 1831 to the Present. New York: New York University Press. Kotzageorgi, Xanthippi. 1991. “Educational and Cultural Activities of Greeks in Varna (Mid 19th C.-1906).” Balkan Studies 32 (2): 217-34. ̶̶̶. 1994. “The Greek Community of Burgas: Education and Culture.” Études balkaniques (1): 79-85. ̶̶̶. 1995. “The Profile and Activities of Greek Womens’ [sic] Associations in Bulgaria (Late 19th– Early 20th Century), Études balkaniques (3-4): 196-205. Mackridge, Peter and Yannakakis, Eleni. 1997. “Introduction.” In Ourselves and Others: The Development of a Greek Macedonian Cultural Identity since 1912, eds. Peter Mackridge and Eleni Yannakakis, 1-22. Oxford and New York: Berg. McCarthy, Justin. 2001. The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire. London: Arnold; New York: Oxford. NARS (National Archives and Records Service). 1906. “Despatches from United States Ministers to Greece, Vol. 18: February 1–August 12, 1906. No.403, June 14, 1906.” Patriarcat Œcuménique. 1906. Mémorandums adressés aux représentants des grandes puissances à Constantinople et autres documents relatif aux récents évènements de Bulgarie et Roumélie orientale. Constantinople: Imprimerie du Patriarcat Œcuménique. Ploumidis, Spyridon. 2005. “Social and Cultural Life in Plovdiv, 1879–1906.” Études balkaniques (4): 129-139. Quataert, Donald. 2000. “The Age of Reforms 1812–1914.” In An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Vol. 2. eds. Halil İnalcik and Donald Quataert, 759-944. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 182

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 182182 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2621:16:26 R., A. (Romanos, Athos). 1907. The Persecution of the Greeks in Bulgaria. London: Ede, Allom and Townsend. Stavrianos, L. S. 1958. The Balkans since 1453. New York: Rinehart. Streit, Georgios. 1906. La Question des communautés helléniques en Roumanie. Paris: Librairie de la société du recueil J.-B. Sirey et de journal du palais. Todorov, Varban. 2005. “The Fate of the Antiquities of Varna (An Episode of Bulgarian-Greek Relations in the Beginning of the 20th Century).” Études balkaniques (4): 69-75. TPAA (The Thracians’ Patriotic Association at Athens). 1906. Persecution against the Greeks in Bulgaria and Oriental Roumelia: An Appeal both to the Great Powers and to the People of Europe and America. Athens: P. A. Petrakos. Velichi, Constantin N. 1969. “Les Relations roumano-grecques pendant la période 1879-1911.” Revue des études sud-est européennes 7 (3): 509-542. Wace, Alan J. B. and Thompson, Maurice S. 1914. The Nomads of the Balkans: An Account of Life and Customs among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus. London: Methuen. Winnifrith, T. J. 1987. The Vlachs: The History of a Balkan People. London: Duckworth. Woodhouse, C. M. 1995. Rhigas Velestinlis: The Proto-Martyr of the Greek Revolution. Limni, Evia, Greece: D. Harvey.

ABSTRACT MURATA SAWAYANAGI Nanako Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations: The Greek Parliament’s Tackling of Refugee Settlement and Land Distribution in Thessaly (1906– 1907)

This paper examines the initial endeavors of Greece to grapple with the refugee problem by illuminating the ideological discourses in the lawmaking process of the Greek Parliament in 1906‒1907 on the land distribution among the Greek refugees from the Balkan states. Confronting Balkan nationalism that victimized age-long ethnic Greek communities outside its frontiers, the Greek state faced up to the reality of the setback of its irredentist policy. In the Parliament, serious and patriotic discussions were made in order to help those refugees effectively relocate and make new communities in Greek Thessaly by distributing land and furnishing financial aid. The deliberations in the Parliament, with a keen sense of the crisis of Hellenism, resulted in Law 3202, enacted on April 7, 1907. The first state-sponsored legislative proceedings to settle refugees in Greek territory can be regarded as quite successful in that they offered a realistic solution to the refugee issue at that point in time. In addition, this legislative project concomitantly contributed to turning native Greek sharecroppers, who had suffered for long periods from the private large estate system, into smallholders. Referring to the legal arrangement for the refugees discussed in this paper, the Greek

183 Greek Communities Relocated in the Making of the Balkan Nations（ Murata）

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 183183 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2621:16:26 government was to wrestle with massive numbers of incoming Greek refugees from Asia Minor after the Greek forces were defeated by the Kemalist Turkish army in 1922.

Adjunct Instructor, The University of Tokyo 東京大学非常勤講師

AJAMES no.26-2 2010 184

22010_26-2.indb010_26-2.indb 184184 22010/12/27010/12/27 21:16:2621:16:26