CHRONOS Revue d’Histoire de l’Université de Balamand 41, 2020, pp. 37-62 OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER: THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CYPRUS AND THE REGALIA PRIVILEGES MICHALIS N. MICHAEL1 Abstract According to tradition, and not historical sources, the Byzantine emperor Zeno granted to the Archbishop of Cyprus, Anthemios, and his successors three important privileges; the right to carry a gold orbed sceptre, to wear a robe in imperial purple and to sign his official documents with imperial red ink. The main argument of this paper is that the use of the archbishop’s regalia privileges on a first level and the effort to promote a Greek-speaking civilization in Ottoman Cyprus, from the second half of the 18th century and onwards, are part of an effort to differentiate, but not cancel the Ottoman character of the political power of the clergy and, accordingly, the Ottoman character of the island. In such a framework it seems that these symbols used by the archbishop of Cyprus reproduce the Ottoman — and not the non-Ottoman — character of political power in Cyprus and maintain, if not reinforce, an Ottoman reality for the island. With the agreement between the Ottoman Empire and Britain that was concLuded behind the scenes at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, the Ottoman sultan Leased the Cyprus administration to Britain against an annuaL rent (HiLL 1952: 269). An Ottoman isLand since 1571, with two major reLigious communities, the MusLims and the Orthodox, Cyprus passed, on an administrative LeveL, from the world of the Ottomans to the world of the British coloniaL system of administration, from the world of the Ottoman East to the world of the British West. According to the signed agreement, the isLand of Cyprus would continue to be a territory of the Ottoman Empire, and only the administration was Leased 1 University of Cyprus. 38 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL to the British state. A few decades Later, and more specificaLLy in 1914 in the framework of World War I, Britain decLared the annexation of Cyprus to the British Empire, and in 1925 the isLand was decLared as a Crown colony. ALthough the British administration initiaLLy maintained some Ottoman Laws and regulations, the status of the preLates of the Church of Cyprus within the Ottoman system of ruling was an Ottoman reaLity that the British could not accept (GeorghaLLides 1979: 3-14). In many ways, the arrivaL of the British opened the way for the imposition of a Western type of modernity with significant complexities due to the reaLities of the Ottoman centuries in the history of Cyprus (Anagnostopoulou 1999: 199). The establishment of a centraL authority on the isLand, envisioned to operate as a powerful executive power assisted by other bodies, heLped to impose an aLternative understanding of state and state administration which reformulated the existing Ottoman system (MichaeL 2015: 105-130). Soon after the arrivaL of British forces in Cyprus, a number of books started to be published in order to disseminate information to the British public regarding the new territory administrated by the British Empire. In 1878 the British author William Hepworth Dixon was in Cyprus to witness the transfer of the isLand from the Sublime Porte’s jurisdiction to Britain. Describing his impressions of the isLand in one of the first books ever to be published in Britain about Cyprus, Dixon noted among other things his views about the coexistence of the Ottoman pasha, meaning the Ottoman governor of the isLand, with the archbishop of Cyprus, Sophronios III (1865-1900). He noted: “Each was a prince in his own world, and bore his signs of royaLty in his titLe and his garb. The pasha was his ExceLLency and his Highness; the Primate his ExceLLency and his Beatitude. The temporaL ruler bore his staff of state, tipped with a golden apple, and armed with two horse-taiLs. The spirituaL ruler donned a purple robe, carried an imperiaL wand, and signed his name in vermiLion ink. […] Thus, whiLe the pasha stood in the place of a Living sultan on the Bosphorus, the Primate stood for the majesty of Constantine, the empire of the world” (Dixon 1879: 42-43). In the above extract, the regaLia priviLeges of the archbishop of Cyprus are recorded as symbols that denote his spirituaL power over his OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 39 Orthodox flock in Cyprus. WhiLe on one hand the British author of the book reaLized that there is a connection between the two forms of power on the isLand, the pasha and the archbishop, on the other hand it seems that he considered them as forms of power that derived from two different worlds. The Ottoman pasha, with his sceptre and golden apple on the top and horsetaiLs, characterized him as the secular governor, and his symbols denoted his Ottoman politicaL power. The regaLia used by the Ottoman pasha are mentioned only as Ottoman insignia of his secular power over the isLand and its population. The archbishop is dressed in his purple mantLe and holds the imperiaL sceptre, denoting with these symbols his spirituaL power and his Byzantine heritage; the archbishop’s presence and his way of representing himseLf appeared to the British author as a connection to the Byzantine Emperor Constantine, whiLe he did not mention any connection of this appearance with the Ottoman reaLity of the 19th century. In other words, the regaLia used by the archbishop of Cyprus are described as non-Ottoman symbols, and more specificaLLy as Byzantine symbols, of his spirituaL power over his flock. Thus, whiLe the power of the Ottoman governor denotes the existing world of the era, the Ottoman world, and the pasha is seen as representing the Living sultan, the archbishop is seen as representing a non-existent world, the Byzantine Empire. In Dixon’s eyes, the archbishop of Cyprus holds symbols of mainly culturaL and spirituaL vaLue, not connected to any politicaL or secular power within the Ottoman reaLity of Cyprus. In both cases, the pasha and the archbishop represent two sources of power, two worlds which, whiLe coexisting, appear to not be reLevant to one another. AdditionaLLy, the distinction made by Dixon between the politicaL power of the pasha and the spirituaL power of the archbishop of Cyprus appears to remove any politicaL responsibiLity from the Latter, which of course could not be seen as reflecting the reaLity of the Ottoman state, and especiaLLy of Ottoman Cyprus (MichaeL 2005a). LastLy, even the reference to the use of the archbishop’s regaLia priviLeges appears not to connect these symbols to the reaL world of the Ottoman state, creating the impression that the archbishop, the head of the Church of Cyprus, used such symbols in order to denote a non-Ottoman world and in many ways perhaps a world that was in contrast with the Ottomans. 40 MICHALIS N. MICHAEL The question that presents itseLf through this excerpt — and more specificaLLy the note about the use of the regaLia priviLeges by the archbishops of Cyprus during the Ottoman period in the history of Cyprus — is whether these symbols emphasize and establish a non- Ottoman source of power, a source of power that is spirituaL, ‘a different world’ as Dixon mentioned, or whether the symbols emphasize the politicaL power of the archbishop, founded in the Ottoman framework and the status quo of the Church of Cyprus before and after the Tanzimat reforms in the Ottoman state. Could it be that the two powers mentioned in the excerpt represent the existing Ottoman world of that moment and more specificaLLy the existing power of the Ottoman sultan, a Living sultan, through the use of different symbols? Could it be that the Ottoman world and especiaLLy Ottoman politicaL power — and not spirituaL — was represented by the horsetaiLs in the pasha’s sceptre, but at the same time by the imperiaL sceptre of the archbishop of Cyprus? If the answer to these questions is positive, it could be argued that the regaLia priviLeges, as they were used during that particular era, were symbols only of Ottoman politicaL power. AdditionaLLy, an affirmative answer to these questions would mean that the character, or better yet, the content of the Ottoman politicaL power during this period is a complex eLement that is definiteLy not static, since it is possible for it to be transformed and acquire different eLements other than those that prevaiLed during the cLassicaL period of the empire, before the 17th century. The main argument of this study is that the use of the archbishop’s regaLia priviLeges on a first LeveL and the effort to promote a Greek-speaking civiLization within the Ottoman state on behaLf of the cLergy of the Church of Cyprus from the second haLf of the 18th century and onwards, were part of an effort to differentiate, but not to canceL the Ottoman character of the politicaL power of the cLergy and, accordingly, the Ottoman character of the isLand. At the same time, the usage of these symbols by the archbishops of Cyprus during the Ottoman period was directLy connected with the politicaL power that the sultan granted to the archbishops of Cyprus. This power was definiteLy not spirituaL in any form. So, the regaLia priviLeges imply the Byzantine past, but they worked as eLements in the framework of power of the Ottoman present and they could therefore be seen as Byzantium-reLated symbols of the existing Ottoman politicaL power of the archbishop. In OTTOMANIZING SYMBOLS, PROJECTING OTTOMAN IMPERIAL POWER 41 such a framework, it seems that these symbols used by the archbishop of Cyprus reproduced the Ottoman — and not the non-Ottoman — character of politicaL power in Cyprus and maintained, if not reinforced, an Ottoman reaLity for the isLand.