BOUNDARY OF GREECE, THE

KEEP, Robert P.

The Greeks would never have gained their freedom, and the Greek Kingdom would never have heen constituted, had it not been for philhellenism in England and France. But interest in Greece and sympathy with Greek aspirations for increase of territory had greatly diminished in England in recent years. In consequence of the Crimean war, England had taken upon herself the heavy load of sustaining Turkey. The Turkish debt was mostly owned in England, and not only did the supposed interests of the bondholders forbid any acquisition of territory by Greece, which could only take place at the expense of Turkey, but with the natural disposition to discover virtues in those to whom we render service, the courage, truthfulness, and dignity of the Turks were much dwelt upon, and the Sultan was as popular in London as Napoleon III. The Turkophiles belonged to the same class, and expressed their feelings with the same intensity, as the sympathizers with the Southern cause in our late war.

No one man had more influence in keeping alive the depreciatory spirit with which the Greeks were regarded in England than the late eminent historian Mr. George Finlay. Himself a philhellene, who went in early manhood, immediately on the completion of his studies at Edinburgh and Gottingen, to take part in the Greek struggle for independence, and who resided thenceforth for a period of nearly fifty years at Athens, his opinions were naturally felt to carry great weight. His long fortnightly letters in the London Times, dwelling on the instances of mis-government, on the waste in collecting revenues, on the indifference to public improvements, perhaps on the lack of public safety, were the more damaging because the facts which they contained were unimpeachable. But those who knew Mr. Finlay well were justified in saying that whether from a constitutional bias of mind, or from domestic infelicities, or from his long occupation with the gloomy and discouraging annals of the Byzantine Empire, he had contracted such a habit of dwelling upon the dark side of whatever he described that his pictures were not and could not be trustworthy.

English dislike and contempt for Greece culminated in 1870. Mr. Erskine, then the English minister at Athens, made the defects of the Greeks the staple of his conversation. “English and European championship of them had been a mistake from the beginning. They had been lifted to a position for which they were not fit. Sooner or later, a Greek would disappoint every one who intrusted anything to him.”

Of course the dreadful tragedy, beginning with the capture at Marathon and ending with the slaughter at Oropos of three representative Englishmen by a band of brigands, strengthened the antipathy already so pronounced. The wish was expressed in the London daily papers that Greece could be swept of its present inhabitants, and be peopled by another race.

Since 1870 a remarkable change in public feeling has certainly taken place, both in England and on the Continent. Nor has this been without justification. The Greeks have honestly tried to destroy brigandage, and they have so far succeeded that for more than ten years there has been no case of organized ληστεία (brigandage) within the boundaries of the Hellenic Kingdom. The discipline of the rank and file of the army has improved, and, what was especially needed, officers have been held more strictly to their posts in frontier duty. Remarkable industrial and material progress has been made within the kingdom. Athens, which scarcely numbered 40,000 inhabitants in 1870, has now a population of 80,000. The growth of the Piraeus has been even more rapid. The heights surrounding the harbor of Mounychia, then utterly bare and valueless, are now occupied by beautiful villas, and have become valuable property. The growth of the towns, by providing a steady market for products, has given that stimulus to agriculture which nothing else could supply, and already there are seen a marked rise in the value of farms within easy distance of the cities, and plain signs of that attention to agriculture which gloomy observers like Mr. Finlay declared the Greeks would never exhibit.¹

Më madhe

An important fact in this connection is the increasing market for Peloponnesian currants in Marseilles. The Greek currant is a seedless grape, which has nowhere been successfully cultivated except in Southern Greece and in the Ionian Islands, to which it has brought, in certain sections, great prosperity. For several years, however, the production has exceeded the capacity of the rest of the world to consume, as the only use to which the currants were applied was to furnish an ingredient in plum-puddings, cake, and the like. But it has been recently discovered that these grapes can be employed to great advantage, when dried, in the manufacture of wine, and a new demand for them for this purpose has begun in France, which may prove unlimited. From my own knowledge of the Peloponnesus, the capacities of its soil, its supply of water, the industry and thrift of its inhabitants, I do not regard it as impossible that many of those who read this article may live to see the day when it will be as carefully cultivated, acre for acre, as Switzerland. It would not be surprising if the lofty terraces and slopes of Mount Cyllene, the beautiful and varied precincts of the Convent of Megaspelaion, the heights near Ithome at the head of the Messenian Gulf, should become much-frequented resorts of health and pleasure seekers from every country of Europe and from America.

But these considerations are only preliminary to our special theme.

During the recent Russo-Turkish war the Greeks were restrained from a movement to occupy territory in Thessaly and Epirus, at a time when the Turks were too closely pressed by the Russians to have been able to prevent at least a temporary occupation, by positive assurances from England, then under the Premiership of Beaconsfield, that the claims of Greece should receive, at the proper time, full recognition. It marked an advance in the strength of the government and in the self-control of the people that, in view of the anticipation of greater good in the future, outbreaks and incursions over the frontier were prevented. It was not strange, after this, that the Greek nation looked forward with sanguine hopes to the meeting of the Congress of Berlin in the summer of 1878. They felt, and with reason, that their conduct had been such as to entitle them to that substantial increase in territory which they had been led to expect. Great, accordingly, was the disappointment and the discouragement when this Congress, which dealt in many respects so arbitrarily with the remains of the Turkish Empire, contented itself, as regarded the claims of Greece, with the simple recommendation that Greece and Turkey might come to a new arrangement respecting the boundary line. For it was perfectly well understood that no recommendation of this sort, even though accompanied by the suggestion that the valleys of the Kalamas (Thyamis) and the Salamryas (Peneios) would furnish good natural boundaries, would have effect, but that it simply left matters in statu quo. No one was, accordingly, surprised that the two conferences held between representatives of the Turkish and Greek governments, nominally to give effect to the recommendation of the Congress, resulted in nothing. But it sometimes proves that scanty justice at first, or justice at first withheld, is followed by fuller justice at last; and England, to whom the existence of the Greek Kingdom was largely due, grown as weary of the guardianship of the Turkish Empire as of the administration of Lord Beaconsfield, became really ashamed of the treatment of Greece by English diplomatists. Mr. Gladstone was able to complete, on the verbal basis laid down by Lord Beaconsfield in the Congress of Berlin, an adjustment of the boundary which, had it been carried into effect, would have accorded to Greece all that she had hoped for, and perhaps even more. I refer to the award of the Conference of Berlin at its meeting in June, 1880.² Mr. Gladstone’s object in this Conference was to bring to bear upon Turkey the pressure of what he called the “European concert.” This pressure, exerted by means of the assemblage of the united fleet of the great powers at Ragusa, compelled the Sultan to cede Dulcigno to Montenegro. This same influence Mr. Gladstone wished again to employ in the matter of the Greek boundary. How bold and apparently how hopeless such an attempt was will appear when we reflect that the Conference was composed of representatives of Russia, Austria, Germany, France, Italy, and England. That the influence of England in originating and guiding the Conference might be less conspicuous, it was arranged that the formal request for it should come from the German Empire, through Count Minister, the German ambassador at London, and Berlin was selected as the place of meeting. Its members were the diplomatic representatives of the great powers accredited to the German court. Prince Bismarck had presided at the Berlin Congress, and it was desired and expected that he would preside at the sessions of the Conference. This would have helped to give to the later assembly the character of a continuation of the earlier, convened to complete its work. But Bismarck’s health did not permit him to be present, and his place was taken by Prince Hohenlohe. The protocolists, or secretaries, were the same who had acted as such in the Congress of Berlin—Count de Mouy and Dr. Von Busch, of the French and German Foreign Offices respectively. As soon as preliminaries were disposed of, the French ambassador explained the views of his government, and made the following proposition:

“The frontier will follow the thalweg³ of the Kalamas from the outfall of that river in the Ionian Sea up to its source; then the summits which form the line of separation between the basins of the Voioussa (Aous), of the Haliachma (Haliacmon), and their tributaries, to the north, and those of the Kalamas (Thyamis), of the Arta (Arachthus), of the Aspropotamus (Achelous), of the Salamryas (Peneios), and their tributaries, to the south, so as to arrive at Olympus, the summits of which it will follow to the eastern termination of the mountain on the Aegean Sea.”

After the French ambassador had made this proposition, the Italian ambassador declared that it had the full support of his government. Then Lord Odo Russell followed, speaking third and not first, and, after dwelling upon the desire of the British government that there should be no forcible annexation of an unwilling Mussulman population, said that after a careful consideration of the proposed boundary line, with the help and advice of General Sir Lintorn Simmons, the British technical expert, he had come to the conclusion that the line proposed by his French and agreed to by his Italian colleague would also correspond with the views of the English government, and could lead to a practical solution of the question to be decided. The Austrian and Russian representatives next expressed their general approval, subject to further consideration; and all the members of the Conference except the president having informally given utterance to their opinions, opportunity was given for a statement of the wishes of Greece and Turkey, though these powers were not represented in the Conference. Their arguments were presented in writing, and were read by the president. Of them it is enough for the present purpose to say that the line proposed by the Greeks was substantially the same as that recommended by the French ambassador, with the addition that it included the strip of territory opposite Corfu on the west coast, and the northern slopes of Mount Olympus on the east coast. The line urged by the Turkish government ran from the northern point of the Gulf of Volo (Pagasae) on the east to the northern point of the Gulf of Arta (Ambracia) on the west, i. e., was practically the same as the boundary established by the powers in 1832, save that it conceded the control of the two gulfs, that of Pagasae and that of Ambracia. These counter propositions received some attention, particularly that of Greece, which was favored by the Russian ambassador, but the line proposed at the opening of the Conference by the French ambassador was finally adopted by a unanimous vote by the representatives of the six great powers.

Was this boundary line a conscientious interpretation of the language of the thirteenth protocol of the proceedings of the Berlin Congress ? This is an interesting and not an easy question. It was certainly a possible interpretation, otherwise it would never have received the unanimous support of representatives of powers of so varied interests. It was also an interpretation made with a certain latitude, and in a sense favorable to Greece. This latitude consisted in so interpreting the words of the protocol above referred to as to substitute, throughout the entire eastern portion of the boundary, instead of the thalweg or line of lowest level of the valley of the Salamryas (Peneios), its extreme northern border, or the watershed dividing this valley from the waters flowing to the north. Such a latitude of interpretation was justified on account of the difficulties of carrying out literally the thirteenth protocol. Its language, taken literally, did not decide to which countrv Joannina, the intellectual centre of Epirus, and as closely connected with the revival of Greek nationality and the Greek struggle for independence as any place in Greece, should belong. Another not less important question was respecting the assignment of Metsovo, a thriving town on Mount Pindus, the backbone of the Greek peninsula, which commands the travelled road between Joannina and Larissa, and substantially controls intercourse between Thessaly and Epirus. This place lies neither in the valley of the Kalamas nor in that of the Salamryas, but between the head-waters of both. The fact was that public opinion in England and in Europe justified the claim of Greece to the three places, Joannina, Larissa, Metsovo—the capitals respectively of Epirus and Thessaly, and the fortress commanding the passage between them. Hence the language of the protocol was construed in a sense favorable to the Greeks.

The thalweg, or valley bed, of the Kalamas, may be said, loosely speaking, to form a dividing line between Albanians and Greeks, different in race, language, and religion. Here, therefore, the precise indications of the Congress of Berlin were followed. But the case was far different on the east of Mount Pindus. The northern slope of the valley of the Salamryas is as much Greek as the southern. And how great would be the absurdity of according to Greece a part of Thessaly and withholding Mount Olympus, the home of the Greek gods !

The award of the Berlin Conference, agreed to a little more than a year ago, assigned to Greece an increase of territory equal to four-sevenths of her area, and the fertility of the Thessalian plain, as a whole, far exceeds that of any equal number of acres in the Hellenic Kingdom. The added population would be some 600,000—about one-third of the population of Greece according to the last census.

After this decision the policy of Turkey was one of expostulation and delay. Well aware of the difficulty of maintaining a “European concert” among six powers with interests so diverse, the Porte reasoned that the carrying into effect of the decision of the Conference would be easily frustrated could its execution be delayed. Accordingly all the resources of diplomacy—an art in which the Turkish government has no superior—were directed toward postponement. These efforts were in a measure successful, for Austria, France, and Germany indicated a willingness to accept a compromise. This led, last spring, to the Conference of Constantinople, the decision of which, accepted by the Greek and Turkish governments, awards to Greece the northern shore of the Gulf of Arta (Ambracia), and the southern part of Thessaly to the Peneios, including Larissa, and excluding, of course, Joanni-na and Metsovo. Military representatives of the powers were appointed to witness the transfer of territory. This transfer was in progress for some two months, and was completed on Monday, August 22, 1881.

Greece has gained more by this conclusion of the matter than might at first appear. She has, too, escaped great dangers. An army of 60,000 men, the largest force she has ever raised, had been recruited, and was ready last spring to proceed to the occupation of the territory assigned to her by the Berlin Conference. But the European concert ‘had come to an end, and it was impossible to tell what consequences might ensue from a collision precipitated in the Greek peninsula without the full support of the European powers. Hence England plainly informed Greece that she would give her no support if she involved herself in a war with Turkey. Any one who reflects that the Greek soldiery have never faced fire, and that there is no reason to expect great ability in leadership from Greek officers, will see that a general engagement with. Turkish troops schooled in the recent war with Russia could have resulted in nothing else than a crushing defeat for Greece. Greece is too small to win, or to hope to win, in any single-handed struggle with Turkey, moribund though the latter be. She did well, therefore, to heed the caution of England; and though she was declared at the time by enthusiastic philhellenes, and even by so kind and wise a friend as the London Spectator, to have missed her opportunity, she did well to hold back. And she may be no less thankful that she is succeeding in quietly reducing her army, and that no outbreaks on the frontier and no cases of brigandage are reported. On the whole, she has passed through a dangerous crisis with credit. Every one recognizes that Turkish sway, and even Turkish foot-hold in Europe, must in a few years be a thing of the past. As soon as the utter collapse comes, the question will arise, To how much territory is Greece entitled ? Then the decision that was made in accordance with considerations of topography, ethnography, and religion, and was unanimously concurred in by representatives of six great powers, will be remembered. The administration of the territory which Greece has just received will, we may hope, be sufficiently creditable to justify her claim to assume the entire area awarded to her in 1880, which I doubt not will be given her. Crete is already practically conceded to Greece—has been several times conditionally offered by the Porte. It has been stated that England would not be unwilling to cede Cyprus. The annexation of Cyprus, the remotest of the Greek islands, would naturally carry with it that of all the islands of the Aegean. Thessaly and Epirus, the early cradles of the Greek race, Cyprus and Crete, and the lesser islands, furnish as large an added domain as Greece need aspire to. Whether such dependencies should be held by a looser or by a firmer tie, the circumstances of each case would decide.

In some respects Greece is not well prepared to assume the management of a large added territory. The Greek Kingdom presents the anomaly of a constitution exceedingly democratic, but an administration highly centralized. The constitution was the result of the revolutions of 1843 and 1861. The administration is a legacy of King Otho and his Bavarian advisers. Such an administration can be neither efficient nor economical. A gradual decentralization, then, is the thing to be desired. Nor need the possibility of this be doubted. No trait of the Greek character is more conspicuous, in both ancient and modern times, than the strength of local attachment. This is attested by the multitude of schools founded in different parts of Greece, and amid the Greek population of Turkey, by Greeks who, having left their native town in youth, have devoted to it a part of the wealth acquired in foreign lands. Evidently love for the native locality, pride in it, willingness to labor and sacrifice for it, are the elements of true public spirit, and the foundations of a prosperous village life. The difficulty with the present system of administration is twofold : first, local magistrates have not sufficient independence of action; and second, they are not responsible to the towns in which they perform their duties. But these defects can easily be corrected. They are not connected with the name of the government. They can readily be eliminated while Greece remains a monarchy; they might remain though she became a republic. The King of Greece has conducted himself with much discretion, and, democratic in feeling as the people are, they recognize the advantage of having a nominal head of the state who is placed above the envy and intrigue which are so rife at Athens. The King understands the people well, has shown perfect loyalty to the constitution, and would place no obstruction in the way of needed reforms in administration. The Swiss Confederation furnishes a good example of what such reforms should be. There is needed a field for practice in self-government, and a tie, strong but not irksome, by which all the provinces shall be united into one Greek state.