Introduction
Unlike the later years of British rule in Cyprus, the period of the First World War has so far received scant scholarly attention. While attention is usually given to the 1915 British offer of Cyprus to Greece,Footnote 2 it nevertheless remains true that the Great War transformed the island on many levels. This article addresses the ways the war affected relations between the Orthodox Church of Cyprus and the British colonial administration. It suggests that an important turning point in Church-State relations in Cyprus can be traced during the Great War as developments which took place on the island resulted in a hardening of attitudes of both the Orthodox Church and the British authorities. The experience of the war and its aftermath accelerated the dynamic of the Enosis movement and paved the way for future developments, which eventually led to the collapse of this relationship in the 1950s.
The autocephalous Orthodox Church of Cyprus in general and the archbishop in particular traditionally played a leading part in the island's political life.Footnote 3 The Greeks of Cyprus looked to the archbishop as their leader and protector. Under the Ottoman millet system, the archbishop was regarded as the civil and religious leader of his community (ethnarch). As such the Orthodox Church enjoyed certain privileges, the most important being the collection of taxes from the Orthodox flock.Footnote 4 Upon their arrival on the island the British did not fully recognize the involvement of the Church in civil affairsFootnote 5 and this came as a shock to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Soon, however, emboldened by greater freedom in civil life, the religious institution consolidated its place as the second source of power on the island after the British administration. Enosis (union of Cyprus with Greece) posed a potential challenge to the British colonial government almost from the outset of its rule on the island. In 1878, Bishop Kyprianos of Kitium and then Archbishop Sofronios addressed the British hospitably; both expressed their expectations for the future. Kyprianos had explicitly asked for union with Greece whereas Archbishop Sofronios discreetly incorporated the immediate hopes of the Greek Cypriot population for a better future into his welcome speech. The difference between the approaches of Kyprianos and Sofronios on the question of Enosis has been pointed out in the existing literature: the bishop's was direct and at least potentially insistent, while the archbishop's was couched in more moderate terms.Footnote 6 This in turn allows for a rough and preliminary classification of Greek Cypriot attitudes towards Enosis, one of a maximalist inclination, the other marked by a more collaborationist impulse. In this context it is important to stress that in the early stages of British rule Greek Cypriots promoted their national aspirations together with requests for the amelioration of economic and social conditions on the island; all such demands were put forward in a moderate and peaceful way. Gradually, by the end of the First World War, developments within and surrounding the island would facilitate the hardcore attitude towards Enosis to prevail. In such a milieu the Orthodox Church would become the foremost exponent of Greek irredentism in Cyprus.Footnote 7
Despite the fragility of relations between the Orthodox Church and the British authorities during the early years of British rule the tendency for cooperation prevailed as both actors sought to have workable relations. This is best exemplified during the service of High Commissioner Sir Walter Sendall (1892–98). In 1893 the high commissioner, together with Archbishop Sofronios, supported the reform and extension of the Hellenic SchoolFootnote 8 to include a Lyceum (which became the renowned Pancyprian Gymnasium) and was present at its opening ceremony. Sendall regarded the School as a catalyst for the general improvement of educationFootnote 9 and he was highly respected by Cypriots.Footnote 10 As Sendall's term of office reached its end a delegation of Cypriots organized a farewell ceremony at the Phaneromeni girls’ school in which the archbishop himself unveiled a column in Sendall's honour.Footnote 11
During 1900–9 the long rivalry for the election of a new archbishop demonstrated the degree to which religion and politics were inextricably related. In 1912 the archbishop was acknowledged as the chair of the newly-established Political Organization,Footnote 12 the creation of which marked a turning point in the adoption of a more forceful Enosis policy on the part of Greek Cypriots. This followed the resignation of the Greek members of the Legislative Council in 1912 after the High Commissioner, Hamilton Goold-Adams, rejected any discussion of their grievances, including Enosis demands and the abolition of the much-resented Tribute.Footnote 13 During the summer of 1912, under the auspices of the Political Organization, a delegation was sent to London to present Greek Cypriot demands to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lewis Harcourt. It is important to stress that despite pursuing their national demands, the delegation envisaged a positive outcome in the framework of Anglo-Hellenic friendship and kept its Enosis rhetoric strictly within such limits. Hopes for Enosis were bolstered by Greek military successes in the ensuing Balkan Wars in which a significant number of Greek Cypriot volunteers participated.Footnote 14 All in all, in 1913, Greek Cypriots strongly believed that Enosis was imminent.Footnote 15
The onset of the Great War: the British annexation of Cyprus, 1914
On the eve of the outbreak of hostilities, Archbishop Cyril II and the members of the Legislative Council exerted pressure on the British government by preparing a plebiscite demanding union with Greece. The fiftieth anniversary of the cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece in 1864 was an apt opportunity to do so. Cyril submitted a memorandum to the high commissioner, signed by himself and the Greek members of the Legislative Council, stressing the importance of the anniversary and expressing the hope this example would be repeated in the case of Cyprus.Footnote 16 The memorandum went on to stress that all villages would conduct an Enosis plebiscite asking for the union of the island with Greece.Footnote 17 Goold-Adams replied that he did not intend to obstruct the people's freedom of expression; he would gladly pass the memorandum to the king and the secretary of state for the colonies:
There is no doubt that the demands of the Greek Cypriot people for annexation to the Greek Kingdom have the sympathy of a great part of the British people […]. I do not intend to forbid the free expression of the people of Cyprus through plebiscites or any other way when this takes place within the limits of the constitutional order without upsetting the existing peace and harmony with other races on the island. The involvement of the higher clergy and the (Greek) honorable members of the Legislative Council provides, for me, a guarantee for this.Footnote 18
Considering how the relationship between the Church and the British authorities developed in the later years of British rule, such a statement is remarkable as it demonstrates the degree to which, despite their fragility, relations between Church and State remained good. Petitions for Enosis began to circulate in villages. London was naturally unwilling to consent to any such demand, and the onset of the war halted any development pertaining to the matter.
One point which merits mention is the uneasiness which spread through the Turkish Cypriot community in response to rumours suggesting Turks signed the petition too: according to such rumours, the mukhtar and two azas in the village of Eptakomi had signed the Enosis petition. A report by the acting chief of the police, however, concluded that no such incident took place.Footnote 19 Other reports noted that in Larnaca, the lower classes of Turkish Cypriots believed an attempt would be made to induce members of the community who were ‘Linovamvaki’ (Crypto-Christians) to sign the petition.Footnote 20 These examples were suggestive of the tension and suspicion which began building up between the Greeks and Turks of Cyprus.Footnote 21
The Great War significantly affected Cyprus, even though the island did not experience any military operations.Footnote 22 The immediate repercussion of the onset of World War I on Cyprus was the unilateral annexation of the island by Britain, once the Ottoman Empire had entered the war on the side of the Central Powers on 5 November 1914.Footnote 23 This development was critical because the argument made by Britain that it could not hand the island to Greece because it belonged to Turkey, as the Cyprus Convention of 1878 stated, lost its validity.Footnote 24 Greek Cypriots welcomed the annexation first and foremost as a step closer to union with Greece. The newspaper Ελɛυθɛρία, on 14 November, quoted the Greek Premier, Eleftherios Venizelos:
The annexation of Cyprus must be characterized as the last stage towards the national restoration of this great Greek Island. And, according to private information in the possession of this Government, it may be considered that the Union of Cyprus with its mother Greece will be realized in the near future.Footnote 25
The prevailing mood was also reflected in the newspaper Φωνή της Κύπρου, which hailed the annexation as the ‘last stop’ before the union of Cyprus with Greece.Footnote 26 The newspaper stressed its hope that the British would fulfil the national demands of Greek Cypriots, and that Goold-Adams would be the last ever British high commissioner to serve in Cyprus.Footnote 27 The paper referred to the 1878 welcome address by Sofronios in which he expressed his hopes regarding both the national question and the amelioration of some of the difficult aspects of the daily life of Cypriots. According to the editorial, in 1878 the head of the Orthodox Church and the high commissioner had signed a ‘sacred contract,’ and the annexation of Cyprus was a renewal of that contract which the visit of Archbishop Cyril II to the high commissioner, following the news of the annexation, only reasserted.Footnote 28
The Orthodox Church enthusiastically welcomed this development. Archbishop Cyril II, who was elevated to the throne in 1910 following the end of a decade of archiepiscopal rivalry,Footnote 29 greeted the annexation. The Greek members of the Legislative Council headed by the archbishop visited the high commissioner with a memorandum declaring Greek Cypriots would support Britain and her allies in the struggle against the Central Powers; the petitioners simultaneously expressed their hope that recent developments would take Cyprus a step closer towards union with Greece. A similar memorandum was sent to the secretary of state for the colonies expressing the desire of the archbishop and the Greek members of the Legislative Council:
to become the interpreters of the joy felt by the Church and the people for the final deliverance of our Fatherland from the Turkish sovereignty and to declare that to the change in the political status quo of the Island, which has been the outcome of the war circumstances, we look as to a last and provisional station leading to the rapid and definitive national rehabilitation of our Fatherland, that is, to her Union with the free Greek Kingdom to which she belongs of right and which is destined to continue in Cyprus the noble principles of liberty and equality of civic rights.Footnote 30
Thus, at the time, the belief the British would assist in the fulfilment of the national demands held strong, and the annexation of Cyprus further reinforced such aspirations.
The 1915 British offer of Cyprus to Greece: Church reactions and British attitudes
Goold-Adams’ term of office ended in late 1914. In his farewell speech, he acknowledged the national demands of Greek Cypriots:
I am aware of the fact that during the first months of my arrival here, there was a difference of opinion between us… Nevertheless such controversy quickly faded away. I have acknowledged and respected from a very early stage your national demands, which I regard as entirely justified as only uncivilized and uneducated people would not respect the 3000 years of your island's history.Footnote 31
Naturally the vernacular press duly hailed this acknowledgement. In January 1915, Cyprus welcomed a new High Commissioner, Sir John Eugene Clauson.Footnote 32 Upon his arrival in Nicosia, Clauson first received Archbishop Cyril for a few minutes and then went on to meet all the other representatives from both communities before taking his oath.Footnote 33 Unlike in later years, when relations between the heads of the Church and the representatives of the colonial government tended to be rather strained (for example, Governor William Battershill held his first meeting with the Acting Archbishop Leontios once Greece had entered the Second World War in October 1940, even though he had assumed his duties in the summer of 1939), during the Great War mutual respect still remained a fundamental element of this relationship.
Undoubtedly 1915 was a critical year for Enosis developments during the Great War. Indeed, news of the historic British offer of Cyprus to Greece only reached Cyprus once the offer had lapsed.Footnote 34 Despite the fact that that the offer was an opportunity that slipped away never to return, its significance was clear: it was seen as an admission of Greek Cypriot rights and a recognition on behalf of Britain that ‘…on national grounds the claims put forward by Greek Cypriots that the island should be united with Greece were not considered unjustifiable’.Footnote 35 The British authorities were quick to rebuff this new wave of Greek Cypriot expectations, especially when a delegation headed by Archbishop Cyril himself visited the High Commissioner, Sir John Clauson, and asked him to convey to London their gratitude for the offer;Footnote 36 telegrams expressing similar sentiments were also sent to the secretary of state for the colonies and the British Parliament.Footnote 37 The high commissioner hastily replied that following the Greek government's rejection of the offer, it was irrevocably withdrawn. He warned the members of the delegation they were British subjects and as such should avoid causing trouble.Footnote 38 Τhe press commented widely on the development, even featuring extracts from the British press which argued against the prospect of Enosis.Footnote 39
The rejection of the offer perplexed Greek Cypriots, who saw a unique opportunity slip by, but who nevertheless remained hesitant to oppose the decisions of the Greek government. Such an attitude did not go unobserved by Clauson, who informed his superiors that Greek Cypriots appeared unwilling to exert pressure on Greece.Footnote 40 In reality, as Diana Markides explains, Greek Cypriots were caught in a dilemma as to how to handle the British: on the one hand, Britain was a supposedly liberal power, likely to consent to Enosis; on the other, it was the same administration which imposed the much resented Tribute and rejected pleas for political reform. At the same time, Greek Cypriots were concerned not to displease Greece. The complexity of this dilemma ‘resulted in a situation that allowed neither effective revolt, nor effective co-operation’.Footnote 41
The Greeks of Cyprus were later criticized somewhat harshly by Eleftherios Venizelos for not pursuing their aims further at the time,Footnote 42 even though they were never given the opportunity to do so. A plan to send the archbishop of Cyprus to Athens to request Enosis, with British consent and thus exerting firm pressure on the Greek government, was never implemented.Footnote 43 The fact nevertheless remains that Greece's refusal also highlighted a theme which would occur time and again: the clashing priorities between the Greek leadership in Athens and Greek Cypriot aspirations. Ultimately the Greek Cypriots failed to understand that the 1915 offer was the result of the temporary necessity created by war conditions.Footnote 44 Following the end of the Great War, the British were simply not willing to hand the island to another power. The offer had a long-term impact on Greek Cypriot Enosis politics and psychology, however, particularly as it convinced the majority of politicians and the Orthodox Church leadership that Enosis was a feasible outcome, a goal for which they should press even harder. Indeed, following the end of the war, the Enosis movement would acquire greater organizational complexity, and the Orthodox Church would increasingly be at the forefront of such efforts.
The 1916 archiepiscopal election
In early July 1916, Archbishop Cyril II, following a short illness, died in his home village of Prodromos, and his death opened the way for new archiepiscopal elections. Upon Cyril's death, the procedures for the conduct of a new election were set in motion.Footnote 45 The Bishop of Paphos, Iacovos Antzoulatos, served as the Locum Tenens. The candidates for the election were the Bishop of Kitium (Meletios Metaxakis), the Bishop of Kyrenia (Cyril), the Abbot of Kykko (Kleopas) and the Archimandrite Makarios Myriantheas, a nephew of the late Archbishop Cyril II. As Clauson reported to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Andrew Bonar Law, Makarios Myriantheas, who had served for some years as army chaplain in Greece and returned to the island in 1915, was seen by many as representing a continuance of the traditions of the archbishops of Cyprus. Clauson noted the abbot of Kykko was young and inexperienced, while Cyril of Kyrenia, the defeated protagonist of the 1900–9 contest, made, according to the high commissioner, no efforts on this occasion to be elected and his attitude was overall passive.Footnote 46 Lastly, the Bishop of Kitium, Meletios Metaxakis, was by far the most progressive candidate: he spoke many languages and, during his term as bishop, he had significantly improved the bishopric's properties and had also founded the ecclesiastical school in Larnaca.Footnote 47 Metaxakis was a close friend and ardent supporter of Eleftherios Venizelos and was the key representative of Venizelos’ supporters in Cyprus; he was in fact labelled by one of the leading newspapers of Cyprus, E λɛυθɛρία as the ‘Venizelos of the Cypriot Church’.Footnote 48 Metaxakis’ candidature was supported by the pro-Venizelist Cypriot press, but his Venizelism rendered him suspect by those whose sympathies lay with King Constantine. Indeed, the pro-Constantine part of the press criticized Metaxakis’ candidature. Overall the press served as the main forum of debate between the opposing camps.
The archiepiscopal election of 1916 was the first to be governed by the new charter of the Church of Cyprus, which was issued by the Holy Synod in 1914.Footnote 49 While the election of 1910, the first to take place during British rule, was marked by so much controversy, the 1916 elections were held in a much quieter fashion. This was probably due to the long archiepiscopal rivalry, which underlined the need for a quieter election; an announcement by the members of the Legislative Council prompting everybody to show restraint also served to keep things calm.Footnote 50 None of the candidates won a clear majority of votes of ‘general representatives’,Footnote 51 and the difference between the number of votes cast for Makarios, the abbot of Kykko and the bishop of Kyrenia was minimal. The votes for Metaxakis were some way behind, although, as Clauson noted, he was expected to receive support in the Holy Synod. This uncertain situation prompted negotiations between the candidates: eventually both Makarios and Metaxakis withdrew their candidature, and the result favoured Cyril. Makarios Myriantheas, a fervent Enosist, would assume the vacant throne of the Kyrenia Bishopric; this was not to be without consequences for the future.
The new Archbishop, Cyril III, was enthroned once the high commissioner acknowledged the election, a point on which Clauson particularly insisted.Footnote 52 The high commissioner, who was in Kyrenia on the day of the election, insisted the Holy Synod should wait for his return before taking any further steps. Indeed, on 25 November Clauson privately conferred with the elected archbishop and, following this interview, he formally acknowledged the election. In their private interview, Clauson emphasized the need for him and the archbishop to maintain an impeccable relationship; Clauson further referred to matters he thought were important, including the flying of the Greek flag (hence a secular flag of a foreign power) on Orthodox churches throughout the island, a matter on which the high commissioner called the archbishop's attention although he did not request immediate practical action. Cyril assured him he was eager to maintain cordial relations with the government. This was exemplified during his enthronement: the new archbishop first thanked the government for his recognition; he went on to declare that the ceremony was not the place to make known his policy and concluded his speech without any reference to Enosis. Naturally, some of the local politicians who were present were taken aback; for Clauson this was proof of Cyril's desire to maintain cordial relations with the government. Cyril's behaviour during his enthronement demonstrated his desire to be discreet with the British, particularly during turbulent times. Nevertheless, as the war went on, it became all the more difficult for the key protagonists to compromise. Despite Cyril's moderation, following Greece's entry into the hostilities in 1917, national aspirations became more forceful and difficult to keep in check. This, combined with the British determination to keep their hold on Cyprus, would gradually lead the Orthodox Church and the British authorities into a new phase of their relationship.
Church affairs, Enosis politics and the British authorities, 1917–18
In late 1916, following the archiepiscopal election and with the November events in GreeceFootnote 53 in the background, the colonial government considered prohibiting the flying of the Greek flag in local celebrations. This unavoidably displeased Greek Cypriots, as exemplified by an incident in Famagusta during a visit by Archbishop Cyril in January 1917. A crowd had assembled at the town's railway station to welcome the archbishop, and the town's schoolchildren were waving the Greek flag. When a police order was given for students to remove the flags, tension ensued. The archbishop and the Greek members of the Legislative Council protested to the high commissioner: ‘I anticipate that the prohibition (of flying flags), being as it is, contrary to the liberal status quo hitherto obtaining, which honours the English Government, is not approved by the magnanimity of your Excellency’.Footnote 54 Clauson's reply, nevertheless, was firm: the provost marshalFootnote 55 had ascertained that in view of ‘local circumstances and recent international events, the processional display of those flags by British subjects was not unlikely to be resented and actively opposed’.Footnote 56 Although Clauson regretted upsetting the Greek Christians of Famagusta, he nonetheless advised Cyril that this action had the complete support of his government. The high commissioner then added:
The use in Cyprus of that flag has been gradually extending from a complimentary display on certain anniversaries to ceremonial usages, especially in recent years, which are without precedent or example in any other county and are, in some cases, open to grave objection. It has been my desire that no question of the kind should be raised in these troubled times, and on the 8th November 1915, when I received your Beatitude's lamented predecessor and the Greek Christian members of the Legislative Council, I confined myself to enjoining the avoidance at the present juncture of any public expressions of racial sentiment that might be interpreted as derogating from their political allegiance, or might disturb the susceptibilities of any fellow subjects.Footnote 57
The high commissioner also called on the archbishop to reconsider his approach to the flag question. This was connected with other developments Greek Cypriot society was experiencing at the time concerning the National Schism which was unfolding in full force on the Greek mainland. Larnaca served as the testing ground for the exchange of opinions between the two camps, as Meletios Metaxakis, Bishop of Kitium, and Filios Zannettos, mayor of the town and a principal supporter of King Constantine's camp, were based there.
Earlier, in 1915, Metaxakis had publicly criticized the rejection of the British offer by the anti-Venizelist government of Alexandros Zaimis for Enosis.Footnote 58 Then, following the dramatic events in Greece during November 1916, the bishop of Kitium had stopped offering prayers for the Greek king.Footnote 59 Beginning in late 1916 and during 1917 the confrontation between the two became rather intense.Footnote 60 Tensions peaked on 30 January 1917, on School Day at the Evryviadio Gymnasium in Larnaca, which followed the flag incident in Famagusta. Following the reading of a poem dedicated to the Greek flag by a young pupil,Footnote 61 the bishop of Kitium addressed the crowd by referring specifically to the flag question and the colonial authorities’ prohibition of the Greek flag. In his passionate speech, Metaxakis also allegedly stated he did not approve of the acts against British soldiers by supporters of Constantine which took place in Athens during the November events.Footnote 62 Zannettos, who was also present, then interrupted the speech, and their dispute was eventually resolved in court. Footnote 63
These developments were closely observed by the colonial authorities.Footnote 64 The confrontation between these two prominent figures would continue until Metaxakis’ elevation to the archiepiscopal throne of Greece in March 1918.Footnote 65 It is important to note for the purposes of this study that repercussions of the Greek National Schism in Cyprus were based more on loyalties to the protagonists of the events, Eleftherios Venizelos and King Constantine, rather than to actual ideologies as the National Schism never penetrated Cypriot society to the degree it did on the Greek mainland. It would soon be proven the quest for Enosis had the capacity to narrow such divisions.
Perhaps more importantly, the colonial administration's intention to prohibit the use of the Greek flag made Archbishop Cyril privately admit the need for organizing the Enosis struggle in a more effective way.Footnote 66 The entry of Greece into the Great War in summer 1917 marked a turning point, after which political activity on the Enosis front increased, including the dispatch of telegrams to London and Athens. Greek Cypriots insisted on the fact that Greece was now fighting alongside the Allies.Footnote 67 The entry of Greece into the war demonstrated the need for collective organization on the Enosis front. Committed to his role as ethnarch, Archbishop Cyril soon shrank the gap between Venizelists and anti-Venizelists by holding a conference on 8 December 1917 at the archbishop's palace, to which he invited members of the higher clergy, newspaper editors, the Greek members of the Legislative Council, and other prominent figures of the Greek Cypriot political strata.Footnote 68 This demonstrated that the goal of Enosis was capable of uniting these opposing camps. Cyril opened the conference by emphasizing that it was being held on behalf of all Cypriots and was therefore ‘pancyprian’. In the speech that the archbishop went on to give,Footnote 69 he explained that the ideological basis on which the war was being fought should lead Great Britain to detach herself from those restrictions which had held her back so far from exercising a truly liberal policy towards her colonies. The participation of Greece in this war at the side of Great Britain and with Cypriot volunteers was evidence, Cyril continued, of the common goals which bonded Hellenism with Great Britain. The cession of Cyprus to Greece was rightful and would confirm British support for and commitment to a struggle for the restoration of human liberties.Footnote 70 The memorandum of the conference which was duly submitted by the archbishop to the high commissioner stressed once again the demand for Enosis. It is telling of the new conditions now prevailing that no demand, other than national, featured in the memorandum. Indeed, as the local Greek press commented, the conference was important because it demonstrated the determination of all participants to work together and focus on the fulfilment of the national cause. Therefore, as the war neared its end Greek Cypriots believed that Cyprus would become part of Greece in post-war territorial adjustments. The end of the war was celebrated in Cyprus as it was elsewhere. Telegrams of congratulations were sent to President Wilson and to the Prime Ministers of Great Britain, France and Italy; these telegrams also expressed the Greek Cypriot wish for Enosis. Both the British government in London and the high commissioner in Nicosia thanked Cypriots for their contribution.Footnote 71
The end of the war convinced Greek Cypriots they should now press harder for their national demands. The Enosis movement had matured during the war. To this end, a ‘national delegation’ was formed under the leadership of Archbishop Cyril, comprising both Venizelists and anti-Venizelists, all of them members of the Legislative Council.Footnote 72 This was the first time the demand for Enosis was put forward on its own, rather than as part of a wider set of requests.Footnote 73 It was by far the most ambitious Greek Cypriot political campaign since the arrival of the British in 1878.Footnote 74
An account of the experience of this delegation lies beyond the scope of this paper. What must be emphasized, though, is the impetus given to the Enosis movement by the continuing disappointment Greek Cypriots faced in their efforts to make their demands heard. In Paris, Eleftherios Venizelos advised the members of the delegation to go to London and come to a direct understanding with the British. When this was not achieved, the Greek Cypriot delegation returned home empty-handed and exasperated. As a result, disappointment and frustration would become basic components of Enosis psychology. Combined with the British decision to maintain a tight hold on CyprusFootnote 75 and their refusal to discuss any prospect of Enosis, the movement would gradually become radicalized in the early 1920s, with the Church leadership at its head. Indeed, Greek Cypriots realized that in their demands for Enosis with Greece they were on their own. Henceforth, a sense of ‘Cyprus alone’ became a crucial component of the psychology of the Enosis movement. The Orthodox Church would now come to the fore as the principal institution promoting Enosis, and the movement would gain greater organizational complexity. The foundation of the National Council, under Church control, in 1921, which soon launched an effective boycott of the legislature by Greek Cypriots, was indicative of the new circumstances.Footnote 76
Conclusions
This article has sought to examine the complex way in which the war experience altered relations between the Orthodox Church of Cyprus and the British colonial authorities. It has endeavoured to demonstrate that this relationship was unavoidably affected by the course taken by Enosis aspirations, which were particularly strengthened during the Great War. Even on the eve of the outbreak of the war, Greek Cypriots firmly believed the fulfilment of their national aspirations was a goal which was soon to be accomplished, and this belief was reinforced by Greek successes during the Balkan Wars. While the onset of the war halted any further moves on behalf of Enosis, Greek Cypriots interpreted the annexation of Cyprus by Britain as a step closer to the satisfaction of their demand for union with Greece. The Orthodox Church's relationship with the British authorities remained overall on good terms, as shown by this article; nevertheless, the formation of the Political Organization in 1912, with the archbishop at its head, is indicative of the changing nature of this relationship. The fundamental event during the war was the 1915 British offer of Cyprus to Greece, which significantly affected Church-State relations. While no further initiatives were taken on the part of the Church during the war, the offer, in the long term, had a significant impact on Greek Cypriot Enosis psychology as, for Greek Cypriots, it was testimony to British willingness to hand Cyprus to Greece – the offer thus inspired extra pressure by Greek Cypriots to effect Enosis. As noted, what Greek Cypriots failed to understand was that the offer was dictated by urgent and temporary war needs; Cyprus was never again offered to Greece, not even after the latter finally entered the war in 1917.
Beginning in 1917, a slight hardening of attitudes is discernible, both within the Orthodox Church and within the colonial authority – an outcome that was influenced by circumstances within and surrounding Cyprus. The pancyprian conference of 1917 was critically important because it demonstrated that to achieve Enosis, the island's political differences could be overcome under the leadership of the archbishop.Footnote 77 Hopes and expectations for Enosis would culminate with the mission of the national delegation, and evidence that the expectation of Enosis had reached an unprecedented level is found in a number of examples. One of these is the speech delivered by the Bishop of Kitium, Nikodimos Mylonas, on the occasion of the departure of the delegation to Paris, who made explicit references to Enosis.Footnote 78 Another important example can be found in the context of the demonstrations and speeches which took place in January 1918 on the name-day of Eleftherios Venizelos. Bishop Mylonas, in his speech, stressed that the history of Crete demonstrated how liberty can be gained through tough and bloody struggles;Footnote 79 such rhetoric would undoubtedly harden when the delegation failed in its cause. In subsequent developments the role of the two new Bishops of Kyrenia and Kitium, Makarios Myriantheas and Nikodimos Mylonas respectively, would be vital: both men were key participants in the 1931 October revolt.
Indeed, the outbreak of the 1931 revolt is seen by historians as a critical point in relations between the Greeks of Cyprus and the British colonial administration.Footnote 80 The British quickly suppressed the revolt and held the Church responsible as the principal instigator of events. Henceforth, relations between the Orthodox Church and the British remained rather strained, especially as the latter sought to curtail Church influence: the Bishops of Kyrenia and Kitium were exiled and, following the enactment of two ecclesiastical laws in 1937, the archiepiscopal throne remained vacant until 1947. The 1950s finally witnessed the collapse of this relationship, not least with developments concerning the elevation of Archbishop Makarios III and the onset of the EOKA revolt.Footnote 81 It was the experience of the First World War and its immediate aftermath, however, which triggered the changing attitudes of both the Orthodox Church in Cyprus and the British authorities.
