The Normalisation of Cyprus’ Partition

Among Greek Cypriots: Political

Economy and Political Culture in a
Divided Society 1st ed. Edition Gregoris
Ioannou
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-normalisation-of-cyprus-partition-among-greek-cy
priots-political-economy-and-political-culture-in-a-divided-society-1st-ed-edition-grego
ris-ioannou/
The Normalisation of
Cyprus’ Partition Among
Greek Cypriots
Political Economy and Political Culture
in a Divided Society
Gregoris Ioannou
The Normalisation of Cyprus’ Partition
Among Greek Cypriots
 Gregoris Ioannou

The Normalisation
of Cyprus’ Partition
Among Greek
Cypriots
Political Economy and Political Culture
in a Divided Society
Gregoris Ioannou
School of Law
University of Glasgow
Glasgow, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-50815-9    ISBN 978-3-030-50816-6 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50816-6

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration and images: Pafsanias Karathanasis, photographs taken during

ethnographic fieldwork in Nicosia

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To Ilektra
 Acknowledgements

Many people have contributed in various ways, direct and indirect, to the
writing of this book. I would like to thank all those with whom I have
conversed in the last 20 years in the context of the peace movement. From
my academic colleagues I would like to thank in particular Andreas
Panayiotou, Theodoros Rakopoulos, Giorgos Charalambous, Antonis
Hadjikyriacou, Olga Demetriou, Danae Karydaki, Athena Skoulariki,
Sertac Sonan, Umut Bozkurt, Christos Mais, Pafsanias Karathanasis,
Alexis Heraklides, Serephim Seferiades, Nicos Trimikliniotis, Serkan Karas
and Niyazi Kızılyürek.
I would like to thank Konstantinos Tzikas for translating the original
Greek edition into English, allowing me to focus on the refining rather
than the re-writing of the text and thus making the editing, updating and
expanding of the manuscript an easier task. I would like to also thank the
University of Glasgow for supporting me in this.
As a book written not only from the perspective of social science, but
also from the perspective of peace activism, it is inspired from and speaks
to all those who believed and who continue to believe, acted and act for
peace in, and reunification of, Cyprus, as envisioned by the late Costis
Achniotis.
Finally, I want to thank Evgenia Nikiforou, my partner in life, and wish
our daughter Ilektra gets to experience a Cyprus that is better than the
one our generation experienced.

Glasgow, April 2020  Gregoris Ioannou

vii
 Contents

1 Introduction: History, Need and Choices  1

2 From Nationalism to Partition 1950–1975  9

3 Separation as a Lived Reality, as a Promise and as a Taboo

1975–2003 33

4 The Opening of the Checkpoints and the Unfulfilled

Potential 55

5 Referendum 2004: The End of Innocence 73

6 The Ten-Year Battle Between Federation and Anti-

federation 2007–2017 95

7 The Schools and the Universities, the Mass

Media and the Deep State of the Republic of Cyprus
of Emergent Necessity123

8 The Shifts in the Greek Cypriot Bourgeoisie and the

Equilibria in the Greek Cypriot Community143

9 Conclusion: History, Responsibility and the Future179

ix
x Contents

Postscript: The Cyprus Problem as Viewed from the Outside187

References201

Index217
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: History, Need and Choices

© The Author(s) 2020 1

G. Ioannou, The Normalisation of Cyprus’ Partition Among Greek
Cypriots, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50816-6_1
2 G. IOANNOU

‘If they choose to protect the rights of the Turkish Cypriots in a separate, inde-
pendent entity, then they should be restricted to what is attributable to the exclu-
sive economic zone of that unlawful entity. Therefore, they have no reason to
question the sovereign rights of the Republic of Cyprus.’ (Nicos Anastasiades,
2/1/2018, quoted in:
Alphanewslive. (2018) ‘Anastasiades’ statement provokes reactions’
[Αντιδράσεις προκαλεί η δήλωση Αναστασιάδη για την ΑΟΖ] (3/1/2018)
Alphanewslive https://www.alphanews.live/politics/antidraseis-prokalei-e-
delose-anastasiade-gia-ten-aoz)

This book is based on two decades of close monitoring on the evolu-

tion of the Cyprus issue, of writing and political engagement and action
against the partition. I am already over 40 years old and I originally wrote
this text in Greek, at Kaimakli, a place in Nicosia, in which, on the 3 of the
4 sides of the horizon, a few kilometres in front of me, lies the dividing line
of my country with its dead zone. I wish it was otherwise, so that today I
would be able to write a book titled Overturning Partition, a feeling I also
had during 2003–2004 as a postgraduate student of Political Sociology at
the London School of Economics and Political Science while writing my
dissertation on the then ongoing developments with the Annan Plan and
the referendum. At that time, I had started with the working title The
Peace Process in Cyprus, but in the spring of 2004 the title became
Interpreting the Greek Cypriot No.
I refrained from systematically continuing my academic engagement
with the Cyprus issue and generally selected other topics for my scientific
work over the last 15 years. But my political activism in the reunification
movement and my public articles remained largely oriented towards
exploring partition and aiming to contribute to its overthrow. This is
something that does not stop with the publication of this book. However,
since 2017 there was a decisive moment on the Cyprus issue, analogous to
that of 2004, and since I think that the various pieces of analysis I wrote
in various phases these 15 years have outlined an adequate framework of
analysis, I felt it was time to put in place a comprehensive argument as a
coherent whole. This book is addressed to a general audience and tries to
avoid various academic conventions to keep the text as readable as possible
for the average reader without specialised knowledge in the social sciences
or in-depth knowledge of the Cyprus issue.
 1 INTRODUCTION: HISTORY, NEED AND CHOICES 3

The aim of the book is to record the basic dynamics that have shaped
the Cyprus problem since 1974, especially since the 1990s, a crucial time
in the building of partition. It does not adopt a historical logic, although
it approaches the subject matter historically and builds a more or less
chronological narrative of developments. The perspective and logic of the
text lies within the field of political sociology and approaches the Cyprus
issue in the light of power relations in society, focusing on the interaction
between the political elite and society, the political system and civil society.
I define normalisation as a societal process whereby people become accus-
tomed to prevailing conditions, accept them and treat them as the normal
state of affairs. Whereby they rationalise and naturalise that which is irra-
tional, arbitrary and abnormal and become accustomed to operating
within its political bounds. Although this is a historically determined pro-
cess, and of a structural character, it is neither solid nor inexorable. It is
enmeshed in contradictions and it is inherently fluid and potentially unsta-
ble. There are numerous cracks in what appears as a totalising system that
can and should be opened further. However, in order to identify where
the cracks are and how they can be made bigger one needs to examine the
whole wall on which they are situated.
The book focuses on the ideological field and analyses the political
dynamics, especially the recent ones, in relation to society and their depic-
tion in the public sphere. It also focuses on the Greek Cypriot community
without ignoring the parallel international developments, but also on the
dynamics within the Turkish Cypriot community insofar as they have
influenced or contributed to the process of partition. It was originally
published in Greek in 2019 by Psifides and subsequently translated and
published in Turkish in early 2020 by Baranga under the title Denktaş in
the south: the normalisation of partition in the Greek Cypriot side. This
English edition is an updated and expanded one, re-worked at some points
and enriched with some additional theoretical and empirical insights. The
Covid-19 pandemic, which overshows everything at this moment, has
served as an excuse and as a context for political developments in divided
Cyprus, rendering the book yet more topical and its argument yet stron-
ger. As of mid-March 2020, all the crossings between the northern and
the southern part of Cyprus have been forbidden and not only there has
been no cooperation between the two sides in dealing with the threat
posed by Covid-19 but the Republic of Cyprus restricted its reporting of
incidences and deaths only to those occurring in the south, as if the north-
ern territory is a separate country. More importantly it remains uncertain
4 G. IOANNOU

as to when and how the checkpoints will open again allowing movement
across the dividing line after this ‘temporary suspension’.
This book does not aspire to present a comprehensive and extensive
analysis of all the factors that have shaped the socio-political development
of the Greek Cypriot community in recent decades in relation to the
Cyprus issue. Nor can it account in detail for all the aspects of the develop-
ment of complex issues such as nationalism, peace talks, inter-communal
relations and the international environment. It has a much more limited
analytical agenda and much more specific questions to ask. However, it
does have the ambitious aim of articulating a general overview of how
partition has been normalised during the last decades. Or, to turn it on its
head, how partition was not disputed and not eroded sufficiently at a time
when it was geopolitically, politically and economically vulnerable both as
a balance and as a framework. This book aims to honestly raise the ques-
tion and discuss publicly and openly a kind of hidden but common secret.
The analysis of the normalisation of partition in the Greek Cypriot side
also has a political weight, that of reversing a firmly founded ideological
structure—but for this reason it also brings a sense of liberation to the
extent that it succeeds in this endeavour.
The book is divided into nine chapters dealing with various themes
focusing on periods, nodal points and fields that shaped the conditions of
normalisation of partition. It also includes a postscript after the conclusion
that is sort of autonomous from the rest of the book, in the sense that it
reverses the analytic frame by approaching the Cyprus conflict from the
outside as opposed to from the inside as the rest of the book does. After
this introduction, the second chapter sets the historical context and exam-
ines the creation of partition, introducing also conceptual issues in relation
to the political system, the political balance of forces and the dynamics of
identities and ideologies at a societal level. It essentially narrates the basic
developments of the 25-year-long period 1950–1975 that led to the sepa-
ration of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The third chapter discusses
sociologically the separation, as it was almost completely imposed between
1975 and 2003, and its consequences at the level of collective conscious-
ness between the two communities. Having outlined the key issues that
have historically constituted the Cyprus problem, the next chapters deal-
ing with the latest developments deepen the analysis and discuss the
parameters of the failure to be resolved.
The fourth chapter focuses on the opening of the barricades and the
big social potential that it created in 2003, but also how that failed to
 1 INTRODUCTION: HISTORY, NEED AND CHOICES 5

assume a direct political form resulting in its erosion and in the leading
back to the margins of those logics and forces that persistently articulated
an anti-­partitionist political stance. It also discusses the importance of the
existence of open checkpoints and crossings from 2003 to 2020 and their
impact on inter-communal relations. The referendum on the Annan Plan
is the central theme of Chap. 5, serving as a pillar on which the basic argu-
ment of the book is laid: that the consolidation of the partition was neither
automatic nor de facto, nor did it happen behind the back of the Greek
Cypriot community. It was not the resounding ‘No’ to Annan Plan which
sealed the partition. More important was the repulsion by many of the
consequences of the loud ‘No’ and hence their inability to work out alter-
native practices and other scenarios in the years to come. But the demysti-
fication that came with the referendum process meant the end of the fog
and the end of innocence for all.
The sixth chapter discusses the last battle between federation and parti-
tion in the 2007–2017 decade at the political level and how, despite the
apparent victory of the federalist forces, it was ultimately the forces of
partition that really prevailed defining the game. It reviews the internal
dynamics in the two communities, the international changes and the
developments in the negotiations until the collapse of the last round of
talks in 2017, distinguishing between the formal and substantive attitude
of the various actors, the form and content of the actions at the political
and societal level. Subsequently, the seventh chapter focuses on the role
played and not played by education and the media both historically and at
crucial moments in the development of the Cyprus issue, thus opening up
the discussion on the structures and institutions of the Republic of Cyprus
of emergent necessity and their impact on collective memory, social per-
ceptions and public opinion. The central theoretical concept here is the
idiosyncratic, deep state that has historically been shaped and reproduced
preserving certain dominant, ideological and political frames that impact
on present political time.
Finally, the eighth chapter opens up the analytical perspective and dis-
cusses in more theoretical terms the argument and, more specifically, the
political balances and political stakes as shaped by recent internal and
international developments. It deals with the class and political equilibria
within the Greek Cypriot society, briefly describes the left-wing approaches
and discusses the various lines, positions and plans of the Greek Cypriot
bourgeoisie and their association with the popular and worker strata. The
goal here is to explain the shifts, the legitimisation of policies and the
6 G. IOANNOU

inability to set up an alternative historical bloc that could overturn the

partitionist conditions.
In the Conclusion an attempt is made to place the problematic of the
book in historical terms and to make a calm appraisal of the effect that the
actors have had on the production and reproduction of the structures of
partition. This is, I believe, an obligation to the next generation who has
been condemned to live in a precarious environment, in a possibly deterio-
rating partitionist state of affairs, where peacekeeping will continue to
depend entirely and exclusively on international balances. This spirit is
carried through to the postscript which analyses the current state of the
Cyprus partition in international terms, situating it in the regional dynam-
ics and as viewed by the EU and the UN.
It is important to say that the state of affairs, as shaped in 1974, the
established partitionist status quo, which is based internally on nationalism
and fear, does not provide any security in conditions of change of these
international balances. That the non-solution consolidates the subsump-
tion of Cyprus in the grid of imperialist relations. That without the reuni-
fication of Cyprus and the development of the consciousness and reality of
the common interests of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, we are in
danger of becoming again the export point of the tension of the Greco-­
Turkish expansionisms and their competition.
The idea that Denktaş’ vision of a partitioned Cyprus found half a cen-
tury later many advocates in the Greek Cypriot community is neither new
nor my own. The same applies to the insight of its normalisation as a pro-
cess guiding the political economy and the political culture of the country.
These have been said many times in gatherings, written in articles and
exposed to the public sphere. But what has not been done so far is an in-­
depth analysis and a concrete logical and empirical documentation of this
claim. This is the intellectual aim of this book. The slogan ‘Denktaş in the
south’, used as the title of the Greek and Turkish editions of this book, was
called out by the crowd of pro-Yes Turkish Cypriots in the evening of the
announcement of the referendum results, thus reversing the ethno-­
centrism expressed and served by Rauf Denktaş and his associates. Let him
go to southern Cyprus then, where the partitionist status quo has more
fans. Over the last two decades, the Greek Cypriot community has been
the main field in which the political issue has been played out and
decided—whether the partitionist status quo formed in 1974 would be
undermined and reversed or consolidated.
 1 INTRODUCTION: HISTORY, NEED AND CHOICES 7

Ending this introduction, I reiterate that history does not end and
everything can change. The future of the country will ultimately depend
upon its people and their action or inaction—people make their own his-
tory—as Marx’s famous saying goes. But it will happen in conditions
‘given by the past’. These conditions from the past are what this book
records, realistically and without any wishful thinking that may blur the
analysis. With the burning desire at the same time, however, to overthrow
the consolidation of the partition that is illustrated in the book. Because it
is my belief that the ‘any partition’ policy which the dominant section of
Greek Cypriot leadership is working upon and which is accepted and/or
desired by a strong portion of the Greek Cypriot community will be nei-
ther velvet nor advantageous nor will it solve the problem which will con-
tinue to haunt us, even if in the coming years some regulation is imposed
on its external aspects.
 CHAPTER 2

From Nationalism to Partition 1950–1975

The partition of Cyprus, both on a political and on a territorial level,

was established throughout 1950–1975, in the context of the power
struggle for the control of the island during the transitional period of

© The Author(s) 2020 9

G. Ioannou, The Normalisation of Cyprus’ Partition Among Greek
Cypriots, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50816-6_2
10 G. IOANNOU

decolonisation. The Greek and Turkish nationalisms that were introduced

in Cyprus and the antagonism between Greece and Turkey defined the
process of Cypriot independence and the conditions under which the
British colonial regime was terminated. The geopolitical balance of power
did not correspond to the emerging local dynamics and the domestic
power struggles and was enforced by use of violence. Nationalisms, in
addition to being ideologies of power, were also instruments of terrorism
through which the terms of the partition—a partition that was completed
with the intervention of the Greek and Turkish states—were imposed on
the Cypriot people, both intra-communally and inter-communally.
The present concise analysis does not aspire to fully record the rich
historical developments of this pivotal 25-year period. Rather, it aims to
outline the historical context wherein the partition of Cyprus was consoli-
dated as a way of introducing the main subject matter of the book: the
normalisation of partition in the decades following this 25-year period.
Only the absolutely necessary facts and references are included. For read-
ers less familiar with contemporary Cypriot history, I have included
numerous footnotes, in which certain names, terms, political forces and
facts are summarily recorded. While these background data are not anal-
ysed per se, awareness of them is a prerequisite for comprehending the
analysis that is to follow.

The Development of Nationalisms

The British colonialists retained the Ottoman administrative distinction of
their Cypriot subjects into Muslims and non-Muslims, that is on the basis
of their religion. At the same time, the colonial Authorities proceeded to
a series of modernisation reforms. Ethnic origin was politicised through
the Legislative Council. Meanwhile, the corporatist forms of social organ-
isation which defined the pre-modern order of things were retained, thus
completing a process that had begun in the mid-nineteenth century.1
Therefore, already by the 1920s, through the development of both com-
munal education and clientelism, the Cypriot people, Christians and

1
Kitromilides, P. (1977) ‘From coexistence to confrontation: the dynamics of ethnic con-
flict in Cyprus’, in Attalides, M. (ed.), Cyprus Reviewed. Nicosia: Zavallis Press, pp. 35–70.
 2 FROM NATIONALISM TO PARTITION 1950–1975 11

Muslims alike, began to adopt the Greek and Turkish identity respectively,
with pretensions to their neighbouring nation states.2
The rising Cypriot bourgeoisie was predominantly Christian, bearing in
mind that the Christian population dominated the marketplace during the
Ottoman period. Of course, there were also cases of Muslim businessmen
who usually also had greater access to public administration.3 The ­irredentist
concept of Greek nationalism that was imported in Cyprus by the Greek
state and the Greek communities of the broader region, such as the Greek
community of Egypt, had successfully taken root in the middle and upper
classes already by the early twentieth century through the education sys-
tem.4 This development was tolerated and indirectly supported by the
British Authorities, being perceived as a way of counterbalancing the exist-
ing Ottoman sovereignty of the island.5 However, after World War I, the
British no longer felt this need. At the same time, Greek nationalism was
disseminated among the rural classes and became an instrument in the
hands of the Greek Cypriot bourgeoisie and the Church.6 Simultaneously,
the traditional Muslim officials who still adhered to the Ottoman order of
things began losing ground before the emerging doctrine of Kemalist
Turkism that prevailed within the Turkish Cypriot community.7

2
Loizos, P. (2004) [1975] The Greek Gift: Politics in a Cypriot Village. Manheim:
Bibliopolis.
3
Nevzat A. (2005) Nationalism Amongst the Turks of Cyprus: The First Wave. PhD thesis.
Oulu: University of Oulu.
4
Bryant R. (2004) Imagining the Modern: The Cultures of Nationalism in Cyprus. London:
I.B. Tauris.
5
An ideological and self-referential aspect can also be traced to the British forces’ initial
support of Greek nationalism: it was a testament to the idea that their ‘civilising’ mission, this
force that legitimised the narratives of colonialism and modernity, could also expand to
include populations that were referred to as descendants/heirs of ancient Greece. Of course,
when Cyprus was later formally made a Crown colony and Greek nationalism was reinforced
in Cyprus to the extent that it threatened the British presence on the island by capitalising on
the idea of ‘glorious ancestors’ in claiming a superior, non-colonial status, the British narra-
tive was reversed and the Eteocypriots came to be referred to as the true ancestors of
Cypriots.
6
Panayiotou A. (2006) ‘Lenin in the coffee shop: The communist alternative and forms of
non-western modernity’, Postcolonial Studies, 9(3), pp. 267–280.
7
Ktoris S. (2013) Turkish Cypriots: From Margins to Partnership. [Τουρκοκύπριοι: από το
περιθώριο στο συνεταιρισμό] Athens: Papazisis.
12 G. IOANNOU

The development of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot nationalist

ideologies was completed during the first half of the twentieth century.8
Greek nationalism was well-established within the Greek Cypriot
­community by the time of the Cyprus revolt, the so-called October Events,
in 1931. Enosis, the annexation of Cyprus by Greece, began to be treated
as a dominant orthodoxy and experienced as a metaphysical promise for
the Greek Cypriots and as an existential threat for the Turkish Cypriots, as
it became clear through developments in the 1940s.9 Although at the time
the overall smooth relations between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots
were not disrupted by notable incidents of violence, phenomena such as
urbanisation and the massive education and politicisation of the Cypriot
subjects of the British Empire brought the two communities further apart
and contributed to their gradual segregation.10 This tendency was con-
veyed both on the level of political and social organisations, as well as in
terms of economic relations, spatial planning and interpersonal
relationships.
The rise in nationalism further contributed to the gradual segregation
of the two communities, leading to a decline in the number of mixed vil-
lages/population centres from 346 in 1891 to 252 in 1931. This decline
became steeper in the next few years, culminating in a period of violence
during 1955–1959, with only 114 mixed population centres left by
1960.11 By the 1940s, the segregated organisations (rural, cultural, politi-
cal and social organisations and associations) had become the norm.
8
There is extensive bibliography on the emergence and development of nationalism in
modernity, although this discussion falls outside the scope of the present book. I consider the
contributions of Eric Hobsbawm (Nations and Nationalism from 1780 until Today,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1990), Benedict Anderson (Imagined Communities,
London, Verso 2006) and Ernest Gellner (Nations and Nationalism, Oxford, Blackwell
Publishing 2006) as the most significant and pertinent to my analysis, insofar as they explain
the historicity of the phenomenon, the construction of group mentality upon which nation-
alism is predicated and the pivotal role of linguistic standardisation and urbanisation. I must
also call attention to Michael Hechter’s contribution (Michael Hechter, Containing
Nationalism, Oxford, Oxford University Press 2000) on the importance of the political
dimension and the role of control institutions with respect to how social groups are initially
defined and delineated.
9
Choisi J. (1993) ‘The Turkish Cypriot elite – its social function and legitimation’, The
Cyprus Review, 5(3), pp. 7–32.
10
Pollis A. (1996) ‘The social construction of ethnicity and nationality: The case of
Cyprus’, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 2(1), pp. 67–90.
11
Patrick P. (1976) Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict: 1963–1971. Waterloo:
University of Waterloo.
 2 FROM NATIONALISM TO PARTITION 1950–1975 13

Following the formation of Turkish trade unions, even the labour move-
ment was divided on an inter-communal basis, in addition to the intra-­
communal left-right division. The fact that many Turkish Cypriots
remained registered with the Pancyprian Federation of Labour (PEO)
[Παγκύπρια Εργατική Ομοσπονδία, ΠΕΟ] until the second half of the
1950s12 does not mean that they endorsed the enosist position, which had
been adopted by the Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL)
[Ανορθωτικό Κόμμα Εργαζόμενου Λαού, ΑΚΕΛ] since its inception in 1941
as a long-term anti-imperialist goal, a goal not shared by the Communist
Party of Cyprus.13 In fact, when AKEL accepted enosis as an immediate
goal in 1949–1950, contributing to the Church’s petition for signatures,
the possibility of PEO jointly representing both the Greek Cypriots and
the Turkish Cypriots was further undermined.14
The 1950s was a crucial decade as far as the evolution of inter-­communal
relations in Cyprus is concerned. The development of distinct ‘national
consciousnesses’, that is the politicisation of ethnic origin and cultural
identity that had previously been unfolding in a slow and gradual manner,
was accelerated, given that already by the end of World War II the depar-
ture of the British forces seemed a tangible possibility.15 The emerging
Greek and Turkish nationalisms had already succeeded in determining the

12
Slocum J. (1972) The Development of Labour Relations in Cyprus. Nicosia: Government
Printing Office.
13
In fact, many Turkish Cypriots are still registered with PEO for practical reasons, bearing
in mind that Turkish trade unions are powerless and incapable of protecting their interests.
That being said, a group of Turkish Cypriots led by Derviş Ali Kavazoğlu remains registered
with AKEL for ideological reasons as well. However, inter-communal relations deteriorate as
Turkish Cypriots are undervalued and marginalised even within the left-wing trade union
movement provoking resentment. See Kızılyürek, N. (2019) A Story of Violence and
Resentment: the Birth and the Development of Ethnic Conflict in Cyprus, [Μια ιστορία βίας και
μνησικακίας. Η γέννηση και η εξέλιξη της εθνοτικής διένεξης στη Κύπρο] Nicosia: Heterotopia
Publications, Vol. 1, pp. 80–89.
14
Kakoullis L. (1990) The Left and the Turkish Cypriots [Η Αριστερά και οι Τουρκοκύπριοι]
Nicosia: Kasoulides./Paionides P. (1995) Andreas Ziartides: Without Fear or Favour
[Ανδρέας Ζιαρτίδης: Χωρίς φόβο και πάθος] Nicosia: Dorographics./Varnava P. (2004) Joint
Union Struggles of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots (Facts Through History) [Κοινοί
εργατικοί αγώνες Ελληνοκυπρίων-Τουρκοκυπρίων (Γεγονότα μέσα από την ιστορία)] Nicosia,
NP./Fantis A. (2005). The Union Movement in the Years of British Rule 1878–1960 [Το
Συνδικαλιστικό Κίνημα στα Χρόνια της Αγγλοκρατίας 1878–1960] Nicosia, NP.
15
Bozkurt U. and Trimikliniotis N. (2014) ‘Incorporating a Class Analysis within the
National Question: Rethinking Ethnicity, Class, and Nationalism in Cyprus’, Nationalism
and ethnic politics 20(2): 244–265.
14 G. IOANNOU

path of decolonisation, providing the narratives by means of which the

Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders could hold political power and
mobilise their respective communities against the British.16 Εnosis, much
like double enosis or taksim (i.e. is the partition of Cyprus and the take-over
of its parts by Greece and Turkey) which served as the codified response
of the Turkish Cypriot leaders to the Greek Cypriots, dominated the
­political discussion in each community, ultimately nipping in the bud any
dissident, critical voices.17
Coming into the political spotlight during the 1940s, the working
class, with the then newly formed AKEL as its main representative,18 effec-
tively lost the ability to influence socio-political developments, as during
the 1950s a kind of political and ideological counterrevolution was at
play.19 The trade union victories of the 1940s still held, and both PEO and
AKEL retained their organisational power, reinforced through a process of
centralisation and creation of a professional apparatus. The Cyprus
Workers’ Confederation (SEK) [Συνομοσπονδία Εργατών Κύπρου, ΣΕΚ],
followed along the same lines as PEO, in labour matters at least. At the
same time, though, the Church and its networks were empowered; anti-­
communism, in part due to international developments and as a result of
the Greek Civil War, came back with a vengeance; and the Cypriot left was
forced into a defensive position, being obliged to endlessly display its
devotion to the nation in order to retain the right to speak.
In their capacity as armed proponents of enosis and taksim respectively,
the National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters (EOKΑ) [Εθνική Οργάνωση
Κυπρίων Αγωνιστών, ΕΟΚΑ] and the Turkish Resistant Organisation

16
In his presentation of the irredentist Greek nationalist movement of the 1950s, of which
he was a participant, Takis Chatzidimitriou emphasises its differences to other anti-colonial
movements of the same period, arguing that the entire project and its management ulti-
mately brought Cyprus to a worse position at the end of the decade than it had been at the
beginning. See Hadjidemetriou T. (2018) Cyprus 1950–1959: The End of Irredentism
[Κύπρος 1950–1959: το τέλος του αλυτρωτισμού] Athens: Papazisi.
17
Kitromilides P. (1979) ‘The dialectic of intolerance: ideological dimensions of ethnic
conflict’ in Kitromilidis P. and Worsley P. (eds.) Small States in the Modern World: The
Conditions of Survival. Nicosia: The New Cyprus Association./Aristodimou A. (2018)
‘Beyond Heroes and Terrorists: Comparing the EOKA and TMT organisations during
1955–1959.’ [Πέρα από τους Ήρωες και τους Τρομοκράτες: Οι οργανώσεις ΕΟΚΑ-ΤΜΤ σε
σύγκριση 1955–1959] Unpublished dissertation. Berlin: Freie Universitaet Berlin.
18
Katsiaounis R. (2000) The Consultative Assembly. [Η Διασκεπτική] Nicosia: Scientific
Research Centre.
19
Panayiotou 2006.
 2 FROM NATIONALISM TO PARTITION 1950–1975 15

(TMT) [Türk Mukavemet Teşkilatı, TMT] were formed primarily in order

to exert pressure on the British and subsequently on each other’s com-
munity.20 EOKA, unlike TMT, also took military action against the British.
However, by definition, both organisations only proved successful in influ-
encing intra-communal affairs. Marred by multiple political assassinations
of primarily left-wing Greek Cypriots by EOKA and Turkish Cypriots by
TMT, the year 1958 was at once revealing and tragic, marking the begin-
ning of inter-communal violence.21 Having failed to achieve their mission
statements, EOKA and TMT nevertheless emerged victorious in their pur-
suit of power throughout Cyprus’ transition towards becoming an inde-
pendent state.22
Having succeeded in suppressing dissident political views within their
own communities, these two organisations managed to sow suspicion
between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, cultivating a climate of
fear and promoting an authoritarian, conservative and irrational political
culture. The British, in an attempt to check the Greek Cypriots’ civil dis-
obedience and confront EOKA by hiring Turkish Cypriots as auxiliary
police as early as 1956, further put a strain on the already tense inter-­
communal relations.23

20
EOKA was founded by Georgios Grivas, a monarchist, far-rightist Greek colonel of
Cypriot origin as a vertically hierarchical guerrilla warfare organisation based on small sabo-
tage and hit teams as well as an execution section that killed in cold blood. It was funded by
the Church and was based on Church networks for recruiting its members. It was effectively
the tool of the Greek Cypriot leadership under Makarios to promote enosis and constituted
the first form of systematic violence and ideological imposition within the community, man-
aging to marginalise AKEL. After 1960 it staffed the state apparatus and developed its myth
which is the dominant ideology of the Greek Cypriot state. TMT was founded in 1957 by
Turkish army officers as the counterbalance to EOKA and operated in an analogous manner
as the monopolisation of violence within the Turkish Cypriot community, imposing in an
absolute way the authority of the nationalist Right for many decades. In the new conditions
after 1974 it was dissolved as the Turkish army became directly responsible for the security
of the community.
21
Poumpouris M. (1999). Days of Trial [Μέρες δοκιμασίας] Nicosia, NP.
22
Anti-communism, prominent in both organisations, was instrumental in that respect,
bearing in mind the 1950s political climate worldwide.
23
Crouzet F. (2011) [1973] The Cypriot Conflict 1946–1959 [Η κυπριακή διένεξη
1946–1959] Athens: National Bank of Greece Cultural Foundation. The Turkish Cypriot
auxiliary police were targeted by EOKA, further feeding into Turkish Cypriots’ fears. The
contribution of the Turkish Cypriot auxiliary police to the repression of Greek Cypriots
reinforced anti-Turkish sentiments within the Greek Cypriot community.
16 G. IOANNOU

The Inter-communal Conflict

The year 1955 marked a turning point in inter-communal relations. The
beginning of EOKA’s armed activity gave rise to tension and resulted in
the first, small-scale population transfers as a preventative measure for
safety reasons, in the process of triggering suspicion. Accordingly, the
Greek Cypriot leaders of football stadiums and the Cyprus Football
Association, pleading an emergency purportedly in order to ‘prevent
riots’, temporarily suspended the Turkish Cypriot football teams from the
championship and from all Association-related activities.24 Under such
tense circumstances, however, and as the political conflict escalated, the
increasing social alienation of the communities in turn reignited political
conflict. Tensions in inter-communal relations mounted, with certain inci-
dents of violence against individuals and properties occurring in 1956 and
1957. In the Turkish Cypriot community, the establishment and active
operations of TMT consolidated the distance between the two communi-
ties, both by prohibiting relations and transactions with the Greek Cypriot
community, and eventually by provoking intra-communal and inter-­
communal violence. However, the first inter-communal conflicts involving
incidents of generalised and indiscriminate ethnic violence properly began
in 1958, at a point in time when the departure of the British forces was
becoming visible and the successive status quo was at stake. Inter-­
communal violence spread over to several areas, ignited by various causes.
This period also laid the ground for the acts of retaliation that were to
follow in the next years.25 The most appalling incident of inter-communal
violence was the murder of eight residents of Kontemenos village, in the
Gönyeli flatlands, which essentially introduced the Turkish Cypriot com-
munity to the dialectics of violence for the sake of partition, promoting
tolerance to murder.26 The city markets were segregated and the ‘Greek’

24
Significantly, the Turkish Cypriot community was unaffected by the major class, political
and ideological conflicts between the right and the left which peaked in 1948 and divided
athletic clubs, leading to the formation of the AC Omonia Nicosia and other new leftist
football teams which held their own separate championship until 1954. The Turkish Cypriot
football teams had remained registered with the Cyprus Football Association under the con-
trol of the Greek Cypriot right.
25
Panayiotou A. (2009) ‘Coping with the pain of the Cypriot tragedy’, [Η διαχείριση του
πόνου της κυπριακής τραγωδίας] Chroniko 73, (19/7/2009) Politis].
26
When a few Greek Cypriot inhabitants of Kontemenos headed to the neighbouring
mixed village Skylloura in order to aid its Greek Cypriot residents against their fellow Turkish
Cypriot villagers, they were arrested by the British police, transferred to Nicosia and subse-
 2 FROM NATIONALISM TO PARTITION 1950–1975 17

and ‘Turkish’ sections became more clearly demarcated, leading to a dis-

placement of persons and shops from grey and borderline, liminal areas.
Amidst a climate of fear, suspicion and intimidation, a de facto segregation
of the municipalities was put into effect—a segregation whose form and
legitimisation remained a pending issue with the ensuing
independence.27
Overall, the ‘dark 1958’ signified the beginning of the partition—on
the one hand, with the foundational violence which transformed the polit-
ical stance of the Turkish Cypriot political leadership in favour of autono-
mous sovereignty into state practice,28 and on the other hand, with EOKA
cementing its position as the apparatus of power within the Greek Cypriot
community and as the instrument in the hands of Makarios. More signifi-
cantly, the inter-communal violence of 1958 laid the foundations for the
widespread violence of the 1963–1967 period, insofar as it shaped the
historical context, legitimised the most extreme nationalist voices within
the two communities and served as a point of reference for the recruit-
ment and mobilisation of strike forces, in tandem with the leaders of the
two respective communities.
Already by the 1940s it was becoming apparent that the Cypriot left
was incapable of adopting an internationalist stance in a comprehensive
manner and of envisaging a future beyond the nation, a future fully liber-
ated from the nationalist narratives of the two communities. Hence, all
Turkish Cypriot leftists who chose to abstain from TMT and disobey its
orders for completely severing their ties with the Greek Cypriot commu-
nity were caught in a vulnerable position as there was no organised left
within the Turkish Cypriot community. The political sympathies of this
small group of Turkish Cypriot leftists for AKEL could neither politically
cover them nor physically protect them. Some of them were murdered, a
few were forced into exile and others had to abstain from politics. As true
proponents of Cypriot independence, equally opposed to the doctrines of
enosis and taksim, they were dealt a cruel hand by fate indeed, as they were

quently released. On returning to Kontemenos on foot, they were attacked and murdered in
the flatlands of the Turkish Cypriot village Gönyeli. See Kızılyürek N. (2015) A Period of
Violence. The Dark 1958. [Μια εποχή της βίας: Το σκοτεινό 1958] Limassol: Eterotopia,
pp. 111–167.
27
Markides D. (1998) The Issue of Separate Municipalities and the Birth of the New
Republic. London: University of London.
28
Kızılyürek, 2015.
18 G. IOANNOU

decimated at that transitional historical moment, on the cusp of

independence.29
The transition to independence that followed immediately after the vio-
lence of 1958 did not bring about any notable changes in terms of politi-
cal ideologies. Both the rationale behind the formation of the new state
and its proposed organisational structure were conceived primarily as a
continuation of the colonial years rather than as a rupture with them. In
early 1959, the Zurich agreement was received with a sense of relief by the
Cypriot people and perceived as the end to violence. However, the overall
suspicion in inter-communal relations had not been quelled. On the con-
trary: the leaders of the two communities, undeterred by the agreement,
persisted in the same course of action through which they had been estab-
lished, namely fuelling nationalism, pursuing the goals of enosis and taksim
which now had to be promoted under different circumstances, and claim-
ing an autonomous communal state power by use of parastate mechanisms.30
Of course, with the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, all ideo-
logical constructs linked to enosis and double enosis—unrealistic anyway
due to the geopolitical correlations—politically collapsed. Besides, the
accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the UN made any such claims out-
lawed from the outset.31 The leaders of the two communities were well
aware of this development and took it into consideration in their future
endeavours. At the same time, though, enosis and taksim were two emo-
tionally charged and ideologically powerful concepts that were laden with
symbolic meaning for the Cypriot population. Furthermore, in their
capacity as bloodstained mottos, they had legitimised the use of violence.
As such, these two concepts not only served as useful rhetorical devices in
the hands of the major and minor leaders of the two communities who

29
This tragedy culminated in the assassination of two Turkish Cypriot journalists, Ayhan
Hikmet and Ahmet Gurkhan in 1962, followed by the assassination of Derviş Ali Kavazoğlu
himself in 1965.
30
Drousiotis M. (2005) The First Partition. Cyprus 1963–1964. [Η πρώτη διχοτόμηση.
Κύπρος 1963–1964] Athens: Alfadi.
31
The Republic of Cyprus was established as a sovereign state consisting of two politically
equal communities, the Greek community and the Turkish community. The Constitution
also recognised three religious minorities: the Maronites, the Armenians and the Latins,
without however granting them collective political rights. After 1960 these three Christian
groups were integrated into the Greek Cypriot community. The Latins formed a very small
group that was assimilated in the next few decades. The assimilation process of the Armenians
and the Maronites has also substantially advanced.
 2 FROM NATIONALISM TO PARTITION 1950–1975 19

now jointly controlled the state apparatus but also provided an easy frame-
work for the explication of power struggle.
Enosis was an ideology of power from the very first moment it was
articulated as a political stance in the early twentieth century. It served at
once as the loan sharks’ motto as noted by the Communist Party of Cyprus
since the 1920s and as the response of the Church and the bourgeoisie to
their privileges being curtailed both due to British intervention from
above and from below and due to the rise of the left and the claims of the
masses. Along similar lines, taksim, the annexation of a part of Cyprus by
Turkey, was from the get-go an ideology of power, a defensive stance vis-­
à-­vis the claims of the Greek Cypriot majority and pivotal in the political
dynamics within the Turkish Cypriot leadership. Both enosis at first and
taksim later were linked to certain coteries of the Greek and Turkish states
respectively, a connection that was crucial amidst the circumstances of the
late 1950s.32 It should be stressed here that even when the two ideological
constructs of enosis and taksim reached the peak of their popularity among
the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots respectively, they also came with
a very strong class dimension. Beneath their purported universality and
cross-class inclusivity, the two versions of Cypriot nationalism, the Greek
Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot nationalism, carried a distinctly bour-
geois identity.
The Zurich agreement between Greece and Turkey and its ratification
in London by the British, Archbishop Makarios and Fazıl Küçük on behalf
of their respective communities, truly ushered in a new era. However, it
was right at that moment, when enosis and taksim seemed to have exhausted
their power and been effectively defeated as political frameworks, that they
assumed their purest form as ideological apparatuses in the service of
power-seeking elites. If prior to 1960 enosis and taksim served as, among
other things, instruments for the manipulation of the masses from which
not even the Cypriot left could escape, during 1960–1975 they were uti-
lised first and foremost as instruments of parastate violence. They became
ideologies of power in their purest form, instruments for disciplining the
population and sources upon which the elites drew and to which they

32
By focusing on the Greek Cypriot community, Marios Thrasyvoulou (The Nationalism
of the Greek Cypriots, [Ο εθνικισμός των Ελληνοκυπρίων] Thessaloniki, Epikentro 2016) per-
ceives this correlation primarily as an export from Cyprus to Greece, an approach which
downplays the bilateral correlations between the Greek Cypriots and the Greek state, while
also overlooking the equivalent interplay between the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish state.
20 G. IOANNOU

referred in their struggle for the control of wealth, political possibilities

and state power.
By 1962, with previous issues still pending and new issues coming to
the fore, it was becoming clear that the new order of things, the bicom-
munal Republic, was not evolving smoothly.33 The Greek Cypriot leaders
redefined their goals, now aiming to turn the Turkish Cypriot community
into a minority. Meanwhile, the Turkish Cypriot community redefined its
own goals as the utilisation of the constitutional provisions for the estab-
lishment of a separate communal sovereignty. Both sides armed and
trained paramilitary groups, in preparation of the impending conflict.34
The latter finally occurred in late 1963, when the Greek Cypriot commu-
nity under Makarios refused to adhere to its commitments regarding the
separate municipalities, and also attempted to upset the balance of the
constitution between the two communities. The Greek Cypriot leadership
under Makarios basically attempted to amend the provisions that were
formulated in the Zurich-London agreements and were laid down at the
Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. With its ‘13 points for the amend-
ment of the Constitution’, the Greek Cypriot leadership transformed the
political deadlock into which the country had been dragged through the
conflict with the Turkish Cypriot leadership into a constitutional dead-
lock, further exacerbating inter-communal relations and escalating the
tension. Following the first incident of violence, the paramilitary forces of
the two communities, prepared well in advance, once again stepped into
the forefront of history.35
It bears mentioning that during this period of inter-communal vio-
lence, which climaxed in 1964 but was maintained until 1967, most casu-
alties were the result of murders in cold blood rather than conflicts between
armed groups. Though there were differences owing to the diverse

33
‘Destiny’ could not have been more different than the one envisaged by leftist politicians
such as Kavazoğlu and by liberals such as Lanitis. See Lanitis N. C. (1963) Our Destiny: A
Consideration of Some Problems Pertaining to Cyprus. Nicosia, NP.
34
On the Greek Cypriot side, the drafting process was carried out by the broader national-
ist milieu, which included Vassos Lyssarides, founder of the United Democratic Union of
Centre (EDEK). On the Turkish Cypriot side, which lacked an equally powerful left, the
conscription was almost universal. The fact that the main Greek Cypriot paramilitary organ-
isation acted under the direct commands of the Minister of the Interior, Polycarpos
Georkadjis, speaks volumes as to how blurred the lines were between the state and the para-
state. Rauf Denktaş played an equivalent role in the Turkish Cypriot community.
35
Drousiotis 2005.
 2 FROM NATIONALISM TO PARTITION 1950–1975 21

geographical areas and the historical moment of violence, it is possible to

make some generalisations and draw conclusions based on the few reliable
recorded references and the numerous existing unwritten accounts of
those events (not for very much longer, though, as first-hand witnesses are
steadily dwindling).36 No doubt it is imperative that a serious and system-
atic research on these specific events be made for the purposes of social
and historical science, but also for the benefit of public knowledge and for
critically examining and reflecting on these dark moments of the
recent past.37
The first thing that needs to be clarified is the extent of participation in
inter-communal violence. There is a small percentage of Greek Cypriots
and Turkish Cypriots who actively partook in the violence of paramilitary
groups; there is a much higher percentage of people who provided these
groups with the necessary material and moral support; finally, there are
those who more or less tolerated violence or, at the very least, did not dare
to raise objections, protest or react. Certainly, there were also those who
resisted inter-communal violence at a local level and prevented it from
spreading further or at least tried to do so. Doubtless, widespread fear and
the need of conforming to the dominant view and therefore of partisan-
ship on the basis of communal identity amidst conditions of violence were
crucial. That being said, there were also networks and structures which
directly linked the use of violence and the war crimes that were part and
parcel of this violence with the upper echelons of the Cypriot state and the
Greco-Turkish parastate in Greece, Cyprus and Turkey.38 These connec-
tions not only empowered the practitioners of ethnic violence, but also
significantly ‘normalised’ and ‘legitimised’ the very use of power.
The departure, or rather banishment, depending on one’s viewpoint, of
Turkish Cypriots from the state, the population transfers and the forma-
tion of autonomous enclaves as early as the beginning of 1964 laid the

36
Loizos L. (1988) ‘Inter-communal killing in Cyprus’, Man, 23(4), pp. 639–653.
37
Uludağ S. (2005) The Oysters that Lost their Pearl. Nicosia: Ikme. Journalist Sevgül
Uludağ has been consistently tackling this issue. The Politis newspaper recently published an
extensive series of stories on the various crimes that have gone unpunished. http://politis.
com.cy/article/tribute/fakelos-p-ta-egklimata-pou-eminan-atimorita-stin-kipro
38
Drousiotis M. (2002) EOKA B and CIA: The Greco-Turkish Parastate in Cyprus. [ΕΟΚΑ
Β and CIA: το ελληνοτουρκικό παρακράτος στη Κύπρο] Athens: Alfadi/Kızılyürek N. (2010a)
‘Rauf Denktaş: Fear and nationalism in the Turkish Cypriot community’, in Aktar A.,
Kızılyürek N., Özkırımlı U. (eds.), Nationalism in the Troubled Triangle. Cyprus, Greece and
Turkey. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
22 G. IOANNOU

ground for the first territorial partition. The Greek Cypriot paramilitary
organisations that were active in the first half of 1964 were closely linked
to the Greek Cypriot political leaders. In their capacity as armed organisa-
tions, they also acted as murderous gangs on the ground, given that the
dialectics of violence acquired its own dynamics.39 Under these circum-
stances, this first partition could neither expand nor be overthrown with-
out military means, as evidenced by the Greek Cypriot attack at Kokkina
and the bombings of Tylliria by the Turkish air forces in the summer
of 1964.40
The Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaderships realised they could
not secure a political leverage through the actions they had perpetrated or
allowed to happen. Bearing the whole responsibility, at least in terms of
moral agency for a number of war crimes, they showed no intention what-
soever of changing their course of action and pursuing new compromises.
On the contrary, both sides adopted tougher stances, the former by again
putting the enosis claims on the table and the latter by claiming separate
sovereignty. On the ground, the population transfers, mostly of Turkish
Cypriots, were followed by property looting, to which no objections were
raised, with very few exceptions. As early as mid-1964, various powers,
both within the Greek Cypriot community and worldwide, began coming
up with scenarios for resolving this crisis based on the segregation of the
Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. This partition, having
now acquired territorial dimensions following the establishment of the
Turkish Cypriot enclaves, started becoming more permanent, a situation
to which the Americans also adopted particularly easily.41

39
Clerides G. (1989) My Testimony Vol. 1 and 2. Nicosia: Alitheia. The Greek Cypriot
Akritas plan is revealing as to how the Republic of Cyprus and its Turkish Cypriot commu-
nity were perceived by the Greek Cypriot elite, while also demonstrating the blurry boundar-
ies between the state and the parastate. Akritas Plan was a parastate action plan aiming to
bring the state under Greek Cypriot control in order to promote enosis via the controlled use
of force against any Turkish Cypriot reaction to this.
40
Kokkina was a small Turkish Cypriot village on the north-western coast of Cyprus which
served as a weapon import point from Turkey and comprised the main Turkish Cypriot
enclave in the Tylliria area. The village was attacked by the Greek Cypriot military in 1964.
Turkey retaliated by bombing Cyprus for the first time, thus preventing the Greek Cypriot
forces from decimating the enclave. To this day, Kokkina remains a Turkish Cypriot enclave
that receives supplies by sea. The Battle of Tylliria and its casualties form an integral part of
national narratives and rituals for both communities.
41
Packard M. (2008) Getting it Wrong: Fragments from a Cyprus Diary 1964. Milton
Keynes, Author House.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
doctrine, and fills up the greater part of the epistle with reproofs of
these errors.

His argument against the doctrines of the servile Judaizers is

made up in his favorite mode of demonstration, by simile and
metaphor, representing the Christian system under the form of the
offspring of Abraham, and afterwards images the freedom of the true
believers in Jesus, in the exalted privilege of the descendants of
Sara, while those enslaved to forms are presented as analogous in
their condition to the children of Hagar. He earnestly exhorts them,
therefore, to stand fast in the freedom to which Christ has exalted
them, and most emphatically condemns all observance of
circumcision. Thus pointing out to them, the purely spiritual nature of
that covenant, of which they were now the favored subjects, he
urges them to a truly spiritual course of life, bidding them aim at the
attainment of a perfect moral character, and makes the conclusion of
the epistle eminently practical in its direction. He speaks of this
epistle as being a testimony of the very particular interest which he
feels in their spiritual prosperity, because, (what appears contrary to
his practice,) he has written it with his own hand. To the very last, he
is very bitter against those who are aiming to bring them back to the
observance of circumcision, and denounces those as actuated only
by a base desire to avoid that persecution which they might expect
from the Jews, if they should reject the Mosaic ritual. Referring to the
cross of Christ as his only glory, he movingly alludes to the marks of
his conformity to that standard, bearing as he does in his own body,
the scars of the wounds received from the scourges of his Philippian
persecutors. He closes without any mention of personal salutations,
and throughout the whole makes none of those specifications of
names, with which most of his other epistles abound. In the opening
salutation, he merely includes with himself those “brethren that are
with him,” which seems to imply that they knew who those brethren
were, in some other way,――perhaps, because he had but lately
been among them with those same persons as his assistants in the
ministry.
 On this very doubtful point, I have taken the views adopted by Witsius, Louis Cappel,
Pearson, Wall, Hug and Hemsen. The notion that it was written at Rome is supported by
Theodoret, Lightfoot, and Paley,――of course making it a late epistle. On the contrary,
Michaelis makes it the earliest of all, and dates it in the year 49, at some place on Paul’s
route from Troas to Thessalonica. Marcion and Tertullian also supposed it to be one of the
earliest epistles. Benson thinks it was written during Paul’s first residence in Corinth.
Lenfant and Beausobre, followed by Lardner, conjecture it to have been written either at
Corinth or at Ephesus, during his first visit, either in A. D. 52, or 53. Fabricius and Mill date it
A. D. 58, at some place on Paul’s route to Jerusalem. Chrysostom and Theophylact, date it
before the epistle to the Romans. Grotius thinks it was written about the same time. From all
which, the reader will see the justice of my conclusion, that nothing at all is known with any
certainty about the matter.

the ephesian mob.

Paul having now been a resident in Ephesus for nearly three

years, and having seen such glorious results of his labors, soon
began to think of revisiting some of his former fields of missionary
exertion, more especially those Grecian cities of Europe which had
been such eventful scenes to him, but a few years previous. He
designed to go over Macedonia and Achaia, and then to visit
Jerusalem; and when communicating these plans to his friends at
Ephesus, he remarked to them in conclusion――“And after that, I
must also visit Rome.” He therefore sent before him into Macedonia,
as the heralds of his approach, his former assistant, Timothy, and
another helper not before mentioned, Erastus, who is afterwards
mentioned as the treasurer of the city of Corinth. But Paul himself
still waited in Asia for a short time, until some other preliminaries
should be arranged for his removal. During this incidental delay
arose the most terrible commotion that had ever yet been excited
against him, and one which very nearly cost him his life.

It should be noticed that the conversion of so large a number of

the heathen, through the preaching of Paul, had struck directly at the
foundation of a very thriving business carried on in Ephesus, and
connected with the continued prevalence and general popularity of
that idolatrous worship, for which the city was so famous. Ephesus,
as is well known, was the chief seat of the peculiar worship of that
great Asian deity, who is now known, throughout all the world, where
the apostolic history is read, by the name of “Diana of the
Ephesians.” It is perfectly certain, however, that this deity had no
real connection, either in character or in name, with that Roman
goddess of the chase and of chastity, to whom the name Diana
properly belongs. The true classic goddess Diana was a virgin,
according to common stories, considered as the sister of Apollo, and
was worshiped as the beautiful and youthful goddess of the chase,
and of that virgin purity of which she was supposed to be an
instance, though some stories present an exception to this part of
her character. Upon her head, in most representations of her, was
pictured a crescent, which was commonly supposed to show, that
she was also the goddess of the moon; but a far more sagacious
and rational supposition refers the first origin of this sign to a deeper
meaning. But when the mythologies of different nations began to be
compared and united, she was identified with the goddess of the
moon, and with that Asian goddess who bore among the Greeks the
name of Artemis, which is in fact the name given by Luke, as the
title of the great goddess of the Ephesians. This Artemis, however,
was a deity as diverse in form, character and attributes, from the
classic Diana, as from any goddess in all the systems of ancient
mythology; and they never need have been confounded, but for the
perverse folly of those who were bent, in spite of all reason, to find in
the divinities of the eastern polytheism, the perfect synonyms to the
objects of western idolatry. The Asian and Ephesian goddess
Artemis, had nothing whatever to do with hunting nor with chastity.
She was not represented as young, nor beautiful, nor nimble, nor as
the sister of Apollo, but as a vast gigantic monster, with a crown of
towers, with lions crouching upon her shoulders, and a great array of
pictured or sculptured eagles and tigers over her whole figure; and
her figure was also strangely marked by a multitude of breasts in
front. Under this monstrous figure, which evidently was no invention
of the tasteful Greeks, but had originated in the debasing and
grotesque idolatry of the orientals, Artemis of the Ephesians was
worshiped as the goddess of the earth, of fertility, of cities, and as
the universal principle of life and wealth. She was known among the
Syrians by the name of Ashtaroth, and was among the early objects
of Hebrew idolatry. When the Romans, in their all-absorbing
tolerance of idolatry, began to introduce into Italy the worship of the
eastern deities, this goddess was also added there, but not under
the name of Diana. The classic scholar is familiar with the allusions
to this deity, worshiped under the name of Cybele, Tellus and other
such, and in all the later poets of Rome, she is a familiar object, as
“the tower-crowned Cybele.” This was the goddess worshiped in
many of the Grecian cities of Asia Minor, which, at their first
colonization, had adopted this aboriginal goddess of those fertile
regions, of whose fertility, civilization, agricultural and commercial
wealth, she seemed the fit and appropriate personification. But in
none of these Asian cities was she worshiped with such peculiar
honors and glories as in Ephesus, the greatest city of Asia Minor.
Here was worshiped a much cherished image of her, which was said
to have fallen from heaven, called from that circumstance the
Diopetos; which here was kept in that most splendid temple, which
is even now proverbial as having been one of the wonders of the
ancient world. Being thus the most famous seat of her worship,
Ephesus also became the center of a great manufacture and trade in
certain curious little images or shrines, representing this goddess,
which were in great request, wherever her worship was regarded,
being considered as the genuine and legitimate representatives, as
well as representations of the Ephesian deity.

This explanation will account for the circumstances related by

Luke, as ensuing in Ephesus, on the success of Paul’s labors among
the heathen, to whose conversion his exertions had been wholly
devoted during the two last years of his stay in Ephesus. In
converting the Ephesians from heathenism, he was guilty of no
ordinary crime. He directly attacked a great source of profit to a large
number of artizans in the city, who derived their whole support from
the manufacture of those little objects of idolatry, which, of course,
became of no value to those who believed Paul’s doctrine,――that
“those were no gods which were made with hands.” This new
doctrine therefore, attracted very invidious notice from those who
thus found their dearest interests very immediately and unfortunately
affected, by the progress made by its preacher in turning away the
hearts of Ephesians from their ancient reverence for the shrines of
Artemis; and they therefore listened with great readiness to
Demetrius, one of their number, when he proposed to remedy the
difficulty. He showed them in a very clear, though brief address, that
“the craft was in danger,”――that warning cry which so often bestirs
the bigoted in defence of the object of their regard; and after hearing
his artful address, they all, full of wrath, with one accord raised a
great outcry, in the usual form of commendation of the established
idolatry of their city,――“Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” This
noise being heard by others, and of course attracting attention, every
one who distinguished the words, by a sort of patriotic impulse, was
driven to join in the cry, and presently the whole city was in an
uproar;――a most desirable condition of things, of course, for those
who wished to derive advantage from a popular commotion. All
bawling this senseless cry, with about as much idea of the occasion
of the disturbance as could be expected from such a mob, the
huddling multitudes learning the general fact, that the grand object of
the tumult was to do some mischief to the Christians, and looking
about for some proper person to be made the subject of public
opinion, fell upon Gaius and Aristarchus of Macedonia, two traveling
companions of Paul, who happened to be in the way, and dragged
them to the theater, whither the whole mob rushed at once, as to a
desirable scene for any act of confusion and folly which they might
choose to commit. Paul, with a lion-like spirit, caring naught for the
mob, proposed to go in and make a speech to them, but his friends,
with far more prudence and cool sense than he,――knowing that an
assembly of the people, roaring some popular outcry, is no more a
subject of reason than so many raging wild beasts,――prevented
him from going into the theater, where he would no doubt have been
torn to pieces, before he could have opened his mouth. Some of the
great magistrates of Asia, too, who were friendly to him, hearing of
his rash intentions, sent to him a very urgent request, that he would
not venture himself among the mob. Meanwhile the outcry
continued,――the theater being crowded full,――and the whole city
constantly pouring out to see what was the matter, and every soul
joining in the religious and patriotic shout, “Great is Artemis of the
Ephesians!” And so they went on, every one, of course, according to
the universal and everlasting practice on such occasions, making all
the noise he could, but not one, except the rascally silversmiths,
knowing what upon earth they were all bawling there for. Still this
ignorance of the object of the assembly kept nobody still; but all, with
undiminished fervor, kept plying their lungs to swell the general roar.
As it is described in the very graphic and picturesque language of
Luke,――“Some cried one thing, and some, another; for the whole
assembly was confused;――and the more knew not wherefore they
were come together,”――which last circumstance is a very common
difficulty in such assemblies, in all ages. At last, searching for some
other persons as proper subjects to exercise their religious zeal
upon, they looked about upon the Jews, who were always a
suspected class among the heathen, and seized one Alexander, who
seems to have been one of the Christian converts, for the Jews
thrust him forward as a kind of scapegoat for themselves. Alexander
made the usual signs soliciting their attention to his words; but as
soon as the people understood that he was a Jew, they all drowned
his voice with the general cry, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”
and this they kept up steadily for two whole hours, as it were with
one voice. Matters having come to this pass, the recorder of the city
came forward, and having hushed the people,――who had some
reverence for the lawful authorities, that fortunately were not
responsible to them,――and made them a very sensible speech,
reminding them that since no one doubted the reverence of the
Ephesians for the goddess Artemis, and for the Diopetos, there
surely was no occasion for all this disturbance to demonstrate a fact
that every body knew. He told them that the men against whom they
were raising this disturbance had neither robbed their temples nor
blasphemed the goddess; so that if Demetrius and his fellow-craft
had anything justly against these men, as having injured their
business, they had their proper remedy at law. He hinted to them
also that they were all liable to be called to account for this manifest
breach of Roman law, and this defiance of the majesty of the Roman
government;――a hint which brought most of them to their senses;
for all who had anything to lose, dreaded the thought of giving
occasion to the awfully remorseless government of the province, to
fine them, as they certainly would be glad to do on any valid excuse.
They all dispersed, therefore, with no more words.

“‘Silver shrines,’ verse 24. The heathens used to carry the images of their gods in
procession from one city to another. This was done in a chariot which was solemnly
consecrated for that employment, and by the Romans styled Thensa, that is, the chariot of
their gods. But besides this, it was placed in a box or shrine, called Ferculum. Accordingly,
when the Romans conferred divine honors on their great men, alive or dead, they had the
Circen games, and in them the Thensa and Ferculum, the chariot and the shrine, bestowed
on them; as it is related of Julius Caesar. This Ferculum among the Romans did not differ
much from the Graecian Ναὸς, a little chapel, representing the form of a temple, with an
image in it, which, being set upon an altar, or any other solemn place, having the doors
opened, the image was seen by the spectators either in a standing or sitting posture. An old
anonymous scholiast upon Aristotle’s Rhetoric, lib. i. c. 15, has these words: Ναοποιοὶ οἱ
τοὺς ναοὺς ποιοῦσι, ἤτοι εἱκονοστάσια, τινα μικρὰ ξύλινα ἅ πωλοῦσι, observing the ναοι here to
be εικονοστάσια, chaplets, with images in them, of wood, or metal, (as here of silver,) which
they made and sold, as in verse 25, they are supposed to do. Athenaeus speaks of the
καδισκος, ‘which,’ says he ‘is a vessel wherein they place their images of Jupiter.’ The
learned Casaubon states, that ‘these images were put in cases, which were made like
chapels. (Deipnos. lib. ii. p. 500.) So St. Chrysostom likens them to ‘little cases, or shrines.’
Dion says of the Roman ensign, that it was a little temple, and in it a golden eagle, (Ρωμαικ,
lib. 40.) And in another place: ‘There was a little chapel of Juno, set upon a table.’ Ρωμαικ,
lib. 39. This is the meaning of the tabernacle of Moloch, Acts vii. 43, where by the σκηνη,
tabernacle, is meant the chaplet, a shrine of that false god. The same was also the ‫סכות דנות‬
the tabernacle of Benoth, or Venus.” Hammond’s Annotations. [Williams on Pearson, p. 55.]

Robbers of temples.――Think of the miserable absurdity of the common English

translation in this passage, (Acts xix. 37,) where the original ἱεροσυλοι is expressed by
“robbers of churches!” Now who ever thought of applying the English word “church,” to
anything whatever but a “Christian assembly,” or “Christian place of assembly?” Why then is
this phrase put in the mouth of a heathen officer addressing a heathen assembly about
persons charged with violating the sanctity of heathen places of worship? Such a building
as a church, (εκκλησια, ecclesia) devoted to the worship of the true God, was not known till
more than a century after this time; and the Greek word ἱερον, (hieron,) which enters into the
composition of the word in the sacred text, thus mistranslated, was never applied to a
Christian place of worship.

first epistle to the corinthians.

Paul’s residence in Ephesus is distinguished in his literary history,

as the period in which he wrote that most eloquent and animated of
his epistles,――“the first to the Corinthians.” It was written towards
the close of his stay in Asia, about the time of the passover;
according to established calculations, therefore, in the spring of the
year of Christ 57. The more immediate occasion of his writing to the
Corinthian Christians, was a letter which he had received from them,
by the hands of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus. Paul had
previously written to them an epistle, (now lost,) in which he gave
them some directions about their deportment, which they did not fully
understand, and of which they desired an explanation in their letter.
Many of these questions, which this epistle of the Corinthians
contained, are given by Paul, in connection with his own answers to
them; and from this source it is learned that they concerned several
points of expediency and propriety about matrimony. These are
answered by Paul, very distinctly and fully; but much of his epistle is
taken up with instructions and reproofs on many points not referred
to in their inquiries. The Corinthian church was made up of two very
opposite constituent parts, so unlike in their character, as to render
exceedingly complicated the difficulties of bringing all under one
system of faith and practice; and the apostolic founder was, at one
time, obliged to combat heathen licentiousness, and at another,
Jewish bigotry and formalism. The church also, having been too
soon left without the presence of a fully competent head, had been
very loosely filled up with a great variety of improper
persons,――some hypocrites, and some profligates,――a difficulty
not altogether peculiar to the Corinthian church, nor to those of the
apostolic age. But there were certainly some very extraordinary
irregularities in the conduct of their members, some of whom were in
the habit of getting absolutely drunk at the sacramental table; and
others were guilty of great sins in respect to general purity of life.
Another peculiar difficulty, which had arisen in the church of Corinth,
during Paul’s absence, was the formation of sects and parties, each
claiming some one of the great Christian teachers as its head; some
of them claiming Paul as their only apostolic authority; some again
preferring the doctrines of Apollos, who had been laboring among
them while Paul was in Ephesus; and others again, referred to Peter
as the true apostolic chief, while they wholly denied to Paul any
authority whatever, as an apostle. There had, indeed, arisen a
separate party, strongly opposed to Paul, headed by a prominent
person, who had done a great deal to pervert the truth, and to lessen
the character of Paul in various ways, which are alluded to by Paul in
many passages of his epistle, in a very indignant tone. Other
difficulties are described by him, and various excesses are reproved,
as a scandal to the Christian character; such as an incestuous
marriage among their members,――lawsuits before heathen
magistrates,――dissolute conformity to the licentious worship of the
Corinthian goddess, whose temple was so infamous for its
scandalous rites and thousand priestesses. Some of the Corinthian
Christians had been in the habit of visiting this and other heathen
temples, and of participating in the scenes of feasting, riot and
debauchery, which were carried on there as a part of the regular
forms of idolatrous worship.

The public worship of the Corinthian church had been disturbed

also by various irregularities which Paul reprehends;――the abuse
of the gift of tongues, and the affectation of an unusual dress in
preaching, both by men and women. In the conclusion of his epistle
he expatiates too, at great length, on the doctrine of the resurrection
of the body, vehemently arguing against some Corinthian heretics,
who had denied any but a spiritual existence beyond the grave. This
argument may justly be pronounced the best specimen of Paul’s
very peculiar style, reasoning as he does, with a kind of passion, and
interrupting the regular series of logical demonstrations, by fiery
bursts of enthusiasm, personal appeals, poetical quotations,
illustrative similes, violent denunciations of error, and striking
references to his own circumstances. All these nevertheless, point
very directly and connectedly at the great object of the argument,
and the whole train of reasoning swells and mounts, towards the
conclusion, in a manner most remarkably effective, constituting one
of the most sublime argumentative passages ever written. He then
closes the epistle with some directions about the mode of collecting
the contributions for the brethren in Jerusalem. He promises to visit
them, and make a long stay among them, when he goes on his
journey through Macedonia,――a route which, he assures them, he
had now determined to take, as mentioned by Luke, in his account of
the preliminary mission of Timothy and Erastus, before the time of
the mob at Ephesus; but should not leave Ephesus until after
Pentecost, because a great and effectual door was there opened to
him, and there were many opposers. He speaks of Timothy as being
then on the mission before mentioned, and exhorts them not to
despise this young brother, if he should visit them, as they might
expect. After several other personal references, he signs his ♦ own
name with a general salutation; and from the terms, in which he
expresses this particular mark already alluded to in the second
epistle to the Thessalonians, it is very reasonable to conclude, that
he was not his own penman in any of these epistles, but used an
amanuensis, authenticating the whole by his signature, with his own
hand, only at the end; and this opinion of his method of carrying on
his correspondence, is now commonly, perhaps universally, adopted
by the learned.

♦ “ownn,ame” replaced with “own name”

“Chapter xvi. 10, 11. ‘Now, if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear;
for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do: let no man therefore despise him, but
conduct him forth in peace, that he may come unto me, for I look for him with the brethren.’

“From the passage considered in the preceding number, it appears that Timothy was
sent to Corinth, either with the epistle, or before it: ‘for this cause have I sent unto you
Timotheus.’ From the passage now quoted, we infer that Timothy was not sent with the
epistle; for had he been the bearer of the letter, or accompanied it, would St. Paul in that
letter have said, ‘if Timothy come?’ Nor is the sequel consistent with the supposition of his
carrying the letter; for if Timothy was with the apostle when he wrote the letter, could he say,
as he does, ‘I look for him with the brethren?’ I conclude, therefore, that Timothy had left St.
Paul to proceed upon his journey before the letter was written. Further, the passage before
us seems to imply, that Timothy was not expected by St. Paul to arrive at Corinth, till after
they had received the letter. He gives them directions in the letter how to treat him when he
should arrive: ‘if he come,’ act towards him so and so. Lastly, the whole form of expression
is more naturally applicable to the supposition of Timothy’s coming to Corinth, not directly
from St. Paul, but from some other quarter; and that his instructions had been, when he
should reach Corinth, to return. Now, how stands this matter in the history? Turn to the
nineteenth chapter and twenty-first verse of the Acts, and you will find that Timothy did not,
when sent from Ephesus, where he left St. Paul, and where the present epistle was written,
proceed by a straight course to Corinth, but that he went round through Macedonia. This
clears up everything; for, although Timothy was sent forth upon his journey before the letter
was written, yet he might not reach Corinth till after the letter arrived there; and he would
come to Corinth, when he did come, not directly from St. Paul, at Ephesus, but from some
part of Macedonia. Here therefore is a circumstantial and critical agreement, and
unquestionably without design; for neither of the two passages in the epistle mentions
Timothy’s journey into Macedonia at all, though nothing but a circuit of that kind can explain
and reconcile the expressions which the writer uses.” (Paley’s Horae Paulinae, 1
Corinthians No. IV.)

“Chapter v. 7, 8. ‘For even Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep
the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.’

“Dr. Benson tells us, that from this passage, compared with chapter xvi. 8, it has been
conjectured that this epistle was written about the time of the Jewish passover; and to me
the conjecture appears to be very well founded. The passage to which Dr. Benson refers us,
is this: ‘I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.’ With this passage he ought to have joined
another in the same context: ‘And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with you:’ for,
from the two passages laid together, it follows that the epistle was written before Pentecost,
yet after winter; which necessarily determines the date to the part of the year, within which
the passover falls. It was written before Pentecost, because he says, ‘I will tarry at Ephesus
until Pentecost.’ It was written after winter, because he tells them, ‘It may be that I may
abide, yea, and winter with you.’ The winter which the apostle purposed to pass at Corinth,
was undoubtedly the winter next ensuing to the date of the epistle; yet it was a winter
subsequent to the ensuing Pentecost, because he did not intend to set forwards upon his
journey till after the feast. The words, ‘let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with
the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,’
look very much like words suggested by the season; at least they have, upon that
supposition, a force and significancy which do not belong to them upon any other; and it is
not a little remarkable, that the hints casually dropped in the epistle, concerning particular
parts of the year, should coincide with this supposition.” (Paley’s Horae Paulinae. 1
Corinthians. No. XII.)

second voyage to europe.

After the disturbances connected with the mob raised by

Demetrius had wholly ceased, and public attention was no longer
directed to the motions of the preachers of the Christian doctrine,
Paul determined to execute the plan, which he had for some time
contemplated, of going over his European fields of labor again,
according to his universal and established custom of revisiting and
confirming his work, within a moderately brief period after first
opening the ground for evangelization. Assembling the disciples
about him, he bade them farewell, and turning northward, came to
Troas, whence, six or seven years before, he had set out on his first
voyage to Macedonia. The plan of his journey, as he first arranged it,
had been to sail from the shores of Asia Minor directly for Corinth.
He had resolved however, not to go to that city, until the very
disagreeable difficulties which had there arisen in the church, had
been entirely removed, according to the directions given in the
epistle which he had written to them from Ephesus; because he did
not desire, after an absence of years, to visit them in such
circumstances, when his Corinthian converts were divided among
themselves, and against him,――and when his first duties would
necessarily be those of a rigid censor. He therefore waited at Troas,
with great impatience, for a message from them, announcing the
settlement of all difficulties. This he expected to receive through
Titus, a person now first mentioned in the apostle’s history. Waiting
with great impatience for this beloved brother, he found no rest in his
spirit, and though a door was evidently opened by the Lord for the
preaching of the gospel in Troas, he had no spirit for the good work
there; and desiring to be as near the great object of his anxieties as
possible, he accordingly took leave of the brethren at Troas, and
crossed the Aegean into Macedonia, by his former route. Here he
remained in great distress of mind, until his soul was at last
comforted by the long expected arrival of Titus. Luke only says, that
he went over those parts and gave them much exhortation. But
though his route is not given, his apostolic labors are known to have
extended to the borders of Illyricum. At this time also, he made
another important contribution to the list of the apostolic writings.

the second epistle to the corinthians.

There is no part of the New Testament canon, about the date of

which all authorities are so well agreed, as on the place and time, at
which Paul wrote his second epistle to the Corinthians. All
authorities, ancient and modern, decide that it was written during the
second visit of Paul to Macedonia; although as to the exact year in
which this took place, they are not entirely unanimous. The
passages in the epistle itself, which refer to Macedonia as the region
in which the apostle then was, are so numerous indeed, that there
can be no evasion of their evidence. A great topic of interest with
him, at the time of writing this epistle, was the collecting of the
contributions proposed for the relief of the Christian brethren in
Jerusalem; and upon this he enlarges much, informing the
Corinthians of the great progress he was making in Macedonia in
this benevolent undertaking, and what high hopes he had
entertained and expressed to the Macedonians, of the zeal and
ability of those in Achaia, about the contributions. This matter had
been noticed and arranged by him, in his former epistle to them, as
already noticed, and he now proposed to send forward Titus and
another person, (who is commonly supposed to be Luke,) to take
charge of these funds, thus collected. He speaks of coming also
himself, after a little time, and makes some allusions to the difficulties
which had constituted the subject of the great part of his former
epistle. Of their amendment in the particulars then so severely
censured, he had received a full account through Titus, when that
beloved brother came on from Corinth, to join Paul in Macedonia.
Paul assures the Corinthians of the very great joy caused in him, by
the good news of their moral and spiritual improvement, and renews
his ardent protestations of deep affection for them. The incestuous
person, whom they had excommunicated, in conformity with the
denunciatory directions given in the former epistle, he now forgives;
and as the offender has since appeared to be truly penitent, he now
urges his restoration to the consolations of Christian fellowship, lest
he should be swallowed up with too much sorrow. He defends his
apostolic character for prudence and decision, against those who
considered his change of plans about coming directly from Ephesus
to Corinth, as an exhibition of lightness and unsettled purpose. His
real object in this delay and change of purpose, as he tells them,
was, that they might have time to profit by the reproofs contained in
his former epistle, so that by the removal of the evils of which he so
bitterly complained, he might finally be enabled to come to them, not
in sorrow, nor in heaviness for their sins, but in joy for their
reformation. This fervent hope had been fulfilled by the coming of
Titus to Macedonia, for whom he had waited in vain, with so much
anxiety at Troas, as the expected messenger of these tidings of their
spiritual condition; and he was now therefore prepared to pass on to
them from Macedonia, to which region he tells them he had gone
from Troas, instead of to Corinth, because he had been disappointed
about meeting Titus on the eastern side of the Aegean. With the
exception of these things, the epistle is taken up with a very ample
and eloquent exhibition of his true powers and office as an apostle;
and in the course of this argument, so necessary for the re-
establishment of his authority among those who had lately been
disposed to contemn it, he makes many very interesting allusions to
his own personal history. The date of the epistle is commonly
supposed, and with good reason, to be A. D. 58, the fifth of Nero’s
reign, and one year after the preceding epistle.

MILETUS. Acts xx. 15‒17.

“Chapter ii. 12, 13. ‘When I came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door was
opened unto me of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother;
but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.’

“To establish a conformity between this passage and the history, nothing more is
necessary to be presumed, than that St. Paul proceeded from Ephesus to Macedonia, upon
the same course by which he came back from Macedonia to Ephesus, or rather to Miletus
in the neighborhood of Ephesus; in other words, that, in his journey to the peninsula of
Greece, he went and returned the same way. St. Paul is now in Macedonia, where he had
lately arrived from Ephesus. Our quotation imports that in his journey he had stopped at
Troas. Of this, the history says nothing, leaving us only the short account, ‘that Paul
departed from Ephesus, for to go into Macedonia.’ But the history says, that in his return
from Macedonia to Ephesus, ‘Paul sailed from Philippi to Troas; and that, when the disciples
came together on the first day of the week, to break bread, Paul preached unto them all
night; that from Troas he went by land to Assos; from Assos, taking ship and coasting along
the front of Asia Minor, he came by Mitylene to Miletus.’ Which account proves, first, that
Troas lay in the way by which St. Paul passed between Ephesus and Macedonia; secondly,
that he had disciples there. In one journey between these two places, the epistle, and in
another journey between the same places, the history makes him stop at this city. Of the
first journey he is made to say, ‘that a door was in that city opened unto him of the Lord;’ in
the second, we find disciples there collected around him, and the apostle exercising his
ministry, with, what was even in him, more than ordinary zeal and labor. The epistle,
therefore, is in this instance confirmed, if not by the terms, at least by the probability of the
history; a species of confirmation by no means to be despised, because, as far as it
reaches, it is evidently uncontrived.

“Grotius, I know, refers the arrival at Troas, to which the epistle alludes, to a different
period, but I think very improbably; for nothing appears to me more certain, than that the
meeting with Titus, which St. Paul expected at Troas, was the same meeting which took
place in Macedonia, viz. upon Titus’s coming out of Greece. In the quotation before us, he
tells the Corinthians, ‘When I came to Troas, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not
Titus, my brother; but, taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.’ Then in
the seventh chapter he writes, ‘When we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest,
but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears; nevertheless,
God, that comforteth them that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus.’ These
two passages plainly relate to the same journey of Titus, in meeting with whom St. Paul had
been disappointed at Troas, and rejoiced in Macedonia. And amongst other reasons which
fix the former passage to the coming of Titus out of Greece, is the consideration, that it was
nothing to the Corinthians that St. Paul did not meet with Titus at Troas, were it not that he
was to bring intelligence from Corinth. The mention of the disappointment in this place,
upon any other supposition, is irrelative.” (Paley’s Horae Paulinae. 2 Corinthians No. VIII.)

second journey to corinth.

Among his companions in Macedonia, was Timothy, his ever

zealous and affectionate assistant in the apostolic ministry, who had
been sent thither before him to prepare the way, and had been
laboring in that region ever since, as plainly appears from the fact,
that he is joined with Paul in the opening address of the second
epistle to the Corinthians,――a circumstance in itself sufficient to
overthrow a very common supposition of the critics,――that Timothy
returned to Asia; that Paul at that time “left him in Ephesus,” and at
this time wrote his first epistle to Timothy from Macedonia. It is also
most probable that Timothy was the personal companion of Paul, not
only during the whole period of his second ministration in
Macedonia, but also accompanied him from that province to Corinth;
because Timothy is distinctly mentioned by Luke, among those who
went with Paul from Macedonia to Asia, after his brief second
residence in that city. No particulars whatever are given by Luke of
the labors of Paul in Corinth. From his epistles, however, it is learned
that he was at this time occupied in part, in receiving the
contributions made throughout Achaia for the church of Jerusalem,
to which city he was now preparing to go. The difficulties, of which so
much mention had been made in his epistles, were now entirely
removed, and his work there doubtless went on without any of that
opposition which had arisen after his first departure. There is
however, one very important fact in his literary history, which took
place in Corinth, during his residence there.

the epistle to the romans.

From the very earliest period of apostolic labor, after the

ascension, there appear to have been in Rome, some Jews who
professed the faith of Jesus. Among the visitors in Jerusalem at the
Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit first descended, were some from
Rome, who sharing in the gifts of that remarkable effusion, and
returning to their home in the imperial city, would there in themselves
constitute the rudiment of a Christian church. It is perfectly certain
that they had never been blessed in their own city with the personal
presence of an apostle and all their associated action as a Christian
church, must therefore have been entirely the result of a voluntary
organization, suggested by the natural desire to keep up and to
spread the doctrines which they had first received in Jerusalem,
under such remarkable circumstances. Yet the members of the
church would not be merely those who were converted at the
Pentecost; for there was a constant influx of Jews from all parts of
the world to Rome, and among these there would naturally be some
who had participated in the light of the gospel, now so widely
diffused throughout the eastern section of the world. There is
moreover distinct information of certain persons of high
qualifications, as Christian teachers, who had at Rome labored in the
cause of the gospel, and had no doubt been among the most
efficient means of that advancement of the Roman church, which
seems to be implied in the communication now first made to them by
Paul. Aquilas and Priscilla, who had been the intimate friends of Paul
at Corinth, and who had been already so active and distinguished as
laborers in the gospel cause, both in that city and in Ephesus, had
returned to Rome on the death of Claudius, when that emperor’s
foolish decree of banishment, against the Jews, expired along with
its author, in the year of Christ, 54. These, on re-establishing their
residence in Rome, made their own house a place of assembly for a
part of the Christians in the capital,――probably for such as resided
in their own immediate neighborhood, while others sought different
places, according as suited their convenience in this particular. Many
other persons are mentioned by Paul at the close of this epistle, as
having been active in the work of the gospel at Rome;――among
whom Andronicus and Junias are particularly noticed with respect,
as having highly distinguished themselves in apostolic labors. From
all these evangelizing efforts, the church of Rome attained great
importance, and was now in great need of the counsels and
presence of an apostle, to confirm it, and impart to its members
spiritual gifts. It had long been an object of attention and interest to
Paul, and he had already expressed a determination to visit the
imperial city, in the remarks which he made to the brethren at
Ephesus, when he was making arrangements to go into Macedonia
and Achaia. The way was afterwards opened for this visit, by a very
peculiar providence, which he does not seem to have then
anticipated; but while residing in Corinth, his attention being very
particularly called to their spiritual condition, he could not wait till he
should have an opportunity to see them personally, to counsel them;
but wrote to them this very copious and elaborate epistle, which
seems to have been the subject of more comment among dogmatic
theologians, than almost any other portion of his writings, on account
of its being supposed to furnish different polemic writers with the
most important arguments for the peculiar dogmas of one or another,
according to the fancy of each. It undoubtedly is the most doctrinal
and didactic of all Paul’s epistles, alluding very little to local
circumstances, which are the theme of so large a part of most of his
writings, but attacking directly certain general errors entertained by
the Jews, on the subject of justification, predestination, election, and
many peculiar privileges which they attributed to themselves as the
descendants of Abraham.
 This epistle, like most of the rest, was written by an amanuensis,
who is herein particularly named, as Tertius,――a word of Roman
origin; but beyond this nothing else is known of him. It was carried to
Rome by Phebe, an active female member of the church at
Cenchreae, the port of Corinth, who happened to be journeying to
Rome for some other purposes, and is earnestly recommended by
Paul to the friendly regard of the church there.

return to asia.

After passing three months in Corinth, he took his departure from

that city, on his pre-determined voyage to the east, the direction of
which was somewhat changed by the information that the Jews of
the place where he then was, were plotting some mischief against
him, which he thought best to avoid by taking a different route from
that before planned, which was a direct voyage to Syria. To escape
the danger prepared for him by them, at his expected place of
embarkation, he first turned northward by land, through Macedonia
to Philippi, and thence sailed by the now familiar track over the
Aegean to Troas. On this journey, he was accompanied by quite a
retinue of apostolic assistants,――not only his faithful disciple and
companion Timothy, but also Sosipater of Beroea, Aristarchus and
Secundus of Thessalonica, Gaius, or Caius of Derbe, and Luke also,
who now carries on the apostolic narrative in the first person, thus
showing that he was himself a sharer in the adventures which he
narrates. Besides these immediate companions, two brethren from
Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus, took the direct route from Corinth to
Troas, at which place they waited for the rest of the apostolic
company, who took the circuitous route through Macedonia. The
date of the departure of Paul is very exactly fixed by his companion
Luke, who states that they left Philippi at the time of the passover,
which was in the middle of March; and other circumstances have
enabled modern critics to fix the occurrence in the year of Christ 59.
After a five days’ voyage, arriving at Troas on Saturday, they made a
stay of seven days in that place; and on the first day of the week, the
Christians of that place having assembled for the communion usual
on the Lord’s day, Paul preached to them: and as it was the last day
of his stay, he grew very earnest in his discourse and protracted it
very late, speaking two whole hours to the company, who were met
in the great upper hall, where, in all Jewish houses, these festal
entertainments and social meetings were always held. It was, of
course, the evening, when the assembly met, for this was the usual
time for a social party, and there were many lights in the room,
which, with the number of people, must have made the air very
warm, and had the not very surprising effect of causing drowsiness,
in at least one of Paul’s hearers, a young man named ♦ Eutychus,
whose interest in what was said, could not keep his attention alive
against the pressure of drowsiness. He fell asleep; and the
occurrence must appear so very natural, (more particularly to any
one, who has ever been so unfortunate as to be sleepy at an
evening meeting, and knows what a painful sensation it is, though
the drowsiness is wholly beyond the control of the reason,) that it
can hardly be thought worth while to take pains, as some venerable
commentators do, to suppose that the devil was very specially
concerned in producing the sleep of Eutychus, and that the
consequences which ensued, were an exhibition of divine wrath
against the sleepy youth, for slumbering under the preaching of Paul.
If the supposition holds equally good in all similar cases, the devil
must be very busy on warm Sunday afternoons; and many a
comfortable nap would be disturbed by unpleasant dreams, if the
dozer could be made to think that his drowsiness was the particular
work of the great adversary of souls, or that he was liable to suffer
any such accident as Eutychus did, who, falling into a deeper sleep,
and losing all muscular control and consciousness, sunk down from
his seat, and slipping over the side of the gallery, in the third loft, fell
into the court below, where he was taken up lifeless. But Paul
hearing of the accident, stopped his discourse, and going down to
the young man, fell on him and embraced him, saying, “Trouble not
yourselves, for the life is in him.” And his words were verified by the
result; for they soon brought him up alive, and were not a little
comforted. Paul, certain of his recovery, did not suffer the accident to
mar the enjoyment of the social farewell meeting; but going up and
breaking bread with them all, talked with them a long time, passing
the whole night in this pleasant way, and did not leave them till day-
break, when he started to go by land over to Assos, about twenty-
four miles south-east of Troas, on the Adramyttian gulf, which sets
up between the north side of the island of Lesbos and the mainland.
His companions, coming around by water, through the mouth of the
gulf, took Paul on board at Assos, according to his plan; and then
instead of turning back, and sailing out into the open sea, around the
outside of Lesbos, ran up the gulf to the eastern end of the north
coast of the island, where there is an other outlet to the gulf between
the eastern shore of Lesbos and the continent. Sailing southward
through this passage, after a course of between thirty and forty
miles, they came to Mitylene, on the southeastern side of the island.
Thence passing out of the strait, they sailed southwestwards, coming
between Chios and the main-land, and arrived the next day at
Trogyllium, at the southwest corner of Samos. Then turning their
course towards the continent, they came in one day to Miletus, near
the mouth of the ♠Meander, about forty miles south of Ephesus.

♦ “Entychus” replaced with “Eutychus”

♠ “Maeander” replaced with “Meander”

Landing here, and desiring much to see some of his Ephesian

brethren before his departure to Jerusalem, he sent to the elders of
the church in that city, and on their arrival poured out his whole soul
to them in a parting address, which for pathetic earnestness and
touching beauty, is certainly, beyond any doubt, the most splendid
passage that all the records of ancient eloquence can furnish. No
force can be added to it by a new version, nor can any recapitulation
of its substance do justice to its beauty. At the close, took place a
most affecting farewell. In the simple and forcible description of
Luke, (who was himself present at the moving scene, seeing and
hearing all he narrates,)――“When Paul had thus spoken, he
kneeled down and prayed with them all.” The subjects of this prayer