hellenic link midwest lecture, march 17, 2013 in ... march 17, 2013... · hellenic link –midwest...
TRANSCRIPT
Hellenic Link –Midwest Lecture, March 17, 2013
In Celebration of the Greek Revolution of 1821
Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos: The First Great National Historian of Greece
By Dr. Dean Kostantaras
Today our attention turns to the 1821 Revolution and the founding of Modern
Greece
As you know these are not only important milestones in the history of Hellenism,
but of world history
The Greek Revolution was one of the great events in the transformation of
Europe into a community of nation-states
The establishment of an independent Greek Kingdom contributed greatly to
legitimating this idea of national sovereignty -- a principle that would in time
completely change the political geography or map of Europe
But this independence was won at an enormous cost
From 1821 to 1830, the Eastern Mediterranean was the scene of immense
tragedies, the site of a war of attrition, atrocity, and ethnic cleansing in which few
communities of Greeks and their neighbors were spared
Although the Peloponnese was the scene of most of the military campaigns, and
suffered greatly as a result, Greek populations in other parts of the region were
also subject to violence on the part of Ottoman forces or mobs
This was particularly true of Constantinople, the birthplace and childhood home
of our subject for today’s event, Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos...
What I would like to do in this brief lecture is provide you first with an overview
of:
- Paparrigopoulos’ life and his great works of history.
- I would also like to give you an idea of how Paparrigopoulos’ imagination
and historical reconstruction of the Greek nation differed from some of his
predecessors, and why
- I’ll conclude by offering a few points about his relationship with European
writers and authors of works on Greek history – a source of both inspiration
and frustration for this first great Greek national historian
These complicated feelings which he had toward European letters help in fact to
explain his belief in historical scholarship as one of the critical ways in which a
nation, a people demonstrate their independence.
The writing of one’s history represented for Paparrigopoulos an act of spiritual
emancipation that completed the work of physical emancipation begun by the
revolution
As I started to indicate a moment ago, Paparrigopoulos’ was born in
Constantinople in 1815, but his connection to the Greek Revolution was
nevertheless up close and personal
As you may know, when news of the 1821 revolution reached the City, it
produced a wave of mass violence against the Greek population
Ottoman authorities did little or nothing to control the mobs which took
particular vengeance upon the Orthodox religious establishment – patriarch,
priests and bishops all suffered badly – as well as the wealthier members of the
Greek community
This later group included the Paparrigopoulos family
Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, then six years old, suffered the unimaginable
trauma of having watched his father, uncle and several other members of his
family seized by a mob and hung in the street before their home
The surviving members of the family escaped and became refugees, finding a safe
haven first in Odessa. In 1830, when the fighting finally came to an end, the
family emigrated to Nafplion on the Greek mainland
From an educational standpoint, Paparrigopoulos did not receive a great degree
of formal schooling
- He did obtain a few years worth of lessons in Odessa at a French academy
established in the city and then received a few more years of education in
Nafplion
- However in 1834, when 19 years old, he took a job in the Ministry of Justice
in the Greek government and was largely self-educated from this point
forward
Paparrigopoulos was in fact a very studious young person and started to write
journal articles on historical subjects while working for the government
Perhaps these interests would have remained a side project or a hobby for the
rest of his life if not for a law passed by the Greek government in 1844 that
required Paparrigopoulos to make a major career change...
Some of you may know that the first king of Greece was a Bavarian prince named
Otto.
Otto’s government was rather authoritarian and demands soon emerged within
the country for a new constitution in which the king would share power with
elected representatives
These and other grievances led to a revolution against Otto in 1843, whereupon
he quickly agreed to a more representative system and the creation of a National
Assembly
However, when this new Greek National Assembly met, a debate soon broke out
over which Greeks should have a bigger role or voice in the government
Some claimed, for example, that government positions should be given only to
autochthones – or those people who were born in the lands that became part of
the Greek kingdom
Others argued that these positions should be equally open to heterochthones –
or those who emigrated to Greece after the revolution
The result was a compromise: those who came to Greece after the war of
independence would have to wait several years before they were eligible to hold
government positions
This included Paparrigopoulos, who was now suddenly forced to leave his job at
the Ministry of Justice
Well, what should he do now...?
At this point, Paparrigopoulos applied himself fully to scholarly pursuits, his
success at which enabled him to obtain a position at the newly-founded
University of Athens
He spent the rest of his career at this institution...
We can talk some more about these aspects of Paparrigopoulos’ life and times
during our later discussion, but now it might be best to turn to his actual writings
and ideas
The most famous of Paparrigopoulos’ works was, of course, the great 15 volume
Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous
The first edition of the History appeared over the years 1860-74
Perhaps the first thing we should notice is the title and scope
It is a history of Greece from ancient times to the present
Specifically, Paparrigopoulos seeks to show how a Greek nation had existed since
ancient times, if its outward appearance, in the form for example of culture,
changed from one period to the next
Still, even here, all of these cultural permutations of the Greek nation or spirit
display the characteristic marks of Hellenism
- A belief in certain enduring intellectual and aesthetic principles, logos,
reason, balance
Each of these Hellenisms projects a sense of apartness, and even at times a
civilizing mission.
This strong Hellenic consciousness helped to sustain Greek identity and civilization
over the longue duree of time and the many different political conditions under
which Greeks lived
There are no breaks with the past, in this conception, no periods of darkness in
which the Greek nation ceased to be
In fact, each chapter in the history of Hellenism was important, indispensible
In pursuing this last point, Paparrigopoulos departed from earlier traditions and
conceptions of Greek history
Here is where I turn to the point made earlier about how Paparrigopoulos’ work
compares with his predecessors
Earlier generations of Greek thinkers for example also thought of Greece as
having a long past
But they did not have equal affection for all of it; depending on who you asked,
some parts of the past better represented what Greece was than others
As you probably know, these various views of Greece – its good points and its bad
points – was highly influenced by what Greek scholars believed Europeans
thought were its good points and its bad points
And of course, Europeans loved and glorified most of all the classical Greeks
Modern Europeans saw themselves as the inheritors of this ancient civilization –
its ideas, art, architecture, philosophy, science
Modern Europeans believed that they recognized themselves in Ancient Greece’s
celebration of freedom, its intellectual daring, relentless pursuit of innovation in
every possible vector of thought
This was to be contrasted with the Byzantine world, the contemporary of the
‘dark ages’ in medieval Europe, a period which the modern Europeans saw as
degenerate, a fall from grace, the triumph of superstition, the suppression of
learning
If Greece was to rise again it should seek to emulate that earlier phase in its
history -- the rebirth of Greece was connected to the rebirth of antiquity
Let me give you an example of how some of these ideas were articulated by
Paparrigopoulos’ predecessors and the way in which they colored their
perspective on the Greek past
The most famous Greek intellectual from the period before the revolution was
Adamantios Korais
Not only was Korais a famous intellectual and writer he was also a great patriot
fiercely devoted to the regeneration of Greece
When attempting to describe what had happened to Greece or who was at fault
for the nation’s current problems he had a revealing answer
It was not the contemporary Greeks who Europeans should blame for their
present poverty, but other members of their historical family
The present day Greeks, he said, were in fact the ‘victims of crimes they did not
commit’;
Note for example this passage from a work by Korais from 1804, in which he tells
us who he thinks is to blame for Greece’s present condition:
They are infinitely more culpable, those Greeks who first allowed themselves to
be corrupted by Macedonian gold, and who, forgetting the brilliant example of
virtue and patriotism set by their ancestors, whose tombs were still visible to
them and whose voices they could still so to speak hear, sold the freedom which
they had inherited; those who afterwards hindered the success of the Achaean
League; those who after that by means of their dissensions brought upon
themselves Roman arms and the Roman yoke; those, lastly, who, still retaining a
shadow of political liberty allowed themselves to be conquered by a Scythian
nation; all these Greeks, I say, are infinitely more guilty than their unhappy
descendants to whom all has been left to repair...
Korais identifies here virtually all the Greeks, from the time of Phillip of
Macedonia on, who came after the Classical era
Only the ancient Greeks appear to have escaped his contempt...
We see here then an indication that many Greeks believed themselves to have a
long history, although they thought much more highly of some parts of it than
others
And while secular intellectuals like Korais were proud of the ancients, the more
religiously-minded authors identified with the post-Christian chapters and looked
back rather dimly on the pagan prelude
We start to have a better view, then, of Paparrigopoulos’ distinctions, interests
and ambition
His aim is to redeem the entire inheritance; to show that all were responsible for
the survival and progress of Hellenism – all connected (continuity), all vital
All of these chapters in the Greek past had in fact a special mission to perform in
the preservation of Hellenism
Some of his predecessors for example like Korais looked very negatively on Byzantium -- but for Paparrigopoulos this great empire had performed an immense service to the life of Hellenism Byzantium’s mission, which it accomplished, could be characterized as ‘healing... classical Hellenism’s bitter disunity.’ Paparrigopoulos’ newly-imagined Byzantium was not only a genuinely Hellenic construct but one which had succeeded in uniting the Greek nation and reinforcing a sense of national identity strong enough to enable it to endure four hundred years of servitude, and, when times were more propitious, reassert its claim to sovereignty. The history of Byzantium thus provided Paparrigopoulos’ readers with the valuable lesson of unity, one which he apparently hoped would re-inspire their dedication to all the people of the nation, whether encompassed within the kingdom’s borders or not.
What should we attribute this change in perspective to?
There are so many places to look
- on one hand, we have Paparrigopoulos’ background as a heterochthonos
The celebration of the larger world of Hellenism, captured in the image and
ecumenical idea of Byzantium and Alexander, may help to reflect his desire to
instill in his countrymen a sense of unity with those Greeks living outside the
borders of the kingdom -- a wish that may reflect the bias he himself suffered as
an outsider
Paparrigopoulos was in fact a friend of Ioannis Kolettis, the famous author of the
Megali Idea concept
The geographical outline of Byzantium presented the picture of a Greater Greece
that encompassed in Kolettis’ vision
But there are other places to look when attempting to discern the influences
acting upon Paparrigopoulos’ work
Once again, we have to account for the role of European perceptions
- For better or worse, Greek authors were always writing with one eye on
what was being written in Europe
- They are always responding to European works and thought
- If you read Paparrigopoulos’ Istoria you will see this for yourself
- He is contently speaking of European writings on Greek history; constantly
comparing and contrasting his own ideas with theirs
But of all of these foreign writings on Greece, one seems to excite him (and his
colleagues) more than others
I am speaking here about the works of the Austrian classicist Jacob Phillip
Fallmerayer (1790-1861).
Fallmerayer’s influence on Greek letters can be traced to a series of works from
the 1830s in which he boldly dismissed the notion that the modern Greeks had
any biological connection to the ancient peoples associated with that name.
In fact, beginning in the seventh century C.E., Slavic and Albanian invaders had
‘poured out’ over Greece, supplanting the native inhabitants with ‘a new race of
cultivators’.
We are presented in fact, wrote Fallmerayer, with a ‘scene of extinction’
What a challenge to the Greek sense of its connection to the ancients
The earlier idea of this connection, of Hellenism, had made room of course for
some blending of peoples...
But what Fallmerayer posed here was a picture of complete annihilation; one that
left no room for blending; the present day Greeks were simply Albanians and
Slavs
These shocking words provoked not only a powerful impulse to refute
Fallmerayer’s claims, but also a new appreciation for the importance of
producing a native history of the national past
I will return to this second notion again in a moment
But first let’s turn to how Paparrigopoulos’ sought to refute Fallmerayer
The charge here was basically discontinuity or rupture... the Greek nation was not
what it claimed to be; its connections to the past were fraudulent
The Greek response, led most of all by Paparrigopoulos, was therefore a renewed
emphasis on continuity
Nothing less was at stake in his mind than defending the modern day Greeks
attachment to their ancient ancestors
Because Fallmerayer claimed that the biological connection came to an abrupt
end in the 7-8th century -- the battle lines were consequently drawn in Byzantine
times
This is where the historical battle for the Greek nation’s connection to the
ancients would be fought
In presenting the results of his own research, Paparrigopoulos conceded here that
some mixing of peoples had taken place throughout the eastern Mediterranean
since antiquity
Still, it was clear to him that in those areas identified by Fallmerayer, the Hellenes
had absorbed rather than been absorbed by the others.
And this was obvious from the fact that the incoming population adopted the
Greek religion and language.
Certainly this served to demonstrate that the Slavic races had effectively been
‘amalgamated’ (εσυγχωνεύθησαν), wrote Paparrigopoulos, into the Hellenic, ‘just
as the waters of a river have at its mouth their original color and quality but
quickly disappear into the vast expanse of the ocean’
So this is how Paparrigopoulos reestablished the claim of continuity
It also suggests why he also saw all the parts of the past, not merely the ancient,
as equally important
They all had a mission
They all in fact were part of a divine plan, the plan of providence, theia pronoia
History was not merely aimless; there was an end involved; each chapter in
Greece’s history was part of this larger unfolding story
In following this idea, Paparrigopoulos was highly influenced by the writings of
other European scholars such as the German Droysen and the French Guizot
They too expressed a faith in this concept which Paparrigopoulos could employ in
his defense of the Greek nation against the slanders of Fallmerayer
As Paparrigopoulos argued, the ability of Hellenism to survive the invasion of the
Slavs (and indeed Hellenize them), as well as all the other challenges it faced in its
long history was owing to the laws ‘higher and inscrutable’ of this same Θεία
Προνοία
True, Paparrigopoulos conceded, the ultimate ends of history may not be obvious,
‘but does Divine Providence ever work without an aim (ασκόπως)?’
Surely the actual existence and great vintage of the Hellenic name and nation was
convincing enough proof, that both were meant to stand for eternity, or ‘is it
possible to believe,’ he asked, ‘that Divine Providence intended to destroy in one
day the work of twenty centuries?’
We may detect the presence of borrowing in all of this but it was a selective
borrowing
European ideas or concepts adapted to a Greek context, by Greek writers and
scholars who believed that they had a fuller knowledge of the empirical material,
the facts, the details
And here I come to my last point
Throughout his works Paparrigopoulos expressed pride over the fact that the
Greek authors of his generation had sought to liberate the nation’s history from
the pens of foreign writers
The Ιστορία represents in fact the culmination of an aim expressed early and
often by Paparrigopoulos to assert a greater measure of native control over how
the nation’s past was recorded and told.
As he later reflected with some satisfaction in a lecture from 1878, the authors of
his generation had fought to alter a situation in which ‘Ή τύχη του πατρίου ημών
παρελθόντος,’ had long remained the work of ‘ξένη επιστήμη και εις την
διάκρισιν αυτης παραδεδομένη [the representation of our past had long been a
work of foreign science and according to their judgment transmitted...]
By producing, he argued, a truer history of the national past, Greek authors were
not only correcting the picture handed down to them by foreign authors, they
were performing a ‘sacred’ act; one symbolic of the nation’s consciousness of
itself and its passage from inert object to emancipated, autonomous subject.
Could in fact the Greeks remain ‘indifferent spectators,’ Paparrigopoulos asked, to
the distortion of their history without being justifiably scorned as lacking honor;
would they not truly resemble those barbarous nations for whom others
undertake to write their history because they are unable to fulfill this holiest of
obligations themselves?
‘η ότι ομοιάζομεν τα βάρβαρα έκεινα εθνάρια των οποίων άλλοι αναδέχονται να ιστορήσωσι την
τύχη διότι αυτά αδυνατούσι να εκπληρώσι το ιερώτατον τούτο των χρεών
Paparrigopoulos comes in summary to see history as means to confirming,
completing the nation’s emancipation, their very nationhood
The writing of history was one of the ways in which they demonstrated not only
their physical independence but their intellectual and spiritual autonomy as well
And here indeed was a thought that had universal relevance as he reminded his
readers at the very front of every volume of the Historia.
Note for example that the passage from Guizot (1787-1874) and his words
recalling the benefits to be gained by a people ‘ό μελετών και γινώσκων την
ιστορίαν αυτού’
Such words help us to show that if Greek scholars of Paparrigopoulos’ generation
sought to wrest control of the nation’s image and history from foreign writers; it
was also from the works of these same writers that they often obtained the
conceptual framework and ideas necessary to accomplish their task and reassert
their claims to independence.