(BEING CONTINUED FROM 6/02/18)
Chapter 2- So, Hellenes, or Romans?
In this chapter, we will take a short historical stroll to the sources, in order to clear up the confusion that the later ideological expediencies had accumulated around our national name. In this way, we will discover the answer to the problem posed in the previous chapter. The historical sources will provide a clear picture and it will truly require a strenuous attempt for someone to support a different view.
All of the historical sources that we have available lead us to the realization that the name “Ellin” (Hellene, pronounced “eh-leen”) had already lost its national-racial innuendo during the first post-Christian centuries. In the vast melting pot of the multi-racial Roman Empire, all of the peoples therein had gradually acquired a “Roman conscience”. This is not a suitable place for examining how this occurred; the important thing is that it occurred. Without a doubt, the civilization of this Empire was profoundly affected by classical and Hellenistic tradition. It was in a way the ecumenical fulfilment of what Alexander the Great had envisioned but did not survive to fulfil himself; in other words, to permanently establish Hellenic education in every area of the known world. Contemporary foreign historians concede that the Roman Empire was, finally, a Hellenistic State, while others even speak of a “Hellenic Hellenism” and a “Latin Hellenism”. 20
Besides, this was the reason the “Hellenic” reactions towards the Roman conquerors diminished over time and most certainly vanished after the first century b.C.. After the fall of the Hellenistic Kingdom of Cleopatra in 30 B.C., there are no mentions of anti-Roman revolts; an indication that the Hellenes felt at ease within this Hellenized environment, which had furthermore been providing them with a much desired peace and security, for hundreds of years.
With time, the Romans also came to feel the same way. Proof of this, was that one of their great Emperors, Constantine I, chose as a new co-capital the city of Byzantium – a thoroughly “Hellenic” city in a Hellenic-speaking region. If the Romans had felt themselves to be “different” and hostile towards the Hellenes, they would naturally not have transferred their capital there, in “enemy territory”. The fact is, that in 320 A.D., five hundred years after the occupation of Hellas, such racial differences had become completely extinct.
The term “Ellin” (Hellene) had by then acquired a purely religious significance and was thus linked to the notion of “idolater”. It appears that this about-face had already begun to take place during the first post-Christian century, long before Christianity was made the official religion of the State. In the Gospel of Mark we read about a certain woman who had approached Christ when he was in Tyre, whom the Evangelist says was a “Hellenis, of Syrian-Phoenician nationality” (“ην δε η γυνη ελληνις συραφοινικισσα τω γενει” ) (Mark 7: 26). As correctly observed by P. Christou, if the woman was of Syrian-Phoenician nationality, then the term “Hellenis” (=fem. Hellene, pronounced hell-ee-niece) must have denoted her religion. 21 A few years after 300 A.D., Athanasios the Great, a Hellenic-speaking Father and Patriarch of Alexandria – a par excellence Hellenistic city – had written a homily titled “Against Hellenes”. If this word had continued to imply the Hellenic nation, then it would have been entirely absurd: that grand Hellenistic center was turning against- who? We notice the same thing in the homilies of Saint John the Chrysostom, offspring of another grand Hellenistic city: Antioch. The word “Hellenes” definitely denoted the impious, the idolaters.
Neither is the argument correct, which asserts that the word (Hellene) lost its national meaning through force, because it was supposedly used by Christians for their opponents. First of all, as we can surmise from the passage in the Gospel of Mark that we mentioned above, this change in name had already taken place, long before Christians had acquired any kind of authority. Moreover, as Mantouvalou rightly points out, the foremost enemies and persecutors of the Christians were the Romans; yet this did not deter the Christian inhabitants of the Roman Empire from continuing to call themselves “Romans”. 22 Therefore we must conclude that the name “Ellin” (Hellene) had already lost its national inference during the time of Christianity’s predominance, regardless of what Christians said. Christians had found the new term in place; they did not coin it. From that time on, and throughout the Middle-Ages, the word “Hellene” signified the idolater. We continue to see the term with this same meaning, up to the end of the 18th century. For example, in one of his homilies in a village, Saint Kosmas of Aetolia had said: “….And I too, my brethren, who have been so fortunate as to stand here, in this holy, apostolic place by the mercy of our Christ, had first of all asked about you and had learned that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, you are not Hellenes; you are not impious, or heretics, or atheists, but devout, orthodox Christians……”. 23
The national name of our ancestors throughout all these years is “Romans”, or “Romee” (in Greek “Romií”, Pronounced “Rome-ee-ee” Plural for “Romeos”), in the popular form of the language. In every one of the historical sources, without exception, the Empire of Constantinople refers to itself as “Roman”, or “Romania” (=land of the Romans) in the popular form of the language, while its emperors, up to and including Constantine Paleologos, were known as “king of the Romans”. For some strange reasons however, this perfectly clarified fact is disputed by certain contemporary researchers, who struggle to compose their own, personal ideological fabrications.
For example, they have been promoting the “objection” that for most people, the national meaning of the word “Hellene” has not been lost, and that the term “Roman” that we encounter in all the sources is merely the official name attributed to the citizens of the State; a name that was imposed on them “from higher up”, and that it was not the name that the inhabitants of “Hellas” had personally chosen as most representative of what they believed themselves to be. 24
But, as Mantouvalou has keenly observed, if that were the case, then how does one explain the continuing use of the name Romans (or “Romií”, Pronounced “Rome-ee-ee” Plural for “Romeos”) during the Turkish occupation, after the dissolution of the Roman State? 25 The “Hellenes” – now subjects of the Ottoman Empire – would logically have no reason whatsoever to continue using the name of their former conquerors – the Romans – and continue to refer to themselves as Romans. Not unless they actually felt they were Romans….. And the truth of course is, that they did feel that way, and were very much aware of it, regardless of what Westerners propagandized….. From the innumerable examples that could be mentioned here, we will present only a few, indicatively. All of the examples originate, not from scholars and intellectuals, but from ordinary, everyday people.
What most of the people believed about the “Hellenes”, before becoming “enlightened” by western Europeans, has been recorded by I. Th. Kakrides in his invaluable study on folklore “The Ancient Hellenes in the neo-Hellenic Popular Tradition”. 26 Very briefly, the average person – up to and including the beginning of the 20th century – believed that the Hellenes were an ancient, idolatrous population of giants. This is the way they also explained the existence of the oversized monuments that used to abound in our land.
These ancient people were admired for their strength (in 19th-century Cephalonia island, Kakrides mentions that the inhabitants had an expression “hey, this guy is like a Hellene!”) 27, but they certainly did not identify themselves with them. Besides, the author referred to them as “Hellenes” and not “Ancient Hellenes”, obviously because there was no chance that they would be confused with another contemporary nation.
In 19th-century Sfakia (in the Island of Crete), the locals claimed that “up there, on the crest of the Samaria mountain, is the olden-day land of the Hellenes. That’s where the Hellenes finished. And they say that up there is a treasure, but it was never found.” 28
In the region of Thesprotia – and of the 20th century in fact – grandmothers used to tell a story a story that began like this: “In the olden years, there used to live in this region a different kind of people, the Hellenes. (………) Those Hellenes did not resemble today’s people. They were tall in stature, like cypress-trees….”. 29
A characteristic, 19th century song from the region of Epirus says: “Angelina, Koumena’s daughter, has a gallant husband; He has tresses (long hair) just like a Hellene’s, and his chest is like a lion’s…” 30
Another familiar folk-song says: “My mother was a Christian maid, my father a Hellene…..”
Kakrides records a total of 85 narratives or phrases, from every corner of Hellas, where the “Hellenes” have remained in our popular tradition with the significance that we mentioned above.
An interesting fact is that western Europeans were also aware of our real name and did not hesitate to mention it, whenever they weren’t directed by other expediencies. Thus, in the year 1713, at a time when our school books were teaching us that the Romans had vanished 1200 years ago, the Venetian printer of the first edition of the famous romantic poem “Erotokritos” noted that he was printing this book, “having being touched by the fervid love and reverence that I have had since my childhood for the glorious nation of the Romans”. The same person states that “I am Italian, and totally ignorant of the language”, but nevertheless he tried his best to print books “that until now had been printed by both Roman and Italian printers, but also the more unusual and more useful ones, which had not been printed by any Roman.” The prologue ends with the printer’s request towards the “Roman lords” to furnish him with any available manuscripts, so that he could print an improved version later on. 31
In the poem itself, we find the following verse:
“In times long past, when Hellenes ruled,
whose faith had no foundation, or any root…”
(verse A 19-20)
These lines are in full accord with popular tradition, the way that Kakrides recorded it:
“There used to be a time during which the “Hellenes” ruled. Not the “ancient Hellenes”, but the “Hellenes”, who were people other than us, who had a belief that lacked any foundation and roots; in other words, they were atheists and idolaters.
For several more proofs regarding the use of the name “Romans”/ “Romee” (neo-Romans), let us go further back in time. Four hundred years earlier, in the 14th century, the anonymous anti-Hellene author of “The Chronicle of Moreas” knew full well that the adversaries of the Latins – the inhabitants of “Hellas” – were the Romans. Here are two characteristic extracts from the “Chronicle”:
Who has ever listened to a Roman and believed him, whether for love, friendship or perhaps for a kinship? Never trust a Roman, on whatever he swears by: Whenever he wants and intends to utilize you,
that is when he will make you a friend, a blood-brother, or an in-law, so he can exterminate you.”
(Verses 3932-3937). 32
Or when Lord Jeffreys (Villeardouin ) Lord of Moreas writes to the king of Constantinople Roberto (de Courtenay 1221-1228):
“And if necessary, his troops, and likewise his body, whenever he decides and the need arises, to have them at his disposal, to be with him and to maintain the battle, to conquer the Romans and the troops that they have.”
(verses 2564-2567) 33
For our last example, let us go back three hundred more years in time, to the 11th century.
In the great epic poem “Digenis Akritas” which marked “the beginning of neo-Hellenic literature”, the author –contrary to what one would expect- does not suspect that he is a Hellene (or a “byzantine” for that matter, but we will touch on this detail in the next chapter). Even at the very beginning of the poem, the Arab emir is portrayed as “having an accurate knowledge of the language of the Romans” 34, thus enabling him to converse with his adversaries. Further along, one of the brothers who came to take back the daughter that the Emir had kidnapped, fought a duel with him and, as he neared the moment of victory, the other Saracens counselled the Emir: “Seek love, and cease the fight. The Roman is awesome, and may defeat you.” 35
In our opinion, the examples taken from “Digenis Akritas” are especially noteworthy, because they originate from a scenario that takes place on the outskirts of the Empire, at the river Euphrates, and not in the Empire’s capital. These examples therefore show us that even the rural populations believed they were Romans, and not something else. In conjunction with everything that we mentioned above and with the information that we have taken from all the “official” sources (histories, state records etc.) it is more than evident that our ancestors were called Romans or neoromans (Gr: “Romii”) everywhere. Therefore the view that Christou and other researchers expressed, that the name “Romans” was merely their official name, and that they personally preferred a different one (Hellenes, Greeks) is entirely unfounded.
So, our recent ancestors did not know themselves to be Hellenes. They knew that they were Romans, and that their country was called Romania, as we can see in various folk songs, such as “The Lament of Constantinople”:
“O, God, I wish the Romans could also fight this way,
and never to have lost, alas, the kingdom.”
Or, in another well-known song from the Pontus, titled “Romania has been taken”, and also in the poem “Digenis Akritas”, where the sole name of the State is quoted as “Romania”, tens of times therein.
For example:
“The Emir promptly took his men
and to Romania did return for his beloved one.
And whenever he took over Romanian lands,
he would free all those that he held captive.” 36
The colloquial language was named “Romǽiki” (Gr: “Ρωμαίικη», Romeyiki=”of the Romans”), in order to contradistinguish it from the ancient Hellenic language, which they simply called “Hellenic”. And this is why there are so many translations -from the ancient language into the popular one- in which they mention that they have translated “from the Hellenic to the neo-Roman form”. The most prominent precursor of the popular language form, D.Katartzis, when disagreeing with those who wrote in the archaic form, commented in 1783 that: “Everything that we write in the Hellenic language is a kind of translation from the Romaeiki which we always think with to the Hellenic ,which we think with, only when we pick up a pen.” 37 Therefore, “for one to think that the Hellenic and the Romaeiki are the same language and not two, would be going against rational logic.” 38 Respectively, D. Filippides and Gr. Konstantas who had authored the work “Modern Geography” in 1791, mention in their presentation of European languages that “the Romaeiki language, which has been unreasonably and illiterately shunned by some, is very closely related to the Hellenic language, and is one of its daughters, which closely resembles it, because almost all of its words are derived from the Hellenic tongue.” 39
This is the reason for the existence of dictionaries, from the Turkish occupation onwards, with titles such as “French-Roman”, “Italian-Roman” etc..40 And, so that there may not be the slightest doubt, there are dictionaries such as the “Lexicopoulo” of Simon Portius (Paris, 1635), which is titled “Roman-Hellenic-Latin”. In Portius’ dictionary, the Latin word “fabula” -for example- is translated into Hellenic as “myth” and in Roman as “paramythe”.(“Paramythe” is also the word used in modern day Greek)
As expected, we were named “Roum” (pronounced “Room” = Romans”) by the Seltzuk Turks who had begun to conquer territories of the empire from the 11th century, just as the Ottomans had likewise called us “Roum”. The land that they conquered they named “Roum-Ili” (“Room–lee” = land of the Romans), and it is from there, that the name “Roumeli” is derived, which, up until 1912 denoted European Turkey (almost all of the Balkans) and not only Mainland Hellas, as one can discern from maps of that time. The examples that confirm the use of this name are innumerable. Indicatively, we can mention the decree issued by the Vizier in April of 1821 (after the lynching of the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory) for the Turkish Prefect of Hadrianoupolis. In it, the patriarchate is referred to as “the Constantinople-based Patriarchate of the Romans”, and the revolution of 1821 as “the movement being prepared amongst the Roman Nation”. 41 The Turks in other words were also familiar, like us, that they had conquered (neo-) Romans. Even today, the Romans of Constantinople are called “Roum” by the Turks. However, since the neo-Hellenes preferred to change their national name, the Turks took advantage of this and gave us the name “Yunan”, thus differentiating the (neo-)Romans of Constantinople from their co-nationals in Hellas.
Closing this chapter, we must stress that the entire discussion about our national name is not simply a nominalistic one. The name “Romans” corresponded to a national conscience different to the one that we see in Western peoples; different to the one that was transferred to the miniature State of Hellas after 1830. In the second part of this study, we shall try to present the basic coordinates of this “Roman national conscience” which, to a large degree was lost during the 160 years of free living. In the last two centuries, immense efforts were made by western-bred scholars of Korais’ kind, for the elimination of the Roman conscience and, despite the reactions, the name “Romii” (pronounounced “Rome-ee-ee”) was finally displaced.
The conflict between the two trends ended in a synthesis whose foundations were placed by K. Paparrigopoulos, with his monumental work “History of the Hellenic Nation”. In there, the Byzantine period was embedded in the perennial course of the Hellenic nation and created the neo-Hellenic national ideology of an uninterrupted continuation of the race. However, the complex-ridden regurgitation of Western ideas of the Enlightenment was continued by many scholars, which, as a result, brought about the falsification and relentless slandering of our mediaeval history. Even in our time, in the year 1975, the extremely popular and overly advertised author, Yannis Skarimbas had written: “the agony of the Hellenic nation did not begin with the sacking of the City….but many centuries before the sacking, thanks to the crushing of the military power of Athens by the Macedonian dynasty (King Philippos and Alexander the Great) at the battle of Chaeronia.” And further along: “Was (Constantine) Paleologos a Hellene? Was Alexander the Great an “Athenian”? Racially, there was no kinship whatsoever between us. Both of them were our conquerors.” 42
Influenced by such ideas, a large portion of the Hellenic people today is inclined to deny its natural descent from “Byzantium” and continues to confuse the obscurantic western Dark Ages with Hellenic-Orthodox Romania. That is why we deemed it necessary to outline in the 5th and the 6th chapters of this study some of the fundamental differences between “Byzantium” and the West during the mediaeval ages. Moreover, even though our official History embodies the Byzantine period, our national life has been dominated for two centuries by an uncontrollable worship of antiquity, which looms comical, even in the eyes of whichever friends in the West. Especially when neo-Hellenes, who, carried away by their antiquity worship, actually believe that they can defend their national rights, exclusively with arguments from the time of Pericles and Alexander the Great, the result touches the boundaries of “nationally dangerous”.
Most certainly today, in 1994, there is no issue of a conflict regarding our two national names. Both of them now have the exact same meaning. But we should be aware that –historically- the term “Romeos” (=Roman, pronounced “Rome-ee-os”) covers something much broader than the term “Hellene”, and of course the name “Roman” also provokes assorted logical associations as compared to the name “Hellene”, both to us as well as to foreigners. Furthermore, if our aim was to define our national identity, the word “Hellene” cannot cover the broader significance of the name “Romeos” (Roman) of the mediaeval period and the Turkish occupation. The name “Hellene”, which was revived as our national name during the 19th century, is the product of the “Enlightenment” and the outbreak of nationalisms in Europe. On the contrary, as we shall see further along, the Romans were proud citizens of a supra-national State which embraced and extended over many regions, far beyond the boundaries of ancient or modern Hellas. It had extended itself, not as a conqueror, but as the bearer of the one and only, Ecumenical Christian Empire on earth.
(CYNECHIZETAI)
Anastasios Philippide
FOOTNOTES
20 The first view belongs to Jacques Pirenne and the second to F. E. Peters. See resp. analysis and footnotes in D. Zakynthinos, «Meta-Byzantine and New Hellenic», in «The particular identity of modern Hellenism», volume Α, Goulandri-Horn Foundation, supervised by P. Drakopoulos, Athens, 1983, pages 85-86.
21 See Christou (1989), page 75.
22 See Mantouvalou (1985), pages 171-172.
23 See. J. Menounos, «Kosmas the Aetolian – Teachings (and biography)», Tinos publications, 3rd edition, Athens, pages 115-116.
24 See Christou (1989), chapters 8 and 10.
25 Mantouvalou (1985), pages 171-172.
26 Kakrides (1979).
27 as above, page 29.
28 as above, page 32.
29 as above, page 33.
30 as above, page 27.
31 See «Erotokritos», supervised by St. Alexiou, “Hermes”, Athens, 1988, page 5.
32 See L. Politis (1980), volume Α, page 69.
33 as above, page 65.
34 John Mavrogordato, «Digenes Akrites», Oxford University Press, London, 1956, (bilingual edition, verse Α 115.
35 as above, verses Α 188-89.
36 as above, verses. Β 2-5.
37 See K. Th. Dimaras (1977), page 216. Equally characteristic is the title of a work by Katartzis: «Evidence is, that the Roman (“Romaeiki”) tongue, when spoken and written, has melody in its word structure, and rhythm in its poetry, and passion and persuasiveness in its rhetorics. Because it is thus, just like the Hellenic (tongue), makes it better than all other tongues, in everything» (as above, page 203). The distinction between the “Romaeiki” and the “Hellenic” tongues is perfectly obvious here.
38 as above, page. 219.
39 Daniel Philippides– Gregory Constantas, «Modern Geography», supervised by Katherine Koumarianou, Hermes, Athens, 1988, page 87.
40 For a more recent example, see «Dictionnaire Francais-Romeique» by Emilie Missir, Libraire Klincksieck publications, Paris, 2nd edition 1952. The author calls it Roman because it uses the “demotic” (popular) language.
41 See T. X. Tsonidis «Cyril VI Patriarch of Constantinople, 1813-1818», Orestias, 1984. See Lignadis (1989), page 245.
42 See J. Skarimbas. «1821 and the truth», Cactos publications, Athens, 1988, volume Α, pages 35, 38.
WE THE ECOUMENISTS exontes zilon FOR AN OECOUMENIC POLIS 