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.