Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:24:21 +0200
> From: mypsilanti@UCY.AC.CY
> Subject: Re: Πότε γεννήθηκε και τι είναι το Ελληνικό Έθνος;
> To: HELLENIC-PROFESSORS-PHDS@HEC.GREECE.ORG
>
> Χωρίς ιστορικές και εγκυκλοπαιδικές αναλύσεις, περιορίζομαι μόνο σε λίγα σκόρπια παραδείγματα δημώδους μούσας του Πόντου που αρκούν για να δείξουν ποιά ήταν η εθνική συνείδηση των Ελλήνων (χωρίς εισαγωγικά, όπως θα ήθελαν όσοι βλέπουν τη εθνική συνείδηση να μορφοποιείται από τον δέκατο ένατο αιώνα και μετά) κατά την Βυζαντινή περίοδο και ύστερα από αυτήν. Οι δημιουργοί αυτών των ασμάτων δεν ήταν ασφαλώς ούτε ο Γεώργιος Γεμιστός ούτε άλλοι διανοούμενοι.
>
> - Την Πόλην όντας όριζεν ο Έλλεν Κωνσταντίνον
> με δεκαπέντε σήμαντρα, με δεκοχτώ καμπάνας, κτλ.
>
> - Να σαν τη μάναν που γεννά τα τράντα χρόνα μίαν
> κι εφτάει υιόν Τραντέλλενον και νύφεν γαλαφόρον, κτλ. (τραντέλλενος=τριάντα φορές Έλληνας, άρα γενναιότατος)
>
> - Εγώ έμουνε μάστορας 'ς σ' Ελλενικά τα κάστρα
> κ' οι 'Ελλεν εμέν ώρισαν, κατέβα σύ 'ς σήν Πόλην (...)
> Εκεί πουλλία κελαηδούν με φλιβερόν λαλίαν,
> Εκεί Έλλενοι επέθαναν μύρια παλληκάρα.
>
> - Σην θάλασσαν κολυμπετής, σ' ομάλια πεχλιβάνος,
> σον πόλεμον Τραντέλλενας, Ρωμαίικον παλληκάριν.
>
> - Τραντέλλεναν εσκότωσαν και κείται ματωμενος.
>
> - Αλή, ντο στέκεις αντικρύʼ στʼ ελλενικόν κοντάρι;
> = Αλή, εσύ κʼ εγνώρισες τʼ Ελλένκα παλικάρας.
>
> Maria Ypsilanti,
> Assistant Professor of Ancient Greek Philology
> University of Cyprus
> Dept. of Classical Studies and Philosophy
> P.O. Box 20537, 1678, Nicosia, Cyprus
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I have been following this discussion with some interest. It seems to me, however, that it lacks a historical perspective that is very important in placing it in the correct context.
>
> First of all, prior to discussing this issue, one needs to understand the transformations of the "Hellenic" identity over the centuries. Without grasping this, it is difficult to discuss this issue. Thus, it is important to understand that from the 2nd century BCE, the ancient Hellenic identity started transitioning to the Rhomaic identity that remained prevalent during the Roman Principate and Dominate, during the medieval centuries and, at least, until the first half of the 19th century. However, although "the Greeks" identified as Rhomaioi for the longest period since the post-classical age, modern Greeks are woefully uninformed about the essential elements of the Rhomaic identity, especially as it developed at the height of the Medieval Eastern Roman Empire (I would refrain from using the word Byzantium). There were many expositions of this identity. Pointless to say, it incorporated Roman, Hellenic and Christian elements in an interesting combination. The mediev
> al Rhomaioi were hardly unaware of the issues. In fact, the advent of the West forced a substantial discussion among the intellectual leadership, especially since western Europeans refused to identify the citizens of the Empire as Rhomaioi and referred to them as Graikoi. Thus, there was actually a debate in the court of the Empire of Nicaea on "are we Hellenes or are we Romans"? The conclusion was that we were indeed Romans!! Of course, this was by no means the end of the discussion, with many humanists leaning to the Hellenic identity and with several of them, like Gemistos Pleithon, rejecting all elements of the Rhomaic identity and embracing even the ancient Greek religion! Unfortunately, at the time when humanists in Constantinople and other centers of the empire started investigating the links to the Hellenic past, the Church became immersed into the Hesychast mysticism. The humanist/hesychast chasm was one of the great divides of late period of empire (but hardly
> the only one). The result of the conflict was the ascent of the Ottoman Empire to which the Orthodox Church attached itself with great tenacity. The progressive eradication of the imperial aristocracy and the emigration of the humanists did not allow the Hellenic/Rhomaic identity conflict to play out. In Greece of the Ottoman centuries, the Rhomaic identity remained prevalent. It was only in the late 17th and the 18th century, when the debated re-ignited in the Greek communities abroad. But the resurgence of the "New Hellenic" identity, especially as promoted by Adamantios Korais and other members of the Hellenic Enlightment was hardly unchallenged. Rhigas Pheraios, for example, had no use for this identity, strongly preferring the Rhomaic identity and incorporating into it most of the Balkan peoples. Just prior to the revolution, elements of the "New Hellenic" identity had become familiar to the trading class in Greece, but for the most part, the vast number of the p
> opulation was strongly adherent to their Rhomaic identification. It was only during the War of Independence, when much of the Greek leadership abroad descended to Greece, that the peasants found to their surprise that they were "Hellenes". Of course, after the imposition of the modern Greek state, the "Neo-Hellenic" identity was officially supported and imposed. The "Romios" became identified with the country buffoon, while the "Hellene" was the model of education and virtue, speaking the fully made-up "purist" language of Adamantios Korais. The 19th century literature is replete with examples of this.
>
> It is actually correct that the Greece of the 1821 Revolution was a very multi-ethnic state, although elements of a mixture of Rhomaic and Hellenic identities had created prior to the revolution a kind of a common narrative that was embraced even by non-Greek speakers. Many of the prominent leaders of the Greek revolution could hardly speak Greek. Admirals Miaoulis and Kanaris were primarily Albanian speakers and so were many others. In Roumeli (literally the land of the Rhomaioi), there was a very lively mixture of Vlach, Albanian and Greek speakers among the revolutionaries. It is important, however, to understand that the leadership had accepted a kind of common narrative that gave eventually rise to the "Neo-Hellenic" identity. The "Neo-Hellenic" identity is, in fact, much closer to the Rhomaic identity than the original Hellenic identity. In fact, very few elements of the "classical" Hellenic identity (that lasted for a brief time) are preserved in the "Neo-Hel
> lenic" identity. The fact that much of the "Neo-Hellenic" identity was influenced by Orthodoxy is clearly shown by the fact that during the exchange of populations with Turkey in 1922, non-Greek populations from Capadoccia and the Pontus were baptized as "Greeks" while Greek-speaking Muslim Cretans became "Turks".
>
> Thus, it is important in this discussion to understand the transition of identities in the Greek-speaking areas of the Balkans and the near East to have an informed discussion on this issue.
> -
> Anastassios D. Retzios, Ph.D
> President, Bay Clinical R&D Services
> 2417 Canyon Lakes Drive, San Ramon, California 94582
> Tel: (925) 480-7497 - Email: aretzios@gmail.com
>
> The opinions expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect those of HEC.
> Hellenic Electronic Center (HEC) www.greece.org - - - - - - - - Click here to Unsubscribe
> LISTSERV & LSMTP e-mail systems are sponsored by L-Soft