1
Naming the Void: the Invention of Byzantium in the Greek Enlightenment
Stratos Myrogiannis
In this paper I set out to trace the historical process of the theoretical assimilation of
Byzantium into Greek historical consciousness during the Greek Enlightenment. Due to the
nature of the subject, I am going to present an overview rather than a detailed analysis. So far,
the established view is that Byzantium as a historical era became a distinctive part of Greek
history thanks to the remarkable work of two of the most prominent scholars of Greek
Romantic historiography, that is, Spyridon Zambelios and chiefly Konstantinos
Paparrigopoulos, the ‘ΖαμπελιοΠαπαρρηγοπολειος σχολ’ as Koumanoudis called it, not
without a refined sense of humour. 1 I will try to revise this widespread stance by reviewing
those works of the Greek Enlightenment which show an interest in history. Of course, it is
undisputed that modern scientific historiography was only developed in the nineteenth
century. Nevertheless, Greek-speaking intellectuals had already attempted to secularise and
rearrange the history of Greek-speaking people by distancing themselves from the previous
religious chronicles. In their efforts to construct a linear secularised history of the Greek
genos, these scholars inevitably faced a historical void: the Greek Middle Ages. Next, I
discuss what kind of answers they offered as potential solutions to this problem.
Leaving aside the numerous religious chronicles which continued to circulate among
the Greeks during the eighteenth century, 2 I will start with Meletios (Michail Mitrou), the
Archbishop of Athens. Meletios wrote a geographical work entitled Γεωγραφα Παλαι και Να
(1728), describing inter alia the history and geography of the Greek lands of his time.
Stimulated by the antiquarian movement, which was widespread in Europe, he was the first
modern geographer to chart the past of the Greek lands, thus offering a different interpretation
in comparison to the religious chronicles. Meletios’s work is interesting because his otherwise
old-fashioned historical narrative introduced a barely perceptible terminological shift, which
in turn inaugurated a brand new historical canon. He called the Emperors of the Byzantine
period, (that is, after the transfer of the capital from Rome to Constantinople in 330 AD and
until the fall of the City in 1453), ‘Christian Kings of Constantinople’, as we can see in the
following example which refers to a little village, called Katohi: ‘η Κατοχ, [η οποα] εις τον
καιρν των Βασιλων Χριστιανν της Κωνσταντινουπλεως τον Δεσποττον’. However, when
1 Dimaras (1994: 460) traces Koumanoudis’s term in 1851, not without hesitation. 2 Among the widely popular religious chronicles we can enumerate Βιβλον Ιστορικν by Dorotheos Monembasias
(1631), Kigalas’s, Να Σνοψις Διαφρων Ιστοριν (1637), Efthymios’s, Χρονικν του Γαλαξειδου (1703) and
Επιτομ της Ιεροκοσμικς Ιστορας, compiled by Nektarios o Kris (1677).
2
he referred to the Roman Emperors he used the phrase ‘Emperors of the Romans’ as can be
seen in the next phrase: ‘Ιολιος ο Αυτοκρτωρ των Ρωμαων’. 3
By splitting up Roman history he deprived the period of the ‘Christian Kings of
Constantinople’ of its Roman attributes. The historical framework he deployed displays a
linear account constructed by well-defined historical periods: Ancient times, the era of the
Roman Empire, the era of the Christian Emperors of Constantinople and the period of
Ottoman rule until his own time. 4
His originality is evident in his attempt to fill the gaps his
antiquarian sources left concerning the Byzantine part of the historical account of the Greek
lands. By starting from mythological elements he constructed a ‘historical genealogy’ of the
Greek lands, if I am allowed to use such a concept.
Our next stop will be one of the best known works of the Greek Enlightenment, the
Γεωγραφα Νεωτερικ written collaboratively by Daniel Philippidis and Gregorios Konstantas
(1791). Their historical schema of an uninterrupted Greek presence throughout history relied
heavily on Meletios’s earlier attempt while at the same time they set out to fill the gaps the
European antiquarian tradition left regarding Greek history and geography. It goes without
saying that they focused on Greek antiquity in order to justify the existence of the modern
Greeks based on their affinities with the ancients. 5 The two writers held that the Greeks of
their time were ‘πγονοι τν παλαιν κενων κα περιφμων λλνων’. 6 It is a common
topos that the Greek Enlightenment stressed the affinities of the Greek-speaking people of the
time with Greek antiquity. However, in order to draw such a linkage back to a distant past,
they had to assimilate into their historical schema the eras lying in the middle. In order to do
so, they borrowed a ready-made historical schema first used by Panckoucke in his Géographie
Ancienne. 7 They ‘baptized’ the period from the transfer of the capital from Rome to
Constantinople until 1453 ‘Ατοκρατορα τν λλνων’. 8 This is the first time during the Greek
Enlightenment that this specific historical period is characterized as Hellenic. 9
This ‘Hellenization’ process on the part of the two writers revealed a significant break
with the previously held view of the Greek past. In Europe, Gibbon, among others, had
condemned the Eastern Roman Empire for its corruption, theocratic government and parasitic
3 Mitrou 1728: 323. 4 Tolias (2004: 85) shares the same view, mentioning that from 1700 to 1850 geography in Greece projected the
Ancient Greek world over the Modern Greek. Tolias, though, discloses only half of the picture. The Greek
geographical works of the time invoked both Byzantium and antiquity within their historical framework. 5 Dimaras 1977: 6, 15, 53-56. 6 Philippidis 1791: 96 7 Koumarianou (1988: 103) points out that the historical overview they attached at the beginning of their work was
borrowed from Panckouke’s Géographie Ancienne. 8 Philippidis 1791: 119. 9 Tabaki (1997: 156) also points out that Philippidis-Konstantas in their historical table preceding the main work
‘hellenized’ the Byzantine period unlike the conventional views of the Europeans on this issue.
3
organization. It is true that Gibbon’s history was not noted for its generosity to Christians 10
since he disdained organized hierarchical religions. 11
Philippidis and Konstantas
reappropriated this negative European image of Byzantium in a new ‘Greek’ framework,
giving it a positive meaning. 12
This could only be done through a new perception of reality,
which allowed them to change their views about the past. Hence they invented a new
terminology for an already known historical period by reinterpreting the conventional views
in a new social and linguistic context. 13
They were the first ones to explicitly define the
Byzantine Empire as being a Hellenic Empire through the means of ‘Hellenization’: ‘Δν εναι
θαυμαστ λοιπν ν κενοι πο μετοκησαν ες τν Κωνσταντινοπολι, φησαν μ τν λτη
κα τ γλσσα κα τ θη τ ωμνικα, κα ξελληνθηκαν’. 14
Their points of reference were
both Ancient Greece and the Byzantine era. In this way, they constructed their own
interpretation of an ethnohistory through the projection of an uninterrupted historical
schema. 15
This kind of historical interpretation on the part of Philippidis and Konstantas
might be considered a valid example of what Hobsbawm calls the invention of tradition. 16
Towards the end of the eighteenth century the teacher and in many respects the
mentor of the two writers of Γεωγραφα Νεωτερικ, Dimitrios Katartzis stressed the twofold
equally important cultural heritage of the Greeks of his time. Katartzis argued that modern
ωμηο were descendants of the Ancient Greeks and the Romans through a linguistic and
cultural connection. 17
In Συμβουλ στους νους he elaborated on his comments on the history of
the Greeks by offering the cultural genealogy of the ωμηο: 18
Ν πομε κι’ λλο, φ’ ο νας ωμς συλλογιστ μι φορ πς
κατγεται π τν Περικλα, Θεμιστοκλα κα λλους παρμοιους
λληνες, πτος συγγενες το Θεοδσιου, το Βελισριου, το Ναρσ,
το Βουλγαροκτνου, το Σζιμισκ κ’ λλων τσων μεγλων ωμαων,
λκει τ γνος του π κανναν γιο, π κανναν το συγγεν, πς ν
μν γαπ τος πογνους κεινν κ’ ατωνν τν μεγλων
νθρπων; 19
10 Gay 1966: 210. 11 Vryonis 1971: 98. 12 In this sense, ‘Hellenization’ could be considered a means of reappropriation; Smith 2000: 58-59. 13 Skinner (1988: 63-64) refers to both social and linguistic conventions as ‘linguist context’. 14 Philippidis 1791: 143. 15 Smith (2007: 325-36) shows how ethnohistories shape the civic order of modern nations. 16 Hobsbawm (1983: 1-13) applies the term ‘invented tradition’ both to constructed traditions and those which
emerged less traceably, an argument which has its deficiencies. The adoption of a new terminology on the part of
the writers of Γεωγραφα Νεωτερικ describes the constructed nature of their historical interpretation. 17 Kitromilides (1994: 152-55) argues that the diverse ethnicities under Ottoman rule were mainly recognized by
their language. This linguistic similarity would provide the grounds for the construction of ethnohistories on the
part of the Greek-speaking intelligentsia at the last quarter of the eighteenth century. 18 Kitromilides (2000: 215) and Koubourlis (2005: 147-48) also share the view that in this extract Katartzis
illustrated one of the earliest manifestations of the theory of the historical continuity of the Greeks. 19 Katartzis 1970: 45. The passage comes from Συμβουλ στους νους (1783-1786?).
4
A few pages later when he casually added that the compilation of Byzantine sources,
the De Byzantinae Historiae Scriptoribus, 20
was actually for the Greeks ‘ στορα το γνους
τους’, 21
he clearly explained that the history of the Greek genos includes the history of
Byzantium. In this way, he invoked the Byzantine history as a vital part of Greek history,
without rejecting the Ancient Greek past. Thus Katartzis developed a clear view regarding the
Greek past through a reflective representation and evaluation of the past as a whole. 22
A few
years later Oikonomos implied a similar interpretation of the past. 23
From the middle of the
eighteenth century Greek-speaking scholars constructed many versions of a hellenized past in
their attempt to trace the historical genealogy of the Greek genos by capitalizing on the
scholarly works of earlier generations. Katartzis constructed a first version of what would
later become the famous three-fold historical schema in the history of Paparrigopoulos. 24
What was still at stake was not the historical continuity of the Greeks. It seemed that this
issue was already solved given the numerous answers Greek scholars provided. What they
still argued about was the name of the nation and the standardization of terminology
regarding the ethnohistory of this nation.
A bit earlier, Moisiodax’s terminology was also closely linked to the way he
perceived the past, especially the Byzantine period. In the footnotes of a chapter about the use
of the calendar, where, as Angelou stresses, he had the opportunity to discuss some of the
ideas of his geography, 25
Moisiodax commented as follows: ‘πολλο φανονται ν τ στορ
κεκινηκτες τν λγον περ τς διορθσεως το νιαυτο κα πρτος πντων φανεται
Νικκηφρος [sic] Γρηγορς, π νδρονκου το Παλαιολγου, υο Μιχαλου το Παλαιολγου,
20
One of the numerous compilations of Byzantine sources that were created by scholars in Western
Europe was De Byzantinae Historiae Scriptoribus, which was edited by Labbé in 1729-33. 21 Katartzis 1970: 51. The passage can be found in Συμβουλ στους νους (1783-1786?). 22 Koselleck (1985: 142) studies how the historical interpretation of scholars changed through the development of
a critical attitude regarding the evaluation of the past during the Enlightenment. 23 Lappas (1986 : 307-23) mentions that in 1808-9 Oikonomos translated Dupuy’s Instruction d'un père à son fils,
sur la manière de se conduire dans le monde (1730). In the section of the book which referred to the appropriate
syllabus, especially the historical works, the author of the original ‘advised his son’ to read De l’histoire de France
so that he has an idea about French history. Oikonomos slightly altered this part by replacing the French work with
the ‘σμα της Βυζαντδος’, which he considered a suitable historical work for young Greeks. 24 Dimaras comments: ‘Και κατπιν, επνω στην στερε αυτν, τριπλ υποδομ, θεμελινει [ο Καταρτζς] την
θαυμαστ ανπτυξη της θσης του, που, εκατ χρνια, σχεδν, πριν απ τον π. Ζαμπλιο και τον Κ.
Παπαρρηγπουλο, υποστηρζει τη διαχρονικ εντητα του νου ελληνισμο, με τον μεσαιωνικ και με τον
αρχαο, και μας δεχνει τον ρωμι να παρνει συνεδηση τι κατγεται απ «τον Περικλα, Θεμιστοκλα και
λλους παρμοιους λληνες, απ τους συγγενες του Θεοδοσου, του Βελησσαρου» κλπ’; Katartzis 1974:
λε-λζ. 25 Angelou (1976a: 38-39) explains the role of the footnotes as the part of the work which offers the translator the
chance to express his ideas and criticism towards the main body of the text. Voulgaris followed the same practice;
Angelou 1976b: θζ-ι.
In Moisiodax the term Βυζαντς acquired
an ambivalent meaning. It usually meant the editions of collections of Byzantine works. He
might have had in mind a particular edition. This term might also have been used by him to
connote a historical period, the Byzantine era. Furthermore, for him the Byzantine period was
transformed into an era of ‘our kings’ when in another instance he turned Meletios’s favourite
phrase ‘Christian Kings of Constantinople’ to ‘μτεροι βασιλες τς Κωνσταντινουπλεως’, 27
thus introducing a lexical shift with subsequent semantic connotations. With this shift he
customized a historical period to suit his historical interpretation. Quite ironically, this was his
way to describe a historical past he was familiar with only by education and not by birth. 28
All
in all, Moisiodax accepted a Greek past in three phases: the glorious antiquity, the subsequent
decline and a relative progress which was taking place in his time, as the preface of θικ
Φιλοσοφα shows. 29
As Hobhouse observed in his journeys, most of the illiterate Greek-speaking men of
the time displayed a very confused idea about antiquity. Their historical knowledge reached
only as far back as Constantine the Great, the Emperor of the Greeks. 30
Kosmas o Aitolos also
urged Greek-speaking Christians to regard themselves as χριστιανο and not as atheist
Hellenes. 31
This view was also adopted by more conservative scholars. In Αντιφνησις (1802),
for example, Athanasios Parios (under the pseudonym Nathanael Neokaisareus) held an anti-
Enlightenment attitude in continuing to conceive the well-educated Greek-speaking émigrés
in Western Europe as potential threats to the established order of things within the Ottoman
reality of the Greek lands. 32
In contrast, learned scholars attempted to chart the history of the
genos through a different route. 33
They appropriated a dubious historical period as an integral
era of the history of the Greek-speaking community. 34
When in the first decade of the nineteenth century Koraes and Alexandridis devoted
themselves to the cultural development of the Greeks, the ground was already prepared. The
26 Moisiodax 1781: 188-89. 27 Moisiodax 1781: 203. A few years before Moisiodax, Dapontes (1880: 111-12 and 1995: 141) had used a
similar terminology when he referred to Byzantium as being ‘our kingdom’: ‘Λεψανα τς προχθεσινς δικς μας
ξουσας/ γλματα τς κραταις κενης βασιλεας.’ 28 In his short introduction Tziovas (2003: 4-7) addresses the issue of the hellenized foreigners like Moisiodax who
helped the dissemination and establishment of a Greek culture in the entire Balkan area. 29 Kitromilides 1985: 323-25, where the first pages of Moisiodax’s θικ Φιλοσοφα can be found. 30 Politis 1998: 2. 31 Menounos 1979: 115-16. 32
Neokaisareus 1802. 33 However, it must be stressed, as Clogg (1996: 24-25) argues, that the intelligentsia was a really small part of the
Greek-speaking population and the masses had their own ideology. The scholars, though, had the advantage of
imposing their ideology on the masses. 34 Smith (2000: 63-64) suggests that the past may influence the present in three ways: recurrence, continuity and
appropriation. Though this list is not exhaustive, it is a valid starting point to trace propagandist practices in
nation-formation processes.
6
Αυτοκρατορα των Ελλνων was the Greek Middle Ages and the history of the Greek genos
covered more than two millennia of uninterrupted historical existence. However, the Greeks
still lacked a homogenizing all-embracing term to differentiate what they regarded as part of
their history, in contrast to the Roman Empire which was already claimed by the Western
Europeans.
Koraes was destined to take the next step in this process, followed shortly after by
Alexandridis. Koraes unsurprisingly started from the conventional terminology but changed
his views over time as he proceeded with his educational programme. The first signs of a
different view were shown in the famous Διλογος δο Γραικν, written in 1805, where he first
introduced a term that would haunt the Greek consciousness for many decades ever after:
Σριακσιοι πεντκοντα κ’ πκεινα χρνοι εναι σμερον, φ’ ο ο
Γραικο, μετ τν φανισμν τν Γραικορωμαων Ατοκρατρων,
στερθησαν μ τν λγην τς λευθερας σκιν, τις ερσκετο κμη
ες ατος, λα τ καλ, σα γενννται π τν λευθεραν […] Σ
πρτα τς γριτητας παραδεγματα ρρευσαν π τν Γραικορωμαων
Ατοκρατρων τν βασιλικν αλν, κα κατκλυσαν λον τ γνος […]
ς τ μαρτυρε Βυζαντιν στορα. 35
Ιn this passage, what was perceived as the Greek ‘Middle Ages’ was characterized for
the very first time as Βυζαντιν Ιστορα. Hence 1805 can be registered as the birth date of this
term, but also of the historical concept which would haunt the subsequent Greek Romantic
historiography. Nevertheless, the use of the concept Βυζαντιν Ιστορα raises a crucial
question. How did the ‘era of the Greco-Roman Emperors’ became ‘Byzantine history’? This
is the first time the adjective βυζαντινς is encountered as a historical term in Greek literature.
So far, scholars have relied on Koumanoudis’s testimony that the adjective βυζαντινς was
first coined and used by Koraes in 1807 and next in 1811 and 1814 before Oikonomos next
used it in 1830. 36
However, Koraes coined this term in 1805, earlier than previously thought.
35 Koraes 1964: 430, 438. The passage comes from Τ πρπει να κμωσιν ο Γραικο ες τς παροσας περιστσεις
- Διλογος δο Γραικν (1805). In contrast to the widely accepted view, which Koumanoudis first introduced by
quoting Koraes in his dictionary as having used the term Γραικορωμαοι Αυτοκρτορες for the first time in 1822
(Koumanoudis 1980: 251), the textual evidence I have provided, shows that this term was already in use in 1805.
In fact, Politis shows that this term was also used in 1798 (Politis 1998: 10). Much earlier than it is usually
believed Koraes coined and used in Greek the characteristic term ‘Greco-Roman Emperors’, thus dropping the
previously used term, ‘Romans’. According to Politis (2000: 182), Koraes coined this term to highlight the twofold
cultural heritage of the Eastern Christian Orthodox Roman Empire. 36 In his entry of the adjective Βυζαντινς Koumanoudis (1900: 231) writes that the first time somebody used this
term was Koraes in 1807. Mackridge (1998: 49) misinterprets the index after the term in the relevant entry and
argues that Koraes coined and used this word in 1803. The same misinterpretation is repeated by Argyropoulos
2001: 30; footnote 50. In addition, Christou (1991: 100) mistakenly stresses that the adjective Βυζαντινς in Greek
appeared in the middle of the nineteenth century. The number 3 before the relevant dates after the term in question
should not be taken as a reference to a date; rather it should be taken as an index of the adjective’s genders since,
as can be seen in the introduction of the work, Koumanoudis used to put an extra zero before dates with single
7
The lexical accommodation of this term from a foreign language is also evidenced by
Koraes’s correspondence. In the same year in a letter addressed to his friend Alexandros
Vasileiou he commented on the use of the word φανατηω: ‘Δν εναι λξις μφβολος, λλ’
εναι γννημα το παρακμζοντος λληνισμο, τν Βυζαντινν σως συγγραφων’. 37
The
introduction of a new word in his vocabulary, but also in the vocabulary of the Greek
language, probably transferred from a European language, 38
signified a crucial lexical shift
regarding the reception of the Byzantine era. In later years this era as a historical period along
with the relevant term would be embraced by Greek Romantic historiographers, who would
use it as an ideological means to respond both to Fallmerayer’s allegations 39
and to the social
problems of the newly-born state. 40
Another scholar who addressed the complex issue of the denomination of Greek-
speaking people was Dimitrios Alexandridis (1784-1840). 41
Although he did not take part in
the public debates of the time, as Koraes and Kodrikas did, he expressed his views in his
translations or adaptations of historical works. More specifically, he published in three
volumes a translation of Oliver Goldsmith’s The Grecian History, which was originally
published in two volumes in 1774. Alexandridis’s first two volumes appeared in 1806, 42
while
the third was published in 1807. 43
This last volume was not part of the original, but an
addition. This expansion of the original altered the character of the translation, which
addressed a different audience from the English work. Its originality lies in the fact that it was
the first time a Greek historical work had been devoted to Βυζαντιν Ιστορα as part of the
Greek past. The cover of the third volume reads: Τμος Γ’, Περιχων τν Βυζαντινν στοραν. 44
Alexandridis based his third volume in large measure on the same sources that Stanos’s
Βυζαντς had relied on, 45
but also on Gibbon. He treated his sources, though, with less respect
than Stanos. While around the middle of the previous century Stanos followed the original as
digits, that is, for the first decade of the nineteenth century. He put an extra zero in front of the first seven, that is,
07 to denote that, according to him, Koraes had used this adjective for the first time in 1807. 37 Koraes 1965: 535. The passage comes from Αλληλογραφα Β1 1774-1814 (1805). 38 The adjective ‘Byzantin’ had been in use in French for more than 100 years before Koraes transferred it into
Greek. 39 Veloudis 1982: 24. 40 Dimaras 1994: 405-18, 419-25 and 455-70. 41 Alexandridis is mostly known for publishing Ελληνικς Τηλγραφος, the weekly magazine which circulated in
Vienna and diaspora circles all over Europe from 1812 to 1836. 42 Alexandridis, Dimitrios (1806), Γλδσμιθ, Ιστορα της Ελλδος (vols.1-2; Vienna: Σποις τραιμβλεοις). 43 Alexandridis, Dimitrios (1807), Γλδσμιθ, Ιστορα της Ελλδος (2nd edn., v.3; Vienna: Σποις Βενδοτεοις). 44 Politis (1998: 13) mistakenly mentions that this was the earliest use of the term βυζαντιν ιστορα in the modern
sense. 45 Βυζαντς was also a source for the writing of στορα τς πλαι Δακας, τ νν Τρανσυλβανας, Βλαχας κα
Μολδαυας. κ διαφρων παλαιν κα νεωτρων συγγραφων συνερανεισθεσα by Dionysios Photeinos (1818);
Svoronos 1939: 240.
in the subsequent unstable European political arena Alexandridis
‘hellenized’ his translation. Thus by naming the third volume of his historical work Βυζαντιν
Ιστορα he offered an all-embracing term for the history of the Greeks during the Middle
Ages.
A year after Alexandridis’s third volume, in a letter addressed to his friend
Alexandros Vasileiou (July 1808), Koraes admitted the ‘Greekness’ of the Byzantine period
and connected the two concepts, Hellenism and Byzantium: 47
Δν μ γρφεις τν τιμν τν δο σωμτων, το Μακαρονιστο Φραντζ.
νγνωσις τριν τεσσρων σελδων μνων ξηγρωσε τν ποδγραν
μου. C’est un honneur. πειτα θαυμζομεν τι πεσεν Γραικορωμακ
βασιλεα. φο τ θνος κρημνσθη π Θουκυδδας, ροδτους, κα
Ξενοφντας ες Φραντζδας, πς το δυνατν ν ντισταθ ες τος
κθας; 48
In the subsequent years Koraes did not change his views on this issue. During the second
decade of the nineteenth century, when he changed his mind on numerous other issues, he still
conceived the Greeks of his time as a nation trying to regain its independence. In essence, the
claims of the Greeks over the Balkans were based on a historical argument regarding the
continuity of the Greek nation throughout history. This argument, which was further
developed during Greek Romanticism, first appeared in the later stages of the Greek
Enlightenment in the works of the Greek philosophes. 49
The ‘sense of the past’ of the Greek
philosophes involved a theory of history 50
since history could provide the theoretical
framework for the vindication of their case for political independence.
To summarize, through their scholarly work in the first decades of the nineteenth
century, Greek intellectuals viewed the history of the Greeks as an uninterrupted sequence of
eras. In their attempt to fill the void European historians had left as regards the Greek Middle
Ages, they gradually incorporated Byzantine history in their historical writings. However, the
process of the incorporation of the Middle Ages into a Greek historical schema had started
much earlier with Meletios, Γεωγραφα Νεωτερικ, Moisiodax and Katartzis. Next, a name had
46
Stanos 1767. 47 Vacalopoulos (1968: 126) concludes his article by mentioning that before the Greek War of Independence Greek
scholars, in their attempt to define themselves, invoked both the cultural threads of their culture, namely
Byzantium and Hellenism. 48 Koraes 1965: 637-38. The passage comes from Αλληλογραφα Β1 1774-1814 (1808). 49 The opposite view was held by Mango (1979: 54), who argues that the Byzantines did not feel any kinship with
Ancient Greeks. Zakythinos (1980: 317) points out that, despite the fact that Hellenism was divided under
Ottoman and Turkish rule, it constituted an ‘ideal community’, a term which resembles what Anderson later called
‘imagined community’. 50 According to Dimaras (1994: 446), during the last phase of the Enlightenment, Greek scholars turned their
attention to history and, specifically, to the philosophy of history.
9
to be coined. Koraes first adapted the term the Europeans had employed to distinguish the
Eastern Orthodox Byzantine decadence from the Western Roman Empire. In this way
‘Byzantine history’ was incorporated as a historiographical concept into the history of the
Greek nation as a vital transitional stage between Ancient Greece and Modern times. To sum
up, I argue that ‘Byzantine history’ was the answer Koraes and Alexandridis invented when
they confronted the historical gap European historians and antiquarians had left as regards the
history of the Greek ‘Middle Ages’. This answer was also dictated by the new trends in
European historiography, which was characterized by the secularization of history and the
development of different national historiographies according to the needs of each nation. 51
51 Kelley (1998: 256) argues that despite the universalist ideals of many of eighteenth-century scholars, national
styles of historiography eventually emerged according to the political divisions of later eighteenth-century Europe.
10
Bibliography
Σηραηκβιεοης).
—— (1807), Γιδζκηζ, Ιζηνξα ηεο Διιδνο (2nd edn., vol.3; Vienna: Τποης Βελδοηεοης).
ANGELOU, ALKIS (1976a), 'λας ζσγγραθας αλητλεεη ηο θοηλ ηοσ. Η "Αποιογα" ηοσ
Ιζεποσ Μοηζηδαθα', Politis, 7, 37-45.
—— (ed.), (1976b), Ιζεπνο Μνηζηδαμ. Απνινγα. (Athens: Ermis).
ARGYROPOULOS, ROXANE (2001), Les Intellectuels Grecs à la recherche de Byzance (1860-
1912) (Collection Histoire des Idées 77; Athens: Institut de Recherchers Néohellénic/
Fondation Nationale de la Recherché Scientifique).
CHRISTOU, PANAGIOTIS (1991), Οη πεξηπηεηεο ησλ εζληθλ νλνκησλ ησλ Διιλσλ (3rd
edn.; Thessaloniki: Kyromanos).
CLOGG, RICHARD (1996), Anatolica, Studies in the Greek East in the 18th and 19th centuries
(Aldershot: Variorum).
Typografeion Ermou).
—— (1994), Διιεληθο Ρνκαληηζκο (Athens: Ermis).
DOROTHEOS, MONEMBASIAS (1818), Βηβινλ Ιζηνξηθλ (Venice: Glykis Printing House).
EFTHYMIOS (1865), Χξνληθλ Αλθδνηνλ Γαιαμεηδνπ, ed. Konstantinos Sathas (Athens:
Delis).
GAY, PETER (1966), The Enlightenment: An Interpretation. The Rise of Modern Paganism
(vol.1; London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson).
HOBSBAWM, ERIC and RANGER, TERENCE (eds.) (1983), The invention of tradition
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
KATARTZIS, DIMITRIOS (1970), Σα Δπξηζθκελα, ed. K. Th. Dimaras (Athens: Ermis).
—— (1974), Γνθκηα, ed. K. Th. Dimaras (Athens: Ermis).
KELLEY, DONALD (1998), Faces of History. Historical Inquiry from Herodotus to Herder.
(New Haven and London: Yale University Press).
KIGALAS, MATTHAIOS (1637), Να λνςηο Γηαθξσλ Ιζηνξηλ (Venice).
KITROMILIDES, PASCHALIS (1985), Ιζεπνο Μνηζηδαμ. Οη ζπληεηαγκλεο ηεο Βαιθαληθο
ζθςεο ηνλ 18ν αηλα (Athens: M.I.E.T.).
—— (1994), Enlightenment, Nationalism, Orthodoxy. Studies in the culture and political
thought of south-eastern Europe (Aldershot: Variorum).
—— (2000), Νενειιεληθο Γηαθσηηζκο, Οη Πνιηηηθο θαη Κνηλσληθο Ιδεο (3rd edn.;
Athens: M.I.E.T.).
KORAES, ADAMANTIOS (1964), Κνξαο, παληα ηα Πξσηηππα ξγα., ed. Giorgos Valetas
(vols.1-2; Athens: Dorikos).
—— (1965), Αιιεινγξαθα 1774-1833, ed. Giorgos Valetas (vols.1-2; Athens: Dorikos).
KOSELLECK, REINHART (1985), Futures Past. On the Semantics of Historical Time
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).
KOUBOURLIS, GIANNIS (2005), 'Η ηδα ηες ηζηορηθς ζσλτεηας ηοσ ειιεληθο ζλοσς ζηοσς
εθπροζποσς ηοσ ειιεληθο Γηαθφηηζκο: ε δηακτε γηα ηο λοκα ηοσ ζλοσς θαη οη
απυεης γηα ηοσς αρταοσς Μαθεδλες θαη ηοσς Βσδαληηλος', Dokimes, 13-14, 137-
91.
KOUMANOUDIS, STEPHANOS (1900), πλαγσγ Νσλ Λμεσλ ππ ησλ Λνγσλ Πιαζζεηζλ
απ ηεο Αιζεσο κρξη ησλ θαζ' εκο Χξλσλ (Athens: Τποης Σαθειιαροσ).
—— (1980), πλαγσγ Νσλ Λμεσλ ππ ησλ Λνγσλ πιαζζεηζλ απ ηεο Αιζεσο κρξη
ησλ θαζ’ εκο ρξλσλ (preface by K. Th. Dimaras) (Athens: Ermis).
KOUMARIANOU, AIKATERINI (1988), Γεσγξαθα Νεσηεξηθ (Athens: Hermes).
LABBE, PHILIPPE (1729-33), De Byzantinae Historiae Scriptoribus, vols.36, (reprint of the
Corpus Parisinum (1648-1711), vols.42; Venice: Bartholomaei Javarina).
11
LAPPAS, KOSTAS (1986), '"Νοσζεζαη παηρς προς σηλ". Μηα αλθδοηε κεηθραζε ηοσ
Κφλζηαληλοσ Οηθολκοσ', Mesaionika kai Nea Ellinika, 2, 305-40.
MACKRIDGE, PETER (1998), 'Byzantium and the Greek Language Question in the nineteenth
century', in David Ricks and Paul Magdalino (eds.), Byzantium and the Modern
Greek Identity (Aldershot: Ashgate), 49-61.
MANGO, CYRIL (1979), 'Discontinuity with the Classical Past in Byzantium', in Margaret and
Scott Mullett, Roger (ed.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition (Birmingham:
University of Birmingham Press), 48-57.
MENOUNOS, IOANNIS (1979), Κνζκ ηνπ Αηησιν δηδαρο θαη βηνγξαθα. (Athens: Tinos).
MITROU, MELETIOS (1728), Γεσγξαθα Παιαη θαη Να (Venice: Printing House of Glikis).
MOISIODAX, IOSIPOS (1781), Θεσξα ηεο Γεσγξαθαο (Vienna).
NEKTARIOS, O KRIS (1677), Δπηηνκ ηεο Ιεξνθνζκηθο Ιζηνξαο (Venice: Glykis Printing
House).
NEOKAISAREUS, NATHANAEL (1802), ληηθλεζηο πξο ηλ παξινγνλ δινλ ηλ π
Δξπεο ξρνκλσλ θηινζθσλ (Trieste: Brantatz and Besek Printing House).
PHILIPPIDΙS, DANIEL and KONSTANTAS, GRIGORIOS (1791), Γεσγξαθα Νεσηεξηθ (Vienna).
PHOTEINOS, DIONYSIOS (1818), ζηνξα ηο πιαη Γαθαο, η λλ Σξαλζπιβαλαο, Βιαραο θα
Μνιδαπταο. θ δηαθξσλ παιαηλ θα λεσηξσλ ζπγγξαθσλ ζπλεξαλεηζζεζα
(vols.1-2; Vienna: Svekiou Printing House).
—— (1819), ζηνξα ηο πιαη Γαθαο, η λλ Σξαλζπιβαλαο, Βιαραο θα Μνιδαπταο. θ
δηαθξσλ παιαηλ θα λεσηξσλ ζπγγξαθσλ ζπλεξαλεηζζεζα (vol.3; Vienna:
Svekiou Printing House).
POLITIS, ALEXIS (1998), 'From Christian Roman Emperors to the glorious Greek ancestors', in
David Ricks and Paul Magdalino (eds.), Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity
(Aldershot: Ashgate), 1-14.
—— (2000), Σν κπζνινγηθ θελ (Athens: Polis).
SKINNER, QUENTIN (1988), 'Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas', in James
Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context. Quentin Skinner and his Critics (Cambridge:
Polity Press), 29-67.
SMITH, ANTHONY (2000), The Nation in History. Historiographical Debates about Ethnicity
and Nationalism (Hanover: University Press of New England).
—— (2007), 'Epilogue: The power of Ethnic Traditions in the Modern World', in Athena
Leoussi and Steven Grosby (eds.), Nationalism and Ethnosymbolism. History,
Culture and Ethnicity in the Formation of Nations (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press), 325-36.
STANOS, IOANNIS (1767), Ββινο Χξνληθ πεξηρνπζα ηελ Ιζηνξαλ ηεο Βπδαληδνο, (vols.6;
Venice: Theodosiou Printing House).
TABAKI, ANNA (1997), 'Byzance à travers les Lumières néo-helléniques', Europe, 822, 147-
61.
προζεγγζεης ηες γεφγραθας, 19ος – 20ς αη.' Ιζηνξηνγξαθα ηεο Νεηεξεο θαη
γρξνλεο Διιδαο 1833-2002 (Athens: Institute for Neohellenic Research –
National Hellenic Research Foundation), 77-120.
TZIOVAS, DIMITRIS (2003), 'Introduction', in Dimitris Tziovas (ed.), Greece and The Balkans,
Identities, Perceptions and Cultural Encounters since the Enlightenment (Aldershot:
Ashgate), 5-12.
VACALOPOULOS, APOSTOLOS (1968), 'Byzantinism and Hellenism. Remarks on the racial
origin and the intellectual continuity of the Greek nation', Balkan Studies, 9, 101-26.
VELOUDIS, GIORGOS (1982), Ο Jacob Philipp Fallmerayer θαη ε Γλεζε ηνπ Διιεληθν
Ιζηνξηζκν (Athens: E.M.N.E-Mnimon).
VRYONIS, SPEROS (1971), Byzantium: its internal history and relations with the Muslim
world (London: Variorum Reprints).
ZAKYTHINOS, DIONYSIOS (1980), 'Two Historical Parallels: The Greek Nation under Roman
and Turkish Rule', in Angeliki Laiou-Thomadakis (ed.), Charanis Studies. Essays in