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 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

(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. Meletioss 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: , [ ]

. However, when

1 Dimaras (1994: 460) traces Koumanoudiss term in 1851, not without hesitation. 2 Among the widely popular religious chronicles we can enumerate by Dorotheos Monembasias

(1631), Kigalass, (1637), Efthymioss, (1703) and

, 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: .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

written collaboratively by Daniel Philippidis and Gregorios Konstantas

(1791). Their historical schema of an uninterrupted Greek presence throughout history relied

heavily on Meletioss 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 .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 Gographie

Ancienne.7 They baptized the period from the transfer of the capital from Rome to

Constantinople until 1453 .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 Panckoukes Gographie 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 Gibbons history was not noted for its generosity to Christians10

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:

,

, .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 , Dimitrios Katartzis stressed the twofold

equally important cultural heritage of the Greeks of his time. Katartzis argued that modern

were descendants of the Ancient Greeks and the Romans through a linguistic and

cultural connection.17

In he elaborated on his comments on the history of

the Greeks by offering the cultural genealogy of the :18

,

,

, , , ,

, ,

, ,

;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 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 (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

,21

he clearly explained that the history of