NEW TRENDS IN MODERN GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY With an Introduction by William McGrew Edited by A. Lily Macrakis P. Nikiforos Diamandouros THE MODERN GREEK STUDIES ASSOCIATION in cooperation with ANATOLIA COLLEGE Occasional Papers ~- 1 1982FROM PAPARRIGOPOULOS TO VACALOPOULOS: MODERN GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY ON THE OTTOMAN PERIOD C. Hatzidimitriou In 1868, when volume five of Paparrigopoulos' ‘Iotopta rob “EAAnvixod “ESvoug [History of the Greek Nation] was going to press, the author made a last-minute change. While previous volumes and advertisements had carried the title, "The Period of Turkish Conquest," this title was changed to read, "The Period of Turkish Occupation." Al- though the change is nowhere explained, we may guess that the author felt that the former was both more offensive and less accurate than the latter (1). There can be little argument concerning the importance of Paparrigopoulos' work to the development of modern Greek historiography (2). In the pages that follow, I will try and illustrate some of these effects upon the modern Greek historiographic treat- ment of the Ottoman period, and suggest some alternative approaches. Paparrigopoulos conceived of Greek history as a con- tinuum--a continuous unbroken chain from Classical Greece to the Greece of his own day. He was considered an inno- vator in his time, not for having framed this continuum, but for allowing ‘Byzantium a prominent place within it. Por when he published his volume on the Byzantine period, much of Western historiography still subscribed to Gibbon's famous analysis of the Byzantine state (3). Many Greek intellectuals shared the view of these Western academics, and also considered Byzantium a degenerate phase of their history which was far less. important than the classical tradition to which they felt themselves the heirs. Paparrigopoulos, though, was able to rise above this chauvinism and recognized that during the medieval phase of Hellenism one could discern the origins of a new Greek unity along national lines. Thus, in the introduction to his volume on the Byzantine period he states: "Indeed, although foreigners have begun to do justice to certain aspects of the Byzantine monarchy, Greeks still sneer at this noble and proud mother of the modern Greek nation; and although the ignorant masses recognize that they owe their existence, their language and their religion to her, scholars alone denounce her" (4). One cannot overemphasize the importance that Paparrigopoulos placed upon the Byzan- tine period, both as a continuation of the classical world and as the creator of the Hellenism he feels spawned the modern Greek nation. 134 Costas Hatzidimitriou We are all familiar with the recent debate concerning continuity versus discontinuity within Greek history. The various positions were very clearly set forth by Speros Vryonis at an earlier MGSA conference, and this controversy need not detain us here (5), What concerns us is how the continuity thesis affected Paparrigopoulos' treatment of | the Ottoman period. I have already alluded to his change of title~=this I believe indicates a crucial aspect of his | treatment which has been followed by all subsequent modern Greek historians. Simply put, this aspect is that, since modern Greek historiography has viewed its subject as a continuum, the Ottoman period has been treated as a prelude to the Greek revolution--a transitional phase between the continuity of Byzantium and Modern Greece--whose main in- terest lies in its lack of effect upon the continuity of the other two, Thus, in his introduction to his chapter on the Ottoman period, ‘Paparrigopoulos writes: "This nation (é8vog ) maintained itself in such an unaltered state throughout the pericd of Ottoman rule so-that we are able to say that the nation (8vcc) that brought about the revo- lution in no way differed in its components from that which was forced to bow its head to slavery" (6), He goes on to i explain what he means by this unaltered state: "That much : foreign blood was mixed with that of the Greeks between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, as it had done earlier, is without question and it would be ridiculous for us to deny it today. The point is thus, whether this foreign blocd was of such a quantity as to fundamentally change the indigenous race. For a precise solution to this question we have no other safe guide but that of language" (7). Paparrigopoulos here, to his credit, makes it quite clear that racial purity is not a crucial factor in his thesis. This position is sometimes attacked even today by modern Greek historians, who adhere to the idea of racial con- tinuity as an important factor in the definition of modern Hellenism. He goes on to make a case for the continuity of : the Greek language during the Ottoman period, and also stresses the intellectual resistance that this survival entailed. His analysis focuses upon two levels of descrip- tion: that of the secular and clerical administrative in- tellengentsia who were often educated in the West and had an impact upon the intellectual development of modern Greek Hellenism, and the resistors, those who, on seme level, supported revolutionary movements within the Ottoman state. At all times, he maintains a sharp distinction between the Islamic and Greek worlds as two communities apart, brought into close contact only when necessary for administrative purposes or violent confrontation (8). It seems to me that this represents a very static view of the period which j allows little conceptual space for dynamic change and multi-level coexistence. Furthermore, it is assumed thatFrom Paparrigopoulos to vacalopoulos 1s Facial factors are important in matters of cultural con- tinuity, and that there is an identity of language to cul- tural continuity. A high priority is placed upon homo- geneity, and Paparrigopoulos goes so far as to blame the Greek “church for not hellenising the many peoples that the Ottoman state placed under its control (9). Nor are these the only levels on which Paparrigopoulos' narrow focus upon continuity is’ apparent. In the administrative sphere, he argues for the survival of communal institutions from ‘an- tiquity, and assumes that the Ottomans lacked an adminis- trative tradition of their own and relied chiefly upon Byzantine prototypes. He does so with very little evi- dence, citing only the presence of various Greeks in the Ottoman administrative system, especially from the seven- teenth century on’ (10). All of this bears some element of truth, as the theory of Byzance apras Byzance is still argued today, but I believe that the static picture pre- sented is only part of the story. One need only mention the marvelous record-keeping system that the Ottomans seem to have inherited from the Chinese via the Mongols, or the rich administrative traditon of the Seljuks and other Mid- dle Eastern states with which they were familiar to compro- mise this thesis (11). Paparrigopoulos' emphasis upon resistance movements is to be expected--after all, his generation made these ef- forts a reality--but resistance and his continuum are only part of the mosaic of Ottoman Greece. In Paparrigopoulos' history the Ottoman period is a prelude to the Greek revo- lution, and it is only what matters vis-a-vis subsequent events that is emphasized, Thus, it Ts not surprising to find that he felt that free Greece suffered by comparison with the behavior of the Greeks under Ottoman rule. For in his last public lecture just prior to his death in 1890, he said the following: - "The present condition of our communi- ties are [sic] in no way able tc exhibit the virtues that many of our Epeirot and maritime communities exhibited dur- ing the Tourkokratia, The uncountable maritime and land forces are now miserable, and they are burdened down by our civilized society” (12). If Paparrigopoulos can be termed the father of modern Greek historiography, perhaps Constantine Sathas can be termed the father of modern Greek historiography on the Ottoman period. No other modern Greek scholar devoted so much of his scholarly output to the study of this period, and until the appearance of Vakalopoulos' book, Sathas‘ Tovoxoxeatounévn “EAAdc (13) [Turkish-Occupied Greece] was the “only work in Greek that covered the entire Ottoman pe- riod in some detail. With Sathas we see various aspects of the Paparrigopoules thesis taken to an extreme. Sathas has a16 Costas Hatzidimitriou very narrow view concerning Paparrigopoulos' continuum; for him, racial continuity is pure and unspoiled, linguistic continuity is to be ‘sought in survivals of atticisss, and the revolutionary movements and intellectual output of | the Ottoman period prove the classical origins of their par= ticipants, His major break with Paparrigopoulos concerns Byzantium and its place within the continuum. For Sathas, Constantinople has a secondary place-~continuity is to bé sought through the history of Athens during the Middle Ages (14). Despite the narrowness of his viewpoint, sathas made important contributions to the history of Ottoman Greece, His work NeosAAnviuh @udoAoyia [Modern Greek Philology] collected “ biographic and bibliographic data on Gresk intellectuals who wrote between 1453 and 1821 (15). Despite its many faults, it still remains a basic tool for anyone dealing with this period. In addition, for the first time, an attempt was madé to collect primary material for the study of Ottoman Greece in a systematic. fashion. His multi-volume work, Monuments of Modern Greek History, remains as the basic corpus for the study of this period (16), Limited as both of these works are, they were a pio- neering effort and have not been superseded to this day, I have no time to discuss them in detail here, but I mention them only because I will deal with the matter of source ma- terial later on. The subtitle of Sathas's third major con- tribution betrays its focus and orientation; it reads, Tovpnoxpatounéun "BX: z_botopixudy Soxiioy rept nod sroctuas iy seo SSquavined Cuvot snavasriseuy so5 ERERYLXOS woug (Turkish-Occupied “Greece: A Historical Essay Upon the Revolutionary Attempts of the Greek Nation to Throw Off the Turkish Yoke]. It is essentially a military history, one in which the entire pericd is viewed from the perspec tive of the subsequent liberation. Here we have the nove balanced Paparrigopoulian perspective in an extreme form. Space does not allow me to deal with the many other historians who have dealt with Ottoman period as part of a jarger work or within a specialized study. Some of the other studies in this volume deal with these (17). My task is to briefly deal with the most recent and moderate figure gf the __Paparrigopoulian school. With vacalopoulos* -loropia rob Néou “BAAnvicuot (History of Modern Hellenism] Paparrigopoulos’ thesis of continuity has been broadened and enriched by extensive research and wider conceptualiza= fion (18). Vacalopoulos begins his study of the period by seeking -out the distinguishing factors of a Greek national identity during the late Byzantine period. In doing so, he supplies documentation for Paparrigopoulos's ideas concern= ing the survival of Hellenism despite the various ethnic infusions during the late Byzantine period. He then goes on to discuss the use of the term Hellene (“EAAnv) through=From Paparrigopoulos to Vacalopoulos 17 out the Middle Ages and what the use of this term entails. A case is made for linguistic continuity, but Vacalopoulos takes a much broader viewpoint of what constitutes cultural continuity and includes folklore, literature, popular cul- ture, and religion (19). He recognizes that there is a certain dynamic aspect in the history of the period, and that conditions varied from place to place and over a pe- riod of time. Furthermore, he makes an original contribu- tion to the continuity thesis by suggesting that, on the local level, Hellenism survived in a new ‘society which sprang up during the Ottoman period--a society he calls the society of the mountains. I quote: "The mosaic will never be complete, but a coherent picture may form if the his- torian starts by selecting those pieces which obviously highlight, both spacially and temporally, the principal segments of the whole. Proceeding in this’ way he first notices the emergence of a new society in the mountains of continental Greece and in the islands, and learns that in order to understand contemporary Greek life it is first necessary to go back to its roots" (20). The discovery of this new society is made necessary because Vacalopoulos fully recognizes the diversity of the period he is at- tempting to describe. The Ottoman period, like the Byzantine before it, was at the same time conservative and dynamic. The Ottomans of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are not the same as those of the sixteenth and seventeenth. Furthermore, Otto- man institutions were both developing throughout this pe- riod and allowing for atypical arrangments based on local circumstances and traditions (21). When one adds to those factors the chronological variation of the conquest of the areas that constitute the Greek nation today, and the local diversity that the Ottomans consciously created, is it any wonder that a coherent picture of the period is lacking? Not that it is inaccessible, but that research must concen- trate on the Ottoman period as a self-justified entity be- fore projections can be made on how this period relates to any other, Por how would it seem if Byzantine history was studied only in how it related to the development of Modern Greece and/or the Ottoman empire? To engage in this sort of approach is to engage in a thesis-fulfillment methodol- ogy which allows the historian to select only those sources which fit his preconceived theory. While historians are often forced to carefully postulate probabilities based on incomplete evidence, I think that we are not justified in doing so here, considering the state of research on Ottoman Greece. A major prerequisite for the serious study of the period is the “systematic collection and study of all the sources, and to this problem I will now briefly turn. $$ TT18 Costas datzidimitriou As I mentioned in discussing Sathas, he carried out a systematic, albeit incomplete, investigation of some pri- mary material, Most of the material he published was drawn from the Venetian archives (22), Sathas was not the first to draw upon this source, and throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries various scholars have published a wide variety of material drawn from Venice and other archives which date from the Ottoman period (23). Much of this ma~ terial is widely scattered, often unreliable, and only a fraction of the whole. A major gap in the collection and study of available material is the rarity of individuals able to read Ottoman and deal with the large numbers of published and unpublished Ottoman documents available in Greece and abroad. Until this large body of source ma- terial is collected, edited, and studied, it seems foolish to engage in thesis-fulfillment histories based on selected sources (24), Once this material is amassed, then given the regional’ variation of the Greek lands under Ottoman rule, a series of regional histories seems in order. An available source of population statistics, and a wealth of @conomic and administrative data are the tahrir defters and kanunnames of the Turkish and Bulgarian archives (25). The Study of Ottoman material available locally is still in the pioneering stages. It is only when all of this research is far advanced that we can begin to study the relationship and the effects of Ottoman Greece to other periods of Greek history. No one nowadays doubts that the Hellenic nation survived the Ottoman conquest. What is not understood are the various aspects of the synthesis that grew out of the conquest of the Byzantine and Frankish-held lands by the Ottomans. I have only touched upon a few of the reasons why this synthesis is so difficult to discern. Intellec- tual influences, for example, were reintroduced at various times and places’ with varying effects. Locally the Turko~ Muslim popular culture interacted in many ways with local Greck traditions and produced variations of the two, Has— luck has studied such relationships and has given us some very interesting preliminary findings (26). Certain Otto~ man guilds were open to non-Muslim craftsmen, and the rela~ tionship of these mystic orders, such as the Bektashis, re- mains to be studied (27). In short, it is obvious to any— one who cares to view the sources objectively that the Greeks of the Ottoman period were not the same as those of the Byzantine or modern Greek. Only a careful analysis of how they fit into the Ottoman and non-Ottoman schemes into which the Greeks were thrust will result in our understand— ing of what this difference entails. Having perhaps al- ready said too. much, I will return for a moment to the vacalopoulos thesis concerning new mountain communities.—~EE—E—E—E—Eeeeeeeeeee From Paparrigopoulos to Vacalopoulos 19 If one wishes to deal exclusively with how the Byzan- tine populations dealt with their conquerors, one can con- sider the situation in reference to three basis options the conquered people had: namely, resistance, accommodation, or flight. Each of these options can be exercised by the conquered in a multitude of ways (28). We have already mentioned how Greek historiography has concentrated upon various forms of armed and intellectual resistance. vaca- lopoulos has investigated the aspect of flight. While the migration and activities of intellectuals abroad have been studied for some time, the demographic change within the Greek lands due to the impact of the initial conquest, and subsequent relations between conqueror and conquered have received little serious attention. Therefore, it seems premature to draw diagrams of migration patterns, and pos- tulate the existence of new mountain societies. we simply do not have the sources. All we can say, considering the state of the research, is that certain mountain communities seem to have increased in population and importance during the Ottoman period. Vacalopoulos is right to draw atten- tion. te this phenomenon, but the fragmentary nature of our sources does not allow us to recognize a new society. Vacalopoulos himself admits that the state of the research ig still fragmentary. In a recent article on the subject of flight and population displacement, he states that “the subject of the flight of the people for almost a century, fron. 1354 to 1453, constitutes a great problem for which no systematic study has been made as yet. Such a systematic study constitutes a scholarly desideratum. In my Histor: SP ibaetn “Gellenisg, “f tried to touch upon various points of the problem, to appropriately stress its significance, and to arrive at certain conclusions. Here I gather cer- tain attestations and discuss certain views concerning the flight of the Greek population with the hope that some young scholar having more time available to him will take it upon himself to study in a broader and more systematic manner this sociopolitical subject, which has many inter- esting aspects” (29). His comments can be applied to the following three centuries as well. ‘The third option, that of accommodation, was available to the conquered; it is understandable that it has received little systematic treatment in modern Greek historiography. Obviously the majority of the Greeks of the fourteenth through the eighteenth centuries did not continually fight their conquerors. Accommodation to changing circumstances throughout this long period was a fact of life for the vast majority until another option became available. Greeks peacefully interacted with non-Greeks in a multitude of ways and on various levels. I have already mentioned the religious interaction investigated by Hasluck and the eco-20 Costas Hatzidimitriou nomic connection of the guilds, Much needs to be investi- gated and explained. Once again we will find a great deal of regional variation and diversity. Space has not allowed a more detailed explanation of some of the general notions I have posed. My purpose was to illustrate the effects that the thesis-fulfillment orientation of modern Greek historiography of Ottoman Greece has generated. 1 have not attempted to place the historians mentioned in their intellectual context. I leave this to students of nineteenth-century modern Greek intellectual history, for I am a medievalist and have al- ready wandered far from the period in which I feel most comfortableFrom Paparrigopoulos to Vacalopoulos 2. Notes 1. K, Th. Demaras. “Ot npGteg éuédcerc tfc ‘Iotoplag tot K. Tonaponyénovaou" [The First Editions of Paparri- gopoulos' History], in O Eranistes, V:29, pp. 47-148. 2. For his place in the development of modern Greek historiography and and nationalism, see the new ‘Iotoota to} “EAAnVL uot “ESvoug (History of the Greek Nation]; Vol. 13 Tathens, 1977), pp. 455-479. 3. K. Th, Demaras, ed., Kwvotavetvog Manaponyénovdcg. Tookeyéueva [Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos Prolegomenal, TAthens, 1970), pp. 9-32, 132-140. 4. Ibid., pp. 39-45, 133. 5. Speros Vryonis, Jr., “Recent Scholarship on Con- tinuity and Discontinuity of Culture: Classical Greeks, Byzantines, Modern Greeks," in The Past in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture, (Undena Pub,, 1978), pp. 237-256. «._K. Paparrigopoulos, ‘Totopia roO “EAAnvinod EQvoug {History of the Greek Nation ], vol. 6 (Athens, Téé8), pp. 410-414. 7. Ibid., Prologue. a. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10, Ibid. 1. Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. 11, 2nd ed., B. Lewis gtal., eds. (1965), pp. 77-81; Speros Vryonis, Jr., "The Byzantine Legacy and Ottoman Forms,” DOP., Vol. 23 (1969- 1970), pp. 253-308; Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600 (New York, 1973). 12, RK. Th, Demaras, Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, pp. 164-177. : 135 Rongtantinos Sathas Tovouovoatouueyn “EAAd: grooixdy Soxiuuoy neol node dnoveodety tos SBalaUENOS Guyot _énavactdcewy too EAAnvinou E9vove CL (Turkish-Occupied Greece: An Historical Essay Upon the Revolutionary Attempts of the Greek Nation to Throw Off the Turkish Yoke (1453-1821)1, (Athens, 1969),22 Costas Hatzidimitriou 14, Phanos Michalopoulou, Kwvotavttvog B4Sa = 1914) {Konstantinos Sathas (1842-1914)], (Athens, n.4.), p. 373. 15. Konstantinos Sathas, NeoeAAnvext @rrodroyta, BLo~ yeoota. Gv ¢v tote yoduucc. 6.arauvgviay EAR VOY (Modern Greek Philology. Biographies of Greeks Who Distin- guished Themselves in the Field of Letters}, (Athens, 867). 16. Konstantinos Sathas, Documents Inédits Relatifs & Lidistoire de la Gréce au Moyen Age (Mnemia Elienikes Is- das), 9 vols. (Paris, 1880-1890) 17. See the papers of William McGrew and Paschalis Kitromilides elsewhere in this volume. 18. Apostolos Vacalopoulos, ‘Iotopta tod Néou “EAANViguo [History of Modern Hellenism], 4 vols. (Thessa~ Toniki, 1961, 1964, 1968, 1973). The first two volumes ap- peared in English translation as Origins of the Greek Na~ tion (New Jersey, 1970) and The Greek Nation, 1453-1669 (New Jersey, 1976), See especially the introduction to his Origins of the Greek Nation. 19. Apostolos Vacalopoulos, Origins of the Greek Na~ tion, pp. 1-45. 20. Apostolos Vacalopoulos, The Greek Nation, 1453- 1669, p. xiii. Seeger TEE 21. Ibid., pp. 3-30. In general, see Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600 and H. a. R. Gibb and H. Bowen, Islamic Society and the West, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1957). For an examination of diverse economic ar- xangements based on local tradition, see John Alexander, "Toward a History of Post-Byzantine Greece: The Ottoman Kanunnames for the Greek Lands, circa 1500-circa 1600" (Cco- lumbia University Ph.D. Dissertation, 1974). 22. Konstantinos Sathas, Documents Inédits, Vol. 1, especially the introduction. 23. For a general overview of the historical writing of this period, see Peter Topping, "Greek Historical Writ- ing on the Period 1453-1914," The Journal of Modern Histor’ xarit, 2 (June 1961), pp. 157-173, and the Bibliographic — guide by Spyros I. Asdrachas in Nicos G. Svoronos, ‘Ex.oxé- mngn tfc veoeAAnvixiic totopiag [An Overview of Moderi Greek History], (Athens, 1976). A particularly good place to look for Venetian material pertaining to modern Greek his-~~ EE EEE From Paparrigopoulos to vacalopoulos 23 tory is the journal @ncavoicuara. 24, Speros Vryonis, Jr., "Islamic Sources for the History of the Greek People," in Greece: Past and Present, John T. A. Koumoulides, ed. (Muncie, In Bali State Uni- versity, 1979); P. Hidiroglou, Toveusnh EM nvovsaets (Turkish Writing on the Greeks] (Thessaloniki, 1980). 25. John Alexander, "Toward a History of Post- Byzantine Greece"; Spyros Asdrachas, Mnyaviquot tfc Sypotinfic o(vovopiag etry Tovpxoxpatia (IE'-[ET" Atdvag) {Mechanisms of the Rural Economy under Turkish Rule in the 15th and’ 16th Centuries], (Athens, 1978); Omer Lutfi Barkan, “Essai sur les données statistiques des registres de recencement dans l'empire Ottoman au XVe et xvIe siacles," Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient I (August 1957); Standford Shaw, "Ottoman Archival Materials for the Nineteenth and Barly Twentieth Centuries: The Archives of Istanbul," International Journal of Middle East Studies VI, 1 (January 1975), pp. 94-114. See also the paper of Vasilis Dimitriades in this volume. 26. F. W. Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the Sultans, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1929). 27. Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Zmpire, pp. 150-152; Peter F. Sugar, Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule 1354-1804 (Seattle, Wash., 1977), pp. 77-19. 28. I would like to acknowledge the aid of John Pe- tropulos who first advanced this schema and greatly clari- fied its various aspects in a course on modern Greek his- tory at Columbia University in 1979. 29. Apostolos E. Vacalopoulos, "The Flight of the In- habitants of Greece to the Aegean Islands, Crete, and Mane during the Turkish Invasions (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Cen- turies)," in Charanis Studies, A. Laiou-Thomadakis, ed. (New Jersey, 1980), p. 272.