Anastasios Philippides
Published (in Greek) by Pelagia Publications


Part A -- Our national names Chapter 1 - The two trends of the 19th century Chapter 2- So, Hellenes, or Romans? Chapter 3-- And the byzantines?

Part B -- The shaping of the Roman conscience Chapter 4 - The supra-national State Chapter 5 - The Christian World a) Political ideology b) Caesaro-Papism c) Theocracy

Part C-- The clash with the West
Chapter 6 - The Dark Ages Chapter 7 - The first appearance of the “Greeks” Chapter 8 - Charlemagne and the autonomizing of the West from Romanity


BIBLIOGRAPHY a) Hellenic language b) Other languages APENDIX: MAPS

Translation by A. N.

Part 2 // Contents

PART 1. Our national names

Part A -- Our national names Chapter 1 - The two trends of the 19th century Chapter 2- So, Hellenes, or Romans? Chapter 3-- And the byzantines? FOOTNOTES

PROLOGUE Quite often in various discussions I happened to notice that the term “Byzantinism” was being used with a negative inference. The term “Byzantinology” is used when someone talks superfluously. This term has been used thoughtlessly, while the reason for its implementation and its prevalence has being altogether overlooked. Years ago, anything related to the Byzantine arts or the Byzantine civilization was something to be scorned. Naturally, this view is being re-examined nowadays. The disdain, the contempt and the sarcasm towards anything that pertains to Byzantium, or the use of certain terms with a negative inference are not unrelated to the attempts by Western Europeans to marginalize the Roman Empire which in our time is labelled “Byzantium” - as well as to their efforts to dignify themselves, by regarding that they are the true successors of the great and illustrious Roman Empire.

The borders of Greece at 1830, after the revolution of 1821 against the 400-year Turkish occupation In reality, the term “Byzantium” was coined at the beginning of the sixteenth century (1562 A.D.) by the west European historian Hieronymus Wolf and was repeatedly used from then on by other western European writers, whose aim was the disparaging of the Roman conscience. Anything associated with Byzantium was considered shameful and contemptible. In fact, “Byzantium” has even been linked to the Mediaeval Dark Ages. From the historical aspect, however, “Byzantium” - which was the original name of the ancient Hellenic city founded by Byzas of Megara (province of Hellas) - is not mentioned at all. Instead, it is rather indifferently mentioned in passing, as ‘a city’ of the Roman Empire. When the capital of the Roman Empire was transferred from Rome to Byzantium, the latter was renamed “New Rome”, as compared to the original, ‘old’ Rome. In terms of religion and faith, the Roman Empire was mostly Orthodox and its civilization was Hellenic (since Hellenism had universal proportions), while the legal system was based on ancient Roman legislation. In the Roman conscience, two languages were dominant: Hellenic and Latin. Their faith and their cultural traditions were, after all, common. Anyone who incorporated these two elements was considered a “Roman”. The later conquest of the western part of the Roman Empire by the Franks brought on many problems. In their attempts to convince that they were the true successors of the Roman Empire, the Franks would refer to the

inhabitants of New Rome as “heretics”, “impostors” and “deceivers”. This is how the derogatory terms against Romanity were being justified and we, the successors of Romanity, have been displaying tolerance without harbouring any suspicions and without giving these terms due consideration. Undoubtedly, the truth is that Romanity is linked to the glory and the ascent of the human spirit. Despite the fact that some people use the term “Byzantinism” disparagingly, the reality of the matter is that this term engulfs the greatest achievements of mankind. When neo-Romans discussed theological matters, they did it in order to preserve humanity and the ways in which man can reach God. They didn’t merely entertain vast and unending social, political or philosophical conversations; these were discussions that dealt with existential issues. That is why neo-Romans were -and continue to be- up to date and always contemporary, as opposed to the Franks, (the occupants of the western reaches of the Roman Empire and masters of the West, where barbarism and a provincial spirit reigned supreme). When Romanity was at its apex, the West had succumbed to a barbarian dark age, given that orthodox theology was replaced by a scholastic theology, which limited the human experience within the bounds of human intelligence. Furthermore, the diminution of scholastic theology in the West nowadays, and the rise of apocalyptic orthodox theology, are also tokens of the difference that exists between the two civilizations and their ways of living. This raises the question: “Romanity or Barbarity”? The author of this book has worked on this vital issue. I believe that it is quite enlightening and apocalyptic. The reader can

learn many things and find Roman history analyzed, simplified and explained just like many other scientists have described it, but moreso fr. John Romanides. Anyone can discover the virtues of being a neo-Roman. The author of this book, Anastasios Philippides, is an acquaintance of mine, and has been, for many decades. I first met him as a primary school student in Edessa. After he had finished his studies in the American College of Thessaloniki, Anatolia, he went on to the financial department of Yale University in USA. He worked on extensive postgraduate and doctoral studies concerning financial matters and received his Master’s degree from the University of Georgetown in Washington, and later on he worked in the USA. That is how he became acquainted with the western way of life, and as far I know, it disappointed him. He studied the later Roman way of life with great interest and it impressed him profoundly. That is why he subsequently worked on it in a more scientific way, along with the desire to actually become better acquainted with the later Roman way of life. An objective reader can easily see this, by reading his works. A superficial reader may see this as an anti-European book, but the truth is that this book shows the lifestyle of the true Europe, which was ingrained in the spirit of Romanity. The true Europe relates to Europe before Charlemagne, whereas modern-day “Europe” appears to have Charlemagne as its center and portrays him as the successor of the founder of “The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation”. If someone were to dig the soil of Europe, study the culture, the customs, the songs, he will discover in them the true neo-Roman way of life. Thus, whenever we refer to Romanity, we are implying the whole of Europe, as well as the way of life which was inspired by the lifestyle of the

Roman Empire, before its occupation by the Franks. I am convinced that this book will be a good instructor for anyone who wants to cross over the ocean of modern life where the Charlemagne movements prevail, and visit the harbour of Romanity: the highest quality lifestyle that mankind has ever offered. Archmandrite Hierotheos S. Vlachos ( Fr. Hierotheos is today the Rev. Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and St. Vlasios)

Oversized architecture: Larion, Famagusta, Bufavento: almost resembling stage décor…. We were accustomed to imagining differently the heavenly sign: “Jesus Christ prevails” that we had once seen hovering above the walls of the Regnant City; The now dry grass, is trampled on by gypsies’ tents; its mighty towers lay scattered on the ground, resembling dice tossed down by a potentate who lost the game…

For us, it was a different thing to fight

for the faith in Christ and for the soul of man enthroned on the lap of the Virgin Mother - the “Supreme Defender” whose frescoed eyes beheld the yearning of Romanity: the yearning of that sea upon discovering the balance of kindness.

(George Seferis)

INTRODUCTION Thirteen years after the incorporation of Hellas in the European Economic Community, there have been increasing indications around us, of a profound economical and social crisis. Despite the hefty transfers of funds by the European Community, Hellas appears to be drifting away from, rather than drawing nearer to, its European colleagues. To this day, the Hellenic political reaction to this reality is limited to attempts at securing the largest possible amounts from the European funds. In other words, the viewpoint that is predominant is that the problem is purely

one of ‘uneven development’, which can be solved only when sufficient funds and technical know-how pour into Hellas from the European Community. Our opinion is that the Hellenic crisis is of a different nature. It is more of an overall national identity crisis, where the emerging prevalence of a foreign civilization is provoking spasmodic and uncontrollable personal reactions, beyond every moral framework and every form of hierarchy. The transfers of funds will not resolve any problem (not even the immediate economical one), if we do not previously acquire a realization of what our identity is, and what the cultural causes are, that differentiate us from the rest of the European Union; causes that can negate the customary formulas for transcending the crisis. Unless we do this, Hellas will continue to be asking for the others’ "understanding" with regard to her problems, while our European colleagues will continue to express their indignation over our non-conformance to their instructions. In our opinion, the crisis that we see today is nothing more than the outcome of an age-old contest between two worlds, two civilizations, and two different perceptions of life. However, there is a tendency nowadays to demote the historical differences between Hellenism and the West, in our attempt to invoke a “common European heritage” which supposedly unites the people of the European Union. For example, the acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty – in absentia of the uninformed Hellenic people - was accompanied by a propagandistic bombardment, whose central message was that Hellas has “at last discovered its destiny”, in Europe. Given this kind of backdrop, any viewpoint that opposes the notion of a uniform European Idea and is reminiscent of the historical opposition between Hellas and Western Europe, is most assuredly condemned

to be marginalized during the years to come. The way to the acceptance of this neutralized version of History was opened two centuries ago by certain Westerneducated Hellene scholars who imposed on our people a perception of life and History entirely opposite to those that the Hellenic people themselves had preserved during the years of the Turkish occupation. The systematic distortion of our cultural physiognomy has nowadays reached the extreme stage of schizophrenia. We observe and analyze ourselves, our History and our religion, through a Western point of view. In other words, we look at ourselves in a mirror that doesn’t reflect us, but only an image of us, designed by Western Europeans. Thus, it is only to be expected, that we will not be able to solve our true problems, if we can't even recognize them in our distorting mirror. The result of this distortion, but also proof of our cultural difference, is the continuing misapprehension regarding Hellas’ place in Europe. Thus, we have Hellenes feeling flattered whenever they hear official foreign guests praising the country that gave birth to democracy, philosophy etc., and yet, these same Hellenes insist on overlooking the fact that those foreign guests are the ones that also regard today’s Hellas as a decadent country – an embarrassment to Europe. While Hellenes want to boast that they belong to the West, Western Europeans see us as an annoying remnant of the East inside their Community. These misapprehensions often lead us into major national issues, even into national catastrophes, when Neo-

Hellenes refuse to comprehend the Europeans’ reaction to our “justified” national demands. Thus, as a State, we are continuously perplexed by the foreigners’ stance towards the “Grand Idea”, the catastrophe of Asia Minor, the Cyprus issue and more recently, the “Macedonian issue”. In our opinion, it is unfortunately inevitable that the increasing nationalist tensions in Europe today will be bringing us new surprises in the near future, on account of the misguided expectations that we have of foreigners. Already, during the last two years, we have been witnesses to an incredible - for European colleagues- anti-Hellenic sentiment, as displayed in publications of the Western press. And as far as Western Europeans are concerned, it is only natural for them to harbor whatever views they might have. The problem lies in our own ignorance of the different historical background on which they judge matters. Our study consists of an effort to historically detect the advent of the different viewpoint through which the Hellenes and the western Europeans see Hellas. Some of the more important problems regarding our national identify cannot be addressed, unless we are familiar with the roots of our historical differences with the West. An example of such a problem is -as we said before-the opinion that Westerners have about today’s Hellas. It is an opinion of deep contempt, as the millions of our compatriots abroad have had the chance to daily ascertain for themselves. Neo-Hellenes are of the opinion that this contempt has its roots in the Turkish occupation, when foreigners visiting Hellas had observed for themselves the locals’ tremendous lag in progress, as compared to the West. To the extent that Hellas still carries residues of the Turkish occupation, Westerners continue to maintain their contemptuous stance towards her.

This perception is utterly wrong and historically unfounded. The Westerners’ opinions of Hellas were NOT shaped during the Turkish occupation. This same scorn is observed during the last centuries preceding the fall of Constantinople, when the Latin church had launched its all-out campaign to Latinize Romanity – in its religion as well as in its language. This same contempt is also observed during the time of the Crusades. And should we desire to seek its deeper roots, we will have to go back even further, to the beginning of the Mediaeval period, from the 5th to the 9th centuries, during which time, the idea of “Western Europe” was first formulated. Consequently, the contempt of the Westerners does not originate from today’s “superiority” of the West’s civilization, but from the historical differences that existed as far back as the time that the western Europeans were still living in the darkness of mediaeval barbarity. This very essential point is dealt with in more detail, in Part 3 (chapters 6, 7 and 8) of this study. A second example of a problem that cannot be addressed -unless the historical cause of our difference with the West is researched- is the familiar dilemma as to whether Hellas belongs (culturally, that is) to the “East” or the “West”.1 In our opinion, the related discussions on this matter often do not take into account certain elementary historical facts. As we shall see in our study, Western Europe was born between the 5th and the 8th centuries, when the barbarian Germanic tribes clashed with the Hellenic-Roman civilization, whose exclusive carrier was, at the time, the so-called “Byzantine” Empire. The Western European conscience was shaped within this very conflict with Constantinople, and was defined by it. From that time onwards, a “Western European” was

defined as anyone who was not Christian Orthodox; one who did not feel that he belonged to the Ecumenical Christian Empire with Constantinople as its capital; and one who did not acknowledge the civilization that was formed from the synthesis of Hellenism and Christianity in the Eastern Roman Empire. If we accept this basic historical definition, then any and all discussions regarding Hellas’ place in Europe, in the West or the East, will cease to be of any relevance. To the “Europeans”, Hellas by definition does not belong to Europe, since she is the heir of an opponent tradition – the opponent civilization which they themselves had to fight against tenaciously, so that they could become what they are today. It should not escape us, that European Mediaeval history between 800 and 1400 A.D. is essentially a continuous conflict between Latins and “Byzantines”. But even nowadays, most of the seasonal discussions regarding the so-called “common European heritage” do not include elements of our Roman tradition. On the contrary, the remnants of this tradition are looked upon as anachronistic impediments for the fulfillment of Europe’s new cultural profile. On the other hand, the Hellenes see no reason to identify themselves with either the East or the West, since these two concepts are both defined by an (opponent) relationship with Hellas. That is, the West exists –in the cultural sense- only because it fought against - and annihilated - the Hellenic-Roman civilization, otherwise, all of Europe would have continued to be a Roman province. The East was also something entirely different to the Hellenic-Roman culture, albeit deeply influenced by it during Mediaeval times.

The conclusion is that –historically- the West and the East are both defined by their relationships with Hellas, and not the other way around. This is a true fact, for the simple reason that Hellenes were for at least 1800 years (from 600 B.C. through to 1200 A.D.) undisputedly the most civilized nation in Europe. Subsequently, what happened was that all the other nations that came in contact with us had to take sides and either accept or reject the elements of the existing Hellenic civilization. The historical framework that we are proposing here will assist in the understanding of certain problems and misapprehensions which will otherwise remain obscure. A characteristic, recent example is Durosel’s renowned “History of Europe”, which ignited multiple reactions in our homeland, the reason being the absence altogether of any mention of ancient Hellas and Byzantium in the history of Europe. To the Hellenes, it is self-evident that ancient Hellas and the “Byzantium” were primary factors in the shaping of Europe. To the non-Hellenic Europeans however, Europe “begins” from the moment that the Westerners themselves make their appearance on the scene; in other words, in the 4th century A.D., with the invasions of the Roman Empire by the Germanic tribes. 2 The whole “European idea”, which is so widely advertised in our day, is nothing more than an attempt to reunite the descendants of those Germanic tribes. In this context, it is not very obvious why Hellas or “Byzantium” should belong to “Europe”. In fact, the entire course of Europe after the 4th century was nothing more than the expansion of the “Europeans” (=the barbarian tribes), to the detriment of the “Byzantines” (=the Romans). Western historians of course strive to convince

us that Romans and barbarians merged and thus produced today’s west-European civilization. This viewpoint constitutes a witting distortion of History, which the Westerners have imposed, in order to secure amnesty for the crimes of their ancestors and to simultaneously usurp the achievements of the Hellenic-Roman civilization. We shall have the chance to say more about this fundamental distorting of History, in chapters 4, 6 and 8 of our study. The Durosel viewpoint was “heretical”, only inasmuch as he had ignored Ancient Hellas. The omission of “Byzantium” is a common denominator in the Western stories of Europe. In lieu of the many examples of this fact, we could mention one instance which is quite recent (1980), in a multi-volume, French “General History of Europe” (C. Livet and R. Mousnier, Presses Universitaires de France publications), recently circulated in the Greek language (1990) by Papazisis Publications. The Hellenic edition is in fact prologued by the President of the Athens Academy, Mr. G. Vlachos, who expressed his amazement over the absence of Byzantium therein. But why the amazement? To anyone who has lived overseas, it is a well-known fact that for the Westerners, mediaeval and latter-day Hellas are not included in that which is called “Europe”. Even when reasons of “courtesy” and “cultural pluralism” demand that “Byzantium” be included in such publications, its role is inevitably portrayed as a peripheral one, as though it were some insignificant duchy of the East and not the most prominent political and cultural power of Europe for many centuries. Unfortunately, the age-old enmity of the West towards the Romans of Mediaeval times does not allow them -even to this day- to objectively study such an “innocuous” subject like mediaeval history.

As a last characteristic example, we could refer to the collective work “Handbuch der Europaischen Geschichte” (Publishers: Ernst Klert-Cotta of Stuttgart, with General Publisher: Theodore Schieder), which presents European History from latter antiquity until our times, in seven large volumes. In the first volume (which was published in 1976) the publisher certifies that this work is not limited only to western and central Europe, but that it also extends to Eastern Europe, in order to include the Slavic and HellenicOrthodox civilizations. And yet, the first volume - which covers the period between 400 A.D. to the middle of the 11th century - of its total 1061 pages, dedicates a meagre 81 pages for Byzantium! Seven whole centuries of Byzantine History take up almost the same space as the text that analyses the organizing of the barbaric tribes during the 5th century (75 pages) !!!! 3 We believe that comments would be redundant at this point, in the face of these examples. One has to be blind, to not perceive what the European opinion is of us, of our History and our tradition. Instead of trying to convince West Europeans with inferiority-ridden protests and announcements asking to include us in their History, we should have grabbed the rare instance of honesty displayed by them, with the opportunity of Durosel’s History. We should have –at last– acknowledged that both as peoples and as civilizations, the Hellenic and the Western European sides are conflicting sides, ever since the first appearance of “western Europeans” in the 4th century A.D. It is subsequently not at all peculiar, that certain books express that which is ingrained in the conscience of every western European. 4 Durosel could have become the pretext for us to stop and reconsider more seriously what our position is, towards a

civilization that is exceptionally hostile, exceptionally antiRoman. A civilization that tries to impose a universal model of man, by eliminating the memory and the lifestyle of different peoples, including the Hellenic people. Our study will attempt to highlight some of the historical causes of the gap between Hellenism and the West, by stressing those that are usually overlooked or purposely falsified in “official” European –but also Hellenic– historiography. We believe it is redundant to refer to the cultural differences per se; they have already been described in a superb manner by some of the most inspired minds that our country has given birth to during the last hundred years, and have been deposited in the life works of a certain Per. Yannopoulos, a certain G. Seferis, a certain Ph. Kontoglou..... Our study is therefore purely historical. Part 1 (chapters 1,2 and 3) is necessarily dedicated to the clarification of the confusion that was caused by our national names. In the past 1500 years, we have been referred to with four different names (Romans, Greeks, Byzantines, Hellenes). The reasons for this confusion did not originate from our people, who always knew their one and only name, throughout these centuries. They originated from our west European enemies, who concocted various names, in their desire to cut us off from our national continuity. These names were used as ideological means, for the extermination of Hellenism. In Part 2 (chapters 4 and 5) we shall examine the shaping of our “Roman national conscience”, which differs radically from the tribal, national ideologies of the Western lands, beginning from the time that the Germanic tribes invaded western Europe. The two constituents of this Roman

conscience are: the supranational model of the State, and the Christian faith. An understanding of the Roman national ideology is a necessary step towards comprehending the individuality of Romanity versus the West. In Part 3 (chapters 6,7 and 8), we shall present some of the problems of the “Dark Ages” (7th - 8th centuries), when an immense “rupture” appeared in European History : a barbarian tribe, the Franks, began a conscious effort to distort History, for the purpose of usurping the Roman imperial title. As we shall see, it was from that moment on, that western Europe made its choice of renouncing and turning against the Hellenic-Roman civilization. From within this conflict, “Europe” for the first time acquired a conscience of its own, and “western civilization” was also born of it, as a distinctly separate phenomenon. It is within this “rupture”, that the sources of our difference with the western Europeans can be found. From the beginning of the 9th century onwards, Romanity and the West followed diverging courses, as the West now began to reveal its mortal hatred towards anything Roman. The external expressions of this hatred (the Schism, the “Crusades”, the Frankish domination, etc) were especially revealing for our ancestors, and they became the determining factor of Romanity’s orientation thereafter. However, a more analytical description of this period is beyond the scope of this study. What concerns us more at this point is the ever-widening gap of the original rupture, which was the source of the conflicts that were to follow. The publishing of this study would not have been possible, without the love and the prompting of the reverend father Hierotheos Vlachos, who read the manuscript and offered

his suggestions for its improvement. For all of these things, I would like to express my warmest thanks. For the informed reader, it will also become obvious that this study owes much to the pioneer work of fr. John Romanides, “Romanity”. In our opinion, the reasons for “Romanity” not reaching as many readers as possible, is due to various reasons. Anyway, because father Romanides’ views are sometimes ambiguous, we tried to proceed to an independent study of certain other sources, in order ascertain which points can be verified. Thus, wherever we had the potential to check our sources, we did so, without needing to reference Romanides. The conclusion reached through this research is in almost absolute agreement with Romanides’ conclusions. One could counter-observe that, regardless what the conclusions of such a historical study may be, they have no bearing on the scalding issues of today’s Hellenic society. We disagree with this view. It is our belief that, firstly, History itself provides answers to questions that are being posed nowadays, precisely because those same questions had been posed in the past. The entire issue of Hellas vs. the West is a characteristic example of a problem that persists for over 1500 years. Especially during periods when our national threats are exacerbated, it becomes selfdestructive, to have no conscience whatsoever of the deep-rooted cultural adversity that characterizes the sentiment of Westerners towards us. Beyond this, however, historical knowledge also shapes the vision that we have for the future. The impression that we have of ancient Hellas, of “Byzantium”, or of western European history, defines - either consciously or subconsciously – what kind of society we envisage for

ourselves. Perhaps that is what the poet Seferis meant, when he said that “by erasing a part from the past, one erases a corresponding part from the future.” The only way to overcome our problems today is to rediscover our lost historical memory and to regain contact with what we truly are, with what our heart truly desires. Only then will we discover that – no matter how hard we try to deny it by believing that we are one with western Europeans - our everyday life, our joys and sorrows, our hopes, our celebrations and our disappointments feasts are all permeated with a sensation exclusively our own, unknown to the Westerners, which can also be called “Romanity’s longing”.

Part A - Our national names
Chapter 1 - The two trends of the 19th century We shall begin our study with a clarification regarding the terms “Hellenes” and “Romans”, under which terms there underlies a huge debate. The Hellenes of 1994 might be amazed, when they discover that up until the beginning of our century a great ideological conflict had taken place between these two words as our national name. This conflict reflected the general conflict that existed between two ideological trends in our country, which had begun in the 18th century, although its roots can be traced back, many centuries before. Ever since the period of European ‘Enlightenment’, two

different trends appeared among the Hellene intellectuals. The first one strived to convey the values of European humanism to the enslaved Hellenes and to “clean up” the language and the customs of the people, following the four centuries of Turkish darkness. To attract the support of foreigners, it resorted to utilizing the Romantic era’s worship of antiquity, and it enthusiastically propagated the theory of the racial descent of today’s Hellenes from the ancient Hellenes. In a time when prominent names of Europe such as Goethe, Byron, Shelley, etc., were praising the return to an idealized classical past, the idea that some pure-blooded descendants of Pericles still exist caused quivers of emotion to many intellectual circles in Europe. This trend had strived to impose an archaic form of the language (Attican) to the Hellenes, so that their identifying with the ancient Hellenes would seem even more real; at the same time, it sided fully with the views of the Western Europeans on mediaeval History:, i.e., that the Byzantine Middle-Ages was a period of obscurantism, of “religion and barbarity” as Gibbon had called it, “full of conspiracies, intrigues in dark palaces and unending discussions on unsolvable and incomprehensible theological issues that were of interest to no-one”. This viewpoint is embraced even today by a large portion of Hellenes. The main representative of this trend was Adamantios Korais , and after him came Rizos-Neroulos, Koumanoudis and many other supporters of the “katharevousa” (=the “cleaned” form of the language). For example, in 1841, Rizos-Neroulos, then president of the Hellenic Archaeological Society and former minister of Ecclesiastical affairs, had proclaimed that: “Byzantine History is an almost intertwined and extremely lengthy series of insane acts and ugly violence of the transplanted Roman State within

Byzantium. It is a contemptible variorum of the utmost squalor and the humiliation of Hellenes.” 5 The second trend had even deeper roots, and it is difficult to determine its beginning; it is much easier to describe its positions. First of all, it did not readily accept the modern name “Hellenes”, since all that our subjugated co-nationals knew was that they were neo-Romans. The difference is not merely typological, as we shall see in the following chapters. Secondly, the neo-Romans of that time did not feel that they had any direct relationship with the ancient Hellenes. They felt much closer to the Romans of the mediaeval period, i.e., they were Christian Orthodox who were ready to sacrifice themselves for their faith. Just like them, they would likewise weep whenever they heard the Hymn to the Theotokos, “To the Defender General”, and not whenever they heard the paeans of Aeschylus; they honoured the memory of “the devout Kings of Constantinople”; their dream throughout all the years of slavery was the liberation of their City, which they acknowledged as the only centre of the Nation, and finally, they displayed a greater trust in the popular language and the traditions of the people. This trend was represented by many scholars, without any uniform program or ideology. In the matter of the national name of neo-Romans, we can refer to D. Katartzis, G. Typaldos-Iakovatos and later on, to many advocates of the demotic (popular) language, one of whom was Arg. Eftaliotis who had written the “History of Romanity” which began in 146 B.C., that is, with the conquest of Hellas by the Romans! D. Katartzis (1730-1807) in his work “Know yourself”, in which he made a historical retrospect on the words “Hellene” and “Roman”. He concluded that: “certain high-and-mighty men have overthrown even the rules

of grammar, daring to change the meaning of a word and to call themselves Hellenes, without regarding this a disgrace - given that they are Christians – and a dishonour – given that they are Romans - when our very parents, the Romans, did not concede to this, except for one person, the transgressor called Julian, who took pride in calling himself a Hellene.”. 6 Typaldos-Iakovatos of the Eptanese (the seven islands of the Ionian Sea) during the decade of 1830 characteristically wrote: “A part of the ideal nation has been freed; it is the province of Hellas. The remainder of it still awaits -‘the throne of Constantine the Great’ - and along with this, yet another, very minute part of Romanity, the seven islands, where also, for things to straighten out, the Roman flag should be waving.” 17 The leader of the “demotic” (popular language) movement, Psycharis, believed that “when, in 1821, Botsaris and his like were beginning to revolt, they were obeying – unbeknownst even to them – to a Neo-Roman political impulse”. 8 The inscription on Psycharis’ grave stone is characteristic: “Sing me a dirge like the ones I heard you sing when I was a young man and had gone to the mastic-tree villages to learn your tongue, the NeoRoman one. Who knows, you may awaken me suddenly, even from the grave, because so much did I love this language, so deeply did I place it inside me, deep in my heart, my Roman heart.” 9 Besides, it is noteworthy, that the famous periodical – the instrument of the “demoticists” – bore the title “Numas”. (Numas was none other than the second King of ancient Rome!). These two trends were in conflict throughout all of the 19 th century and the beginning of the 20th. A detailed examination of this conflict would go beyond the scope of

our study. In any case, the expediencies hidden behind the use of our national names did not escape the attention of the foreigners. In 1857 a major philhellene, French historian had said to Sp. Zambelios: “The strangest thing is that these greedy friends of ours (the Neo-Hellenes), without looking towards anything else except their personal benefit, call themselves “Hellenes” in the morning, for historical reasons, then at noon they are called “Romans” for political reasons, and in the evening they compromise between both names, and call themselves “Greco-Romans”. 10 What is certain is that even at the beginning of our own century, this matter had still not been solved. In 1901, the publication of the first volume “The History of Romanity” by Eftaliotis had caused intense reactions, not only for its linguistic form, as it was the first History book to be written in 'demotic’ (popular language) form, but also for of the use of the term “Romanity” therein. A huge debate ensued, which eventually divided the Hellene intellectuals, with G. Hatzidakis and N.Politis supporting one side (which was opposed to the term “Romans”) and K. Palamas and Gr. Xenopoulos supporting the other side. 11 By the looks of things, even after seventy years of freedom, most of the people were still not used to the name “Hellene”. As the poet Palamas had written at the time, the name “Romeos” (=Roman) came more readily to the lips of the people, “far more than the festive and cumbersome name "Ellin” (=Hellene), or even "Ellinas” (also Hellene), which is somewhat more difficult to take root than the name “Romeos” (means: Roman, Romiós , pronounced “Romeee-os”), which furthermore maintained until recently its ancient, pagan inference (....) and which still signifies, even to this hour, for most of the people, ‘the brave one’, ‘the

giant’.” 12 The poet Palamas had clearly perceived the essence of this conflict: “Because the terms “Romeos” (=Roman, Romiós , pronounced “Rome-ee-os”) and “Romanity” have not reached us directly, straight from the time of Pericles, they were pushed aside, ever so gently, by the official language.” “Hellenes, to fool the world, but in reality, NeoRomans. A name is by no means something to be ashamed of. If it is not embraced by a wreath from a wild olive tree of Olympia, it is exalted by a crown of thorns of martyrdom, and it is scented with thyme and gunpowder.” When justifying Eftaliotis for his choice of the term “Romanity”, he concluded: “a purer and more profound sense of the language cannot but find something that is poetically and musically tinged, even in a word like “Romanity”; something winged, something gallant to us and ever so light, that I believe “Hellenism”, in all its weighty, immobile grandeur, does not possess.” 13 Despite all the above, the harsh polemics that had reached the point of even doubting Eftaliotis’ patriotism, led the latter to desist from ever publishing the remaining volumes of his “History”. In a Hellas that was desperately trying to cover four hundred years of “lagging behind” the “enlightened” Europe, it would be inconceivable for a viewpoint such as this to be acceptable: “its impossible, my friend, to seek to emulate the English, the French, the Germans, and the ancient Hellenes, and not possess a certain dose of barbarity inside you; a barbarity that looks upon fancy foreign things and is awed, and looks at her own treasures and feels

ashamed of them”. 14 The advocates of the “anti-Roman” cause had reached the point of declaring that as a people, we are related only to ancient Hellas and that the medieval period is completely foreign to contemporary Hellas. 15 As a matter of fact, with the term “ancient Hellas” they meant classical Hellas – the one that the foreigners still call “Hellas proper”, in other words, the land south of Thermopylae. For example, Rizos-Neroulos in 1841 argued that that Hellas is only the tiny Hellenic State (of 1830). All others that trespass - or have trespassed - on it are foreigners. Consequently, Philippos, the victor of the Hellenes at Chaeronia, must also have been a..... foreigner, who had “performed something even more devastating than that victory: he had given birth to Alexander.” 16

Views such as these had also acquired a political expression during the 19th century. According to P. Karolidis, commissary and holdover of the “History of the Hellenic Nation” by Paparrigopoulos: “These ridiculous and strange beliefs, products of illiteracy and lack of judgment, also had a political impact in certain circles of scholars who proclaimed that the political inclinations and trends and national ideas of today’s Hellenes should not reach beyond the borders of ancient Hellas.” 17 As it is clearly obvious, in a country whose people knew that the three quarters of its nation continued to live in subjugation, such a distortion of History bore serious national dangers. And why shouldn’t it, when Korais (one of the “founding fathers” of the modern Greek state) had

opened the way for the acceptance of such a theory, in his attempt to ‘illuminate’ the subjugated Hellenes with words such as: “The nation is a corpse being devoured by crows. The homeland is dead.....from the time that Philippos had trodden on us, and up to 1453.” 18 It is fortunate that the Slavomacedonians of Skopje have not yet discovered Korais..... To be absolutely precise, Korais was not even fond of the term “Hellene”. In his famous “Dialogue between two Greeks” (1805), he wrote: “So, one of these two things (‘Hellene’ or ‘Greek’) is the proper name of the nation. I approved of the term ‘Greek’, because that is how all of the enlightened nations of Europe refer to us.” And further down: “Not only should we be deemed inhuman, but also foolish in this matter, if we were to prefer the name of the Romans instead of the name ‘Greeks’”, to conclude: “Whomsoever calls me a Roman from now on, I will look upon him as my enemy. From this day on, I am a Greek.” 19 The term “Greek” - as pointed out by prof. John Romanides and as we shall examine in more detail in chapter 7 – is a national name that was bestowed upon us by the “enlightened” nations of Europe in the 8th century, at a time when they were still engulfed in the deepest darkness of their History. Unfortunately, a conclusive study of the obscure role of Korais in the shaping of the neo-Roman identity still awaits its author.... As for poor, afflicted Hellas, after everything that we said up to now, it becomes obvious that the borders of 1830 were by no means a coincidence, as they corresponded to the exact borders of ancient Hellas, as seen by foreigners and their local mimics. The acceptance of the name “Hellenes” had provided the

necessary ideological alibi to all those who had envisioned a tiny Hellas, within the bounds of 1830...

Chapter 2- So, Hellenes, or Romans? In this chapter, we will take a short historical stroll to the sources, in order to clear up the confusion that the later ideological expediencies had accumulated around our national name. In this way, we will discover the answer to the problem posed in the previous chapter. The historical sources will provide a clear picture and it will truly require a strenuous attempt for someone to support a different view. All of the historical sources that we have available lead us to the realization that the name “Ellin” (Hellene, pronounced “eh-leen”) had already lost its national-racial innuendo during the first post-Christian centuries. In the vast melting pot of the multi-racial Roman Empire, all of the peoples therein had gradually acquired a “Roman conscience”. This is not a suitable place for examining how this occurred; the important thing is that it occurred. Without a doubt, the civilization of this Empire was profoundly affected by classical and Hellenistic tradition. It was in a way the ecumenical fulfilment of what Alexander the Great had envisioned but did not survive to fulfil himself; in other words, to permanently establish Hellenic education in every area of the known world. Contemporary foreign historians concede that the Roman Empire was, finally, a Hellenistic State, while others even speak of a “Hellenic Hellenism” and a “Latin Hellenism”. 20

Besides, this was the reason the “Hellenic” reactions towards the Roman conquerors diminished over time and most certainly vanished after the first century b.C.. After the fall of the Hellenistic Kingdom of Cleopatra in 30 B.C., there are no mentions of anti-Roman revolts; an indication that the Hellenes felt at ease within this Hellenized environment, which had furthermore been providing them with a much desired peace and security, for hundreds of years. With time, the Romans also came to feel the same way. Proof of this, was that one of their great Emperors, Constantine I, chose as a new co-capital the city of Byzantium - a thoroughly “Hellenic” city in a Hellenicspeaking region. If the Romans had felt themselves to be “different” and hostile towards the Hellenes, they would naturally not have transferred their capital there, in “enemy territory”. The fact is, that in 320 A.D., five hundred years after the occupation of Hellas, such racial differences had become completely extinct. The term “Ellin” (Hellene) had by then acquired a purely religious significance and was thus linked to the notion of “idolater”. It appears that this about-face had already begun to take place during the first post-Christian century, long before Christianity was made the official religion of the State. In the Gospel of Mark we read about a certain woman who had approached Christ when he was in Tyre, whom the Evangelist says was a “Hellenis, of SyrianPhoenician nationality” (“ην δε η γυνη ελληνις συραφοινικισσα τω γενει” ) (Mark 7: 26). As correctly observed by P. Christou, if the woman was of SyrianPhoenician nationality, then the term “Hellenis” (=fem. Hellene, pronounced hell-ee-niece) must have denoted her religion. 21 A few years after 300 A.D., Athanasios the

Great, a Hellenic-speaking Father and Patriarch of Alexandria - a par excellence Hellenistic city – had written a homily titled “Against Hellenes”. If this word had continued to imply the Hellenic nation, then it would have been entirely absurd: that grand Hellenistic center was turning against- who? We notice the same thing in the homilies of Saint John the Chrysostom, offspring of another grand Hellenistic city: Antioch. The word “Hellenes” definitely denoted the impious, the idolaters. Neither is the argument correct, which asserts that the word (Hellene) lost its national meaning through force, because it was supposedly used by Christians for their opponents. First of all, as we can surmise from the passage in the Gospel of Mark that we mentioned above, this change in name had already taken place, long before Christians had acquired any kind of authority. Moreover, as Mantouvalou rightly points out, the foremost enemies and persecutors of the Christians were the Romans; yet this did not deter the Christian inhabitants of the Roman Empire from continuing to call themselves “Romans”. 22 Therefore we must conclude that the name “Ellin” (Hellene) had already lost its national inference during the time of Christianity’s predominance, regardless of what Christians said. Christians had found the new term in place; they did not coin it. From that time on, and throughout the MiddleAges, the word “Hellene” signified the idolater. We continue to see the term with this same meaning, up to the end of the 18th century. For example, in one of his homilies in a village, Saint Kosmas of Aetolia had said: “....And I too, my brethren, who have been so fortunate as to stand here, in this holy, apostolic place by the mercy of our Christ, had first of all asked about you and had learned that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, you are not Hellenes; you are not impious, or heretics, or atheists,

but devout, orthodox Christians......”. 23 The national name of our ancestors throughout all these years is “Romans”, or “Romee” (in Greek “Romií”, Pronounced “Rome-ee-ee” Plural for “Romeos”), in the popular form of the language. In every one of the historical sources, without exception, the Empire of Constantinople refers to itself as “Roman”, or “Romania” (=land of the Romans) in the popular form of the language, while its emperors, up to and including Constantine Paleologos, were known as “king of the Romans”. For some strange reasons however, this perfectly clarified fact is disputed by certain contemporary researchers, who struggle to compose their own, personal ideological fabrications. For example, they have been promoting the “objection” that for most people, the national meaning of the word “Hellene” has not been lost, and that the term “Roman” that we encounter in all the sources is merely the official name attributed to the citizens of the State; a name that was imposed on them “from higher up”, and that it was not the name that the inhabitants of “Hellas” had personally chosen as most representative of what they believed themselves to be. 24 But, as Mantouvalou has keenly observed, if that were the case, then how does one explain the continuing use of the name Romans (or “Romií”, Pronounced “Rome-ee-ee” Plural for “Romeos”) during the Turkish occupation, after the dissolution of the Roman State? 25 The “Hellenes” – now subjects of the Ottoman Empire – would logically have no reason whatsoever to continue using the name of their former conquerors – the Romans – and continue to refer to themselves as Romans. Not unless they actually felt they were Romans..... And the truth of course is, that they did

feel that way, and were very much aware of it, regardless of what Westerners propagandized..... From the innumerable examples that could be mentioned here, we will present only a few, indicatively. All of the examples originate, not from scholars and intellectuals, but from ordinary, everyday people. What most of the people believed about the “Hellenes”, before becoming “enlightened” by western Europeans, has been recorded by I. Th. Kakrides in his invaluable study on folklore “The Ancient Hellenes in the neo-Hellenic Popular Tradition”. 26 Very briefly, the average person – up to and including the beginning of the 20th century - believed that the Hellenes were an ancient, idolatrous population of giants. This is the way they also explained the existence of the oversized monuments that used to abound in our land. These ancient people were admired for their strength (in 19th-century Cephalonia island, Kakrides mentions that the inhabitants had an expression “hey, this guy is like a Hellene!”) 27, but they certainly did not identify themselves with them. Besides, the author referred to them as “Hellenes” and not “Ancient Hellenes”, obviously because there was no chance that they would be confused with another contemporary nation. In 19th-century Sfakia (in the Island of Crete), the locals claimed that “up there, on the crest of the Samaria mountain, is the olden-day land of the Hellenes. That’s where the Hellenes finished. And they say that up there is a treasure, but it was never found.” 28 In the region of Thesprotia – and of the 20th century in fact - grandmothers used to tell a story a story that began like this: “In the olden years, there used to live in this region a

different kind of people, the Hellenes. (.........) Those Hellenes did not resemble today’s people. They were tall in stature, like cypress-trees....”. 29 A characteristic, 19th century song from the region of Epirus says: “Angelina, Koumena’s daughter, has a gallant husband; He has tresses (long hair) just like a Hellene’s, and his chest is like a lion’s...” 30 Another familiar folk-song says: “My mother was a Christian maid, my father a Hellene.....” Kakrides records a total of 85 narratives or phrases, from every corner of Hellas, where the “Hellenes” have remained in our popular tradition with the significance that we mentioned above. An interesting fact is that western Europeans were also aware of our real name and did not hesitate to mention it, whenever they weren’t directed by other expediencies. Thus, in the year 1713, at a time when our school books were teaching us that the Romans had vanished 1200 years ago, the Venetian printer of the first edition of the famous romantic poem “Erotokritos” noted that he was printing this book, “having being touched by the fervid love and reverence that I have had since my childhood for the glorious nation of the Romans”. The same person states that “I am Italian, and totally ignorant of the language”, but nevertheless he tried his best to print books “that until now had been printed by both Roman and Italian printers, but also the more unusual and more useful ones, which had not been printed by any Roman.” The prologue ends with the printer’s request towards the “Roman lords” to furnish him with any available manuscripts, so that he could print an improved version later on. 31

In the poem itself, we find the following verse: “In times long past, when Hellenes ruled, whose faith had no foundation, or any root...” (verse A 19-20) These lines are in full accord with popular tradition, the way that Kakrides recorded it: “There used to be a time during which the “Hellenes” ruled. Not the “ancient Hellenes”, but the “Hellenes”, who were people other than us, who had a belief that lacked any foundation and roots; in other words, they were atheists and idolaters. For several more proofs regarding the use of the name “Romans”/ “Romee” (neo-Romans), let us go further back in time. Four hundred years earlier, in the 14 th century, the anonymous anti-Hellene author of “The Chronicle of Moreas” knew full well that the adversaries of the Latins the inhabitants of “Hellas” -were the Romans. Here are two characteristic extracts from the “Chronicle”: Who has ever listened to a Roman and believed him, whether for love, friendship or perhaps for a kinship? Never trust a Roman, on whatever he swears by: Whenever he wants and intends to utilize you, that is when he will make you a friend, a blood-brother, or an in-law, so he can exterminate you.” (Verses 3932-3937). 32 Or when Lord Jeffreys (Villeardouin ) Lord of Moreas writes to the king of Constantinople Roberto (de Courtenay 12211228): “And if necessary, his troops, and likewise his body, whenever he decides and the need arises, to have

them at his disposal, to be with him and to maintain the battle, to conquer the Romans and the troops that they have.” (verses 2564-2567) 33 For our last example, let us go back three hundred more years in time, to the 11th century. In the great epic poem “Digenis Akritas” which marked “the beginning of neo-Hellenic literature”, the author –contrary to what one would expect- does not suspect that he is a Hellene (or a “byzantine” for that matter, but we will touch on this detail in the next chapter). Even at the very beginning of the poem, the Arab emir is portrayed as “having an accurate knowledge of the language of the Romans” 34, thus enabling him to converse with his adversaries. Further along, one of the brothers who came to take back the daughter that the Emir had kidnapped, fought a duel with him and, as he neared the moment of victory, the other Saracens counselled the Emir: “Seek love, and cease the fight. The Roman is awesome, and may defeat you.” 35 In our opinion, the examples taken from “Digenis Akritas” are especially noteworthy, because they originate from a scenario that takes place on the outskirts of the Empire, at the river Euphrates, and not in the Empire’s capital. These examples therefore show us that even the rural populations believed they were Romans, and not something else. In conjunction with everything that we mentioned above and with the information that we have taken from all the “official” sources (histories, state records etc.) it is more than evident that our ancestors were called Romans or neoromans (Gr: “Romii”) everywhere. Therefore the view that Christou and other researchers expressed, that the

name “Romans” was merely their official name, and that they personally preferred a different one (Hellenes, Greeks) is entirely unfounded. So, our recent ancestors did not know themselves to be Hellenes. They knew that they were Romans, and that their country was called Romania, as we can see in various folk songs, such as “The Lament of Constantinople”: “O, God, I wish the Romans could also fight this way, and never to have lost, alas, the kingdom.” Or, in another well-known song from the Pontus, titled “Romania has been taken”, and also in the poem “Digenis Akritas”, where the sole name of the State is quoted as “Romania”, tens of times therein. For example: “The Emir promptly took his men and to Romania did return for his beloved one. And whenever he took over Romanian lands, he would free all those that he held captive.” 36 The colloquial language was named “Romǽiki” (Gr: “Ρωµαίικη», Romehiki=”of the Romans”), in order to contradistinguish it from the ancient Hellenic language, which they simply called “Hellenic”. And this is why there are so many translations -from the ancient language into the popular one- in which they mention that they have translated “from the Hellenic to the neo-Roman form”. The most prominent precursor of the popular language form, D.Katartzis, when disagreeing with those who wrote in the archaic form, commented in 1783 that: “Everything that we write in the Hellenic language is a kind of translation from the Romaeiki which we always think with to the Hellenic ,which we think with, only when we pick up a pen.” 37 Therefore, “for one to think that the Hellenic and the

Romaeiki are the same language and not two, would be going against rational logic.” 38 Respectively, D. Filippides and Gr. Konstantas who had authored the work “Modern Geography” in 1791, mention in their presentation of European languages that “the Romaeiki language, which has been unreasonably and illiterately shunned by some, is very closely related to the Hellenic language, and is one of its daughters, which closely resembles it, because almost all of its words are derived from the Hellenic tongue.” 39 This is the reason for the existence of dictionaries, from the Turkish occupation onwards, with titles such as “FrenchRoman”, “Italian-Roman” etc..40 And, so that there may not be the slightest doubt, there are dictionaries such as the “Lexicopoulo” of Simon Portius (Paris, 1635), which is titled “Roman-Hellenic-Latin”. In Portius’ dictionary, the Latin word “fabula” -for example- is translated into Hellenic as “myth” and in Roman as “paramythe”.(“Paramythe” is also the word used in modern day Greek) As expected, we were named “Roum” (pronounced “Room” = Romans”) by the Seltzuk Turks who had begun to conquer territories of the empire from the 11 th century, just as the Ottomans had likewise called us “Roum”. The land that they conquered they named “Roum-Ili” (“Room--lee” = land of the Romans), and it is from there, that the name “Roumeli” is derived, which, up until 1912 denoted European Turkey (almost all of the Balkans) and not only Mainland Hellas, as one can discern from maps of that time. The examples that confirm the use of this name are innumerable. Indicatively, we can mention the decree issued by the Vizier in April of 1821 (after the lynching of the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory) for the Turkish Prefect of Hadrianoupolis. In it, the patriarchate is referred to as “the Constantinople-based Patriarchate of the Romans”,

and the revolution of 1821 as “the movement being prepared amongst the Roman Nation”. 41 The Turks in other words were also familiar, like us, that they had conquered (neo-) Romans. Even today, the Romans of Constantinople are called “Roum” by the Turks. However, since the neo-Hellenes preferred to change their national name, the Turks took advantage of this and gave us the name “Yunan”, thus differentiating the (neo-)Romans of Constantinople from their co-nationals in Hellas. Closing this chapter, we must stress that the entire discussion about our national name is not simply a nominalistic one. The name “Romans” corresponded to a national conscience different to the one that we see in Western peoples; different to the one that was transferred to the miniature State of Hellas after 1830. In the second part of this study, we shall try to present the basic coordinates of this “Roman national conscience” which, to a large degree was lost during the 160 years of free living. In the last two centuries, immense efforts were made by western-bred scholars of Korais’ kind, for the elimination of the Roman conscience and, despite the reactions, the name “Romii” (pronounounced “Rome-ee-ee”) was finally displaced. The conflict between the two trends ended in a synthesis whose foundations were placed by K. Paparrigopoulos, with his monumental work “History of the Hellenic Nation”. In there, the Byzantine period was embedded in the perennial course of the Hellenic nation and created the neo-Hellenic national ideology of an uninterrupted continuation of the race. However, the complex-ridden regurgitation of Western ideas of the Enlightenment was continued by many scholars, which, as a result, brought about the falsification and relentless slandering of our

mediaeval history. Even in our time, in the year 1975, the extremely popular and overly advertised author, Yannis Skarimbas had written: “the agony of the Hellenic nation did not begin with the sacking of the City….but many centuries before the sacking, thanks to the crushing of the military power of Athens by the Macedonian dynasty (King Philippos and Alexander the Great) at the battle of Chaeronia.” And further along: “Was (Constantine) Paleologos a Hellene? Was Alexander the Great an “Athenian”? Racially, there was no kinship whatsoever between us. Both of them were our conquerors.” 42 Influenced by such ideas, a large portion of the Hellenic people today is inclined to deny its natural descent from “Byzantium” and continues to confuse the obscurantic western Dark Ages with Hellenic-Orthodox Romania. That is why we deemed it necessary to outline in the 5th and the 6th chapters of this study some of the fundamental differences between “Byzantium” and the West during the mediaeval ages. Moreover, even though our official History embodies the Byzantine period, our national life has been dominated for two centuries by an uncontrollable worship of antiquity, which looms comical, even in the eyes of whichever friends in the West. Especially when neo-Hellenes, who, carried away by their antiquity worship, actually believe that they can defend their national rights, exclusively with arguments from the time of Pericles and Alexander the Great, the result touches the boundaries of “nationally dangerous”. Most certainly today, in 1994, there is no issue of a conflict regarding our two national names. Both of them now have the exact same meaning. But we should be aware that –historically- the term “Romeos” (=Roman, pronounced “Rome-ee-os”) covers something

much broader than the term “Hellene”, and of course the name “Roman” also provokes assorted logical associations as compared to the name “Hellene”, both to us as well as to foreigners. Furthermore, if our aim was to define our national identity, the word “Hellene” cannot cover the broader significance of the name “Romeos” (Roman) of the mediaeval period and the Turkish occupation. The name “Hellene”, which was revived as our national name during the 19th century, is the product of the “Enlightenment” and the outbreak of nationalisms in Europe. On the contrary, as we shall see further along, the Romans were proud citizens of a supra-national State which embraced and extended over many regions, far beyond the boundaries of ancient or modern Hellas. It had extended itself, not as a conqueror, but as the bearer of the one and only, Ecumenical Christian Empire on earth.

Chapter 3-- And the byzantines? Before moving on to tracing the elements of the “Roman national conscience”, we need to clear up one more misapprehension that Western bibliography has instituted, regarding the name of our mediaeval ancestors. As we are told, this era is called “Byzantine”, and our ancestors are certain mysterious “Byzantines” who came from nowhere and who vanished magically, even though “we” seem to have preserved ourselves during the 400 years of slavery. It has also been told by the sources that there never existed in history a people who called themselves “Byzantines”, or their nation “Byzantium”. The term was coined, after the dissolution of the so-called “Byzantine”

empire in 1562, by Hieronymus Wolf, who began to collect historical sources in a work that he titled “Corpus Historiae Byzantinae”. The reasons for coining a new name were purely political. In every way possible, the Romans’ remembrance of their past had to be erased from their national conscience. Most of all, their land had to cease being identified with the Roman Empire. From there on, both western Europeans and neo-Romans would be informed that “there used to be a certain Byzantine Empire”. In this way, the western Europeans would have succeeded in imposing that which they had been coveting ever since the 8th century, i.e., to be acknowledged as the true heirs of the Hellenic-Roman civilization and State. The invention of the word “Byzantines” was, in other words, a violent falsification of History that was dictated by our adversaries. The fact that neo-Hellenes accepted the term “Byzantines” and that we are being taught it at school, is indicative of the blind, complex-ridden emulation that pervaded post-liberation Hellas. This counterfeiting of History has, however, created an unsolvable problem for western historians: when did “Byzantine” History begin? From time to time, various dates have been proposed, ranging from 284A.D. (the rise of Diocletian to power – proposed by E. Stein), to 717 A.D. (the rise of Leo III Isaurus – proposed by Cambridge Medieval History). Inbetween solutions were considered to be 330 A.D. (the founding of Constantinople), 395 A.D. (the division of the Empire into Eastern and Western, by Theodosius I), 476 A.D. (the “final” dissolution of the Western Empire), or 610 A.D. (the rise of Heraclius and the “Hellenizing” of the State). It is of course stressed by all researchers that every historical division is arbitrary, and that such divisions

are subjective and are used only for educative reasons. All of this is correct, but it doesn’t explain why we should agonizingly search for a new name, when we could have very well called the Empire with its proper name: “Roman Empire” or “Romania” (=land of the Romans). Its character may have undergone change at a certain point in time, perhaps when Christianity was imposed, and we could have thus been taught about the “Roman Empire”, which was followed by the “Christian Roman Empire”, but one should not concoct strange neo-terminology that carries very specific ideological vibes. Let’s use an example, in order to perceive the magnitude of the historical counterfeiting that is being imposed with the term “Byzantine”. If, with the use of a time machine, we could place ourselves in the city of Thessaloniki of 330 A.D. and address a random passer-by as a “Byzantine”, you can be certain that the passer-by would walk away and look for a more educated person to converse with. Because he himself would know he was a Roman citizen, a member of the Roman Empire, with all the clout of the Roman tradition behind him. If you were to tell him that from now on, our books would be calling him a “Byzantine” and not a Roman, he would revolt, and would be right to do so, since nothing had occurred that would force him to change his nationality. If we attempted to say the same thing to a citizen of Thessaloniki in 530 A.D., we would again get the same response. And if we were to insist “but how can you be a Roman? Rome has been in the hands of the Goths for 54 years now, from 476 A.D., and our books tell us that the Roman Empire has ceased to exist”, our astonished citizen would reply: “yes, perhaps Rome has fallen, but the rest of

the Empire to a large extent remains free; it is governed by New Rome (Constantinople), which has been the co-capital of the Empire for 200 years and that any day now, our enslaved brothers will be free once again.” And he too would be correct in saying so, because a few years later, the armies of Justinian would liberate Italy. This is a suitable time to note that the term “liberate” should be preferred, as opposed to “conquered” or “re-conquered” (reconquista), which are presently being used as though dealing with an alien enemy of Italians and with the imperialist designs of an ambitious potentate. The armies of Justinian were welcomed by the subjugated fellow-national Romans as liberators: when Belissarius reached Carchedon, he found the city illuminated and its orthodox population celebrating the defeat of the Arian Vandals. As the historian Prokopios reports: “….and the Carchedonians, having opened wide their gates, every one of them lit their lamps and all of the city glowed brightly with the flames throughout that night, and the remnants of the Vandals sat as supplicants in the temples.” 43 The same kind of reception was reserved by Rome, which had actually invited Belissarius to come. Anyway, it is irrational to believe that the occupation of a portion of a country can oblige the remaining, free parts of that country to change their name. After a theoretical occupation of Thrace (northern Greece) by Turks, would the rest of Hellas be obliged to stop being called Hellas and begin to be called –for example- Pelasgia? And yet, we have fallen into precisely such an absurdity, by labelling as “Byzantine” the Eastern Roman Empire; that still free part of the vast Roman Empire, after the fall of Rome.

One last attempt to address a citizen in Thessaloniki of 630 A.D., or any other date up to 1430 A.D.( when Thessaloniki finally fell to the Turks), in the same manner as we proposed above, would have brought the same result. Even though our school books persistently teach that the character of the “Byzantine” empire changed at the beginning of the 7th century (around the time of Heraclius) and was transformed into a purely Hellenic State, our friend would still remain puzzled. Both he and his forefathers always spoke the Hellenic language, as did the majority of the citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire, but that did not mean they felt less Roman than their Latin compatriots in the Western parts of the Empire. Besides, the Roman Empire had always been bilingual. For example, as early as 57 A.D., the Apostle Paul had written in the Hellenic language his familiar Epistle to the Christians of Rome, while thirteen of the first sixteen Popes of Rome were Hellenic-speaking. In the churches of Rome, the services were performed in the Hellenic language, up to at least the end of the third century, possibly even later. 44 Anyway, it is a known fact that “from the end of the 3rd century b.C. up to the 3rd century A.D., every educated Roman was bilingual.” 45 The only change observed in the 7th century was that the Hellenic language gradually became the official language, in place of Latin. This happened for purely practical reasons, since the portion of the empire that remained free was Hellenic-speaking. Justinian clearly mentions in one of his “Neares” that these laws were written in Hellenic because in that way, they would be better understood by the population: “We did not compose the law in the forefathers tongue – the Latin one – but the common and Hellenic one, so that it might be recognizable by everyone, thanks to the ease of interpretation”. 46

(«ου τη πατρίω φωνή – λατινική – τον νόµον συνεγράψαµεν αλλά ταύτη δη τη κοινή και Ελλάδι, ώστε άπασιν αυτόν είναι γνώριµον δια το πρόχειρον της ερµηνείας»). Furthermore, as P. Charanis notes, this event – which today appears especially significant – occurred so imperceptibly, that even the citizens of the empire probably didn’t notice it. 47 Most assuredly, the use of the one language or the other did not signify a change in the “national conscience” of the State. Any simplistic views that link the language to the national conscience might perhaps be befitting to older times, but not in the 20th century. We know for sure that we have no indication whatsoever from within the sources that any change in national conscience had taken place during the 7th century. As for the term “Byzantine”, it did not enter into broad use until the 19th century. The renowned British historian Gibbon wrote his famous “Decay and Fall of the Roman Empire” at the end of the 18th century and finished his work in 1453, which was the year that he believed was the fall of the Roman Empire.

In our opinion, although the term does not appear to serve any purpose, it does however cloud the proper understanding of mediaeval History. For example, apart from everything that we have mentioned so far regarding the difficulties in tracing the beginning of the “Byzantine” Empire and its “Hellenicity”, problems also appear when attempting to analyze its external policies. Thus, many historians maintain that the imperialistic Justinian ideology of the 6th century was succeeded by a defensive ideology from the 7th century onwards which

focused on the preservation of territories. But if we put aside the term “Byzantine” and bring to mind that we are talking about the free regions of the Roman Empire, then Justinian’s policy ceases to be imperialistic, inasmuch as he had merely aimed at liberating the subjugated Romans of Italy and Africa.

The more we move towards the 8th and 9th centuries, the more we notice that problems on account of the usage of the term “Byzantine” seem to multiply. As we shall see in chapters 7 and 8, Westerners insist that Roman Italy had revolted against the “Byzantine” domination at the time, and it had preferred to place itself under the barbaric occupation of the Franks. By using the word “Byzantine”, western historians introduce a nationalistic separation of Roman fellow-countrymen of Italy and the East, and they speak of a “Byzantine expansionism” in southern Italy, when all of the Romans of the West were struggling to rid themselves of the barbaric yoke of the Franks. A comical aspect here is that the same historians eventually acknowledge “Byzantine” influences in Italian art during that period, and they struggle to find the channels through which “Byzantine” art influenced the West. In other words, they are struggling to explain how Roman art appeared in.... Roman Italy. All of these superfluous problems accumulated, only because our western European adversaries had, at a certain point in time, wanted to give us a name that would alienate us from our History. For centuries, they strived to attribute to this name every possible negative inference; for

example, the word “byzantinism”, which they naturalized in every European language and later, transferred it into Hellas. And to a large extent, they succeeded: neoHellenes nowadays believe that “Byzantium” destroyed the Hellenic civilization, so they try to distance themselves from everything reminiscent of “Byzantine”.* Things would have been quite different, if we simply used the proper national names. That would have demanded a special effort on the part of the Westerners, if asked to explain how it was possible for Romans themselves to have destroyed their own Hellenic-Roman civilization. Finally, the use of the term “Byzantine” instead of “neoRoman” (Romǽikos) at the beginning of the 19th century served only the political designs of western Europeans. With this method, whenever any neo-Romans (“Greeks”, to the foreigners) were liberated, they could not pursue the reestablishment of their empire; they would have to simply have to be satisfied with the boundaries of ancient Graecia, in which they were confined – as we know today – thanks to the treaties that formed the Hellenic Kingdom in 1830….

* Perhaps this is the reason that the neo-Hellenic State was unable to find a single
historical personage from the one-thousand year old “Byzantine” period who was worthy enough to be depicted on its coins: Of the 12 coins and paper notes that are in circulation nowadays, 4 of them depict faces belonging to ancient history, 2 from ancient mythology (!) and 6 from our modern history.

Translators note: The author is talking about “Drahmas” the official money of Greece, before the introduction of the “Euro”.

1 The «East» is understood here in its Arab-Turkish version, which is the one used mainly by foreigners when they refer to Hellas. There is also the inference to the East as developed by the Russian Slavophiles of the 19th century, with Alexei Komiakov its principal herald. See also Archmandrite Hierotheos Vlachos “Neo-Romans in the East and the West – a brief approach”, Holy Monastery of the Birth of the Theotokos (Pelagias), Levadia, 1993, page 27. 2 Indicatively, check the characteristic title of the book by L. Musset «The Germanic invasions: The making of Europe A. D. 400-600», London, 1975. Also the similar title of the classic book by C. Dawson «The making of Europe», London 1932. 3 See Chrysos (1987), pages 75-76. 4 Besides, western Europeans never miss an opportunity to repeat their related views. With the occasion of the war in Yugoslavia, and in the context of the anti-Serb hysteria that prevailed throughout the western world, the well-known former director of the French periodical «Monde», Andre Fontaine, thought it would be useful to remind us that «Europe ends, wherever the Gothic cathedrals end» (see Fontaine, «The Yugoslavian nightmare», newspaper “BEMA”, 28 June 1992, page Α22). It was in the same spirit that the Belgian minister for the Exterior and later secretary general for NATO, Willi Klaes, in his address in the summer of 1993 regarding the expansion of NATO, plainly declared that: «only those countries that originate from the circle of the Protestant Catholic culture can be considered as candidates for joining. On the contrary, the ‘heirs of Byzantium’ can cause nothing but problems to the structure of the Alliance». (see Τ. Telloglou, «The expansion of NATO : a Headache», newspaper KATHIMERINI, 28th October 1993). 5 See K. Th. Dimaras, «The ideological infrastructure of the new Hellenic State», in “The History of the Hellenic Nation», Ekdotiki Athinon publishers, Athens, 1977, volume 13, page 459. 6. Mantouvalou (1985), page 195. 7 as above, page 194. Exhaustive research on G. Typaldos-Iakovatos, see in fr. George Metallinos «Politics and Theology», Tertiuos, Katerini, where the difference in the names “Hellenes” and “Romans” is also analyzed. 8 Article in “Ordre Public” dated 29-7-1919. see Chrystou (1989), page 150. 9 See Chrystou (1989), pages 150-51. 10 See Sp. Zambelios, “Byzantine Studies, on the sources of neo-Hellenic ethnicity from the 8th to the 10th centuries A.D.”, Ch. Nikolaides, Philadelfeus, Athens, 1857, page 10.

11 See Valetas (1982), pages 16-31. 12 C. Palamas, «Romans and Romanity», (1901), The Complete Works, volume 6, C.Palamas Foundation, Biris, Athens, page 277. For the inference to “gallant” and “giant”, see below page 21. 13 C. Palamas, as above, pages 277, 279. 14 Αrg. Eftaliotis, «History of Romanity», Athens, 1901, page 9. 15 One of the outcomes of this perception was also the demolishing of many Byzantine monuments in Athens during the 19th century; some for reconstructing ancient edifices (eg., the Temple of Haephestus, the Arcade of Attalus), and others, in order to not block the view towards other adjoining antiquities. Some of the monuments that were demolished were: the church of “Megali Panayia” at the site of Hadrian’s Library (1885), the church of “Panayia Pyrgiotissa” at the site of the Attalus Arcade (1859), the church of Prophet Elijah, the church of Saint Panteleimon, e.a.; see related article in the «New Hellenic Encyclopedia of Haris Patsis», volume 23, «Athena», 1967, pages 496-503. 16 see K. Th. Dimaras, «The ideological infrastructure of the new Hellenic State», in «The History of the Hellenic Nation», volume 13, page 459, Ekdotiki Athinon publishers, Athens, 1977. 17 Paparrigopoulos (1932), volume 3, page 7, footnote 1. Victim of those same ideas was Paparrigopoulos himself – one of the most significant intellectual personalities of 19th-century Hellas. After a 10-year tenure in the Ministry of Justice, Paparrigopoulos was dismissed in 1844, in conformance with the stipulations regarding «indigenous» Hellenes. It was the period in which prevailed the narrow definition of who was a “Hellene” (i.e., those who were born in Hellas of that time, or, those who had come during the Revolution and had become its acknowledged figures). Despite being born in Constantinople in 1815, Paparrigopoulos lost his right to be appointed as a public employee, even though his father had been slain by Turks in 1821 (and had been bestowed with honours for this, by Hellas). Thus, our «national historian» albeit a Roman, did not qualify as a «Hellene», according to the official state’s views. See resp. K.Th. Dimaras, «Constantine Paparrigopoulos», Educational Foundation of the National Bank, Athens, 1986, pages 118-119. 18 In his work «Contemplations of Kriton», page 5. Ref. Christou (1989), page 45. 19 See Korais (1964), page 440. 20 The first view belongs to Jacques Pirenne and the second to F. E. Peters. See resp. analysis and footnotes in D. Zakynthinos, «Meta-Byzantine and New Hellenic», in «The particular identity of modern Hellenism», volume Α, Goulandri-Horn Foundation, supervised by P. Drakopoulos, Athens, 1983, pages 85-86. 21 See Christou (1989), page 75. 22 See Mantouvalou (1985), pages 171-172. 23 See. J. Menounos, «Kosmas the Aetolian - Teachings (and biography)», Tinos publications, 3rd edition, Athens, pages 115-116. 24 See Christou (1989), chapters 8 and 10. 25 Mantouvalou (1985), pages 171-172. 26 Kakrides (1979).

27 as above, page 29. 28 as above, page 32. 29 as above, page 33. 30 as above, page 27. 31 See «Erotokritos», supervised by St. Alexiou, “Hermes”, Athens, 1988, page 5. 32 See L. Politis (1980), volume Α, page 69. 33 as above, page 65. 34 John Mavrogordato, «Digenes Akrites», Oxford University Press, London, 1956, (bilingual edition, verse Α 115. 35 as above, verses Α 188-89. 36 as above, verses. Β 2-5. 37 See K. Th. Dimaras (1977), page 216. Equally characteristic is the title of a work by Katartzis: «Evidence is, that the Roman (“Romaeiki”) tongue, when spoken and written, has melody in its word structure, and rhythm in its poetry, and passion and persuasiveness in its rhetorics. Because it is thus, just like the Hellenic (tongue), makes it better than all other tongues, in everything» (as above, page 203). The distinction between the “Romaeiki” and the “Hellenic” tongues is perfectly obvious here. 38 as above, page. 219. 39 Daniel Philippides– Gregory Constantas, «Modern Geography», supervised by Katherine Koumarianou, Hermes, Athens, 1988, page 87. 40 For a more recent example, see «Dictionnaire Francais-Romeique» by Emilie Missir, Libraire Klincksieck publications, Paris, 2nd edition 1952. The author calls it Roman because it uses the “demotic” (popular) language. 41 See T. X. Tsonidis «Cyril VI Patriarch of Constantinople, 1813-1818», Orestias, 1984. See Lignadis (1989), page 245. 42 See J. Skarimbas. «1821 and the truth», Cactos publications, Athens, 1988, volume Α, pages 35, 38. 43 See Prokopios ΙΙΙ, 20, page 396. Also ref. Paparrigopoulos, volume 3, page 95, also Bury, vol 2, page 135. 44 See Browning (1983), page 121. 45 See Toynbee (1981), page 71. 46 Chapter Α of the 7th “Neara” . Also see Paparrigopoulos, volume 3, page 79. 47 See Charanis (1963), page 103.


PART 2: The shaping of the Roman conscience
Chapter 4 -- The supra-national State Chapter 5 -- The Christian World a) Political ideology b) Caesaro-Papism c) Theocracy

Chapter 4 -- The supra-national State In this chapter we shall be examining the national conscience of our forefathers, from 300 A.D. onwards. This is the same national conscience that had been preserved up until the days of Hellas’ liberation in 1830 and which had furthermore differentiated us from western Europeans to a very large degree. In order to better comprehend this “Roman national conscience” we need to examine the national conscience of the Romans of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries, when the conflicts between the Romans and the barbaric tribes began; in other words, between our ancestors and the ancestors of contemporary western Europeans. This is not an easy feat to perform nowadays, since, in order to obtain a clear picture of that era, we must put aside the modern concepts that we might have stamped indelibly inside us that stem from the meaning “Nation- State”. Nation-States are characterized by the

common bonds of blood – language – tradition – history, which differentiate them from other nation-states. The Roman Empire was an entirely different thing. It was the most powerful of all the political organisms that had ever appeared in the History of mankind until that time; and furthermore, after the incorporation of Hellas and the gradual formation of the Hellenic-Roman civilization, it was also the only carrier of civilization in Europe and the Mediterranean. Throughout the vast expanse of the Empire, there had been no other civilized State. Even though there existed a multitude of nations, and an assortment of languages and religions within the Empire, all of these differences were insignificant, when compared to the difference between a Roman and a barbarian – between “civilized” and “primitive”. (Up until the middle of the 4th century, none of the barbaric tribes had even discovered writing; the Goths had only just acquired an alphabet at the time). In this multi-national State, its citizens (as well as those inhabitants who had not yet become its citizens by 212 A.D., but who had done so at the time) were proud of their “Romanicity” and their education. Racial and national descent gradually ceased to be determining factors for the shaping of a collective conscience, and Romanicity became enveloped – which is what is usually observed in such cases – in a metaphysical cloak. Rome was nicknamed “the eternal city” and the peoples’ faith in its eternicity was deep and unshakeable. [1] Even the barbarians themselves stood in awe before that colossal political and military structure. Their dream was not to demolish it – we have no such indications – but rather, they coveted becoming its members. [2]

They would enlist themselves in the Roman army as mercenaries and would long for a taste of their wealthy neighbor’s majesty. Perhaps the only contemporary example that can help the reader to understand this feeling is the emigration to America. America is, likewise, an almighty, wealthy, multi-national country in which an immigrant’s every previous national pride is extinguished, in expectation of the pride of becoming an American. The dream of every desperate peasant from Salvador and Guatemala is not the destruction of what he is looking forward to; his desire is to be accepted by Americans as an equal – to become a participant in their “kingdom”. This is how we must envisage the original relations between the barbarians and the Romans. Many of them actually did manage to rise through the military ranks; in fact, one of them, Stelechon, reached the stage of holding in his very hands the defence of Italy itself, around 400 A.D., bearing the title of “Magister Militum”. The splendor of the Roman Empire and the respect of the barbarians were preserved long after the fall of Rome. Besides, even its (incorrectly) alleged “final conqueror”, Odoacer in 476 A.D., did not dare to substitute the emperor Romulus-Augustus, whom he had overthrown. We stress “incorrectly”, because there was nothing “final” about this conquest. Sixty years later, the Roman army under Belissarius and Narses liberated the city once again. The only final thing that occurred in 476 A.D. was the abolition of diarchy, which had been the legacy of Theodosius I since 395 A.D. From then on, there was only one Emperor of the Romans, with Constantinople as the Seat of the Throne. Unfortunately, the use of the misleading term “Byzantine” hinders us from seeing things as they truly were, thus we read about “the Byzantine conquest of Italy”

during the time of Justinian.... Odoacer had sent the imperial standards to the emperor of the eastern Roman Empire Zenon, from whom he requested to be given the title of “patrician” and be allowed to govern the West in the emperor’s name. The same thing was observed with Odoacer’s victor, the Ostrogoth Theodoric (who was raised in Constantinople), king of Italy from 493 to 526 A.D. Theodoric had minted coins exclusively in the name of the emperor of Constantinople and had adopted the name Flavius. To the emperor Anastasios he had written: «Regnum nostrum imitation vestra est, unici exemplar imperii» (Our reign is an imitation of yours, the exemplary, unique empire) [3] Quite frequently, the barbarians would attempt to emulate the external characteristics of Roman ritual. Gregory, bishop of Turensium (Tours) has preserved for us the description of the proclamation of Clodovic (Clovis or Clodwig) as king of the Franks as consul in 508 A.D.: “The emperor Anastasios sent letters to Clodovic, to bestow consulship on him. Clodovic stood in the church of saint Martin, draped in a cloak and military mantle, and was crowned with a diadem. He then mounted his horse and distributed with his own hands silver and gold coins to the crowd that was standing at the door of the church of saint Martin and up to the cathedral of Tours. And from that day on, he was pronounced “Consul” or “Augustus”.” [4] The feigned attempt of a barbarian chief to follow Roman rituals – even down to the established distribution of coins – needs no further comments. It is more than obvious, that the ultimate dream of every barbarian was to be able to resemble a Roman. Even more characteristic was the stance of the

Longobards, who, between 570 – 600 A.D. succeeded in finally Italy finally falling to the barbarians. Further away from Rome, in the territories of Ravenna, Naples, Calabria and Sicily, the remaining Romans in the western part of the Empire were, from then on, finally subjugated. Even though more than 200 years had passed from the time that the Roman Empire began to display its weaknesses in the presence of the barbarians, the conquering Longobards still did not dare call themselves masters of Italian soil. The Longobard Paul the Deacon, when writing the history of his people in 780 A.D., mentions (in a widely commented phrase) that the Longobards remained in Italy as “guests” (‘hospes’ / ‘hospites’) of the Roman landlords. [5] The fact that this word was used – instead of the word ‘patron’ that befits a feudal system – is an indication that the Romans had not lost their titles as landowners. The temporariness that the word “hospes” implies cannot have but one explanation: If the weapons of the Longobards had indeed irrevocably subdued the Romans in the territory that we mentioned, then this (Longobard) “hesitance” must, in our opinion, be attributed to the persistent splendor of the Roman legend. An even more impressive element, however, which evidences the appeal of Roman authority, was the use of the title “Roman Emperor” by barbarian chieftains such as Charlemagne and Otto I in the 9th and 10th centuries, a full 400 – 500 years after the “final” fall of the Western Roman Empire. It appears that even then, in the conscience of every mediaeval man, the only legal, supreme authority continued to be the Roman emperor. He alone had the sovereign right to power over all the Christians of the World. We shall revert to the details of Charlemagne’s coronation as emperor, in the 8th chapter.

In closing this section, we would like to repeat that the “Roman Empire” was a State in which it was impossible for racial and national fanaticisms to develop, in the form that mankind encountered from 1800 A.D. onwards. In the supra-national Roman Empire with its variety of nationalities proudly participating in the idea of “Romanicity”, any former barbarian could become a Roman, provided he embraced the Hellenic-Roman education and tradition. Through marriages and inter-marriages, many barbarians were incorporated into Roman society. Stelechon, whom we mentioned previously, had married the niece of the emperor Theodosius the Great. Christianity, which had gradually become predominant throughout the Empire, gave the final blow to all ethnic/nationalist discriminations. From then on, the supra-national Roman ideology – now widespread thanks to the Christian teaching of brotherhood between all men – was preserved for centuries in the “Byzantine” empire, which was also a supra-national State. This is why there is absolutely no meaning to the discussions that still preoccupy historians, even today, as to how “Hellenic” the “Byzantine” empire was (see for example the conflicting opinions of Mango, Charanis, and Karayannopoulos). From a national perspective, it was neither Hellenic, nor “Byzantine”; it was Roman and supranational. (Culturally of course it was undoubtedly the only carrier of Hellenic civilization). Equally void of any content are the quarrels related to the stance of the Syrians - or later on the Slavs – towards the “Hellenes”; in the “Byzantine” empire, anyone could become an emperor or a patriarch, regardless of their geographical or racial descent. Already, by the 8th century, we find a Slav, Niketas, had been elected Patriarch of Constantinople. [6]

And if we continue further, to the personages that the Romans respected most of all – the saints – we will see that they originated from every corner of Romania, even though they may not have been at all familiar with the Hellenic language. R. Browning characteristically mentions saint Daniel the ‘Stylete’, who lived atop a column, (stylos = column, pillar) near Constantinople, between 460 and 493 A.D., whom the emperors Leo and Zenon regularly visited and consulted. This saint Daniel never learnt the Hellenic language. His words were translated from the Syrian language, by his pupils. [7] Equally impressive is the fact that saint Demetrius – patron saint of Thessaloniki during the Slav raids of the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries – later became (as Obolensky notes) one of the most popular saints of the mediaeval Slav world. [8] The Romans maintained that same supra-national conscience, even after their subjugation by the Turks. A separate study would be able to show that this ecumenical concept was expressed by Righas Ferraios, when he called upon all the Balkan peoples to unite. Righas’ idea could not have originated solely from the spirit of Enlightenment of that era, which tended to stress the self-determination of each nation. It had far deeper roots, in the common Roman (“Byzantine”) tradition of the people of that region, where the most important thing was not racial descent, but the Orthodox faith and Hellenic education. [9] Of course, for the western Europeans with their limited History and their barbarian tradition, all these things are not that easy to comprehend. This is why they incessantly strive to explain the achievements of a people based on naive racial criteria, whereby certain peoples or social classes – due to their bloodline – are more “noble” than

others. In fact, during the 19th century, the more “scientific” racial theories had reached the point of classifying people based on the capacity of their skulls (hence the ‘roundheaded’, ‘long-headed’, etc. types). It was within this racist mentality - whose consequences mankind has paid for very dearly during the 20 th century that the Falmereyer* -type theories are also situated; theories that so devastatingly affected the Hellenes 150 years ago. Unfortunately, the westernizing of Hellas misled a great number of our historians into giving answers in the westernized context that Falmereyer had instituted. In other words, the entire attempt was focused on proving that yes, the same blood as Pericles’ is still running through our veins to this day, instead of rejecting as entirely false and worthless any discussion that begins with racial instead of cultural characteristics. This too is an indication of how imperceptibly the western, anti-Roman mentality infiltrated latter-day Hellas.

*Translator Note: The German anthropologist and historian Jacob Philip Falmerayer (17901862) claimed that modern Hellene did not descend from Pericles nor Socrates, but from Slavic and Albanian tribes which had inundated the Greek peninsula in the 6th century AD, to the point that they became Slavs. His racist theory, was based on "pure-blood" descend rather than culture and civilization. But, let us go back to the era that we were examining, after the barbaric invasions. Beyond what we already mentioned, the Romans were very much aware that the barbarians who did not accept this cultural incorporation would remain a

“foreign object” within the Empire, even though they inhabited its former territories. This clear-cut (cultural, not racial) differentiation continued for centuries, even though western historians want to believe that Romans and barbarians eventually merged together, thus creating the West European civilization. The truth is that, for the period of time that we have evidence at our disposal, the subjugated Romans preserved their identity, while the western European ‘civilization’ began to take shape by destroying both the material as well as the spiritual monuments of the Hellenic-Roman world. Let us now take a closer look at what happened to the Romans of the conquered regions from 476 A.D. onwards. When the Ostrogoth Theodoric (who, by the way, should be noted is referred to as “Great” in western historiography!) overthrew Odoacer and became sovereign lord over Italy (493 A.D.), he did not impose Gothic administration and legislation on the Romans. The emperor Anastasios had acknowledged him as “rex” and Theodoric instituted dual administration: the Ostrogoths governed all of the nonRoman populations, and the Roman officials the Romans. [10] Shortly after the death of Theodoric, the Roman army of Justinian liberated Italy and re-united the empire. This freedom however did not last very long. As of 568 A.D., new barbaric tribes, the Longobards, dominated the Italian peninsula, looting and destroying everything in their path. The few Roman citizens that survived were turned into vassals, or semi-free land farmers. Although we have very limited information as to their situation during this period, we can surmise that the distance between Romans and barbarians continued to be maintained during this status quo of barbarian occupation. There are three main reasons

for this belief: The first reason was the cultural difference, as outlined above. Secondly, there were religious differences between them also. The Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Vandals and the Longobards maintained the Arian beliefs, whereas only the Franks had embraced Orthodoxy from the start. This meant that even in areas where they lived together, Romans and barbarians were still not in close communion. Finally, the third - and most important – reason that the barbarian tribes did not become assimilated was that their differences had been “waterproofed” by their differing legal tradition; The laws governing the Germanic tribes (Longobards, Franks, etc.) were personal in concept, whereas the Roman laws were geographical. [11] This meant that – for example – a Longobard would be judged on the basis of Longobardic law, regardless of where he resided. On the other hand, according to Roman justice, all citizens residing on the lands of the Roman Empire, regardless of their nationality, would be judged by Roman law, an element that helped to eliminate all ethnic differences. Germanic legislation thus played an important role in the development of the “ethnic conscience” of the barbaric tribes, since it distinguished between the different peoples very austerely. Thus, legal tradition had, in this manner, also contributed towards the elimination of the Roman conscience in the West, and towards the birth of nationalism – and even more so of racism, which has not ceased to comprise a permanent, ingrained element of Western societies ever since. The subjugated Romans had resisted this cultural backslide. From the segments of Longobard justice that have been preserved (example, the law of Liutprand, king

of the Longobards, 712-744 A.D.), it appears that the Romans had continued, 150 years after their subjugation to the Longobards, to be subject to their own system of justice. For example, there is a law that says whomsoever draws up contracts, whether according to the laws of the Longobards or according to the laws of the Romans, must not draw them up opposing those laws. Also, according to the same justice system, if a Longobard woman were to marry a Roman, she forfeited her rights and the offspring of that marriage were to be considered Romans and thenceforth subject to Roman laws. [12]

Let us focus more carefully on the last provision of Liutprand’s legislation, which, in our opinion, is of immense significance. First of all, it is a point worth noting and of extreme importance that Roman laws were familiar - and that they continued to apply - for the Romans. Furthermore, the provision states clearly that both peoples remained separate, in a strict relationship of conquerorconquered. In fact, a Roman was not allowed to rise to the ranks of “nobility” through marriage (whereas we mentioned earlier that in the Roman State, a barbarian could “rise through the ranks” through marriage or any other manner), unimpeded. But, their wife would lose all her rights and would “fall” to the ranks of the (most probably vassal) Romans. It is worth noting here that the Longobards, in observing an old Germanic tradition, had instituted a standard price (“wergild”) for the price of a person’s life. This price was paid whenever someone killed or wounded someone else. It is characteristic, that the life of a free

landowner was 300 solidi (=the standard Roman gold coin); the price for a free man without property was 150 solidi, while the semi-free “aldius” (this was the category that most of the subjugated Romans belonged to) was a mere 60 solidi. [13] The conquered Romans struggled desperately to preserve whatever they could of their civilization under this status quo of barbarian occupation. In these attempts, they were always supported by the still free regions of the Empire. As mentioned above, the still free regions in Italy were Ravenna and its surrounding areas, Rome and the greater part of southern Italy. The imperial authority was represented in those regions, by the Exarch of Ravenna. The entire history of Italy, from the death of Justinian (567 A.D.), through to the period of Liutprand’s legislation, is one big series of wars and compromises between Romans and Longobards. [14] Resistance against every kind of barbarian became a basic national characteristic that branded the conscience of the Romans, throughout Mediaeval times. It is not easy for one to historically prove that the main national objective of the Empire after 400 A.D. was one of defence; the defending of their civilization in the face of consecutive barbarian invasions. Indeed, the only war that could be characterized as aggressive during the 1100 years of Christian Romania was Heraclius’ war against the Persians. Only then did the Empire go beyond the boundaries that it had inherited from idolatrous Rome. All the other wars were waged for regaining Roman territories and liberating subjugated Romans in Italy, in northern Africa, in the middle East, in the Balkans....

With the passing of time, it became obvious that the liberation of all the Romans had become an impossible feat. It is within this bitter realization that one should seek the seeds of the “yearning of Romanity” - its ideology of an unredeemed homeland and the feeling of being wronged, but also its frailness opposite the aspirations of foreigners – all of which have shaped latter-day Hellenism, up to the 20 th century.... “Romanity’s yearning” and the supra-national character of the Roman State, beyond any racial discrimination, comprised the two most important factors in the shaping of our national conscience. Both of these factors are totally foreign and altogether incomprehensible in the West. It is therefore not difficult to perceive that many of the presentday misunderstandings and disappointments between neoHellenes and western Europeans are attributed to this different outlook. In the chapter that follows, we shall have the opportunity to analyze the role played by the third major difference between us and the westerners: the Orthodox Christian faith.

Chapter 5 -- The Christian World a) Political ideology The second significant coordinate of the “Roman national conscience” - after “Romanicity” – was Christianity. From 300 A.D. onwards, the gradual expansion of Christianity gave a fresh new character and purpose to the Empire. The blending of Christianity and Romanicity did not take long in producing a new political ideology that was to remain predominant for many centuries in the free (eastern)

region of the Empire. According to this ideology, the Christian Roman Empire envisaged a terrestrial manifestation of the Kingdom of God. The coincidence in time of the founding of the Empire by Augustus and the Incarnation of Christ was not by chance. Origen was the first to proclaim that God had chosen that moment in History to send His Son into the world, at a time when Rome had succeeded in bringing an unimpeded unity and peace to all peoples. [15] In his celebratory speech for the thirty years of Constantine the Great’s reign, Eusebius of Caesaria had expressed the same theory; i.e., at the precise time when the reign of the Romans had been imposed on all the peoples and all the age-old enmities between nations had subsided, it was at that same period of time that the knowledge of one God was revealed to the people, and peace came to reign throughout the land. [16] This remembrance survived within the Orthodox Church, throughout the pursuing centuries up to this day, in the wellknown glorification hymn that is sung at Vespers, on the eve of Christmas: “Under the monarchy of Augustus in the land, the polyarchy of the peoples did cease; and upon Your incarnation by the Pure Virgin, the polytheism of idols was abolished... Under one, temporal kingdom were all the cities joined,

and in one leadership of Divinity did the nations come to believe.” And, because the Kingdom of God could not be anything else but one and indivisible, the Christian Roman Empire had to include all the Christians of the world. The barbarian peoples that gradually became Christians took their place in a worldwide hierarchy, at the head of which was the Roman Emperor. He was the one who would “adopt” certain foreign chieftains and address others as “friends”. During a later time, for example, the worldwide hierarchy was as follows: after the Emperor of Constantinople, there followed his “spiritual children”, such as the Armenian and Bulgarian chieftains. After them followed his “spiritual brothers”, such as the chieftains of the French and the Germans. Then there were his “friends” – the emir of Egypt, the rulers of England, of Venice and of Genoa. And finally, there were his “serfs”, who were the miscellaneous, minor local chieftains of Armenia, Serbia, etc. [17] This political ideology had never been questioned, not even by the barbarians (the Franks), who, in the 9th century had tried to become the substitute of Constantinople as the centre of universal power. It is characteristic how Chralemagne was set on being crowned emperor of the Romans, in the belief that this act would have automatically rendered him the substitute of the emperor of Constantinople who was at the top of the pyramid. We can therefore see how this was not a struggle to destroy the pyramid, but only to seize its apex. According to Helen Ahrweiler, the congruence of Romans and Christians was finalized as the official ideology at the time of Justinian in

the middle of the 6th century, with the portrayal of the emperor on the gold coin of the Empire (the ‘solidus’), holding in one hand the globe with a cross on it (which symbolized ecumenicity), and in the other hand, the standard or a crucifix-shaped scepter (symbol of Roman and Christian authority in the world). [18] The fact is, on the coins that had circulated on the occasion of the inauguration of Constantinople in 330 A.D., depicted on one side was a female figure (symbolizing “New Rome”), holding a globe and the Cross. (On the obverse side was a depiction of Old Rome, in the form of a wolverine with its twin cubs, with the Pantheon of idolatrous Rome’s gods overhead). [19] From the 4th century onwards, the Roman soldiers no longer defended their political hypostasis only, but their Christian faith as well. Over time, these two elements became inseparable. Several centuries later, Leo VI (886912 A.D.) characteristically wrote to the commanders of the army that “it is their obligation to be ready to sacrifice their life for the homeland and the upright (orthodox) Christian faith, as do their soldiers who, with their cry “The Cross shall Conquer”, fight like soldiers of Christ our Lord, for parents, for friends, for the homeland, for the entire Christian nation.” [20] A reverberation of this congruence will again be observed, unchanged, 1000 years later, in the Romans that fought “for the holy faith of Christ and the freedom of the homeland”. This was the outcome of a conviction that began at the turning point of Christianity’s History – the revelation of the message that appeared in the sky, before the eyes of Constantine the Great : “IN THIS (the sign of

the Cross) BE VICTORIOUS”. Within this political ideology, where all Christians comprised a Universal family, the wars waged by certain Christian tribes against Constantinople did not constitute a “national conflict” in the form that we know today. On the contrary, it was regarded as an insurrection against the legal authorities, or, in other words, an internal “civilian” quarrel. This is how the wars of the Empire with the Slavs for example (after their Christianization) were confronted. One such characteristic incident is the “Byzantine-Bulgarian” war under Symeon, at the beginning of the 10th century. Negotiations on behalf of the Empire at the time were undertaken by the Patriarch Nicholaos Mystikos, who addressed Symeon as “a child of mine” and tried to dissuade him, by calling his expedition “a scandal” (in the evangelical sense of the term). And if Christ had said that “it is to his benefit, if one scandalizes others even for something minor, to tie a mill-stone around his neck and fall into the sea” rather than continue to scandalize, then what can we say – Nicholaos wrote – about this scandal, which is not something minor, “but one that opposes the kingdom which stands above all other worldly authorities; the only kingdom on earth that was founded by the King of all?” [21] In all of the Nicholaos Mystikos’ correspondence with Symeon, the correlation of the Roman kingdom to the Christian Kingdom that was founded on earth by “the King of all” is very evident. Besides, as Obolensky notes, Symeon was from his part “contending and simultaneously emulating the Empire, laying waste the Byzantine dominion and promoting the translation of Hellenic literature into the Slav tongue” because he “wished to relate to the cultural traditions of Byzantium, especially as he was already a “semi-Hellene” by way of education, having spent his

childhood years in Constantinople.” [22] Finally, we should not forget that the Slavic name for Constantinople was “Tsarigrad” (literally, the City of Tsars/Caesars, or, the Regnant City). To them, Constantinople was not just any other capital; it was the reigning city – the summit of worldwide hierarchy. This ecumenical conscience began to form gradually, under the influence of the Orthodox Church, which had given a new meaning to the supra-national character of the Roman Empire. According to the teaching of the Church, the division between nations was the result of man’s sin and his arrogance, which led him to the construction of the Tower of Babel. With the advent of Christ and the founding of the Church, the faithful were given the potential (and the destination) of transcending ethnic divisions and to thenceforth belong to a “select breed, a regal priesthood, a holy nation”, as the Apostle Peter had named the people of God. [23] As underlined by fr. Hierotheos Vlachos, “in this passage, which I believe comprises a focal point in the New Testament, it is more than obvious that the words “people” and “nation” are relieved of any racial inference and are instead related to the charismatic relationship between God and man that was attained through the incarnation of Christ.” [24] This is likewise why Paul had proclaimed that “there is neither Jew nor Hellene, neither bondsman nor free, neither male nor female; for all of you are in Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 8:28). Especially indicative from this point of view is the Kontakion (special, brief hymn) that is sung during the Pentecost, in which is mentioned the original

division of mankind into nations and the transcendence of this division, with the founding of the Christian Church: “When He descended to confound their tongues, the Almighty dispersed them into nations. But when He distributed the tongues of fire, He was summoning everyone into unity. And we, accordingly, glorify the Most Holy Spirit.” [25] The ecumenical conscience of the Orthodox faithful, which the barbarians in the West swiftly destroyed, would thereafter survive in the Balkans, throughout the mediaeval and Ottoman eras, up to the middle of the 19th century. It was necessary for the entire arsenal of the West’s “Enlightenment” to be discharged into Hellas (and for Russian Pan-Slavism to be imposed on Bulgaria), for nationalist phenomena to appear and for the ecumenical Christian conscience to be smothered here also.[26] In our time, we have the doubtful privilege of observing the tragic outcome of the final predominance of the Western idea of a “national state” in the Balkans and, as is usually the case with western hypocrisy, all Balkan peoples have now become the recipients of scornful comments, for having “at last” assimilated western perceptions.... The fresh destination that the Christian world theory gave to the state greatly differentiated the Christian Roman Empire from the subsequent great powers of History. Thus, the relating of the Empire to a terrestrial Kingdom of God appears in forms that may seem strange nowadays. For example, it has been observed that the closer we draw to the end of the Empire, in 1453, “an apocalyptic vision of the end of History increasingly captivates the Byzantines.

During this last period of Byzantium, eschatological literature on the end of the civilized world and the reign of the Antichrist appeared to be flourishing. Gradually the people began to relate the end of Byzantium to the end of the world in whole.” [27] This trend was the result of the Christian Empire’s ideology, which also determined its objective. As stressed in the previous chapter, and contrary to today’s “Great Powers”, territorial expansion was not the objective of the Empire. Romania was constantly on the defensive for 1100 years, the only exception being Heraclius’ battle against the Persians (which nonetheless came as a response to the Persian assault against Constantinople). The “Byzantine” wars served only to preserve its civilization from the successive barbarian onslaughts that came from the East, the North and the West. As expressed so exquisitely by the poet Seferis: “For us, it was a different thing to fight for the faith in Christ and for the soul of man enthroned on the lap of the Virgin Mother - the “Supreme Defender” Neither was material prosperity the purpose of the Empire. The riches of Constantinople may have been fabled, yet the vision projected by the Christian faith was far beyond material wealth. The Romans’ standards for emulation were not the wealthy merchants or landowners; their ideals were the landless monks, the holy “gerons” (elders) who

had literally no possessions whatsoever. They were the ones that the people followed; they were the ones who could convince and rouse the populace. The purpose of the Empire was – we shall repeat it once more - the materializing of the Heavenly Kingdom. The more that the people distanced themselves from the true faith, the more the State drew further away from the Heavenly Kingdom and was faced with deterioration and decadence. The culmination of their alienation from the true faith was to be crowned by the domination of the Antichrist, whose arrival was also the harbinger of the Second Coming of Christ and therefore the dissolution of the Christian World. This explains Helen Ahrweiler’s observation that we mentioned above. When referring to the Christian character of the Roman Empire, of Romanity, after the 4th century, we risk making two mistakes, repeating two myths, having been influenced by developments in Western Europe. These are two myths that Western historians have disseminated thoughtlessly during older times, by projecting Western experiences onto the Eastern Roman Empire. Fortunately, recent research is slowly piecing together a more accurate picture of that era, and this is assisting us in better understanding our past as well as our deep-rooted differences with the West. One of the two myths is Caesaro-Papism; the second myth is the theocratic formation of the State. Let us now turn our attention to these two problems. b) Caesaro-Papism Caesaro-Papism is the theory of the Church’s subjugation to the political powers – in our case, to the emperor. Up until recently, western historians believed that this term

described the relations between State and Church throughout the eleven centuries of “Byzantine” History. On this admission, an entire edifice of analyses and interpretations of various historical problems was erected. For example, the historian M. Jugie had stated: “CaesaroPapism must undoubtedly bear the chief responsibility for the preparation of the Schism.”[28] S. Diomedes insisted that the emperor “governed the Church just as he governed the appointing bishops.” [29] The extreme yet characteristic formulation of this viewpoint belongs to Gibbon: “the Greek patriarch was a domestic slave living under his master’s glance, who, with only a gesture could transfer him from the monastery to the throne and from the throne to the monastery” [30] Having taken this view for granted, the greatest European historian of the 20th century, Arnold Toynbee, dedicated an entire chapter of his monumental work “A Study of History” on the causes of the fall of Orthodox Christianity. [31] For Toynbee, the cause was exclusively the Church’s subordination to the emperor. That was why Orthodox Christianity was supposedly extinguished, as opposed to Western Christianity which, even ten centuries down the line, continues to dominate the globe. Historically speaking, the view that the Church was subordinate to the emperor lacks any kind of basis. The term “Caesaro-Papism” or whichever synonymous alternative it may have is entirely unknown in the sources. The examination of the sources that we have at our disposal can hardly support the theory of subordination. As stressed by H. Gregoire, “the people of Byzantium never witnessed the dethronement of three Ecumenical Patriarchs by one emperor only, as was the case with

Henry III, who dethroned three Popes. It never witnessed any bishops fighting at the head of their own armies, or any instances of simony as scandalous as those that appeared in the West.” “Contrary to what is frequently repeated out of ignorance, the fact is that the Popes were the ones who had fallen into servitude, while the Patriarchs of Constantinople were the ones who were independent.”[32] In practice, the emperor always had an interest in ecclesiastic affairs and was the only one who had the right to convene an Ecumenical Council. He furthermore attended to the unity of the dogma, at times even imposing certain debatable views. However, with time, the Church learnt that resistance against the emperor in spiritual matters was both legitimate and effective. In the 7th century, both Emperor and Patriarch had aligned themselves with the heresy of Monotheletism for several decades. Only one solitary monk had bravely stood up against them: Maximus the Confessor. Over time, Maximus’ views were recognized as orthodox and the Church continued along his tradition, without the emperor being able to impose his opinion. From then on, Maximus’ example (but also of other, earlier theologians) became a guide for the Church. During the severe crisis of the Iconomachy, neither the decrees nor the persecutions or the exiles were able to overthrow the opposing view of the iconophiles. A broad resistance movement finally overthrew the imperial endeavors of one hundred and twenty years. It truly needs a special kind of imagination (or prejudice) for one to label a State a ‘Caesaro-Papist” one, in which it was impossible for the religious views of the emperor to be imposed on the population.

As observed by Gregoire, after the 9th century the Orthodox faith had become established; in other words, it had triumphed over the emperors. There was no longer a trace of previous politics, not even of the Iconomachy. [33] The final and most powerful indication of the (non)existence of Caesaro-Papism is found in the period between the 13th and the 15th centuries. Various unification emperors proved to be entirely powerless in their attempts to unify the churches, with all the political benefits that this would have entailed. Generally speaking, one is impressed by the populace’s profound, non-political focusing on the faith during this period, to the detriment of the political benefit that might have been gained through religious concessions to the West. For the Westerners (and the western-crazed) neoHellenes, this focusing seems illogical. In commenting on the famous expression by the grand duke Lukas Notaras, “It is far better to see a Turkish head-dress prevailing in the middle of the city, than a Latin capuche (monk’s hood)”, a predominant representative of the Western spirit, Helen Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, had written in the past: “these words indicate the blindness that the church, the people and the Byzantinue government itself had succumbed to, who had finally become convinced that the words of the Church had to prevail over the words and the interest of the State.” [34] But for the Romans, the explanation was simple. They were people with a deep-seated faith, who did not see the Church as an oppressive institution, but as a component of their very existence. Orthodoxy was one of the features that defined their national hypostasis. Furthermore, they were fully aware of the cultural baggage that they carried on their shoulders. Over and above any national ideal, they

placed the preservation of their civilization, their way of life. One can discern here once again the differing points of view between Romans and Western Europeans: for the latter, the defending and expanding of their racial, ethnic State was of primary importance. To the Romans, what was more important was something far bigger - something that surpassed the boundaries of a race or a nation: the heritage of the entire Hellenic-Roman Christian civilization and the Orthodox faith which was the only thing that offered them a hope for eternity. And, as stressed above, they believed very deeply that if they alienated themselves from Orthodoxy, then their State would cease to be the terrestrial realization of the Heavenly Kingdom, therefore it too would soon be lost, just like everything else that is perishable in this material world. Subsequently, it was never in the thoughts of the Romans – and could not be, by definition – that there could be a conflict of interest between State and Church, as Ahrweiler believes. On the contrary, they firmly believed that by preserving their faith they would remain unconquerable, even if they lost their national hypostasis. Besides, they had prior proof of this. Every Easter, the Orthodox would hear (and still hear, to this day) the celebratory hymns that are sung during Matins on Resurrection Day: “Now, everything is filled with light, both the heavens and the earth and the underworld; let all creation therefore celebrate the rising of Christ, upon which it is firmly set. Shine bright, shine bright, o new Jerusalem.... Sing now, and rejoice, Zion.....

When John Mansoor from Damascus wrote these lines, one hundred years had already passed from the time that his homeland was permanently subjugated by the Arabs. And yet, these verses are not verses of a man living in slavery. They are hymns that overflow with freedom, hope and light; they are the words of a person who has remained spiritually unshackled because he is permeated with an inner freedom that is entirely unfamiliar to the West. So unfamiliar, that for Mrs. Ahrweiler, the defending of this shining faith “is indicative of the blindness that the people had succumbed to.” In completing this reference to caesaro-papism, we can say (as Yannakopoulos has so accurately pointed out) that in the Christian-Roman ideology, the two institutions coexisted harmoniously. Contrary to what was observed in the West, there was never any acute bisection between the political and the spiritual spheres. [35] The Romans believed that the emperor had to be a “Christ-emulator”, and they knew that the well-being of the people could not be realized by an emperor who went contrary to their faith. One last question remains to be asked. Why did Western historians begin to apply the term “caesaro-papism” when referring to “Byzantium”? One logical answer, which has been implied by Yannakopoulos, is that, judging from their own experience of the Pope’s political power, and not seeing anything analogous in the Orthodox Patriarch, they imagined that the Patriarch was subject to the emperor. This is what their own history showed: since the Pope was constantly entangled in political-military conflicts with regents and emperors, he would sometimes end up victorious and at other times defeated. There was no third choice. And since the Patriarch had no secular and military power, they assumed that he had been permanently

defeated by the emperor, who had consequently transferred all of these powers to his own person, thus simultaneously becoming a Caesar and a Pope. This unprecedented conclusion has been perpetuated, even up until our time, having become one of the tools in the West’s inexhaustible ideological armory against Hellenism. c) Theocracy By “theocracy”, we mean a political system in which religion has dominated every aspect of public life. Examples of theocratic states are: the ancient kingdom of Israel (during the time of the Judges), the Papal State until this day, and Iran of the 1980’s decade. In each of these cases, the uppermost religious official is simultaneously the uppermost ruler of the State. “Byzantium” is frequently included amongst History’s theocratic regimes. For most authors, this is considered self-evident, and a justification of the term is not deemed necessary by them. However, in our opinion, the issue of the “Byzantine” State’s theocratic nature is especially complex. A more comprehensive examination of the topic would demand a special study and would deviate from the framework of the present project. We would however like to point out, very succintly, some of the aspects of this problem, which could comprise the starting point of such a fuller study. To begin with, it is not at all self-evident that “Byzantium” should be considered a theocratic State. Albeit the term is almost unanimously acceptable, different authors mean different things when they refer to it. For example, Runciman had given the title “Byzantine Theocracy” to one

of his treatises, which was nothing more than an overview of ecclesiastic History. [36]. Other western authors use the term in a sense that is very close to the meaning of Papocaesarism; in other words, they assert that the Church had imposed its own views on all the important political and social issues of the Empire – that the Church essentially governed the State. To avoid the confusion that the lack of definition of the term “theocracy” causes to most authors, we propose four criteria, by which the existence and the degree of theocracy in a State can be detected: 1. When political and religious authority are found in the same person. 2. When religious canons (regulations) are imposed on the entirety of the State’s legislation. 3. When public administration is undertaken by religious officials. 4. When education is monitored by the religious hierarchy. As strange as it may appear, “Byzantium” does not comply with any of the above four criteria of a theocratic State. Let us examine them, in order: 1. That the “Pope” and the “Caesar” were two separate persons is naturally a known fact. In the previous section, we had the opportunity to explain that neither of the two had absolute power over every facet of public life. In other words, no Homeini had ever governed from the Patriarchal Throne, over the entire State. Furthermore, no bishop whatsoever had ever led any kind of military corps into battle, as was the rule in the

West. 2. In the area of Justice, “Byzantium” continued its great Roman tradition. The basic axis of legislation throughout its centuries-old history continued to be Roman Justice, the way that Justinian had codified it. Over time, amendments were added to it, which were imposed by changing social conditions, and the influence of Christianity. Thus, the final synthesis was a much more humane adaptation of Roman Justice. Anyway, this all pertained to the secular (non-ecclesiastic) sphere of the State. The law schools and the courts had nothing to do with the Church, and the judges were certainly not bishops, as was the case in the West. (The bishops could act as judges in certain special cases, if it was a request of the accused; however, this was more like a humane concession, which did not alter the essence of the otherwise secular justice system.) As a result of its uninterrupted cultural continuance, “Byzantium” always ensured an educated bureaucracy, which handled all state affairs. On the contrary, in the West (as we shall see more analytically in the following chapter), from the 6th century onwards presented a huge void in education. A characteristic result of the decline in literacy in the West is that there were no longer any educated, non-ecclesiastic men, who could handle even the most elementary administrative needs. Thus, from the 7th century onwards, Western Europe had to rely exclusively on the clergy for their diplomatic, administrative and educational functions. By that time, in the court of Charlemagne (end 8th century), practically all of the familiar scholars - with the exception of Einhard - were clergymen (Alquin, Paul the Deacon, Peter the Deacon, Paulinus, e.a.). This was a


development with colossal repercussions in Western history; not only because it was preserved for 100 years and had left its mark on the character of the West, but also because it gave rise to a savage anticlericalist spirit, which broke out during the years of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. It was this reaction that eventually shaped the current stance of the Western European towards Christianity. The Western European would have been a far different person, if he didn’t carry inside him all those centuries of oppression, on account of the Latin Church’s monopolizing of public life. All of these things are of course entirely unfamiliar to the Romans, given that the secular character of Roman administration was the basic characteristic of “Byzantium”, throughout its entire existence. And this is why anticlericalist messages were never successful in our land. [37] 4. As far as education is concerned, we can discern three types of schools in “Byzantium”: public schools, private schools and monastic seminaries. In the latter, only the children who had dedicated themselves to monasticism were allowed to attend. In fact, the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) had strictly forbidden attendance of these schools by the laity, and as far as we can tell, this rule had been adhered to, without exception. [38]

Thus, the majority of our predecessors of Romania were educated in secular schools, as opposed to what was happening in the West during the same period. As we know, the complete collapse of the Hellenic-Roman civilization in the West had, for many centuries, resulted in an elevation of the Church to being the exclusive carrier of education. The only education that one could acquire was

the one that the monasteries alone provided. In contrast to this, education in “Byzantium” was chiefly focused on classical tradition. Along with the Holy Bible, Homer was also a compulsory reading, whom the students had to learn by heart, and explain word for word. [39] Psellos * brags about how he had learnt all of the Iliad by heart when he was still very young. [40] . Anna Comnene quotes Homeric verses sixty-six times in her “Alexias”, quite often without feeling the need to add the clarification “the Homeric words......” [41] To get an idea of the cultural chasm that separated Romans and the West, it suffices to remind the reader that the West became acquainted with Homer for the first time in the 14th century, when, upon the request of the Petrarch and Boccacio (a Roman of southern Italy), Pilatus translated the Iliad and the Odyssey into Latin. [42] * Translator’s Note: Michael Psellos or Psellus - Greek: Μιχαήλ Ψελλός, Mikhaēl Psellos - was a “Byzantine” writer, philosopher, politician, and historian. He was born in 1017 or 1018, and died some time after 1078. You can find more info, here:. The secular character of education during the millennial history of the empire is also highlighted by the fact that the University of Constantinople was a State institution that was never under the jurisdiction of the Church. According to its founding Act (under Theodosius II, in 425 A.D.), its professors were paid by the State and were in fact exempt of taxation. [43]. It is characteristic, that the university’s program did not include

the lesson of theology at all, since the purpose of State education was to educate State personnel and officials. [44] As we had mentioned at the beginning of this section, the issue of theocracy in “Byzantium” is a huge one and cannot be exhausted here. From the few things that were outlined above, however, it must have become obvious that the composition of the Christian Roman Empire was quite different to that which is presented by various popular, simplistic views. At the risk of becoming tiresome, we shall once again say that unfortunately, we often fall into the mistake of relating the obscurantist, theocratic, western mediaeval era with the corresponding era of “Byzantium”. As we have seen, however, their differences were huge and essential ones at that. Illiteracy, lack of freedom, a religious oppression that culminated in the “Holy Inquisition”, bishops with military might that led forces consisting of monks into battle... all of these things are totally unknown in our land and our civilization. In part, this also explains the Romans’ stubborn resistance to the attempts of imposed westernization, which we can observe from 1204 A.D. to this day. In the following chapter, we will have the opportunity to examine other aspects of the cultural chasm between the Romans and the Westerners during mediaeval times – a period which is often referred to as “Dark Ages” for all of Europe. As we shall see, if, with the term “Europe” we are referring only to its western part, then, the characterization “Dark Ages” is absolutely correct. If we include the Roman Empire – “Byzantium” - then we ourselves become victims of an obscurantist cultural imperialism of the West.

* Perhaps this is the reason that the neo-Hellenic State was unable to find a single
historical personage from the one-thousand year old “Byzantine” period who was worthy enough to be depicted on its coins: Of the 12 coins and paper notes that are in circulation nowadays, 4 of them depict faces belonging to ancient history, 2 from ancient mythology (!) and 6 from our modern history.

Translators note: The author is talking about “Drahmas” the official money of Greece, before the introduction of the “Euro”.

[1]This metaphysical conviction was so deep-rooted, that even in the mid-6th century, immediately after the thorough ransacking of the city by Totilla the Goth in 546 A.D., one chronicler reassured that it would regain its prosperity, because it was eternal. (see Zacharias of Mytilene, «Εκκλησιαστική Ιστορία», (Ekklisiastiki Istoria) 10, 16. (see also Herrin (1989), pages 41-42). Similar perceptions prevailed later on, for Constantinople. [2]This observation might be surprising, therefore it will require clarification. As agreed by most historians nowadays, a careful study of the barbarian invasions of the 4th and 5th centuries shows that the Goths, the Franks and the other tribes were forced to cross the boundaries of the Empire, chased by the Huns. This was a desperate move for survival, and not a calculated, expansionist strategy. See for example Herrin (1989), p. 25, also Drew (1973), p. 4. The situation however did change, with the advent of the Longobards in 568 A.D.. See Loungis (1989), pages 111-112.

[3]See Loungis (1989), page 76. [4]See Gregory of Tours, Book 2, chapter. 38, page 154. [5]See Paul the Deacon, Βιβλίο 2, chapter ΧΧΧΙΙ, pages 90-91. The concept of hospitalitas also existed in other conquerors, i.e. the Visigoths in Spain. [6]See Theophanes, page 440. [7]See Browning (1983), page 118. [8]Obolensky (1991), Vol. Β’, page 531. [9] An analysis of the conversion from a supra-national to a national conscience, with references to Righas Ferraios, see fr. George Metallinos, «Ελληνισµός Μετέωρος – η Ρωµαίικη ιδέα και το όραµα της Ευρώπης», (Hellenism Suspended – the Roman idea and the vision of Europe) published by the Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens, 1992, chapter Α’ «Από την αυτοκρατορική ιδέα στην εθνική ιδέα» (From the Imperial to the National idea), pages 8-29. [10] See Herrin (1989), page 35. [11]See Cook & Herzman, page 123. [12]See commentary by Fulke on Paul the Deacon, page 307. [13]See Drew (1973), pages 29-30. [14]See Paul the Deacon, passim, and Loungis (1989), chapter 6. [15]See Runciman (1982), p. 29. [16] «Εν ταυτώ δε και βασιλεία µία τοις πάσιν η Ρωµαίων επήνθει, ανήρητό τε η εξ αιώνος άσπειστος και ακατάλλακτος των εθνών έχθρα. Ως δε ενός Θεού γνώσις πάσιν ανθρώποις παρεδίδοτο και τρόπος εις ευσεβείας σωτήριός τε η Χριστού διδασκαλία, κατά ταύτα και βασιλέως ενός υφ’ ένα και τον αυτόν χρόνον καθ’ όλης της

Ρωµαίων αρχής υποστάντος ειρήνη βαθεία τα σύµπαντα διελάµβανεν». (In the same way also, one kingdom had flourished for all Romans, and the pre-eternal and unresolved hostility between nations was negated. Just as the knowledge of one God was delivered to all people, so was the way of piety delivered, in Christ’s teaching that ensured salvation and accordingly, with one king, for one and continuous time, under the existing Roman authority, a profound peace had embraced the universe.” See. «Εις Κωνσταντίνον τον βασιλέα Τριακονταετηρικός» (To Constantine the King, on his Thirty Years), XVI, in the work «Byzantine Texts», supervised by D. Zakynthinos, “Aetos” publications, Athens, 1957, p. 41. [17]See Karayannopoulos (1978), vol. Α’, p. 34. [18]See Ahrweiler (1988), p. 25. [19]See Wallace-Hadrill (1962), p. 14. [20]Patrologie Grecque, Migne, vol. 107. See Ahrweiler (1988), p. 41. [21] «προς βασιλείαν την επάνω πάσης επιγείου αρχής, ην µόνην εν γη ο του παντός έπηξε βασιλεύς». (towards a kingdom that is above every temporal authority, which is the only one on earth that the King of all had established). See Patriarch Nicholas I the Mystic, «Epistulae», publishers R. J. Jenkins – L. G. Westernik, Dumbarton, Washington D. C., 1973, Epistle Νο 8, p. 48. [22]See. Obolensky (1991), vol. Α’, p. 196. Obolensky has provided us with an exceptionally penetrating analysis of the empire’s ecumenical ideology, as reflected in the wars with Symeon. See. vol. Α’, p. 178-197. [23] «Υµείς δε γένος εκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ιεράτευµα, έθνος άγιον, λαός εις περιποίησιν, όπως τας αρετάς εξαγγείλητε του εκ σκότους υµάς καλέσαντος εις το θαυµαστόν αυτού φως. Οι ποτε ου λαός, νυν δε λαός Θεού...» (…for you are a select generation, a regal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for ministering, who are to

proclaim the virtues of the One who called us forth from the darkness into His wondrous light. They, who were once not a people, are now the people of God…) (Epistle I, Peter, 2: 9-10). [24] See Archmandrite Hierotheos Vlachos (currently Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and St. Vlassios), «Γέννηµα και θρέµµα Ρωµηοί» (Born and raised as Romans), Holy Monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos, Levadia 1996, chapter 7’ «Nation and Chauvinism» p. 190. In fr. Hierotheos’ study, the reader will find a comprehensive analysis of Orthodoxy’s stance towards the idea of nation and chauvinism. [25] See Archm. Hierotheos Vlachos, as above, p. 218. [26] It is truly noteworthy, how the Ecumenical Patriarchate strove to remain intact from the microbe of chauvinism, up to the end of the 19th century. It confronted the Bulgarian nationalist demands as a religious (and not nationalist) schism, and in Macedonia, it was a frequently observed phenomenon to have arguments between the metropolitans and the ambassadors of Hellas regarding the proper tactics towards the Bulgarian actions. (See Ε. Kofos «National heritage and national identity in 19th and 20th century Macedonia», Hellenic Foundation for Defence and Exterior Policy, Athens, 1991, p. 10). It is characteristic, that in 1872, with a Council held in Constantinople, nationalism was condemned as a heresy that went against the teaching of the Gospel and was totally unfamiliar to the Church. See the presentation and analysis of the Synodical Oros of 1872 in fr. Hierotheos Vlachos, as above, p. 212-217. [27]See Ahrweiler (1988), p. 144. [28]See Yannakopoulos (1966), p. 280. [29]as above, p. 280. [30] see Gibbon, XLIX, vol. III, σ. 11. [31]see. Toynbee (1972), chapter 24.

[32]see. Gregoire (1986), p. 194. [33]as above, p. 203. [34]see Ahrweiler (1988), p. 142. [35]See Yannakopoulos (1966), p. 93. [36]see Runciman (1982). [37]It is worthy to note that the two anticlerical trends that appeared in Hellas were simple “translations” of western trends, which had nothing whatsoever to do with Hellenic reality. The one trend was the liberal enlightenment the way it was expressed, for example, by the anonymous author of the «Ελληνικής Νοµαρχίας» (Hellenic Prefecture) and the other trend was Marxism. The former was so cut off from Hellenic reality, that it began to speak of “orders” of priests and archmandrites, an institution that was totally foreign in our land (but very widespread in the West.....). The leading researcher (and enthusiastic supporter) of the neo-Hellenic Enlightenment, K. Th. Demaras, accepts that «one must not exclude the possibility that this is an author who is deprived of a Hellenic school education» (see. K.Th. Demaras, 1977, p. 48). On the other hand, Marxism with its unbending ideological forms that rely exclusively on western experience, attempted to overcome the continuous “difficulties” that he encountered during his interpretation of the Hellenic society, by resorting to the «ideological confusion of the Hellenic ruling class» or the «incorrect realization of the working class». Of course it would require a far more comprehensive study that would examine the total omission of the Hellenic peculiarity by both these trends. [38]see. Buckler, p. 309. [39] as above, p. 295. [40]see. Runciman (1979), p. 250. [41]as above, p. 250.

[42]See Yannakopoulos (1966), p. 54. [43]see. Buckler (1986), p. 310. [44]see. Lemerle (1983), p. 89-90.

PART 3: The clash with the West
Chapter 6 - The Dark Ages Chapter 7 - The first appearance of the “Greeks” Chapter 8 - Charlemagne and the autonomizing of the West from Romanity

Epilogue Footnotes BIBLIOGRAPHY a) Hellenic language b) Other languages


Chapter 6- The Dark Ages In Western historiography, the centuries between the 6th and the 11th are usually referred to as “The Dark Ages”. It was a period of time for which we have very few sources, which, nevertheless, still give us enough information to form an idea of the situation in Western Europe at the beginning of the Medieval era (for example, the works of Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D., of so-called Fredegar in 660 A.D., of Paul the Deacon in 780 A.D. etc.) It was a Europe that was wallowing in ignorance, where the knowledge that had accumulated over the 1500 years of Hellenic and HellenicRoman civilization were rapidly disappearing. Hellenic education vanished in Gaul around 500 A.D. and in Spain around 600 A.D. [1] Even the renowned Isidore of Seville (who was later acknowledged as one of the leading experts on the medieval West) had no knowledge of the Hellenic language. The works of the great philosophers and poets had disappeared altogether: in 750 A.D., nobody had access to Aristotle or Aeschylus, for the simple reason that those who could minimally read and write could be counted on one’s fingers... Subsequently, the copying and preservation of manuscripts was not in the least feasible. Besides, the barbaric chieftains of the Longobards, the Franks and the Teutons had no interest in anything else, beyond waging wars. Charlemagne’s reign was the one, minor exception, as he had housed a few educated persons in his court. From that point on, Western historians made a lot of fuss over nothing, when referring to “Carolingian renaissance” and other, similar pompous statements. Upon the demise of Charlemagne, the promotion of literacy in

Francia and Germania ceased once again. Also lost for many centuries was the Romans’ technical knowledge, such as the construction of roads and bridges. In 820 A.D., Charlemagne’s biographer, Einhard, wrote with evident pride about how his king succeeded in building a bridge over the river Rhine – an otherwise routine job for Roman technology. Aristotle remained unknown in the West, up until the 13th century; thus, “discovering” him set off a revolution in Western European thought. As a matter of fact, the naive western Europeans of that period had come to believe that they held in their hands a mighty weapon, with which they could promote philosophical and theological thought much further than the point the “Greeks” had taken it. It was at this precise junction that the arrogance of Scholasticism also appeared, to which the Latin church became attached for entire centuries, having acknowledged it as the supreme theological achievement of the human spirit. The fact that in Constantinople Aristotle had never become obsolete and the Hellenic-speaking Fathers of the Orthodox Church had, over the centuries, created a high-quality synthesis of Hellenism and Christianity, were overlooked by Western historians, as mere “fine print”. It would be of considerable interest to take a look at the state Western Europe was in during this period, from the scant sources that we mentioned previously. By 590 A.D., during the time of Gregory of Tours’ writings, the Hellenistic tradition had vanished in the territory of Gaul. In the ten books of Gregory’s “Historiae Francorum”, not even a trace of Hellenic literature appears to exist. An endless

alternation of slaughters and lootings permeates his entire work, thus giving an impression that distressed even the author. Everything around him is crumbling and disappearing, while he strives – almost desperately – to salvage for the coming generations the events of his time. This is what he writes in his introduction: “In the cities of Gaul, literary writing has lessened to such a degree, that it has essentially disappeared altogether. Many are those who complain of this, not only once, but again and again….. ‘What an impoverished period this is’, they are heard saying. If, among our people, there is not a single one who can write in a book the things that are happening today, then the promotion of education is truly dead for us.” [2]

Nevertheless, the writings of Gregory of Tours at least indicate that he had several Latin sources at his disposal: a translation of Eusebius’ “Chronicles”, Orosius, Sidonius, Apollinarius et al. [3] Thus, his “History of the Franks” does possess a certain infrastructure, a certain logical sequence, and the events are set out in a relatively orderly manner. Although the Hellenic-Roman civilization was no longer preserved around him, still, its remembrance and its literary style have been preserved. Gregory is the last known Roman historian in Gaul … A few decades later, things became much worse. In the Frankish “Chronicle” by Fredegar (practically the sole existing source for 7th century France), which was composed around 660 A.D., the reader finds it hard to find his way among the fragmented narrations of the author. Various Frankish courts succeed one another; freaks of nature (floods, meteorites, etc.) are intertwined with the

narration of a certain diplomatic mission; the small and insignificant are mingled with the large, without any attempt to classify anything critically, and the author frequently stands in awe and wonder at the incomprehensible things of a far broader world, of which he knows nothing. When reading Fredegar, one is given the impression that mankind has gone back 1500 years, to the times before Homer, to the time when man had not yet put the world around him in order and could not yet form an overall picture and a logical sequence to what was going on around him. Everything is reminiscent of Greek mythology – a pre-historic period, where man is merely prey to certain unreasoning powers, incapable of resisting or comprehending what is happening to him. And it is not at all strange that Western European mythology relates to this precise period: the legends of the Nibelungen, of King Arthur, etc. And yet! This pre-historic era had ended for Europe, 1200 years earlier, when the Hellenic spirit had shone forth, from Ionia (Asia Minor) and Attica (mainland Hellas). And now, 7 whole centuries after Christ, Western Europe was forced to go back so many centuries and start from zero, on account of the barbarians’ predominance in Western Romania...

In Gaul, (which is of special significance, on account of the role it would play during Charlemagne’s time), the 7th century ends with the total collapse of the last administrative establishment that was left: the Church. Between 670 and 790 A.D., a vast emptiness is observed in the bishoprics. For nearly 150 years, no bishops can be found in formerly flourishing cities such as Marseilles, Nimes, Limoges, Bordeaux, Antibes, Geneva, Arles, and many more. According to Pirenne, this emptiness was so prevalent, that it could

not be attributed to a circumstantial disappearance of historical sources. More likely, it should be attributed to a common, deeper reason. [4] It appears that the cities and urban life in general had degenerated to such a degree that in the end, they were no longer in a position to even maintain a bishop. This also constituted the final blow that finished off the Hellenic-Roman civilization in that territory. The decline of the urban way of life was accompanied by the collapse of the system of economy and commercial transactions. There is an abundance of bibliography on this subject (mainly by French historians) and it would be totally out of the scope of our study to repeat the findings detailed therein. At any rate, the picture that is formed is one of a western Europe that has returned to a closed, self-contained economy, whose outcome was a significant decline in its living standards. Where there used to be Roman ships on regular trading routes between Alexandria and Rome or Syria and Marseilles, now each region kept to itself and had to be content with local produce. Products such as papyrus and silk vanished in the West and were transformed into an exclusive privilege of free Romania. However, the point that made the difference between free Romania (a.k.a. “Byzantium”) and the West even more revealing was their numismatic circulation. While Constantinople continued to circulate its golden coin (the “solidus”), in 7th and 8th century France, money had essentially ceased to be in circulation. In 8th century contracts, prices were often written in units of cereals or cattle.[5] This meant that money had ceased to circulate and the economy had regressed back to the stage of bartering, of exchanging commodities. This was a primitive stage that

Europe had left behind, as far back as 600 B.C. with the first appearance of Hellenic coins, and it caused immense difficulties in the economy of the land. In order to understand the difference between the Frankish and the Romanian perception on this matter, it suffices to remind the reader that Constantinople had maintained its gold “coin” unadulterated from the time of Constantine the Great, up until 1078 A.D. During these 750 years, this “coin” comprised the only reliable currency throughout Europe, and even beyond it (e.g., the Arabian Caliphates). The Solidus, which was its Latin name, contained a steady 4.48 grams of gold and was the established currency for international transactions; it was the “Dollar of the Mediaeval period”, as it was aptly named. Services, salaries, produce, taxes and at times even ransom payments to enemies, were all covered by “currencies” that had a steady value, for eight whole centuries. It was the longest-surviving example of numismatic stability in the entire history of Europe. So far, we have focused on a description of Western Europe during the “Dark Ages” for two reasons: Firstly, because in this way, the contrast to the “Byzantine”(Eastern Roman) Empire is presented more vividly, given that it continued to maintain and cultivate the Hellenic-Roman civilization under conditions of financial prosperity that were totally unknown to the West. Secondly, because it was during this very period of barbarism and darkness that saw the birth of the extremely audacious Frankish allegations on the superiority of their theology and culture. As we shall see, these allegations were accompanied by a systematic forgery of History as well as by a relentless slandering of the free Romans. The vilification of “Byzantium” was considered a necessity, as it would veil the extent of Western Medieval barbarism, given

that the very existence of Romania’s civilization (with the inevitable comparisons that it evoked) was contrast enough to the barbarism of the West. The Western ideological form eventually prevailed in Europe, from that time and up until this day, thanks to the military supremacy of the Franks. It is therefore important to bear in mind the cultural (or, rather, the primeval) setting in which the selfawareness of the Western civilization that confronted the Hellenic-Roman one was born.

It was precisely this Frankish ideological setting that guided many Western historians in their evaluation of the middle ages of “Byzantium”. These historians attempted once again to impose their own experiences and their own worldview throughout Christian Europe. Hence, they likewise gave the name “dark ages” to an analogous period of the Eastern Roman Empire. However, given that the Empire had lived moments of triumph during the 6th century (the construction alone of the impressive Church of the Holy Wisdom of God –Haghia Sohiaruled out the element of darkness …) and given that it had also given birth to some of the most illustrious names of the middle ages, during the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries (Photius, Cyril, Methodius, Constantine Porphyrogennetus, Michael Psellus), the Frankish concept of “dark ages” had to be limited to two centuries only: the 7th and the 8th. Of course darkness was to be found during those years only in the minds of the petty rulers who had sprung forth out of the “gloom-and-mould-covered Bavarian woods”, to recall Pericles Yannopoulos’ expression. The defending Roman Empire watched its territories dwindle after the

impressive onslaught of the Arabs, but it still, nonetheless, managed to keep them in check and thus preserve its civilization. There was of course an intellectual recession during this period, possibly attributed to the fact that the Empire primarily focused on military organization (the military “Themes” appeared in the 7th century, in charge of which they had placed generals). It was a period of regrouping for the state, which had not only lost the West, but also Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa. The financial consequences were enormous. By losing Egypt, the Empire was losing its traditional supply of grain. At the same time, as Pirenne had underlined, the Saracen pirates who had dominated the Mediterranean Sea had cut off all communications between the sections of the once “Roman lake”. For the first time after 900 years, the Mediterranean had ceased being an open route of communication and was now being transformed into an impervious border between hostile nations. Perhaps the greatest catastrophe was brought on by the Iconomachy, which kept the State divided for 120 years. It is a fact that we do not have very much information from this period. Few sources have been saved to date, the most complete one being Theophanes’ “Chronography”. All the same, this situation probably does not relate as much to the cultural decline of letters, as it does to the Iconomachy conflict, where each side would destroy the works of the other as soon as it rose to power. This was a form of civil war that left countless ruins in its path. Nevertheless, the picture that emerges from within contemporary research testifies at least to a continuity and not a lapse in education during these centuries.

The University of Constantinople continued to operate. We know of professors such as George Cherovoscos and Stephanos Alexandreus who taught grammar, Aristotle and Plato during the mid 7th century. [6] According to Lemerle, who had made exhaustive attempts to reconstruct the educational program of those centuries, one does not observe any discontinuation in both elementary and secondary education; not even any remarkable changes to the structure or the program, from the end of the 6th century, through to the beginning of the 9th. From the year 700 onwards, we lack information on higher education. Most likely there was a crisis, without this however implying that higher education had ceased to exist. The biographies of Tarasius (Patriarch 806 – 815), of Nikephoros (Patriarch 806-815) and of St. Theodore Studite bring to light certain data on the existence of higher education in the middle of the 8th century. Nikephoros studies were (in the following order): grammar, rhetoric, astronomy, geometry, music, arithmetic and he completed his education with philosophy. As Lemerle believed, this would have been the uppermost education standard of that era. [7] In fact, Nikephoros’ Biography, which was salvaged, contains a lengthy section where quite large excerpts of Aristotelian philosophy are found. This proves that the study of Aristotle never ceased in Constantinople, even during the “dark ages”. A few decades later, a grandiose revival of letters recommenced in the Empire, with Photius as the most prominent personage, who, in his “Library” had cited and commented on some 280 books, which he had read himself. This revival would obviously not have been possible, if all these works had not been

salvaged and studied in Constantinople. Finally, we must not forget that it was during these “dark ages”, that the most sublime of all poetic works of mediaeval times was written, in our language: the Akathest Hymn*. *[A special hymn of praise and thanks, written in honour of the Holy Virgin and offered in a standing position in church, and not seated (=akathest)] It is understandable, how the above portrait cannot be compared to the Frankish-governed Western Romania, where complete illiteracy obstructed the replication and preservation of manuscripts. Even the “educated” Franks of Charlemagne’s time did not possess those authors by which classical civilization is defined: neither Homer, nor Aeschylus, nor Sophocles, nor Thucydides, nor Demosthenes, nor Euclid, while of Plato’s twenty six works, they were aware of only one, “Timaeus”. [8] Besides, it is characteristic that Charlemagne, albeit son and grandson of a Frankish king, was nevertheless illiterate, and it was only during his old age that he attempted to learn to read and write. The cultural abyss that separated Romania from Francia was not limited only to literacy and to financial prosperity. It extended to every kind of human activity. When princess Theophano (niece of Emperor John Tsimiskis) married Otto II and went to Germany, the Germans became utterly scandalized because she bathed and wore garments made from silk. One German nun had actually insisted that she had seen in a vision that these atrocious habits would be sending her to hell. [9] A few years later, her cousin Maria Argyre shocked the Venetians, when she brought forks to Venice for the first time. [10] Equally abysmal was the difference between the two worlds, with

regard to the place of women. One characteristic event suffices to depict the cultural gap that existed between Romania and the West: in 1125, in the hospital of the monastery of Pantocrator in Constantinople, the resident male physicians served together with one female physician, four female assistant doctors and two female reserve assistants. [11] During the same period, some Western theologians did not think highly of women. These barbarians, therefore, were the ones who decided to build a “Western Europe”, both in opposition to Romania, and in order to impose their own “civilization” on the Romans. As of the 9th century, they began to pester the Romans with a series of works entitled “Contra errores Graecorum” (Against the Errors of the Greeks), in which they supposedly “proved” the countless dogmatic and other errors of the “Greeks”. Nowadays, the descendants of those barbaric tribes are striving to persuade the still unconvinced neoRomans that we all share the same “common cultural heritage”, therefore we are supposedly obliged to agree to concessions, even in matters pertaining to our national rights, for fear of displeasing them. The progressive westernization of Hellas has obviously made the acceptance of such demands a lot easier. It is often said that the main contribution of “Byzantium” to humanity was the preservation of ancient Hellenic works of poetry, philosophy, etc. Although this is correct, “Byzantium” did offer much more than this, and it also created a superb synthesis of Hellenism and Christianity. Nevertheless, with the constant repetition of this phrase, we are perhaps forgetting another absolutely essential dimension of the matter, namely: why did the works of classical education disappear in the West but were preserved in the East? If, according to the Western view,

Romans and barbarians had merged and finally formed the Western European civilization, how is it that the HellenicRoman works were lost in the West? When two nations merge, the new synthesis contains elements from both sides. In fact, when one of the two is obviously superior in culture to the other, it is to be expected that its education will dominate over the other’s education. We know that, to a large extent, something like this had indeed occurred, during the synthesis of the Romans with the Hellenes, which produced the Hellenic-Roman civilization.

The great tragedy of European History lies in the fact that the clash between Romans and barbarians in the West did not bring about the same results. The Hellenic-Roman civilization rapidly disappeared during the 6th and 7th centuries, as we saw above. There is only one explanation for this, and our understanding of it constitutes a central point for the understanding of the genesis of the western civilization. Quite simply, Romans and barbarians never did merge in the West. They remained isolated, because barbarians were, with very few exceptions, incapable of embracing the Hellenic-Roman civilization; incapable of appreciating anything beyond certain external ritualistic elements. The more profound knowledge of human nature, of the world, of the end of History, and all that the wisdom of the Hellenic-speaking Fathers of the Church had to offer, were considered (and continue to be considered) by them to be nothing more than “Byzantinisms”, that is, pointless and incomprehensible theological conversations. The Romans’ hopes that the Germanic tribes would eventually accept this acculturation stumbled on the arrogance and the political scheming of the Franks. On the dilemma of “Romanity or barbarity”, Western Europe favoured barbarity,

from the very beginning of mediaeval times. Thus, instead of entering a new era of prosperity, revitalized by the new tribes that were entering its cultural sphere, Western Europe instead tumbled back into prehistoric darkness and was forced to start from scratch. From there onwards, the barbarians slowly began to set up their own civilization, starting from nil, from primitivism. Most of them soon disappeared. Names, whose very mention spawned fear during the 5th and 6th centuries are nowadays nothing more than sounds without any hypostasis: the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Erules, Vandals, Gepides, Swebes, Longobards and many others, all disappeared without leaving any trace, with one exception: the Franks. The Franks not only managed to wipe out the Hellenic-Roman civilization in the parts of Romania that fell under their occupation; they even managed to survive to this day, as the protagonists of Western European History. This is the reason that Western Europe is what it is, and not a continent based on the Christian, Hellenic-Roman civilization. And more than this: the Franks succeeded in usurping the very name “Europe”, severing it from the only civilized nation of the time - the Romans. Through persistent and long-term attempts, they actually managed to also convince many Romans that only the Franks and their descendants belong in “Europe”, and that the Romans are something foreign, something inferior. When this plan is successfully fulfilled, there will be no differing opinion left to reveal the distortion of History and the crimes of Western Europeans against the highest civilization that our continent has ever borne. Even worse, all the complex-ridden Romans will themselves be rushing to destroy their own civilization, imploring Westerners to give them certificates of “Europeanism”, thus irrevocably depriving humanity of the potential to discover a life far different to that of the mass,

neurotic and alienated existence that the West has to offer…

These simple observations would have been redundant, had the Westerners not succeeded in altering the true picture to such an extent that nowadays it is considered a tautology that the Western civilization was born from the Hellenic-Roman one. It is therefore necessary to repeat a few, simple truths, so that this confusion can be dispersed once and for all. And above all, we need to remember that the reason ancient works in the West were lost, is only because someone destroyed them. The “someone” was not the Romans – on the contrary, we know that the free Romans of the East were the only ones who preserved them. Those works were destroyed by the barbarians, the Franks and the others. Thus, when we say that “Byzantium” preserved the works of antiquity, the significance of this observation is not that these works were salvaged by the free Romans; this would be only natural and self-evident. The important thing is that certain others, certain nonRomans - the barbarian ancestors of Western Europeans preferred to clash with the Hellenic-Roman civilization and to destroy and obliterate these works.

The choice to destroy everything “foreign”, everything unfamiliar, remained a basic trait of the West in all of its contacts with other civilizations. However, those who are surely better qualified to comment on this observation would be the Incas, the Aztecs, and North American Indians …

Chapter 7 The first appearance of the “Greeks” In the 8th century the word “Greeks – Graeci” appears for the first time as the national name used to define the Hellenic-speaking denizens of the Roman Empire. In the past, the word had been used to express the word “Hellenes” in Latin. [13] Afterwards, however, it was lost as a national name, since the national significance of the word “Hellene” disappeared. The name “Graeci” (and its derivatives Greek, Grec, etc.) was established once again after the 8th century in all of the Western European tongues for describing the Hellenic-speaking Romans. Let us examine a little more carefully, from within the sources, how this neologism came to be. In Chapter 3 we mentioned how the subjects of the “Byzantine” Empire considered themselves Romans and how the Empire continued to call itself Roman, until its termination by the Turks. This was exactly what all the other peoples also knew them to be, who had any kind of contact with the Empire up until the 8th century. For example, the Arabs, who had conquered vast territories after 630 AD, were quite aware that they were conquering Romans (“Roum” in Arabic, as in Turkish too, later on). Even today, 1300 years later, there are, according to their own estimates, about 1.200.000 Orthodox Christians living in Syria and Lebanon, who speak Arabic, but declare themselves to be “Roum Ortodox”. Not Syrian or Lebanese (after all, these are not considered ethnic differences within the uniform Arabic nation) but “Roman Orthodox” descendants of the conquered Romans of the 7th century who managed to preserve their religion and national identity for 1300 years, and who still shed a tear today, whenever

they encounter another Roman…

It was only natural that we were also named “Romans” by the barbaric peoples who settled in Western Romania. Thus, the Frankish Chronicle by Fredegar mentions Phocas (602 – 610) as a “Roman patrician” who acceded to power in 602. [14] Further down, the Chronicle praises Heraclius, the vanquisher of Persians, with a rare display of splendour: “The Emperor Heraclius was impressive in appearance, handsome, tall, braver than the others, and a great warrior. He would often kill lions at the hippodrome and wild boars in remote locations …” [15] This was the period when the Christian World continued to be unified, with the Roman Emperor as its head.

Even after Heraclius’ death, the Empire continued to be called “Roman”. In section IV, 66 by Fredegar, we read that Heraclius “was succeeded by Constantine’s son, during whose reign the Roman Empire was savagely looted by the Saracens”. However, neither in Fredegar’s Chronicle nor in those of his Holdovers (who kept records up until 760) do we meet (not even once) the word “Greeks” as reference to the “Byzantines”. It is obvious that up until 760, the Franks had not yet decided to falsify History by naming the free Romans of the Empire “Greeks”. On the contrary, they acknowledged that the Empire was one, and that Rome belonged to it, as can be seen in Fredegar’s Holdover (paragraph 37) where he recounts the wars between Franks and Longobards in 754, following Pope Stephen’s appeal to the Franks for aid. (More details on these events will be given in the next chapter.) Throughout this Chronicle, one

can still discern a respect and a friendly climate in the references to the Empire. While Fredegar’s Holdovers never used the word Graeci, twenty years later, in 780, things began to change. The Franks with Charlemagne have now subjugated the Longobards and have created a kingdom that extends over present-day France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Northern Italy. In “History of the Longobards” by Paul the Deacon, who resided in the court of Charlemagne, certain curious neologisms began to make their appearance. Quite inexplicably, the free Romans began to be called “Greeks”.

The narration up to the time of Heraclius presents no problems: “Heraclius, son of Heraclionus, assumed the governance of the Roman nation.” [16] In fact, Tiberius, who acceded to the throne in 578, is clearly referred to as the “fiftieth emperor of the Romans”, in an uninterrupted succession from the Octavian Augustus. [17] Then, all of a sudden, the “Greeks” make their appearance around 650: “When the Greeks arrived in those days to plunder the sanctuary of the Holy Archangel [Michael], which was situated on mount Garganus, Grimwald [duke of the Longobards] attacked them with his army and slaughtered them.” [18] Further along, however, when referring to Constantine IV, he writes that “the governance of the Empire of the Romans was undertaken by Constantine, son of emperor Constantius, who reigned over the Romans for seventeen years.” [19] He repeats the same words for Constantine’s successor, Justinian II, who “undertook the government of the Romans and maintained it for ten years.” [20]. Needless to say that in all these references to the Romans

of Italy, Paul the Deacon maintains their proper name, regardless whether they are the rebelling subjects of the Longobards (for example Padua in 599 [21]) or free citizens who had preserved their property (for example Classis, which “was restored to the Romans by command of Liutprand” in 724 [22]). Paul the Deacon’s “History of the Longobards” contains certain glaring contradictions, which have been exploited for centuries by Western propaganda. Thus, when Emperor Constas goes to Italy (662) and begins his new liberating war against the Longobards, Paul the Deacon writes that the Longobards sent a messenger who “was arrested by the Greeks and brought to the Emperor”. [23] In other words, the Romans are suddenly transformed into Greeks. They remained “Greeks” for as long as they remained in Italy, where the author describes scenes of great tribulations for the citizens of Rome and of Southern Italy. “Even the sacred vessels and the treasures belonging to the churches of God were transported far away, by the avarice of the Greeks, through an imperial command.” [24] And further down: “When the Beneventines and their provinces were rid of the Greeks, king Grimwald decided to return to his palace in Ticinum.” [25]

Oddly enough, after all of these events, the narrative continues to refer to Romans and to an emperor of the Romans in Constantinople, up until the reign of Leo II in 695. In other words, for as long as the Roman army under Emperor Constas was warring against the Longobards and freeing the enslaved Romans, it was not (according to Paul the Deacon) a Roman army, but a Greek army. As soon as the emperor returned to Constantinople, he became a

Roman once again. These descriptions would have all been regarded as quite amusing, if they had not been written wittingly, and, even worse, if they had not been embraced by almost all the Western historians. However, given that these had been written wittingly, and because, as we know today, the adopting of forged national names always serves darker objectives, it is necessary to provide some kind of interpretation. In our opinion, there is only one possible interpretation for this contradiction. It is the one that Romanides suggested. At some point after 750, the Franks conceived a colossal imperialist plan: the creation of an empire that would include Italy and, of course, the city-legend: Rome. In order to minimize the obstacles, they had to cut off the Romans of Italy from their capital, Constantinople, as well as from their fellow countrymen in the rest of the Roman Empire. So they started, gradually but systematically, to use the term “Graeci” in order to differentiate the Hellenic-speaking Romans from the Latin-speaking Romans. [26] What used to be an instrument of Frankish imperialism, ended up a commonly accepted historical “truth”, to the point that today the Christian Roman Empire is often called “Greek Empire” in Western histories – and of course the descendants of the Hellenic-speaking Romans are called “Greeks” everywhere.

Forty years after Paul the Deacon’s death, the falsification was complete. Einhard, who wrote Charlemagne’s biography around 830, did not hesitate to call Constantine VI a mere “emperor of the Greeks”. [27] However, even in general, the entire Roman Empire was nothing but Greek, according to Einhard. In his description of the boundaries of Francia after Charlemagne’s conquests, he writes that

“[he] annexed the whole of Italy, which extends … from Aosta to Southern Calabria, at the point where the boundaries between the Greeks and the Beneventines are.” [28] From that time on, every Western source has been referring to the Hellenic-speaking Romans as “Greeks”, even up to the present day.

After everything that has been exposed in the 3rd chapter and this one, the political motivations that dictated the invention of various names for the Romans by the Westerners must have become evident: In the 8th century, they needed to cut off the Latin-speaking Romans from the Hellenic-speaking Romans in order to conquer Italy unobstructed. So they invented the name “Greeks”. In the 16th through to the 19th century, they had to prevent the Romans from re-establishing their Empire. Thus, they nicknamed it “Byzantine”, given that there was no-one who would demand its re-establishment. This is why we stressed in the introduction that the national names were devised wittingly by the Western Europeans, as the ideological means of annihilating Romanity. In the next chapter we shall follow closely the political and religious events of the second half of the 8th century, when the great rift between West and Romanity was forming. This is a particularly important period, which has not, however, been sufficiently covered by Hellenic bibliography. [29] For this reason, we will need to go into more detail than we did in previous chapters, so that we may be able to study in detail how the Franks managed to cut off all connections with the Roman Empire and come up with that fictitious

interpretation of History that prevails in Europe to this day.

Chapter 8 - Charlemagne and the a u t o n o m i z i n g o f t h e We s t f r o m R o m a n i t y It was in the 8th century that the rift between the Roman Empire and Western Europe was finalized. The Franks now felt powerful enough to demand for themselves the leadership of the “Christian World”. According to the medieval convictions however, which appeared to be deeply rooted in the majority of the population, the Roman Emperor was still at the summit of the known World. Thus, the need arose for Charlemagne, the most renowned king of the Franks, to be crowned emperor of the Romans in 800, in order to legitimise his authority. In the pages that follow, we will follow more attentively the events that led to the permanent separation of Western Europe from the Roman Empire, between 750 and 800 AD. It is our personal opinion, that this period is especially decisive in the shaping of the Western European conscience and Western civilization. It was during these 50 years, that the West chose the confrontation with Romanity, a confrontation that has never ceased, even in our time. And it was during Charlemagne’s reign, that the West became united into a powerful state, which has since comprised a vision for Western Europeans, as well as “proof” of their “common cultural roots” that they continue to invoke to this day. It is by no means a coincidence that the first attempt for the re-unification of western Europeans (the EEC of the Six) was embarked on by those countries whose territories corresponded exactly to the dominion of Charlemagne…

The beginning of the 8th century found Italy divided between the Longobards and the free Romans, whose capital was Constantinople. Ravenna was the administrative centre of Roman Italy and the free territories included Southern Italy along with Sicily, Naples and the Ravenna – Rome passageway with the so-called. Venice and Istria continued to be Roman. The wars between Romans and Longobards were incessant, and the Empire would occasionally send an army to defend its territories, but it is a fact that from 580 AD, when the Avars, the Persians and the Arabs reached closer to the walls of Constantinople, the emphasis on defence turned to the East. Consequently, it was for purely geopolitical reasons that the Western provinces were neglected to a certain degree. The vacancy in power that ensued in the West allowed for (if not imposed) the appointment of the Church as a point of support for the suffering Romans. The Pope took initiatives and became involved in the political game, in an attempt to secure the survival of his fellow countrymen. Thus, in 594 AD, Pope Gregory I requested the Emperor’s permission to seal a peace pact with the Longobards himself, despite the contrary political will of Constantinople, which had favoured a military defeat of the barbarians. The 7th century provides us with many more examples of this kind of initiative by the Pope. To the Westerners and the Western-oriented historians, it was these initiatives that signalled the beginning of the rift between the Empire and the Pope; a rift that would finally lead to the Schism and an open hostility between the Empire and the West. The reality, however, is quite different. In order to comprehend the Pope’s role during the 7th and 8th centuries, we have but to turn to examples with

Roman Patriarchs and archbishops of more recent History. One such example is the Patriarch of Constantinople, during the period of the Turkish occupation. Apart from the religious role, his role had also been a national one. He was the Ethnarch of all the subjugated Romans, who tended -with whatever means he had at his disposal- to the betterment of the fates of the entire Race. A second such example is the archbishop of Cyprus during the British occupation, before 1960. This is how we should evaluate the Pope’s role during those difficult years, when the barbarians had fenced in the Romans from all sides. The secular objectives and the territorial claims that characterize papal history in the pursuant centuries are the result of the seizure of the papal throne by the Franks in the 11th century, and we should in no way ascribe these characteristics to the Romanian Popes of the 8th century. Developments in Italy took an unpleasant turn in the middle of the 8th century. In 751, the Longobards subjugated Ravenna and in the following year they reached the outer walls of Rome. Pope Stephen (752 – 757) attempted to close a deal with them, like his predecessors had also done, and when he failed, he asked for help from the Emperor Constantine V. Help however, during this crucial moment that threatened the very existence of Rome, was late in coming. According to the Liber Pontificalis (Book of the Pontiffs), “when Stephen realised that help was not going to come from the imperial throne, he remembered the actions of his predecessors Gregory I, Gregory III and Zachariah” and “enlightened by Divine Grace”, he sent a message to Pipin, king of the Franks. [30] Pipin responded affirmatively and invited the Pope to Francia. During the meeting that took place in 754, Pipin promised to help and to protect the Holy See, while the

Pope on his part gave his blessing to Pipin as king, and gave his sons the title of patrician. [31] We need to stress here that the title of patrician was not of any particular importance and it was bestowed from time to time on various barbarians. The following year, Pipin did in fact go down to Italy and vanquished the Longobards. Upon his departure, however, the latter violated their agreements and began to besiege Rome anew. The Pope sent new, desperate appeals to Pipin, who returned to Italy, scattered the Longobards, and delivered the Roman territories to the Pope. Emperor Constantine V immediately sent his ambassadors, demanding the return of the territories to the Empire. Pipin, however, refused to do this, pointing out – unlike what the former Frankish rulers upheld – that he had not acted on behalf of the Empire. Thus, the lands of the former exarchate were left under the political jurisdiction of the Pope. For Western Europe, this was a decisive moment in its History, since this was the way that the Papal state was created, which has been preserved in various forms to this day, playing a leading role in the political developments of the continent. The founding of the Papal state is usually described with expressions such as “the revolution of Italy in the 8th century”. Historians agree that Rome, deeply disappointed by Constantinople’s indifference, had decided to defect once and for all from the East. It is highly unlikely that the Romans of 755 could have seen things in the way that we see them today. In their eyes, the Pope, being a genuine Roman Ethnarch, did what he could for the safety of the Orthodox Romans, amid the desperation in the Longobard-besieged city. He turned to

the Orthodox nation of the Franks, in order to save Rome from subjugation; in fact, not just Rome, but the entire exarchate. In other words, he also wished to free the Romans who had been conquered by the Longobards. After all, we must not forget that Franks and Romans had allied in the past, in the 6th century, when the Franks had helped the Romans, not only against the Goths, but also against the Longobards. It was perfectly normal for the Pope to turn to them, when he saw no help coming from Constantinople. When examining the situation through this prism, we discern no secular ambitions by the Pope, nor are there any imperialist plans for domination over Western Europe, as Western historians usually assert. All these problems came much later, after the 11 th century, and it would be wrong to place them in the middle of the 8th century. It is also evident (and this is something that all historians accept), that Constantinople did not have any serious concerns about the developments in Italy. The occupation of Ravenna was seen as a temporary event, which would soon be reversed. The conflict between Romans and Longobards was riddled with such episodes during the 7th and 8th centuries. Pipin’s handing over of the former exarchate to the Pope and not to the Empire was most certainly an annoyance, as surmised from the consecutive delegations that were sent to Pipin during that period. It was the Emperor’s decision to strengthen relations with the Franks, in the hope of neutralizing any potential extremist tendencies of expansionism from their part. Thus, in 757 he sent the chief delegate Georgios to Pipin, together with a huge church organ as a gift. It was the first time that Francia had laid eyes on an organ and the impression it made remained historical. [32] At the same

time, he suggested marriage between Leo, the Emperor’s son, to Pipin’s daughter Gisela, although this proposition was never realised. In retrospect, we can say that this policy had a very limited outcome, as the Franks continued their expansion even after Pipin’s death. It is noteworthy, how the main Roman source for that period, Theophanes’ “Chronography”, contains only a vague knowledge of what was taking place in the West during the decade of 750 (and even there, we find a chronological confusion, since Theophanes places Pope Stephen’s delegation to Pipin in 723 – 724). [33] At any rate, this limited information supports the view that we outlined above. Theophanes refers to Stephen as “the late reposed” and he also justifies the Pope’s action. Beyond Theophanes, there is not a single other Hellenicspeaking source available for the events in Italy, as D. H. Miller has verified, who has systematically researched this period. [34] Thus, we are obliged to draw the details of these events from the Liber Pontificalis and the Frankish Codex Carolinus, where the Pope’s correspondence with the Frankish king is kept. The latter however is of uncertain genuineness. For instance, it mentions an epistle sent by Pope Stephen to Pipin where the former asks Pipin to now rid him of the “Greeks” also, so that the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God may be freed from the infectious deceitfulness of the Greeks. [35] It makes one wonder why the Roman Pope, who had only recently asked for help from the Roman Emperor Constantine V, and who continued to date all his documents according to the year of the Emperor’s reign, would speak thus vehemently against the “Greeks”. But as we shall see further down, there are many other strange things in the

Frankish sources of this period. They cease to be strange, as soon as we perceive the successive forgeries made a posteriori by ruthless Frankish diplomacy. In 757, Stephen was succeeded by his brother Paul I. The orchestrated propaganda of the Codex Carolinus continued. In a letter to Pipin, the new Pope condemned the “Greeks” as heretics, even though he did not explain what their heresy was. He calls them nefandissimi, odibiles, perversi (impious, odious, perverse). [36] Roman sources are unaware of such a stance by the Pope. We need to remember that Emperor Constantine V had released new persecutions against the Iconophiles during this period, and with the Synod of Constantinople in 754, he had also ascribed to Iconomachy the character of an official dogma for the first time. Monks from the East had come to Rome seeking refuge with the Pope, who had remained steadfastly Orthodox and an iconophile. Could this have been the reason for the condemnation of the “Greeks”? It seems hard to believe. Were that the case, the Pope would not have condemned the “Greeks” in their totality, but only the specific heretical views of the Emperor. Disagreements between Pope and Emperor were quite a few in the centuries prior to 750, and Orthodox History acknowledges that quite often, the Pope was right. One superb example was Pope Martinus I, who, albeit tortured and exiled, refused to succumb to Constantinople’s Monotheletism in the 7th century. Martinus was proclaimed a saint by the Orthodox Church, and he continues to be commemorated to this day. But never did a Pope express himself in this way for the totality of the Romans of the East. Furthermore, in 8th century Rome, there were 10 “Greek” (i.e. Hellenic-speaking) monasteries, out of a total 38

monasteries within the city, where the people sought refuge from the Arab yoke or from the Iconomachy persecutors. [37] Was it ever possible for the Pope to condemn the “Greeks” in their entirety, when he had so many “Greek” monks under his jurisdiction, and moreso, when it is a known fact that Paul I himself had donated his homestead to the “Greek” citizens of Rome in 761, having ratified the donation by a Synodic bull which had been signed by all the cardinals, and which had the name of the donor inscribed in Hellenic lettering? [38] Finally, we should note that Pope Paul hailed from an old, renowned family of Rome. [39] It would not have been possible for him to begin calling his fellow countrymen, the Romans of Constantinople, “Greeks”, at a time when every Roman knew that no “Greek” nation existed in the East. In short, to summarize the situation, there is no logical explanation for these expressions by Pope Paul I. Since these words have not been confirmed by any other source, in our opinion, we can consider them as posterior concoctions by the Frankish industry for historical falsifications. This of course is a matter that needs to be examined by experts; nevertheless, we need to make a parenthesis here, to remind the reader that History according to the Franks is rife with falsifications during this period. For instance, the so-called “pseudo-Isidorian ordinances” (a collection of canons and papal decrees which were circulated by the Franks at the beginning of the 9th century) are renowned. These include –no less- 94 spurious papal decrees, as well as the infamous “Donation of Constantine”. As noted by V. Stephanides, “no other falsification in the history of mankind has been conducted with such artfulness, and no other forgery has brought about such

huge results. The cited forgeries were not composed from mere figments of the imagination, but from elements taken from a painstaking study of theological and canonical sources, which, after being slightly distorted and recoordinated, produced the desired result.” [40] Furthermore, a few decades later, it was observed that the biographies of popes John VIII, Martin I and Adrian III (872 – 885), had been removed from the Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis), “an unprecedented kind of omission”, as noted by Loungis. [41] Obviously, these popes had no place in History (as falsified by the Franks), given that they had sent congratulations to the imperial army which had driven out the Arabs from Southern Italy. In fact, Pope John VIII had prompted the commanders of the army to go to Rome, to defend the Romans there. [42] Subsequently, it was not at all strange that the Franks retroactively erased his biography, which obviously must have also included other evidence that would have revealed the Frankish forgeries. At any rate, an in-depth examination of Frankish forgeries would demand a particularly voluminous research that would leave modern-day readers speechless. With this in mind, we need not search any further, to understand why, during that same period of time, the Romans of the East had begun –otherwise inexplicably- to be referred to as “Greeks” in both the Codex Carolinus and in Paul the Deacon’s “Historiae Langobardorum”. Obviously, it was a predetermined political decision that dictated such a falsification.

Pipin died in 768 AD and his kingdom was divided between his sons Charles and Charlemagne, according to the German custom. The latter died three years later, whereas the former reigned for 46 years and became known in History as Charles the Great or Charlemagne. In the very first year of the two brothers’ reign, the new Pope, Stephen III, convened the Lateran Synod (769), mainly in order to solve the problem of the presence of a claimant of the papal throne. This Synod, however, acquired a special interest, in light of later developments. For one thing, it was the first synod to take place in Rome, in which Frankish bishops -12 in number - participated, along with 39 Roman bishops (a detail which, incidentally, also proves that the distinction between Romans and Franks was still evident in 769 AD). [43] With the Lateran Synod, the Pope had also aspired to incorporate the Franks in the Orthodox camp. By offering them for the first time the honour of participating in the Synod, he hoped to keep them more committed to him in view of future Longobard expansionist aims. History, however, proved him wrong, as the Franks soon afterwards embarked on their own expansionist wars, without showing any respect towards Orthodoxy or the Romans. Nonetheless, this synod also had a secondary significance. One of its important decisions was the unconditional support of the veneration of icons (in fact, epistles by the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, which were in favour of the veneration of icons, were recited during the synod). At the same time, however, as in every synod, the confirmation of acceptance of the decisions of preceding Ecumenical Synods was repeated. It was underlined that the correct faith is defined only by

Ecumenical Synods, and the Symbol of Faith was recited. [44] The Frankish bishops unanimously agreed with all these decisions and declarations. The Christian Church continued to be one and indivisible, even in 770 AD, with the exception of Constantinople’s stance on the Iconomachy issue. However, scarcely twenty years had gone by, when the Franks changed their stance altogether, rejecting everything that they had accepted during the Lateran Synod. They disregarded the unalterable status of the Symbol of Faith, by adding the “filioque” clause. They rejected the exclusivity of the Ecumenical Synods for defining the dogma, by officially recognizing the arbitrariness of every secular leader or Pope, something that led the Latin church into authoritarian adventures in the centuries that followed. They also rejected the veneration of icons, even after Constantinople had reverted in favour of icons. Having embarked on such actions, they began ever since to assert (and they continue to do so) that they were the ones who had preserved the correct Christian faith, as opposed to the Romans, whom they began to systematically slander for many centuries, with their “Contra Errores Graecorum”. But let us take a closer look, to see what exactly happened. Despite the contrary opinion adopted by some historians, it was not the Iconomachy that caused the religious conflict between the Franks and the Empire. A few years after the Lateran Synod, the situation changed in Constantinople and an iconophile Empress, Irene, convened the 7th Ecumenical Synod (Nicaea, 787). As we know, this Synod fully restored the veneration of icons. What was the Franks’ reaction to this? Instead of hailing the return of the “heretical Greeks” to the orthodox faith, they composed a reply, “Capitulare adversus synodum”, which rejected the decisions of the

Nicene Synod. This was the time when Charlemagne’s military successes gave birth to dreams of world domination in the Frankish court. Indeed, the Franks now felt powerful enough to cast aside every pretense: they were not in the least interested in any orthodox faith – even the condemnation of the Iconomachy in 769 meant nothing more to them than a means of conquering Italy. They were not even interested in the Pope, as long as he held a different opinion: when Pope Adrian received the “Capitulare”, it must have shocked him. He would not have expected this kind of a reaction, given that his representatives had participated in the 7th Ecumenical Synod, his epistles had been recorded in the Synod’s Minutes, and the Patriarch Tarasius himself had pointed out how exceptionally focused Adrian was, on the ancient traditions of the Catholic (overall) and Apostolic Church.[45] He immediately composed a reply, known as “Hadrianum”, and sent it to Charlemagne. In it, he refuted, point by point, all the Frankish positions, adhering to the orthodox decisions of that Ecumenical Synod. Charlemagne, however, had already made his own decisions. Instead of accepting the Pope’s clarifications and rejoicing - as all Orthodox normally do to this very day over the victory of the icons, which decision had been cosigned by all five Patriarchates, he instead instructed his advisers to compose a new theology. This is how the renowned “Libri Carolini” came to be, which expressed the Frankish theological positions, as opposed to the Orthodox ones, in both Rome and in Constantinople. Disputes and revolutionary changes occur very rarely in world History. Usually, the flow of events is so continuous, that one cannot easily discern where one era ends, and another one begins. In the Libri Carolini, however, a

historian is entitled to acknowledge the huge rift that occurred in European History. If there was one moment during which the separation of Western Europe from Romanity was finalized, it was the decade of 790. The reasons for the separation should not be sought –as many believe- in geographical reasons or linguistic differences. The Romans of Italy and the Romans of the East continued to be Romans, whether they spoke Latin, or Hellenic. Nor were there any religious causes, given that the dispute over icons had been resolved (albeit temporarily) after the Synod of 787. Nor should one look for the reason of the separation in the supposed abolition of the Western Roman Empire in 476, as we explained in Chapter 4. Finally, even the “founding” of the papal state in 756 did not cause the rift between the West, Rome and the East. It becomes clear, from everything that we described, that the Rome-Constantinople dispute was a temporary one and that it was settled by the Ecumenical Synod of 787. And in our opinion, it is odd, how acknowledged historians such as Karayannopoulos assert that after the 7th Ecumenical Synod “any bridging between the pope and Byzantium was no longer possible, hence the pope was forced to turn once again to the Franks.” [46] These historians have embraced the Western view that “the proliferation of the Byzantine dominion throughout the south of Italy (after the battles between Franks and “Byzantines” in 787) worried pope Adrian very much”. [47] It seems, however, that the “very much” was apparently not that “much”, since Adrian went ahead and participated in the Nicean Synod, when he could have refused the invitation on the pretext that Rome no longer belonged to the Empire; that it was independent. In fact, the “very much” proved to be rather “less”, since, in spite of his “worrying”, Adrian (with the “Hadrianum” that we mentioned earlier) preferred to oppose those who would

have protected him from “Byzantine expansionism” - the Franks. Instead of regurgitating the Frankish propaganda, it would be far simpler to examine the Roman view, which, if anything, possesses a greater hermeneutic capability (and fewer logical contradictions) regarding the events of the period 750 – 800 AD. The picture that will be formed by the Roman viewpoint is still mostly unknown. However, the general axis around which the mosaic fragments are to be pieced together is known to us, and it is none other than the one we described in this chapter. Let us now see exactly what took place after Charlemagne’s decision to confront the Roman Empire and the Pope. Already in 787, after the Franks had permanently prevailed in Northern Italy, and having placed Central Italy under their “protection”, they turned upon the South. Their first target was the independent Longobard ducat of Benevento, although of course their ultimate objective was to completely annex Southern Italy, so that any Roman resistance would be eliminated. This disturbed Constantinople. Until that moment, it could only observe –weakened as it was– the gradual loss of the Ravenna exarchate; however, it looked as though Campania and Apulia continued to be a non-negotiable line of defence for the Empire. Thus, imperial forces landed in Calabria and allied with Benevento. [48] From 787 – 788, direct conflicts began between the imperial army and the Franks, with Southern Italy as the envied prize. Diplomatic relations between Constantinople and Charlemagne were cut off for ten years, and one of the miracles that took place during this cessation was the most famous marriage by proxy that the middle ages had ever known, namely,

between the Emperor Constantine VI and Charlemagne’s daughter, Rotrude. In 794, Charlemagne convened an oversized Frankish Synod in Frankfurt, which legalized the recent theological arbitrariness of his court. During this synod, the veneration of icons was condemned as a non-Christian practice, the title of “Ecumenical” for the Nicene Synod of 787 was rejected, and the “filioque” was inserted in the Symbol of Faith. Many other actions of Constantinople were also condemned, such as the Emperor’s requirement to preside over the Synods as an “iso-apostle” etc. [49] In general, we can say that the Franks had chosen confrontation at a political level, and were now trying to “adorn” their plans with self-designed religious differences. This is the reason that their arguments have no special value. As Romanides had aptly observed, what we have here is an example of a “newly formed group of Germanic tribes, who began to teach the Romans, before actually acquiring any education themselves.” [50] One way or another, the sources that the Frankish theologians could resort to were scant : only whatever had remained after the 300 years of destructions and darkness that we described in Chapter 6. Judging by what their references reveal, they relied mainly on the work of Pope Gregory I, as well as the summaries of works that had been preserved by Isidore of Seville. [51] On the contrary, the Nicene Synod (as Western historians also accept) had access to countless sources; some from the Patriarchal library and others which had been brought along by the Synod’s participants from their Metropolises. References to the sources, as well as to the impressively exhaustive cross-referencing of excerpts, can be found in

the Minutes of the Nicene Synod, which have survived to this day. [52] One of the innovations that was introduced by the Franks at the Synod of Frankfurt, became a critical point of friction in the dispute between the Orthodox Church and the Latin one; the slogan –so to speak- of the religious conflict between the West and Orthodoxy. We are referring to the “filioque”. This tiny addition of three words (“and the Son”) in the Symbol of Faith inspired thousands of pages to be written, however, the interested reader should refer to those who are more specialized than us on the theological arguments of the two sides. We will, however, mention some historical elements on its genesis, since they belong to the time period that we are analyzing. To begin with, we should note that even in this matter, the Franks had created a myth that has prevailed up to this day, even though it is historically unfounded. In other words, the view that the “filioque” was the source of the difference between the Roman Catholic and Hellenic Orthodox Church is still dominant. This myth must, finally, be eradicated. The truth is that all the Roman Popes were opposed to the “filioque”, from the moment that it was inserted in the Symbol of Faith by the Franks. In fact, Pope Leo III (796 – 816), who had firsthand experience of the Franks’ pressures on this matter, did something that revealed the true extent of the papal reaction to the arbitrary Frankish acts. He arranged so that the orthodox Symbol of Faith (without the “filioque”) be inscribed on two silver plaques (one in Latin and one in Hellenic), which he then affixed high up on a wall in the cathedral of St. Peter, so that it could be read

clearly by all the faithful. Leo had hoped that the Franks would not dare desecrate the most sacred centre of Western Christianity. In 809, the Franks went ahead and officially recognized the “filioque”, with the Synod of Aachen. Given that the Pope continued to uphold the Orthodox tradition, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Rome headed by the monk Smaragdus, in the hope of changing the Pope’s stance. In the Minutes of this meeting, which have been preserved to this day, it is quite evident that Leo categorically refused to be swayed. [53] Leo’s successors also continued to oppose the “filioque”, until the Franks violently seized the Patriarchate of Rome and permanently enthroned their own Pope (probably around 1009 onwards). [54] It was only after a Frank ascended the papal throne, that the Popes began to support the “filioque” and to oppose the Orthodox position of the remaining four Patriarchates. This was the reason that the Orthodox Romans ceased referring to the Church of Rome as “Roman Catholic” after it was besieged by the Franks: it was neither Roman (in the national-cultural sense of the term), nor of course was it “Catholic”, as it was now severed from the “catholic” (Greek, means ”Overall”) Body of the Christian Church. It has since been referred to as “Latin”, and this is the only term befits it. Let us now move on, to the famous coronation of Charlemagne in Rome, as “emperor of the Romans” on Christmas day of 800 AD. The events preceding and during the coronation have been the subject of exhaustive research by medieval historians, therefore we only need to make a brief mention of it. Besides, after everything that has been exposed so far, our view is that this coronation represented the conclusion, not the beginning, of the antiRoman policy of the Franks.

Pope Adrian died in 796 and was succeeded by Leo III. Charlemagne arranged to secure the subjugation of the new Pope, by sending him a series of instructions and obliging him to thenceforth date his documents, starting from the date of the Frankish occupation of Northern Italy. [55] The Pope was also pressured into giving up the keys to St. Peter’s cathedral, along with the banner of the city of Rome, to Charlemagne. Western historians believe that this act was proof of the Pope’s preference to the Franks and not to the Empire. This allegation would have had some sort of basis, if the papal state were truly independent. But independence was nonexistent, as Charlemagne’s armies loomed above the heads of the Romans of Italy. Even Gibbon had observed this, when he very accurately noted that: “Charlemagne’s power and politics annihilated an enemy (the Longobards), and imposed a master on the Romans”. [56] Besides, the Franks behaved as though they were the legal owners of the former exarchate. As mentioned in the Codex Carolinus, Charlemagne ripped out the mosaics from the palace in Ravenna and took them to Aachen to adorn his own palace. [57] In 799, certain relatives of the former Pope Adrian, attacked, abused and imprisoned Leo. With the help of friends, he managed to escape and eventually reached Saxony, where he asked for Charlemagne’s help. The latter decided to take Leo’s side. At the same time, it is certain that he saw before him a unique opportunity to further promote his objectives. Thus, in the negotiations that followed, Charles most probably demanded quid pro quo from the Pope, even though the Western sources do not mention anything of the kind. Leo, whose very life now hinged on Charlemagne’s support, could not refuse him

anything. The events that followed are well-known: Leo returned to his throne, while Charles (entirely “by coincidence”) announced that he wished to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the Birth of Christ in Rome. During the Christmas service in St. Peter’s cathedral, the Pope crowned Charlemagne, anointed him with oil, and the spectators acclaimed him as their emperor. Charles began to mint golden coins with his face engraved on them, along with the monogram of the Pope. The 25th of December 800 is considered in the West as the date of “re-establishment” of “the Western Roman Empire”. In the Frankish chronicles of that time, Charlemagne is listed as the 68th emperor, after the Roman Emperor Constantine VI. [58] Charlemagne’s successors were to bear the title of “emperor” in the various compositions of the state (the better-known one being the “Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic Nation”), up to the beginning of the 19th century. In fact, the Germans continued to enumerate their emperors, beginning from Octavian Augustus and up to Francis II (1806), who was considered the 120th Roman Emperor. [59] The Franks developed a somewhat washy, theoretical interpretation for the arbitrary action of Charlemagne, which they nevertheless imposed for twelve centuries, up until our time. The formulation of this theory has been preserved in the Chronicle of Laureshein (9th century) and we quote it herebelow: “Given that the title of emperor ceased to exist among the Greeks, and because their Empire was ruled by a woman (meaning Irene), both Pope Leo and the rest of the Fathers who were assembled in Rome, as well as the entire Christian fold, believed that it was their

duty to acclaim the Frankish king Charles as their emperor, who was the ruler of Rome, where the Caesars of all the other parts of Italy, Gaul and Germany were also based. And since God had entrusted all of the aforementioned countries to him, it seemed proper for him to also assume the title of Emperor, with the help of God and the prayers of all Christians”. [60] In actual fact, the exact title that was given to Charlemagne during his coronation was not made known. He himself never dared to sign anything as “Emperor of the Romans” (“Imperator Romanorum”), which was the title of the emperors of Constantinople. After 800 AD, he simply added the title “Romanorum gubernans imperium” (=governor of the empire of the Romans) to the existing title of “rex Francorum” (=king of the Franks) and “rex Langobardorum” (=king of the Longobards). [61] This form of title was unknown in the Roman imperial tradition. Later on, the Franks asserted that with his ‘voluntary’ choice to crown Charlemagne, the Pope had supposedly transferred the imperial crown from the East to the West, from the Greeks to the Franks. Invoking this famous theory of “translatio imperii” (=shifting of the imperial status), later popes, such as Innocent III, attempted to impose and to validate their theocratic aims on the emperors of the West. [62] But the sombre Western tales of never-ending conflicts between popes that directed entire armies and the authoritarian Franco-German rulers will not preoccupy us here. What does concern us is whether Leo’s actions were indeed voluntary. We read Gibbon’s view previously; Theophanes in turn, characteristically wrote that Leo returned to his throne (after the events of 799) and that

thereafter, Rome was placed under Frankish control: “(Leo), when appealing to Charles, the king of Franks for support, had rigorously defended him from his enemies and he (Charles) reinstated him once again on the same throne, while Rome was thereafter placed under the rule of the Franks”. [63] In other words, for Theophanes, who wrote just 14 years later, these two events had a cause-and-effect relationship. Leo’s reinstatement also signified Rome’s subjugation to the Franks. The theories about a supposed independent decision were so naïve, that they could not convince any Roman of the East. Theophanes concludes: “(Leo) rewarded Charles, by crowning him king of the Romans inside the church of the Holy Apostle Peter, anointing him with oil from head to toe and vesting him with royal garb and crown”. [64] The simple logical deduction of any unprejudiced researcher, that Leo recompensed Charles for his personal help by crowning him king in Rome, is already found in Theophanes’ work and there is no need for us to resort to intellectual “acrobatics” or complicated scenarios in order to discern the truth. Equally indicative is a phrase by Einhard, Charlemagne’s adviser, which we will come back to, further down. For the period after 800 AD, Einhard wrote: “….(despite the peace treaty of 812), the power of the Franks always seemed suspicious in the eyes of the Greeks and the Romans”. [65] In other words, he admits that those who the Franks called “Romans” (the Latin-speaking Romans) fostered hostile feelings for the Franks. How was it possible then, for them to acclaim Charles as their emperor? Charlemagne was nothing more to them than a foreign conqueror. He was not a Roman, nor did the Romans want him as their king.

But it appears that all these self-evident facts are not enough to convince Western historians, so that we can eventually do away with expressions of the type “reestablishment of the Western Roman Empire”. Having lived for many centuries with the conviction that they are members of the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation”, Western Europeans find it difficult -and in the long run refuse - to recant the falsification of History that their ancestors had concocted. This is why we stressed in the introduction of our study that the historical “landmark” that they used as their beginning, continues to be entirely different to ours, and their different cultural tradition does not allow them to restore the historical truth, to this very day. To conclude our commentary on Laureshein’s Chronicle, we also need to point out the remarkable logical error that the cited excerpt contains. His basic argument was that because of the Greeks’ lack of an emperor, it was decided to proclaim Charlemagne as their emperor. But then, that would have made Charlemagne “emperor of the Greeks”! These are the kinds of comical errors that the Franks fall into, when they attempt to falsify History and rename the Romans of the East “Greeks”, in order to differentiate them from their fellow- Romans of Italy. The reaction of the Roman Empire to Charlemagne’s coronation was, of course, a hostile one. Charlemagne was seen as the usurper of a title that belonged only to the Roman Emperor of Constantinople. In order to subdue their reactions (or to complete his expansionist plans, depending on how one interprets the events), Charlemagne dispatched an official delegation in 802, to ask for the hand of the empress Irene in marriage, so that “the dawn and the dusk”

might be united, to quote Theophanes’ famous expression. [66] The overthrow of Irene from power in October of the same year, however, postponed every such prospect. The battles between Romans and Franks recommenced in 804 around the Roman provinces of Venice and Dalmatia, given that the Franks’ expansionism had by now reached the Balkans. After repeated clashes, the two sides signed a peace treaty in 812, according to which the two provinces were to remain Roman. Constantinople in turn acknowledged the Frankish demands in Croatia, and its delegation addressed Charlemagne as “king”. It is not easy to opine exactly what this concession meant for Constantinople, as no related comments were found in the sources. [67] At any rate, Frankish power began to wane after Charlemagne’s death in 814, and the whole issue of the successors’ titles did not particularly preoccupy Constantinople until the following century. After his death, Charlemagne became the greatest legend of medieval Western Europe and his accomplishments would inspire countless works of literature. The top-ranking one among them is the great epic of the 12th century that marked the beginning of French literature, “Chanson de Roland” (Roland’s song). To Western Europeans, he continues to be the greatest sovereign in their History to this day, and his reign supposedly constitutes proof of the common descent of all the peoples that are presently called “Westerners”. This obviously is the reason that the majestic building of the European Union Council bears his name. Equally characteristic is the fact that there is a legislated “Charlemagne Prize” which is awarded (in Aachen) to those who contribute towards the European unification idea. This prize, which bears the name of an enemy and a conqueror of Romanity, has been even awarded to a top-ranking

Hellene politician who played a leading role in our entry to the EEC. It appears that the historical amnesia which is slowly spreading throughout Hellenism will cause us to willingly accept as members of “our heritage” all of the historical enemies of Romanity, as long as our Western European partners ask us to … In concluding the last chapter of our study, we would like to point out that what is impressive in the events of 750 – 812 is the fact that the Roman reaction to Frankish expansionism was purely a defensive one, not to mention a passive one. It was not the Romans who decided to sever their relations with the West, but the opposite. The Westerners, the Franks, wanted in every way to break off all political and cultural ties, and confront the Roman Empire. This is why their later propaganda - that a merging of Romans and Franks supposedly produced the Western European civilisation - is an outright, impudent falsity. Every single aggressive act originated from the side of the Franks, who did not hesitate to use every possible means, including military violence, blackmailing the Pope, destruction of buildings, falsification of documents, altering national names, and all this, in order to subjugate, not “merge” with the Romans of Italy. But even in general, when reading the sources of that era, one is given the impression that the rift was stressed far more by the Franks than it was by the Romans. Theophanes glided over the event of Charlemagne’s coronation in just two lines, to return to the more pressing problems of the Empire with the Arabs. It was of course the Franks’ prerogative to clash with the Empire. Since however they chose to secede and create their own cultural tradition, it is an extremely audacious falsification of History to call their nation the “Roman Empire”, to call the Romans “Greeks”, and to maintain that

the “Byzantines” destroyed the Hellenic-Roman civilisation, whose true heirs are supposedly the Westerners. If, at a theological level, the great rift between the West and Romanity must be sought among the Libri Carolini texts, then at an everyday level, it should be found in the military occupation of Central Italy, the Exarchate, and in the attacks against the South. That was when the Romans learned from first-hand experience the ruthless disposition of the Franks, and it was this knowledge that left its permanent mark on the character and the orientation of Romanity. Even from the very beginning of the 9th century, Einhard, Charlemagne’s adviser and biographer, had described the Romans’ sentiments after the repeated aggressive actions of the Franks: “When he (Charles) accepted the title of emperor, he aroused many suspicions (with the emperors of Constantinople), as it was quite likely that he was planning to take over the imperial power (…) The prowess of the Franks always looked suspicious in the eyes of the Greeks and the Romans. This is also where the Greek proverb comes from, and which continues to be quoted, even today (in 830): If a Frank is your friend, then he is definitely not your neighbour”. [68] This proverb very eloquently sums up the Romans’ impression of their “acquaintance” with the Franks. The Romans were therefore given the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the primitive arrogance of the Westerners, long before the Schism and the “Crusades”; and it was long before the Turkish occupation, that the Westerners had decided on their hostile stance towards us. The immense rift between the West and Romanity had been a conscious decision of the Franks, who were in fact very much aware of the consequences of their actions, as the aforementioned excerpt from Einhard reveals. Thus, the first appearance of

a “European awareness” coincides with the decision of the Franks to be severed from the Roman Christian World and to seek conflict with the Hellenic-Roman world. As we had also underlined in the introduction, the notion of a “Western Europe” was born in the 8th century, precisely within this opposition towards Romanity and because of this opposition. This is why any discussions on whether “Byzantium” (and its successor, Hellas) belong to Western Europe or not, are totally redundant. However, for those who may still have certain doubts about the true disposition of the Franks towards the Romans, these have been preserved for the coming generations by Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, who came to Constantinople in 969 as a delegate of the Franco-German emperor, Otto I. His adventuresome meeting with the emperor Nicephorus Phocas was extremely revealing. When Phocas pointed out that Otto did not have the right to marry (as he wished) a royal-by-birth princess of Constantinople because “you are not Romans, but Longobards”, then Liutprand, instead of attempting to enhance his role by presenting arguments that supported the Romanity of the barbarians, exploded into a volley of abusive language, which has left its mark in History. Let us cite an indicative excerpt of this response: “The fratricidal Romulus, after whom the Romans were named, came to be known in Chronography as “a whore’s offspring”, a bastard in other words, who founded an asylum (author’s note: he means Rome) in which he welcomed debtors, fugitives, slaves, murderers and criminals worthy of the death penalty, and gathered around him a swarm of such people, whom he then named “Romans”. It was from these so-called “nobles” that those

whom you call world rulers - in other words ‘emperors’ originate. However, we the Longobards, Saxons, Franks, Lotharingians, Bavarians, Swebes, and Burgundians, have so much contempt for them, that whenever our anger is aroused against our enemies, we do not direct any other insults at them, except one word: Roman! And under this very name of “Roman” we include every kind incivility, cowardice, avarice, debauchery, infidelity and generally every kind of malice”. [69] Naturally, this text by the official envoy of the FrancoGerman emperor speaks for itself about the sentiments of all Westerners against us. It also provides us with the useful piece of information that up until 969, the Franks had obviously still not decided to become “assimilated” with the Romans. The falsification of History must therefore be attributed to a later era … [70] Therefore, it was neither the Turkish occupation nor the “Crusades” that were the cause of separation between Hellenism and the West; these events merely exacerbated the existing differences between them. The differences however were pre-existent and were attributed to very tangible reasons, which our ancestors had already experienced, during the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries. On the dilemma of “Romanity or barbarity”, Western Europe had already made its choice in the 8th century, and the consequences of this choice have since sealed world History, to our day.

Epilogue The gaping void between Romanity and the West, whose

beginnings we described in our study, continued with unabated intensity in the centuries that followed. Romanity had become familiar with the West and its anti-Roman disposition, from the 8th century. In the centuries that followed, the Franks did nothing to allay the fears of the Romans. On the contrary, they continued to maintain an uncompromising stance, demanding our complete subjugation whenever the opportunity arose. Military conflicts were followed by an exchange of insults (as in the case of Liutprand’s delegation in Cremona), to again be followed by more military conflicts. At the same time, on a cultural level, various Western authors had begun to write (as of the 9th century) endless treatises entitled “Contra errores Graecorum” against the Romans. Day by day, the two worlds drew further apart from each other. The Schism of 1054 was nothing more than another characteristic verification of the Franks’ refusal to renounce their theological arbitrariness. Later on, new barbaric tribes from the North completed the subjugation of the Romans of Southern Italy. After 1800 years of an illustrious presence, Hellenism was now irrevocably uprooted from the Italian peninsula. At the end of the 11th century, the conquering disposition of the Westerners took on an undisguised form, with their socalled “Crusades”. Already with the first “Crusade”, the ulterior motive of certain Latin sovereigns had become evident, and this was perceived by Constantinople. As Anna Comnene wrote in her work “Alexiad”, the objective of the Westerners was none other than the conquest of the Regnant City (Constantinople), which they considered to be the natural conclusion of their expedition. [71] One of the leaders of the “Crusade”, Bohemund, did not hide his mortal

hatred for Romania, and had expressed his dedication to the plan for its annihilation, in a passionate letter addressed to the emperor Alexius, which is quoted by Anna Comnena. [72] The climax of the conflict came in 1204, when thousands of hungry vagabonds from every corner of Western Europe abandoned their hovels and embarked on a journey (supposedly) for the Holy Lands. But “something” happened along the way, and the destination was altered. The civil conflicts between the Romans of this era allowed for all these troglodytes to enter Constantinople and sack it. In a state of shock, our ancestors watched the Western “soldiers of Christ” bring mules into the Holy Bema of the Haghia Sophia’s sanctum, and their animals slipping on the floors, leaving their excrements and blood on the Holy Altar, while a whore that the Latins had brought along with them climbed onto the patriarch’s throne and began to dance and commit other unspeakable improprieties. [73] The slaughtering and the destruction that followed constitute the blackest page of Western European History. God only knows how many precious works of art, whose only copies were preserved in Constantinople, vanished forever from the cultural heritage of mankind. The Frankish regime that followed after 1204 caused an unbridgeable chasm between the Romans and the Westerners. Our ancestors had by now felt first-hand and throughout all the empire, the Latins’ disposition, which could be summed up as the complete annihilation of the Roman civilisation and the Hellenic language. In contrast to the Turkish occupation that followed, which had permitted the Romans to keep their language and religion (and therefore their identity), Western domination had all the

distinctive marks of genocide. Besides, wherever it did finally prevail, the Roman conscience was uprooted in the most violent manner possible. One such example is Southern Italy, which was definitely Hellenic for 1800 years. (The sombre history of the heroic but futile resistance of the Romans of Southern Italy from the 11th century to the 16th century is unfortunately still awaiting its author). It is worth mentioning that as soon as the Romans regained the City in 1261, the Pope hastened to offer those who fought against the emperor Michael Paleologos the same absolution of sins that he had given to the “crusaders” who fought against the Moslems. [74] One must realise that these views were not only adopted by the political-military leadership of the West. The same sentiments were fostered by “enlightened” intellectuals such as the great forerunner of humanism, Petrarch. Here is what he wrote in the middle of the 14th century: “The Turks are enemies. But these here, the Greeks, are schismatics and even worse than the enemies, so, it is preferable that the Turks occupy Jerusalem instead of the Greeks”. [75] And elsewhere: “as for these frauds and Greeklings, I cannot wait to see this Empire, this font of heresies, to be destroyed by our own hands”. [76] All the above are of course a part of the “common European heritage” that links us to our Western European partners … The fact remains, that the fierce resistance of the Romans, neutralized all the western attempts to eradicate the Hellenic-Orthodox civilization, the one after the other. Thus, in the 14th century, the Franks proceeded to draft a “final

solution” (to use the expression of a well-known German ruler against the Jews). The plan, which had been submitted by the Dominican monk Brocardus to the King of France Philip VI, included the total annihilation of the Romans through a mass kidnapping of children, the violent renouncement of Orthodoxy and a compulsory subjection to the Latin dogma, the burning of all books that defended the Eastern Christian dogma, and the prohibition of the Hellenic language, along with the recognition of Frankish domination. [77] The Romans however refused this “help” from the West, and chose the lesser between the two evils, namely the Turks. History vindicated them triumphantly, since, 400 years later they managed to overthrow their conquerors, having preserved both the Hellenic language and their Orthodox faith. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same for the millions of our fellow Romans of France and Italy, who were irretrievably lost, after being conquered by the Western barbarians … After severing itself from Romanity, the West pursued its own course. This was the famous course that led to the crimes of the Holy Inquisition, to the horrors of slave trading, to colonization and racism, the price of which was paid by millions of innocent victims all over the world. The promises offered by humanism for a “golden age” that would dawn with the predominance of rationalism and the progress of science, were tragically extinguished in the Auschwitzes and the Hiroshimas that the supremely “civilised” Western countries led us into. In our day, the impending danger of a complete ecological collapse of the planet comes to refute most ironically that promise of an incessantly increasing consumption, with

which the West corrupted every rival civilisation. The Romans had no part in, nor any connection to, all these crimes of the West. Therefore, they should not be fooled into erasing their different historical tradition and rashly accept that they also share the “common European heritage”. A heritage of a collective guilt for the destruction of the Hellenic-Roman civilisation, the Holy Inquisition, the genocide of the native Americans, colonization, racism, gas chambers and nuclear bombs is not our heritage, and we do not have the least desire to have it thrust upon us by them. Our heritage, for the past three thousand years, has been the defence of civilisation against barbarity, the preservation of the Truth which had been revealed to Man at some point in time and was expressed through our language, the preservation of hope for a fulfilled human existence, where “the yearning for that sea” that the poem speaks of will find an ocean in the “balance of goodness”, and where the true word will be in equilibrium with the expectation of eternity. Because Romans know that their destination is to live within eternity, to participate in the never-ending feast where “everything is filled with light, both in heaven and earth and the underworld …” This is the heritage that the Romans can present, opposite the savagery of the West. And this is the reason why the dilemma “Romanity or barbarity” continues to be as vivid as it was 1500 years ago …

[1] See Mango (1973), p. 684. [2] Gregory of Tours, p. 63. [3] See introduction by Lewis Thorpe in Gregory of Tours, p. 27-30. [4] See Pirenne (1980), p. 196. [5] See Pirenne (1980), p. 243. [6] See Lemerle (1983), p. 77. [7] as above, p. 118. [8] See Cook & Herzman (1983), p. 32. [9] See Runciman (1979), p. 335. [10] as above, p. 335. [11] See Runciman (1979), p. 267. [12] [13] The word is Hellenic in origin. As a race, the Greeks used to inhabit Epirus and were afterwards called ‘Selloi’, from where the term Hellenes originates. It is noteworthy, that, while the Latin name Graeci referred to the Hellenes from ancient times, in the Greek language it is unknown as an ethnic name: throughout all of Hellenic literary works, it is encountered only once, in Aristotle’s «Meteorologika». No ancient Hellene had ever called himself ‘Greek’. Later, upon the conquest of Hellas by Rome, the word (especially the nickname Greekling) began to have a negative inference in the Latin language, and it was with this inference that it was used once again nationally from the 8th century onwards.

[14] See Fredegar, IV, 23. [15] as above., IV, 65 [16] See Paul the Deacon, IV, p. 177. [17] as above., ΙΙΙ, 12, p.108. [18] as above., p. 200. [19] as above., V, 30, p. 234-35. [20] as above., V, 11, p. 258. [21] n IV, 23, p. 167. [22] In VI, 24, p. 285. [23] as above., V, 7, p. 220. [24] as above., V, 11, p. 224. [25] as above., V, 16, p. 226. [26] Romanides (1982), p. 205-206. [27] See Einhard, III, 19, p. 74. [28] as above., ΙΙ, p. 69. [29] And yet, it is impressive when one considers how the first neoHellenic book on byzantine history, «Byzantine Studies» by Sp. Zambelios in 1857, placed the beginnings of the neo-Hellenic nation and its differentiation from the West in the 8th century and the formation of the Frankish empire! [30] Liber Pontificalis, 1. 444. See Herrin (1989), p. 372. [31] See Herrin (1989), p. 374.

[32] See Herrin (1989), p. 381. [33] See Theofanes, p. 402-403. [34] See Miller (1975). [35] Codex Carolinus, 11, 506. 38. See Herrin (1989), p. 380. [36] Codex Carolinus, no 32, no 34. See Herrin (1989), p. 383. [37] See Mango (1973), p. 695. [38] See Sp. Zambelios, «Byzantine Studies», Athens, 1857, p. 311. [39] See Herrin (1989), p. 371. [40] See Stephanides (1948), p. 274. For an alternate view of the origin and the significance of these decrees, see J. Romanides (1981), p. 20-25. Romanides stresses that the Roman Popes benefited from the decrees, to the detriment of the Frankish rulers. [41] See Loungis (1989), p. 192. [42] Latin Patrology Migne, vol. 126, 899. See Loungis (1989), p. 193. Pope John VIII had also done other ‘unheard of’ things. In 873 he forced the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious to free Methodius, the Thessalonian missionary of the Slavs, whom the Franks had kept imprisoned in Moravia for three whole years (See Obolensky, vol. Α’, p. 242). He afterwards persistently defended the right of the Slavs to perform their church services in their own language, thus coming to very acute confrontations with the Franks who upheld the theory of three sacred languages (Hebrew, Hellenic, Latin) (as above., p. 244). As we are all aware, the Frankish view was finally imposed throughout all of Western Europe, which resulted in church services being held, from Finland and as far south as the Cyclades islands, in the totally incomprehensible Latin tongue, even as late as the 1960 decade. The ‘worst’ thing of all that he did, was in 879, during the patriarchy of Photios, when he had participated in the 8th Ecumenical Synod in Constantinople (which is not recognized by

Papists today) and he condemned all those who did not accept the 7th Ecumenical Synod of Nice in 787 (in other words, the Franks, who, as we shall see further down, had rejected it during Charlemagne’s time in 794). See J. Romanides, (1981), p. 19-20. Later (in the 12th century) the Frankish forgers concocted a certain fabled excommunication of Photios by John VIII and they based on it a whole series of theories on the «Schism of the heretic Greeks» as far along as the 20th century. The exposing of this fraud occurred just recently, in 1948, by the famous historian F. Dvornik in his classic work «The Photian Schism». A simple perusal of this book is enough to shock every naive neo-Hellene, with regard to the ideological means that the Western Europeans had implemented against us... [43] See Herrin (1989), p. 393. [44] Mansi 13. 764 A-C. See Herrin (1989), p. 394. [45] Mansi 12. 999, 12. 1055-71, 12. 1077-84, 12. 1086B. See Herrin (1989), p. 419. [46] Karayannopoulos (1978), Vol. Β’, p. 171-172. [47] Loungis (1989), p. 159. [48] See Loungis (1989), p. 159. [49] See Herrin (1989), p. 436-330. [50] Romanides (1975), p. 293. [51] See Herrin (1989), p. 438, 440. Following years of extensive researching the Libri Carolini, L. Wallach concludes that the only Hellenic source that was used for their composition was Epiphanios of Salamis («Epistle» to John of Jerusalem, year 392). References to other Hellenic-speaking Fathers that are found in the Libri Carolini have been copied from the Latin translation of the Minutes of the Nicene Synod and not any other independent source. Thus we see the comical phenomenon of –for example- the rejecting of

Pope Adrian’s Synodica, to the point that the latter invokes saint Gregory of Nyssa in support of the icons, when the author of the Libri Carolini had no idea of who Gregory of Nyssa was! For extensive details, see Luitpold Wallach, «Diplomatic Studies in Latin and Greek documents from the Carolingian Age», Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1977, p. 82-85. [52] Mansi 13. 33A-37C, 13. 9E, 13, 20C, 13. 53E, 13. 72A-D. See Herrin (1989), p. 421-422. [53] See Herrin (1989), p. 463-464. Also see Romanides (1975), p. 292-293. [54] It appears that the first time a non-Roman Pope ascended the throne was in 983, when the Franco-German king Otto II imposed a Longobard, Peter of Pavia, as Pope with the name John IV. See Romanides (1981), p. 26. [55] See Herrin (1989), p. 453. [56] Gibbon, XLIX, τόµ ΙΙΙ, p. 23. [57] Codex Carolinus, 67. See Gibbon, XLIX, τόµ ΙΙΙ, p. 25, υποp. 67. [58] Karayannopoulos, as above., p. 185, sub-par. 252. [59] See Karageorgios (1987), p. 164. [60] Annales Laureshamenses, 33. See Karayannopoulos (1978), vol. Β’, p. 184-185. [61] See Pirenne (1980), p. 233. [62] See Karageorgios (1987), p. 393. [63] Theophanes, p. 472. [64] Theophanes, p. 473.

[65] Einhard, 16, p. 71. [66] Theophanes, p. 475. [67] See Herrin (1989), p. 466. [68] Einhard, 16, p. 71. It is noteworthy that this saying was familiar, both to the Franks themselves, for Einhard to have quoted it in Greek in his text! See Christou (1989), p. 114. [69] Liutprandus, «Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana», Becker publications, Hannover-Leipzig, 1915, in Karageorgos (1987), p. 507-509. Karageorgos quotes the full text (in Latin and Hellenic) of Liutprand’s book. [70] Ever since they decided to ‘merge’ the term Roman was replaced by the term Greek (Grec) as an abusive term. Thus the word «grec» came to be synonymous to the word «impostor» in French, even in our day. [71] Anna Comnena, Book Χ, p. 311. [72] as above., Book ΧΙ, p. 368. [73] Here is how the eyewitness Niketas Choniates describes the scene: «… mules and covered beasts of burden were brought in, even as far the sanctum of the temple, while slipping and unable to stand on their legs on account of the slipperiness of the polished stones, and were prodded with knives, thus desecrating the sanctuary floor with their excrement and blood. But also a woman of multitudinous sins, …. a pole for demons, a workshop of unspeakable sorcery and of loud incantations, in total contempt of Christ, sat upon the synthronon (the priests’ thrones inside the sanctum) and deposited upon them a severed limb, and twirling around many times, she would move her feet around it». See Ν. Χωνιάτης, «Ιστορία», Corpus Historiae Byzantinae, έκδ. Bekker, Βόννη, 1835, p. 759.

[74] See Runciman (1979), p. 137. [75] Epistolae de Rebus Senilium 7, Opera Omnia, Basle 1555, vol. 2, p. 912. See Christou (1989), p. 117. [76] V. Rossi, «Petrarea, Le familiari», 3, Florence, 1937, 120. 8588. See R. Browning, «Greeks and others from antiquity to the Renaissance», in Browning (1989), p. 26. [77] See the analytical presentation by Brocarytus in Simopoulos (1990), p. 247-250. Also see Yannakopoulos (1966), p. 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Listed are the works that this book refers to only.) a) Hellenic language
=Ahrweiler-Glykatzi Helen, «The political ideology of the Byzantine empire», «Η πολιτική ιδεολογία της βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας», translation by Τ.Drakopoulou, Psychogios Publications, 3rd edition, Athens, 1988. =Valetas G., «Of Romanity», «Της publications, 2nd edition, Athens, 1982. Ρωµιοσύνης» Philippotis

=Baynes N. H. and Moss H. St. L. B., «Byzantium: an introduction to the Byzantine civilization», «Βυζάντιο: εισαγωγή στο βυζαντινό πολιτισµό», translation by D. Sakkas, Papadimas Publications, 3rd edition, Athens, 1986. =Buckler Georgina, (1986), «The Byzantine Education», «Η Βυζαντινή Εκπαίδευση», in Baynes & Moss « Byzantium: an introduction to the Byzantine civilization».

=Yannakopoulos Κ., «Byzantine East and Latin West», translation by K. Kyriazi, Estia, Athens, 1966. =Dimaras Κ. Θ., «Neo-Hellenic Enlightenment», Hermes, Athens, 1977. =Gregoire Henri, (1986), «The Byzantine Church», in Baynes & Moss « Byzantium: an introduction to the Byzantine civilization». =Theophanes, «Chronography», C. de Boor publications, Leipzig, 1883, 1885. =Karageorgos Vasilis, «The Holy Roman Empire: Medieval period», Volume. Α’, St. Vasilopoulos publications, Athens, 1987. =Karayannopoulos John, «History of the Byzantine State», 2 volumes, Sakkoulas publications, Thessaloniki, 1978. =Kakrides J. Th., «The ancient Hellenes in neo-Hellenic folk tradition», Educational Institute of the National Bank, Athens, 1979. =Korais Adamantios, «The Complete Works», vol. Α1, supervision by G. Valetas, Dorikos publications, Athens, 1964. =Lemerle Paul, «The first Byzantine humanism», translation by M. Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, Educational Institute of the National Bank, Athens, 1983. =Lignades Tasos, «Collapsing», Akritas, Athens, 1989. =Louggis Telemachos, « Byzantine domination in Italy», Estia, Athens, 1989. =Obolensky Dimitri, «The Byzantine Commonwealth», 2 volumes, translation by Yannis Tsevremes, Vanias, Thessaloniki, 1991. =Paparrigopoulos Constantine, «History of the Hellenic Nation», 6 volumes, supervision by P. Karolides, Eleftheroudakis, 6th edition, Athens, 1932. =Politis Linos, «Poetic Anthology», 8 volumes, Dodoni, Athens, 1980.

=Prokopios, «Pro Wars», Teubner publications, Leipzig, 1963. =Runciman Steven, «Byzantine Theocracy, translation by J. Roelides, Domos, Athens, 1982. =Runciman Steven, «Byzantine Civilization», translation by Despina Detzortzi, Organization for the Publication of Educational Books, Athens, 1979. =Romanides John, «Romanity, Romania, publications, 2nd edition, Thessaloniki, 1982. Roumeli», Ponaras

=Simopoulos Kyriakos, «Xenocracy, Anti-Hellenism and Vassalage», Athens, 1990. =Stefanides Β., «Ecclesiastic History», Athens, 1948. =Christou Pan., «The adventures of the Hellenes’ national names», Kyromanos publications, 2nd edition, Athens, 1989. =Chrysos Evangelos, «Byzantium and the formation of Mediaeval Europe: a research program» in «Byzantium and Europe». Minutes of the 1st International Byzantinological Meeting held at Delphi, 20-24 July 1985, Athens, 1987.

b) Other languages
=Anna Comnena, «Alexiad», English translation E.R.A. Sewter, Penguin, Middlesex, England, re-printed 1985. =Browning Robert, «The continuity of Hellenism in the Byzantine world: appearance or reality», στο «Hellas Old and New», ed. By T. Winnifrith and P. Murray, London, Macmillan, 1983, reprinted by Browning «History, Language and Literacy in the Byzantine World»,

Variorum Reprints, Northampton, 1989. =Bury J. B., «History of the Later Roman Empire, from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian», 2 volumes, Dover Publications, New York, 1958. =Charanis Peter, «Some remarks on the changes in Byzantium in the seventh century», Recueil des travaux de l’ Institut d’ Etudes Byzantines, VIII, 1 (Melanges G. Ostrogorsky I), Belgrade, 1963, reprinted by Charanis «Studies on the demography of the Byzantine Empire», Variorum Reprints, London, 1972. =Cook W. and Herzman R., «The medevial world view», Oxford University Press, New York, 1983. Drew Katherine Fischer, «The Lombard Laws», University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1973. =Einhard, «Vita Caroli», English translation by Lewis Thorpe in «Two lives of Charlemagne», Penguin, 9th reprint, Middlesex, England, 1983. =Fredegar, «Chronicorum liber quartus cum continuationibus», publication and English translation by J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., London, 1960. =Gibbon Edward, «The decline and fall of the Roman Empire», 3 volumes, Modern Library, Random House, χ.χ. =Gregory of Tours, «Historiae Francorum», English translation by Lewis Thorpe, Penguin, 3rd reprint, Middlesex, England, 1982. =Herrin Judith, «The Formation of Christendom», Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1989. Mango Cyrill, (1973), «La culture grecque et l’ Occident au VIIIe siècle», Settimane di Studio, XX, Spotelo, 1973, reprinted by Mango «Byzantium and its Image», Variorum Reprints, London, 1985.

=Mango Cyrill, «Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome», Charles Scribaer’s Sons, New York, 1980. =Mantouvalou Maria, «Romaios-Romios-Romiossyni. La notion de Romain avant et apres la chute de Constantinople», Scientific Yearbook of the Athens University School of Philosophy, 28, 1985. =Miller D. H., «Byzantino-Papal relations during the Pontificate of Paul I: Confirmation and completion of the Roman revolution of the eighth century», Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1975, σ. 47-62. =Paul de Deacon, «Historia Langobardorum», English translation by William D. Foulke, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1907. =Pirenne Henri, «Mohammed and Charlemagne», English translation by Bernard Miall, Barnes & Noble, Totowa, New Jersey, ανατύπωση 1980. =Romanides John, «The Filioque», Legacy, 7, Β’, July 1975. =Romanides John, «Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: «an interplay between theology and society», Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1981. =Theophanes, «The Chronicle of Theophanes», publication and English translation by Harry Turtledove, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1982. =Toynbee Arnold, «A Study of History», revised and abridged by the author, Weathervane Books, New York, 1972. =Toynbee Arnold, «The Hellenics and their heritages», Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1981. =Wallace-Hadrill J. M., «The barbarian West: the early Middle Age A.D. 400-1000», Harper & Row, New York, 2nd reprint, 1962.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful