Version classiqueVersion mobile

Héritages de Byzance en Europe du Sud-Est à l’époque moderne et contemporaine

 | 
Olivier Delouis
, 
Anne Couderc
, 
Petre Guran

Making Byzantium a Greek Presence: Paparrigopoulos and Koumanoudes Review the Latest History Books

Despina Christodoulou

Résumé

Although many of the peoples of Southeast Europe believe a Byzantine presence is to be found in the fragments of their national histories and identities, the Greeks lay greatest claim to the Byzantines as direct ancestors. Yet, with the creation of modern Greek identity from the second half of the 18th century, many Greeks roundly rejected Byzantium and embraced antiquity. By the mid-19th century, however, Byzantium was increasingly recognised as the essential link between the classical past and the modern Greeks, thanks mainly to the work of Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos. This article investigates emerging positive images of Byzantium in the work of 19th-century Greek historians before Paparrigopoulos’s image came to dominate. This is done through a study of two books – volume one of Skarlatos Vyzantios’s Konstantinoupolis (1851) and Spyridon Zambelios’s Folk Songs of Greece (1852) – and the critical response to them from Stephanos Koumanoudes and Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos respectively. In this way, we can appreciate better the complex and vigorous debate taking place in the new Greek state about its relationship with Byzantium.

Texte intégral

1Of all the peoples of Southeast Europe, the Greeks most fervently lay claim to the heritage of Byzantium, not simply as a cultural legacy but as an intrinsic element of a continuous Greek national history from antiquity until the present. For the Greeks of today, Byzantium is eternally present, and it is a Greek presence. The Byzantines are regarded as medieval Greeks, the ancestors of the moderns. This can be seen in the fact that both Athens and Thessaloniki each have a Byzantine Museum and there are around another 20 such museums elsewhere in Greece and others also in Cyprus. Even so, the Greeks are not the only people to lay a claim to the heritage of Byzantium. The subject of the present volume is the Byzantine presence in Southeast Europe, and many of the chapters by scholars from other Southeast European nations focus on the use of Byzantium in the construction of their own national history and identity. Fragments of Byzantium are to be found all over the region. For Greece’s neighbours, however, the presence of Byzantium is something that informs their identity, to be used as a “resource” in its exploration: it is not a fundamental element of that identity. As far as I am aware, there are no museums specifically characterised as “Byzantine Museums” in other countries of the region.

2Yet, as is widely acknowledged, such a passionate national affiliation with Byzantium on the part of the modern Greeks is a product of only the past two centuries. Prior to this, Byzantium was considered so horrendous that most efforts were focused on attempting to obscuring any presence of it. In the early days of the Greek state, founded in the 1830s after the 1821 War of Independence, Byzantium and the medieval period were initially derided, in a continuation of a tradition that became particularly apparent in the decades prior to the Greek revolution, the foremost representative of which was the scholar and publicist Adamantios Korais. Antiquity and the classical past had come to be embraced obsessively by Greeks whilst Byzantium and the medieval period were rejected or suppressed. The most dramatic expression of this can be seen in the abandoning of the name Romioi – a clear link with the Roman, in other words Byzantine, Empire – and the adoption of the ancient name of Hellenes.

Corrupt Byzantium

3The Republican-minded Korais articulated a historical narrative in which Byzantium signified the darkest and most corrupt moment of Greek history. The perceived moral, cultural and political corruption of Byzantium was the cause of the fall of the Greeks to Ottoman rule. His outburst against Michael Psellos for the latter’s alleged poems in honour of the emperor Konstantinos Monomachos indicates a confused understanding of Byzantine literary production:

  • 1 Korais Adamantios, Προλεγόμενα στοὺς ἀρχαίους Ἕλληνες συγγραφεῖς, II, Athens, 1988 [1810], p. 49.

“Oh Hellas! Oh race! With such kings, with such wise men, and with such fine writing, did you hope to activate your spears against those barbarians from whom you differed little, and who were stronger than you because of their ignorance of luxury.”1

  • 2 Korais Adamantios, Τί πρέπει νὰ κάμωσιν οἱ Γραικοὶ εἰς τὰς παροῦσας περιστάσεις: Διάλογος δύο Γραικ (...)

4The corruption and decadence of the Byzantine kings and court was thus believed to have caused the fall of Constantinople. Korais also sought to limit the Byzantium of the Romioi as a presence in that most fundamental aspect of contemporary Greek cultural identity, the nation’s name. Romioi or Romaioi – as the people who now call themselves Hellenes identified from the Early Christian period until the 19th century – must be dropped. This would be best done through a return to antiquity. In his imaginary dialogue between two Graikoi, Kleanthis and Aristokles, Korais makes Aristokles propose Graikoi as the name for their nation. Our ancestors, he says, were of old called Graikoi. Of their own will, and not because of a foreign nation, they later took the name Hellenes. Aristokles proposes Graikoi, as this is what the most enlightened nations of Europe call them. “If, he says to Kleanthes, you prefer ‘Hellenes’, then use that, but never, for God’s sake, use Romaios. For the Romaioi removed the little freedom that Greece had left to it, and this name is forever a mark of slavery”.2 It must be said that, like Aristokles, Korais preferred the name Graikoi, rather than Hellenes.

5Such social tension is also at work in the anonymous tract Elliniki Nomarchia, published in Italy in 1806. Its mysterious writer rants:

  • 3 Anonymous the Greek, Ἑλληνικὴ νομαρχία, ἤτοι Λόγος περὶ ἐλευθερίας, Athens, 1980 [1806], p. 81.

“Since then when Christianity became established until 1453, instead of the means of freedom being increased, faugh! they shrank. The superstition and falsehood and vain zeal of the priests and patriarchs, controlled the souls of the kings who, instead of taking care to govern the people, as they should, did not think of anything other than squabbling with each other and building churches. Three authorities appeared in Greece at that time: the tyranny, the clergy and the nobility, who for eleven centuries corrupted the Hellenes and desolated Greece.”3

  • 4 Translation at Clogg Richard, “The ‘Dhidhaskalia Patriki’ (1798): An Orthodox Reaction to French Re (...)

6Yet, it was not only the representatives of the so-called “Neohellenic Enlightenment” who stigmatised the presence of Byzantium within a narrative of Greek national history and blamed the emperors for the Ottoman conquest. The Orthodox Church believed that the presence of Byzantium, the Roman Empire, was one that had to be removed for the benefit of the Orthodox Christians, and the Ottomans had in fact been so kind as to do this. The author of the 1798 pamphlet Fatherly Teachings, apparently Anthimos the Patriarch of Jerusalem, wrote that “God raised out of nothing this powerful empire of the Ottomans, in the place of our Roman Empire which had begun, in a certain way, to deviate from the beliefs of the Orthodox faith”.4 This may have been “our Roman Empire”, but its presence had become so damaging it had to be removed, to be replaced by even the Ottomans. Such ecclesiastical denunciation indicates that the aetiology for the repression of Byzantium was more complicated than the cause usually cited: the so-called neo-Hellenic Enlightenment, allegedly under the spell of western distaste of Byzantium as exemplified by Gibbon and Montesquieu. It also suggests that the Church saw its own history as separate from that of the Byzantine emperors and their kingdom, or at least did so after 1453.

  • 5 Neroulos ridiculed Korais’s proposed language reforms in his 1813 play Κορακιστικά.
  • 6 Neroulos Iakovos Rizos, “Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἑταιρεία”, Εὐρωπαικὸς Ἐρανιστής 3 (1841), p. 307-335, see p.  (...)

7The extent to which such an antipathy to Byzantium had imbued the representatives and officials of the new Greek state was most famously and effectively summarised by a critic of Korais, Iakovos Rizos Neroulos,5 president of the Athens Archaeological Society and government Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs and Education. In a vibrant speech given on the Acropolis during the annual meeting of the Archaeological Society in 1841, he described the wondrous “revival” of the Hellenes after twenty centuries of slavery and lethargy. Of Byzantine history, however, he proclaimed, that it was simply “a long and almost continuous series of foolish practices and shameful violent acts”, and that it was “a most painful record of the lowest misery and the stultification of the Hellenes”.6

  • 7 See Bastea Eleni, The Creation of Modern Athens: Planning the Myth, Cambridge, 2000.
  • 8 Petrakos Vasilios, “Ἰδεογραφία τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας”, Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς 127 ( (...)
  • 9 See the article by Athanassopoulos Effie in this volume.

8The choice of Athens as the new state’s capital further entrenched the image of ancient Greece as the most important factor of Hellenic identity, with the suppression, sometimes even physical removal of the Byzantine presence. Neoclassical architecture dominated the new Athens that was being constructed,7 and archaeology threatened to unearth the ancient city at the expense of the overlying layers. The first law for the protection of monuments, passed in May 1834, had provisions for the protection of early Christian and Byzantine monuments in addition to those of antiquity: “the works of art from the earliest epoch of Christianity and the so-called Middle Ages are not excluded from this law”. A subsequent law passed in December 1837 prohibited the destruction of buildings from the Middle Ages, “Byzantine, Venetian and Turkish,” unless they were found “mingled” with works of Hellenic and Roman antiquity, in which case they could be destroyed in order to reach the ancient level.8 A cursory look around Athens today reveals just how ineffective these laws were at protecting the later layers.9

Greece’s “national historian”

  • 10 Quoted in Dimaras Constantinos, Κωνσταντῖνος Παπαρρηγόπουλος. Ἡ ἐποχή του. Ἡ ζωή του. Τὸ ἔργο του, (...)

9Another area vital to the formation of the new nation-state was education and schools. In the school curriculum the Byzantine presence was again suppressed and the ancient over-emphasised. Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos – later to be labelled Greece’s “national historian” – taught at the Athens Gymnasium school between 1846 and 1850, and was also advancing a career producing history textbooks. Through these we can also follow his own changing views towards Byzantium, starting from the standard position of ambiguity and distance towards one of integrating Byzantium into a continuous and unified Greek historical narrative. His 1845 translation/adaptation Elements of General History according to the system of the Frenchman Lévi was approved by the Ministry of Education, which issued a circular that Paparrigopoulos’ book should be used within schools. Grigorios Pappadopoulos, a teacher at the Gymnasium school, refused to do so as, he claimed, the General History did not contain enough of the “history of the eastern Orthodox empire… as for middle history, the Byzantine is worthy”.10 As a result, Pappadopoulos lost his job, with, ironically, Paparrigopoulos filling his vacant position. Paparrigopoulos rebuffed Pappadopoulos’s criticism by arguing that Byzantine history should not be considered Hellenic history:

  • 11 Quoted ibid., p. 124-125.

“It is true that the history of the eastern Orthodox empire is presented synoptically; it is not, however, true, that it constitutes our middle ancestral history… Middle Hellenic history constitutes middle Hellenic history… This middle Hellenic history should be taught by us and not the Byzantine.”11

10In 1853, Paparrigopoulos, now a history lecturer at Athens University, published a one-volume History of the Hellenic Nation “for the teaching of children”, the precursor to his subsequent five-volume History of the Hellenic Nation “for the many”. In this, Paparrigopoulos informed his young readers that the “history of the Hellenic nation” is divided into five periods. The third period came after that of Roman rule and covered the years from ad 476 to 1453. During this period “the Hellenic nation was again free and acquired its own kings, whose capital was Constantinople”. Paparrigopoulos has changed his views completely – “the history of the eastern Orthodox empire”, which he once spurned, now represents a glorious era of freedom for the Hellenic nation, freedom proven by the fact that during Byzantium the nation had its own kings.

  • 12 Quoted in Koulouri Christina, Ἱστορία καὶ γεωγραφία στὰ ἑλληνικὰ σχολεῖα (1834-1914): Γνωστικὰ ἀντι (...)

11For his defence of Byzantium, however, Paparrigopoulos was now to suffer a similar fate to Pappadopoulos. Unlike his early work, the History of the Hellenic Nation was not to be promoted within schools by the Ministry of Education, as it was not approved in the report prepared for the schoolbook committee. This report had been compiled by Theodoros Manousis, Paparrigopoulos’s fellow historian at the University, who commented that Paparrigopoulos had not “remained within the currently established boundaries of Hellenic history until the loss of Hellenic autonomy… but has dragged into this cycle other elements, which are not usually considered parts of it, for example, the Byzantine state”.12 The report was counter-signed by the secretary of the schoolbook committee, Stephanos Koumanoudes.

12Paparrigopoulos’s schoolbook History of the Hellenic Nation was published almost exactly in the middle of the 19th century, in 1853. Two other historical works which also sought to challenge the harsh position of Greek historians towards Byzantium had been published only a little earlier. These were volume one of Skarlatos Vyzantios’s Konstantinoupolis in 1851 and Spyridon Zambelios’s Asmata Dimotika tis Ellados (Folk Songs of Greece) in 1852. Unlike Paparrigopoulos, neither of these two authors was a historian by profession, although their works elicited spirited reviews by two prominent Athens university professors: Stephanos Koumanoudes, professor of Latin and secretary of the Athens Archaeological Society for 35 years whom we have just encountered, embarked upon a vitriolic “pamphlet war” with Vyzantios over his review of Konstantinoupolis, whilst Paparrigopoulos himself both praised and criticised Zambelios’s Folk Songs.

13Of the four authors discussed here, Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos is the best known. His five-volume History of the Hellenic Nation, published between 1860 and 1877, grew out of the history schoolbook with the same title discussed above. Its goal was similar: to incorporate Byzantium within Greek national history. Through this monumental work, Paparrigopoulos has been credited with fully integrating Byzantium into a tripartite concept of Hellenic national history, in which ancient, Byzantine and modern Greece are unified over time and geographical space. To achieve this he was obliged to battle with the deeply entrenched anti-Byzantine prejudice that permeated Greek society.

14As Marios Hatzopoulos demonstrates in this volume, attitudes towards Byzantium prior to the 1850s although outwardly negative were also highly ambiguous. Byzantium may have been almost universally condemned, but there was also a certain fascination, almost a superstitious attitude towards it. Just what Byzantium was and how it related to the contemporary Greeks was a matter that had not been fully processed. Paparrigopoulos’s major achievement was not simply to overturn the prevailing negative attitudes towards Byzantium but to package it into a simple and coherent story that could be used in a range of ways: to satisfy Greek cultural and identity needs, to promote Greek political and territorial claims, to give Greeks a more relevant sense of place in the contemporary world than the one offered by the eulogising of glorious antiquity.

15Koumanoudes’s and Paparrigopoulos’s reviews reveal some of the public and scholarly reaction to Vyzantios’s and Zambelios’s works, indicating the extent to which the ideas they contained were considered peculiar or innovative. They provide us with an entry point into the debate over Greek national history and ethnic identity, and the role of Byzantium in all of this at a period before Paparrigopoulos himself had fully formulated his own specific interpretation of Byzantine history. Even so, instead of simply investigating the development of Greek historiography as a teleological process that resulted inevitably in Paparrigopoulos’s grand tripartite schema, the aim here is to understand better the complex and vigorous debate that was taking place in the new Greek state about its relationship with Byzantium.

16All four of these figures – Vyzantios and Koumanoudes, Zambelios and Paparrigopoulos – were originally from lands that lay outside the new Greek kingdom. Aside from the somewhat older Vyzantios, they were all born in roughly the same year (1815-1818) and died at around the same age. They were thus of the generation that were children during the War of Independence, which came to adulthood along with the foundation of the modern Greek state. Skarlatos Vyzantios (1797/8-1878) was born in Iaşi in the Principality of Moldavia and schooled in Constantinople. Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos (1815-1891) hailed originally from Constantinople, escaping to Odessa with his family as a young child after his father had been hung by the Ottomans following the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence. Stephanos Koumanoudes (1818-1899) was born in Adrianople, and his family too had to escape the disturbances caused by the outbreak of the war, relocating to Belgrade. Spyrdon Zambelios (1815-1881) was a native of the island of Lefkada; unlike the others, he did not ultimately settle and attempt to establish himself in the capital of the newly independent Greece. In 1851-52, when these books and their reviews were published, Vyzantios, Paparrigopoulos and Koumanoudes had been resident in Athens and active figures in the educational and broader political affairs of the new Greek state for a number of years. Only Spyridon Zambelios remained outside the Greek borders; indeed, he was a member of the parliament of the United States of the Ionian Islands, then under British protection. This is somewhat ironic when one considers that today only Lefkada is part of the Greek nation-state, whereas the cities of Constantinople and Adrianople were ultimately irretrievably lost in Greece’s campaigns to expand its borders.

Skarlatos Vyzantios

  • 13 In Greek he is invariably referred to as Alexandros Kallimaches. In 1856, Vyzantios described him a (...)
  • 14 Koulouri Christina (n. 12), p. 85, n. 1.
  • 15 Vyzantios Skarlatos (n. 13), p. 20-22.
  • 16 Lappas Kostas, Πανεπιστήμιο καὶ φοιτητὲς στὴν Ἑλλάδα κατὰ τὸν 19ον αἰῶνα, Athens, 2004, p. 51, n. 3 (...)

17Skarlatos Vyzantios was born in Iaşi, Moldavia in 1798 where his father was a high-ranking official in the court of the Hellenised hospodar Alexandru Callimachi,13 bringing the Vyzantios family firmly within the Phanariot sphere. Skarlatos was raised and educated in Constantinople, arriving in Athens soon after independence. In 1835 he published the first dictionary in independent Greece, and it is for his work as a lexicographer that he was known mainly in his day. His Elliniki Chrystomatheia, a collection of extracts from ancient Greek and Early Christian authors, compiled with Alexandros Rizos Rangavis (nephew of Iakovos Rizos Neroulos), was one of the two best-selling schoolbooks of the 19th century.14 Vyzantios came to Greece soon after independence and quickly established himself within the bureaucracy of the new administration. He was on the seven-member committee that oversaw the formation of an autocephalous Church of Greece, splitting away from the Constantinople Patriarchate, and was royal commissioner to the new Holy Synod. Vyzantios however resigned as a commissioner and from public life in 1836 partly in a dispute over the appointment of bishops within the new Church of Greece. Vyzantios believed that since the Constantinople Patriarchate had already appointed bishops in dioceses now in the Greek state, new bishops need not be appointed;15 this may indicate a greater sympathy towards the Constantinople Patriarchate than was commonly held within Greece. He returned to public service in 1854, when he became director of primary school education throughout the country, a position he held until his death in 1878.16

18Vyzantios’s monumental work Konstantinoupolis was published in three volumes between 1851 and 1869. As with many books of that era, the full title was lengthy: Constantinople, or a topographic, archaeological and historical description of this celebrated great city and of its suburbs running alongside the gulf and the Bosphorus, from the ancient years until our days, with many and diverse illustrations and the required topographical and chronological charts for the clarification of Byzantine history. Volume one was dedicated to the area within and around the walls of Constantinople. It is truly a complex work of over 600 pages, densely written and often difficult to follow. It takes the form of a walk around Constantinople, describing each monument or building as the walker passes the point where it stands or once stood. Vyzantios does not, however, limit himself just to the Byzantine structures, but discusses mosques and seraglios with almost as much enthusiasm as he depicts the Orthodox churches and palaces of the Byzantine emperors.

19Vyzantios admitted in the prologue that writing this book required an overwhelming effort, but he was subsumed by a passion for the city he identifies with as his own. In order to get just one small detail right, he explains, he had to read numerous lengthy tomes, and arrange so many chronological and topographical facts in the right order, because, as he asserted, “through the knowledge of each of these the history of the Byzantine epoch is made clearer, which comprises an integral and most essential part of the whole of our national history”. This echoes the title, which speaks of the author’s intent to clarify Byzantine history.

  • 17 Arabs, Egyptians, Turkmen, Persians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Circassians and Gypsies.

20The content of these 600 pages, however, is not really Byzantine history. Rather, it is an extremely detailed guidebook of contemporary Constantinople, describing in detail the cityscape, its buildings and streets, its people and their customs and habits. As for the city’s residents, he does not demur in providing population figures that indicate Constantinople was not a Greek city, nor even a majority Greek city. Turks are the largest ethnic group at 500000, followed by 300000 Greeks, and much smaller populations of Jews, Armenians, Europeans and assorted others.17 Vyzantios’s Constantinople is more “multi-cultural”, to use a modern term, than it is Hellenic or even Romaic, and its people and culture are more Ottoman and Muslim than they are Byzantine and Greek Orthodox.

  • 18 Vyzantios Skarlatos, Ἡ Κωνσταντινούπολις…, I, Athens, 1851, p. β´.

21In his prologue, Vyzantios states that another intention in writing this book is to provide a Greek work on Byzantine history, written in Greek by a Greek for the use of Greeks, so that they would not have to turn to the work of foreigners in order to study the history of their nation and their fatherland. He ridicules those Greeks who derive their information on “our” history from the Europeans, who may in any case be prejudiced. Such superficiality and haughtiness has been adopted by many of our own historians, Vyzantios continues, who simply by leafing through works of Byzantine history consider themselves to be like Montesquieus and Gibbons and attempt to imitate those authors instead of actually studying, as they did, the people and customs of that time. Noteworthy here is the fact that Vyzantios considers Montesquieu and Gibbon to be exemplars of the writing of Byzantine history. Vyzantios even suggests that Greeks should do as the biblical Shem and Japheth did, who turned their eyes away from their naked father. They should limit discussion of whatever is reprehensible, and even cover up the nasty things that the Byzantines did. On the other hand, they should highlight those things that are praiseworthy, which outnumber the negatives, as one can learn in an unprejudiced manner from the Byzantis.18

  • 19 Ibid., p. η´. Although, Vyzantios himself misspells Bekker’s name as Becker.
  • 20 Ibid.

22The Byzantis, as Skarlatos explains, was the corpus of Byzantine texts, the Corpus Byzantinorum, published in France from 1648-1729. It also included the 1729 Venice reprint in 23 volumes, and the Bonn and Leipzig editions of the Byzantine authors a century later. Vyzantios, however, found almost none of these works satisfactory. Firstly, he feels that the editing is bad: Immanuel Bekker is particularly singled out for his apparently dreadful Latin translation of Leo Grammaticus.19 Vyzantios concludes that: “No one is more suited than Greeks to publish Greek writings, in particular those of the Byzantines; and lucky is he who will in time prepare for the undertaking of this great and truly national work!” It may seem, then, that Vyzantios is a true admirer of all things Byzantine, yet his next sentence is more reminiscent of Adamantios Korais when he was railing against the corruption of the Greek language under the Byzantines: “Of these fifty [Byzantine] authors only a few, a very few, are worth anything”.20 Vyzantios complains that the historical and topographical details the Byzantine authors provide are wrong; in contrast, the writers he actually relies upon most for his information are westerners such as Petrus Gyllius – who wrote of the Constantinople of the 1540s and 1550s – and Du Cange. Gibbon is another author whom he cites often and admires greatly.

23What transpires from a reading of Konstantinoupolis is that Greeks, even as late as the mid- 19th century, had a knowledge of Byzantine history that was limited, lacking and idiosyncratic, and that, on some level, they were very much aware of this. They had few sources and materials available to them through which they could learn more: unsatisfactory foreign editions of the Byzantine authors and works by foreign travellers and historians, some of which may have been centuries’ old. Vyzantios even acknowledges and seemingly agrees with the widespread anti-Byzantine view that there was much to be ashamed of about Byzantium and, in a rather confused manner, suggests that Greeks should deliberately hide such unpleasantness.

Stephanos Koumanoudes fights back

24This is a point upon which Stephanos Koumanoudes chided him in his review of Konstantinoupolis, and which became a major point of argument between them in their ensuing “pamphlet war”. This started with a highly critical yet overly polite review of Konstantinoupolis in the periodical Mnemosyni in early 1852, followed a couple of months later in the same periodical by an equally polite response from Vyzantios to certain of the points Koumanoudes had made. This somehow enraged Koumanoudes, who in June 1852 fired off a 23-page pamphlet that tore into Konstantinoupolis and clearly sought to humiliate Vyzantios, by analysing in detail numerous of the supposed factual errors that he had made. This was followed by another response from Vyzantios, also in the form of a pamphlet, mocking Koumanoudes and questioning his motives.

  • 21 Vyzantios Skarlatos, Ἡ Κωνσταντινούπολις…, II, Athens, 1862, p. ς´, footnote. See also Dimitrakopou (...)
  • 22 Matthaiou Sofia, “Στέφανος Α. Κουμανούδης – Αλέξανδρος Ρ. Ραγκαβής. Μία συγκριτική προσέγγιση”, Μνή (...)

25Vyzantios was clearly affected by this vitriolic exchange, and he still alluded to it several years later. In the prologue to volume two of Konstantinoupolis, published over a decade later in 1862, he notes that he had only received a handful of bitter critiques, insinuating that the one directed at him by Koumanoudes was the worst.21 This exchange presumably also made a great impact within the small intellectual and political circles of Athens of which Vyzantios and Koumanoudes were both active members. We can assume that an element of rivalry lay at the root of Koumanoudes’s outburst, and the two men were indeed associated with opposing cliques. This can be observed in the groups that formed the leadership core of the Archaeological Society of Athens. Vyzantios’s friend and collaborator Alexandros Rizos Rangavis (a nephew of Iakovos Rizos Neroulos) had been a central figure of the Society since its foundation in 1837, but from 1851 onwards he and his circle came to be sidelined by a new group of young scholars who had studied in western Europe including Stephanos Koumanoudes, subsequently to become a domineering figure in the Society. Rangavis quit the Society, followed by Skarlatos Vyzantios, Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos and others of their circle, who had also been members.22

  • 23 Quoted in Lappas Kostas (n. 16), p. 418, n. 74. Vyzantios was in Paris for several months, and, as (...)

26In a letter to Rangavis from Paris dated April 1850, Vyzantios, visiting the city to conduct research for Konstantinoupolis, wrote how their mutual friend Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, recently appointed a lecturer in history at Athens University, would make the circle of Theodoros Manousis gag and be infuriated, as truth was on his side.23 Manousis, we may recall, three years later was to write a damning report, signed by Koumanoudes, of Paparrigopoulos’s History of the Hellenic Nation schoolbook for the Ministry of Education. Here we can see the interests converging, the cliques forming and the rivalries emerging, based on individuals’ ideological outlook towards history and the present and their own social origins. Vyzantios – like his friends and fellow Constantinopolitans Rangavis and Paparrigopoulos – was of the Phanariot class that had formerly held leading administrative positions in the Ottoman empire and the Danubian principalities.

  • 24 Matthaiou Sofia, “Στέφανος Α. Κουμανούδης – Αλέξανδρος Ρ. Ραγκαβής” (n. 22), p. 24.
  • 25 Ibid., p. 23.
  • 26 Ibid., p. 29.
  • 27 Karamanolakis Vangelis, Η συγκρότηση της ιστορικής επιστήμης και η διδασκαλία της ιστορίας στο Πανε (...)
  • 28 Quoted in petrakos Vasilios (n. 8), p. 36.

27Stephanos Koumanoudes was of more humble yet comfortable bourgeois stock. Born in the commercial town of Adrianople, his family moved to Belgrade with the upheavals of the Greek War of Independence.24 He spent seven years as a student in Munich and Berlin and a few more in France, before returning for a period to the family home in Belgrade.25 He settled in Athens in September 1845, where he was immediately appointed lecturer in Latin philology at the University.26 He was part of a circle within the Faculty of Letters at the University, educated in western Europe, who pushed for the teaching of ancient Greek history and opposed the expansion of Byzantine history within the curriculum.27 His attitude towards Byzantium, as evident in his review of Vyzantios and other writings, was traditional and conservative: the Byzantine emperors were corrupt foreign tyrants and this was a period of cultural decline and lethargy. Koumanoudes believed that between the ancients and 1821, there was a “chasm of twenty centuries” which the War of Independence closed, joining the Greece of the new strugglers with that of Leonidas and Kimo.28 His views were summed up in a speech he gave in May 1853 at the University’s annual anniversary celebrations. “Of course there was a Hellenic nation throughout the whole medieval era”, he opines, “we are the proof of this”.

  • 29 Koumanoudes Stephanos, Λόγος ἐκφωνηθεὶς τῇ 20 Μαΐου 1853 κατὰ τὴν ἐπέτειον ἑορτὴν τῆς ἱδρύσεως τοῦ (...)

“It is much more difficult to say what it thought and what it aspired to politically. Whoever wishes, however, to extract this from the Byzantine chronicles must in good consciousness say that the nation had fallen into deplorable ignorance, it was subject to the despotic dogmas of the Caesarean authority… ”29

28These tensions between the opposing political and intellectual cliques, between differing visions of Greece’s past and future bubble under the surface of Konstantinoupolis and Koumanoudes’s review of it. Emotion overcomes Vyzantios as he arrives, during the imaginary tour of the city outlined in Konstantinoupolis, at the site of the Patriarchal School, otherwise known as “tou Genous”. The name of this school fills the heart of the Christian with admiration, he claims, not because it is a glorious building with columns and porticoes – it is a simple wooden structure – but because it was in here that the genuine voice of the Hellenic Muse was heard for the first time after 200 years of silence. It is here that the spark was lit, which shone brightly and will shed even more brightly on the Hellenic horizon in the future. Here that the ideas that were to be born on Greek land in the 19th century gestated; here that the greats taught and were taught, wise and respected men, including Adamantios Rusios, the grandfather of Korais. Without them, Greece would be nothing today.

  • 30 Vyzantios Skarlatos (n. 18), p. 573-574.

29It was also here, Vyzantios continues, around that gate of the Phanar and the Patriarchate, that the most able and fine of the Graikoi lived in the first years after the fall of Constantinople, many of whom were members of the clergy. They became involved in the political affairs of the Turkish empire, and the Hellenic skill, predestined to achieve great things always and everywhere, was even set upon the thrones of the principalities and guided the foreign policy of the Ottoman state for two centuries. “These were the Phanariots!” Vyzantios trumpets proudly. But, he can imagine that many will be bristling at just the mention of their name. It does not matter, as this is an obituary he is writing: the Phanariots are no more – they were the first victims at the altar of the Greek revival. Yes, he admits, there were some corrupt individuals amongst the Phanariots: no one denies it, but in which nation or town aren’t there? But when the day of Greek deliverance came, the Phanariots were the first to act, to sound the bugle call across the banks of the Danube.30

  • 31 DImitrakopoulos Fotis (n. 21), p. 122.
  • 32 Vyzantios Skarlatos (n. 18), p. 5 and 513.

30Koumanoudes’s response to this section is the polite suggestion that “it would be better if some passages excessively in favour of the prevailing [Ottoman] race as well as in favour of the Phanar were absent or at least rendered more moderately”.31 Vyzantios had indeed praised the present sultan Abdülmecid as well as his ministers at various points throughout volume one of Konstantinoupolis for working hard to improve the image of the city of Constantinople, with repairs to old buildings, the construction of broad avenues and squares, and the removal of the old-style wooden balconies.32 Yet, Koumanoudes’s twinning of the Phanariots and the Ottomans in his supposedly reasoned and gallant criticism is to imply that the Phanariots were no different from the Ottomans in their use of their positions of power. Koumanoudes demonstrates his opinion of Vyzantios’s protestation in their favour by ignoring the essence of his statements and instead suggesting that he moderate his “excessive” favour.

  • 33 Koumanoudes Stephanos (n. 29), p. 24-25.

31The issue goes much deeper. In his passages on the Phanariots and the clergy of the Patriarchate, Vyzantios presents a particular version of Greek national history: it was the Phanariots and the Patriarchate, through their schools and their political organisation, who gave birth to the Greek revival, which led to the creation of the Greek nation-state. Koumanoudes does not address Vyzantios’s challenge here – he simply dismisses it – but in his public speech in May 1853, on the anniversary of the foundation of the University, he outlined a radically different order of things. The medieval period of “our national life” was one of darkness. Either there was an “absence of a sense of a political existence amongst the people, or they were in a deep sleep”. Yet, the greatest disaster of the fall of Constantinople to the Turks was to enable the greatest revival, as “Hellenic letters were reborn in the West” (italics in the original). The element of Hellenism living in those parts was doing very well; the teachers and merchants here gathered in the plains and the ports and decided upon the anastasi, the rebirth or resurrection, of the race. Korais (not Phanariots such as his grandfather Rusios) was the first to act.33

32Vyzantios and Koumanoudes are here outlining two competing visions of the recent as well as medieval past, which reflect their own social origins and ideological proclivities. For Vyzantios, the Greek revival was thanks to the established social order of the Patriarchate, the higher clergy of the Church, and the great noble Phanariot families with their political offices awarded to them by the Ottomans and handed on to the next generation. The bourgeois, westernised Koumanoudes despised this establishment. For him, it was part of the problem. He looked to the new social order of merchants and schoolteachers who served the rising communities in the thriving port and market towns outside the boundaries of the Ottoman empire as the saviours of Hellenism. Little wonder Vyzantios found something to cherish in Byzantium, whilst Koumanoudes considered it a horror.

  • 34 Dimitrakopoulos Fotis (n. 21), p. 118-120.

33The primary tactic deployed by Koumanoudes to display the supposed flaws of Konstantinoupolis in the rest of his review is to argue that it had not been written in a thorough or scholarly enough manner, although he acknowledges that Vyzantios was writing not for a scholarly audience but for the broader public. Koumanoudes states that he would not have been so demanding a reader if Vyzantios himself had not claimed in his title that his aim was the “clarification of Byzantine history”. Vyzantios’s method was at fault: with such tangled, dark material, so confused as the Byzantine era and Byzantine matters were, Vyzantios should have selected a method of arranging this material that would have shone light on the darkness. Koumanoudes would have preferred the history of the city of Byzantium before Constantine to have been made more distinct from the rest of the discussion and to have been treated more extensively. He is saddened by the fleeting references made to the ancient walls, aqueducts, obelisks and, in particular, to ancient Greek and Roman inscriptions.34

  • 35 Ibid., p. 122.

34Another dimension of Koumanoudes’s criticism of Vyzantios is over what could or should be said and what should or should not be covered up. Koumanoudes wishes, for example, that Vyzantios had omitted his excess apologies for Byzantine history, which, as he claims, has been rightly denounced by leading historiographers. On the other hand, he wishes that Vyzantios would tone down his criticisms of the Europeans, for their achievements are great and the Greeks are merely their students. In order to stimulate interest in Byzantine matters amongst the Greeks, Koumanoudes does not find it necessary, as Vyzantios suggested, to cover up the embarrassing aspects of Byzantine history. Indeed, he takes particular offence at this suggestion: the Hellene requires freedom of speech, however bitter the truth may be, and not the suppression of what is bad and the magnification of what is good in his history if he is to stand on his own two feet and not fall back into the tenderless embrace of old, dead epochs.35

  • 36 Ibid., p. 126.
  • 37 Koumanoudes Stephanos, Ἀνταπάντησις τῷ κ. Σκαρλάτῳ Βυζαντίῳ, Athens, 1852, p. 16.

35This was one of the points that Vyzantios made a particular effort to counter in his Mnemosyni response to Koumanoudes’s initial review. Vyzantios argues that just as we cover up the bloodletting, injustices, fighting and licentiousness of the ancient Hellenes – “our other relatives” as he puts it – we should do the same for the Byzantines.36 Koumanoudes was infuriated by this, and in his pamphlet wrote that it pained him to hear Vyzantios calling the Hellenes simply “relatives” as opposed to “ancestors”. Moreover, Vyzantios doubly blasphemes: he blasphemes against the teachers, writers and translators of history by implying they suppress certain aspects of the past, and he also blasphemes against their values by suggesting that they should conceal and bastardise history.37

  • 38 Πανδώρα 19 (1851), p. 437-446.

36Konstantinoupolis received a much warmer reception from the periodical Pandora, published by Rangavis, Paparrigopoulos and another Constantinopolitan, Nikolaos Dragoumis. The first ten pages and front cover of the first issue published in 1851 were dedicated to it.38 With a poem on the Golden Horn by Rangavis, praise from Paparrigopoulos, and a long extract from the book’s first few pages, we can justly speculate that when Koumanoudes attacked Konstantinoupolis and its author he was also attacking the editorial team behind Pandora (although he was on occasion a contributor to the periodical himself).

Spyridon Zambelios, and his friend Paparrigopoulos

  • 39 In his lexicon of new words posthumously published in 1900, Koumanoudes Stephanos, Συναγωγὴ νέων λέ (...)

37Like Vyzantios, Koumanoudes was a lexicographer, having compiled a dictionary dedicated to new words in the Greek language. One such neologism he had coined himself: “ZambelioPaparrigopouleios”, which he defined as a “historical school”.39 By “ZambelioPaparrigopouleios” he presumably meant – his dictionary entry does not outline the tenets of this school – the tripartite schema of Hellenic national history, wherein ancient, Byzantine and contemporary Greek history were unified as equal links in a chain. This foreshadows a belief widespread today that with his Folk Songs of Greece of 1852 Spyridon Zambelios was the first to introduce this particular idea in a conscious attempt to rehabilitate Byzantium, whilst Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos subsequently perfected it. Yet, although Zambelios does indeed approach Greek national history as consisting of these three periods and the subtitle of his book is With a Historical Study of Medieval Hellenism, the views he outlines in this infamous study are far removed from those articulated by Paparrigopoulos in his efforts to claim Byzantium as a magisterial and integral period of Greek history. For in 1852 at least Zambelios quite clearly believed that Byzantium – which he identified as the top social layer of emperors and political rulers – was something quite distinct and separate from the Hellenic people which it ruled over and oppressed. To quote:

  • 40 Zambelios Spyridon, Ἄσματα δημοτικὰ τῆς Ἑλλάδος. Ἐκδοθέντα μετὰ μελέτης ἱστορικῆς περὶ μεσαιωνικοῦ (...)

“In Byzantine history we rarely find traces of the people… The monarchy of Constantinople… is so alienated from the national inclinations of the subjects, that it does not protect Hellenism… As a consequence of this division, two different political histories are presented to us, one which refers directly to the Roman Empire, exclusively relating its fortunes and, as such, remains completely foreign or at least external to the ethnos; and the other, indirectly or obliquely, refers exclusively to Hellenism, noting the terms of its existence and the levels of its development.”40

  • 41 On the interaction between Spyridon Zambelios and Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, see also Koubourlis(...)
  • 42 Paparrigopoulos Konstantinos, “Βιβλιογραφία”, Πανδώρα 3 (1852), p. 397-403, see p. 397-398.

38Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos took the opposite view in his review of Folk Songs of Greece, also published in the periodical Pandora.41 He opens by outlining the “historical dogma” which postulated that the ancient Hellenes had been wiped out by Slav invaders, claiming that today’s Greeks were not the genuine descendants of the ancient inhabitants. This is a clear allusion to Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, and a notice that Paparrigopoulos’s historical agenda is as political, if not more, as it is scholarly. We should not forget, he reminds his readers, that public opinion in Europe, which has led to the protection of the newly independent Greece by the great powers, is due to the great sympathy held for the descendants of Pericles. As such, those who dispute the uninterrupted existence and unity of the Hellenic nation from antiquity until the modern day, dispute one of the main reasons for its current independence. If their view “that the genuine Hellenic ethnos disappeared from the face of the earth and that those who are called Hellenes are nothing other than Slavs, Albanians, Bulgarians and Vlachs, stuttering the Hellenic tongue in semi-barbarian fashion”, were to prevail then the Hellenic ethnos would come lower in the order of the East than the Serbs and Montenegrins, and the Greeks will not be able to claim greater rights than the other races that live amongst or alongside them. The East will thus be divided into numerous small states, of which the Hellenic will only be one. This means, as Paparrigopoulos emphasises, that: “the true and national history of Hellenism in the middle ages is not indifferent to its fate in this century”.42

39He thus praises Zambelios for challenging the notion that the Hellenic ethnos was wiped off the face of the earth in the middle ages and for seeking to uncover its material, moral, political and intellectual life. But Paparrigopoulos takes issue with Zambelios when he considers “the monarchy in Byzantium to be a foreign element, and the only national elements to be the people and the church”. Moreover, Zambelios’s strictly religious understanding of the life of the Greeks in the middle ages downplays and does an injustice to “our political history”. Paparrigopoulos was anxious to Hellenise Byzantium: whereas the more dismissive view saw Byzantium as something “foreign”, he wished to represent it as indisputably Greek in order to put forward political arguments in his own mid-19th century that the Ottoman lands in the Balkans should also be Greek, part of the Greek state. For Paparrigopoulos, Byzantium – with its apparently powerful Hellenising force – was an argument that could be used to diminish the presence of other ethnicities and nations in the Balkans.

  • 43 Zambelios Spyridon (n. 40), p. 5.

40Like Vyzantios, Zambelios also found it a “burden on his pen” to write about the “dark and unexplored epoch” when the Greeks shifted from the ancient to the modern era.43 Yet, it was vital that the Hellene produce scholarly works for his nation so that it would not depend upon the works of foreigners. Zambelios, however, was not interested in a generic “Byzantine presence”. Rather, his concern was to reveal as vibrant and present the medieval Hellenism that he believed had been obscured by the oppressive Byzantine social system and the worthless Byzantine chronographers.

  • 44 Ibid., p. 25.

“The chronicles of the Byzantis… are a blank sheet as regards the phases of Middle Hellenism. They do not narrate anything beside the exploits of the monarchs, the dynastic oscillations, the revolutions within the court, the mores of the aristocracy, conspiracies, and other such things, with nothing or very little about the life of the people. The life of the demos, the idea of the nation, the succession and passing on of traditions are either completely missing from the pages, or only the circuses and hippodromes mentioned in discussions of horses and beasts.”44

41As we saw above, a critic of Byzantium such as Koumanoudes took the Byzantine chronographers at face value, believing them to be faithful purveyors of the true picture of Byzantium: an ignorant people ruled by despotic kings. Zambelios interpreted the chronographers as being a part of the Byzantine imperial system that oppressed and obscured the people: in order to find the Hellenic race during this period, the Byzantine emperors had to be discarded during his search for the people. This is the point on which Paparrigopoulos disagreed with him.

42Five years later, in 1857, Zambelios published his other great tome, Vyzantinai Meletai (Byzantine Studies). His views have clearly shifted, his attitude towards the Byzantine emperors more admiring:

  • 45 Zambelios Spyridon, Βυζαντιναὶ μελέται. Περὶ πηγῶν νεοελληνικῆς ἐθνότητος ἀπὸ Η´ ἄχρι Ι´ ἑκατονταετ (...)

“If, then, on the one hand we admit that the iron sceptre of Roman unity suppressed the momentum of our race, then on the other hand we must also confess that, under the cover of this unity, Hellenism was preserved whole and unadulterated for eleven tumultuous centuries of world history.”45

43Paparrigopoulos’s influence is apparent here. His review may have encouraged Zambelios to revise his harsh criticisms of the Byzantine emperors and to acknowledge their critical value in the construction of a Greek political identity. Indeed, the two men were certainly personal acquaintances. Zambelios published articles in Pandora and Le Spectateur de l’Orient, both of which Paparrigopoulos edited. Zambelios also settled in Athens for a few years in 1856, and it is tempting to contemplate that he and Paparrigopoulos would meet to discuss Byzantium and its presence in Greek history. This possibility adds further insight to Koumanoudes’s ridicule of the “ZambelioPaparrigopouleios historical school” and the clique rivalries amongst the Athens elite.

44Moreover, we can refine the established view that Zambelios was the first to attempt to integrate Byzantium within a model of Greek history, with Paparrigopoulos following in his footsteps. If we consider Paparrigopoulos’s review of Folk Songs and the subsequent shift by Zambelios towards a positive role for the emperors, then it is clearly Paparrigopoulos who influenced Zambelios, challenging and redefining the latter’s views. On the Byzantine period, Zambelios had almost the same view as Koumanoudes, the anonymous writer of the Elliniki Nomarchia and Adamantios Korais: the Byzantine emperors oppressed the Greek people. Where Zambelios differed from this standard view, however, was in that he did not believe that the Greeks of the medieval era were asleep, ignorant and corrupted, but that they were very much alive and thriving, albeit obscured.

45Our analysis of these two books and their reviews reveals the different ways in which Byzantium could be present in the Greek state in the early 1850s: its presence was potentially embarrassing and its less flattering aspects should be concealed; it was a confusing presence that required clarification; a presence that was present somewhere else, in a city across the Bosphorus in the Ottoman Empire; a presence the features of which were disputed, challenged, and considered shameful as well as a source of pride. It was, of course, Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos who was to make Byzantium a very Hellenic presence and, most significantly, a very political presence. By making the Byzantine era Hellenic, he sought to absorb the presence of all other ethnicities on its former territories and Hellenise them too, as members of a greater Greece born from the traces of Byzantium present in southeast Europe. He probably would have been shocked to learn just how some of these other ethnicities were using Byzantium to construct their own national histories and political claims.

Notes

1 Korais Adamantios, Προλεγόμενα στοὺς ἀρχαίους Ἕλληνες συγγραφεῖς, II, Athens, 1988 [1810], p. 49.

2 Korais Adamantios, Τί πρέπει νὰ κάμωσιν οἱ Γραικοὶ εἰς τὰς παροῦσας περιστάσεις: Διάλογος δύο Γραικῶν κατοίκων τῆς Βενετίας, ὅταν ἤκουσαν τὰς λαμπρὰς νίκας τοῦ Αὐτοκράτορος Ναπολέοντος, Athens, 2000 [1805], p. 42-43.

3 Anonymous the Greek, Ἑλληνικὴ νομαρχία, ἤτοι Λόγος περὶ ἐλευθερίας, Athens, 1980 [1806], p. 81.

4 Translation at Clogg Richard, “The ‘Dhidhaskalia Patriki’ (1798): An Orthodox Reaction to French Revolutionary Propaganda”, Middle Eastern Studies 5 (1969), p. 87-115, see p. 104.

5 Neroulos ridiculed Korais’s proposed language reforms in his 1813 play Κορακιστικά.

6 Neroulos Iakovos Rizos, “Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἑταιρεία”, Εὐρωπαικὸς Ἐρανιστής 3 (1841), p. 307-335, see p. 312. On the transformation of Greek national history in the 19th century to incorporate Byzantium, see my chapter “Greek historiography in the 19th century”, in Stephenson Paul (ed.), The Byzantine World, London, 2010, p. 445-461; Koubourlis Ioannis, La formation de l’histoire nationale grecque. L’apport de Spyridon Zambélios (1815-1881), Athens, 2005, p. 284-291.

7 See Bastea Eleni, The Creation of Modern Athens: Planning the Myth, Cambridge, 2000.

8 Petrakos Vasilios, “Ἰδεογραφία τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας”, Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς 127 (1987) [1989], p. 36.

9 See the article by Athanassopoulos Effie in this volume.

10 Quoted in Dimaras Constantinos, Κωνσταντῖνος Παπαρρηγόπουλος. Ἡ ἐποχή του. Ἡ ζωή του. Τὸ ἔργο του, Athens, 1986, p. 123-124.

11 Quoted ibid., p. 124-125.

12 Quoted in Koulouri Christina, Ἱστορία καὶ γεωγραφία στὰ ἑλληνικὰ σχολεῖα (1834-1914): Γνωστικὰ ἀντικείμενα καὶ ἰδεολογικὲς προεκτάσεις, Athens, 1988, p. 164.

13 In Greek he is invariably referred to as Alexandros Kallimaches. In 1856, Vyzantios described him as the “last Graikos of Moldovlachia”, in this way perhaps indicating that Callimachi/Kallimaches was Hellenised rather than a Hellene; Vyzantios Skarlatos, Ὁ Σκαρλάτος εἰ κατὰ Χρυσοβέργην, Athens, 1856, p. 17.

14 Koulouri Christina (n. 12), p. 85, n. 1.

15 Vyzantios Skarlatos (n. 13), p. 20-22.

16 Lappas Kostas, Πανεπιστήμιο καὶ φοιτητὲς στὴν Ἑλλάδα κατὰ τὸν 19ον αἰῶνα, Athens, 2004, p. 51, n. 33.

17 Arabs, Egyptians, Turkmen, Persians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Circassians and Gypsies.

18 Vyzantios Skarlatos, Ἡ Κωνσταντινούπολις…, I, Athens, 1851, p. β´.

19 Ibid., p. η´. Although, Vyzantios himself misspells Bekker’s name as Becker.

20 Ibid.

21 Vyzantios Skarlatos, Ἡ Κωνσταντινούπολις…, II, Athens, 1862, p. ς´, footnote. See also Dimitrakopoulos Fotis, Βυζάντιο καὶ νεοελληνικὴ διανόηση στὰ μέσα τοῦ δεκάτου ἐνάτου αἰῶνος, Athens, 1996, p. 116, 135-138.

22 Matthaiou Sofia, “Στέφανος Α. Κουμανούδης – Αλέξανδρος Ρ. Ραγκαβής. Μία συγκριτική προσέγγιση”, Μνήμων 28 (2006-2007), p. 169-208, see p. 170-173. Matthaiou insightfully compares the figures of the Phanariot Rangavis and the bourgeois Koumanoudes and the differing ways in which they integrated into the society of post-independence Athens. For more on Stephanos Koumanoudes, see also Matthaiou Sofia, Στέφανος Α. Κουμανούδης (1818-1899). Σχεδίασμα βιογραφίας, Athens, 1999.

23 Quoted in Lappas Kostas (n. 16), p. 418, n. 74. Vyzantios was in Paris for several months, and, as Koumanoudes notes in his review of Konstantinoupolis, this was for the purposes of research on the book; see Dimitrakopoulos Fotis (n. 21), p. 121.

24 Matthaiou Sofia, “Στέφανος Α. Κουμανούδης – Αλέξανδρος Ρ. Ραγκαβής” (n. 22), p. 24.

25 Ibid., p. 23.

26 Ibid., p. 29.

27 Karamanolakis Vangelis, Η συγκρότηση της ιστορικής επιστήμης και η διδασκαλία της ιστορίας στο Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών 1837-1932), Athens, 2006, p. 127.

28 Quoted in petrakos Vasilios (n. 8), p. 36.

29 Koumanoudes Stephanos, Λόγος ἐκφωνηθεὶς τῇ 20 Μαΐου 1853 κατὰ τὴν ἐπέτειον ἑορτὴν τῆς ἱδρύσεως τοῦ Πανεπιστημίου τοῦ Ὄθωνος, Athens, 1853, p. 24.

30 Vyzantios Skarlatos (n. 18), p. 573-574.

31 DImitrakopoulos Fotis (n. 21), p. 122.

32 Vyzantios Skarlatos (n. 18), p. 5 and 513.

33 Koumanoudes Stephanos (n. 29), p. 24-25.

34 Dimitrakopoulos Fotis (n. 21), p. 118-120.

35 Ibid., p. 122.

36 Ibid., p. 126.

37 Koumanoudes Stephanos, Ἀνταπάντησις τῷ κ. Σκαρλάτῳ Βυζαντίῳ, Athens, 1852, p. 16.

38 Πανδώρα 19 (1851), p. 437-446.

39 In his lexicon of new words posthumously published in 1900, Koumanoudes Stephanos, Συναγωγὴ νέων λέξεων ὑπὸ τῶν λογίων πλασθεισῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁλώσεως μέχρι τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς χρόνων, Athens, 1900, p. 432.

40 Zambelios Spyridon, Ἄσματα δημοτικὰ τῆς Ἑλλάδος. Ἐκδοθέντα μετὰ μελέτης ἱστορικῆς περὶ μεσαιωνικοῦ ἑλληνισμοῦ, Corfu, 1852, p. 21.

41 On the interaction between Spyridon Zambelios and Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, see also Koubourlis Ioannis (n. 6), p. 284-291.

42 Paparrigopoulos Konstantinos, “Βιβλιογραφία”, Πανδώρα 3 (1852), p. 397-403, see p. 397-398.

43 Zambelios Spyridon (n. 40), p. 5.

44 Ibid., p. 25.

45 Zambelios Spyridon, Βυζαντιναὶ μελέται. Περὶ πηγῶν νεοελληνικῆς ἐθνότητος ἀπὸ Η´ ἄχρι Ι´ ἑκατονταετηρίδος μ. Χ., Athens, 1857, p. 69.

Auteur


Independent Scholar
Athens

© École française d’Athènes, 2013

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search