Constantinos Paparrigopoulos
(ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΡΡΙΓΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ)
Born 1815 in Constantinople Died 1891 in Athens
Section One, Number 224
If the
grandeur of a grave monument were in proportion to the influence of the person
it commemorates, then the monument marking the grave of historian Constantinos
Papparigopoulos would rival the Taj Mahal.
In his History of the Greek Nation he
constructed a narrative whose theme was the cultural
continuity of the Greek people. This was no small thing. At the time, the
nation was in desperate need of a unifying principle.
Constantinos Paparrigopulos
Oddly enough,
he did not start out as an historian at all.
His Life
Paparrigopoulos was born in Constantinople in 1815, too young to have
fought in the Greek Revolution but not too young to have been traumatized when Ottoman
mobs in Constantinople killed his father and several relatives in retaliation
for the Greek uprising. He moved with his mother to Odessa where he studied at
the Richelieu Lyceum before coming to the newly minted nation as a civil
servant.
Unfortunately, he had arrived at
a time when Greek “outsiders’ (heterochthons) like himself were viewed with
deep suspicion by the local population (autochthons). Men like
Makriyannis and Kolokotronis had fought the war on the ground only to see
educated and wealthy Greeks from outside of the boundaries of the new state
arriving in droves. They had the ear of the Bavarian court and no great respect
for the war lords who had made their arrival possible. It is hard to imagine
today but ‘outsiders’ like the Syngros,
Tositsas, Sinas, Averoff families, now all honoured as benefactors of the
state, were regarded by some as opportunistic carpetbaggers. It was a bitter
controversy and young Paparrigipoulos found himself at its epicentre. He lost his government job simply because
he was a Greek from somewhere else!
An
Historian is Born
That proved to be lucky for Greece because he then decided to pursue an
academic career. He obtained his doctorate in Germany and proceeded to teach
the “History of the Hellenic Nation” at the Athens University from 1851 to
1891.
The fact that his history (published in its final form in 1874) was so successful
makes it hard to explain today why the
History
of the Hellenic Nation from Ancient Times to the Present was needed in
the first place!
A Little
Background on National Identity Issues Back in the Day
Founding fathers had first considered both language and religion as
national identity markers. Neither alone fulfilled the need. Too many freedom
fighters were not Greek speakers and too many Orthodox were not Greek. Another
very strong contender for consideration was descent, the more 'unbroken' the better.
European Phihellenes
all firmly believed that ancient Greek culture formed the basis of their own modern cultures and early Greek governments fully supported
this idea for their own modern state. Street names in the newly liberated Athens were renamed
after the ancients and the original plan was to place the royal palace on the
acropolis itself, just in case anyone missed the point.
But there
were difficulties…
To the educated elite in Europe (and even to many of the educated Greeks of the
diaspora), the downtrodden people speaking a bastard form of ancient Greek under the Volos-Arta line after 1830 didn’t fulfil the required image. (1)
Worse, Jacob Philip Fallmerayer,
a travel writer cum journalist cum historian, argued that the new Hellenes were
nothing more than a mixture of Slavic and Albanian populations, and not Greeks at all. Recent DNA tests
have proven him wrong but his theory was widespread and extremely damaging to
the new state’s image at the time. It was a challenge that would have to be answered.
Then there was the fact that after 1830 far more Greek speakers who identified
themselves as Greek lived beyond the
boundaries of the new state. How could
they too be accommodated in a narrative of national identity? (2)
Enter Paparrigopoulos…
In his History
of the Greek Nation, Paparrigopoulos presented a comprehensive history of
the Greek people which illustrated its cultural and historical continuity from
ancient times up until the present day. It was a history that included both ancient Greek and Byzantine Christian culture under the aegis of commonality and
spiritual unity. He identified five successive ‘Hellenisms’ (ancient,
Macedonian, Christian, medieval, and modern) – and wrote that, not only had each had been imbued
with an historical mission from
Providence itself, but that each was
necessary a part of the identity of the Greek nation because each had contributed
(language in Hellenistic times, religion in Byzantine and Ottoman times)
to the modern nation. The idea of ‘Providence' taking a hand should
not surprise us, given the era. This was during this same period that Manifest Destiny
was entrancing Americans in their own brave new
corner of the world.
Paparrigopoulos did not portray himself
as an ‘objective’ historian if, indeed, there is any such thing. He was
politically involved all during his tenure at the university and politically
motivated to write the true history
of the Hellenic nation. In fact, he regarded
the task as no less than the fulfilment of a national duty.
The Reviews: Not everyone
was entranced. Some contemporary historians like Pavlos Kalligas preferred the ancient Greek story without the Byzantines, feeling that the
inclusion of Byzantium was monarchal and conservative.
Kalligas is also buried in the First Cemetery
Much later leftist historians would attempt to debunk many of his
premises. But, on the whole, his history was immensely popular as was Paparrigopoulos
himself because his book was perceived as accurate and workable.
Its tenet that
Hellenism had maintained its essential integrity albeit based on different
components over time is still very much a part of the Greek national psyche.
Succinctly put, his history allowed the nation to follow its historical path with renewed self confidence.(3)
National Identity and Citizenship Today
This can still be a touchy issue as the debate over the name
Macedonia has shown.
Right
wing parties like the now defunct Golden Dawn Party carried the bloodline component of national
identity to such an extreme that I would not be regarded as Greek no
matter that I have citizenship. I might be excluded by others on the
basis of
religion or not so perfect Greek, but I like to think that
Paparrigopoulos himself would
have been more flexible and people like myself could be squeezed in as
spiritual Hellenes.
His works are not much read today but I would recommend that anyone interested in modern Greek history read his Introduction to the History
to get a flavor of the nature of the debate in the 19th century.
He never did get a Taj Mahal, but his imposing bust can be found today
in the Zappeion Gardens.
The Map
.
Footnotes
(1)
Many educated Greeks were also shocked at what they considered the
debased state of the new citizens. Katharevousa was embraced for just that very
reason – to create a language closer to the subtlety and flexibility of ancient
Greek . (See Adamandios Korais on
this blog) Paparrigopoulos himself had been an early proponent of the ancient
Greece’s sole role in the identity debate until he came to realize that, alone, it was not enough.
(2) The issue of ‘heterocthons’ was personal
for Paparrigopoulos because he was one himself.
(3) It also fed the ‘Great Idea’ of expanding
the borders to unite all Greeks under
one flag. Having said that, it is also true that his vision was not narrowly
racial or exclusive. Paparrigopoulos believed that being a Hellene was, to a
certain extent, a state of mind and a matter of proper education, not a racial
marker.
.
.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου