10 Kaningos Street Athens, Greece Copyright by John S. Romanides, 1976, 1978 First published in English 1978 First published in Greek 1976 Made and printed in Greece by George Papageorgiou Printing Co., Thessaloniki |
TO MY DAUGHTERS |
The lecture herein published is being offered in English translation as a means of allowing the descendants of the West Romans to take a preliminary glance at people in South East Europe and the Middle East who still call themselves Romans and sing songs and sing and write poetry about themselves as Romans.
Much in this lecture is a summary of sections of a larger study which among other things examines why the Franks decides that the East Romans should not be called Romans.
This decision had a peculiar impact on a town in Capadocia which gave two emperors to the empire. In some histories the first one is a Roman emperor because he ruled before Heraclius (610-641) and the second is supposedly a Byzantine emperor because he ruled after.
This study may be of more general interest since Romanism survives in a religious form in almost all those parts of Western Europe which were provinces of Romania before their conquest by the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, Franks, Lombards and Normans. Even the German speaking Roman Catholic are Romans just like the Turkish and Arabic speaking Romans (Roum) of the Middle East. These three group are now speaking the languages of their conquerors.
There is strong evidence that the higher and lower nobility of European Feudalism are mostly descendants of the aforementioned conquerors, and that the serfs are mostly descendants of the conquered Romans.
This explains why the name Frank meant both noble and free in contrast to the serfs. This usage so strong that it got into the English language by way of the Normans. Thus even the American negro was described as receiving his "Frankdom" (franchise) when set free.
The implications of such an approach are quite tantalizing when applied to the task of understanding Frankish Christianity and theology.
Feudalism, the Inquisition and scholastic theology are clearly the work of the Franks who took over the Church and her property and used the religion of the Romans to keep the conquered Romans in a servile state.
In contrast to this the Romans conquered by Arab and Turkish Moslems had their own Roman bishops.
Thus in the one case the institutional aspects of Christianity became a tool of suppression, in the other the means of national survival.
Having this in mind one may perhaps not be far from the truth in saying that the so-called French Revolution was essentially not much different from the so-called Greek Revolution. The one was a revolt of Romans against their Frankish conquerors and the other a revolt of Romans against their Turkish conquerors.
From such a point of view it would further seem that there is a much stronger unity among the Romans extending from the Atlantic to the Middle East than there can ever exist among those working for a union based on only a Charlemagnian Europe.
Perhaps the best path to European union is to first realize that the already existing Roman Republics should and can unite into a Federation of Roman Republics.
The alternative to such a resurrection of Romania will be a Europe which will become a complete protectorate of the American Empire.
But in view of the fragility of the American will to rule, the real danger to Europe is the specter of becoming a collection of provinces of the Russian Empire.
Both these alternatives can be avoided by undoing the work of the conquerors of Romania.
In other words the so-called French and Greek Revolutions must be
completed by becoming a Roman Revolution[ 1 ].
We have become accustomed each year on the 25th of March,
when we celebrate the anniversary of our national rebirth, to address ourselves to events
which are related to the freedom of our nation or, more specifically, to the creation of
today's Hellenic State.
From a pre-fabricated chauvinism prepared by the great powers, we
learned to speak of the epic-making of our forefathers of 1821, which tie them in a direct
line with antiquity!
In reality we have celebrated this liberation of ours for many years
without examining very well what we celebrate. There is something paradoxical here. Do we
celebrate our liberation? But which liberation? That of the ancient Hellenes? That is, of
our forefathers of the 4th century B.C.? And after that? What became of us
during the ensuing years? Where were we? Are we a nation with an ancient and modern
history only? What were we doing the years in between?
Here we find ourselves confronted with a falsification of history. When
Constantinople, the empress of all cities, fell into the hands of the Ottoman Turks, it
was not antiquity that was conquered, but the capital of Romanism, to wit, the capital
city of the Roman Empire. And the area we live in is a piece of this empire.
We accepted a strange historical compromise. Did we accept that the
City was not our capital? - the Imperial City of Romanism which resulted from the marriage
of Hellenic and Roman antiquity ? Even today the Ecumenical Patriarch still bears the
title Archbishop of New Rome, i.e. Constantinople. In Turkish the Ecumenical Patriarchate
is called "Rum Patrikhanesi", which means Patriarchate of the Romans. This is because
the Turkish sources say, and correctly, that when the Turks conquered the City they
conquered the heart of Romanism.
We never learned these truths. Our school books teach histories with
inaccuracies, written by foreigners like Arnold Toynbee and adopted by some "enlightened
intellectuals", or rather Greeklings[ 2 ]. It seems that the great powers wanted to hide this
counterfeiting of history from the Romans, and for this reason they led Regas of Velestino
to his death in 1798[ 3 ]. A glance at the Manifesto and the Charter of Regas demonstrates
clearly what we mean by freedom of our nation from the Ottoman Turkish yoke. When Regas
wrote Roumeli, the Turkish word for "Land of the Romans", he meant the whole of
the Balkans, because they belonged to the Roman Empire.
Professor John Romanides of the University of Thessaloniki recently
published a book entitled Romanism, Romania, Roumeli in which he uncovers these
truths which seem stranger to many because they learned a false history in school.
Born of Cappadocian parents, and a Roman to the core, Prof.; Romanides
was raised and educated in the USA. He became a professor there, and it was there he first
encountered falsification of our Roman history. He searched for explanations and
expediencies, he studied source and reached certain conclusions, and eventually revealed
in this book the historical fraud which began around the 9th century AD and is
still being perpetrated today.
Searching through texts he found that two great men, Argyres
Ephtaliotis and our own Mesolongite Costes Palamas, had already denounced this forgery as
early as 1901. In discussing this with the author I found the materiel very interesting
and concluded that these truths should be brought to the attention of the public. I put
the question to the Board of Directors of the Costes Palamas Society, who gladly undertook
to organize a lecture in Mesolongi, in the heartland of Western Roumeli; where our
distinguished speaker would bring to light the opinions for our national poet.
So with great joy I find myself in the exceptionally honored position
of presenting to you the speaker who with special pleasure accepted the invitation to
present his work, "Costes Palamas and Romanism," first to us here in Mesolongi, thus
paying a debt of honor to the Romans of the Romans of the Great Exodus and at the same
time celebrating the 150 anniversary of some of the struggles of Romanism, struggles and
yearnings which as it appears have not yet been extinguished.*
* The above introduction was written to be used as an introduction to
this lecture during a "newspaper assignment in Constantinople New Rome (Istanbul), March
5, 1976. The printed lecture came out in Greece on March 21, 1976, the day the lecture was
delivered in the ceremonial chamber of the Mesolongi City Hall, and was presented to the
audience with the signature of the author and the seal of the Society of Costes Palamas;
COSTES PALAMAS AND ROMANISM[ 4 ]
© John S. Romanides 1. Unpatriotic and vulgar
The work entitled History of Romanism by Argyres Ephtaliotes
appeared in 1901.
It was a time when the names Roman and Romanism moved the Romans
emotionally more than today.
This was so because the names Hellene and Hellenism,introduced
constitutionally in 1822, had not yet taken root in the conscience and usage of the
people.
In spite of this, George Soteriades wrote a criticism against the History
of Romanism of Ephtaliotes in which he claims that the use of the names Roman and
Romanism, instead of Hellene and Hellenism, shows lack of patriotism and that the name
Roman must be avoided because it supposedly has the disdainful meaning of "a worthless
and vulgar person".
The Mesolongite[ 5 ] Roumeliote[ 6 ], and therefore proud Roman, Costes Palamas
was furious. He answered Soteriades' mockery of Romanism with his pen full of revenge
and irony in his work entitled "Roman and Romanism[ 7 ]."
Even though small in size, this work is one of the most beautiful of
this great poet of Romanism. 2. The inserted name
"One does not wonder," writes Palamas, "why Ephtaliotes wrote
'Roman` and not 'Hellene`, why he wrote 'Romanism and not 'Hellenism`. One wonders
why Mr. Soteriades with all the gifts of knowledge and genius which distinguish him among
many, judged that he should criticize the author for using the correct and melodious and
beautiful terms...," and Palamas asks," Can it be forgot that he is the worthy
translator of The History of Byzantine Literature of Krumbacher, and that he forgot
how clearly this wise historian explains to us meaning of the accused Roman, in a few
substantial words, in the very first pages of his work? "The name (Roman) was preserved,
writes Krumbacher, during the terrible years the Turkish occupation until today, as the
real and indeed prevalent name of the Greek people, in contrast with which the
sporadically appearing name Greek has little meaning, and the name Hellene, introduced
artificially by the government and the school, has no meaning'[ 8 ]." 3. Irony and disdain
Incited by such observations by Krumbacher as well as by the daily
experience of the people and the recent history of the nation Palamas emphasizes that not
only the name Roman, but also the name Hellene is used sometimes with an unfavorable
meaning.
He writes as follows: "Each time the names Hellene, Hellenes,
Hellenic things etc.; appear in life -to be sure planted- with all their classical halo,
they are also used, according to the circumstance, most ironically and most disdainfully.
However, it did not enter anyone's mind to send them to the disinfectant machine[ 9 ]."
It is clear that in 1901 there was still sharp opposition between those
who supported the uprooting of Romanism, and those who were struggling, like Palamas, to
preserve the of the names Roman and Romanism at least in the popular language.
Palamas also brings forth other examples of names with a double
meaning, good and not so good, depending on the circumstance in which they are used:
Moraetes[ 10 ], Arvanites[ 11 ], Karaļskakis[ 12 ], robber, Hebrew, and the Greek of the French which can
signify such glorious figures as Pericles, Marcos Botsares[ 13 ] , Kanares[ 14 ] , "but also every
rascal[ 15 ]." 4. Really Roman
"We also follow comparable logic," continues Palamas, "in the use
of the terms Roman Romanism The only difference is that these two words were gradually set
aside from the official language, as were also all the words of life and truth which are
difficult to measure, because they did not come to us direct from the age of Pericles.
Were are Hellenes in order to hoodwink the world, but in reality Romans. This name is
anything but shameful. If it is not surrounded by a wreath. Of wild olive branches from
Olympia, it is uplifted by a martyr's crown of thorns and gives off the sweet smell of
thyme and gunpowder. The life and reality of the word (Roman)is unquestionably
demonstrated by the fact that this name came to us readily at hand in the sincere and most
luminous condition of sour soul -in the consciousness of our fall and in order to proclaim
this fall- more so than the festive and cumbersome name Hellene, and even than the name
Hellenas, which is somewhat more difficult to root than the name Roman, and which until
yesterday preserved even its ancient idolatrous meaning, 'His mother was a Christian and
his father was a Hellene,` says the Cypriote poet, and means even till now, for most of
the people, the courageous, the giant[ 16 ]," 5. The imposition from outside
Palamas already revealed the reasons for these phenomena when he
declared his agreement with Krumbacher that this name was introduced "artificially by
the government and the school." But Palamas also reveals the imposition of this name
from outside with the following: "And thus, being led to a new martyrdom, the Roman's
back was loaded with the foreign sins of the constitutional Hellenes. And so he became the
humiliated Roman of the loud mouths of the coffee houses, the jack in the box Roman of the
satirists, the unscrupulous Roman of the pseudo empire which they call Roman[ 17 ]." Thus one
understands what Palamas wants to say with the above: "We are Hellenes in order to
hoodwink the world, but in reality Romans." 6. Koraes against Romanism
The man who started the war against Romanism was Adamantios Koraes[ 18 ]. He
argued that our national name should be either Greek or Hellene. He writes that "One of
these two, therefore, is the true name of the nation. I chose the name Greek, because all
the enlightened nations of Europe also name us thus[ 19 ]." 7. The criteria
In order to understand Koraes' choice we must see the matter within
its historic framework. Besides Koraes' Europe we must use as criterion firstly and
surely ourselves, to wit our internal national tradition, as Palamas does, and secondarily
the tradition of all the nations of Europe and of the nations of the Middle East and
Africa.
The Arabs and Turks still call us Romans today at the Patriarchates of
Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Our Patriarchs in these
places are called Patriarchs of the Romans. And before the Franks seized by force the
Patriarchate of Old Rome the then Roman Pope was also one of the five Patriarchs of the
Romans from the Patriarchate of Old Rome, we Romans have been calling the Pope not Roman,
but Latin and Frank, and his Church not Roman but Latin and Frankish.
Following our ancient usage, as clearly reflected in Roman law and
Roman sources, we never identified Romans and Latins. In antiquity the Latins are either
allies or enemies of the Romans and during the middle ages we call the Franks Latins and
clearly distinguish them from the Romans in both the East and the West.
Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066 the Celts and Saxons
called us Romans. Until the fall of Constantinople the Scandinavians and the free Italian
cities also called us Romans. The medieval Syrians and the Ethiopians always called us
Romans. And before the Fall New Rome the Russians called us Romans. 8. The name Greek and the Franks[ 20 ]
The first and only ones who in the 9th century stopped
calling us Romans and from them on called us only by the name Greek, which Adamantios
Koraes wanted, are the Franks. After the capture of New Rome by the Franks (1206) and
specially after its capture by the Turks (1453), this Frankish tradition gradually
prevailed among the Normans, the Celts, the Saxons, the Scandinavians, the Italian cities,
and even among the Russians.
The chief reason for which the Franks called us only Greeks was that
from the 6th till the 8th century they had conquered the tremendous
Roman populations of Gallic and North and Central Italic Romania. The Romans of these
provinces were transformed into serfs and the Frankish conquerors became the class of
those by nature born noble and thus European Feudalism was born. In order that the Roman
serfs would forget that free Eastern Romania exists, they named her "Graecia"; they
named the East Romans exclusively "Greeks"; they named the emperor of the Romans
"emperor of the Greeks" and the East Roman Patriarchates "Greek Patriarchates".
At the same time, the Franks named the first king of the Franks
"emperor of the Romans"; they expelled the Romans from the Patriarchate of Old Rome,
but named the now Latin Popes "Roman Popes"; they kept the name Romania for the Papal
States, and completed the capture of our Latin and Greek - speaking hierarchy of South
Italic and Sicilian Romania when we definitively lost these territories in 1071 to the
Latinized Normans who 5 years before, in 1066, had conquered England.
Many Romanized Celtic and Saxon refugees from England came to
Constantinople New Rome and joined the choice fighting corps of Varangians who made up the
Palace guard of the emperor of the Romans. Other leaders like Robin Hood stayed on in
England as Roman robber brigade against Franconormans. The rest of Celts and Saxons were
transformed into the serfs of the Norman conquerors. The Normans became the nobility and
expelled the Orthodox from the Church leadership, having themselves become the bishops of
the Frankish Christianity they brought with them.
In this way, having become the serfs of the Franks and Normans, the
Romans lost their Church Ethnarchy, they became illiterate, and came to believe that their
country Romania was only the papal states, that the now Frankish or Latin Pope was still
their Roman Ethnarch, and that the now Frankish or Latin "emperor of the Romans" was
their traditional emperor.
At the same time Franks condemned the so-called "Greeks" as
heretics and thus succeeded not only in cutting off the West Romans, but also in teaching
them to hate the non-existent "Greeks" who in reality were fellow Romans.
For this reason the name Greek came to mean "heretic, thief, liar,
rascal, impostor and swindler[ 21 ]."
In other words Adamantios Koraes favored the name Greek with which the
Franks destroyed us and with which all the enlightened nations of Europe practiced insult. 9. Forged Romanism and the Neo-Greeks[ 22 ]
Because it is impossible to believe that four Roman Patriarchates broke
away from a Frankish Patriarchate, which only appeared in 1009, the Franks were forced to
forge the somewhat more believable myth that four "Greek" Patriarchates broke away
from a so-called "Roman" but in reality Frankish Patriarchate. European and American
historians continue to teach and support this myth till today.
Having abandoned the Roman names of the nation, the Greeklings of
Koraes gave accepted at least the most important part of this Frankish myth. For this
reason it has become customary among the "educated" in Hellas for the Frankish or
Latin Papacy to be called "Roman" and the four true Roman Patriarchates of
Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria Antioch, and Jerusalem to be called "Greek" and
"Hellenic", exactly as the Franks always wanted.
One asks oneself, by and from where is our national education directed?
Is it possible for there to be a greater triumph of Frankdom over Romanism than this?
European and American textbooks claim that the Franks liberated the
Romans of Italic Romania, together with their Roman Church, from the "Greeks" or
"Byzantines, and the Neo-Neo-Greeks are unable to correctly cope with such lies because
they do not identify themselves any longer as Romans with the former Romans of Italic
Romania.
Exactly the same type propagandistic history is adapted by Europeans to
the Middle East, where the Arab conquerors are represented as liberators of the "Roum"
from the "Byzantines", whereas in fact the non-existent "Byzantines" are Romans
and the "Roum"are also Romans in the Arabic and Turkish language.
Even the Vlachic[ 23 ] and Albanian-speaking Romans are represented as
enemies of the "Greeks" and oppressed by "Byzantines" and "Phanariotes"[ 24 ].
But having renounced his Romanity and the ilinguality of Romanism the
Neo-Greek does not know anymore how to deal with such lies.
10. Enslaved to ourselves
But strangely the Neo-Hellenes, who appeared constitutionally in 1822,
take their history ready made from the Great Powers and appear as enslaved at one time
first to the Romans and then even to the non-existent "Byzantines" .
In other words with our enslavement to European and Russian historical
scholarship, even we have reached the point of becoming enemies of ourselves.
The most popular representative of this line is perhaps Nikos
Tsiphoros[ 25 ], In his book We and the Franks he writes among other strange things the
following: "Gone is Byzantinum, gone also is all Hellas with her three provinces into
the hands (of the Franks) : oh unfortunate and tormented mainland Hellas, she changed
masters[ 26 ]."
11. Agreement between Neo-Greeks and Turks
How damaging was the official discarding of Romanism is seen clearly
not only on the question of Cyprus, but at this moment also on the question of the Aegean.
The Turks and other foreigners propagandized that Cyprus was a Roman or
Byzantine province, but never a part of Hellas.
Similarly for months now the Turks have been propagandizing, more
effectively than we think[ 27 ], that the Aegean also was never part of Hellas. To wit, the
Hellenes supposedly did not liberate, but conquered the Aegean from Turkey. In other words
the Turks claim that they took the Aegean, not from the Hellenes, but from the Romans or
Byzantines, to whom the Hellenes were enslaved.
One asks oneself, what difference is there between such a Turkish
presentation of our history and that of the super ancient Hellenes like Tsiphoros?
On the Basis of such a line some foreigners support the idea that the
beginning of the liberation of the Hellenes was the fall of Constantinople New Rome to the
Turks.
12. Under the rags of Romanism
Nicholas Polites bitterly criticized Palamas in his article "Hellenes
or Romans?" Polites accepts the fact that "Hellene" disappeared as an ethnic name
because it was identified with paganism and that it appeared again before the fall of
Constantinople. However it did not take root, says Polites, because the Ecumenical
Patriarch governed as ethnarch the mass of Romans of the Balkans, Asia Minor, and the
Middle East[ 28 ].
Following the constitutions of his time Polites identifies the Hellenes
not with the Romans generally, but only with the inhabitants of Hellas 1901[ 29 ]. He advances
evidence which shows clearly that the Romans of Eastern Romania knew well and were proud
that they are descendants not only of the ancient Romans, but also of the Hellenes, and he
thinks that this proves that the Hellenes of Hellas are genuine descendant only of the
ancient Hellenes.
In support of Soteriades against Palamas, Polites claims that "...
the Hellenic nation, having recovered her true national name, condemned the intruded name
of Roman, giving a derisive meaning[ 30 ]," And he concludes his attack against Palamas as
follows : "Let him therefore not persist in seeking that Queen Hellas remain forever
hidden under the rags of Romanism[ 31 ].
Palamas did not answer and explains the reason: "If I kept silent, I
kept silent (for I did not have a place in the (newspaper) 'City' which had carried my
article) a thousand and two characteristic pieces, and prose and verses, within which
lightens and thunders, not the Hellene, but the Roman[ 32 ]." In other words they silence him!
13. Whence the problem where the stakes
It must be emphasized that Costes Palamas truly represents the
historical positions and the real interests of Romanism, whereas Soteriades and Polites,
in following Koraes, represent the propaganda of Frankdom against Romanism inaugurated in
the 9th century, as we briefly described.
In other words ethnic problem which was being discussed among Palamas,
Soteriades and Polites in 1901, because of the " History of Romanism" by Ephtaliotes,
did not arise solely as result of the formation of the new Hellenic state by means of the
constitution of 1822.
Nor is it a creation of the official language as Palamas, Ephtaliotes
and other supporters of the popular language seem to think. A type of the so-called purist
language was the prevalent language of the Roman Patriarchates and of the Church
generally, and also of the Phanariotes and many members of the intelligentsia of Romanism
outside of Hellas.
It was the language of unity among many local dialects. Only in Hellas
was the purist language associated with the names Hellenes and Hellenism because the
Neo-Greeks thought that by using it they proved to the whole world that they were pure
ancient Hellenes.
On the contrary the abolition of the national names of Romanism was
planned and promoted by the Franks, it spread gradually to the other Europeans and finally
to the Russians and " curiously" appeared in the Neo-Greek circle of Adamantios
Koraes and "paradoxically" was included in the constitution of 1822 as well as
subsequent constitutions.
14. Romans, Hellenes and the constitutions
According to the early constitutions of 1822-1832 the Hellenic nations
is not a nation already in existence with a part of it in revolt and a part not in revolt.
Hellenes are the native born provincials of the old Roman province of Hellas. In other
words the provincial name became the national name. The right to become Hellene was given
to the Romans in revolt in other places, but only on condition that they come and settle
permanently in Hellas, Therefore, the Romans outside of Hellas are not considered
constitutionally Hellenes because they fought, but only if and when they
come and settle in Hellas[ 33 ].
It must be appropriately noted that the other Romans were not much
disturbed at the fact that the Hellenes of Hellas constitutionally named only themselves
Hellenes, since this was a provincial and . They were rather scandalized by the fact that
followers of Koraes worked fanatically to pull the nails out of and dissolve Romanism and
to separate the self-created new Church of Hellas from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as
though it were not right for Hellenes to belong to a Roman Patriarch.
15. The protocols and three Powers (England, France, and Russia)
At the national assembly which bears as its name the 3rd of
September 1843 a strong group of representatives engaged in a contest to deprive those
Romans who had fought between 1821 and 1829, but had not yet migrated to Hellas, of the
right to become Hellenes.
The fact that the Great Powers imposed the Graeco-Frankish line of
Adamantios Koraes and gave the death blow to the Roman line of Regas of Velestino[ 34 ], can be
clearly seen from what was said in the minutes.
John Kolletis[ 35 ] said the following : "Protocols of the three powers
gave us independence and to our brethren outside of Hellas who like us fought the sacred
fight the right to immigrate to Hellas. These brethren took up arms and fought... not only
in the provinces of Hellas but also in European and Asiatic Turkey, because the song of
Regas was heard there also... These feats did not escape the notice of Europe and for this
reason the Powers gave the right to immigrate to the provinces left outside of Hellas.
Things being thus, can we place a distinction between who is a Hellene, and who is not
a Hellene?... Every day the Hellenic consulates in Turkey anguish and toil to protect
these Hellene co-religion-ists. But in the future how will they be able to protect them,
whose political rights are being doubted, who are no longer considered Hellenes?''[ 36 ]
Alexander Mavrocordatos[ 37 ] sheds light on these words. "Let us be
careful that lest by attacking an essential part of the protocols, which established the
foundations of our political independence and gave the right of immigration, we attack the
whole. The Ottoman leadership did not recognize with pleasure the immigrants as
Hellenes: we disputed with them for so many years and virtue of protocols and great
effort we succeeded, and now what will we say if we ourselves deny their
nationality?''[ 38 ]
So the Three Powers and Turkey (in order to protect her interests)
enforced the constitutional distinction between Hellenes and Romans, Hellenism and
Romanism by means of the aforementioned protocols.
16. Palamas' protest
For this reason Palamas complains, " And thus being led to a new
martyrdom the Roman's back was loaded with the foreign sins of the constitutional
Hellenes."
In protesting against the distortion of the history of Romanism by the
Neo-Greeks, Costes Palamas supported not only the right, but also the duty of Ephtaliotes
to use the names Roman and Romanism instead of Hellene and Hellenism, since these are our
true national names during the middle ages and the Turkish occupation.
Palamas emphasizes: "The god-child of the classical Roman of Rome,
from the time of Justinian till the time of Regas of Velestino, remained himself,
distinct, always himself, within his borrowed name, which he made his own, the Roman of
the City, the Roman serf, the indomitable Roman, the Roman Hellene...And since the history
of Mr. Ephtaliotes is not about the Hellene of Pericles, nor about the Hellene of
Alexander the Great, the conscientious history weaver could no but speak about the Roman
and Romanism, which are both of them nothing but the new names of the Hellenes and
Hellenism. Historical accuracy wished it so[ 39 ]."
17. Where and when did Romanism begin
However, for Ephtaliotes Romanism does not appear with Justinian? but
primarily during the time of Constantine the Great (324-337). "This Caesar," writes
Ephtaliotes, "leaves his glorious Rome, and with the cross in hand and heart goes down
and erects another Rome in our neglected East more powerful and more difficult to capture.
And thus, if Hellenism became an organ of Christianity, nevertheless Christianity also, as
well as whatever Constantine the Great did to secure his state, became cause for Hellenism
to be reborn. Because at that time the old and new ingrediants were brought together which
kneaded and shaped true Romanism[ 40 ]."
Following the German Krumbacher, Palamas accepts that the Roman is the
same since Justianian (527-565) because at that time the name Roman changed meaning and
thence instead of signifying the Latin, it signifies the Greek[ 41 ].
18. European racism and the Neo-Greeks
The Germans especially and the Europeans generally have a tribal and
racistic understanding concerning nations which during the middle ages took the form of
class distinctions between the Frankish and Norman conquerors who were supposed to be
noble by nature of birth[ 42 ] and the conquered serfs who were supposed to be serfs by nature
of birth. After the French revolution this concept concerning nations took the form of
that tribal ethnicism which tends to identity each nation with one language.
Thus the Europeans imagine the ancient Romans as a Latin speaking race
which became the class of noble governors and the Greeks-speaking race which became the
class of serfs or conquered. When the Latins govern, the empire is Roman, but in reality
it is Greek or Byzantine.
The "Neo-Greeks" introduced exactly such a racistic understanding
of nationality into the realm of Romanism and thus identified each language with a
separate nation, so that the Great Powers would be able to replace the Ottoman Empire, not
with the Romanism of Regas of Velestino, but with small sickly statelings, slaves of these
Great Powers.
19. Romanism bilingual till today
The Franks, as well as Europeans and Russians who followed were not
able to understand how it was possible for Romans to become Hellenes and for Hellenes to
become Romans with both being fused into one nation with Hellenic Civilization and with
two language instead of one, as approximated in the case of Switzerland today.
It is known that Romanism had two official languages, Latin and Greek.
Latin is called Romaika and Greek came to be known as Romaika[ 43 ]. The same with one iota
means Latin and with two iota means Hellenic ; thus the same name signifies the two
languages of Romanism.
But Romanism is still bilingual today. This is so because the Vlachic
language spoken in Greece is Neo-Latin or Neo Romaļka and the Arvanitic (Albanian)
language spoken in Greece is approximately 50% Latin and 25-30% Hellenic. Some years ago
it was common for Romans in the Balkans to be bilingual and many times trilingual. The
Romaiļk language was prevalent. The largest group of revolutionaries of 1821 were the
Arvanite (Albanian) Romans of whom many did not even know Greek.
20. The Romans were Hellenized B.C.[ 44 ]
The bilinguality of the Romans appears on the stage of history in the
first written documents of Roman history which witness that our Roman forefathers are in
inseparable part of Hellenic Civilization long before Justinian the Great and long before
Constantine the Great.
Already some 700 years before Constantine the Great moved Rome to the
East, to wit already in the 4th century B.C., Plato's student Heracleides of
Pontus calls Rome a "Hellenic city",.......
The first author in history to write in the Latin language was Hellene
named Livius Andronikus. In the 3rd century B.C. he translated Homer in order
to use him as a textbook to teach Latin and Greek to his Roman students. He also
translated other works from Greek and wrote the first Roman theatrical works and poems.
Thus from the very beginning the tradition was established whereby educated Romans learned
Greek as the prototype of Roman letters. Thus rooted, bilinguality never ceased directing
the evolution of the Hellenic Civilization of the Romans.
The first two historians of Rome, Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus,
were Romans who wrote their histories about 200 B.C. not in Latin but in Greek.
From about 150 B.C. all educated Romans knew the Greek language and
literature well.
At about this time even the more rustic Roman elite, who as a group
were at first hestitant vis-ą-vis Greek, were compelled to learn Greek for commerce and
for the administration of the Greek-speaking provinces.
From the first century on it became customary for Roman aristocrats to
complete their education by studying in Greece
In 91 B.C. he last major war broke out between. Latins and Romans.
About one year prior to this, in 92 B.C., the Romans closed the Latin schools of rhetoric
and thus compelled the students in Rome to study at the Greek schools alone. In time the
Latin schools reopened and the use of Latin was strengthened since the Latins faithful to
Rome were used in the colonization of new Western provinces.
During this period the position of translator in the Roman Senate was
abolished and the use of Greek without translation was permitted to visiting speakers,
since all the Roman elite knew Greek fluently.
Almost all the emperors knew but among them Julius Caesar, Augustus
Caesar, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, and others had an
exceptional knowledge of Greek.. Julius Caesar, Tiberius and Marcus Aurelius wrote Greek
works.
The most prominent Roman writers who wrote also in Greek, are among
others, Cicero, Germanicus and Souetonius.
Some sources report that the last words uttered by Julius Caesar while
being stabbed to death were directed to Brutus in Greek, ....; "You too, my child?"[ 45 ]
21. The ordinary people of Rome also spoke Greek
During the first and second centuries AD it became common for Romans in
Rome to be mother-taught in the Greek language since it had become a household language.
St. Paul, himself a Roman, wrote his epistle to the Romans in Greek, a
clear proof that the ordinary people of Rome spoke Greek.
The liturgy of the Church of Rome was performed in Greek till the 4th
century, another clear proof that Greek was the language of the masses.
All the first Christian writers of the Western provinces and the
bishops of Rome wrote in Greek.
The Greek language was so wide-spread that Juvenal, the satirist born a
Latin outside Rome, was moved to write, "I cannot bear, Oh Citizens, the City Greek"
(non possom ferre, Quiritos, Graecam Urbem).[ 46 ]
Greek was the prevalent language in the whole area of Rome until the
middle of the fourth century when it weakened its hold because Rome was moved to the East
and almost the whole City migrated. The void which was thus created was filled mostly by
Latin-speaking Romans and for this reason, about fifty years later, Pope Damasus was
compelled to introduce more Latin into the worship of Old Rome.
From all the above, but also from many other factors, it is clear that
Old Rome was identified with the Hellenic world and civilization many centuries before
Constantine the Great.
22. The same Roman since B.C.
Costes Palamas would have heard with great joy from modern research
into the Hellenic aspects of Old Rome that he was misled by Krumbacher's medieval
European understanding of Rome's relation to Hellenism. Ephtaliotes also grasped, but
not fully, the magnitude of the Hellenization of Old Rome, since the Romans had become
something much more than Philhellenes as he represents them. What was said in the fourth
century B.C. by Heracleides of Pontus and again in the first century AD by Juvenal is
correct: that Rome is a "Greek city".
In other words the Roman is the same Roman and remained the same Roman
not only since the time of Justinian, not only since the time of Constantine the Great,
but at least since the time of the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome and perhaps since the
time when the Roman children became students of the Greek Livius Andronicus, the first
teacher of the Roman nation.
23. Never Latin, never Greek, always Roman
Our national history and legislation prove that Rome as a city-state
was never identified either with the Latins nor with the Latin language. It was for this
reason that in 92 B.C. the Romans closed the Latin schools in order that the students
study only in the Greek schools.
The Romans never had a Latin national consciousness. They were not
Latins. They were and are Romans. They were not Latin-speaking, but
bilingual-Latin-speaking and Greek-speaking, as the Romans are today Greek-speaking,
Vlachic-speaking and Arvanitic-speaking.
Having this fact in mind we must characterize the Frankish claim,
prevalent today also in Greece, that the Roman Empire was Latin and became Greek and
therefore Byzantine, not only as a myth but also as a villainous fraud[ 47 ], since it was never
Latin, it never became Greek, and since an already Hellenized Rome was moved to the East,
and since the people of Romanism remain bilingual as they were always Besides, as we have
seen, it is a delusion to think that the Roman Empire was Hellenized. The Roman Republic
had already been fully Hellenized before the Roman Empire was born from it.
25. Palamas supports our real names
By defending the duty of Ephtaliotes to use our true national names,
Palamas does not accept Empire of Constantinople New Rome as non-Roman and thus he fully
justifies Ephtaliotes.
And indeed never and nowhere in our national sources is there to be
found the non-existent "Byzantine"Empire which is in actuality a Frankish forgery.[ 48 ] Our
forefathers knew only that they citizens of the country named Romania, regardless of its
size and regardless of where its capital was located.
25. Romania-Roumeli
In the age of Constantine the Great, Romania included the whole
Mediterranean area, which today covers England, where Constantine was crowned Caesar,
Ireland, Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, the Rhineland, Bavaria, Austria, Hungary,
Switzerland, Italy, the Balkans, Turkey, the Russian shores of the Black Sea, Syria,
Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and all of North Africa from Egypt to Morocco.
The Turkish rendition of our state name Romania is the name Roumeli.
The historical rights of Romanism clearly appear in the use of this name by name by the
Turks. Before the fall of New Rome the Turks called all the free territories of Asia Minor
and Europe, which were administered from New Rome by the Emperor of the Romans, Roumeli
But even till the beginning of this century the Turks used the name Roumeli for the entire
European part of their Empire, in other words the Balkans During their entire history the
Ottoman Turks also preserved the name Constantinople. Paradoxically, whereas the Turks
kept the name Roumeli, the Neo-Greeks abolished it.
26. Alliance of Committeemen[ 49 ] and Neo-Greeks
Under the leadership of Russian Panslavism the Slavs undertook a great
campaign to stop the use of the name Roman among the population of this Magna Balkan
Romania-Roumeli, in order to prove that the name Roumeli, which means the land of the
Romans, did not correspond to the real composition of this Magna Roumeli. Especially
active in this regard were the Committeemen of the new nation of Bulgarians created from
Romans by the Russians.
Paradoxically, however, the enemies of Romanism cultivated in Greece a
naive and stupid ally, the Neo-Greek Spirit which began prevailing in 1822 with its
slavishness to Europe and Russia.
This Spirit, animated by the then prevalent Franco-European and Russian
misinterpretation, preconception and disdain for Romanism and by a devotion to a European
understanding of the ancient Greeks, and creating among the Romans a fanaticism of a
teutonic type racism, with the idea that they are descendants only of the ancient Greeks,
preached to the Romans of the province of Greece that they should no longer call
themselves Hellenes and Romans, as supported by Palamas, but only Hellenes.
27. Dissolution of the Romanism of Regas Velestinli[ 50 ]
The result of this line was the splitting up of Romanism, the
assimilation of the Romans outside of Greece by artificially created political, ethnic and
ecclesiastical circumstances, the destruction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the
Balkans and the disappearance of the Romaīk (Greek) language from the Middle East,
Turkey, Southern Russia and the Balkans, since the Romans of this area, Southern Russia
and the Balkans, since the Romans of this area gradually got used to the propaganda that
in Greece there exists Hellenism and not Romanism, Greeks and not fellow Romans, who speak
Greek and not Romaļka.
The completion if the destruction of Romanism outside of Greece came
about by the establishment of the Frankish name "Byzantine" for everything Roman. The
remaining Romans of the Middle East and the Balkans no longer know that those who are
today incorrectly called Byzantines are the same as themselves. In other words they do not
know that the non-existent Byzantines are called in Greek "Romaioi", in Latin
"Romani" and in Arabic and Turkish "Roum".
Thus the Constitution of 1822 laid the foundations for the distortion
of the song of the Romans of Regas of Velestino and pealed the beginning of the end of the
work of Alexander the Great and of Constantine the Great, which thus entered the phase of
its almost complete destruction. The Neo-Greek Spirit of the Great Powers, perhaps
without its bearers in Greece knowing where it would end up, succeeded bringing down upon
Romanism and its official language those death blows which Frankdom and Turkdom could
never even imagine possible to accomplish, and indeed in such lightning swift time, within
a mere 150 years.
28. The Neo-Greeks unpatriotic
Thus it is not the "History of Romanism" of Ephtaliotes which shows
lack of patriotism, but the betrayal of Romanism on the part of the Neo-Greeks.
I do not know whether one would be able to say today that the name
Roman has the "derisive meaning" of "a worthless and vulgar person" and that
Hellas is "under the rags of Romanism", without today's Romans beating him up.
29. Palamas foresaw Romanism victorious
The fact that the people, the intellectuals, the clergy and the artists
use the national names of Romanism till today with such pride and love proves not only
that the Neo-Greeks do not know the real feelings of the people, but also that the attempt
to wipe out Romanism has failed.
Palamas knew well that the song of Vlahavas[ 51 ], "I was born a Roman, I
want to die a Roman", with which he began the present work[ 52 ], is an invincible power not
only against the Turkish attempts to convert, but also against the Neo-Greeks who also
have been trying to destroy Romanism, in a more treacherous way, behind the scenes by
means of the official education.
Brought up in Mesolongi and therefore having the same feelings with
Father Vlahavas and with Regas of Velestino and knowing that the Roman people will always
preserve these feelings, Costes Palamas foresaw the final victory of Romanism, as is clear
in the words with which he ends his work and with which we end this talk.
"However, a certain more pure and deeper linguistic sentiment cannot
but still find in the word Romanism something poetically and musically colored, something
winged, handsomely brave for us and light, which I think Hellenism does not have, in spite
of all its weighty unshakable magnificence.[ 53 ]
[ 1 ] For further details concerning this approach to European unity see my study Romanism, Romania, Roumeli, Thessaloniki (in Greek) 1975, pp. 55, 271-277. Translation of the word Graeculus used by the ancients, medieval and moder
[ 2 ] Translation of the word Graeculus used by the ancients, medieval and modern Romans (of Greece) in a pejorative sense for those who are slavish to foreigners
[ 3 ] See p22 footnote no. 31. The name Regas is a modern form of Rex
[ 4 ] Lecture delivered March 21, 1976 in the City Hall of Mesolongi on the North Eastern tip of the Gulf of Corinth commemorating the 150th anniversary of the attempted escape to the nearby mountains of the population and defenders on April 10-11, 1826 after a siege of one year brought to a crisis point by a successful blockade of the city by the Turkish navy which cut off access to the sea from which the city was receiving supplies and reinforcements. It was here that Lord Byron came and died and it was here that the family of Costes Palamas, the national poet of Romiosyne (the Greek form of Romanism) was established. In the attempted escape some 3000 were slaughtered by the Turks and only about 1400 reached the safety of the mountains. Some 2000 who remained behind blew themselves up and about 1000 were taken captive by the Turks. I have purposely used the term Romanism instead of Romiosyne 1) because they mean the same and 2) because what Europeans call Romanism is not Romanism at all, as far as the East Romans are concerned but is more accurately called Francosyne or Frankdom or Frankism, being a Germanized form of Romanism developed on the basis of feudalism and a papacy transformed by its German, Frankish, Lombard, and Norman captor after the Romans (East and West) lost it in 1009. The general historical positions of this paper are expounded in detail my book Romanism, Romania, Roumeli (in Greek), Thessaloniki 1975.
[ 5 ] See note [ 1 ]
[ 6 ] A man from Roumeli, Turkish rendition of Romania, meaning land of the Romans, used by the Turks and the Romans as the name of the Balkans till 1912 and today used unofficially for the area North of Peloponessus and for Thrace in Bulgaria and Greece.
[ 7 ] Costes Palamas, "Apanta", vol VI, pp.273-281
[ 8 ] Ibid., pp. 273-274
[ 9 ] Ibid., pp. 275-276
[ 10 ] A man from Morea in the Peloponessus. The name Morea is probably of the same origin as Morocco, both stemming from the Roman Maurus.
[ 11 ] An Albanian-speaking Roman.
[ 12 ] Revolutionary hero and leader from Mavromati, Thessaly.
[ 13 ] Revolutionary hero and leader of Arvanitic stock.
[ 14 ] Revolutionary hero and naval leader from the Island of Psara.
[ 15 ] Costes Palamas, Ibid., pp. 276-277.
[ 16 ] Ibid., p. 277.
[ 17 ] Ibid., p. 277.
[ 18 ] The theoretician for transforming a section of the Greek speaking Romans of the Southern part of the Balkans and the Western part of Turkish Anatolia into descendants of Ancient Greeks. He was Dutch and Paris-trained and translated Strabo's Geography, especially for Napoleon's use in his Nile campaign.
[ 19 ] P. CHRESTOU, The Adventures of the National Names of the Hellenes, Thessaloniki 1960, pp. 50-51. J. S. ROMANIDES, Romanism, Romania, Roumeli, Thessaloniki 1975, pp. 47, 56, 208, 209, 213, 217, 284, 331.
[ 20 ] J. S. ROMANIDES, Ibid., pp. 19-57, 128 ff., 205-249.
[ 21 ] P. CHRESTOU, Ibid., pp. 40-45,. J. S. ROMANIDES, Ibid., pp. 47 ff. and passim.
[ 22 ] By Neo-greeks we mean followers of A. Koraes. See note 15. Koraes began the campaign to convince the Greek-speaking Romans that they are pure Hellenes whose forefathers were enslaved to the Romans and "Byzantines."
[ 23 ] The Vlach are Latin-speaking Romans of the Balkans who were commonly bilingual, speaking Greek also, until the Russian and French inspired anti-"Greek" propaganda convinced the Vlach of modern day Romania that they are not one nation with the Greek-speaking Romans, now called Byzantines. The South Vlach, however, were not affected by such propaganda and are on the whole bilingual.
[ 24 ] The Phanariotes were the wealthy and educated society of Constantinople New Rome, grouped around the Ecumenical Patriarchate situated in the part of the City called Phanar, meaning lighthouse. The Ottoman Turks used these Romans in the administration of the Ottoman Empire.
[ 25 ] Humoristic writer who used historical themes and noted for his books on the Franks and Crusaders.
[ 26 ] Athens 1971, p. 15.
[ 27 ] The argument has been regularly appearing in Turkish newspapers for about two years, on since Greece pulled out of NATO. It has made its way into European and American papers and was publicly supported by an American general of NATO, meaning that it has probably found its way into the Pentagon, having come from the American State Department.
[ 28 ] Athens 1901, pp. 12 ff.
[ 29 ] Ibid., pp. 4-5.
[ 30 ] Ibid., pp. 18-19
[ 31 ] Ibid., pp. 20.
[ 32 ] C. PALAMAS, Ibid., p. 280.
[ 33 ] J. S. ROMANIDES, Romanism, Romania, Roumeli, pp. 194-200.
[ 34 ] Scholar, poet, and author who inspired pre-revolutionary Roman society in the Balkans and Asia Minor to a desire to overthrow Ottoman rule and replace it with a Hellenic-type democracy in which the Roman Orthodox Christians and Turkish and other Moslems would have equal status of citizens of a commonwealth with such things as state-supported free education. He was betrayed by Austria and executed by the Turks in 1798.
[ 35 ] Political leader of the new Hellenic State who headed the party under French patronage.
[ 36 ] J. S. ROMANIDES, Romanism, Romania, Roumeli, pp. 199-200.
[ 37 ] Political leader of the new Hellenic State who headed the party under English patronage. George Kallergis headed the Russian party.
[ 38 ] J. S. ROMANIDES, Ibid., p. 200. The final protocol referred to is that of London, January 30, 1836. In this series of protocols and other official documents the term Greek is not equivalent to Hellene, but rather Romaios (Roman) in Turkish. In Greek translations the term Greek in the protocols is usually rendered by Hellene thereby making it impossible for the Hellenes today to understand the Turkish and English positions on Cyprus and the Turkish position on the Aegean.
[ 39 ] C. PALAMAS, Ibid., pp. 278-279.
[ 40 ] ARGYRES EPHTALIOTES, History of Romanism, Athens 1901, vol. 1, pp. 37-38.
[ 41 ] C. PALAMAS, Ibid., p. 274.
[ 42 ] On this position concerning the origins of European feudalism see J. S. ROMANIDES, Romanism, Romania, Roumeli, pp. 21, 46, 55, 121-126, 135-145, 311-316.
[ 43 ] In Turkish and Arabic the Greek language was called Roman and is still called so in Turkish with survivals in Arabic.
[ 44 ] J. S. ROMANIDES, Romanism, Romania, Roumeli, pp. 39-46.
[ 45 ] DIO CASSIUS, Roman History, XLIV, 19: SUETONIUS, The Lives of the Caesars, I, LXXXII.
[ 46 ] SATIRICUM II, 60 ff. See P. Christou, Ibid., p. 20.
[ 47 ] J. S. ROMANIDES, Ibid., passim. especially, pp. 205-249.
[ 48 ] Ibid.
[ 49 ] Called Komitatzides and organized by the Russians in the middle of the 19th century in order to transform the Romans who had any kind of knowledge of any kind of Slavic into Slavs, in order that Russia may carve out pieces of the Balkans for her Panslavism.
[ 50 ] See note 31.
[ 51 ] A Roman Orthodox priest whom the Turks captured and tried to forcefully convert to Islam. Conversion meant that one ceased being Roman, having become a Turk.
E N D
FOOTNOTES
© HydroGraphiX.
"Romanity".